Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it

One thing I've often thought with Apple is how much worse off the PC industry would be if they were ever dominant, because they're such a belligerent company. But a more level-headed way to view Apple's recent push-backs from the top of the heap is that they're suffering from exactly the same problematic mind-set that doomed Microsoft a decade/decade-and-a-half ago, back when antitrust regulators from the FTC and DOJ first accused the company of illegal anti-competitive behavior. That is, they're just a product of their history.

What I mean is, until very recently, Apple was the underdog, and they've been the underdog for almost their entire existence. This creates a certain mindset, and under Steve Jobs especially, it's created a very aggressive competitive spirit. This aggressiveness is fine when you are literally the underdog, just as was the case with Microsoft early in its career and it was trying to wrest the PC industry from IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, and other tech dinosaurs. But once you have a dominant market position, that aggressive behavior--so important for an up-and-comer--isn't just bad, it's illegal. It's just hard to turn it off when it's been part of the corporate psyche for so long.

Microsoft got into antitrust trouble because they behaved in a manner that was illegal, but only for a company that holds monopoly power. During this time, I fielded innumerable emails from people wondering why it was OK for Apple or Linux to bundle applications in their OSes when it wasn't OK for Microsoft. (Answer: Apple and Linux didn't/doesn't have a desktop OS monopoly.) And so on. The answer was always the same: If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, what it did in the mid-1990s would have been legal.

As I write this, Apple doesn't quite have a monopoly in any given market, but they are pretty darned close in a few, and getting closer all the time. And you can see how aggressive this company is, and how they're protecting their core products at the expense of users. The time to stop this behavior is now, not after Apple has secured the digital music market (arguably already done), the digital movie and TV show markets, and the consumer smart phone market. These are the markets that Apple is set to monopolize, and we've already arguably passed the point where that is no longer a given, a certainty. You can argue that we're not there yet, possibly. But we will be.

So. With this obvious comparison of two very similarly belligerent companies--Microsoft of the mid-1990s and Apple of today--in mind, I think the time has come to rein Apple in. To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services. If we don't do this now, it will only be more difficult in the future. All you have to do is look at Microsoft's never-ending antitrust saga--which has now stretched on for 15 years, involved regulatory bodies on three continents, and gone on far longer than its actual bad behavior--to see why it's time.

We spend too much time worrying about whether Microsoft will be the next IBM. What we should be worrying about is that Apple has already become the next Microsoft. Let's fix that. Let's nip this one in the bud. Let's do it now.

Discuss this Article 130

robertsjoe
on Aug 26, 2009
@EricoF3: Nice to see you are able to partake in this group. Especially with your severe mental retardation.
robertsjoe
on Aug 26, 2009
Where's the moderation on this forum? Yes, I know, you could moderate me. But @EricoF3 seems to be quite slow and is quite rude and insulting. Sure, we have digs at one another, but mostly are in good fun. But this is overboard. I know the blog has jumped the shark, does it mean it's a sewer?
robertsjoe
on Aug 26, 2009
It's obvious that Paul has been mandated by MS to start a mud slinging match. Not that Apple needs to worry. They are far too good to lower themselves to Paul's level.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@lazysquirrell: you mean: Linux. I got a gayfriend..... lol
jcstene
on Aug 26, 2009
Yes, let's nip success in the bud now, before it has an opportunity to encourage other companies to make better products!
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@robertsjoe: what it prove that you have mantal retardation it is your habit to come on a Windows blog and always post stupid Mac Fan Boys silly comment... You know I am not the one who call you "robertsgay" first!!!
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@lotsamystuff: WinJihadist!!!! Here's the big words... It is funny!! Apple fan boys always talk like MacJihadist but it is us that are WinJihadist... Apple user will always make me cry!!!
panache1023
on Aug 26, 2009
MikeGalos, In your usual hypocritical tone...care to explain the whole "Vista Capable" debacle? Didn't you just say, "...but when products that Apple currently sells can't run their own current OS without turning off key system features that's just sad." What about that whole, "My machine won't run Aero, a key system feature, but the machine said it was Vista Capable...or was that Vista Ready?" Wow man....ever hear the saying, "Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? You are such a hypocrite.
cesjr
on Aug 26, 2009
Wow Paul is really running scared here. His call to action is a little pointless, though. The geek blog community doesn't enforce the antitrust law. The DOJ and the courts do that. And assurance by Paul Thurrott that Apple will "real soon now" have a monopoly in some market isn't quite enough, sorry. Macs - at most 10 percent of the US market (and global is smaller as Paul always reminds us). iPhones - 13.7 percent of global smartphone market. Blackberry and Nokia are still the leaders in their respective main markets (US and europe, respectively). Music - there's no such thing as the "digital music market." There's the market for recorded music, whether on CD, downloads or whatever. Downloads are still a minority of the market (25% I think). TV and Movies - even as to digital delivery, there's pay cable, pay-per-view, etc. Plus the huge market for DVDs which clearly outsells Apple. DOJ and the courts aren't going to conclude that Apple has to change ANYTHING based on speculation that it "most definitely" will have a monopoly in any of these markets some time in the future, combined with some unknown set of anticompetitive conduct at that unknown point in the future with an unknown set of facts and unknown competitive landscape. You see, when it comes to finding a company in violation of the law (for example the antitrust law), you have to wait until -- oops -- the company has actually violated the law. You can't "nip in the bud" a speculative prediction of a future violation. Sorry Paul.
Lindy
on Aug 26, 2009
I need to use babblefish to decipher EricoF3's posts.
SPiotr
on Aug 26, 2009
@mikegalos "If it was ALL desktop PC operating systems then Microsoft has a smaller market and the question of whether they had a monopoly was more debatable." Honest question (You do seem to know your tech history!) Was it really 'debatable'? What was Microsoft's share of ALL descktops back then?
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 26, 2009
Wow look here a real, unbiased review of Snow Leopard. Take note Paul, this is what people are really reading... http://reviews.cnet.com/macintosh-os/mac-os-x-snow/4505-3673_7-33676737....
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
SPiotr I don't recall the numbers but remember that at the time Windows was still competing with IBM's OS/2 Warp, NeXT's NeXTSTEP, Be's BeOS, Apple's Mac OS as well as Linux and BSD. Additionally, Apple and IBM were still still trying to take over the market with their jointly developed AIM Alliance Taligent OS (and Apple's Copland, Gershwin and Pink had just failed and IBM still had Workplace OS under development as a fallback) It was certainly nowhere near as boring an operating system market as we have now with Windows being the only alternative to 1960s Unix clones and add-ons.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
rr0de You mean referring to Snow Leopard as just a "tune-up"? Or that despite all Apple's claims of signifcantly improved performance especially in high load conditions CNet found that "[t]hough the system performs well in everyday use, many of our tests indicate it is slightly slower than the older version of Leopard in more intensive application processes"? Or is it that despite even the newest Apple ads starting this week touting how Macs don't get viruses Apple has felt it necessary to bundle their new anti-virus/anti-spyware product on all copies?
SPiotr
on Aug 26, 2009
@mikegalos I think I found the answer: http://www.gartner.com/5_about/press_room/pr19990129a.html 36 million PCs sold in 1998 Apple sold 2.7 million worldwide so ... possibly around 4% of the US market. That seems to still leave Microsoft with over 90% of the desktop OS market. (or have I missed something?) Do you still insist that there was any doubt about Microsoft's massive market power?
inhaledalarm
on Aug 26, 2009
I have been following this all day, and this is just crazy! Windows 7 is brand new OS with a lot of parts taken from vista and fixed(to be faster,leaner,over all better and to just re brand the name), mac OSX is more of a fix things up type of upgrade. They fix minor details which i dont believe you can say about windows 7. I mean did anyone on the mac side think "hey i wonder why this is only 30 dollars instead of my normal 129" of course not and Engadget said it best "appearances and expectations matter, and there's simply not enough glitz on this kitty to warrant the usual $129" link http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/26/snow-leopard-review/#continued
robertsjoe
on Aug 26, 2009
@lindy: "I need to use babblefish to decipher EricoF3's posts." Yes, you need Googles retard to English translator.
robertsjoe
on Aug 26, 2009
@mikegalos: "Macs don't get viruses " That is correct. Unlike Windows with it's many, many thousands of viruses, spyware and the like.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 26, 2009
@inhaledalarm you would have to be a total and I mean total idiot to not see that 7 is 95% or more Vista. 98% of of the UI is exactly the same. It uses the same exact driver model. Its kernel version 6.1 vs 6.0 for Vista. Brand new OS lol. @Mike of course you pull out all of the negative points, but I think those are valid along with the positive. CNET at least was technically accurate. Paul had little to no accuracy. CNET's tone was informative and not Snarky. My 8 year old daughter could have done a better hack job than Paul's review. I think they are both minor updates. I think that 7 is mostly surface and a small under the hood tweaks to what is Vista SP2 with all updates. I think SL is very minor surface updates but major changes under the hood, 64bit when possible, all PPC code ripped out, Open CL, Grand Central. Both should be $29, only one is.
robertsjoe
on Aug 26, 2009
The reason for these posts are the Mac ads which get under the skin of Microtards all over. They are to truthful and to the core that it gets Windows fanboys where it hurts.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 26, 2009
From inhaledalarm's link... "The biggest compatibility-breaker is the demise of InputManager plugins in 64-bit apps, which means things like Unsanity's Application Enhancer framework" This is the same app that bit many Tiger users that upgraded to Leopard over the top. Hopefully they wont make that mistake twice.
inhaledalarm
on Aug 26, 2009
@rr0de yes i know 95% is vista, but are you saying that they did not have alot of fixing to do with that 5% the point of vista was to be secure(unlike xp turned out to be). However they had to change the code dramatically to make it run smoother and faster. Also they just did a overhall of the driver software in vista(note all the people pissed off there stuff didnt work). so to change it would be crazy. Apple is clearly making the push to 64 bit OS for no reason(yes i saw points above) so now mac people(i think) will know what it is like to have stuff no work with it.
SPiotr
on Aug 26, 2009
@mikegalos Mike I agree. If Apple were ever to come up against the DOJ for the anti-trust violations that you are so certain they have committed... an awful lot of time would be taken up with defining the relevant markets. Unfortunately there is a rather large flaw in the way that you have attempted to define these markets. "If you define the market as just cell phones then Apple clearly does NOT have a monopoly (and they're not even a major player)." Agreed. Even if the market was defined as just "smart phones" I don't think iPhone would have sufficient market power. (yet!) "If you define the iPhone as an iPod Touch with an added feature then it clearly IS part of the iPod monopoly on portable media players." That's the problem! What you are basically saying here, is that the iPhone is basically just a cell phone and a PMP combined. If that were the case then you would have to include ALL cell phones that were ALSO portable media players. My (very rough) guess at the size of that market in the US.... getting close to 200 million a year. How many of those are Apple products? If people are going to accuse Apple of anti-trust violations because they are preventing the Palm Pre from accessing iTunes then you WOULD have to include both the phone and PMP markets. "In the case of portable music players there's no question that Apple is the monopoly in that market." Yep. But we have just agreed that(most) cell phones are just PMPs with an additional feature, so it appears that Apple's iPods don't have a monopoly in THAT market either. That really should be no surprise to anyone here. Steve Jobs must have lied to us about the market share figures. However, all is not lost. I am sure that collectively we can come up with a specific market that will prove beyond doubt that iPods and iPhones suffer from no viable competition.
wlow3
on Aug 26, 2009
Boy, I just read his OS X 10.6 review and contains some basic proof-reading errors: "It's just that when compared ..." --> missing comma after "that" for the non-restrictive clause "Snow Leopard offers a simpler taken (sic) ..." "which like Windows Media Player in Windows 7, " --> should have a comma after "which" "is the most substantial offering ..." should be "is the MORE substantial offering" --> more and better when rating two items; most and best when rating more than two
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
Spiotr Actually you're missing a couple of things: 1) The period of the investigation for the DOJ trial was mostly about the earlier period leading up to the release of Windows 95 and shortly after. 2) There were a LOT more choices in the OS market at the time than just Windows and Mac OS. Remember that, at the time, the number two GUI was not the Mac but IBM's OS/2 Warp and that GUIs were NOT universal yet with a large percentage of the installed base still on MS-DOS and various MS-DOS clones.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
Spiotr Or, to put it more simply, the trial mainly covered events that happened during the "OS Wars" when there was massive competition for what would become the next big operating system and when Microsoft's status in the operating system market was hardly that dominent or secure. BUT, by the time the trial actually happened, the OS Wars were over, Microsoft had one and at that point could be judged to have monopoly power over personal computer operating systems. In effect, one of the many flaws in the trial was that it was hearing complaints not about how a monopoly had abused that power but how a non-monopoly competitor had won a massive competition and in the process gained monopoly power. One of the big complaints, for example, was that IBM claimed that Microsoft had refused them a license to Windows 95. IBM claimed (with no evidence, by the way) that Microsoft's refusal was as revenge for the success in the market of IBM's OS/2 family. Microsoft claimed (with excellent documentation that was NOT refuted by IBM) that they refused to give IBM a new license because IBM was over a year behind on paying for their existing license and that when Microsoft audited IBM they found that IBM had vastly underreported the number of copies of Windows 3.x that they had sold and were obligated to pay for. Microsoft had offered to give IBM the license for Windows 95 once IBM had set up a plan to pay their existing bill.
Prs
on Aug 26, 2009
EricoF3, Can I ask you to please refrain from posting that kind of homophobic gibberish, please?
cesjr
on Aug 27, 2009
Remembrance of Things Past So for a more reasoned perspective, let us take a breath and remember what the world was like before Apple introduced the iPhone: Carriers ruled the industry with an iron fist To access carriers’ networks handset makers capitulated everything Carriers dictated phone designs, features, apps, prices, marketing, advertising and branding Phones were reduced to cheap, disposable lures for carriers’ service contracts There was no revenue sharing between carriers and manufacturers There was no notion of phone networks becoming dumb pipes anytime soon Affordable, unlimited data plans as standard were unheard of A phone that would entice people to switch networks by the millions was a pipe dream Mobile devices were phones first and last, not usable handheld computers Even the smartest phones didn’t have seamless WiFi integration Without Visual Voice Mail, messages couldn’t be managed non-linearly There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source An on-the-phone store having 65,000 apps downloaded nearly 2 billion times was not on anyone’s radar screen Low-cost, high-volume app pricing strategy with a 70/30 split didn’t exist Robust one-click in-app transactions were unknown There was no efficient, large scale, consistent and lucrative mobile app market for developers large and small Buttons, keys, joysticks, sliders…anything but the screen was the focus of phones Phones didn’t come with huge 3.5″ touch screens Pervasive multitouch, gesture-based UI was science fiction Actually usable, multi-language, multitouch virtual keyboards on phones didn’t exist Integrated sensors like accelerometers and proximity detectors had no place in phones Phones could never compete in 3D/gaming with dedicated portable consoles iPod-class audio/video players on mobiles didn’t exist No phone had ever offered a desktop-like web browser experience Sophisticated SDKs and phones were strangers to each other This list too could go on. But it’s sobering to remember that a single device by a company with zero experience in the industry and against all odds caused such a tidal wave of change. Change didn’t come because of Nokia, Microsoft, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, RIM or any other player in the market for the past 15 years bet their company on it. Android and webOS weren’t there before the iPhone. But it’s convenient to forget all this when the meme demands Apple to be smeared with the evil brush. http://counternotions.com/2009/08/26/pre-iphone/
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 27, 2009
@inhaledaralm is 7 really that much faster? http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49303203-7,00.htm
lotsamystuff
on Aug 27, 2009
"Yes, you need Googles retard to English translator." Dude, that's just classless. Don't stoop to that level, please.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use