Apple Jail - Calling It Like It Is

I've mentioned several times in my blog that I'm not a fan of Apple's "controlling" business practices, even going as far as saying Apple treats their customers like "walking ATMs." Apple's clearly continuing this practice with the new oversized iPod Touch they're calling "iPad", which (like its pocket sized siblings) leaves out things like Flash, expandable memory, and all but basic Bluetooth support in order to keep users in Apple Prison.

Typically, I don't have an issue with it. I certainly don't give Apple any of my money, and I don't really care what other people choose to spend their hard earned cash on. That said, I do start to care once Apple is dishonest about their business practices with consumers... like Apple saying their iPhone/Touch/Pad devices lack Flash because it's buggy. That's complete B.S. 

It has nothing to do with being buggy, but it does severely limit the user's web experience. Without Flash, the iPad's browser can't display a wide variety of web content. Not just online video (which is huge IMO), but in other cases entire websites. It can't play flash games, nor can it utilize flash based apps that exist on various sites. In other words, it lacks Flash because Apple doesn't want a means for developers to circumvent their app store. As a result, none of these devices let you experience the web as it actually is today. To me, that means "broken."

Same goes for their need to lock down Bluetooth. Without expansive Bluetooth support, I can't use something like a Bluetooth keyboard I may already own to type on... simply because Apple wants to charge me $69 for theirs.

Look at it any way you want; Apple clearly imposes these arbitrary limitations so that they can continue to profit on everything that happens on their platform.... from both consumers and developers. Profiting off their creation is one thing, but at what point does it just become greedy? At what point do people say, "I'm just not going to allow myself to be taken like that."

Seriously... would anyone buy a Honda car, powered exclusively with Honda brand gasoline, that only drives on Honda approved roadways? Oh yeah, and you can't fill the tires with anything but the special Honda Air Injector (the Honda Air Refill cartridges sold separately), Honda Washer Fluid, and Honda Oil. And, did I mention you have to ship your car to the factory to have the battery replaced? That, too. At least you can most things serviced through your regular mechanic; although they have to give 30% of everything they make servicing your car to Honda... because they did invent the car afterall. 

Reading what others are saying in the blogosphere, it's clear that I'm in the opinion minority.  Everyone seems perfectly content buying into Apple's scheme. It's great to know, however, that I'm not completely alone. Jason D. O'Grady over at ZDNet happens to see it like I do. He's calling B.S. on Apple, too.

I highly recommend reading his viewpoint.

Comments

First of all, I agree with what you have said. Closed systems are not really preferable, and in the end Apple does want to control the user experience and through that, make money.

I highly recommend reading Ben Parr's viewpoint, which is really very similar to mine. Here's a short excerpt from his long and detailed post:

"This is a free market though, and that means companies have the right to choose to build their platform in any way they want. At the same time, we as customers have the right to choose which devices we buy and use.

Apple wants to control the user experience at every level, and we can’t blame them: the experience between PCs varies wildly and is prone to errors, shutdowns, and frustrating load times. The iPad is a strong answer to these issues."

[quote via Ben Parr at Mashable]

Not sure how much more I have to add to that. I don't think there's any BS here. People know the iPad is a closed system, and they'll buy it anyway, and they'll love it. I think this is because, really, the iPad isn't a true computer. Just like the iPhone isn't a computer. It's something else entirely, and should be treated as such. It's intentionally designed that way.

Also, there are advantages to closed systems that lots of people seem to ignore.

- quality control (sometimes)

- a well organized software searching process (unlike the Android marketplace, apparently)

- a consistent user experience for all

- low prices due to a mass market

All of that being said, the day that "real" computers such as netbooks, desktops, and laptops go to a closed system, I'm switching to Linux :) I would be pretty pissed if all of a sudden, my Mac Mini desktop was locked to an App Store and a closed environment. I want to be able to sideload indie apps and access the Terminal. It adds to the experience on my iPhone, however.

Peter Redmer said:
First of all, I agree with what you have said. Closed systems are not really preferable, and in the end Apple does want to control the user experience and through that, make money.
I highly recommend reading Ben Parr's viewpoint, which is really very similar to mine. Here's a short excerpt from his long and detailed post:
"This is a free market though, and that means companies have the right to choose to build their platform in any way they want. At the same time, we as customers have the right to choose which devices we buy and use.
Apple wants to control the user experience at every level, and we can't blame them: the experience between PCs varies wildly and is prone to errors, shutdowns, and frustrating load times. The iPad is a strong answer to these issues."
[quote via Ben Parr at Mashable]
Not sure how much more I have to add to that. I don't think there's any BS here. People know the iPad is a closed system, and they'll buy it anyway, and they'll love it. I think this is because, really, the iPad isn't a true computer. Just like the iPhone isn't a computer. It's something else entirely, and should be treated as such. It's intentionally designed that way.
Also, there are advantages to closed systems that lots of people seem to ignore.
- quality control (sometimes)
- a well organized software searching process (unlike the Android marketplace, apparently)
- a consistent user experience for all
- low prices due to a mass market
All of that being said, the day that "real" computers such as netbooks, desktops, and laptops go to a closed system, I'm switching to Linux :) I would be pretty pissed if all of a sudden, my Mac Mini desktop was locked to an App Store and a closed environment. I want to be able to sideload indie apps and access the Terminal. It adds to the experience on my iPhone, however.

Overall, I don't completely disagree with you (or Ben for that matter). There are some benefits to closed systems, for both the maker and the consumer. But... there's a line.

You yourself brought up video game consoles as an example to me offline yesterday, and it's hard to argue the 360, PS3, and Wii all operate in closed systems. I don't want to dive too deep here (though that would be a fascinating discussion), but Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft (other than MS's rediculous requirement of XBOX Live Gold membership to stream Netflix content) don't restrict me in ways that cross that line. 

Apple, in my opinion, has.

Now, I can forgive the fact they don't want to add a standard USB port so they can sell licenses to accessory makers. At least there's competition there. Heck, I can even overlook them crippling Bluetooth so I can't use my existing BT keyboard... I don't like it, but I can deal with it.

However, restricting access to a significant chunk of the Internet (by refusing Flash in any form and locking out any other web browser) solely because it "might" compete with their store? Not just that, but then lying about the real reason they do it? That's pretty low in my book. Really, how does that add to anyone's experience?

 

Connect With Techlore