But, well, uh, um, see, well, when Apple does it, it's cool.
*shrug* The application kill switch doesn't bother me at all, in the absence of any demonstrated evil intent on Apple's part. I can see the value in a kill switch: it's Apple's defense against a piece of malware hidden inside an ostensibly useful program.
The difference is that we have no particular reason not to trust Apple, and every reason not to trust Microsoft.
Except for, well, the kill switch.
Henh? The reason we have to trust Apple is the same reason we have to trust Microsoft, namely that both operate under the same commandment: "Do no evil, unless there's money in it".
What makes you think Apple would use it under any circumstance that didn't involve malware?Except for, well, the kill switch.
The difference is that Microsoft has been proven, time and time again, to do evil because there's money in it, and Apple has not. Which one is a convicted monopolist? Which one has been shown to maliciously interfere with other working software just because it competed with one of their products? WHich one has tried its best to crush its competition with dirty tricks instead of superior technology? Hint: It's not Apple.
To kill it.
Okay, but Apple's not exactly all "freedom, peace and love for the consumer!" when it comes to running Leopard on non-Apple hardware, or playing itunes DRM'ed songs on a non-Apple mp3 player, or third-party apps for the iphone, or choosing a wireless carrier for your iphone, or user-replaceable batteries for an ipod.
Was somebody defending Microsoft?
Though I agree with your other points, this isn't exactly correct. Though everyone uses DRM these days for online music storefronts (and you CAN thank the RIAA for that one) Apple is the only one that I know of that uses a proprietary DRM technology specifically linked to their hardware that they won't share with (almost) anyone else. That was a marketing decision.
BS.
Keeping their DRM proprietary is their decision (no doubt to preserve the user experience...)
The choice for the consumer is to jailbreak their phone or else to use only what Apple approves and has taken their cut on.
And yet, some how, other phone manufacturers have figured out a way to make phones that run on different networks...
There's plenty of choice out there, and more all the time - and lots of it is free. I've got no heartburn with that. For that matter, getting the software development kit is easy, if you want to develop your own.
Yeah. It's called "different hardware for different networks". Apple made their lives significantly simpler by not playing that game.
I'm not convinced that your examples qualify as not good for the consumer.
Ever tried to buy a PC without a copy of Windows you'll never use so you don't have to pay the Microsoft tax? Ever tried running an OS that Microsoft squashed ruthlessly with their illegal monopolistic practices (I was an OS/2 user for many years)? Ever had to counter any of Microsoft's anti-open-source FUD? Ever been cracked because a bug that everyone else fixed was one that Microsoft sat on for months?
The premise that despite its undying devotion to its consumers, that Apple stomps on clone vendors to protect "the quality of the user experience", as opposed to protecting its exorbitant margins on hardware.
Well, in that case, this will be a wonderful differentiator for their hardware, allowing them to preserve the current high margins, while those seeking the lowest prices have the option of buying the clone.
It's not like Apple is developing the chipsets, these are all off-the-shelf.
Sounds reasonable to me.
I would like to hear about this?
I've said it before: It's marketing. Period. It's not just "our product is superior" arguments that Apple PR flacks and apologists tout. It's "We're the upstanding, honorable underdog and the other guy is EEEEEEEEVIL!!!111!!11"
Right. Because that's impossible.
Buh-buh-buh-but wait a second... There's only the Good Guy(tm!) and the evil monopoly that is only interested in stealing your money and eating your children. This... this... "linux" stuff just doesn't fit into that picture. Pay 2x as much for our stuff! And just ignore it! (Unless of course you're pretending to be good at writing software, in which case, be like us and slap a GUI on it and call it your own "operating system".)
Yes, but that's boring at least, and probably eeeeeeeeeeevil somehow. Apple's kill switch is (looking for a Jobs Reality Distortion Field term... hmmm... let's go with) revolutionary.
That's a recent development. They've advertised this before, but failed to execute. If they do get it right this time - by selling every machine they make for a reduced price if you buy it without Windows - it'll be a great advance. I suspect it'll be more like their previous attempts, where they advertised it but their order-takers on the phone were unable, or unwilling, to actually sell machines that way.
)
You can't. OTOH, the only reason to buy a Mac is to run Mac OS X. If you want to run something else, buy something else; there are plenty of choices.
But only because of its lack of market share, not because of a lack of anti-competitive practices (I have to pay the Apple "hardware tax" to run OS X).
It's unreasonable because there are lots of other OSes that you can run on a regular PC. Yes, you can run them on a Mac as well, but you're paying more for the Mac because of what comes with OS X, not because the hardware is in some way worth it. Anyone who buys a Mac to run Linux or BSD is wasting their money.
Nope. The difference is that Windows has a monopolistic market share, and Mac OS X does not. Monopoly power imposes requirements on the seller that do not normally apply. Microsoft demonstrably and provably broke those requirements.
You did not have to pay Apple any money because you bought a computer with a different OS on it. Before the government stopped the practice, you did have to pay Microsoft to buy a machine with OS/2 installed on it. That kind of anti-competitive practice killed OS/2.
