What’s still wrong with Apple?

The “ArtMachine responds”:http://www.art-machine.org/blog/about/699/this-could-get-ugly to my “earlier post”:http://www.thudfactor.com/textpattern/1118/whats-wrong-with-apple on Apple. If you haven’t read these, this discussion is not likely to make sense.

AM may be right about the changing Apple culture, but it will take more than two or three years to reverse the impression of the last twenty and Apple is certainly not helping.

Among other things, he criticizes my reasoning because “Microsoft is just as likely to lock out Napster and Real tomorrow as Apple is – and they have done similar things in the past.” That’s just plain wrong. While it is true that Microsoft has been known to make changes to code to shut out some competitors, in this _specific case_ that would be much more difficult.

# M$ cannot lock out Real or Napster from delivering entertainment tools because they do not own the operating system, the store front, the music player, and the DRM. Of these, they own the DRM and the operating system. What makes Apple so non-competitive in the “portable music” market is they own the entire process, from platform to sale to transfer to play.

# M$ cannot lock out Real or Napster because they are using *licensed* DRM from M$, which puts M$ under a legal obligation to provide compatibility. Apple has refused to license, so Real decides to monkey with iPod _Harmony_ is a hack which Apple has promised to break (again); Real’s use of Windows Media DRM is a _contractural agreement_ that Microsoft must honor.

This is also wrong:

bq. But the fact remains that Napster and Real continue to bill themselves as “competitors� for the iTMS, when they haven’t even taken the first step that Apple took to make the iTMS truly competitive – taking it cross-platform.

Apple took their product cross-platform on the host OS because Jobs (uncharacteristically) realized he had to in order to expand the market. But running on two operating systems is not what makes the product competitive. What makes the product competitive is having wide appeal, and as long as the iPod was Mac only it’s appeal was narrow.

The larger market _by far_ is the Windows market. Apple has to cross operating system lines to be competitive, but _no one else has to come to Apple_. My earlier point is that spending money developing for Apple has a very low return on investment and therefore makes a company _less_ competitive.

bq. Apple users are starved for options and are not as likely to reject new software – and many would see Rhapsody or Napster as a service to get in addition to the iTMS, as opposed to a replacement for it. Macintosh versions of Napster and Rhapsody just. make. sense.

Also wrong — Real’s Rhapsody can presumably chase the Apple market because they can run streaming audio on Macs. Real can put DRMed files on the iPod because they are willing to risk a DMCA lawsuit over reverse-engineering FairPlay. Even so, Windows Rhapsody users are warned to never use iTunes again with an iPod, lest Apple download an “upgrade” that intentionally breaks compatibility. Napster, trying to prove it’s all legal now, probably doesn’t want to take that risk.

But Napster and Real can’t chase the Apple iPod market with their to-go services. And really, when we’re talking about portable digital media players, the Apple market _is_ the iPod market. So while Mac versions of Napster and Rhapsody make sense, Rhapsody would be limited to the desktop-use-only because _there are only ten people who have non-Apple portable media players and use a Mac_. At least, that has to be the impression.

Napster and Real _are_ cross-platform, just not on operating systems. Their DRMed download files play on dozens of different brands of Digital Media Players. iTMS: one. Who’s choice was it not to support other media formats? Apple’s. Who’s choice was it not to licence their media format? Apple’s. And if and when Apple finally caves and offers a similar “renting” format, I bet it plays on one player: the iPod. They went cross-platform with Windows support, which was an economic necessity, but that was all they did.

AM says I’m right that Apple should have licensed their DRM. But my point there is that in not doing so, they sent the message that they would not tolerate competition on their own hardware, which has certainly discouraged developers in what was literally the _broadest_ and _most compelling_ development path into Apple culture in years. Apple created something that had companies asking, begging to be able to develop for Apple. And Apple built a wall around it.

bq. The entire computer industry is filled with buccaneers and scalawags out to grab any advantage they can – Apple is not alone in this. In fact, if developers developed solely for people who played “nicely or by anyone else’s rules,� then the only operating system anyone would develop for would be Linux, fercryin’outloud.

AM is certainly right about Apple’s behavior being similar to that of others, but it’s a matter of scale. Specifically when Microsoft plays Godfather, they play from a Godfather-sized base of power. Apple tries to play Godfather with a couple of thugs and a case of moonshine. This is why they keep failing — they do not have the market clout to make the demands of their partners they keep trying to make.

And by “playing nicely” or “by someone else’s rules” I don’t mean “playing ethically” or “putting the customer first.” I mean knowing when to cooperate with other companies. Napster and Real have certainly engaged in non-competitive business practices, taken advantage of customers, etc — all things I accuse Apple of doing.

But:

Everyone else — Napster and Real — _know_ when they’ve been beat and know how to cut deals and make alliances that strengthen their position against competitors. They know when it’s time to run back to the Godfather and how much they can skim off when the Godfather isn’t looking. Apple doesn’t know how to do that.

Also, Napster and Real and Microsoft and most other computer companies shake hands and smile and “play nice,” then stab each other and their customers in the back when they think they can get away with it. Meanwhile Apple is publicly lashing out at customers and partners and stabbing everyone else _in the front_.

Now, if Apple adhered to its marketing message more closely, being the Ben & Jerry’s of computing the way Linux is, then it’d be a different story. It’d be a white hat v. black hat argument. But as it stands now, I think Apple, flush with the victory of iPod, is trying to claim more territory than it can reasonably defend. Steve Jobs insists on doing it alone, and he insists on doing it the stupid, aggressive, “one man against the Mob” way. And if he wins, what do we get? Instead of the Godfather we get Scarface. _Great_.

Unless Apple learns how to moderate its tone — by either sucking up to its peers or re-establishing a commitment to its customers, I think Apple’s popularity has peaked and we’re going to start seeing a backlash all around. When that happens, Steve Jobs will have left Apple out in the open in the middle of a bunch of thugs without much in the way of friends or ammunition.

Steve Jobs never makes nice. Even Apple fanatics agree he always insists on things his way. So, as a developer, I know who I’d side with.