Apple's lone-wolf strategy backfires

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Agreed on the bribery part. On the other hand, Apple isn't exactly consumer friendly...

No, just another brutal capitalist who makes absolutely nothing of interest to consumers... ooops, wait... don't they sell a few things that people buy? No, must be imagining that, after all Apple haters can't be wrong...

[tubemonkey]

This Apple hater is a proud owner of an iPod touch 4

[frahse]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

This Apple hater is a proud owner of an iPod touch 4

It is strange that some people think that the people that gripe about Apple don't own/work with Apple products. They seem to think that these Apple adverse opinions just come out of the blue, just exist in a vacuum.

In truth these opinions are well founded.

My wife has an iPod touch which I have to wrestle with on occasion. Likewise, though she has Tec support for her Apple desktop at work, I still haven't managed not having some contact with that machine.

Right now at the house, iTunes exists only on her Toshiba Windows 7 machine but it did reside for a while on my Dell when I was starting up her iPod. I still get the occasional Apple/iTunes email. It makes my thumbs prickle. (if you remember the line**)

**Act IV scene 1, line 45 of William Shakespeare's play Macbeth. The speaker is the second witch, whose full line is, "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes."

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

This Apple hater is a proud owner of an iPod touch 4

Originally Posted by frahse

It is strange that some people think that the people that gripe about Apple don't own/work with Apple products. They seem to think that these Apple adverse opinions just come out of the blue, just exist in a vacuum.[/i]

Ownership of an item doesn't stop someone being an Apple/Android/Widows/whatever hater... the hater part is made clear by their repeated (many, many times) "anti-whatever" comments...

[Prestidigitweeze]

Apple's attempt to raise prices on ebooks hasn't won friends on a forum where people are devoted to reading ebooks. Doing so illegally was asking to be savaged on Mobile Read.

That would remain true whether the perp were Amazon, Apple, B&N, Kobo or even Sony.

Also: Apple happens to conspicuous by design (literally), which seems to make them the Boss Tweed of pricing conspiracies. Others might break the law, but Apple tends to be noticed.

It's a branding dream that can also become a legal nightmare:

"Price Different."

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Agreed on the bribery part. On the other hand, Apple isn't exactly consumer friendly since they like a lot of control over their devices and how third parties can market their products on Apple devices. Apple computers are open enough, but they have been seen as a market leader in walled gardens. (Though that's not entirely fair since everything from mobile phones to game consoles were very restrictive, and the products very successful, long before Apple.)

Here is another perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Apple sells hundreds of millions of devices that consistently achieve the highest customer satisfaction rankings in their respective categories, yet they are anti-consumer. The reason Apple is supposed to be anti-consumer is that they establish "walled gardens" in contrast to "open" platforms. In reality, "open" is the greatest marketing buzzword of all time. Open means being the target of over 90 per cent of all mobile malware infections. Open means owning a device that is pre-loaded with non-removable crapware, spyware, and bloat by OEMs and carriers. Open means being denied OS upgrades, forcing early obsolescence, such that over half of the user base is still using operating systems that came out thee years ago or more. Open means being denied access to features, such as tethering, by one's carrier. Somehow none of this is considered anti-consumer. How bizarre.

Of course, Apple's user base is part of the problem too. It is far too cliquish, which rubs people the wrong way. That was true in the bad-old-days when it was the underdog clique. That remains true today, when they're followers are faddish fashionistas.

More cognitive dissonance.

Apple has sold close to three quarters of a billion of iOS and OS X devices in recent years and has a customer base so enormous that it defies generalization.

Notwithstanding, you and so many others simple-mindedly depict Apple customers as "followers," "fashionistas," etc. (rather than people who chose the device that works for them) demonstrating that you embody the very cliquey clannishness than you accuse others of evincing.

One need only look at this forum to see self-professed "Apple-haters" starting dozens of threads a month gleefully predicting the company's downfall, lambasting it for imagined and perceived slights, and insulting its customers. The contrary is conspicuous by its absence.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Here is another perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

The cognitive dissonance is this: Individuals' conflation of their own personal opinion and experience with the habits of consumers as a group. It's the human-to-human herd equivalent of anthropomorphism.

It also turns corporate branding wars into a consumers' competition, which would be more palatable if we actually owned one of the teams in that tournament.

The reason Apple is supposed to be anti-consumer is that they establish "walled gardens" in contrast to "open" platforms.

In terms of my own priorities and those of professionals I work with, the ability to upgrade and tailor one's hardware to usage requirements is key. In that sense, I'd say Apple has had hits and misses. They've had far more misses of late (due to the systematic removal of customization options for laptops and PCs), but they could always come around.

But that doesn't have much to do with topic of this thread -- Apple's legal/political strategy -- does it?

[holymadness]

No, it doesn't. Somehow topics where Apple comes up always devolve into a repetition of the same, tired tropes. What irony that it should once again come under attack when it's revealed that unlike its tech competitors, Apple spends relatively little resources on lobbying to get its way. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by holymadness

No, it doesn't. Somehow topics where Apple comes up always devolve into a repetition of the same, tired tropes.

Discussions about Apple might devolve in general, but here, criticism is inevitable. The point isn't that Apple should either hire more lobbyists to aid their chosen modes of corruption (whatever those might be) or forgo them in the name of higher minded corruption (whatever that might be). We're not in a position to know the unstated motives or intentions of the people who run Apple, let alone whether they're inherently corrupt.

The point is that this is an e-reading site, Apple tried to raise prices on ebooks illegally and the legal fallout seems to leave them in a weaker legal position.

[holymadness]

If you are saying that this thread is an expression of schadenfreude, then I agree. It's nevertheless a spectacular example of bad faith gloating, since the implication (per WillysJeepMan's astute assessment) is that Apple ought to have "played the game" by greasing palms like its rivals.

[Prestidigitweeze]

I'm saying that there's a reasonable discussion implied by the topic of this thread, and that expressions of anger at Apple over the ebook price-fixing conspiracy trial are inevitable.

Call it the strand of schadenfreude which is actually relevant.

As to the lobbyist question:

Pragmatically speaking, all corporations should probably hire lobbyists. Ethically speaking, I wish none did.

One bigger question is not what Apple should do WRT more lobbyists and more bribery. It's what corporations do and what they should be allowed to do.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by holymadness

... since the implication (per WillysJeepMan's astute assessment) is that Apple ought to have "played the game" by greasing palms like its rivals.

Hang on, I don't buy into the idea that political lobbying 'bought' Judge Cote's ruling, but it's not as if Apple don't lobby at all. They just do it less than their competitors, and analysts estimate that they've doubled the amount spent this year:

http://allthingsd.com/20130524/apple...into-lobbying/

This year, Reuters reports, [Apple]’s on track to spend double that. So, close to $4 million.
That’s not a massive lobbying expenditure; certainly it pales in comparison to those of rivals like Google and Microsoft, which doled out $18 million and $8 million, respectively.

So, they are 'playing the game'.

Graham

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Graham

Hang on, I don't buy into the idea that political lobbying 'bought' Judge Cote's ruling, but it's not as if Apple don't lobby at all. They just do it less than their competitors, and analysts estimate that they've doubled the amount spent this year:

http://allthingsd.com/20130524/apple...into-lobbying/

So, they are 'playing the game'.

Graham

Agreed on all counts.

Again, my issue is with the hypocrisy of the article and the individual who posted it. They suggest that Apple should have more rigorously engaged in unethical behaviour to avoid their fate (implying that they deserved it—what hubris), yet had the ruling gone the other way we'd be reading an article about how nefarious Apple engaged in corporate bribery to get its way.

There is no winning scenario. There is just blind hatred. Any excuse will suffice to criticize.

[pwalker8]

Kind of reminds me of the Microsoft case. All the Microsoft case did was force Microsoft to spend a considerable amount of money on lobbying politicians. Microsoft went from spending almost nothing on corporate lobbying to spending millions per year. Any time a corporation uses to government to further it's cause and hinder it's competitors, the public loses. We see this in the patent wars between Apple, Motorola and Samsung as well.

[Rob Lister]

And it appears that Apple has hired the best lobbyist in the world. Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Obama Administration Vetoes Ban on Sale of Some Apple iPhones, iPads

I'd start a thread but I don't care enough.