Apple's lone-wolf strategy backfires

[frahse]

By STEVE FRIESS, Politico Pro | 7/30/13 11:12 PM EDT Updated: 7/31/13 9:44 AM EDT

Apple Inc. is a synonym for independence, hipness and originality — but recent setbacks may finally force the icon to rethink its us vs. them mentality when it comes to big battles in Washington and Silicon Valley.

The company marches to its own iTunes, spending little on lobbying, rarely joining trade associations and, in a pattern that’s become more pronounced this summer, refusing to negotiate or settle in many lawsuits.

Experts say Apple’s tried-and-true approach is starting to backfire, as the company has already taken at least one big hit in a high-profile e-books trial. A recent landmark D.C. appearance by CEO Tim Cook may reflect a new reality for Apple: that direct engagement with lawmakers, regulators and rivals is more effective than trying to remain above it all.

“It’s inevitable,” said a top Washington consultant who works with major tech brands. “Everybody gets a shot at being a fair-haired boy and that can keep the regulators away for a while. But nobody stays favored forever. That’s why you need friends.”

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the record for this story, referring instead to past public statements by Cook and others.
more

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...948.html?hp=l5

[morriss003]

Apple's last quarterly report was pretty good. Hard to say what that means for the future.

[forsooth]

good advice to Apple: spend more on shoring up products and relations, less on litigation

[John F]

...

The company marches to its own iTunes, spending little on lobbying, rarely joining trade associations and, in a pattern that’s become more pronounced this summer, refusing to negotiate or settle in many lawsuits.

Experts say Apple’s tried-and-true approach is starting to backfire, as the company has already taken at least one big hit in a high-profile e-books trial. A recent landmark D.C. appearance by CEO Tim Cook may reflect a new reality for Apple: that direct engagement with lawmakers, regulators and rivals is more effective than trying to remain above it all.

“It’s inevitable,” said a top Washington consultant who works with major tech brands. “Everybody gets a shot at being a fair-haired boy and that can keep the regulators away for a while. But nobody stays favored forever. That’s why you need friends.”

...

I'm not sure I like what they are implying. In the ebook case, Apple broke the law, plain and simple.

[jbcohen]

That's the one thing that I have against apple corp. On my job in the real world the term unique is a synonym for bad, so the company that goes it alone is the company I do not want to do any business with.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by John F

I'm not sure I like what they are implying. In the ebook case, Apple broke the law, plain and simple.

That's what I thought reading it too

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by John F

I'm not sure I like what they are implying. In the ebook case, Apple broke the law, plain and simple.

That article is codespeak for, "Apple should hire lobbyists to grease the palms of politicians and judges". They wouldn't have lost the lawsuit had they done that.

[frahse]

Is that akin to saying that if Apple is "even more" evil they will find a smoother, clearer, easier path to "even more" riches?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by frahse

Is that akin to saying that if Apple is "even more" evil they will find a smoother, clearer, easier path to "even more" riches?

Pretty much.
The premise is that the BPHs spend a good chunk of change lobbying and got settlement terms they can grudgingly live with--basically a slap on the wrist--and even got a bone tossed in, forbidding Amazon from doing something they've never done anyway.
Apple didn't grease palms and nobody in Congress tried to defend them the way Schumer tried to defend the BPHs.
Lost in that analysis is that as a repeat conspirator Apple isn't going to get anybody to stick their neck out for them, no matter how much palm grease they dispense.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Pretty much.
The premise is that the BPHs spend a good chunk of change lobbying and got settlement terms they can grudgingly live with--basically a slap on the wrist--and even got a bone tossed in, forbidding Amazon from doing something they've never done anyway.
Apple didn't grease palms and nobody in Congress tried to defend them the way Schumer tried to defend the BPHs.
Lost in that analysis is that as a repeat conspirator Apple isn't going to get anybody to stick their neck out for them, no matter how much palm grease they dispense.

What Apple wouldn't like is that the lawmakers and enforcers might go along with Apple on some things but they will have their own little likes and dislikes and would press Apple to do things, even if minor, that Apple might not want to do. Apple dislikes outside influence even more than other folks.

It is the old adage: "Lie down with dogs, get fleas."

Originally Posted by jbcohen

That's the one thing that I have against apple corp. On my job in the real world the term unique is a synonym for bad, so the company that goes it alone is the company I do not want to do any business with.

So you only do business with companies that blindly stay on the track you think they should. I call those companies medieval because they never rock the boat, never innovate, never challenge the establishment to make changes for the good. Seems like you will miss out on those who truly innovate and push the envelope.

[holymadness]

Gotta love the cognitive dissonance on display here. Apple is attacked because it doesn't bribe politicians to act in its favour, yet somehow it's still the most evil of corporations.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Gotta love the cognitive dissonance on display here. Apple is attacked because it doesn't bribe politicians to act in its favour, yet somehow it's still the most evil of corporations.

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.)

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.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

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.

Come on now. Remember, the victim is not to blame.

[pwalker8]

And of course, the other part of the problem is the equally cliquish Apple haters, who reflexively bash Apple at every opportunity. It's kind of funny since Google is just as bad as Apple (or any large corporation, for that matter) when it comes to protecting their turf and raking in the bucks. Ultimately, competition is good for both companies and for all practical purposes, one can get either an Apple device (smartphone/tablet) or an Android device and have a perfectly satisfactory experience. It's purely a matter of personal taste. This my way is purely good and your way is purely evil attitude that some seem to have is simply silly.