The Mac Sucks!

According to a post on The Register, four U.S. Senators have asked the acting FCC chairman to review whether mobile phone makers should be allowed to enter into exclusive contracts with wireless service providers. The senators’ thinking is that exclusivity agreements may “unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace.”

Even though The Register reports that this is “a direct shot across Apple and AT&T’s shared bow”, I have to wonder if Apple itself isn’t behind this. At the recent Apple Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple indicated that it was AT&T’s fault that they wouldn’t have MMS support in the iPhone until late in the summer, and that tethering support was not likely to be coming from AT&T soon. It’s even said that “AT&T’s network has been commonly regarded as the iPhone’s weakest link for as long as there have been iPhones (especially 3G ones).”

There was talk a couple of months ago about Apple inking a deal in the U.S. with Verizon to distribute the iPhone. The problem with those rumors is that it would imply that Apple had a way out of its deal with AT&T. But sources in the USA Today article linked above indicate that the Apple/AT&T agreement is good until some time in 2010. To get out of that deal early, it’s likely that Apple would have to pay through the proverbial nose to get AT&T to let go.

But let’s imagine a completely hypothetical scenario. Let’s assume that Apple really is fed up with AT&T, and wants out of its agreement now. And let’s assume AT&T is unwilling to play along. At the same time, Apple would really like to hurt the Palm Pre and Sprint, arguably its closest iPhone competitor right now. How might it do that? In this entirely hypothetical scenario, Apple could approach some lobbyists to pressure the FCC into ruling that handset exclusivity deals are anti-competitive. How does this accomplish all of Apple’s goals?

If such deals were ruled illegal, suddenly the Apple/AT&T agreement is null and void. Apple wins. It can start selling iPhones to any carrier whose networks its device supports. AT&T might be hopping mad about this, but Apple would be free to sell the iPhone through any carrier, just like it theoretically wants to do. Not entirely coincidentally (I suspect) that DOESN’T include Sprint with its CDMA based network. Having dealt with carriers on multiple continents, Apple already has experience adjusting the iPhone to work with carriers other than AT&T, so adapting it for other U.S. carriers would probably be relatively trivial.

At the same time, killing handset exclusivity deals in general also kills the deal between Palm and Sprint. Instead of focusing its development resources on improving the Pre and making it more competitive with the iPhone, Palm will have to expend effort adjusting the Pre to work with other carriers (something it would have done eventually, but is now being forced to do sooner). This would be an unplanned change to Palm’s Pre business plan. This sudden shift in focus would likely set the development of new features for the Pre back by several months, giving Apple even more time to improve the iPhone (relative to itself and the Palm Pre) and market the iPhone to other carriers. Given that many feel the Palm Pre is what will save Sprint as a company, the timing of this senatorial interest in handset exclusivity certainly seems very suspicious. It would potentially leave Sprint with a handset stuck at today’s functionality level (which, while quite good, is not yet superior to the iPhone in many areas) and a handset which is no longer exclusively a Sprint offering.

Outside the U.S., the proposed FCC ruling would not affect Apple (since the FCC has no control outside the U.S.). Apple can continue having exclusive deals with foreign carriers as long as it likes, at least where such deals are legal. Again, Apple wins.

There really isn’t a down-side for Apple in this scenario… at least none that I can see. If the agreements stand, Apple keeps selling iPhones through AT&T until the agreement runs out next year. If they’re struck down, Apple can sell iPhones through any carrier it wants to work with, and the Palm Pre (and Sprint – who couldn’t sell the iPhone anyway) takes a hit in the process.

Remember, the scenario I’m describing above is entirely fictional as far as I know. I have absolutely no knowledge or evidence that Apple has anything to do with this sudden interest by the U.S. Senate in cellphone handset exclusivity. This is entirely speculation on my part… it just happens to be speculation that meshes well with known facts and observations.

According to Macworld, Apple and AT&T are being sued for “over-promising and under-delivering on their claims of fast Internet access of the iPhone 3G.” Plaintiff Damone Dickerson claims that Apple misrepresented the speed, strength, and performance of the 3G network. Dickerson claims he could only connect to the 3G network a fraction of the time and that it didn’t provide “full and continual service”. He says that most of the time he receives no 3G connectivity at all. He is seeking to force Apple and AT&T to correct iPhone 3G labeling and advertising in addition to paying financial damages.

As Macworld reports, “This isn’t the first lawsuit claiming Apple and AT&T misrepresented the speed of the 3G network. The companies were sued in San Jose, San Diego, Alabama, Florida, and Texas. Apple has asked that a similar case in New York be dismissed.”

The popularity of the iPhone appears to be something of a double-edged sword for Apple. On the one hand, they’re gaining lots of new customers who previously hadn’t owned an Apple product, which is no doubt good for their bottom line and sales of other Apple products. On the other hand, many of these people are unfamiliar with Apple and how it tends to advertise its products, which leads to misinterpretation and disappointment. Apple likes to describe its products using “absolutes” like these:

“The first…”

“The most powerful…”

“The most advanced…”

“The fastest…”

While all companies tout the benefits of their products in their advertising and downplay the negatives, Apple has a tendency to deliver the positives as “absolutes” (as evidenced above, the “fastest” or “most powerful” or “most advanced”) and ignore the negatives completely. This sets the company up for lawsuits from people who are new to Apple’s way of advertising its products.

Apple fans tend to take these somewhat-arrogant phrases as typical Apple “spin” and don’t get too upset if they prove not to be true 100% of the time, in all circumstances. For example, an Apple fan won’t get too bent out of shape when they travel from New York City to a tiny Midwestern town and don’t find 3G network access there. They’ll be disappointed, of course, but they won’t likely rush to find an attorney.

Consider the following statement taken directly from Apple’s web site for the iPhone (as of this writing on March 21, 2009):

A person unfamiliar with Apple could easily read the above blurb and interpret it to say “Wherever I go in the world, I will have 3G speed available to my iPhone 3G.” After all, that’s exactly what Apple says, and there aren’t any phrases qualifying where and how that access is affected. If you look on the same page, way down at the bottom, in very small type, in a very light color against a white background, you’ll see Apple has a little more to say about the subject:

(Highlighting provided to make the text easier to read.)

It’s not that Apple hasn’t warned consumers that iPhone 3G speed “depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, 3G/EDGE connectivity, feature configuration, usage, the Internet, and many other factors” and that “actual results may vary”. Clearly, they have. But how many consumers will read that first statement “3G speed. Worldwide.” and decide that’s just what they need, without bothering to scroll way down the page and pick out that hard-to-read type implying that the speed and availability aren’t always available everywhere under all conditions?

I’m not saying this is entirely Apple’s fault. It isn’t. After all, they ARE explaining on the page where the claim is made that it depends on a lot of factors. If consumers don’t read that text, well, it’s their mistake to assume that all the marketing speak is absolutely true, in all cases. On the other hand, a little wordsmithing to Apple’s “3G speed. Worldwide.” blurb above would clarify the situation without taking anything away from the phone or AT&T’s service. For example, it could have read:

3G speed. Worldwide.
When you travel around the world with your iPhone 3G, you’ll have Internet access wherever compatible 3G networks exist, and it will be as fast as circumstances allow. iPhone 3G also makes it possible…

Potential iPhone 3G customers would have a harder time misinterpreting that blurb to mean that 3G access is always available, everywhere, at full speed. Sure, this version doesn’t deliver the punch of “fast access to the Internet… around the world” but it’s more truthful, more accurate, and less likely to result in a lawsuit. Can you imagine trying to convince a judge or jury that the above blurb convinced you that your iPhone would always deliver fast access everywhere you went? Try it again with Apple’s version. It’s easy to imagine an attorney saying to the judge and/or jury, “Apple tells you that you’ll have 3G speed, worldwide, right there in the big bold type. Right below it, they reiterate that the iPhone 3G has ‘fast access to the Internet and email over cellular networks around the world.’ It’s only far down the page, in tiny little type, in a color that almost blends into the background, that they bother to say that access isn’t really worldwide and isn’t always fast. This kind of ‘deception’ is why you should award my client $X in damages.” Would a judge or jury buy it? Maybe. Maybe not.

The problem with claims like “the most powerful operating system” is that they’re really subjective. There is no way to conclusively prove that Mac OS X is (or isn’t) the most “powerful” operating system because there is no single definition of “powerful” that we can universally agree on. Maybe “powerful” to me implies the ability to run on the largest set of hardware available in the marketplace (i.e., I have the “power” to run it anywhere). If that’s my definition, then Windows is more powerful than OS X (since OS X only runs on a specific set of Apple hardware and Windows runs on a lot more), and Linux is probably more powerful than both. Your definition might focus on something else, like how fast it renders video or copies files. And you know what? We’re both right… because we both define “more powerful” differently.

I respect and admire the fact that Apple is proud of its products. I respect that they go to great lengths to make their products fast, easy to use, and attractive to look at. I respect the fact that many people around the world (including me, once upon a time) covet their Apple products and believe that they’re the best at whatever it is that they do. It’s good that Apple and its customers take that kind of pride in the products (at least, I think it is). But absolutes like “the fastest”, “the best”, “the most powerful”, “the best looking”, etc., are subjective, hard to prove, and tend to come across as arrogant. Apple could save itself a lot of trouble, and probably not affect its sales a bit, by just dialing back on the absolutes a little (e.g., calling OS X “one of the most powerful operating systems” or just “a powerful operating system”). But as Dennis Miller often says, “that’s my opinion… I could be wrong.”

Apple has “married” the iPhone and iPod Touch to its App Store. The only “official” way to load applications onto the iPhone/Touch is through the official Apple App Store. Unofficially, there are people who “jailbreak” the devices in order to load applications onto them that Apple doesn’t offer through the App Store. There is currently an argument brewing between Apple and others on the subject. The battlefield for this argument is the U.S. Copyright Office.

Apple says that existing “jailbreak” technologies all make unauthorized use of copyrighted code. Further, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) contains provisions against attempting to “unlock” copyrighted content that is protected by technical means, as the iPhone and iPod Touch are protected. Thus, Apple says, the very act of jailbreaking an iPhone or iPod Touch involves breaking copyright law and the DMCA, so it must therefore be illegal.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Mozilla argue that jailbreaking the devices is actually a protected activity under fair-use doctrines, and that the Copyright Office should grant an exemption to users who jailbreak their phones.

A Mozilla represenative told Computerworld that “Given the choice, would we work on a platform where the sole company controlling it makes us unwelcome, or would we work on a platform, like Linux, where we are welcome? The answer is going to be easy for us.”

According to CNN Money and Dow Jones, Apple is being sued over the technology it uses to “zoom” content displays in the iPhone and iPod Touch. The lawsuit, filed by a company called Picsel, alleges that the “devices incorporate Picsel-patented technology that facilitates rapid redrawing of content displayed on devices’ screens.”

While touting its latest MacBooks as “the industry’s greenest notebook family” Apple has simultaneously refused to take part in Greenpeace’s second Electronics Survey that rates the environmental friendliness of companies.

If Apple really has improved its environmental friendliness as its advertising would imply, it seems strange that they would not choose to take part in the survey.  Perhaps this is just a bit of sour grapes over the “greenmyapple.org” site Greenpeace posted in 2007?

 According to Don Reisinger of CNet, Apple is scared of Research in Motion (RIM) and its new Blackberry Storm, and it “should be scared because of its own shortcomings with the iPhone 3G.” On what does Reisinger base this opinion? He says:

To a certain extent, I see his point. While I firmly expect Apple to include cut-and-paste in an upcoming iPhone update (but I could be wrong), and they’ve indicated that tethering would be possible at some future date, I doubt that Steve Jobs will ever go for the removable battery because it would add lines to the sleek iPhone backside. I also don’t expect the iPhone to ever include a memory expansion slot for much the same reason (it would necessitate a hole in the side of the device somewhere). Why are these kinds of features so important? Let’s look at an example, President-Elect Barack Obama. When it comes to his personal computing, Barack is a Mac user. His cell phone, on the other hand, is a Blackberry rather than an iPhone.

Why would Obama choose RIM’s device over Apple’s? Think about his schedule over the last several months. He spent every spare minute campaigning for the presidency, flying and driving from state to state, city to city, venue to venue. Chances are he didn’t have time to sit down for long enough to charge his phone. With the Blackberry and its removable battery, that wasn’t an issue. He could pop out the dead battery, pop in a charged one, and get right back to “communicating”. Had he used the iPhone, every so often he’d have had to plug the phone in to charge. That would have left him tethered to one location for a while, or left him without a phone. (We’ll assume he only owns one phone.)

For a busy executive, the ability to swap out a dead battery as needed during the day is extremely valuable, and something the iPhone’s “one piece” design doesn’t offer. While I do know an executive with an iPhone, I know many with a Blackberry. Reisinger says, “I have a feeling that the cell phone war between Apple and RIM will look much like the operating-system war Apple is fighting against Microsoft: RIM will hold the business ground and Apple the consumer space. ” That may well be true. As we’ve discussed before, there are reasons why Apple doesn’t do well in the corporate space:

Apple has made strides in these areas. They’ve added Exchange integration, tightened up some of the security holes, and tried to make the iPhone more attractive to business. But RIM has operated in the business marketplace far more successfully than Apple has in the past. While I don’t know that Apple is “scared” of RIM and the Blackberry, I’m sure they recognize that they face a challenge from RIM in the corporate space. It will be interesting to see how, or even if, they choose to respond.

A Mac-hating friend of mine passed along a link to a Mac vs. PC comparison on the “topnewsblog”.  The comparison, such as it is, shows an iMac reportedly priced at $3999 (must be an old price, as they aren’t that expensive now unless you really deck one out) and a Dell PC at $1299 (also sounds a little high to me – maybe both include software?), then shows below it a picture of a game from each platform.  The Mac game is childish looking and claims to be running at only 8 frames per second, while the PC game looks almost like a movie scene at first glance.  I share the link not because I think it’s a great, fair, or even accurate comparison, but as an example of the perception that many people have about the Mac and Apple.  This is the kind of image Apple will need to overcome if it is to substantially increase its share of the desktop market.

According to Physorg.com, Apple is facing increased pressure in Norway to change  the way the iTunes Music Store and iPod work.  Norway’s Consumer Ombudsman Erik Thon has asked Apple to make its online store compatible with music players other than the iPod.  Apple has attempted to show such compatibility by explaining to consumers how to burn songs to CD and rip those CDs into MP3s, but Thon says this is not enough and ”iTunes has shown a lacking will to comply with our demand and we are now preparing to try this case in the Market Council…The company is in other words unwilling to make changes to make music in the iTunes Store available to all music players.”

If Apple loses the case in the Market Council, our guess is that they will either stop doing business in Norway or they will alter the Norwegian iTunes store so that only those tracks available in MP3 format are sold there.  On the other hand, if Apple wins the case it’s most likely nothing will change.”

We speculated a while back that one thing Apple could do to destroy the lawsuit filed against them by Psystar would be to release a “full” OS X license that could be installed on third-party hardware, at a price above the current $129 licenses and (ideally) in line with Microsoft Windows licensing at the higher end.  There’s some talk in the media that Apple might do away with the Mac Mini at its upcoming desktop product launch. 

How does the demise of the Mac Mini imply the possibility of licensing the Mac OS for non-Apple hardware?  Consider what CNet.com says was the point of the Mini in Apple’s product line: “The Mac Mini was an experiment in affordability and minimalism on Apple’s part back in 2005. The small desktop was initially a hit with critics and consumers, but as the world’s PC preferences tilted strongly in favor of notebooks over the last several years, Apple spent more time updating and promoting the MacBook and iMac all-in-one desktops than the cute little cube…[snip]… It would, however, eliminate the cheapest Mac from Apple’s arsenal, raising the starting price of (officially, at least) entering the Mac OS X universe to $999. Analysts have been a little worried that the Mac is expensive in the midst of this year’s economic turmoil”.

So, by dropping the Mini, Apple raises a barrier to entry for potential Mac switchers.  Instead of being able to acquire a Mini for $600 and use existing peripherals to enter the Mac world cheaply, users would have to move to the $999 MacBooks.  If Apple wants to still be able to service those folks who can’t spend the $999 for a MacBook, releasing a “full” OS X license for use on third party hardware (at say, $299) is one way they could fill the void they’re leaving by dropping the Mini.  If a Psystar-type company wants to produce Mac clones, Apple can let them do so, while sitting back and collecting $299 on each one sold without having to do more than burn a CD and stuff it into a box.  If Apple makes it clear that they’ll only provide tech support for items on a pre-defined compatibility list, they can minimize the support costs this might generate while increasing revenue.

Thus, instead of the barrier to “Mac ownership” being a $599 Mac Mini, it would now be “the hardware you probably already have” plus only $299.  It might be worth $299 to me to have a machine at the house that is able to legally run OS X… and it just might to others, too.  In any case, it will be interesting to see if they do dump the Mini as predicted, and what they do about filling the void (if anything).

I can already see the commercial…

“Hi, I’m a Mac.”

“And I’m a PC. Say, what do you have there, Mac?”

“It’s a full license for OS X. I got it as a present for you.”

“For me? You shouldn’t have… I didn’t get you anything.”

“Go ahead, try it on.”

[screen fades, comes back, PC and Mac are either both the same guy, or both dressed alike]

“Hello, I’m a Mac.”

“…and so am I…”

[this would be followed by information about how you can now buy Mac OS X and legally use it on non-Apple hardware. to see if yours is compatible, go to xxx web address..]

Imagine the uproar in Redmond after seeing that commercial.  Even I am forced to admit it would definitely trump anything I can imagine Microsoft coming up with, and in time for the holidays, no less…  I think I’d pay to see that.  And it could explain why Apple has never really gone after the OSx86 site for running OS X on non-Apple hardware… they were using them as market research and a source for their compatibility list…

According to the CNet News article “How green is Apple Now?“, the company has come a long way toward improving its previously dismal environmental record. That must make Apple Board of Directors member Al Gore proud. It wasn’t that long ago that Greenpeace was slamming Apple for having one of the worst environmental records of any personal computer vendor, and for using some very toxic stuff in making the iPhone.

Today’s MacBooks have mercury-free displays, arsenic-free glass, PVC-free cabels, and no brominated flame retardants according to a recent Apple press release. Even Greenpeace is saying, “This is greener than what Apple has been putting out.”

We congratulate Apple on its very positive efforts at reducing the negative impacts of its products on the environment, and hope that they continue to strive to improve their already much-improved record.

(See, not everything we have to say about Apple here is negative!)

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Apple has canceled plans to set up a tech support center in Colorado Springs, leaving the potential hirees in a bit of a bind. According to the October 7 article, Apple was considering setting up a technical support center in Colorado Springs to help customers with iPhones and iPods. Workers already hired by a third-party company were reportedly told abruptly last week that the project had been canceled – along with their jobs.

It’s indicated in the article that “It’s also unclear whether New York-based Volt Information Sciences Inc., prematurely recruited and hired workers for Apple before it made a final decision on the Springs center…[snip]… What is clear is that some local residents interviewed for jobs with Volt and when hired were told they’d be working for an Apple center here.”

One potential hiree said of the situation that “Financially, it kind of really puts us in a bind. You’re talking $66,000 a year between the two of us. That’s a substantial amount of money. Yeah, we’re angry about it. There should have been some communication on what was going on.” A Volt spokesperson reportedly told the hiree, Jerry Reynolds, that “We’re trying to recover from this mess and we don’t have 500 jobs for these people.”

There’s not enough information here to say that Apple owns any of the blame for what happened to the workers hired to staff the canceled support center, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it dampens the enthusiasm of Colorado Springs for Apple products.

According to an article on Tom’s Hardware, Apple is suing Canada’s Victoria School of Business and Technology (VSBT) over its logo. The VSBT logo’s primary shape is that of an (entire) apple with a leaf sticking out of the top. Inside the apple shape are the letters “VSBT” and a green, white, and blue design that could be seen as a mountain range or maybe a business line graph.

As we discussed recently here at the site, Apple could save itself a great deal of headache by simply renaming itself and picking a new, abstract logo. I know there are 30+ years of history and tradition associated with the existing logo, but the image of an apple in and of itself is simply too commonplace to be a truly effective and exclusive trademark, in my opinion (as a non-lawyer). If Apple named itself something unique and different, something like the “Legent Corporation” and selected an appropriately abstract logo design, it could save itself and its lawyers a great deal of hassle.

Apples (the fruit) are associated with many different things, including education, health and wellness, scientific discoveries (e.g., Newton getting hit on the head by an apple and discovering gravity), the Garden of Eden, etc. It’s perfectly reasonable, logical, and appropriate for a school or company to want to use an apple in its logo design, which will likely raise the ire of lawyers at Apple Inc. if they find out about it.

Having said that, I will admit that this VSBT case is the first time I’ve really thought that Apple was going after an organization whose logo COULD potentially be confused with theirs. The “leaf” in the VSBT logo leans the same way as the one in the Apple Inc. logo, and the overall shape of the VSBT “apple” is reminiscent of the Apple Inc. apple design. Unfortunately, that’s mostly because both designs are based on the shape of an actual real-world apple. I think VSBT has done a pretty good job of trying to differentiate between their logo and Apple Inc.’s, but it looks like it will really be up to the courts to decide whether they’ve done enough.

A couple of my co-workers who’ve read the Tom’s Hardware article have noted that they think it’s really crappy of Apple to sue a school over something that trivial, given the difficult economic climate and its impact on colleges and universities. I’ll leave that as an exercise for you to think about.

Apple apparently hasn’t learned yet that Windows users and Mac users expect different things from a software vendor.  Right or wrong, Windows users have come to expect that Microsoft will only mark software updates as “required” if they correct problems with existing software, don’t add substantial new functionality, and don’t require payment of an additional license or service fee.  If you look in Windows Update, you’ll see this policy adhered to pretty much religiously.  The only possible exception might be when a product like Internet Explorer reaches the end of its life cycle and becomes non-supported.  They might (and I stress “might”) mark it as required at that point.  This how Windows users expect software updates to work.

Apple, on the other hand, views software updates in much the same way a drug dealer views the handing out of a “free sample” to a prospective junkie.  If you download and use iTunes, they seem to think this gives them carte blanche to automatically install Safari or MobileMe on your Windows machine, as if finding unexpected software on your system is a “bonus” and this “free hit” of the “Apple drug” will leave you wanting more Apple products.

Apple needs to learn that if I download and install iTunes, it means I want iTunes. I don’t want Safari.  I don’t want MobileMe.  I don’t want the latest QuickTime.  (Maybe I would want those things, but what I really want is the option to choose which ones I get and when.)  Yes, I’ve used the Apple updater and I know that it’s possible to pick and choose your updates.  But if you’ve gotten used to dealing with the Windows Update process and the way updates on Windows generally work, you expect applications (even those from Apple) to follow that same philosophy.  Just as I wouldn’t expect a former Windows application ported to the Mac to begin using “control-C” for copy on OS X like it does on Windows, I wouldn’t expect a software updater to throw new products at me by default.

I know Apple likes to do this on OS X, too.  I had a real mess at work in my Mac Administration after implementing a script to download and install all the recommended security updates each night.  Apple marked new version of QuickTime, which required the payment of an additional license upgrade fee, as required. My script, not knowing better, downloaded and installed that upgrade on our designers’ systems.  A week or three later, it applied an update to that new version.  Then the designers realized they’d been upgraded and, during a critical business time, couldn’t use the software as needed.  It would take 2-3 weeks to get payment processed for the new license, so we needed to remove the new QuickTime versions.  Apple provided an uninstaller, but only for the original upgrade and the subsequent patched version.  I ended up having to muck around with the code for the uninstaller to make it recognize “1.1.1″ in addition to “1.1.0″ (hypothetical version numbers).  Fortunately, that worked and the crisis was averted.  I then had to go back to my script and have it filter out automatic updates to QuickTime in the future.  All this because Apple felt that anyone who had licensed QuickTime in the past would “automatically” want to license a new release.

Clearly, for a number of people, Apple’s products appear to be addictive.  They buy a Mac, then get an iPod, use iTunes, run Safari, buy an iPhone, sign up for MobileMe, etc.  For them, perhaps these “gently forced upgrades” are more a bonus than an unpleasant surprise. For the rest of us, they’re a nasty shock.  Apple needs to learn how to approach customers differently, at least those who aren’t among the Apple-addicted Mac Faithful.

According to a laptop news site, a French newspaper has reported that at least some of the Mac Pros manufactured before 2008 emit benzene, an airborne chemical linked to leukemia and other health problems.  Making more of the situation than is probably fair, we present the following Apple Mac Pro parody advertisement…

An Apple executive has reportedly warned that if music royalties are increased that Apple might have to shut down iTunes.  The following image immediately leaped to mind…

Apple would like to give the world the impression that it invented the touchscreen smartphone, and that the iPhone is the biggest name in the touchscreen phone marketplace. However, as The Register reported on Sept. 12, Apple is really only a “niche player” in the touchscreen phone business. ABI Research says that Samsung has 33 percent of the market, Motorola has 30 percent, and Sony Ericsson has 24 percent. That leaves very little room in the market for anyone else, including Apple.

According to The Consumerist, Apple tech support gave away a Mac software designer’s account password to a stranger, simply because that stranger sent an (incredibly poorly worded) email to Apple’s support staff.  I know Apple is famous for making technology easier to access, but that’s going a bit too far.  The Consumerist says someone emailed Apple pretending to be the software designer and asking for his password.  Apple provided it. The stranger actually locked the designer out of his own account, and had the designer been unable to use his security question, he might still be locked out of the account.  That doesn’t speak well for Apple’s internal security processes.

On the Cult of Mac site, there is a very thoughtful article by Leigh McMullen in which he suggests a way that Apple could put an abrupt end to the “Apple vs. Psystar” court case.  His solution?  Give away OS X.  Make Mac OS X “free for life” with a Mac.  With respect, McMullen has that completely backwards.  To put an abrupt end to the Psystar case and prevent them, or any other company, from competing with Apple on Mac hardware, Apple should in fact raise the price of Mac OS X.  Allow me to explain, because I’m sure that will sound counterintuitive.

Psystar’s allegation is that Apple has unfairly created a monopoly for hardware that runs Mac OS X by placing technical and contractual hurdles in the way of would-be cloners.  From a technical perspective, Psystar argues that Apple’s firmware is there to prevent OS X from booting on otherwise identical “generic PC hardware”.  Further, Apple argues that Psystar can’t legally install Mac OS X on its clones because the only license Psystar can buy at retail is technically an “upgrade” license.  Therefore, Psystar can’t legally install it because their hardware never had an OS X license to begin with, and thus can’t be “upgraded”.

Making Mac OS X free doesn’t negate Psystar’s argument.  If anything, it makes the argument even stronger.  Since Apple, in that situation, is giving away Mac OS X, it’s not financially harmed if Psystar installs OS X on non-Apple hardware.  Apple wasn’t going to make any money on that hardware or the OS, so they’ve got less of a complaint.  That’s why instead of making Mac OS X  free, Apple needs to do just the opposite… They need to sell it for more money than they do today.

Apple could shut down the whole Mac clone concept by introducing a “full” Mac OS X license to go with the existing “upgrade” license.  The new “full” license should get a suitably Apple-like price tag, such as $600.  The license agreement with the new “full” license should state very clearly that while it can be installed on non-Apple hardware, Apple reserves the right to deny technical support to anyone who doesn’t install it on an actual Apple Macintosh.

On the surface, this makes it completely legal for Psystar to sell systems pre-loaded with Mac OS X, and it would.  However, at $600 for the OS license, Psystar’s systems would be (at a minimum) on a price parity with Apple’s own machines.  More likely, the $600 OS X license would make them more expensive than Apple’s hardware.

Psystar’s arguments against Apple would, for the most part, begin to vaporize in this situation.  Apple could justify its high Mac prices by explaining that they include a $600 full license to Mac OS X.  It could no longer be accused of halting competition in the Mac marketplace because a “full” OS X license would be available to cloners and hobbyists.  No Mac owner would ever need to buy the “full” license because it would be included with the computer.  Mac owners would continue to buy the $129 upgrades as before.  And if anyone  did start selling Mac clones, well, Apple would be making about $600 on each one.   That’s a better deal for Apple than what will happen if Psystar manages to win this case… which (most likely) would mean that those $129 licenses would be legal to install on any compatible hardware.

I’ve been saying for a couple of years on this site that Apple’s quality control efforts appear to be getting worse the more successful the company gets and the more products they put out. Apple’s products used to be known for rarely having problems or recalls, and for lasting for a very long time. That seems to have changed, as Seeking Alpha’s Shelly Palmer has begun to notice. Palmer is an Apple fan, but he’s beginning to question that faith, based on his post “Apple’s Problems – Bad to the Core?“

Here are a few of the more choice comments from the article:

• “In the eighteen months since Apple dropped Computers from its name, the company has greatly expanded its reach. However, with massive growth have come security flaws, software bugs, faulty hardware and a plethora of other puzzling problems.”
• “…it seems the company has compromised quality for growth. So much so that even Apple’s most devoted supplicants (like me) are beginning to lose faith.”


• “…lately the company has experienced an eerily high amount of bad press for malfunctioning electronics.”
• “Nothing has been more indicative of Apple’s growing pains than its ultra flawed MobileMe service… The service has been so bad that Apple even publicly stated that its performance has been sub par, and has given subscribers three extra months of service for free. But what good is three free months if the service doesn’t work properly?”

Palmer goes on to wonder if the “House of Jobs” can get things sorted out. He seems to marvel at the same thing I did recently, “Despite major problems in the last 18 months, Apple still tops the ACSI’s customer satisfaction survey”. You have to wonder about that. Are Apple fans really so devoted to the company that they’ll give it high marks in spite of significant product flaws?

According to The Register, UK consumer organization “Which?” surveyed UK customers to identify the most reliable laptop computers. At the top of the list came Sony and Toshiba, with 93% scores. Fujitsu-Siemens got 91%. Apple and Dell scored 87%. After that came Acer and HP with 84%.

Apple did top the list for customer satisfaction, at 93%. The PC manufacturers ranged from 68-77% satisfaction.

For desktop PCs, Apple, Compaq, and Dell came out on top, followed by Acer, eMachines, and Medion.

According to InformationWeek, Apple has been pressured to pull a “misleading” iPhone advertisement from circulation.  The ad in question says that since you’ll never know what parts of the Internet you’ll need, “all the parts of the Internet are on the iPhone.”  iPhone customers and potential customers pointed out that since the iPhone doesn’t support Java or Flash, there are many parts of the Internet that it can’t access.  This makes it misleading, if not an outright lie, to say that the iPhone includes access to “all” of the Internet.  Although Apple tried to defend the ad by saying that it referred to the fact that most mobile phones can only display a small subset of the available Internet sites, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority decided that the ads were, in fact, misleading.

I find myself in training this week, to learn the finer points of system administration using the LanDesk Management Suite. My employer is currently in the early stages of deploying LanDesk, and the training is meant to help us learn the ropes of the product. One thing I learned is that LanDesk supports not only Windows clients, but also Linux, OS X, and Windows Mobile. The instructor told us today that while LanDesk can be used with OS X and Linux, he finds that Mac and Linux administrators aren’t interested in touching it because it is first and foremost a Windows tool. He told us, “When you deal with Mac OS X and Linux, you have to realize that they aren’t operating systems, they’re religions. If you deal with Linux and Mac administrators on that basis, you’re fine.”

I’m not entirely sure I agree with that statement, but it does show that “Mac vs. Windows” and “Linux vs. Windows” mindsets are still widely held, which is unfortunate. As I frequently say here, because it bears repeating, Windows, OS X, and Linux all have their place. None of them is necessarily the “right” choice for everyone, and none of them is “wrong” for everyone. All three have their strengths and weaknesses, and as long as you acknowledge that fact and accept it, you have the right attitude as far as I’m concerned. I see each of them as a tool I use to get things done. Right now, I’m writing this on a Windows XP laptop using a Visual Basic 6 application I wrote specifically for collecting blog articless offline. When I’ve got an Internet connection later, I’ll submit the articles to the Linux server that runs this site. If I had a need for which one is well suited, I’d have a Macintosh and not hesitate to use it. It just so happens that, for some time now, I’ve not found a computing task I needed to perform for which the Mac is the ideal choice.

I’m not here to convince Mac users to give up a platform that works for them. Nor am I here to give Linux users a reason to switch to Mac OS X or Windows. I’m also not here to convince Windows users to move in any particular direction. If the platform you use meets your needs, is reliable for you, performs to your satisfaction, and fits in your budget, that’s great. Use it, by all means. But just because your platform, whatever it might be, suits your needs perfectly doesn’t mean it will suit mine, or anyone else’s. For example, commercial games are a particular interest of mine. Linux or OS X will run those with WINE, but not as well as Windows does (since the vast majority are Windows apps). If you have no interest in gaming, but have a strong need to keep your expenses to a minimum, Linux is a great choice. Similarly, if you’re not too technically savvy, if you can’t deal with things like antivirus software and firewalls, OS X may be a good match for you because it doesn’t require as much diligence with those things. (Notice I did not say that OS X doesn’t need antivirus or a firewall. It most definitely does. But since the Mac occupies such a small secment of the market, there is less likelihood of a malware attack. The threat exists, it’s just less significant.)

Having said what this site isn’t here to do, perhaps I should reiterate what it IS here to do. The main goal of this site is to dispel Macintosh and Apple myths, to help people see past the hype and rhetoric to focus on the facts. A secondary goal is to share information about alternatives to the Mac, especially when that information shows how one of the alternatives has an advantage over the Mac. The third, and least important, goal of the site is to have some fun achieving the other goals. If you read the mainstream computer news media, you’ll hear plenty of positive things about Apple and its products. You’ll hear less about the flaws, the problems, and the weaknesses associated with those products and with the company as a whole. We’re here to balance the mostly-positive spin on Apple stories in the rest of the media by pointing out the things Apple would rather you didn’t notice about their products. Those are the things that, six months after buying a snazzy iMac or cool new iPod, you’ll wish you’d have known. That’s a bit of buyer’s remorse I’d like to protect you from.