digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

iPhone & iPod: Is Apple Giving Up On Its Users?

wilshipley.com — "Apple has to always remember that simply making money CANNOT be its point of existence. The point of any company should be to make customers want to give it money, NOT to get money from customers. It's a subtle distinction that is the difference between good and evil."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SirCrumpet, on 10/10/2007, -16/+141Damned good article. I Agree 100%.
    • bootle, on 10/10/2007, -25/+21That's funny, because *I* had always thought the point of a company was to maximize the return for its stockholders... Guess all that corporate law, SEC mumbo-jumbo flies right out the window!
      • rcw3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29All of that will be pretty meaningless if you have no customers because you've run them all off (i.e. Apple in the 90's)... You know, shareholders are great and all, but not very useful without customers...
      • KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Too true. And a great number of stockholders would prefer a $1000 bonus on their desk tomorrow than $200,000 in bonuses spaced over over the next 10 years assuming the economy holds up evenly over the period...
      • Swimming_Bird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What the author is arguing is that in the long run Apple will make more money if they try to work for the customer rather then the bottom line.
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"always thought the point of a company was to maximize the return for its stockholder"

        You mean publicly held company. There are lots of private companies.
      • potp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That was the old concept of Profit maximisation. the new thing is wealth maxsimisation and in that you take care of anyone directly related with your company so that means investors, customers and employees interest are equally important to the company.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I disagree in relation to opening up FairPlay - if FairPlay is opened, or Apple supports PlaysForSure then iTunesPlus will be dead in a year and all other DRM free trials currently underway will fold. The only reason music companies are getting into DRM free music is that Apple managed to hold onto all the DRM controls - so the only way to break free is to go open. Make DRM truly ubiquitous and it will go everywhere, just like DVD CSS is in wide acceptance today.
      • Eggman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2shhhh dont tell them that!
      • darthsnoopy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Agree with what your saying, but please dont fall into the lemming trap of assuming that copy protection = DRM (though DRM works via copy protection)

        DRM = digital Rights management....the technology behind allowing a licensed user to do anything they want with the media...as along as it goes with the license. DVD's are legally able to be copied for personal/archival use, however they're copy protected.

        Copy protection is worse than DRM because it just prevents any copying of a file....without regard to any kind of rights management. If apple used copy protection alone on its itunes files, you wouldnt be able to ever copy them to an ipod. DRM actually allows the scenarios of '5 computers' or whatnot to happen.

        The problem isn't DRM...thats a technology. The problem is licensing. If the music industry lightened up the license, DRM on music wouldn't be necessary, and things would be open and free.

        So what is DRM good for? Protecting privacy of things that you yourself create. For instance, creating an email you never want forwarded. or making a resume only available to yourself and potential employers. Pisses me off that the technology got used to enforce crappy licensing, therby giving it a bad name.
        • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Fiarplay is DRM though, in the classic sense. It's what limits you from burning too many copies of a playlist with a purchased song, or using iTunes to convert the song to another format, or from using a song in any other device that can read an AAC file.

          The limits are very soft, and really not at all onerous... but they are there, and the more technologically advanced of us feel the chains that others will never see because they do not know what they are missing.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1You're ***** NUTS!!
        You WANT DRM to be everywhere? You like being dictated to about where and when you can play content you have legally bought?
        ***** that. You sound like a god damn RIAA stooge!
        ***** you, and ***** your ill conceived "I like DRM coz it makes me feel special" *****!
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Way to once again miss the point zybch. You seem to specialize in that.
        • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think you understood what I was saying, not even a little. I am saying that by SPREADING DRM, there is MORE DRM. Which is what the author of the Blog was asking for. I am saying that we are see DRM starting to crumble, so keep up the pressure until all major labels are selling DRM free music and see there is no point to DRM.
    • Lutz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Ok so, what? Are people realizing just now that Apple want to make money? Apple has always been greedy in that sense. They have huge profit margins and grant resellers 10% profit margin from their products (at least here in sweden).

      This is not something new.
    • ogremidget, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I liked John Gruber's response:
      "The best thing that could happen to Apple this year would be for Microsoft’s Zune 2.0 to be a kick-ass product, both technologically and in terms of being designed to make customers happy, not entertainment conglomerates. Apple needs competition."
      http://daringfireball.net/linked/2007/september#th ...
    • rpgmaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As good as this article sounds it is NOT the reality, it has never been. If thats what you thought that it was the main point of Apple (or any other company) you get them wrong so wake up and tell me where have you been the last 3 centuries. We're in a capitalist world now.
      • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is shortsighted. The guy that wrote the article posted a follow up which actually answers this so I'll paste it here. Maybe it'll enlighten you (and more hopefully Apple).

        ----

        1) I want Apple to succeed, long-term. I am posting criticism because I believe some recent decisions have put short-term gain over customer satisfaction, which in the long term always hurts the company, sales and stock-wise.

        I recently read an article in either the NYT or Wall Street Journal that pointed out that historically, companies at the top of the consumer satisfaction index are the best investment. Shock! Surprise!

        2) I own a couple hundred thousand worth of Apple stock. But money is not the most important thing to me. I think that's true of most self-made millionaires.

        Companies that pay attention to stock price over pleasing their customers soon find themselves with neither.
    • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Apple couldn't implement something like Visual Voicemail without the help of someone who owns the network. 'nuff said.
      • jwmcevoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dugg down because you said "nuff". I hate that abortion of a slang term.
        • tobias1482, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2don't ever read any Marvel comics then :)
      • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Practically all the hard work behind Visual Voicemail is done on the device itself, not the network. All the network does is allow it to be downloaded as a simple file. It's minimal work for a network to add this feature. Then it can be added as an optional feature and supported so long as the network supports it. Though I think if Apple opened it up and just said, okay if any telcos want to have the iPhone on your network just do a minor update to your network and we'll be cool with that, then none of them would have a problem with it.
    • antoniojvr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Dammit Apple, stop making money! Money is bad, you should distribute all your money to your buyers. The Jobs, buy some green camo, grow a beard, and become everyone's favorite communist leader. Everyone's happy!

      /Too much wine...
  • kwick, on 10/10/2007, -10/+50Hard hitting analysis.
    • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9COME ON GUYS! LOOK AT THE COMPETITION! We are LITERALLY comparing Apples to Apples here! The iPod touch is far and above ANY portable MP3 player by another company. It is being criticized because the iPhone is just a smidgeon better? Or Apple HAS offered better products in the past? Why not PRAISE it for blowing away the Zen or Zune? What, you forgot about the Zen? What about the Sansa? Does it have 16GB touch screen interface? And Apple also has other media players OTHER than the touch. Or you can buy older refurbished off their website. I think Apple is headed in the right direction.
      • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4*Stupid comment system wouldn't let me edit last couple sentences. But I don't see how Apple is 'giving up on its users' when they unleash iTunes updates every couple weeks and release new iPods every year. They clearly are trying MUCH harder than any other company out there. Give these guys a break. They are trying very hard to satisfy customers.
        What's that I hear? $100 rebate for early adopter iPhone anyone? All you guys do is complain.
        • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"What's that I hear? $100 rebate for early adopter iPhone anyone? All you guys do is complain."

          Yes but in this case they had a point. Shaving 200 dollars off a product just 8 weeks after launch is tough for most people to swallow. After 9 months maybe, heck even 6 months, but 2 months is a bit rich. I dont see why some have a problem grasping why people would be annoyed by this.
          • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I understand completely why people would be annoyed by this. My point by saying that was Apple is breaking their backs to satisfy customers (aka rebate) and all you guys do is complain about their practices.
      • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Most of the Mac-universe reviews I've seen have rated the Touch in the middle of the scale - mediocre. Check the review at ilounge.com too. That site is all about iPods, their very revenue depends on the iPod, but, they gave the touch a B- grade.

        I will grant you that the -concept- of the iPod touch blows away the competition, but the reviews are consistently saying that the actual -execution- is definitely flawed for several reasons, which will keep me from buying one. And I'm a big Apple fan.
        • streak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Have you even tested a touch for yourself? If you like it enough to buy one and happen to get an early production lemon, complain to Apple. At worst, you can return it for a restocking fee of 10% ($40). iLounge complained about two partially dead pixels on one of two units they bought. The other touch was perfect. They reported nothing about the customer support experience when contacting Apple about the matter... apparently because they didn't contact Apple about it. So much for a thorough review.
          All of the reviews I've read, including the PC Mag, are disappointed that the touch is crippled.
        • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes but the iLounge falls into the same trap, in that the only thing they compare the Touch to is the iPhone, and grade it on that scale. It's quite obvious the score would be higher if the iPhone did not exist... just try and find a mediocre review that does not mention the iPhone multiple times.

          The iLounge review even notes that if you had never seen an iPhone screen, the Touch screen would be amazing.
          • LiquidFusion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's the point. We know Apple is capable of better. Why aren't they doing it?
  • Arru, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31The comparison wtih Google China and with "old, crappy Apple" is spot-on! I sure hope Apple won't screw up trying to make a quick buck again...
  • BulkHedd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+171The ringtone thing is just ludicrous. The iPhone is legally allowed to play digital music. The iPhone has a speaker so you can play that music out loud any time you want to. But if you want that same music, which you already own, to play when someone calls you, you have to pay another dollar.
    It is cheaper than the other phones/carriers but so what? It really feels like Apple IS becoming the new Microsoft.
    • adroit, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6Ringtones really do suck, but i am 100% satisfied with all of my apple purchases lately. iPhone really is the best phone i have ever had.
      I have faith that apple will stay true to their values. Do you really think that they would become the new microsoft?
      give me some examples of how they are becoming the NEW microsoft..
      • BlinderBomber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9They aren't the new Microsoft, they are a different one. Apple has kept itself viable by creating incredibly good, and lucrative, closed systems. The iTunes / iPod pairing is their best example, followed by the iTV / iTunes combo. Both create a closed system in which only Apply can supply the content (for purchase). They aimed to do the same thing with 3rd party apps on the iPhone as well, but (I believe) backed down.
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Others can supply content for purchase as long as it's in standard formats. I have no problem with that...
      • jakem1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Apple have traditionally tried to tie their users down to their products much more than Microsoft. For goodness sake, the fact that they even dictate what hardware you have to run the software on is ample proof of that. While Microsoft have tended to be much more open about what they intend to do and how their software works, Apple prefer to keep everything a big secret prefering to control the entire user experience. Take the iPhone for instance - whereas Windows Mobile uses the .NET framework making the whole thing easily accessible to any programmer, Apple choose to provide no programming tools for their iPhone instead telling programmers to go out and make little websites for mobile safari. When programmers eventually decide to hack their way into the iPhone OS, Apple simply breaks their apps with each new firmware update. That's much worse than Microsoft has ever been.
        • supertvo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6well said
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4MS is open with their partners, but still hostile towards the end users. MS's customers are OEMs and corporate accounts. Apple's customers are consumers. Microsoft has no qualms with making the end user jump through a bunch of hoops if it *might* be in their immediate financial interests, or those of their business partners. From an individual consumer's point of view, I wouldn't consider MS to be particularly open or unrestrictive.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Hate to say it... but they have always been a Microsoft. Apple is a corporation. Corporations are out their to make money. Steve Jobs isn't building Macs for the sake of humanity, he is doing it to make some money. Apple used to at least listen to their users and were in a position where customer loyalty mattered (because of such a small market share). Microsoft has always had our balls over the fire with their market dominance, so they really didn't care to much. Now that Apple has a good market share in terms of mp3 players, its started look for ways to make more money at our expense. Sad truth is, thats the way it works, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

      I now await the fury of diggers everywhere.
      • championchap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Doubt it will happen to be honest, you seem to have made some good points.
        You score a + from me anyhow.
      • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I honestly try not to think that way. If I had the capability to make a great product, I would want as many people to use it and be happy as possible. One person is not solely responsible, however, and that is why corporations have bad stigma. People are known to be greedy. But it's nice to think that the CEOs of corporations are generally nice, caring, giving people.
      • kalisphoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I ain't diggin' you down. I agree completely. I say this as a terrible Apple fanatic who has bought three Macs, an Apple TV, an Airport Extreme, two iPhones, four iPods of different species, and God knows whatever crap just this year.

        This whole thing is genuinely upsetting to me not because I have an emotional attachment to Apple but because no one else seems to have their act together quite like Apple occasionally does. As I've said before many times, Apple is nothing short of 90% brilliant. The other 10% (ringtones, various other complaints) are enough to balance out at least thirty percent of the brilliant ***** they do. The problem is that most tech companies, as far as I have seen, are much less than 60% brilliant. They often aren't even 45-50% mediocre.

        So I am faced with giving up the things I like (OS X, iTunes, seamless integration of things) because Apple keeps ***** up even the tiniest and simplest of concepts. I don't want to do it. I want Apple to put out complete solutions, to invest in their customers as much as their customers invest in them, and to stop ***** selling us out. If they did, maybe their marketshare with Macs, you know, the high-profit-margin CENTER OF THEIR ***** BUSINESS, would grow to a respectable amount.

        I'm beginning to think that when Steve Jobs says "I'm happy with Mac marketshare," what he's really saying is "It's a good thing this same 4% is still stupid enough to keep hoping we'll evolve into a company that will actually deliver the promise we keep alluding to."
    • dlsspy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15> But if you want that same music, which you already own, to play when someone calls you, you have to pay another dollar.

      It's not even that easy. My wife manages a band and although she has rights to do whatever she wants with the music, the tracks on iTunes don't have the little bell, so there's no chance.

      Some of the bands I like just put their mp3s on their web sites. I can't use those.

      One of my friends wrote a theme jingle thing that I typed up on my old ericsson, but I can't use that.

      Apple has historically been a provider of tools for artists, but when you can't use your own stuff how you want, it rather sucks.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4this was an issue because of the RIAA, not Apple's greed.
      • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7*****, you should ot try to pawn off blame to some other greedy ass group. This is apple's problem, the RIAA don't HAVE to be on itunes, they want to be, apple is now pulling the strings in terms of itunes pricing.
      • mrsteve007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Is that why my windows mobile based phone lets me use any mp3 as a ringtone? Face it, Apple is just out to make a buck. Imagine the horror if Microsoft started charging people to put ringtones on their smart phone.
        • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The funny thing is, of that happened, people on digg would be screaming bloody murder and say how M$ is trying to take over the world. But when apple does it, we get tools like Johnpaul191 defending their precious company at all costs.
      • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Then explain why the RIAA doesnt care that I can use any mp3/wav/midi I want as a ringtone on my Treo, my friends on their Razr, my brother on his Sony Ericsson, and just about *every* other phone on the planet.

        It is a completely ***** excuse, and you know it. Apple did it because of control.
        • tobias1482, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Because that feature on those phones takes more technical expertise to execute. Upper people in the music industry (and most others) barely know what a mouse is.

          That being a truth, someone probably saw an early implementation allowing such a feature on the iPhone and then freaked out and called the lawyers looking for another revenue stream.

          Occam's razor people!

          I remember when iTunes would let you openly broadcast over the Internet. That was great!
    • NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'd say the ringtone thing wasn't Apple's choice. Not because I think they're better than that. But simply because all songs can't be made ringtones shows only some labels/artists agreed to it, and only if it cost money.
      • aembleton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would it cost money? Why should it cost extra? Most phones these days can play MP3s for ringtones, why can't the iPhone? If a record company doesn't like it, tough. What's next: 'You may not listen to this track whilst taking a crap on a Sunday'?
  • bonusjuice, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Well said sir and well written, I and hopefully many more share your view.
  • Dankoozy, on 10/10/2007, -19/+8If there were no stupid ***** restrictions on the iPhone / iPod touch the hackers would have nothing left to do
    I'm no apple fan and I probably hate these restrictions more than anyone else here but

    No restrictions == no free publicity when they get hacked.
  • winvirus, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13Where there's a will, there's a hack. Hackers will never cease.
    Worst come worse, hackers will just overhaul Touch's standard OS and just install their own.
    • hunchback, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5but then you won't get the software you paid money for, and this DIY ***** isn't for everybody
  • harrypl0tter, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4No they just have more customers now so of course there will be more stuff to complain about and/or less time to do R&D as everyone is wanting something new
  • euphemizeme, on 10/10/2007, -17/+63Only ***** idiots allow themselves to be bullied into buying things. Are you insinuating that Apple users are mindless fanboys who will do anything the good lord Steve tells them to? I agree completely.
    • dlsspy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8I bought a product that's almost perfect. There's nothing technically preventing it from being perfect. There's nothing else that gets even close to what I want to do.

      I'm inferring from your comments that you suggest people either a) hold out for perfect or b) be quiet about imperfections.

      ...except your comment seems to be lacking some context. What is this about being bullied or being a fanboy? I was reluctant to buy an iPhone, but I'm glad I did.
      • vw195, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If you bought an iPhone, its no where close to being perfect
        • paloooz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The iPhone is perfect. It does everything they told me it would to and then some. If you are disappointed in the iPhone, then obviously your expectations of it are too high.

          Lower your expectations to avoid being disappointed.
    • KillerX, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5I agree just like all the Microsoft Windows and Office buying Lemmings!

      Stupid Microsoft Windows Butt Monkey Lemming Fan Dorks.
      • Phasmorphage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, you pretty much nailed that last part down...
        Every mac fan i know is always trying to get me to buy something by apple
  • najdorf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+76iPhone and iTouch have incredible potential but it's wasted without proper support for third party apps.
    • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10But it has 3rd party apps!

      Oh.... you mean asside from tetris and pong.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Ti has third party apps - and a lot more than Pong, more along the lines of a GPS-like positioning app and an SSH terminal. How much more advanced do you want to go before you admit there are third party apps, and quite a number of them at that?
      • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5They're unofficial apps that apple has no commitment to keep working. Had apple provided an official API, you'd be onto something, but due to greed and laziness, they didn't. Third party apps are only truly useful if you don't have to worry about them breaking due to minor updates.
        • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yea because minor updates are coming out and breaking 3rd party apps every day.

          It's a 1.0 product. They don't want to have feet to step on if they have to push out an update. It's as simple as that.
          • tobias1482, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0sounds like you understand hardware/software as a service.
        • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So what if they are unsupported? Do they work? Yes. Do they generally get fixed in less than a day when a release comes out (using the last update as a baseline)? Yes. That's better support than some companies have for new operating systems! What good is "support" without gobs of personal motivation that the hackers have in spades?

          You just continue to live in your cave while the rest of us enjoy the Mysterious Future.
          • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've got a copy of the third party iphone toolchain on my computer. I know one of the people who developed them pretty damn well. I also know the history of apple's previous actions to keep their walled garden, such as pymusique. It's just not a risk I want to take. I'd rather give my money to a company like Nokia, that a) Gives true third party development kits and b) gives truly innovative apps, like voice over IP support in their phones. I've already got an MP3 player, I want something that I can comfortably type on and applications to without worry that an update will break those applications.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I think he meant *supported* 3rd party apps, like ones you can install without using software that might brick your $400 phone...
        • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How's it going to "brick" the phone? Total fear mongering, at worst you simply reset and reinstall the phone OS. Remember the OS is all on flash, we're not talking a lot of firmware adjustment to run applications - it's like getting a new computer and figuring out how to move applications onto it to run. How dangerous is it running applciations on a computer? Chances are you are doing that right now.
    • KillerX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Maybe.
    • najdorf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I want a system where it is legal to upload your own apps on, where developers have adequate tools and do not have to hack things up by hit and miss, a system where you are sure that the next update will not crash the whole thing, a system that is supported enough to provide real quality apps, where it is legal to buy-sell apps so we can find commercial quality stuff, where I can upload stuff without using SSH, a system for which indie apps and games are encouraged, not heavily discouraged.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It is legal to load apps. Sure I'd like a supported system as well, but this is easily 10x better than any other alternative.
    • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It has 3rd party apps. It's not illegal to write them or run them on the phone. Apple isn't discouraging it.
      All Apple has ever said is that they can not guarantee that parts of the system will not change.

      I don't know why you kids cry like little girls about this.
  • CleverEve, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7Apple embraces this more than any other company I know. They don't need money at all. They've got so much bank they can afford to do whatever they want. And they seem to want to make elegant, beautiful, high-end electronics.
    • Machine, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5How dare you not jump on the "Apple Sucks"-fest? For shame...
    • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5If they are doing whatever they want, then why exactly are they screwing us with crippling moves like charging for ringtones, disabling 3rd party apps, and cripping the Calendar in Touch, not to mention taking out Notes, Stocks, Weather, etc...
      • CleverEve, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4You're not screwed. No one is forcing you to buy ringtones, or iPhones or anything. If you don't like the way Apple does things, take your money elsewhere. There are plenty of alternatives that are third party galore.
        • Machine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Oh come now... this is Digg... t's more fun to bitch and moan about Apple. You don't actually think most of the people commenting here are actually going to BUY any apple products do you? They just like to beat up on Apple.
  • NyteStarNyne, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18iAgree
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38There are eight iPhone stories on the Apple section frontpage right now. Even if Apple has given up on its users, they haven't given up on Apple.
    • hunchback, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Give Apple a *****-suckin-break, thats what I say, with this many iPhone "owners" complaining, it does mean there are plenty of customers or at least plenty of interest in a first gen product, thats not bad if you ask me. Sure Apple is showing its far from perfect and thats not acceptable. So double time you slackerz!!
  • Pureeviljester, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Business 101 - a companies #1 job is to survive
    • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12And if they piss off their customers through excessive greed, they won't. Profits cut both ways.
      • s0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, piss off all their customers huh? Thats why they have the highest customer satisfaction for the last 3-4 years right? If any product out there was perfect, then any company would be ***** because there would never be a reason to buy another one.
    • masgrada, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6....through customer satisfaction.
    • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3#1 way to keep customers: don't ***** them over.
    • Chode2235, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not really sure their # 1 job is to survive. I think it is more to maximize shareholder wealth, which sometimes means liquidation of assets and shutting the place down. I mean for the most part they are correlated, but wealth generation for the shareholders is more important than the actual entity itself.
  • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2TLR
  • BayAreaKing, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Apple can do better than what their doing. They've got the style and innovation down, but they SERIOUSLY have to work on durability and quality. One great thing they've done is that iPhones and iPod touches seem to be very good against scratches on the screen.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5At the rate of growth of the iPods, it's becoming very hard to keep quality high and prices low. People will point to the Build of Materials and say "hey, there's plenty of room there", but they don't realize how much a good factory worker's time is worth, or how much money they put into any other aspect of development (nor advertising, packaging, shipping, etc).

      Quite simply, it's growing pains. Apple's never had any product ever sell as well as the iPods have. Almost no company has experienced this kind of product growth in 5 years time. And as far as I'm concerned, the quality has only been going up; switching away from plastics and shiny aluminum to more durable anodized aluminum, switching away from plastics to renewable and durable glass, moving away from any moving parts at all towards completely solid state components (which some will constantly criticize), while maintaining a product line with older components to satiate "traditional format" purchasers.

      There are some things they could do differently, for example being more transparent about their products and lifetime scheduling, but part of their whole corporate attitude is being secretive and stunning like high-end car manufacturers. They're doing a great job for what they're doing, and their stock prices and their current product sales numbers reflect that.
      • cojerk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"but they don't realize how much a good factory worker's time is worth"

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't iPods already assembled by cheap oversea labor?
    • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1My 4G iPod still works like the day I got it.
      • jttin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My old Beige G3 also does.
        The last Mac before Jobs' return.
  • cwcentral, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5"It's a subtle distinction that is the difference between *good and evil*."

    Sorry, but businesses do not practice religion. Unless it's marketing related of course.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But they can use image and perception to their advantage. If Apple loses the image it has worked so hard to maintain, then it will have a significant impact on their bottom line in the future.
    • bethune, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good and Evil are not only principles of religion but of morality which every company should practice to some degree.
  • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -15/+26And they're still doing it.

    Why do you think they gimped the iPod Touch's storage? So they can start back over at a low storage, then work their way up by releasing larger capacity drives every 6 months. Has nothing to do with the technology - some usually justify it by saying, "BUT DUDE, it's flash storage!" Well, they CAN release a 60 gb version right now, they just wanna milk the earlier models first.

    Just like they did with the video. And the nano. And everything else.

    So while people might think "that's fine, i don't need the storage space", they don't realize exactly what's going on, or realize that they're paying $25/gig now instead of the $2 and $3 set by the classics.

    Eventually it just hinders progression and innovation. I'd love to buy an iPod Touch, but most certainly not one with gimped storage.

    Those of us who know the marketing trends know exactly what's going on, while those who HAVE to have the lastest flashy expensive gadget tend to pretend it's not there.
    • dinkola, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14A 60gb flash version? How much do you think that would cost? People would bark at the price. You think the factories can knock out millions of 60gb drives really quickly? Dont think so
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3He never specified flash. He probably meant putting a HDD in the Touch. It could have a couple gig of solid state memory for the OS and cache for music and HD for storage and it wouldn't be much more power hungry than current HD based iPods.
      • streak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Adding just 8 GB more storage to the 8 GB iPhone would cost Apple only about $25. But for you, special price. $100.
    • jferrari, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8They can't because flash storage is still expensive, they are probably still using 1/2/4GB chips to keep the price low and they simply cant fit enough chips in at that size. When you go up to 8GB chips your looking at a lot more than double the price of a 4GB one. 16GB even more again.

      When the flash prices drop it is because the manufacturing process allows them to fit more memory on a single chip - until they can fit 16/32GB on a single chip you are not going to get them in HD like capacities at a reasonable price.
      • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Who said they needed a flash version. An hdd version, or hybrid version, if they truly needed instantaneous random access storage for the OS side, would work just fine.
      • mr100percent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it wouldn't be nearly as thin. The ipod touch is thinner than any of the other iPods, with the exception of the new nano.
      • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm willing to bet an iPod Touch with HDD can be made in the same formfactor as the iPhone. Nobody would be complaining about the size.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4This is at least the 4th time I've seen this exact same tirade floatingpoints, every single time with people pointing out the shortcomings of your argument without you ever changing it.
    • sedlock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Exactly, by introducing the flash memory model, they make it more popular. When technology becomes more popular, it sells more and the prices for producing/manufacturing that technology becomes cheaper. This is a precursor to even greater capacity/lower priced flash based ipods. Just look at the price and capacity evolution of the original hard drive based ipods, it's quite apparent.
    • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"Why do you think they gimped the iPod Touch's storage? "

      Here's a little exercise: find out what 8 gigs of flash ram costs. Then figure out what 60 gigs would cost.

      -jcr

    • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You are aware that the largest flash drive on the market (according to newegg) is 16GB, and that it's $164 for a corsair one. The "cheapo" ones are about $130.
      Most likely Flash was used for power/form factor reasons. Saying that they "should have just put in 60GB of flash" doesn't make sense.. a 60GB chip doesn't exist, and using 16GB ones (or smaller) would not be cost/size effective.
    • SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Flash memory's still pretty expensive. Good quality flash memory is even more so (and Apple uses name brand stuff like Samsung). You can't just flap an HDD in there, the battery would go to *****. Then you'd need a bigger battery to compensate, and then the unit gets larger, which is not the idea.
  • miniboss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30Don't take this as an attack on them. Apple is having a fantastic year and their products are still great. BUT they are also making a few choices that are really disrupting the "reality distortion field" and exposing them to be less of a deity and more a corporation just like every other one out there. And the worst of it is that now it's very apparent how they view customer loyalty to be just another resource for quick cash.

    I'm still interested in their stuff, but I'm definitely hesitating now more than I ever have in the past.
    • nogami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe now it's the "reality denial field". Field strength is weakening, Captain!
  • kbro, on 10/10/2007, -18/+20Ugggh. Rubbish.
    There is nothing "evil" about trying to maximize profits. No more than it is "virtuous" to minimize profits.

    Apple is not your damn best friend. It is a corporation owned by hundreds of thousands of people who all want the stock price to go higher.

    • jazh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It's not evil.
      But is it right to squeeze EVERY penny out of consumers? Buying the iphone, contract and music wasn't enough. They went one step futher and charged for the ringtone. It's insane. It Microsoft did something like that on its windows phones people would go ballistic.
      • kbro, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Insane?
        The iPhone is the first phone I know of that doesn't require you to pay an exorbitant recurring fee for ringtones. I doubt AT&T liked that very much.
        • bigdoof, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Any WM phone can and has been allowing that for quite a while. Drag, drop, select as ringtone.
        • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Obviously you've never had a decent phone before. Pretty much every phone with a USB port allows for free ringtone transfer, if you have the carrier firmware. I know my razr does.
        • CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, as sad as it is to say, the old Cingular Razr lets you use MP3s as ringtones... and also lets you transfer them over bluetooth. I've yet to see a Cingular/AT&T that doesn't let you use mp3s as ringtones (minus the iPhone). The only limitation they put is that it has to be less than 600KB and under 30 seconds. I mean, we're not talking Verizon here.
      • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Whatever they charge, the simple point is this: PEOPLE BUY IT.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It's not like Apple's really making very much money on the ringtones; they're just a reseller for the RIAA. The fact that it costs less through them than *anybody* else is telling in itself.

        Sometimes you've gotta make a deal with the devil in business. Apple's no stranger to it, and they've been doing it as long as their has been an iTunes music store. And don't believe for a second if Microsoft released a phone, ringtones wouldn't be $2+ (in fact, there are already smartphones out there running Microsoft's OS that charge $2/ringtone, but I guess it's convenient not to remember that). Microsoft, nor Apple, nor anybody other than the RIAA can set the prices, but anyone and everyone is free to fight those companies to ask them to lower the prices which it seems almost nobody is willing to do anymore...
        • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5So why is it then that windows mobile devices, motorola devices, etc all can transfer ringtones for free? The notion that Apple has to do it is complete and utter *****.
      • Nickdotnet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Yes. they charge for the god damn ringtone. Just like every other ***** company does. Quit getting all butthurt, they dont owe you a damn thing.
    • brewer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Agreed. The headline description is ridiculous in that making money IS (or should be) the point of existence for EVERY corporation. It's the capitalist way.

      Now, the company needs to decide what the best way to make money is. Some companies decide that they should screw the customers in a variety of ways, others decide that high quality products and good customer service are the way to make money, even if it costs more in some areas. Other (most?) companies take a middle road between the two.

    • streak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1By initially withholding software features and slowly adding them over time, Apple can titrate demand for iPhone and iPod touch to keep it in sync with production. Because Apple has such a lock on mobile touch technology, from a business perspective, this is perhaps the most interesting and powerful aspect of the new product line.
    • HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just as it is not wrong for a company to make profits, its not wrong for a consumer to say to other consumers "Don't buy what these guys are telling you, they're ripping you off." Also, you can complain about those consumers who complain about companies. Great society, huh?
  • Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6What's wrong with Evil?
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Customers hesitate to give them money, and will jump ship to a competitor at first opportunity...
  • brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I wish I could Digg this a few times.
  • FaytlND, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16I smell a bit of a double standard when it comes to these comments. Where are the "They are a business, they are supposed to try and make money." and "They do what's best for their shareholders" comments int he 'OMG M$ IS THE SUX0RZ!!!!" stories? You can't have it both ways. Either the companies have obligations to their customers first, or they have an obligation to making money first. The answer can't be different depending on the situation because you own a MacBook.

    Commence burying this comment.
    • kbro, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Don't proclaim duplicity where there is none. At least not on my part.

    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Apple can satisfy both their customers and their shareholders at the same time. Shareholders aren't going to be happy if Apple drives all their customers away...
  • jaymulder, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Apple made their first mistake in awhile. Give them a break. Remember before the iPod came out? With your CD walkmen or 512mb mp3 player...
    • Nickdotnet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Seriosuly. It's been less than 3 months!
    • ZekeSulastin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You *DO* realize the iPod wasn't the first HDD based player, right?
  • theprokaryote, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I agree with 99% of that article, good stuff.
  • franklymister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25I love Apple. I still have my Apple ][+ from 1980, and I've had more Macs than I can count. Sadly, though, I agree with this article. I hope this one actually gets to Steve Jobs.
    He needs someone like Woz at Apple again who can challenge him. Apple couldn't be Apple without Jobs, but it needs more than just him.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Eric Schmidt, are you listening? Give Steve the smackdown every once and a while, for good measure...
    • streetstealth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Heh, Woz at Apple again (even though he'd never agree to it) would be awesome. He'd be the one guy in the company to call Jobs on his BS.

      Jobs' perfectionism + Woz keeping it real = impossibly awesome Apple inc.
  • Raider007, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4i can't fault apple. i mean honestly, i don't think it's their fault that they have to charge the 99 cents. i mean look, when they didn't have ringtones people complained, so they came up with a solution better than any other carrier has right now, and they still get flack. they have so much they can do with license that don't belong to them. if Steve said he doesn't want drm'ed stuff, do you really think he wanted to charge 99 cents for a 30 second snippet of something?
    that said, yes, it's lame and stupid about the 99 cent tax on a ring tone...
    • dlsspy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Better than any other carrier? I never cared much for ringtones, but my wife made hers for her old phone in garage band, and then dropped them on her blackberry using the built-in bluetooth stuff. She was able to use any music she has any listening rights to. How is this better?
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Obviously, Apple would be obliged to pay the labels for any ringtones they want to SELL to their customers (because of their entanglements with the labels on the iTunes Store in general), but nothing would prevent them from allowing users to install their own ringtones for free. If I'm a musician, or I know how to use sound editing software, and I make myself a ringtone, there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to put it on my iPhone all by myself, in a supported manner.
  • SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8This is very interesting indeed - I just viewed the Intel presentation about Open Source and why it's good for business. Steve might as well read that presentation.
    • tomis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2OS X's kernel is open source, their web browser is open source. I have a feeling Apple already knows about these things. For whatever reason, they've decided they won't release an API for 3rd parties to make apps for the iPod/Touch/iPhone. So there we are.
  • monsterofNone, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1friggin lame ass blogspam. how do opinion blogs get to the front page?
    • OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Some people like seeing other point of views, for one.
    • heifetz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6because he has something intelligent to say, and you don't.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Welcome to Digg, try the whine...
    • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Normally blogs don't offer much, but this was a well written article with an interesting point of view. Agree or disagree with the viewpoint, but we would be lucky if all blogs were this good.
  • Zcott, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4The job description of the corporation, legally speaking, is to bring in as much money as possible for its shareholders, through any means possible. Whether that means long term law breaking, stealing, or good corporate practice is irrelevant. Apple are doing a damned fine job as a corporation.

    Do I wish their prices were lower?

    Absolutely.
    • theprokaryote, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I don't think lowering prices has anything to do with what the article was talking about. You generally pay more for Apple with the understanding that you are getting a generally better product. Most Apple fans have accepted this fact, otherwise we would be spending out money elsewhere. (edit: ok, its not a "fact," before a windows fan calls me out on that! :P Just an opinion.)

      The article is focusing more on the idea of locking us in software-wise.
    • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Whether that means long term law breaking, stealing, or good corporate practice is irrelevant"

      I sure hope you're never in charge of a business. Breaking the law violates the corporation's duty to its shareholders, because it can result in catastrophic losses.

      -jcr
  • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Not trying to pick a fight here, so please take this with a grain of salt. Apple will keep doing what it's doing for as long as their revenues and profits go up year over year. Despite cries of unfair, evil, milking the consumer, ... the fact remains that what they're doing just works, and people DO buy it. They may have pissed off the majority of the Digg community, but the numbers just tell a different story. Sorry guys, for once, I think that we're pretty much the minority with this dissatisfaction.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's fine, and they're certainly free to try to sit on the fence for as long as it suits them, but when someone comes out with a decent Linux phone before Apple opens up to 2nd and 3rd party modification and development, a bunch of geeks are going to jump ship. Same thing in the computer market. Geeks are the ones who are writing the apps, spreading the word, and generally adding value to Apple's platforms. Once Apple loses them, they will be gone forever, and it will be downhill from there. Without good will from their customer base, they will have a much harder time competing with some of the larger players, they will have difficulty retaining the talent they've been so fortunate with, and introducing new products and platforms will be much more difficult without a sympathetic early-adopter market.
      • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yea, just like all those awesome Linux PDA's that everyone used to use.

        the gplPhone (Cackling Canary Edition!) will spen
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The numbers may tell a different story *at the moment*, but as the author said....

      ---

      I want Apple to succeed, long-term. I am posting criticism because I believe some recent decisions have put short-term gain over customer satisfaction, which in the long term always hurts the company, sales and stock-wise.
  • jackdubious, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3There are a lot of companies whose products I dislike or whose business practices I disagree with, but I dont cry like a little bitch over it. I just don't buy those products. How hard is that to do?
    • aduzik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's the whole point of the blog post: people stop buying from companies that piss them off. Apple is behaving monopolistically, and if they don't knock it the ***** off, people -- including fanboys like myself -- will leave them.
    • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2But if someone has a different viewpoint than yours and they decide to share it, you do whine like a little bitch... interesting.
    • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2But if someone has a different viewpoint than yours and they decide to share it, you do whine like a little bitch... interesting.
    • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bugs
  • Nickdotnet, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0BLOGSPAM

    Save it for back page, noobs. Apple does what alot of other cell phone companies do...market their products to one or two services. Look at Nokia and motorola...not in every network, but in the one's they've made a deal with. Mind you - these deals have been around for years and Apple is just starting out - why must you attack when its been around for all of 3 months? Give em some damn time....

    /rant
    • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Because the cell phone market is a mature market. If you want to release a cell phone, it better be comparable with everything else out there, and you can be damn certain that people are going to compare the iPhone to what they can do on their Razrs. To suggest otherwise is foolish.
      • Nickdotnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0People buy it. End of story. To suggest that they wont buy it because their razr can do something is foolish.
  • detron, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2"I own a couple hundred thousand worth of Apple stock. But money is not the most important thing to me. I think that's true of most self-made millionaires." and "I own six iPods and have bought 18 iPhones to give away.". Wow, having him as a friend must be nice. Or not. I think this guy wins the pretentious ***** of the year award.
    • aduzik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, Wil Shipley is a pretentious *****. Most smart people are. Read his "Pimp My Code" posts to see what kind of a jackass he can be. But if you've ever used Delicious Library, you know he's got the goods to back it up.
  • Killwize, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3What dose he mean by calling the RIAA *****-thirsty? Did he seriously use that term?

    ***** YOU!
    • Killwize, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1He had such a valid point that I totally agree with, why did he have to go ***** it up with such a slur?
      He might of JUST AS WELL called the movie and record industries A bunch of *****!
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, come on! Both you know and I know, the RIAA LOVES the *****... Don't need to lie to kick it...
  • scronline, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Why do you think that shops like mine with over 15 years in business don't really like to touch/talk about Apple products? There was a time we wanted to be a "registered Apple dealer". Apparently Apple seems to think it's a car dealership and we have to pay them a pretty penny every year to be "registered" by a pretty penny, I mean $30k and that was in ... umm, I think 95 or round about there. Plus there could only be one in a certain area. So not only are they charging huge fees, they expected us to recover those fees by an "exclusive" deal for our area so we could rape the customers.

    Personally, I don't like Apple products simply because of the vendor lock in. I don't like only having one place I can take my equipment that can repair it. I don't like only having 1 store I can go that sells the products. I don't like that there aren't many apps for their products. I don't like that they intentionally crippled OS X to not be able to run on "ordinary" x86 hardware. I mean, really. What kind of stupid move was that? They could have EASILY took a HUGE chunk out of Microsoft's market share right then and there. I would have been one of the first in line to buy 10 copies of OS X for my various desktops/notebooks. Possibly 10-20 server licenses as well for my hosting services. So that's literally, what? $6500 - $11,500 they tossed away all in the name of selling their own hardware. I already HAVE the hardware and I paid considerably less for it than what they sell a comparable system.

    Either rate, Apple has always been a company that likes to lock people in. Their way or the highway so to speak. I hate to say this, but more often than not, more can be accomplished (and many times easier) by the highway rather than Apple's way.
    • tomis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You seriously expect apple to sell OSX for generic boxes and support every piece of hardware out there without needing to include a 2nd DVD just for drivers, all while maintaining system stability...
    • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes, I enjoy using my Mac, but the repair thing is a huge problem. I have to drive several hours to get it to the nearest repair shop (which I've had to do more than once). On the PC side of things there are several shops around here to chose from.
    • centerblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When I needed repairs before, they shipped me a box overnight, with overnight shipping back. I just put my laptop in the box and off it went. Came back a few days later.

      For batteries/mice/etc, they overnight you whatever you need, then you just put your broken one back in the box and use the included pre-paid shipping.

      Apple makes it very easy.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Some people will pay the toll to drive on a well-paved road, with less traffic jams (malware), no billboards (trialware/spyware), and a nice row of trees on the side to look at. Obviously, it's not for everyone. As for lock-in, you can choose how much kool-aid you want to drink. You can avoid the DRM'd iTunes Store downloads, you can avoid their proprietary iWork and other app formats, and when you get down to it, OS X is much more open standards-compliant than Windows is, allowing you to use any number of 3rd party and open source software. If you play your cards right, a migration from OS X to Linux would be a piece of cake.

      As for OS X on commodity hardware, Apple has chosen to be a vertical vendor, selling the whole widget to their customers. Being stuck in partnerships with OEMs takes away a lot of the freedom they have to make technical progress at the rate they control.
      • scronline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, I already use Linux and Windows. Funny thing is, I haven't had a single peice of malware on my machine since it's been a problem and the only Virus I can say my entire network has had was a 0-day virus that no one new about. I wish I could remember the name of it now, but it's really not important. And if you were to get the CERT advisories, you'd very quickly learn that Apple isn't as secure as everyone using them would like you to think. There are weeks that I see 15 different advisories for Apple products alone and only 1 or 2 for Microsoft and Linux.

        The thing is, NO OS can protect itself from the user if the user intended to do harm through action, inaction, or lack of knowledge.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Repair at one store? Uh. You can get a Mac repaired under warranty at any authorized Mac repair place, CompUSA and Best Buy included.
      • scronline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No offense, but CompUSA and BestBuy (GeekSquad) have made me a lot of money due to shoddy work. Feel free to use those guys to fix your Mac up if you like. After all, I'm sure they're more familiar with a Mac than they are a PC so it shouldn't be a problem for them
  • posure, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"Imagine upgrading to a new computer, and having to buy a brand new copy of Windows Vista for it... Oh, wait, Microsoft does that, don't they? MICROSOFT does."
    That's a bit out of place, I had to pay for OS X when I bought my Mac too. Other than that, great article.
    • ut2k4king, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I think what he meant there was: Imagine buying a new computer, then realizing that your version of Vista sucks and you need to get a better version just for it to do *****.
  • andburn1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Wow. I really wish Steve Jobs and could read this.
    • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I bet he does read digg, and engadget , he is like us really
      • kalisphoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What if Jobs was one of us?
        Just a slob like one of us?
        Just a stranger on a bus
        Trying to make his wayyyyy hoooooommee
    • avatarpalin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He should be able to, I have a macbook pro and with Safari I was able to read it perfectly.

      /smirk
    • StateTheObvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Do you really think he cares? He's laughing all the way to the bank...
  • Spoomeister, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2FTFA:
    "Apple has engaged two of the most *****-thirsty and money-grubbing conglomerates in the United States -- the movie and record industries -- in what we all wanted to believe was an attempt to engage and contain them. "

    Please tell me "*****-thirsty" isn't a word in common parlance. Please. Make this word go away.
    My eyes cannot unsee what they saw...
    • Killwize, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1No *****! WTF. He might as well just called them a bunch of *****.
  • DanVersion1, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9It's simply amazing how all of you act. Everyone wanted a new nano, lower iPhone price, new iPod video and nano , and Apple goes ahead and gives us ALL of 'em. Us Apple product owners are the luckiest in the world, we get what we want every-time and this is how we show our gratitude.....

    I truly think everyone will continue bitching until they get everything they want for free.
    • tomis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And then they'll complain about the features or quality of the product with excuses like "Hey, I'd be willing to pay for product x if only they'd included my specific pet features that no one else wants!!"
      • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Like, an iPod Touch with harddisk. Noone else wants that right? If I remember correctly thats what most people were looking forward to .. an iPhone sans phone, plus harddisk. Blindingly obvious but Apple decided not to ship it yet and focus on everything but. But screen issues aside (and ignoring lack of third party app support), the current iPod Touch is excellent. It's just not what most were hoping for if the rumours beforehand are anything to go by. It's not like people werent asking/expecting it, then suddenly bitching about it afterwards.
  • ranthony, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3http://ranthonysteele.blogspot.com/2007/09/iphone- ...

    This is a subtle but important error that most of corporate America commits, on a regular basis. Nothing longer than the end of the next quarter matters to the average accountant in a large corporation (which gets back to my previous observation about large corporations and innovation) I have watched this particular progression occur over and over in the corporate world, as the accountants convince the managers that their distorted view of the bottom line is the only view that counts.

    ...and then the finger pointing concerning who's to blame for the company loosing market share begins.
    • LincolnA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was barely tolerating your pretentious blathering regarding how much you know about proper corporate financial strategy, and your shameless link to your own crappy blog... But then you said "loosing" and now I just feel sorry for you.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15This lock-in stuff reminds me of Adobe Type 1 fonts a long time ago. Adobe was the only company that could make Type 1 (scalable & hintable) fonts for PostScript. They had it locked up with some crypto stuff, and no one was getting in there.

    So Apple made TrueType (fonts) and MS made TrueImage (page description language) and cross-licensed them with each other, vowing to break Adobe's type and page layout stranglehold.

    At the same conference where MS and Apple announced this, John Warnock (of Adobe) came up to the podium for his talk, nearly in tears and announced that Adobe would open up Type 1 fonts to others.

    Apple is involved again this time, but on the other side. Apple will try to control this market until one day they realize they've lost their grip and finally have to open up.

    I agree with the article mostly, I don't agree with the games thing. If I buy Guitar Hero 3 for PS2, I don't get a free upgrade to GH3 for PS3 when I buy a PS3.
    • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4***** dude, you must be as old as me. I remember that Seybold Conference. Warnock came on right after Gates, totally shaken, attacked the whole Gates/Apple thing as *****, then opened up Postscript as the only response possible.
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Let's this on wikipedia. If you read the article on PostScript it mentions TrueType and TrueImage but just basically says they failed to beat PostScript in the marketplace. There's no mention that this MS/Apple deal led directly to the opening of Type 1 (and PostScript in general).
        • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL, Adobe probably has wiki-ers poised to keep editing history to protect the myth :p
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If a game is a rewrite or updated for a newer next-gen platform then yes, but we're talking about an identical app running on slightly newer hardware. The app will look and function identically. Nothing like going from PS2 to PS3 which is like a brand new game.
  • ozid, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5If you guys had it your way, apple would go back in to recession for another 7 years before they made another good product, then you guys would love them for two years and criticize them until they did it again.
  • clak, on 10/10/2007, -14/+13That's the dumbest article I've ever read. This guy wants Apple to license PlaysForSure from Microsoft, DRM crap that no one buys in the first place? He wants Apple to help competitors take a chunk of a market that Apple created? Listen up, moron, iPods play MP3s. If other companies truly wanted their stuff on iPods, they would release their music on MP3s. And everyone should get off this ringtone nonsense. Ringtones are not necessary for life. Yeah, they're cool and everything, but if all the ringtones were suddenly taken away this moment, guess what, you would still wake up tomorrow breathing. People have no problem allowing Verizon and all the other wireless gangsters to charge 2.49 for ringtones they can't customize and that expire every three months, but Apple wants to sell it too you for less and allows you to pick what portions of the songs to play and it's suddenly the end of the world and all we hold dear!

    And stop this third party software nonsense. Do you guys complain because the Zune or Zen or Sandisk isn't open? Why does everyone hold Apple to a double standard? Steve Jobs has tapped water from a rock and everyone wants wine. If you don't like Apple devices, go ahead, start your own company. Show everyone the right way to do it. Word of advice, stay away from these people called "shareholders" when you need to raise the money for your company. They can be really picky about, you know, getting a return on their investment. Good luck with that.
    • tomis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3There were 0 diggs on your comment when I read it. I dugg it up and it still says 0 diggs. The only explanation is that some idiot buried it while I was reading. Digg users apparently don't like well-thought responses.
      • clak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Thanks, man, I don't even know why I waste my time, because it seems like no one on Digg thinks about something before posting. All they know is what some idiot with a blog tells them. They can't decide for themselves whether the guy is actually being reasonable.
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or maybe they got as far as "Listen up, moron" and felt compelled to digg back down. No need for insults if it's really a "well-thought response".

      Ringtones are a rip off. Doesnt mean being charged twice (or three times) for a music track isnt also a rip off.

      And lack of third-party app support *is* a disappointment. Vast majority of other smartphones support this (His article included iPhone, not just iPod remember). But also bear in mind hardly anyone owns a Zune (or gives a crap about it).

      Plus people have a right to express their opinions about how a public company is being run. Having to launch their own tech company shouldnt be a prerequisute.

      And keeping customers happy is key to making money long term and therefore keeping shareholders happy.
      • clak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Oh I see, it's okay for Wil Shilpey to say Apple's partners are "*****-thirsty," and to say that Apple is bordering on being "evil" but it's so wrong for me to call him a moron for saying it. I see, that makes perfect sense. You really think Apple makes money on Ringtones? If you watched the 2007 MacWorld Keynote you would have noticed that when Steve Jobs was demonstrating docking in iTunes during his iPhone presentation, that there was a tab labeled "Ringtones," a feature which he still didn't release six months later. Steve Jobs was probably set to release Ringtones for free, but by law, the Music Industry has the legal right to proceeds from Ringtones. The Copyright Royalty Board decided this on September 14, 2006. You can go here if you don't believe me: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ringtone-decision.pd ... Despite your naive idealisms, you really can't believe that the RIAA would let Steve Jobs screw them out of a Ringtone industry that currently makes them 5 billion a year, do you?

        Apple makes their money on hardware, so they have no incentive to be "greedy," as Wil Shipley describes them. Try and get your facts straight and do a little thinking before you have a knee jerk reaction to markets you don't even understand in the first place.
    • joltguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We don't hold Apple to a "double standard". We hold them to a *higher* standard, because they've proven time and time again that they can exceed our expectations. This (brilliant) article calls out some recent situations where Apple has failed to do that.
      • clak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Let me get this straight, you think it's reasonable for Apple to license DRM media from Microsoft? Is that what you're telling me? You want Apple to actually pay Microsoft to use their the restrictive DRM on their media, when Microsoft could just as well put out their music on MP3s? Are you crazy. Furthermore, you've got all these companies constantly complaining about Apple's low prices and at least one of these companies, NBC, has pulled out of iTunes altogether while another, Universal, has threatened to pull their music and you want Apple to turn around and screw these same companies on Ringtones. Is that what you're telling me.

        Grow up, man. Steve Jobs is operating in the real world. I'm glad someone like you is not running Apple, because it would go bankrupt before the year is out. There is nothing about this article that is remotely brillant or original for that matter.
  • Volcanite, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4apple is evil and leeches off its cult - its as simple as that
  • xqb4dpx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4agreed. i love my iphone, but come on ipod touch? wtf? it looks like aphone to me.
  • bethune, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Priorities for Corporations:
    1. Stockholders
    2. Customers
    3. Employees
  • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Thanks for the pointlessly long article.
  • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3hey, if you don't like the terms then.....
    1) hack the ***** out of it
    2) don't buy one
    i believe that the RIAA ruined the ringtone feature Apple would have made open. while Apple is known to 'think different', they are new to cell phones, and had to find a partner to work with so that the things would work as well as they do. if Apple tried to launch a cell carrier in secret, with one piece of hardware, it would be a freakin' mess. some of us are old enough to remember Apple's short-lived ISP.
    i don't see any other big phones being unlocked in the USA. the RAZR2 just happens to have a few different versions for each major carrier, same deal with Blackberries and Treos. i'm sure Apple *had* to have the customer 2 year agreement so AT&T knew they would get at least two years out of the modifications they had to make to their network.
    personally i don't want a GSM phone and i don't want to be with AT&T.... so i don't have an iPhone. maybe in 5 years i'll see what happens. if i did have one i would probably not pay for stupid ringtones. i've bought 2 or 3 in my life, and they cost something like $3 and were seriously just bad midi versions of songs. 99¢ for an MP3 is a relative deal (as much as it sucks). personally i would rather find a work-around and roll my own, but that's just me. i'm used to companies not making things how i like it, and i'm generally not scared to modify them as i see fit.

    please excuse my ranting, but people are being such babies about these iPhones. i never thought there would be MORE iPhone news posts 3 months after the things came out... jeeze. i think they are cool and all, but calm the heck down.
  • clak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Could you imagine someone going up to a iPhone and thinking: "Wow, this thing has multitouch, full internet, a Video iPod, a Wifi Music Store, Google Maps, E-mail, SMS texting, Visual Voicemail, Widgets, a camera, bluetooth, and 2 dollar ringtones. Wait, 2 dollar ringtones! The iPhone is a piece of *****!"
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.