Apple misunderstandings

In a New York Times Opinionator piece, Robert Wright contends that in spite of Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs' "authoritarian tendencies," which include decisions to ban porn and "some kinds of political commentary" from the iPhone and iPad App Stores, Jobs is not on the road to becoming Big Brother.

I agree, and not just for the finicky reason that the term "Big Brother," borrowed from George Orwell's 1984, properly applies only to a government entity that exerts the kind of content control about which people seem to be worrying. (If Orwell had written his dystopian novel in 1984, he might well have made "Big Brother" a corporate icon rather than the equivalent of Uncle Sam, but we'll never know.) Corporations exert enormous influence on modern life and get away with behavior for which a flesh-and-blood person would go to jail, but corporations and their brands can go from being trusted to reviled, or forgotten, in the blink of an eye (small consolation, yes, but that's what the Supreme Court's declaration of the equivalence of corporations to human beings has left us). How's your BP stock these days? Does Toyota still have the sterling reputation it had five years ago? Flown Pan Am or TWA lately?

As Wright put it:

The nature of the digital landscape makes it hard to be both a control freak and a global hegemon. And Jobs’s history suggests that he’ll choose control over power.

It's worth clarifying something right off the bat, by the way: by "control," Wright means control of the "platform," "platform" being a useful shorthand for whatever device is under discussion (Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iPad, iPod, iPhone). "Power," on the other hand, is Wright's shorthand for "global hegemony." Wright's point, then, is that Jobs wants full control over whatever piece of the world is available to him, rather than domination of as much of the world as possible.

This seems as rational an explanation for Jobs' and Apple's behavior as any I've seen. I can understand if people don't agree with this explanation, and the commenters on his piece include some who don't. A few, however, miss the point for various reasons, and since I'm too lazy to log onto the Times' site to rebut them ...

"mymoon" in comment 10 wrote:

You're kidding, right? He wants to take over the world. Otherwise, he's not serving his shareholders. He wants to take over the world.

("Blad" in comment 188 made a similar remark.)

Serving shareholders means maximizing the value of their investment, and you don't have to rule the world to do that. By way of illustration, let's compare Microsoft's stock performance to that of Apple, since Microsoft arguably is the poster child for the "rule the world to serve your shareholders" point of view. Microsoft's stock closed at $33.4375 on 5 June 2000 and at $25.89 on 1 June 2010, including a 2-for-1 split in 2003; Apple's closed at $22.8281 on 5 June 2000 and at $260.83 on 1 June 2010, including 2-for-1 splits in 2000 and 2005. (Figures are from dailyfinance.com.) Microsoft distributed a dividend in that period while Apple didn't, but I doubt the dividend has made up for the disparity in stock price performance. If you had invested $100 in both companies on 5 June 2000, which investment would you have felt better about on 1 June 2010?

"Alvin" in comment 17 said that Apple emphasizes form over function:

You need to be somewhat of a tech enthusiast (or, at the very least, understand computers a little bit) to appreciate the value of function; to harness the true power of, say, a Windows-based computer or an Android-based handset. Once you realize how much more you can do, how many more options you have, how much freedom you have to tailor the entire experience to your liking, there's really no argument as to how form can be more valuable than function.

I confess that until recently I counted myself in "Alvin's" camp. In fact, I was an even more effete snob, if you consider effeteness to increase as market penetration decreases, since I've used *nix boxen (including Macs) almost exclusively and feel most comfortable at the shell prompt.

However, when the iPad was announced and I reflected on What It Meant, I realized that what Apple did with the iPad, and previously had done with the iPhone, was to make an appliance that just happened to have many of the guts of a computer and a variation on a commercial computer operating system at its heart. The point is that Apple focused on the appliance part rather than the computer part. Most people don't tinker with their microwave oven or their vacuum cleaner. Most people don't want to tinker with their computer, either. That's hard for computer enthusiasts to understand, because for them tinkering is the primary joy (albeit not always the primary purpose) of owning the machine. However, for most people, the computer is a tool with which to accomplish something else. Tinkering with it isn't uppermost on their minds and they only do so when they must, which with current desktop machines and laptops is lamentably often. That's the appeal of computers-as-appliances. If Android endures, it will be because the devices it supports are good appliances that work well for a large enough part of the market, not because the OS can be modified by the end user.

I reproduce comment 23, by "JH," in its entirety:

Microsoft Vs Apple -The United States VS the Soviet Union.

Notice how Conservative Republican Bill Gates who grew up in the 1970's created an open operating system that allowed ANYONE to develop any application and do anything-an open digital democracy.

Then look at Liberal Hippie Steve Jobs who traveled the world seeking "enlightenment" in the 1970's who then created a closed digital command and control system operating system-a Soviet Style operating system-who's applications are dictated from the "Central Committee" of Apple Headquarters.

You would think things would have turned out EXACTLY opposite given currently accepted stereotypes-you would think.

The sound of an axe being ground was unpleasantly loud, wasn't it?

I hope "JH's" job isn't teaching history because s/he has a lamentably poor grasp of it, and knows even less about the technological side of things. The misspelling of "whose" disqualifies "JH" to be an English teacher, while the childish capitalization of "conservative" and "liberal hippie" for (little) effect make "serious political commentator" unlikely. The quality of the thinking and the writing, though, make it entirely possible that s/he makes a living as an analyst.

"ridge guy" in comment 51 wrote:

Dislike the ever-narrowing gates of choice with respect to applications and functions for iPhone - don't want Mr. Jobs to block apps that I find valuable.

I can empathize with this sentiment, but I think it's slightly misleading in that it makes it sound like the problem is existing apps being removed from the App Store. Although that is a concern, it's not the main issue.

Developers have two main complaints about Apple's iPhone/iPad app review process: (1) the interpretation of the App Store's rules for developers by Apple reviewers is inconsistent and fraught with ambiguity; and (2) Apple reserves the right to change those rules at any time, even retroactively.

Some apps retroactively have been deemed unsuitable for distribution through the App Store, and that is a damned shame for those developers and a black eye for Apple. The explanation most charitable to Apple is that the retroactive removals are a side effect of proceeding up a steep learning curve. That's no consolation to the affected developers, of course, nor is there any guarantee that Apple won't rewrite its rules and retract already approved apps in the future.

However, the number of apps retroactively banned is relatively small (so far). The bigger concern is that these two large developer complaints are discouraging other developers from creating apps we can't imagine. We don't know what we're missing, in other words.

The value of untapped potential is impossible to gauge, of course, but the existence of policies that make untapped potential more likely is damaging to Apple and its customers.

In comment 53, "Harry Applebaum" wrote:

When Robert Wright starts a company in his garage and that company becomes as successful as Apple, then Robert Wright will be free to offer his critique of Steve Jobs.

This kind of boneheadedness is what Apple's critics like to call "fanboyism." And they're right.

In comment 95, "Al Feldzamen" wrote a lengthy entry that was a little hysterical at times. I'll excerpt only what I need.

In the late 18th, the 19th, and early 20th centuries, "company towns" began to be formed, small communities centered around a factory -- towns that had "company stores" to provide the workers with foodstuffs, clothing, fabrics, hardware goods, etc. In time, these stores came to be considered symbols of oppression.

I'll bet you can already see where he's going, but let's continue:

Imagine, for example, the furor that would arise today were Microsoft to engineer a new Windows operating system that would prevent totally using any word processor other than its own WORD application. Only this year did the European Union force Microsoft to present other internet browsers than its own EXPLORER on an equal footing in the latest version of WIndows.

But Apple, always fiercely defended by its ultra-loyal devoted partisans, has seemingly managed to create its own "company store," successfully selling one data handling device to which it totally controls normal access, the iPhone, and now the iPad.

The last paragraph doesn't parse for me, but I'll assume he means that Apple allows unmodified iPhones and iPads to download apps only from the Apple App Store. That's true. That doesn't constitute total control of "normal access" to these devices, however. Safari can access most Web content, for instance (though not supporting Flash edges Apple closer to the dark place Feldzamen imagines it already to be).

Certainly, Apple has the right to sell what it wishes in its own stores, but preventing others from selling software to its products? That's precisely the 21st century update of the "company store."

A "company town" was (and is) reviled because its inhabitants, the company's own employees, were forced to live there. Rents, and prices at the company store, were set so the inhabitants could never afford to quit, rendering them indentured servants for all intents and purposes.

I'm not sure where Feldzamen sees the analogy to company towns in the Apple situation. "Preventing others from selling software to its products" sounds like he's claiming that customers are being held hostage, which is nonsense. Customers can leave any time they like (ignoring AT&T's exorbitant early-termination fee, which is not under Apple's control). Developers, on the other hand, may feel they have no choice but to code for what seems like the most lucrative platform. However, that's not what Feldzamen's words say. (Google is mounting a vigorous challenge in Android, and we've yet to see what HP will do with Palm's WebOS, so even middling developers will very likely have more viable choices before long.) (UPDATE: the words of HP CEO Mark Hurd don't bode well for HP building on Palm's smartphone work, but it's still too soon to tell.)

Finally:

Perhaps Apple's "company store" policy can also be voided, because Apple does have a quasi-monopoly, established by its restrictive operating systems, over the hardware universe it has pioneered.

This made me smile. One of the persistent criticisms of Apple by technically knowledgeable people is that Apple has never "invented" its vaunted innovations from scratch. "Never" is, perhaps, too strong, but consider that the original Macintosh's graphical user interface was pioneered at Xerox PARC, while the original iPod was far from the first digital music player. It's therefore ironic to hear an Apple critic talking about a "hardware universe it has pioneered."

However, again, if a monopoly exists, developers are the oppressed ones, not customers. And as I noted above, Google and others are doing their best to give developers, and customers, choices other than Apple.

"FTJ" in comment 103 wrote:

When is Wright, wrong. It is when Robert Wright says Steve jobs is a control freak. Great creativity is happening at Apple. Creativity does not happen with a control freak. Think about! What Steve Jobs controls is the philosophy of how the company is run.

Wright confined his analysis to what customers see. How Jobs runs his company is a separate matter. I doubt he's a micromanager: people like that tend to lose strategic focus too easily, and loss of strategic focus is not one of the criticisms leveled at him. I'm sure, however, that he's detail-oriented and doesn't allow products to go out the door looking or behaving other than as he wishes. That degree of control doesn't necessarily hurt creativity.

Comment 122 from "Tone" bluntly concluded:

Use Apple products? You're supporting low-wage

sweatshops with an inherently toxic environment.

The Taiwanese company Foxconn has experienced a rash of suicides, the news coverage of which, as well as accompanying accusations of poor working conditions and low wages, have caused concern for Apple and other companies that contract with Foxconn.

On the other hand, if there is a manufacturer of electronic devices whose entire supply and assembly chain is devoid of sweatshop labor, that manufacturer is hiding its light under a bushel. That's not to trivialize the subject, but rather, to show that the problem goes well beyond Apple.

In comment 129, "Paul" wrote:

An iPhone/Pod/Touch/Pad is nothing more than a Linux computer with a neat touch screen user interface.

Although "Paul" claims he's "computer literate," he evidently doesn't know as much as he thinks.

Speaking pedantically, Linux (the operating system kernel) is nowhere to be found in the Apple ecosystem. Max OS X is derived from both "classic" Mac OS, the operating system that powered Macs through OS 9, and NeXTStep, the Mach-based OS that powered NeXT computers. iOS (formerly known as iPhone OS), in turn, is based on Mac OS X, with parts of the OS significantly modified to account for the demands and constraints of non-Macintosh devices. iOS powers both the iPhone and iPad. (According to a 2004 article from MacTech, iPods run Mac OS X, though it seems likely what they run is closer to iOS than Mac OS X, iPod hardware being what it is. It's not clear that one can tell the difference between OS X and iOS without knowing kernel version numbers.)

Speaking philosophically, "nothing more than a Linux computer" is an example of the shortsightedly dismissive attitude that many software folks have with regard to what might be called "user experience." "Paul" doesn't understand why the fit and finish of a computer interface -- especially of an interface that is designed to provide an appliance-like experience -- is important. It's hard to make a good user interface that supports a good user experience. I daresay that most software engineers who have tried will attest to that.

Another excerpt from "Paul's" comment:

Jobs doesn't see the device user as his only customer. He wants to be a content provider and a content channel, and he wants a piece of the retail and the advertising revenue. To do that he has control the delivery channel (iTunes), and to do that he has to close the underlying Linux operating system.

I can understand interpreting Jobs' and Apple's behavior in this way, although I happen to disagree. (And again, Apple doesn't ship its devices with Linux.)

iTunes started as a way to manage music, period. I believe that the iTunes (né iTunes Music) Store was a way to keep Macs and iPods from being perceived as piracy enablers by the RIAA -- essentially, it was a necessary sop to the music industry to keep Apple out of distracting and draining legal fights over unauthorized content distribution. If you happen to believe this is so, then providing content is a necessary -- well, perhaps not "evil," but a necessary cost of doing the business of selling hardware and software that, among other things, let customers consume media.

The interests of a hardware manufacturer and a content provider are not always aligned. Hardware historically has been content-neutral (you wouldn't want your Sony DVD player not to play DVDs published by Warner Brothers), while the advent of more and more effective copying technologies has made content providers more and more concerned with thwarting unpaid copying. The most effective way of fighting unpaid duplication of content is to get manufacturers to implement copy protection (what an Orwellian piece of doubletalk) in hardware, which unlike software still poses a high barrier for users to bypass. However, adding that kind of functionality is expensive and hard to market to consumers (would you consider "makes it harder to copy movies!" a good slogan for your product?), rendering the work less than attractive to hardware folks. (With HDCP, content providers finally got their wish.)

In my opinion, Apple would be crazy to try to straddle the two worlds of creating content and delivering that content to the end user. If Steve Jobs has made that same calculation, then Wright's analysis is the correct one: Apple's control is not about getting as much of the revenue stream as possible, as "Paul" contends, but rather, it's about providing the user experience Jobs wants for content delivery -- and creating content is not in Apple's future.

In comment 137, "R Russell" wrote:

Just how many billions per month does Apple spend on marketing? I head six a long time ago.

("head," presumably, should be "heard")

The sarcasm would have been more effective if "R Russell" had stopped after the question. Pretending to answer it with "six" irritated me enough to look up the actual figure. According to CNN Money, Apple spent $501 million for all of fiscal year 2009. By comparison, Microsoft spent $1.4 billion and Dell $811 million.

Why did I spend so much time on commenters to this one op-ed piece? I don't know. I suppose I've read too many silly and uninformed pro- and anti-Apple remarks on the Web, and this was my way of declaring, "A plague on both your houses!"

[EDIT: "maximimizing" --> maximizing]

[NOTE: I've discovered that the links to the dailyfinance.com quotations for Microsoft and Apple are dynamic searches, so the 5 June 2000 values are no longer available. After enough time has elapsed, the 1 June 2010 values won't be accessible via those links, either. If you're reading this, it's a surprise to me: I expect this blog to be a singleton, unlinked to the rest of the Web, so I'm not going to spend more time finding a permanent source for the stock information. Sorry about that.]