Is Apple the new Microsoft?

ITUNES sucks.. It used to be zippy and fast... That with the release of... 7.0?? I wish we could go back to the days of 5.x and 6.x b/c 7 is slow and a ram hog.

Some thoughts: Apple's version of iTunes for Windows is crappy. I'm guessing this is because it was written for Unix and they've recompiled it on Windows with no attempts at optimization. But hey, you can rest easy knowing Microsoft's version of Office for Mac is pretty much hobbled in the same way. Both companies want to ensure their products work best on their native platforms in the hopes it'll drive you to abandon the "foreign" platform for theirs.

Unlike Microsoft, Apple has embraced the Open Source community (like a vampire). Sadly, both companies treat the OS community with equal disdain. Microsoft targets it with FUD and Apple scavenges it for free goodies (Darwin, Safari, etc) while giving very little back. iTunes may not work well when compiled for Windows, but why isn't there a version of iTunes compiled for FreeBSD/Darwin or Linux? Unix to Unix should be pretty darned easy and a no-brainer. My guess: Apple would like to see folks dump Linux for their OS without really understanding why people choose Open Source operating systems in the first place. (hint: no lock-in strategies to dance around.)

My question to the Apple masses is this: Can I buy a new iPod, plug it into my computer via USB, and load my own music and movies/tv shows without using iTunes? I know I used to be able to load music onto the iPod from Linux, but I'm betting the new iPod is locked-down to iTunes for any content.

Apple and Microsoft have been spending a lot of time thinking up ways to lock users into their ecosystems. Got 500 iTunes songs on your iPod, what are the chances you are going to switch to another player? Zero. (or risk losing $500 of music.) Sure, you can burn and re-rip, but the resulting music isn't what you paid for since its quality is greatly diminished by the combination of two different lossy codecs.

So why all the whining? Well, the whining is a measure of how successful Microsoft and Apple product lock-in is working. People desire Apple's great portable media players but they aren't willing to give up their Windows games, Office documents, and ability to customize their hardware. Apple users whine about the meager choice of games compiled for their OS.

What makes these companies similar in equally dark ways isn't "monopoly" but their willingness to constrain their products to the detriment of their customers for the sake of customer lock-in.

If you're okay with that and understand what it means, awesome. If, like me, you're stubborn enough to live without owning the best media player out there (iPod) because of the lock-in, congratulations! You have a choice. Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs has control of your computing life unless you willingly give it to them.

Wait, he insults iTunes for Windows, and you point out how IE6 sucks? What the crap logic is that?

iTunes on Windows _does_ suck. It's probably one of the worst programs I have to deal with on Windows. They need to seriously re-write how it accesses files as well as how it draws to the screen. Maximize it at 1680x1050, and try using Cover Flow or just scrolling through your library's song list. It's dog slow. Don't even get me started on syncing, picture conversions, and thumbnail generation.

Guys lets be honest, Apple is rapidly becoming a new Microsoft.

iTunes on PC is horrible (takes ages to load and so on...) thats why Im really missing my winamp now that I switched to mac.

Apart from the itunes issue, Apple is doing whatever they can to push their products. Perfect example of this is the apparent need for an official Apple dock to use some features of the new iPods.


Finally, lately the software updates seem to contain more bugs than it fixes. Example, a friend of mine installed a new patch for a G4 powerbook. It screwed up all the etting on the computer, deleted the address book and the iTunes library. Took the guy a full day to get everything back to their normal settings

I read the original opinion. The author could have made the same sort of criticism of other compancies like Google and Yahoo. It was not convincing. The primary characteristic that keeps Apple from being the new Microsoft is that Microsoft's (sometimes illegal) dominance exists at the level of the platform and all document creation (Windows and Office). A monopoly of music player and music store integration? Please.

I found it really ironic that this article, titled "Is Apple the New Microsoft?" was posted to TUAW immediately after an article titled "iTunes 7.4 obsolete after 48 hours; 7.4.1 breaks homebrew ringtones". If that alone doesn't answer the question, I don't know what will.

People have complained about Microsoft releasing software before it's ready for years, something the Apple community has taken great pride in - "Apple products JUST WORK" they've always said. But nowadays, Apple puts out a new patch to some piece of software I own every single week. It's gotten as bad as Microsoft's weekly security patches that everyone complains about.

@ Ben - yes, obviously it was much more than just the bundling issue, but the bundling was a big part of it. I'm not saying Microsoft didn't practice some very anti-competitive behavior or that they didn't use their market position to try to needle out competitors, I'm just pointing out, that as an analogy (and not a perfect one, no, but this is just an analogy - not a direct comparison), it isn't a fallacy of logic to say that the Windows/IE 4 bundling issue is in no way shape or form similar to the the whole iTunes Store/iPod thing - at least from the customer experience perspective. Differences absolutely exist, and in the United States, those differences are what would basically protect Apple from having a major class action turned federal anti-trust suit filed against them - but in the EU, the lawsuit against Apple for the iTunes music store is similar (not exact, but similar) to some of their lawsuits against Microsoft.

I guess because I've never found Microsoft particularly evil (yeah, they've done some shady, shady stuff - but so many big software companies have done equally shady stuff), I don't find the mere comparison - even if it is in strictly hyperbolic terms (and it was - that's what I think many comments have failed to grasp - the whole thing was written in hyperbole) - offensive or damaging to Apple. I have had good experiences with both companies - honestly, I've had better software/use experience with Apple, but from a customer service end, dealing with upgrades or licensing issues or what have you - and this goes back to the mid 1990s - Microsoft has never, ever been problematic, but Apple hasn't always been as willing to help out.

The fact is, Apple has always had a closed system for their hardware/software - the iPod was their first product to actually work on a different platform, and while that is precisely why the iPod has been so successful, that is also going to open Apple up to more criticism (and the criticism isn't all wrong), if for no other reason than the fact that you have more users to support.

I would never buy an iPhone because i like my digital phone plain not with an mp3 player and all the rest. I would never buy music on the iTunes or any other digital store. i like my music free of charge from the public library well is not free because of taxes.

Apple can't really be the new Microsoft. Apple doesn't do business like Microsoft does, because Apple targets a certain aspect of the market, whereas Microsoft targets the whole market. Apple generally goes after typical consumers who are looking for the ideal computer to help them do their daily tasks and allow for some easy creative opportunities. They also foster a growing market of users who utilize the security and user-friendliness for professional application. Microsoft shoots for EVERYBODY, from your simple "I need a computer" people to Corporate Enterprise and everywhere inbetween. Microsoft is a software company, that's what they drive their profits from, software, specifically Windows. Apple understands a certain marriage between software and hardware and deems both necessary to develop. Apple's motto is "Enriching Lives," and that is the esteemed goal. The company NEVER releases a product to the minority and spends too much time assisting the majority that they've found that they can't cater to everyone. If Apple were merely a hardware company (like Dell etc.), then of course the iPod would have to work without software, because Apple would have never written any software, but since Apple wrote iTunes and made the iPod, they want to know that nothing would divorce the two from eachother.

The REAL PROBLEM these last few months has been with people not knowing WHAT they WANT from this company. When Apple releases a stand-alone, single-function product (TV), people are markedly upset that it doesn't record cable, it doesn't have an HD player, and that iTunes doesn't feature HD content. When Apple releases a combination product, people want everything, but this feature, everything, but that feature. I'm owning an iPhone and I love it. It's the only phone I've ever said that I liked. Why? Because Apple's strategy of having both iTunes and iPhone is pure market Genius that nobody could ever top. --More to come.

@ Christina

I'm pretty sure the issue in US v. Microsoft was not the inclusion of Microsoft browsers or the bundling of software. It was Microsoft's abuse of it's dominant market position to force computer manufacturers to exclude competing products by refusing to issue software licenses to manufacturers that didn't comply.

That is the type of anticompetitive behavior that is problematic. Bundling software isn't.