Outrage over Apple's apparent desire to control what their customers run on Apple' mobile devices is growing louder. This is precipitated by Apple's recent update to iPhone's SDK license, banning applications built using cross-platform compilers such as Adobe's Flash (just four days before Adobe released an updated version with improvements that would've made Flash work better on the iPhone).
It is then not a surprise to see Slate.com recently publish an article titled "Apple Wants to Own You" explaining the extent of Apple's desire to control the devices you buy from them and extolling the virtues of the open world.
What this article, and others expressing discontent over Apple's practices, fail to mention or realize is that you do not have to let Apple "own" you. It is only a matter of choice. You will either accept Apple's deal or take your business elsewhere.
The Masochistic Habit
Unfortunately, many people seem to have a rather strange idea about how this is supposed to work. They go and buy Apple's devices, even with full knowledge of restrictions that come with it, and then they complain and express outrage over how "evil" Apple is for providing them with such a restrictive deal. They agree to all of the terms which are the condition for them to legally buy a device, and complain about those terms after the fact.
Yet, by buying Apple's products, they increase their hold on the market as well as their bottom line, providing Apple all of the right market signals they need to just continue doing what they are doing.
Likewise, application developers choose to develop applications for the iPhone platform, also with full knowledge of the Apple's restrictive deal, and then complain when Apple does something, in accordance to their own well known business practices, which harms those developer's business. By developing applications for the iPhone they too reinforce Apple's position on the market by making it more attractive to potential buyers.
One might humorously remark that both Apple's customers and app developers, who complain about the pain Apple inflicts on them, are some kind of masochists. They just keep coming for more.
Unfortunately, there is a point at which this becomes no laughing matter. The way a lot of people think about business practices of various companies they would often rather proclaim Apple immoral than change their own buying habits. They would come up with some entitlements, proclaimed as "consumer rights", that would call on Apple to change their behavior even if the market signals don't require them to, the same signals caused by the very people who raise fuss. In extreme cases this can lead to calls for the use of force against Apple via government action (some are already talking about that option).
What a ridiculous strategy. To recap, first you buy from a company you know is providing you with a bad deal, then complain about it providing you with such a bad deal and then want to use force against it to stop it from providing you with a bad deal, after you yourself accepted it. All of this, instead of simply refusing to buy from them, and/or calling on others to do the same.
Action speaks louder than words. This is why market action will always override whatever you have to say about Apple or any other company whose behavior you disapprove of.
The Wrong Target
If you, however, have not purchased any of Apple's mobile devices, but are among the ones expressing discontent, would it not be the best for your discontent to target Apple's customers more so than Apple itself? The fact that they buy from Apple is what keeps Apple from doing what it is. That's what businesses do; they strive for profit. If their current strategy earns them profit why change it?
The only way you can give them a reason to change it is to persuade a great enough number of potential and current customers not to buy from them until their practices change.
In any case, proclaiming those practices and the deal that Apple offers as somehow immoral or unethical is completely foolish. And to go even further and think that Apple must be forced to change their deal while it is still being willingly accepted by so many customers is an affront not only to Apple, but those customers as well. It is an act of disrespect to the choices of other individuals like you. It is one thing to call for a boycott. It is quite another to call for what is essentially an act of violence to compel someone to behave according to your own opinions.
The Root Cause
It may be interesting to note that the fact that Apple does have the market share it does means that a lot of people, whether they complain or not, seem fine with the deal Apple provides them with. This reflects the willingness of a rather large amount of people to give away a lot of personal power for some convenience. They let Apple "own" them, or their devices at least, and do so of their own free will.
This also reflects a rather low esteem for the very thing that critics of Apple's practices clamor for; the ability to choose, from an open decentralized ecosystem, and the ability to be in control over your gadgets.
This seems to indicate a deeper societal mentality which may be the root cause behind the emergence of closed systems, consumer control, rampant loss of privacy and even diminishing of liberties to an increasingly overarching government. Maybe it is that mentality which should be targeted more so than a behavior of companies which respond to it. After all, the market gets only what the market demands.
While it is true that those companies play a large role in encouraging and maintaining such a mentality through their marketing, this only underscores the need to target that way of thinking far more prominently than specific behaviors which it manifests. Why does such marketing work to begin with if not because its messages actually appeal to a lot of people?
Finding out why are they appealing, and addressing that, would probably be the best way to start. If you want to change the effects you first need to look at the cause.
Domino effect image courtesy of aussiegall.
No related posts.