Re: About the Dark Side

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ole Jacobsen <ole () cisco com>
Date: October 1, 2007 11:42:20 PM EDT
To: Andrew Burnette <acb () acb net>
Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     About the Dark Side
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole () cisco com>

Comments in line.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Burnette wrote:

> Ole,
>
> I agree with your statements.
>
> Sorry if I replied to your particular response and gave the  
> impression that I
> disagreed with your statements.
>
> I simply find the fact that AT&T is behaving as expected, and apple  
> as a
> hardware lock-in vendor behaves exactly as expected is a surprise  
> to anyone.
> Neither have altered their behavior in any way, shape or form for  
> several
> decades. (disclaimer: I was network architect for AS7018 back in  
> the 1990's)

No arguments about AT&T, but I am not sure I agree about Apple. Yes,
Apple certainly controls both the hardware and software of their
devices, but this is as far as I know the FIRST time Apple has
actually decided to meddle with the relationship between the customer
and his/her SERVICE provider.

Take the iPod as an example. The iPod is sold everywhere in the world.
The iPod does NOT require the use of the iTunes music store, you can
stick any of your CDs or any MP3 onto an iPod and Apple does not care.
Apple similarly does not care how (or even if) you connect to the
Internet although their registration screen for new devices kind of
assumes that you do have a connection of some kind. (But you can say
"no" and that's that).

But with the iPhone Apple has, as far as I know, for the FIRST time in
history, released an actual hardware device in one and only one
country and basically made it impossible for users to buy that device
if they happen to live in some other part of the world. Slowly, more
regions are being added (UK, Germany), through more "exclusive deals",
but this really goes against the Apple model of providing ONE (albeit
localized) experience. Nor does it scale well. If Apple REALLY wants
to sell iPhones, they will, well, have to SELL them and let users do
whatever the hell they want with them. One can only hope that the
greedy bastards realize this...

> I for one, believe that Microsoft would have a serious competitor  
> in the
> desktop space had apple chosen to license rather than litigate.  I  
> *love*
> their OS, but refuse to pay 5x for mediocre hardware one can  
> purchase for
> linux, *bsd, and windows.  Ok, nice looking package, but in my  
> office, it sits
> under the desk in a Lian Li case, which is far superior to anything  
> apple
> sells today or yesterday, again, for a fraction of the price.

I am not sure I agree that Apple hardware is "mediocre" and I have
owned more Apple hardware than most people, but that's all a matter of
personal experience. If Apple had chosen to licence the OS, they would
most likely have been OUT of the hardware business by now, and I
really do not think that would be a good thing. Apple is still more
than capable of true innovation, witness the Apple TV, or the iPhone
for that matter.

Ole


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com