Ask HN: Has Apple become an "evil company"? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Has Apple become an "evil company"?

9 pointsreedF2117 comments

I think in the past 4 years or so Apple has dramatically changed, for me it is no longer the cute cuddly company of the early 2000s and esp since the iPhone launch Apple seem to be indulging in monopolistic and anti-competitive practices similar to Microsoft in early 90's/early 2000s. This latest stunt of gouging developers is the last straw for me. It seems to be part of Apple's march to become the new Microsoft in "evilness"

View on HN

This isn't a change. They've been doing everything they can to reduce tinkerers to consumers ever since the first Mac (with no retail boards, no expansion slots, and a dealer-only case opening tool). Now they assert a degree of control that not even Microsoft at their most ruthless would have dared. It astonishes me that developers were so blasé about this threat (at least the ones whose businesses weren't blown up by capricious last-minute rejections) until they actually saw a price tag on it.

Apple was never cute, nor cuddly, just your perception of it. I started in technology at the Berkeley Mac Users Group in the mid-80's while in my early teens. I was around when Microsoft was clearly the dominant leader in business and Apple, while highly valued was an graphic artist and midi gadget company and a non-serious contender in business environments. Wait, they still, mostly are!

Apple is now significantly larger in revenue than Microsoft; something I never thought would happen. Could they be 'evil' for taking the formula they started with and being true to their core? They have never wavered from their brand, or their goals. It's amazing really and should serve as a principle to anyone doubting their model or method of doing business.

Apple has always protected its IP, maintained strict controls of development and access, as prodigal_erik says below so succinctly. You bought Apple; or you bought the other guy. Nothing has changed, just the volume of business and the numbers who have adopted the various products.

> monopolistic and anti-competitive practices

Any examples of these? Honestly, I can think none. Wanting their cut from stuff sold in their app store for their platform is absolutely fair, IMO.

Apple doesn't even have a monopoly, like MS ha[sd] in desktop OS market. Apple don't do falsifying anti-Linux/FOSS campaigns, lobby standard committee for substandard standards, ship substandard software (IE, Outlook) with their OS, or stop innovating for years when their bundled crap software becomes default choices because of their OS monopoly, etc.

Want to run your [non-3D/non-high FPS] software on iOS without Apple's permission, paying $100 for developer licence or learning Objective-C? Make it a web app with simple HMTL/CSS/JS (see the demos at http://jqtouch.com). You can have native feeling, run it fullscreen, have a homescreen icon etc. All of these friendly supported by Apple.

> Any examples of these? I can think none. Wanting their cut from stuff sold in their app store for their platform is absolutely fair, IMO.

I haven't been following this too closely yet, but my understanding is that if your app has any kind of content subscription component, regardless of whether you are using itunes billing, you need to make it available in itunes and give Apple their cut. Correct me if my understanding is flawed.

I don't have a problem with Apple taking 30% for distribution, but if they say you can't even release an app unless your content goes through their distribution channel, that's just a huge kick in the nuts for a scrappy content-based company like mine. Honestly, we don't give a shit about Apple's monopoly position, we want to build a great app on the best platform, but Apple is basically saying that they don't want us on their platform unless we also let them do our content distribution, something which directly takes away our core business. If Apple insists on this, then they're basically driving us into the arms of Android, regardless of how inferior it is because 30% is a non-starter.

How warm and cuddly Apple was in the early 1990's is certainly open to interpretation - I saw them sell a Title I Junior High a computer lab full of Apple IIGS's in 1991. The difference today is that developers are finally realizing that Apple doesn't think they're cool because they love the iPad - they're just a resource for providing labor on a pay when paid basis.

I don't think they've become anything. Their actions are consistent with what they've always done. It's more apparent today because their policies affect many more people. My startup launched a campaign on http://www.mylastiphone.com to protest their greedy practices.

Yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com