Recently, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch fame, posted The Truth: What’s Really Going On With Apple, Google, AT&T And The FCC. This story is clearly another bleeding heart “that company won’t let the other company’s kid play in my playground,” which I find is prevalent in the computer industry. I’m not sure at what point people within the industry decided the computer business should be a democracy. I’m also mystified as to why people have such a sense of entitlement in regards to what can or cannot run on a device. This is the argument Arrington makes with his article, lambasting Apple for being a closed system and not letting others, in this case Google, play. In the real world of engineering and marketing, this is a completely bogus sediment, yet for some reason the computer industry’s customer base tends to expect this from its member companies. The funny this is, this rant from Arrington is not about a traditional computer at all–it’s about a mobile telephone.
Here’s a copy of my comment to his post:
Apple, Google, Microsoft and other titans of the industry can do whatever the hell they want when it comes to allowing things to work or not work on their devices. In the real world it’s been that way for years. I’m not sure how the computer industry has grown into this democracy, where its customers have this sort of sense of entitlement.
In the real world, companies like Panasonic make video cameras that don’t work with other people’s software. Other companies make remote controls that aren’t compatible with another brand’s remotes. Mercedes-Benz Nav system doesn’t allow BMW’s Nav discs, although they do the same thing. My blender doesn’t use the same carafe as any other company’s blender or even from the company that made mine. Closer to the techosphere, Grand Turismo is not available on any other console but PlayStation.
So why should Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, Sony or anyone else create any software or service that works with anyone else’s devices? And worse, why is he government getting involved? Apple’s “monopolistic” practices with it’s phone are not any more closed than Microsoft’s Outlook Express database format.
Or how about how Verizon closes off bluetooth data on nearly all of the phones it sells? While AT&T or T-Mobile may sell the same phone (in GSM version of course), you cannot sync data to it or browse the phone with bluetooth if it’s on Verizon’s network. No one is investigating Verizon over that, yet they’ve closed many capabilities of handsets they sell, which are made by other manufacturers like Motorola, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, etc for years!
If Apple came into this space as ACME Mobile Phone and created a phone that blew everyone away, had a theretofore unmatched user experience and the market responded with zeal, waiting in line to get one, would this discussion even be? I think because Apple is a computer company, this argument exists. If Apple were ACME, people would just buy a different phone and could care less about how open or closed the company is. It’s not a monopoly if you have choice and you have a choice to buy any other smart phone. Just like how you can download Firefox to replace IE. None of this is monopolistic, just competitive advantage.
When Ford makes a car with a catalytic converter that is compatible with one from BMW, and performs better and I have a choice to buy BMW’s version to replace Ford’s, then I’ll believe in this utopian society created by techies who argue about open source. The reality is a BMW’s catalytic wouldn’t fit on a Ford and probably wouldn’t work right on it anyway, because it wasn’t designed by the company that engineered the car in the first place. It may be a better catalytic, but it doesn’t fit on the Ford. Perhaps I should lobby the NHTSA to make sure BMW makes parts that fit on a Ford? Not in the real world.
August 23, 2009
Editorial, Technology