I am proud to exclusively present the following Guest Post from Mariana Ashley:
Apple is one of the most recognized brands around the world, and, at least according to a recent Barron’s survey, one of the most respected. Still, not everyone is Apple crazy, as an earlier post about why people love to hate Apple indicated. Apple is always in the news, so I knew something was up when I saw the phrase "Mac-lash" being bandied about on the Internet over the past few days.
Several news outlets used the term "Mac-lash", so let’s look at one such article, published in the UK newspaper The Independent. The thrust of this and other related articles is that the Apple business model may be unsustainable in the long-term. Experts cite a growing discontent from not just developers and publishers, but customers, too. Quoting UK journalism professor Paul Bradshaw, The Independent article notes:
"I’ve been a consumer of Apple products for a while and I’ve very definitely decided not to get an iPad. Apple is increasingly closed and controlling and I think with the iPad they’ve crossed a line to a place where the usability that Apple is so famous for is being undermined by the lack of adaptability. There are so many things that you can’t do with content on an iPad that it makes for quite a poor user experience if you are anything other than a basic user."
Basically, the argument goes that Apple products differentiate themselves by (1) portraying itself as something of luxury item, (2) portraying itself as an "alternative" or "rebellious" product, (3) justifying higher prices by delivering a generally higher quality product , (4) being a closed system in which everything is designed to get you to buy more Apple products.
With the iPad, Number (1) became less relevant, as prices of many of their products fell such that way more people can afford them, in the process losing some of the snob appeal. Same goes with Number (2); now that too many people own Apple gizmos and gadgets, their iconic 1984 commercial seems laughably ironic. Number (3) still holds, and Number (4) is what is angering a growing number of people.
Those who argue that the closed, rigid, some would say almost "old school" business tactics, in which collaboration is insular and products don’t adapt across different platforms, puts Apple at a disadvantage with its competitors like Google. And Number (3), the idea that Apple products are still superior, easy to use, secure, and are generally of a higher quality is what Steve Jobs says makes Apple better.
Jobs noted in a statement last October that open systems aren’t always better, and he attributes his products’ superiority precisely to the way he runs his business, despite it being somewhat reactionary in a climate in which "open" is the hottest buzzword. Detractors say that Apple’s success in terms of delivering hot, in-demand products, is largely attributed to Jobs’ creative genius itself, and that once he goes, Apple will go down with it.
What do you think? Is Apple’s future secured, or will it have to change in some ways to keep up with the competition?
Source: Mariana Ashley is a freelance writer who particularly enjoys writing about online colleges. She loves receiving reader feedback, which can be directed to mariana.ashley031@gmail.com.
It’s true that using Apple products means giving up control of many things, including how you purchase apps (for Mac, now with the Mac App Store, as well as iOS), how much you can customize your hardware, and the look and feel.
For many people it’s worth giving up that freedom to customize in order to have products that supposedly work better (in the sense that the hardware and software are made or tightly controlled by just one company). Many of my clients (I am a Mac consultant) do not want to do anything super sophisticated with their tech, they want to write emails and use the internet and have calendar and contacts and spreadsheets. So they’re perfectly happy and don’t feel restricted.
For others, giving up that freedom isn’t what they want–so they are the ones buying Android phones and running Linux on their PCs. I could see myself moving in that direction at some point down the line, if Apple’s grip becomes tighter and tighter. I still want to be able to play around with my tech.
I switched to Apple because of the reliability and I will pay a premium for that.
As a former Windows user, you adapt and work around the snafus inherent in computing. And in Windows, there are far too many.
In Mac, there are fewer and adapting is part of the process learned in your earlier life.
This closed sector argument surely does not hold up when it comes to apps as they are designed and sold through Mac’s app regime by outside designers. Mac users can buy Word, the most widely used word processing system, or switch to Open Office for your word processing. So, the closed argument does not convince me, as a practical user of the Apple products, that one should feel limited or constrained by the Apple system of computing.
55 Android apps were recently discovered to have an imbedded Trojan called appropriately enough DroidDream. Google, like apple, maintains a “kill switch” which allowed it to turn off these apps remotely. There is some question as to whether Google has done this yet.
One website Infosecurity USA (http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/16360/droiddream-trojan-is-a-nightmare-for-thousands-of-android-users/) described the malware thusly:
“Tim Armstrong, a researcher at Kaspersky Labs, said that he downloaded Super Guitar Solo and found it contained the Droid Dream trojan. ‘The application will attempt to gather product ID, device type, language, country, and userID among other things, and then upload them to a remote server….This discovery is important because up until now most of the Android malware has been found outside of the Android Market, which requires a number of special steps to be taken in order to infect the phones. In this case, users are even able to install from the web with the new Android Market format.’â€
So the virus is contained in downloads directly from Google’s app store, and it is clearly malicious. How these viruses got into the commercial apps is something we want to know, and I am sure Apple’s app approvers want to know too.
Any system is vulnerable to some degree or another. Apple’s is probably less so, but it may be a matter of time before someone sneaks malware among the 350,000 apps already approved.
A model based on trendiness is absolutely unsustainable. Apple products aren’t superior because Steve says they are. If the hardware is better than what is out there then it would be. It is not. As someone who has been in the legal IT field for a while, most users I deal with do not understand what software they not only need to get tasks accomplished, but need to cooperate with other professionals. If you want to use your phone/netbook/tablet in a professional setting, please get professional advice. If everyone did that this blog would immediately shut down.
Your mother may be able to use an iphone. That should make it less appealing to professionals. Especially when law firms have entire staffs of people designated to coordinate their digital infrastructure.
Stop wearing your ignorance on your sleeves.