Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The baddest Apple in a rotten bunch
- Thread starter gentleman00
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Power to the people! At least until, like good little Socialists, we run out of other people's money. 
Good article, the author brought up some very valid points, like Jobs' disconnect from reality, that Apple's PR keeps well hidden. We need more like this, to keep this site from becoming fox-esque.
Not the best article...it claimed the Macs only sync with iPod, which might be true out of the box, its very do able to sync other music playing devices with programs on Mac.
Also the argument that cheap labor helped Apple isn't the strongest, sure it helped them, but it helped everyone else do, cheap labor is the reason to explain Apple's come back.
Over all, it had a few good points, but it seemed like a lot of whining on the part of the writer.
Also the argument that cheap labor helped Apple isn't the strongest, sure it helped them, but it helped everyone else do, cheap labor is the reason to explain Apple's come back.
Over all, it had a few good points, but it seemed like a lot of whining on the part of the writer.
The author of this article really doesn't drive a point that I can agree with.
The first portion of the article asks: "How has Apple succeeded?" and instead of answering the question, it decides to digress by claiming that Apple paid absolutely no attention to the Foxconn suicides and blames Apple directly for those deaths. Never mind that other companies enlist the services of Foxconn -- the author even states it in this article. I guess that Sony, Nokia, Dell, and Hewlett Packard aren't guilty by association at the least bit.
The second portion of the article starts with the author trying to play the "hey, I own Apple products too!" card, which quickly dissolves into an accusation that Apple should be investigated by the DOJ for the same reasons Microsoft was. This portion of the article attempts to insinuate that Apple's vertical integration strategy should be dissolved. The first example it brings up is iTunes' inability to sync with non-Apple branded devices. Traditionally with any music player, you either sync that music player with a piece of software shipped by its creator *or* you delve into the mess that's known as drag-and-drop. The Zune syncs with its own software (only on Windows) and only supports devices with Zune functionality. Creative's music players were either drag-and-drop or used its own software application (again, Windows only). Apple's devices sync on both Windows and Mac platforms.
Continuing on, the author decides that Apple making money and dominating the digital music industry is a bad thing. Forcing record labels to offer single songs at ninety-nine cents each and then selling its iPods at "up to $499 a pop" (in actuality, the current most expensive iPod is the 64GB iPod touch at $399) is "bad".
In the next paragraph, the author visits the exclusivity contract for the iPhone between Apple and AT&T. Instead of actually adding substance or individual opinion (or, for that matter, actually staying on subject), the author provides a quote from a book which states that Apple's iPhone is solely responsible for bringing back the Bell monopoly, not even mentioning that dozens (if not hundreds) of handsets are released every year for the American markets with exclusivity deals -- including Verizon's popular "Droid" lineup.
The paragraph afterwards attempts to explore the controversy around the App Store approval process, calling it a monopoly and using the "duplicate functionality" clause as the sole reason, without providing a single example of any app developers being turned away (which, in my opinion, damages the integrity of this article). After that, the author attacks Apple for patching up third-party jailbreaking, failing to notice that most of these patches are to discourage the use of security exploits that can also harm the devices as well as failing to mention all the other companies that play a cat-and-mouse game with third-party unsigned code (Sony is a big one, especially with its PSP and PS3 platforms).
The author continues to fail to provide evidence in his "facts", stating that Apple has copied "many of the best innovations" of iPhone apps. Additionally, for some reason, he hasn't read Apple's statement on jailbreaking in the wake of the EFF's victory.
Honestly -- do I need to continue the rest of this? The rest of the article is full of baseless insinuations that don't come with a single shred of evidence. Truthfully I'm tired of writing this response. Jason Farbman really needs to add supportive evidence to his claims if it exists and write a better article if he's to try and write any negative articles on any company at all.
The first portion of the article asks: "How has Apple succeeded?" and instead of answering the question, it decides to digress by claiming that Apple paid absolutely no attention to the Foxconn suicides and blames Apple directly for those deaths. Never mind that other companies enlist the services of Foxconn -- the author even states it in this article. I guess that Sony, Nokia, Dell, and Hewlett Packard aren't guilty by association at the least bit.
The second portion of the article starts with the author trying to play the "hey, I own Apple products too!" card, which quickly dissolves into an accusation that Apple should be investigated by the DOJ for the same reasons Microsoft was. This portion of the article attempts to insinuate that Apple's vertical integration strategy should be dissolved. The first example it brings up is iTunes' inability to sync with non-Apple branded devices. Traditionally with any music player, you either sync that music player with a piece of software shipped by its creator *or* you delve into the mess that's known as drag-and-drop. The Zune syncs with its own software (only on Windows) and only supports devices with Zune functionality. Creative's music players were either drag-and-drop or used its own software application (again, Windows only). Apple's devices sync on both Windows and Mac platforms.
Continuing on, the author decides that Apple making money and dominating the digital music industry is a bad thing. Forcing record labels to offer single songs at ninety-nine cents each and then selling its iPods at "up to $499 a pop" (in actuality, the current most expensive iPod is the 64GB iPod touch at $399) is "bad".
In the next paragraph, the author visits the exclusivity contract for the iPhone between Apple and AT&T. Instead of actually adding substance or individual opinion (or, for that matter, actually staying on subject), the author provides a quote from a book which states that Apple's iPhone is solely responsible for bringing back the Bell monopoly, not even mentioning that dozens (if not hundreds) of handsets are released every year for the American markets with exclusivity deals -- including Verizon's popular "Droid" lineup.
The paragraph afterwards attempts to explore the controversy around the App Store approval process, calling it a monopoly and using the "duplicate functionality" clause as the sole reason, without providing a single example of any app developers being turned away (which, in my opinion, damages the integrity of this article). After that, the author attacks Apple for patching up third-party jailbreaking, failing to notice that most of these patches are to discourage the use of security exploits that can also harm the devices as well as failing to mention all the other companies that play a cat-and-mouse game with third-party unsigned code (Sony is a big one, especially with its PSP and PS3 platforms).
The author continues to fail to provide evidence in his "facts", stating that Apple has copied "many of the best innovations" of iPhone apps. Additionally, for some reason, he hasn't read Apple's statement on jailbreaking in the wake of the EFF's victory.
Honestly -- do I need to continue the rest of this? The rest of the article is full of baseless insinuations that don't come with a single shred of evidence. Truthfully I'm tired of writing this response. Jason Farbman really needs to add supportive evidence to his claims if it exists and write a better article if he's to try and write any negative articles on any company at all.
Jason Farbman wrote a great article for those who like FUD.
The article is basically an incoherent collection of "concern troll" stories.
IE: Implying Apple's success is due to Foxconn suicides, etc.
The article is basically an incoherent collection of "concern troll" stories.
IE: Implying Apple's success is due to Foxconn suicides, etc.
Good for a laugh, I suppose.
Steve Jobs' "disconnect" from reality = iPads and iPhones/game-changing-products that drive the market.
If only there were more CEOs as "nuts" as Steve.
Here's an absolute gem from this article (from the "Socialist Worker", LOL):
There is nothing revolutionary about an overpriced computer crippled by an uncooperative, deliberately closed design, and manufactured under conditions so unbearable they drive people to suicide, just because people can carry it in their pockets.
Actually, Jason, there most certainly is. Just ask the industry that is responsible for the very technology allowing you to post your rantings online, digitally. They seem to think it's kind of a big deal.
Foxconn partners: Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and others.
But I suppose you have to be really successful and innovative to get special mention in a FUD article by the "Socialist Worker."
Does manufacturing a better and more desirable product make for a more interesting and newsworthy suicide?
Steve Jobs' "disconnect" from reality = iPads and iPhones/game-changing-products that drive the market.
If only there were more CEOs as "nuts" as Steve.
Here's an absolute gem from this article (from the "Socialist Worker", LOL):
There is nothing revolutionary about an overpriced computer crippled by an uncooperative, deliberately closed design, and manufactured under conditions so unbearable they drive people to suicide, just because people can carry it in their pockets.
Actually, Jason, there most certainly is. Just ask the industry that is responsible for the very technology allowing you to post your rantings online, digitally. They seem to think it's kind of a big deal.
Foxconn partners: Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and others.
But I suppose you have to be really successful and innovative to get special mention in a FUD article by the "Socialist Worker."
Does manufacturing a better and more desirable product make for a more interesting and newsworthy suicide?