In the 1980's, IBM was viewed by many small start ups as this sort of all seeing eye that controlled everything, turning it's users into mindless drones that were unaware that things could be better. Back then, Apple was the company who had access to the light; who had access to that something better. And they wanted IBM to know that they were gunning for them. So, during Super Bowl XVIII, Apple showed the world what was on the other side of the wall that IBM had built with this commercial.
This commercial gets it's influence from George Orwell's 1949 book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell tells a story of a society that is under constant surveillance and undergoes incessant public mind control by the governing body, controlled by the dictator known as Big Brother.
Apple was going to usher in a new era of freedom through personal computers. But, things didn't work out that way. You see, Steve Jobs' view of freedom is a distorted one, because in his world of freedom, he is still in charge. Apple's software was available only on Apple's hardware. No. It was rival Bill Gates and his Microsoft Windows operating System that would set the users free. Gates offered Windows software and solutions on hardware that could be customized by different computer manufacturers, dealers, and users. Microsoft didn't really care what you ran Windows on, just that what you were running was Windows.
In the 90's, Apple went through a really rough patch where a very immature and hostile Steve Jobs was fired from his position at the company he spent much blood, sweat, and tears creating. The 90's proved to both Apple and the world that the only creative person working at the company was the man they isolated and fired. So, Apple hired him back, this time as CEO of the company. Once again, the draconian attitude of Steve Jobs became the attitude of the company. This time, however, it appeared to be working.
Apple introduced to the world the iPod. Now, other digital media players existed, but none quite like this one. With iTunes, iPod became to digital music players what Nintendo was to video games. However it didn't start that way. iPod was the first sign that Steve had learned nothing from his imperialistic past. The iPod only worked on a Mac running iTunes. This severely limited the audience, as Windows is by far the leading PC operating system. Eventually, Apple opened up iTunes and the iPod to Windows machines and the iPod really took off. The iPod evolved, changing shape, adding picture and video, and eventually, became the iPhone. Once again, Apple chose it's elitist ways over the needs of the consumer.
In an attempt to control the user, iPhones (nor any iOS device) don't work right out of the box. You have to connect it to iTunes first. That's just the beginning. As the iPhone evolved, Apple added the App Store. The smartphone had just taken it's next step to being more like a PC. But, unlike with PC's, Apple controls what gets put in the App Store and does not allow users to install apps from sources other than the Apple App Store, consequently controlling what you put on your phone.
Apple states that this is to ensure that it's users have a smooth and safe user experience. By ruling the App Store with an iron fist, Apple is able to keep malicious or otherwise hostile software off of any and all iOS devices. However, this power has been abused numerous times.
iOS does not support Flash. The wording of the last sentence is important, as the problem is not Flash or even Adobe. Adobe wants Flash running on iOS. Services that use Flash based video want Flash on iOS devices. iOS users, if they're honest with themselves (we'll get to that soon), want Flash on iOS devices. The problem is Steve Jobs.
Mr. Jobs has stated that Flash is a resource hog, poorly functioning, and an obsolete program. Let's humor Steve for a minute and say that he's right about all three of those points. What about you, the user; the person who, over the course of your 2 year contract on AT&T or Verizon, will spend more than $2,000 on your iPhone? What if you want to put a clunky video payer on your iOS device so that you can view Flash based video? Sorry. Your overlord has decided that you don't need it.
But, let's be honest here. Is that the real reason? Does Big Brother really have your best interest at heart? Or is Big Brother just a Big Baby? Apple is heavily invested in a web standard known as HTML5. That's a broad term that involves a bunch of smaller, more focused web standards. One of those web standards is for video. Apple would like the web to move away from Flash and to a format known as h.264. Apple helped develop h.264 and makes money off of licensing the technology. What better way to drive the web to your format than to refuse to support competing formats? Apple does not have your best interest in mind. For Apple, it's not about the end user, you. It's about the money and the control.
Don't believe me? Fine. A Dutch magazine publisher makes their magazines available to their readers through apps. One such app was banned from the Apple App Store. It was obviously harmful to iOS right? That's why Apple claims to limit so severely what is allowed on your device and what isn't, right? Wrong. The magazine in question is a tech magazine dedicated to Android. Steve can't have people reading about his biggest mobile OS rival. Especially not the one that's destroying him in the mobile market. People might see how great it is and trade in their iOS device for an Android device. Oh no!
What? Still not buying it? Fine, I can't say Nintendo likes it's users reading about the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Or do they? Wii has a channel that supplies users with news stories from the Associated Press (AP). Often times these stories are about the Xbox 360 or the PS3. A lot of the time their very positive stories. Odd that a company that's in a business where control over content is assumed and even necessary would allow it's users to acquire information about it's competitors. Maybe Nintendo values my needs and wants over it's own interest.
Moving on, Apple's latest move is a very disturbing one indeed. In the case of Flash and Mediaprovider (the Dutch publisher of the Android magazine), they were blocking their users from competition. It's a douche thing to do, but I can almost shrug those situations off. But, in the decision to remove Google Maps from iOS 5, they have no competing solution. Instead, you'll likely be using Bing, or worse, MapQuest or Yahoo.
So, why eliminate the most popular and mature map and navigation application from your mobile device? Call me crazy, but I think it's simply to spite Google. Steve has been very vocal about his opinion of Google entering the mobile market with Android. Needless to say, it's not a positive opinion. So, in an attempt to get back at Google, he has decided for you that you do not need Google's software or services.
This commercial gets it's influence from George Orwell's 1949 book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell tells a story of a society that is under constant surveillance and undergoes incessant public mind control by the governing body, controlled by the dictator known as Big Brother.
Apple was going to usher in a new era of freedom through personal computers. But, things didn't work out that way. You see, Steve Jobs' view of freedom is a distorted one, because in his world of freedom, he is still in charge. Apple's software was available only on Apple's hardware. No. It was rival Bill Gates and his Microsoft Windows operating System that would set the users free. Gates offered Windows software and solutions on hardware that could be customized by different computer manufacturers, dealers, and users. Microsoft didn't really care what you ran Windows on, just that what you were running was Windows.
In the 90's, Apple went through a really rough patch where a very immature and hostile Steve Jobs was fired from his position at the company he spent much blood, sweat, and tears creating. The 90's proved to both Apple and the world that the only creative person working at the company was the man they isolated and fired. So, Apple hired him back, this time as CEO of the company. Once again, the draconian attitude of Steve Jobs became the attitude of the company. This time, however, it appeared to be working.
Apple introduced to the world the iPod. Now, other digital media players existed, but none quite like this one. With iTunes, iPod became to digital music players what Nintendo was to video games. However it didn't start that way. iPod was the first sign that Steve had learned nothing from his imperialistic past. The iPod only worked on a Mac running iTunes. This severely limited the audience, as Windows is by far the leading PC operating system. Eventually, Apple opened up iTunes and the iPod to Windows machines and the iPod really took off. The iPod evolved, changing shape, adding picture and video, and eventually, became the iPhone. Once again, Apple chose it's elitist ways over the needs of the consumer.
In an attempt to control the user, iPhones (nor any iOS device) don't work right out of the box. You have to connect it to iTunes first. That's just the beginning. As the iPhone evolved, Apple added the App Store. The smartphone had just taken it's next step to being more like a PC. But, unlike with PC's, Apple controls what gets put in the App Store and does not allow users to install apps from sources other than the Apple App Store, consequently controlling what you put on your phone.
Apple states that this is to ensure that it's users have a smooth and safe user experience. By ruling the App Store with an iron fist, Apple is able to keep malicious or otherwise hostile software off of any and all iOS devices. However, this power has been abused numerous times.
iOS does not support Flash. The wording of the last sentence is important, as the problem is not Flash or even Adobe. Adobe wants Flash running on iOS. Services that use Flash based video want Flash on iOS devices. iOS users, if they're honest with themselves (we'll get to that soon), want Flash on iOS devices. The problem is Steve Jobs.
Mr. Jobs has stated that Flash is a resource hog, poorly functioning, and an obsolete program. Let's humor Steve for a minute and say that he's right about all three of those points. What about you, the user; the person who, over the course of your 2 year contract on AT&T or Verizon, will spend more than $2,000 on your iPhone? What if you want to put a clunky video payer on your iOS device so that you can view Flash based video? Sorry. Your overlord has decided that you don't need it.
But, let's be honest here. Is that the real reason? Does Big Brother really have your best interest at heart? Or is Big Brother just a Big Baby? Apple is heavily invested in a web standard known as HTML5. That's a broad term that involves a bunch of smaller, more focused web standards. One of those web standards is for video. Apple would like the web to move away from Flash and to a format known as h.264. Apple helped develop h.264 and makes money off of licensing the technology. What better way to drive the web to your format than to refuse to support competing formats? Apple does not have your best interest in mind. For Apple, it's not about the end user, you. It's about the money and the control.
Don't believe me? Fine. A Dutch magazine publisher makes their magazines available to their readers through apps. One such app was banned from the Apple App Store. It was obviously harmful to iOS right? That's why Apple claims to limit so severely what is allowed on your device and what isn't, right? Wrong. The magazine in question is a tech magazine dedicated to Android. Steve can't have people reading about his biggest mobile OS rival. Especially not the one that's destroying him in the mobile market. People might see how great it is and trade in their iOS device for an Android device. Oh no!
What? Still not buying it? Fine, I can't say Nintendo likes it's users reading about the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Or do they? Wii has a channel that supplies users with news stories from the Associated Press (AP). Often times these stories are about the Xbox 360 or the PS3. A lot of the time their very positive stories. Odd that a company that's in a business where control over content is assumed and even necessary would allow it's users to acquire information about it's competitors. Maybe Nintendo values my needs and wants over it's own interest.
Moving on, Apple's latest move is a very disturbing one indeed. In the case of Flash and Mediaprovider (the Dutch publisher of the Android magazine), they were blocking their users from competition. It's a douche thing to do, but I can almost shrug those situations off. But, in the decision to remove Google Maps from iOS 5, they have no competing solution. Instead, you'll likely be using Bing, or worse, MapQuest or Yahoo.
So, why eliminate the most popular and mature map and navigation application from your mobile device? Call me crazy, but I think it's simply to spite Google. Steve has been very vocal about his opinion of Google entering the mobile market with Android. Needless to say, it's not a positive opinion. So, in an attempt to get back at Google, he has decided for you that you do not need Google's software or services.
I'd like to now share with you the reason I even started writing this. I posted the following on my facebook wall: ""Inferior? By which metric do you base that on? The only one I can think of would be "openness". You can keep it. I'd rather have a limit on what apps I can install then have run anti-virus on my phone." Now, whining about anti-virus is an old Apple fanboi tactic that is only partially without merit. But that's for another time. I want to address the tone and language used here.
As a Windows user and an Android user, I can admit when a company or product that I don't care for does something well. The iPod, though not original like Apple and there hordes or drones would have you believe, truly revolutionized the way we consume media. Even though Android was in development long before anyone had heard of an iPhone, it's possible that it never would have succeeded had iPhone not been released first. There are nice things out there that are not made by Nintendo, Microsoft, or Google. So, when someone takes a jab at something I like, I can usually take it stride and playfully argue back.
The above quote, though, is pretty typical of an Apple zombie. Let me explain. Apple claimed that copy and paste was unnecessary on a smartphone. Google offered it's users that feature because it's not difficult to include and it might be useful, even if only to a small handful of users. Apple fans the world over claimed that copy and paste was a silly thing to have in a phone OS. Apple then added it to iOS. Suddenly, Apple fans praised Steve for taking such a bold and original step. Apple said notifications being limited to the icon of the app that the notification is associated with was fine because you will likely open the app anyway. Google created what is called the notification drawer, a system that allows a user to access the apps that have notifications from where ever they are in the operating system. When iOS5 is released later this year, it will literately include a copy of the Android notification drawer. Once again, the drones are praising Apple for this revolutionary new tool.
True Apple followers have absolutely no mind of their own. Apple is the king, and if you don't like it, you're obviously an idiot. So shut up, drink the Kool-Aid, and don't watch the video below (which is actually for a specific tablet running Android 3.0 and not Android itself, but the theme is there).
True Apple followers have absolutely no mind of their own. Apple is the king, and if you don't like it, you're obviously an idiot. So shut up, drink the Kool-Aid, and don't watch the video below (which is actually for a specific tablet running Android 3.0 and not Android itself, but the theme is there).
No comments:
Post a Comment