Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The benevolent dictator has determined…

…that you are not qualified to decide what content you read on the device you’ve purchased.

If the New York Times story is true, Apple is rejecting an application because the application allows access to purchased documents outside the walled garden of the iTunes app store.

“Apple told Sony that from now on, all in-app purchases would have to go through Apple, said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division.”

I keep thinking that there’d have been an outcry if Microsoft, at the height of their monopoly, had exercised complete control over the documents that you were allowed to purchase and read on your Windows PC’s.


  1. Except that Microsoft was a monopoly because it controlled 99% of the market. Apple has a very big competitor in Android, so it does not have a monopoly. Be careful that you are talking about the right things when you make comments. The issues with Microsoft came from the fact it was a monopoly, not because it had distasteful business practices (though one probably led to the other).

    And, BTW, there is plenty of outcry about Apple's handling of the app store. I bet you see at least 1 article a day about it.

  2. I don't recall Microsoft using their near-monopoly to prevent customers from installing competitors software on their computers, as Apple is currently doing.

    Even when MS was at it's peak and in a death match with Novell over the word processor and network server market, I was still able to install WordPerfect applications and Novell network drivers on DOS, Win3.x and Win95 desktops.

    DOS and Windows 3.x were always open operating systems - open in the sense that any developer could write any software and sell it to any customer without having to seek the approval of the dictator Gates. Heck - if I didn't like the way DOS handled serial port interrupts, I could (and did) write my own IRQ handler and handle the hardware interrupts my own way.

    Try that on an iPhone.

    Microsoft certainly took steps to ensure that their competitors products didn't run as well as their own products on Windows operating systems, and they used all kinds of shady and used underhanded (illegal?) tactics to subvert and/or spread FUD about their competitors, but they never overtly blocked competitors software.

    Can't say that about Apple.