Skip to main content

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.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

Cargo Cult: …imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.
The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:
Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup …

Ad-Hoc Versus Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to…

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. These …