Why Arrington and Calacanis Chooses to Forget What Apple Is
I still remember reading Calacanis writing how to save money running a startup. And you know what? It make sense for startups to use the Mac. Hell, it just makes perfect sense because it can do more like I can run Windows and Linux side by side with my OS X. That there are things, without an IT department you can just do and get stuff done like starting a file server by answering a couple of questions, or running squid proxy server without going nuts and many other things. Just ask twitter and any number of startups and iPhone developers, who've made Macs and iPhone OS the instrument of their success. It made sense before Apple went Intel and made bigger sense when they did. It made sense when Calacanis wrote it. It makes sense today and in the next 12 months, at least. Yet, left and right these "celebrities" are "quitting Apple" and are making a case against Apple.
In The Case Against Apple-In Five Parts, Calacanis asked these three questions:
1. Do you think Apple would be more, or less, successful if they adopted a more open strategy (i.e. allowing other MP3 players in iTunes)?
No! It would be stupid for Apple to change their very DNA. The Core of Apple has always been to control everything. Have you seen the insides of a Mac? or the gut of an iPod? How Apple builds its hardware is as meticulous as how Apple designs software. The positioning of where the screws are, or how many goes into consideration or how many buttons there is (or lack thereof) is something they do think about. It is for this exact same reason why we owners of Macs, iPods and iPhones hold Apple to a higher standard. We expect quality and ease of use because Apple controls everything from the ground up. It is for this exact reason why Apple is making money at a time when the PC industry and Microsoft are trying to catchup. It is for that reason why Apple owns the MP3 market because no one could make an mp3 player that made sense for the music industry to participate in and for consumers to legitimately listen to music without the former accusing them of being criminals.
That isn't to say, Apple from time to time can't be an ass. That isn't to say that from time to time Apple's excessive controlling compulsive behavior can be detrimental. Like the case of Google Voice, which I suspect is because Apple needs to protect its position with AT&T.
2. Do you think Apple should face serious antitrust action?
For what? Because Apple has 91% of the high-end computer business? Because Apple has consistently been topping Street estimates in spite of a recession? Who are we protecting? the poor? It isn't like People don't have a choice. They can buy Mac or suffer under the hand of Microsoft Windows. Hell, they can go Linux, if that's what they want.
Is this about Apple's claim that iPhone Jailbreaking Could Crash Cellphone Towers which, seriously ought to be looked into, but does that justify an antitrust litigation? Wouldn't the same case be applied to Android and any other cellphone maker? My point is: there are avenues that our questions can be rightfully answered.
3. Do you think Apple’s dexterity and competence forgive their bad behavior?
Apple's "bad behavior" like the issue of Ninjawords that John Gruber of Daring Fireball raised that Phil Schiller responded to? Is the "bad behavior" linked to Why Ninjawords Drew a Response? Why there is an iPhone boycott? Or why there is an Underground App store?
I think the real reason why Arrington, Calacanis and their pals want to quit Apple is because of CrunchPad. Who needs that when (not if) an Apple Tablet comes out, the tablet will definitely become a hit.
Make no mistake though that just because Apple make things easy, doesn't mean they're the best tools for the job, for every instance. There is room for Linux and Windows: right tools for the right job.
Apple isn't perfect. It can be a notoriously crazy misfit and a secretive troublemaker but the answer to that isn't some anti-trust litigation. It is delivering awesome products which translate to stellar earnings per share. Show me a company that can build a better computer and operating system than Apple that make sense for both work and play, and I'll buy from them. Show me a company that builds a better iPod and i'll get that. Show me a phone that runs better than iPhone-- wait there are lots of those too right? From Android to Blackberry to iPhone to Nokia to Palm Pre isn't a choice of phone as subjective as answering what beauty is?
At the end of the day, this is what's important: show me a company that is consistently delivering stellar earnings per share and I'd love to love 'em too. Why do people think Apple, Baidu, Google, RIM and recently, Palm are golden while the likes of Dell, Microsoft and Yahoo are looked upon with disdain? Oh, and one more thing, that's why everyone looks up to CEO Steve Jobs too.
