Apple, Amazon and Google take lazy punters hostage Would-be monopolists have a new tool to claim control over the unsuspecting masses: sloth. In the offline world, big vendors must go to extensive ends to ring-fence consumers into concentrating their spend with those vendors. Think vertical integration, price fixing and other monopolistic means. But in a heavily digitised …
Go ahead and put linux on your iPad then if it's such a big deal. What? Locked? Surely not? And all those android tabs with locked bootloaders? How are they different?
As for the UEFI thing, it's bogus click-driving and penguin-FUD. If UEFI secure boot was mandatory, there'd be no upgrade path so it won't be.
"Go ahead and put linux on your iPad then if it's such a big deal. What? Locked? Surely not? And all those android tabs with locked bootloaders? How are they different?"
Straw man - I never said they were any different. But at least some of the Androids are being opened up, although it's on an ad-hoc basis.
"As for the UEFI thing, it's bogus click-driving and penguin-FUD. If UEFI secure boot was mandatory, there'd be no upgrade path so it won't be."
Apart from the fact it isn't. Did you bother to read the link? UEFI is mandatory for Win on ARM and that "Custom Mode" must be disabled.
UEFI in and of itself is not the issue, that's just the technology.
Since open hardware platforms are not the topic but rather sales channel monopolies, but hey, if you want to go a few rounds, why not?
It's on ARM. Consumer devices for the consumption of content. What matters (to those people who are interested in replacing the OS) is x86/x64 boxes because, er, they're not tablets but stuff you can actually configure because let's face it, with 90% of linux distros you're going to need to. And just to be clear, I say this as somebody running an ubuntu box and a Fedora server right now.
If you or I were buying a tablet, we might be concerned about OS replacement and thus go buy something that accommodates this. Joe Punter doesn't give a shit. You might as well hate on Amazon because you can't change the OS on a Kindle. In real terms, nobody cares as long as it works.
Now, we might think it's cool to be snarky and say "lol as if anything from Microsoft works" but we could easily say the same about (for example) Android, the only hazard being less upvotes. In general terms, the consumer buys his/her consumption device and stops thinking about it. Thus, UEFI locking on ARM platform is pretty much meaningless unless you're an evangelist for linux on tablets in which case good luck to you, but you might be better off approaching OEMs and the public to convince them that there's a demand. Not just the same odl approach of shakily piggy-backing on hardware which is not fit for purpose.
...because it's a monopoly player dictating terms to OEMs to ensure vendor lock-in.
ARM may mostly be on mobile/tablets right now, but it is coming to ultrabooks and will no doubt enter the desktop again. How relaxed will you be when you can't pick up an ARM mobo that isn't locked to Windows? Or when the next version of Windows requires you to buy new hardware?
This is just another in a long list of anti-competition, anti-open, anti-freedom steps taken by MS; and you can be sure Joe Punter will give a shit when the lock-in turns around and bites them in the ass. But by then it will be too late.
And beyond Joe Punter we must consider the effect of "the cloud" and the increasing demands placed on mobile/low-power devices by enterprise/government. Any sniff of non-Apple competition would be crushed by this dicktat from MS.
Allowing custom mode has no effect on Joe Punter if they like Windows 8 (have you tried Win8? Vomit); so why demand that OEMs remove the feature?
If it passes regulatory muster, you and I may well care about OS replacement but the matter could well be moot as the option has been removed (until some bright-spark finds a way around UEFI altogether - probably spurred on by the desire to do whatever they see fit with their own hardware).
1. Locking ARM to Windows would be retarded since ARM's major platforms are non-Windows, so I really can't see that happening outside of tablets. And "Ultrabook" is an Intel marketing drive, lest we forget. It doesn't actually mean anything.
2. No, I haven't tried Win8 yet. Neither have I dismissed it as trash yet. We shall see.
1. The problem is the pressure that MS could bring to bear: "Oh, Mr. Asus; I see you are selling some ARM mobos that enable custom mode, good for you. Isn't it time we re-negotiated your OEM licenses?" i.e. abuse their desktop monopoly.
It has been alleged that something similar happened to Dell when they tried to ship Ubuntu units (which is why it ended up only being available on under-powered crap, hard to find and not as a general option).
The fact remains that MS should not be allowed to dictate to OEMs that they must restrict what end-users can do with hardware they purchase. Leaving "custom mode" and option on ARM (e.g. via a physical jumper) has zero effect on Joe Punter and still leaves the door open for competition.
2. I have tried it. It is complete vomit. You think Unity/GnomeShell is bad? You ain't seen nuthin' yet!
"Same state of affairs on Androidland, where there's Freedom(TM) and nobody is evil."
OK, cite where Google has demanded that all bootloaders be locked. Go on. The OEMs themselves locked the bootloaders and some (e.g. HTC) are now unlocking them.
Apple is both the hardware and software vendor (unlike MS), they are not imposing their demands on OEMs. Apple are also not a monopoly (Google could possibly be considered to be one).
And no, I do not think the sun shines out of Google's arse nor do I think that much of Apple.
MS is abusing its monopoly position (again) to restrict competition (again).
So the government should dictate that no one can create something new and patent it. The government should work out what people will want and dictate that only products meeting the governments standard be made. People tried that, it was called communism and smart people had explained why it would fail before stupid people tried and failed with it.
>So the government should dictate that no one can create something new and patent it.
No, not in the slightest. What he's saying is that if standards are to be created (and mandated), then they should not contain patented technology - or maybe only include royalty free patents.
On the face of it, this looks like a bad idea (Company A does a lot of work in an area that gets included in a standard, but then makes no money from that work), but what about Company B who might have also done a lot of work in the same area only to see an effective monopoly handed to Company A?
Standards should benefit industry and consumers alike, but often only benefit a handful of companies and end up costing consumers more because of the hidden royalty payments.
Some of the money you paid for your mobile phone goes to Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and a handful of others irrespective of who made the phone because they hold essential patents covering the standards that it uses to access the networks. Remember, this is not optional stuff, this is stuff the phone *has* to do in order to operate on the network.
Still think this is communism by the back door?
"Monopolies" illegal? Since when? That's what "Intellectual Property" is all about.
The ones where "Antitrust" is involved are mainly about The Need For Taxes or a Friendly Ear for the Competitor, really. Or about bureaucrats trying palliative measures for problems that "Intellectual Property" legislation has created in the first place. Great job.
Now, we got that out of the way...
"But it's clear that in an increasingly digitised world, the delivery mechanism is the big key to creating value and maximising financial returns."
Thank you for the marketing shop boilerplate. But wasn't this always so? A mall creates value because it functions as a convenient delivery mechanism with all-in-one shopping, something that the corner shop cannot deliver. Amazon creates value - whether it delivers digital media or paper media - but offering nearly anything in a controllable manner, something that the corner bookstore cannot deliver. (Anyone who tried to order a book back in the 80s based on ISBN knows how abysmally unreliable bookstores were in delivering the goods.) This is why they die out or why to need to cater to the "non-connected" people or the book-browsing crowd (but then again, when you browse, the person behind the counter will look at you askance. Do I need this? Hell no.)
Hey, more books are being sold, "content creators" have the chance to reach more people and sell more stuff, it's great.
There is only one problem with above: lock-in DRMed formats and arbitary control by the distributor even after the purchase was made. Why is this even possible? Look under "Intellectual Property Legislation". Then be less slothful and go to somewhat shady sites where scans and PDFs can be had free of charge. In the latter case, only I win or maybe the "unauthorized reseller", but hey, the marketplace is not a controlled environment.
This post has been deleted by its author
There is more than one precedent, of course, but I really do think that the idea of normal monopoly rules not applying to some technology companies took root when Microsoft began to act as a monopolist and we never really did anything to put a stop to it, apart from some minor government action.
That is where the mindset began that it is okay to ringfence consumers if you're a digital or technology company of a specific kind. Specifically those companies that sit very close to the consumer, e.g. Microsoft (people having a very direct relation with their Windows OS), Google (the default search), later Facebook (the default social networking), etc. It's not so much companies like Intel and Nvidia because that's the technical side and most consumers aren't emotionally attached to their chips or cards.
The rationale seems to go that if millions of people are unthinkingly accepting a monopolist - or near-monopolist - as part of their digital lives, all the normal anti-trust arguments no longer apply. I for one think it's very dangerous indeed if it keeps evolving further in this direction.
As an aside, there is a link here with the Dot-com bubble, when between 1995 and 2000 investors got the idea that the normal boom-and-bust cycle does not apply to the internet sector and related fields. This thinking left the financial world when the bubble did burst in 2000, of course, but internet-monopoly thinking is unlikely to run into a similar "bust". It will probably take a company going off the rails and harming society in a really big and visible way, a disaster that no one can ignore. Difficult to predict what concrete shape this will take, or when it will happen.
Good of you to shine a light on this issue, Mr. Asay, with your usual high standards.
Aren't Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. brands themselves? They are already brands in many markets, and it's entirely plausible that, if they keep branching out the way they are, they will eventually branch out into content creation, too.
At any given time, some brands lose and other brands gain. That is a natural occurence, nothing wrong with it. A pertinent question always remains, though, namely which brands are potentialy building a monopoly?
"it's Apple's easy iTunes experience that has consumers buying iHardware in droves"
I don't think this is true at all. It was definitely a factor when talking about the iPod but so was a nice UI on the device, smart industrial design and good marketing. Along with pretty decent pricing.
When it comes to iMacs or Macbooks I really don't think iTunes is a factor at all, you can download it for free for their (cheaper) PC competitors after all. If it is a part of iPhone buying decisions I'd say it's a relatively small part.
I'm far from a fanboi but I do occasionally buy their kit.
I switched to Android when I judged it had matured sufficiently and wouldn't change back but I used iPhones for a couple of years. Not because of iTunes or anything like that but because it was (in my opinion) the first smartphone to provide a truly usable web browser and nice touchscreen-only UI.
I use a Windows desktop (self-built) and my previous notebook was running Windows (a Dell). I bought a Macbook Air a few months ago because I wanted something light, fast and robust with a very good screen that looked nice for bringing to meetings with customers and wasn't a pain in the arse to carry around a lot. An ultrabook, in short. I bought the Macbook Air because it was the nicest one around by far and was the same price or cheaper than the competition at the time. MacOS wasn't a factor in my decision (although I quite like it now) and iTunes certainly wasn't, VLC was one of the first things I put on it.
Lots and lots of people buy Apple kit because they like the hardware or the UI. I know far more people with Apple kit who hate iTunes than like it and I don't think I know anyone who bought an Apple computer or phone BECAUSE of iTunes.
Last i checked which admittedly was some time ago Apple had sold under 20 song's per iPod. It's clear no one bought an iPods so they could buy songs from itunes. But it's Matt Asay and he's never allowed facts or the truth to get in the way of his agenda. He's even stupid enough to lie and then give a link that shows he is lying.
sounds much like our friendly local supermarkets. Will content/product makers soon have to pay to have their goods displayed in the digital shops? or to get indexed by google search? is it goodbye to the long tail same as it's goodbye to the local grocers? how many people need to be caught napping before everyone else loses the choice? and who do apple, google and amazon pay their taxes to?
When you see the number of people throwing money into these app stores they're either (a) paying you to take a shortcut because they are hard-pressed for time or just plain LAZY/stupid, or they're rewarding themselves "because I'm worth it".
The trick is to keep it below their pain point. It seems that Apple has done a superb job of figuring out how much people will pay for music and apps. Any more than that and people might be motivated to find an alternative.
Is there any difference between, for instance, Woolworths and Amazon, other than that Woolworths went bust in the UK? They're both in the business of selling almost everything you want.
I'd be more worried about PayPal. They're just a bank, so why did they order the destruction of an antique violin when a deal was questioned by the buyer?
Amazon is a bad example to try to use to justfiy the nonsense that Apple does.
You need their proprietary device or app just to browse their stuff. You can't fully evaluate the total experience until you actually buy into it.
That's in stark contrast to Amazon where anyone with a web browser can see what they have to offer. You might even find that you can get what you want without the DRM. Amazon will happily sell it to you.
Amazon sells the DRM locked books and video but also bog standard CDs, DVDs, and books.
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/browse/
You only need a web browser for Apple too.
Yes, Apple don't sell physical stuff, but then neither do Google.
Also, I'm curious as to how you can fully evaluate the Amazon experience without buying into it in some way. Yes, I can read a Kindle book on my desktop, but I'm not fully evaluating the experience without actually buying a Kindle.
I can buy DRM free music from both companies that can be played on a "free" music player that came with my OS, but both *both* require proprietary download tools (iTunes, Amazon MP3 downloader); apart from Apple's "walled garden" for apps, there really isn't a significant difference between the two companies.
(And if you think that Amazon aren't seriously considering walling up their own garden once they have a decent spread of hardware, then you don't have a good grip on normal business practice).
"...brands like Netflix, UPS, USPS, Paypal, Walmart, iTunes, Barnes & Noble, iPad, HTC, Target, Targus, Logitech, Best Buy, Dell, Belkin, Random House, Harper Collins are all becoming meaningless. " That statement is only half rational. UPS, USPS, Walmart, B&N, Target, Best Buy are all channels like Amazon (toss in Google if you consider GCheckout). And this argument is dubious at best. No one buys Amazon MP3 players. We buy Apple or Blackberry or Android AT Amazon. We shop Amazon (WM, Taget, BB, B&N) ONLINE because we are (too busy/too rich/too lazy/too far away). The monoploization comes from iHardware+iTunes+iStore (and the Android comparative) - which in tech speak is "lock-In" (which may not exactly be monoploy in a traditional sense). Because iWon't be locked in/handcuffed/extorted by Apple, iBuy blackberry or android (from WM or Amazon). I AM just one click away, which is better than being 40 miles from WM while 2 mile from an iStore - the 1-click means I CAN now choose to buy from WM or Amazon (so very far away) instead of the 5 minute walk to the closer iVille. iWin. Until they perfect the transporter (as in Star Trek), we'll "settle" for Amazon.
Could these new forms of distribution be the new "Department Stores"? This article reminded me of Macy, Gimbles, and Sears , there were these huge stores back in the 50's or 60's that carried most things the consumers wanted and the consumer didnt interact much with the author/inventor/creator of the content, just the department stores sales clerk.
If that's the case, then I would be of the opinion that "brands" like Samsung, Nintendo, Intel, etc. would still exist and be part of the purchasing experience. They've just moved from the real (brick and mortal department stores) to the digital realm (Amazon, Apple, and how ever else sells various forms of media).
This author is running off the rails again trying to conflate iTunes with the likes of Google search. It's a highly disingenuous sort of argument that ignore some key details. Namely, using something other than Google search does not require you to ABANDON anything.
This is what separates any vendor-locked platform from the likes of Google Search.
Even the Amazon version of this is less restrictive since Amazon supports more devices including those of their biggest market rival.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
