First:
> Why? Why do all companies have to operate the way you want them to and why do you have to buy their things?
klochner never said companies "have" to operate a certain way. He just said that a company annoys him. That's all. He said nothing about how the company "should" or "must" operate. Just that the current model was annoying.
Second:
> I don't understand why people who don't buy Apple products complain about Apple.
For the same reason that people who don't run Windows complain about Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft are defining forces in their industries. Even people who don't buy their products are massively affected by the actions of those companies.
Examples: I don't own Windows or Office, so for years I could not reliably open .doc files. [1] Microsoft's proprietary file formats affect those who don't have enough money / don't wish to purchase their products.
I don't own any iOS devices, but I am a software developer. If the future of computing moves to iPad-like devices (say, tablets, phones, whatever the future brings), Apple's closed model affects me greatly. I would be less capable of selling my own software due to their practices.
Microsoft doesn't demand money from you if you want to develop for Windows. Apple does demand money from you if you want to develop for iOS (and seeing as iOS will soon - or already has - gained more users that OS X, I believe this is a fair comparison).
This is not a good model for the future of computing, but it is the model Apple is using and they are a powerful force.
So even though I do not own any Apple products, they are a dominating force in the industry and what they do matters to me.
Edit: [1] I think that .doc is now an "open" standard, right? LibreOffice will probably eventually be fully compatible, but it's not ready yet.
This is something Apple pioneered, and you can bet other companies are going to want a slice of that sweet sweet revenue pie.
Yes I know, I tried to address that in my comment. I postulated that there are more iOS users than OS X users, just as there are more Windows users than XBox or WP7 users.
For the purposes of my example, I picked the OS from each company with the greatest number of users. I definitely think my example is valid here, despite the differences between "PCs" and tablets, phones, whatever.
Not at all, ask any console game developer.
I am not in Apple's market, so their practices don't affect me directly as a user. However, their practices do affect me in that having one of the largest, most successful companies in the world engage in what I see as problematic practices tells other companies that it's a good, or at least tenable, idea. In the future, a fledgling company could see a choice between the Pro-Consumer But Difficult path and the Closed Everything But Simple path, and think, "Well, Apple did it, so I guess if we do it, it's okay." And that's why I find Apple troubling.
I can't really get that from anyone but Apple. I've got a Thinkpad, but even that very nice machine is in a lower class of industrial design compared to Apple products. Likewise, my HTC Incredible is a great phone, but bits of it are clearly of lower quality than my friends' iPhone 4s.
That's why some of Apple's practices annoy me-- because they're so damn good at everything else, they tempt me anyway.
A year ago it was a real possibility that they would dominate mobile computing (soon to be just "computing"), and even today it's not out of the question if Android lawsuits go badly. I and plenty of others don't want to see a world where we're denied control of "our" hardware, and told we're criminals if we try to reclaim it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236
Did something change?
FWIW, I buy and love apple products, I just like to tinker as well.