But let's be serious, Apple risks "consumer trust"? Not in any way that is likely to be measurable.
I am forever bewildered by consumers that have this sense of entitlement around a company and "demand" this action or that action.
It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it.
If Apple wanted to wall of the entire platform, they could do that. But instead they have created the biggest app market for mobile devices (from what I understand, please correct me if this is not 100% accurate, but the point remains it's huge). Does it suck that a few apps are rejected for seemingly dubious reasons? Sure, I guess it does for those developers. But I've been hearing dire warnings about mass exoduses and public outcries since the inception of the app store. Hasn't really happened besides a few edge cases that we see on Hacker News every other month or so.
To be honest, I feel that this particular app's story is only popular because it has to do with the politics of the drone program.
>> "Some consumers are already beginning to grow uncomfortable with Facebook's privacy policies, Google's targeted advertising, and other cases in which, whether justified or not, technology starts to feel a little creepy. Twitter takes protecting privacy and free speech very seriously, and even if most users don't notice or care yet, that stance will serve the company well as social media continues to part and parcel of our daily lives."
Got it. FB and Google evil. Twitter good.
Except that's not really true either. Twitter has worked with several law enforcement offices, particularly when identifying Occupy Wall Street protestors that were accused of crimes.
So I just don't find this article very credible on the facts, or the opinions persuasive at all.
Too bad Bill Gates isn't looking for a lawyer or advocate now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
(edit: Disclaimer I previously assumed was unnecessary: Apple can't "do whatever they want", you are correct. For instance, if Tim Cook killed a hooker, that would be bad.)
The "entitlement" is just my perspective of what I see as a group of individuals who align themselves with the OP's viewpoint in scolding Apple, taking shots at, and generally nitpicking it's wall-garden philosophy; A very vocal, relatively speaking extremely small minority of consumers who demand that the company change it's policies to fit their whims and philosophies.
I guess I would never be so presumptuous to think like that. To me, the company does what it wants, and when the public votes with their dollars, their business decisions are either validated or they are not.
And there is something that I just can't grasp about the hand-wringing and scolding about the app store. The iPhone is a great product, the app store is arguably one of the most successful new ventures of apple in the last decade, arguably the most successful app store for any mobile device. And by and large, the system works. So this barrage of criticism of edge cases is just...confusing to me, to say the least.
I appreciate that the writer is concerned about Apple and about consumers. But this concept that the writer's ideas are protecting Apple's long-term survival as a company in a fluid land-scape while at the same time bringing about pro-consumer changes just rings hollow to me. It feels like energy misplaced.
Businesses don't have any rights on their own, only the rights we give to them. When the interests of companies goes against the interests of the people, then we regulate. It's that simple. I'm against regulations that impose overhead for companies without good reason. Regulation to PREVENT companies from expending energy to actively keep users from doing what they want is not overhead. Forcing companies to keep their system somewhat open won't hurt them as much as it would benefit the world.
You can demand this all you want, as long as the only way you enforce your demand is by choosing what products to buy.
But if you mean "demand" as in "make laws and regulations", as it's clear you do, then I disagree.
When the interests of companies goes against the interests of the people, then we regulate.
No, we buy something else or go without.
At the end of the day, we're talking about smartphones and apps here. You do not need to have an iPhone. You do not need to have apps. If you don't like what's on offer, and all your efforts at persuasion fail, then, as I said, you buy something else or go without.
For example, I can't stand the MPAA and RIAA. I've blogged repeatedly about their stupid, shortsighted business practices and their attempts to get draconian laws passed to emasculate general purpose computers. But I have no right to demand that they make their products the way I want them to, or else we'll get the government to regulate them. If they refuse to listen to reason, as they have, I simply buy something else or go without. Which means that I almost never buy music or movies now. I do not have an iPhone, or an iPad, or any other iDevice, and have no plans to buy one, for the same reason.
That's not the only option. We don't allow property owners to randomly abuse other people as long as they're on their property. We don't tell those people, "well if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." We have laws that apply no matter who the owner is, to prevent abuse.
A closer analogy is we do allow private property owners to decide what signs and other publicly visible items may be present on their property. Property owners are allowed to dictate who's allowed on premises. We also allow private organizations to decide who may join their organization. Stores are allowed to decide what products they retail. Private media are allowed to decide what they broadcast.
The App Store, for better or worse, is not a public good. I may not necessarily approve of some of Apple's decisions, but they have the right to make those decisions.
And no one's being abused. If you don't like it, leave. You're not being forced to support Apple in any way.
Why is the curated walled garden so egregious with a smartphone?
I'm not sure I recall Apple ever bragging about being an "open" marketplace past the "If you don't like our app store, build a web app" statements they've made in the past.
And as for "After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner.", that depends. For commodities, sure, but there such things as sales contracts that can restrict what is done with an item that has been sold.
The point is that walled gardens have been around for a long time, but it seems like people are more likely to get their knickers in a knot when Apple does it.
Were this something happening against users' will the, yes, I might concede it's abuse. It's not; users love the app store and a large part of that reason is because the content is curated. It's Apple's store (not a public marketplace) and they know what they purchase isn't likely to be offensive and is likely to work as advertised. You may not like the App Store, but Apple is definitely not abusing users.
Apple makes it very clear: "We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store."
Go to Walmart and take your clothes off and see what happens. Nobody dragged you into that party and I'm guessing nobody even invited you. You looked at the market and picked what you thought was the best.
Stallman and his "free" Chinese tech are always at hand if you really feel abused.
Or Windows Phone, looking like a stronger alternative all the time.
Same problem as with Apple.
(Granted, in all fairness, the Android Market removes apps as well, but side loading is kind of the eventuality here).
It's not preposterous to say "I'm leaving you because you do too much of something I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever) for someone else that does a little less of that same thing that I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever)"
If the market pressure is strong enough (I don't think it is, this is all hypothetical) then it could be something that Apple and Microsoft and Android and others actively compete on.