Two things about Apple’s marketing approach rubbed me the wrong way this week. In April, Apple used their Windows Software Update to push Safari on Windows users of iTunes and Quicktime. This was phrased as a software update, though it was actually prompting the download of a new piece of software. There was significant criticism of Apple’s approach, including from John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla, who wrote a thoughtful analysis of this strategy on his blog, outlining how such aggressive tactics undermine the trust a user has for a piece of software and the company that makes it. As he points out, this kind of devious approach “borders on malware distribution practices” and ultimately undermines the software industry and the concept of software updates as a whole.
Sadly, the Safari on Windows experience hasn’t changed Apple’s approach. While working the other day, I was interrupted by the following prompt:
Firstly, the wording in the prompt indicates a Software Update. Despite the fact that .Mac is being replaced, Mobile Me is still new software (ie. not an update to existing software). Apple’s marketing department certainly wants you to believe this, and the $109/year (CAD) price tag would seem to underline it. So, Apple has interrupted my workflow (as far as I can tell launching this prompt independently of Software Update or any other process) to sell me something. That’s not OK. This follows the same sneaky pattern as prompting Windows users to install an entirely new browser on their systems as a ‘software update’ to their iTunes service.
To add to my frustration, this prompt for new software comes after weeks of idiosyncratic activity in Leopard. Notice the default Apple wallpaper behind the MobileMe prompt? That’s not there by choice. Rather, the Desktop pane of my System Preferences has been buggy and inconsistent for weeks, as I swap between monitors. Without going into detail, the folders for my desktop images (including the OS defaults) become inaccessible, rendering me unable to change my desktop wallpaper. I’ve found various workarounds…but this just underlines that Apple’s philosophy is broken. Rather than fixing bugs in existing software that I have paid for, I’m prompted to install and pay for new software that I don’t want! Apple’s always been known as a ‘Design company that makes computers.’ Perhaps they are actually a ‘Marketing company that makes software.’
So, a bit of an annoyance, and a reminder not to trust Apple. Then, this:
As you can see, when connecting my (hacked) iPod Touch, my iTunes interface becomes an advertisement! Again, a new piece of software (indicated by the price tag) labeled as a Software Update. What’s worse, the ‘update’ is primarily intended to install new software (the App Store) to allow me to give yet more money to Apple! Secondarily, it adds features to support MobileMe (which I would also have to pay for), and finally to install software that should have been on the device in the first place. What’s wrong with this picture? Well, maybe I’ll be convinced to upgrade to get the scientific calculator…
To add insult to injury, this message will be displayed every time I connect my iPod for all eternity, as the only options to dismiss the message are “Buy Now” or “Remind Me Later.” What about an “I’m not interested, stop using my desktop as a billboard” button?
UPDATE: Two days after posting this, the iPod software update interface changed. I knew Steve Jobs would read my blog:
5 Comments
If I’m going to trust anyone, you can bet it’ll be Apple before anyone else. The only reason why the CEO of Mozilla would disagree with Apple’s strategy to acquire more users would be conflicting interests in the browser market. They’re still playing the game, meanwhile Microsoft has won that war a long time ago.
These issues are minor. Folks like you like to blow it up into a self righteous feeding frenzy to pick on Apple who is giving away “free” software and offering a small $9.99 upgrade. In comparison to all the ads you get on websites, you want to complain and cry about one mediocre dialog box?! C’mon get serious.
Hey oooohya
I disagree that John Lilly’s intention in his criticism of Apple’s strategy is to discredit or steal market share from a Mozilla competitor (Safari). However, others in the comments on his blog have brought up the same conflict-of-interest issue, and you’re entitled to your opinion. As someone who has no direct (financial) stake in who wins the browser wars, I happen to agree with him that Apple’s tactics undermine the software industry. I also think Mozilla’s open-source status and history lend some weight to his words. If the same blog post had been written by Steve Ballmer I would have paid it less attention.
As for your second point, I also disagree that I’m “blowing this up into a self-righteous feeding frenzy,” but there you go. Nevertheless, it’s just incorrect for you to state that Apple is “giving away free software”. MobileMe is not free. It costs $109/year. Also, how is my iPod Touch software ‘free’ when I paid $400 for the device? Or when the updates cost $10? Also, ads on websites are unavoidable but voluntary in some respect. Ads on my desktop are unavoidable and involuntary.
So, I am serious. But…thanks for offering another point of view, I guess!
That’s so hypocritical of John Lilly because I remember first trying Firefox, having it constantly asked me to make it my “default” browser, every time I turned it on. I couldn’t get the damn thing to stop. After installing some plug in, my browser stopped working and i did away with the useless browser. In either case, developers just saw the update as a potentially unfair advantage. Meanwhile, people like me rely on Software Update to keep up to date. Today, I just got 10 updates (free). But then one paid app comes in and people start complaining? Focusing only on the negative will turn up more trash.
If you don’t want the update, then you don’t have to buy it. It sounds like you were inclined to pay the extra $100 for the extra 16GB version though. The device was great til you learned there was an update. So it’s not so great anymore and you have to shell out $10 bucks for it? This is no simple update! This turns your iPod into a video console and more. How much would you pay if you could have software installed to turn your iPod into an iPhone? Is $10 too much, especially after paying $400 for the device.
Then John Lilly complains when we get free software like Safari on our iPods and iPhones. Bullshit, he only saw Safari taking over his domain in Windows.
A few quick responses, then I’ll let this lie:
Software update is great, and the constant stream of updates Apple makes to OSX, iTunes, etc. are useful, and make computing using Apple products a joy. My criticism isn’t of software update, or getting free updates to existing software. It’s of the cloaking/bundling of new software along with a package labeled a Software Update. Companies are free to charge whatever they want for their software, but once a price tag accompanies a piece of software, it should no longer be called an update. It’s new.
My iPod already does most of the things the 2.0 software update adds (thanks to http://ijailbreak.com/), except for the App Store and MobileMe, neither of which I want. If I did buy it, it wouldn’t ‘turn my iPod into an iPhone.’ And what do you mean it would turn my iPod into a ‘video console’? It’s played video since day 1.
Anyway, we obviously have different opinions, but hopefully I’ve made myself clearer. My frustrations voiced here are part of my larger concern over Apple’s increasingly monopolistic practices over the devices and software they produce, the examples above being two instances of this trend. Another is their handling of the App Store, and Apple’s total control over who gets to develop for the iPhone/Touch platform, and how they can distribute it. I see these things as bad for consumers, damaging to Apple’s reputation with developers, and reminiscent of the kind of technology lock-in that Microsoft continues to practice.
The problem in allowing money to define and dictate our definitions creates another problem. The dictionary constitutes an update, which adds on to an original base of information. Here Apple isn’t offering new software but adding to the original 1.0 software. Yet all their products can constitute as a add-on to the original base. Perhaps the 2.0 software should have been free. Fortunately, I waited and I didn’t have to deal with these issues as my new iPhone already came equipped with the new 2.0 software. But 10 years from now, do you expect to get updates for free as well? Next year, should I expect to pay $10 for an update? What will these paying updates lead to in 10 years? I’m sure one day, the same exact OS system on the Macs will reside on portable devices. Once speeds, capacity and technical issues can be solved. Next time, I think the Software Update will be distributed through Apps Store instead, thus clarifying criticisms.
You are part of the small few that “jailbreak” your their devices. Does that make you a fugitive? Playing Edgar Friendly(Denis Leary) from Demolition Man. Most people just wanted to listen to their music and access the internet. I can’t imagine quality software prior to the launch of 2.0. At least now with all the new developer components that was included (ie: 3D audio, motion controls?). The original point is that the 2.0 software would allow 2.0 apps from 3rd parties (ie: video console, communication abilities)
As far as I know, everyone is allowed to develop on the iPhone. Name one person who was denied development rights. There are hundreds of available Apps from plenty of companies. What do they control in the Apps store? People submit and they appear in the store.
It’s like thinking about nagging kids, who gets to play with it. I thought since it was Apple’s idea to create a Touch platform, shouldn’t they be allowed to use it how they wish? The Apps store shows their ability to share.
Apple came up with another great idea and people want a piece of it. What sucks is that people want to start infusing politics into the system.
Post a Comment