What is your response to "The Case Against Apple" by Jason Calacanis and the questions he poses?

I loved the post that Jason had entered, but was left with a few questions. Apple is a premium brand, or at least they market themselves that way, one might expect the offerings to be more diverse. The one thing I can say about Apple is that when I start my laptop, it is going to come on.

I realize that all hardware fails, but the hardware is nothing without the software, specifically the operating system. Windows XP is what brought me to Apple. Though many disagree with me, Windows XP was just a mess for me and drove me to look elsewhere.

What legitimate reason does Apple have for the weird constraints they put on their products? Is it fiscal? I am not an economist or even a fiscally minded person, but I don't often see Cupertino's logic.

Example: MacBooks/MacBook Pros, until very recently, came with only a glossy screen. There wasn't even an option for the traditional matte finish. Now, today, it is available as a $50.00 option.

Are they trying to offset the cost of making the matte screen available by nickel and diming the customer like an insurance company or car dealer? What the costs, really, for each type of screen? Another example could be cited with the black MacBook, and it's extra $150.00 option.

I know, I was one of those that bought one. The black finish looked so nice, that I see them everywhere on campus. The contentions behind each case: 1.

Destroying MP3 player innovation through anti-competitive practices. I can say that iTunes is Apple's show, the iPod is Apple's device, their whole ecosystem is built on a solid principle of simplicity. Add in other devices and that simplicity starts to fork.

Apple would find themselves in the position of supporting other people's gear. Apple doesn't even want to support their own gear, though my experiences have been very positive thus far. How they have manged to get away with their solidarity is probably political in nature.

Microsoft trying to do the same thing would not even fly off of the drawing board. Why? Many more folks have directly experienced the nature of Microsoft products and have heard of the dodgy business tactics.

Microsoft does have a much larger user base that Apple. 2. Monopolistic practices in telecommunications.

I don't think Apple deserves all of the rap here. AT&T and Apple should take the heat equally. Steve Jobs must have been beside himself to not have been able to call all of the shots in the deal concerning the iPhone.

I really can't see AT&T letting Apple dictate all of the terms, especially before the iPhone launched. The other issues of unlocking, and tethering, SMS, and the recent Google voice are all political and benefit none of the users. Many might not care, but the vocal few are starting to make noise about how the iPhone experience is not that great.

If Apple comes out with a CDMA version of the phone for Verizon, then there is NO reason why they can't make an unlocked, dual-band phone. I think Apple should be sued for false advertising with it's commercials regarding the iPhone, as it does not work as depicted in the ads. 3.

Draconian App Store policies that are, frankly, insulting. I would not want this job/responsibility for any amount of money (ok, maybe for a great deal of money). I have never submitted an app to the app-store, nor am I a developer.

Does Apple make clear the rules regarding submissions? Communication is the best policy, and if Apple was smart they would level with developers and perform damage control before it is inflicted. Perhaps a trial period for all newly approved apps from the app store?4.

Being a horrible hypocrite by banning other browsers on the iPhone There isn't much room for Apple to move on this point. The prevention of another browser on the iPhone is anti-competitive. Other, less-influential carries allow it, why not Apple?5.

Blocking the Google Voice Application on the iPhone. I am not substantially connected to this, but those who are are the ones in a position to voice their concerns. From what I understand, the service in by invitation only and could circumvent the services of the parent carrier, AT&T.

I would be for that, as AT&T's service is abhorrent. The idea of someone telling me exactly what I can do with some I have purchased and, presumably, own does not bode well. That's life... Not just with cellphones and computers, but many other things.

Apple/AT&T's choice to block this app stinks, but it is their choice. We always have the option to leave the iPhone and it's service. Many of the 'ism's' regarding Microsoft's way of doing things are for reasons unknown, or appropriate to Microsoft.

The MPAA, RIAA, Adobe all come to mind with this type of argument. The iPhone is the current industry standard and leaving that for any platform is a significant step backwards, but it is one I can take at any time. There is always the iPod Touch... What's the alternative to the Logan's Run society in the Cult of Apple?

Windows Vista? Windows 7? Not for me.

Despite the shenanigans, OS X will kick Windows around the planet on all points. Linux/FLOSS? Sure, I love both of those things and use them daily, but they are not right for everyone.

Even with easy to use packages like Ubuntu, it's not for everybody. I have some folks here that can barely use a Mac, let alone Windows, and I am going to expect they can handle Linux?No... part of me rationalizes the high price I pay for Apple product, when $$$ becomes available, is for the good hardware and the great OS. Dell/HP make some pretty decent machines I could install Linux upon, but if I can take the easy way, I will.

1. I really don't think the openness or closedness of the iTunes system is an issue for anyone but the Technorati. Apple is not trying to sell to the super tech nerds that care about this stuff.

The masses want something that is very easy to use, and that is what iTunes/iPod provides. It works perfectly pretty much every time. My mother can use an iPod and iTunes.

She would probably not be able to use a PC based solution. At the same time, the tech folks like me will still buy Apple, because despite their attitude, they still make the best products and represent the best value for the money. 2.

I don't think so, at this point. The closed iPhone system is justified by the need to keep the system stable. I completely believe that opening the system to any app would create huge stability systems for the platform.

If people start making apps that make the system unstable, they will find their way onto people's phones who didn't even want them there. Ie I will pick up my mother's iphone and put something on it, that will later crash her phone. She won't blame me, she'll blame Apple.

Apple has a right to prevent that. 3. Their dexterity and competence is beyond reproach at this point.

They are not doing anything they haven't done forever. They're just getting more and more in the public eye, and people are starting to take notice. Apple has always been about controlling both hardware and software.Jobs basic premise from day 1 was that you need to control both to create a truly great user experience.

They do, and that is what we have. Microsoft doesn't, and well, the experience is mostly crap.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.