There are many things people shout back and forth when it comes to Mac vs. PC. "Macs are too expensive!" "Well what's the point of buying a computer if it gets a virus and stops working? Plus Windows sucks!" "Macs don't have any games, though!" People argue until their tongues or fingers fall off, but of course, pretty much everything that is talked about has another side to it, so their arguments are kinda moot points to me.

I do not hate Apple for the conventional reasons--in fact, I like a lot of the designs they implement, and understand their pricing. And I don't like Microsoft for making 'great' software, in reality it pisses me off on a regular basis. No, I choose to support or hate these companies based on how their competitive practices will impact the computer and electronics markets.

I originally wrote this because, about a month ago, during the span of several days I was confronted on multiple occasions about why it was that I have so much spite for Apple. It is my hope that this will be the last time for a good long while that I'll need to write more than a paragraph about why I disapprove of Apple and anyone who supports the company financially. I have written this in the format of myself addressing a logically-minded individual who is curious about why I'm so polarized against Apple--something that I never get from actual Apple fans. The whole thing is over 6 pages and 3600 words, and although I wish you'd all read it, you can get the core of my complaint by reading Parts A, B and G (the very last one). Alternately, only read the bolded sections. It's like a mini essay!

Special note: Do not post any ignorant "____ sucks"-type comments to this journal. Even though you're mostly just here to see furry dragon porn, I'm still going to have to ask you to be respectful and thoughtful in my little corner of this website.

Part A: Summary
-- Twile, why do you dislike Apple so much?

I dislike Apple because they are an anti-competitive force in the technology market.

-- What do you mean by that? Isn't Microsoft like that as well? Why do you support them?

Apple uses business practices and strong software-hardware ties to create an anti-competitive segment of the market. Microsoft is only concerned with selling you their OS, because Zune and Xbox aside, they don't sell any hardware (I'll get back to those devices later). Simply put, both Microsoft and Apple want people to use their computer OS, and their OS only. However, only Apple is trying to push their hardware on you as well.

Part B: Elaboration
-- Why is that a bad thing? Aren't other companies, like Dell or HP, also trying to get you to buy their hardware?

Yes, they are. But importantly, they all use the same OS. See, right now I have an ASUS laptop, and I'm not very happy with the build quality of it. When I get another laptop, I can choose to get one which is not by ASUS. I can make that migration as easily as changing toilet paper brands, because I know all my software will still work on my next computer, because it will also run Windows. That's not the case with Apple products. If I buy a Mac once, most of the software I get used to using, or even purchase, will only run on a Mac. So if, for any reason, I decide I want a different brand of computer in the future, I have to give up all the stuff I was using.

-- Why does that really matter, though? I mean, Apple makes really nice hardware.

They do indeed. However, they don't provide all the sorts of things that you get in the PC world. Say I really get into gaming and I want something with more oomph than the Radeon 4850 in the iMac. You know, I want to play games on a 30" monitor, or a trio of 22" displays, and the iMac just doesn't have the power to push out the pixels I want. What do I do then? Apple doesn't make products for serious gamers. Or what if I want something with a carbon fiber or magnesium alloy shell, or a 1080p laptop with a swappable battery? I can choose between picking a PC that uses those and dumping all my previous software, or sighing and sticking with Apple until they hopefully make something more to my liking. Furthermore, as long as Apple is gaining marketshare from customers making the switch and very few people are able to switch back (for the reasons just stated), they will inevitably become a very large market force. In a worst-case scenario, they would become the dominant computer and OS manufacturer.

-- That doesn't sound like a worst-case scenario to me, really. Everyone's computers would just work. Viruses would be totally obliterated. Everyone would be able to benefit from the latest technologies.

Yeah, and computer technicians and hardware designers would lose their jobs, new sorts of malware would be developed, and people who couldn't afford new Macs would be stuck on hand-me-downs, right? No, in all seriousness, it would be a bad situation. You see, Apple is able to provide some of the finest hardware because of the PC industry.

-- What do you mean?

The PC industry works as follows. For every major computer part--CPU, GPU, hard drive, motherboard, etc--there are at least two manufacturers. They compete to make the best products which store the most, compute the fastest, take the least power, put out the least heat, take up the least space, and cost the least. Intel puts out their Pentium 4, AMD puts out their Athlon64. Intel puts out their Core and Core 2, AMD puts out the Phenom. Intel puts out the i7... and so on and so forth. PC manufacturers can pick and choose freely between these parts to make systems that they think will best suit the needs of their customers--be they small, low-power systems or massive computing powerhouses. It's never really the case that all of a company's products are worse in every respect to their competitors, so they can still sell things to finance R&D needed to try and take back the markets they aren't doing well in.

-- Yes yes, that's all very straightforward and generic. What does this have to do with Apple?

Apple does mostly what other companies do. They pick the best parts available to them, and put those in their systems. Now, I shouldn't have to tell you that lack of competition can make companies lazy--especially hardware companies. If they have no competition, they don't even have to make products which are significantly better, they can just wait for their previous ones to slowly die off and need replacing. Of course, if you make a processor that can last >5 years, putting out faster ones every few years to convince people to buy new systems will earn you more money... but still. Less competition means less drive to innovate. It also means less favorable pricing. There are reasons why we have laws to prevent monopolies.

-- I still don't see how this reflects badly on Apple.

Well, if Apple were the only major hardware provider, what would happen to the companies that didn't provide the absolute best products? What would happen to AMD, who makes approximately a third of the CPUs in gaming computers? Apple decided a few years ago that they were going to switch to Intel CPUs, because the upcoming Core series was just such a good thing. If there weren't other big computer manufacturers, AMD wouldn't be able to keep selling desktop CPUs. They would die, and without their competition, Intel wouldn't innovate to its full potential. Imagine that happening to every part in the computer.

-- Oh. That would be bad.

Yeah. And it's worse for Apple than any other hardware provider. See, most companies offer a little bit from this guy and a little bit from that guy, in different models. They provide Intel and AMD chips. Radeon and GeForce graphics parts. Toshiba and Seagate hard drives. After all, the parts are either generic enought to be interchangable, or they have their own drivers anyway. But Apple, for the sake of their unified ecosystem, tends to pick one provider whenever possible. And they stick with that provider, for all of their hardware, for as long as that hardware is on top. They optimize their software and their drivers for it. After all, at the end of the day, the big difference between the hardware in a Mac (or game console) and a PC is that Macs have consistent hardware and optimized support for it, while PCs have a lot of hardware variety and much less optimization.

Part C: The Apple Difference
-- So it's harder for them to switch their system components.

Yes. And that can bite them in the ass. Look back about 5 years. Apple had been using PowerPC chips, from IBM, for a decade. However, IBM was unable to provide chips that would fit the needs of the PowerBooks. I think they put out too much heat and needed too much power to be faster than the ones they were using. Anyway, the situation was so crappy, and the Core series was so promising, that Apple switched CPU brands (a switch which was no small undertaking). Imagine if PCs had died off in the 1990s, and Intel wasn't around to provide the Core series, because Apple was buying PowerPC chips. Or if AMD had died off and Intel didn't need to provide the Core series because they didn't have to address the Athlon64's growing popularity. Apple, and all its customers (us) would've been stuck with the PowerPC chips. The entire computer industry would've had to wait for IBM to get their shit together. That sort of stuff doesn't happen when you have multiple companies competing. And that competition wouldn't happen if Apple were the only hardware provider.

-- Alright. I get it. Having Apple as the computer company would lead to the market stagnating. But it's not like they can do anything about that. You don't get pissed off at Dell because if all other companies died off, they might only buy hardware from the best providers.

Well, there's a difference, and there is something Apple could do. As I said before, Dell and other companies use Windows. Apple and only Apple uses OS X.

-- But Macs can have Windows installed on them.

That they can. However, most people buy Macs for the whole experience, not just to wipe them and put Windows on. Only luxury-hardware-obsessed Windows users do that. Besides, if you already spent over 2 grand on a laptop, do you really want to shell out $100+ for another OS which you've heard is slower and less secure? Probably not.

-- What do you expect Apple to do about that? Stop selling Mac OS?

No, not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. They need to sell Mac OS even more. See, when Microsoft sells an OS, they let anyone install it on any hardware. When Apple sells an OS, you're not allowed to put it on a non-Mac. Even though there are non-Macs which can actually run Mac OS (known as Hackintoshes,  kipfox has one), it's a violation of the license to put Mac OS on them. That would be why nobody sells PCs with OS X on them. It's not because nobody would buy them--hell, people will buy PCs with wood panelling on them (no joke). It's because they would get their asses sued.

Part D: The Solution
-- So you want Apple to let anyone install OS X on any computer?

Precisely. If they sold OEM copies (OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer... companies like Dell), other companies would be able to purchase them and sell OS X systems. You could see a Mac laptop retailing for $500, or a Mac desktop retailing for $300--half what Apple charges for entry-level stuff. If you're a light computer user on a budget, that could be a godsend. And companies could make actual dedicated gaming Macs, systems closer to the Mac Pro than the iMac in form factor, which can take one or two user-removable graphics cards and handle a quad core CPU for easily $1000 cheaper than Apple will sell a Pro to you for.

-- So... you don't like Apple because they won't let you use OS X without a Mac.

As silly as that may sound, yes. Although I have no particular desire to use OS X, I would much prefer it for a market shift in that direction to not mean that Apple gains a monopoly over the computer hardware market.

-- One of the problems that PCs have with reliability is that there are a lot of components out there which each have their own advantages and disadvantages, quirks and driver bugs, random incompatibilities with each other. If Apple allowed what you suggest, this might bring that problem over to the "Macintosh" realm.

That is true, and it's quite possible that OS X systems might end up having some of the same sorts of issues that Windows systems have today. However, assuming that OS X is as finely-engineered as Apple claims it to be, and as advanced and efficient as their press releases trumpet, I'd think that OS X wouldn't particularly be worse than Windows when it comes to avoiding such problems--unless working with their own tightly-controlled hardware specs has made them lazy with flexibility. In any case, Apple could still sell their Macintosh brand computers, for people who want to be as certain as possible that they'll have a finely-tuned computing experience. For people willing to pay the price premium, they would offer the assurance that every square millimeter of the hardware was poured over by the same people who work on the OS and software, to make sure it all fits together well.

-- So in essence, you're proposing that Apple allow itself to take on the role of Microsoft, with all the benefits and flaws their approach has.

Yes. See, there are currently three possible ways the OS market can go. Mac OS can die, and Windows will become the OS of choice for home and work computers. Windows can die and Mac OS can become the champ. Or they can remain locked in a bitter war which forces consumers to choose a side and invest money in that side until annoyances with their computer push them over to the other side. The last option, frankly, is the worst. Resources are wasted on advertising and re-developing the same features on two incompatible platforms--or intellectual property laws and pride keep genuinely good features from making it to the competing platform, so you get some good ideas on Macs and some good ones on PCs. In some cases the wheel has to be reinvented, and sometimes the new wheel is square because the round one is too close to the original patent. One platform really needs to become the victor for consumers to win. If Microsoft does with their current strategy, the hardware market will continue to thrive and compete as it does now. If Apple does with their current strategy, well, as I already described it will spell doom for the productive market we know and love. Having one possible okay outcome is nice, having two possible okay outcomes is better. So yes, Apple really needs to take Microsoft's approach to OS licensing. It will benefit everyone.

Part E: Implications
-- Apple will miss out on hardware sales, and those missed sales will have inferior hardware that is a nuisance for customers. How does that help anyone?

Apple may sell fewer units if cheaper systems can provide a comparable experience, but for every system they sell, they'll bag $100 marginal profit from the OS license. And if they're able to sway the >1 billion Windows users onto their platform as a result, winning a lifetime contract for $100 billion from new OS sales every 3-5 years when the whole market upgrades, that could be a pretty big win. Besides, with people migrated to the Mac OS platform, it would be much easier for customers to make the switch to Apple hardware, under the assurances of top-notch construction, 8+ hour batteries, green manufacturing, and aesthetic perfection. Pushing that stuff is a bit harder when it means every phrase, program, and icon that a user is familiar with is going to be turned upside down because they have to switch OS as well.

And customers would have huge wins. More selection can only be good here. For those who just want Apple hardware, the increased hardware competition might drive prices down. For those who want cheaper hardware, it would suddenly be a viable option to have a new OS X-based system, with display and keyboard and all, for under $500. For those who want higher-end hardware, like gamers, that would suddenly be available too. Today, quad-core chips have been affordably priced for well over a year. Indeed, you can get a quad-core i7 processor for under $300. That's better than a Core 2 Quad, which is twice as good as the Core 2 Duo which is in the fastest consumer Mac desktops. A shift like this would allow OS X to be a viable platform for gaming and computationally-intensive work, as well as selling a system to every Mom and Pop.

-- This still strikes me as something that would weaken the integrity and tightly-woven nature of the Mac ecosystem.

It wouldn't necessarily make everything absolutely better in every way. Just the fact that customers using OS X would have more to choose than Portable/Desktop, Cheap/Average/Expensive, and 250 or 500 GB, could be viewed as a disadvantage. But if this doesn't happen, and Apple does win the software war, it'll cripple the hardware market. Likely, people would see how unreasonably anticompetitive it is, and Apple would get its ass sued for monopolistic business practices from their restrictive licensing rules. Whether that would happen before or after the hardware market got fucked over, I couldn't guess.

Part F: Beyond Mac
-- So, you're opposed to Macs. But Apple doesn't just sell Macs. They also sell iPods, Apple TVs, iPhones, movie rentals, etc. What about the iPod? Where's the lock-in with that? iTunes music is DRM free.

It's DRM free, now. After Amazon and other services already provided sub-dollar pricings for high-quality MP3s without DRM. Yes, you can take your iTunes-purchased music and put it on other devices. But you can't do that with your movies, TV shows, music videos, or apps.

-- Now you're just being unfair, and holding Apple to a higher standard than other companies. You can't play your Nintendo DS games on other systems, or your PSP games on other devices, or your mobile phone games on other phones. Game consoles in general are like that, if you decide you're through with Sony, you can't play your PS3 games on other systems. Why should you expect that sort of stuff from Apple?

I don't approve of closed hardware systems like that in general. That includes the Xbox and the Zune, Microsoft's babies. And they do make a game platform with open hardware specs--the PC. They also make movie ownership and rental systems which can be played on products from dozens of companies--the DVD. And mobile phones don't let you migrate your applications from one device to another? That's why I support OSes which bridge more than one phone, such as Windows Mobile.

Don't get me wrong. These choices aren't always the most convenient. PCs have many more things that can go wrong (or so very right!) than game consoles. Windows Mobile is much less tightly integrated than the Palm Pre or the iPhone. DVDs, whether they're viewed normally or ripped to a computer, are much less convenient than end-to-end digital distribution. This isn't just a matter of picking the most convenient and elegant solution, for me. As a responsible consumer, I feel obligated to support the solution which allows for the most competition and the least lock-in. That is the solution which is the most viable in the long term.

-- Alright. You've explained why you are opposed to the support of platforms like the Mac and iPhone. But you always seem to take things so personally. Why is that?

Well, to clarify, I'm opposed to the support of pretty much anything Apple until they significantly clean up their act. Even buying one of their monitors, or an iPod just to listen to music you already own, gives them money--the fuel of any company. But the reason I take it so personally and get so riled up about all this stuff is that, well, the scenarios I envision 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road are things which will affect me. If Apple becomes the dominant provider of computer hardware and OSes, and PCs as we know them dwindle into obscurity, or if everyone trades in their phone for an iPhone tomorrow, that will slash their competition and give me the painful option of entering their proprietary hardware ecosystem, or buying unpopular, poorly-supported fringe devices.

This isn't somebody buying a Dell laptop, and maybe moving to an HP in 3 years if they see another model they like. This is people buying into a hardware trap that few people leave, whether it's because they don't want to or can't. It's like people voting to change the government to a Monarchy, so they don't have to worry about voting in the future. If that Monarchy ends up coming to power and I have to bow down before it, I'll be pissed the fuck off.

Don't get me wrong. There are many days that go by when I say to myself, "For my next laptop I really want something like the Macbook Pro, though maybe with a few little tweaks here and there. Still, the part selection and aesthetics are top-notch and I can't find anything which is all-around better." However, for reasons I've just described, I can't buy a Macbook Pro and put Windows on it, even if that would give me the sort of computing experience I crave.

Part G: Wrapup
-- Wow. Just, wow. You're a closet Mac-lover so paranoid that you'll lose your freedom to choose how many graphics cards you have 10 years down the road, that your very moral fibers have been bent to see Apple-supporting as evil. You're so worried about harming the computer market that you won't even buy stuff that you want on some level.

And you guys think you have it bad hearing me talk about this a few times a year; I get to listen to me talk about it a few times a day.

Think about it this way. It might be more immediately gratifying to just eat junk food every day, but it can have terrible health considerations later on in life, so you don't do it. It might seem like a good idea at the time to steal something, or try to run from the cops to avoid a speeding ticket, but we're blessed with forethought so we don't do those things either. This is just applying critical thinking and planning to something else I care about. I care a lot about computers. So even though I might be able to get a laptop which is a little tidier and a little thinner from Apple today, I'd prefer to have more than just one hardware provider when I'm 30, so I don't support Apple.