Seriously though. You really think this is the first time ever that a company has doctored an image (ever so slightly, like 20 pixels worth here to make a widescreen movie fit better into a 4:3 advertisement) and it's worth deciding the company can't be trusted. I have a hard time thinking of a company that doesn't "blatantly lie" in the same way with their commercials, product boxes and so on, including the company you work for Caleb. Doctored screenshots and movies (simulated images) are very common in the game industry.
It's true that everyone doctors their screenshots for marketing purposes, and surely a some of the resentment over this particular case is due to the fact that it's Apple doing it. I've been very critical of Apple a lot lately, but I can't get worked up over them having a marketing division that does what marketing divisions do.
That said, all is fair in love and war, so I don't have a problem with someone pointing out the disconnect between the marketing and the actual performance. Maybe it is just because of Apple's market share, or their "smugness" or whatever, but it's a legit criticism, and no matter how nitpicky it is, I'm glad someone out there is pointing this out so people can make an informed decision -- and I hope somewhere there's an Apple fanboy doing the same thing to police the Android marketing materials.
Sure, Apple is doing everything it can to shift people away from plugins, but in a legal way by showing an alternative and sticking with it on their own products in a non monopoly environment. If you don't like the choice, buy something else, it's that simple.
...
But yet Apple scares people more?
While it's true that Apple isn't engaging in monopolistic tactics to increase its control of the user experience, that doesn't mean that their kinder, gentler form of a closed system is any better for users, or that Apple's endgame doesn't include an option to use monopolistic tactics later once users are confined to a very small universe of options.
Microsoft's early success was probably 5% inspiration, 5% perspiration, and 90% dumb luck. They didn't have the leverage to muscle competitors out until the late 80s, and didn't really start using it in illegal ways until the early-to-mid 90s. In other words, Apple could very well be the next Microsoft, and it's totally legit for people who are concerned about Apple's increasing control over the platform to criticize that trend.
I don't find the "but they have good technical reasons for doing things that make them more money" apologia persuasive at all. (I'm not attributing that position to you in particular, but I've certainly seen a lot of it around.) Not only is Apple doing exactly what Microsoft would be doing in the situation, but they're doing it for the exact same reasons Microsoft would be doing it.
Previous Topic
Index
