Wir sind bettler. Hoc est verum.

So there was this news post about how Apple is notorious for trying to keep end users out of their products, and how their newest attempt is to change out all the screws on their products to screws that require a custom screwdriver (which presumably only they have). And yes, they are doing this to consumers who bring their products in for repair, without telling the consumer they are doing it.

I then had a friend ask an employee at Apple about this and from what my friend said, the employee’s attitude was simply that Apple owns our devices and we are not free to do what we want with them, even if we choose to void the warranty to do so. Now of course this isn’t an official Apple statement, and it may not really reflect Apples true position, but considering how they act, one wonders.

This brings me to a question that just popped in my head: why is Apple now successful, but not as much 10+ years ago, and why was Microsoft so successful 10+ years ago and is seemingly loosing ground? There seems to be a tech battle between what I call the “free market” companies like Google and Microsoft and the “socialistic” companies like Apple. “Is this battle enraged apart from any influence of the larger battle in society?” I wonder.

Let me explain further what I mean by “free market” and “socialistic” when referred to companies. Simply it seems to me that some companies have an overriding philosophy that the consumer ought to hold the majority of responsibility of what they do with the products they buy, these companies I call “free market”. While other companies have a philosophy that consumers ought to be limited in what they can do with the products the purchase, almost leaning towards the concept that the consumer really doesn’t own the product they buy, but the company does. Personally I do think there is a mix of good in each, depending on the product and the situation. Please also note that I am not against Apple nor all their decisions (perhaps some but not all).

This thinking mirrors the thinking we often see in society. There is one camp in society which believes that people ought to be allowed to (within reason and law) do pretty much what ever they want with their own property and resources. While the other camp in society believes that people are not free to do what they want with their property and resources, but ought to defer much of that responsibility to the Government or some higher authority (or perhaps company).

I cannot help but wonder how much of these philosophies rest upon the view of human beings, either that humans are capable in and of themselves to make wise decisions, or that humans are not capable in and of themselves to make wise decisions, and thus should or shouldn’t be allowed to make such decisions themselves. In other words the “free market” people tend to let people do (within reason and law) what ever they want, and thus let the people reap the consequences of their actions, while the “socialistic” people tend to control people so that they cannot reap “bad” consequences. In the view of the “free market” people, the greatest good is achieved when people are allowed to reap the greatest good consequences, which also means they are allowed to reap the greatest bad consequences. On the other hand the “socialistic” people believe that the greatest good is achieved when people are not allowed to reap the greatest bad consequences, and thus they are ok with limiting the greatest good consequences.

Likewise companies have similar philosophies. They decide how much control and responsibility they will give their consumers. This brings me to my original question. “How much of Apple’s current success is determined by good business decisions, and great product development, and how much is from their “socialistic” philosophy coinciding with the current society’s philosophy? I am no history PhD but it seems to me that at no time in the history of the world has “socialism” been so popular. America is moving that direction, China is there, and right there you have the majority of the world’s power and technology accounted for – not to mention population (I don’t know where India is on the scale and I am not including all the other countries moving towards socialism like England, France, Spain etc).

This question intrigues me, because 20 years ago when Microsoft was smoking Apple, the society here in America (and probable most countries in the world) was more “free market” than it is now, and now being more “socialistic” than it was then. So why did Microsoft grow when Apple didn’t, then, and Apple grow more now than Microsoft is? Of course I bet a majority of the reasons are just products, and business decisions, but why are certain products and business decisions more successful than others? Should we consider in our analysis the current philosophy of our culture and how it responds, controls, and even accepts some business decisions and not others? I think so.