Why I Won't Buy an iPhone

(page 2 of 2)

Putting Profit Before Progress

Historically Apple's Macintosh computers have remained relevant because of the ongoing efforts of dedicated, enthusiastic software developers who continued to build great applications even when the size of the Mac-using community was dwindling. Shutting developers out of its latest, greatest accomplishment is a lousy thing to do.

But then again, it's not like Apple's other recent blockbuster products, those of the iPod variety, are terribly open to software developers either. Apple controls every bit of software that goes into the iPod. The games available from the iTunes online music store, for instance, are Apple-approved. If I wanted to build one, I couldn't just release it to the world like I would for the Mac or PC. I would have to go through Apple. The same set of circumstances appears to be true for the iPhone. Apple has built a stone wall around it, preventing throngs of independent software developers from pushing the device to reach its full potential. If the only way to peddle my wares is through the iTunes store, the way iPod games are now, then so be it. But why not open it up?

Software developers are part of what makes the Mac the strong platform it is. But on the iPhone they're just troublemakers (BusinessWeek.com, 8/2/07). Troublemakers who might, in the worse case, cost Apple and its hand-picked partners money. And that's why Jobs has promised to stop them. For starters, they may unlock the phone, enabling it to be used on any network, not just that of AT&T. Beyond that, they'll create applications that could rankle any number of other Apple partners.

Build an app to create your own ringtones out of your own collection of MP3 music files, and you go against Apple's approved method of paying a fee—99¢ on top of the 99¢ you paid for the song originally—to make one on iTunes, thereby costing Apple and the record labels extra cash. Create your own method of downloading music or video via Wi-Fi, and you go against the approved method of buying an iTunes song via Wi-Fi at Starbucks (SBUX). Sure, it's innovative—no other online music service has a similar feature—but must there be only one way to make the iPhone interesting to own? Do commercial partnerships and contractual entanglements have to come before creativity and home-brewed innovation?

Inconsistent with Apple's Branding

Wasn't Apple itself the creation of two guys in garage with a knack for making interesting ideas into real things? So why punish the people who try to create something interesting, threatening them with the prospect of an inoperative phone?

Apple insiders argue privately that the iPhone is a new device. In time, they say, maybe the development policy could change, though none say definitively that it ever will.

Until that happens, the company that styles itself as the technology supplier of choice for creative people with great ideas is insisting that to own its products is to accept a defined orthodoxy where there's only one acceptable way to do things. That doesn't sound like the Apple I know. So I'm not going to buy an iPhone. And until Apple commits to changing this ridiculous policy, I don't think you should either.

Hesseldahl is a senior writer for BusinessWeek.com and his Byte of the Apple column, covering all things Apple, appears biweekly at http://www.businessweek.com/technology/.