Rob Huddleston

I’ve held off on writing this for quite some time, because I really don’t want to start a Apple vs. Windows debate. Honestly, I don’t. But today, I am once again shaking my head in disgust over the way Apple does things, and I just can’t hold off any longer.

Not that it will matter, but I do want to begin my noting that I’m not an anti-Apple person. Really, I’m not. I think that the company is one of the worst on the planet (I’ll get to why in a minute), but I don’t mind their stuff. People who know me know that I am planning to buy a Mac as my next computer. They know that I complain about Windows and Office and the things that Microsoft does on a regular basis. Ultimately, I think that computers and software are just tools. There are some things that Macs do better, and some things that Windows does better.

I heard a long time ago that the Mac OS was a superior product released by an inferior company, while Windows was an inferior product released by a superior company. I think that that sums it up perfectly. But Apple’s actions over the last few years have made me wonder if there’s some term that’s more appropriate to use than just “inferior”, because I think that that doesn’t come close to describing them.

Let’s imagine something. What would happen if Microsoft had released a new cell phone based on a completely closed technology? What if they had signed a sweetheart deal with the world’s largest (and most evil) phone company that guaranteed that their phones would only work on that company’s network? What if they refused to even allow a competitor’s software (Flash) to be installed on their phones? Or if they dropped the price of the phone dramatically less than a year after its release and basically told those who had shown their loyalty to the company by being early adopters that they were out of luck? What if the phone lacked several basic features (like cut and paste) and included planned obsolescence by including a battery that could not be replaced? How about limiting the software that can be installed to just that purchased through Microsoft, and even including a “kill switch” that allowed MS to disable any piece of software on the phone at their whim? Can you even imagine the outcry that would ensue? Not to mention the lawsuits.

And yet everything I just described above applies to the iPhone. And the Apple fan base reaction has been to complain a bit on blogs, but yet still vehemently defend the company and to rush out and buy the next generation of the phone. Huh?

OK, now on to my issue today, and the reason why I just can’t stay quiet anymore. Again, let me describe this as if Microsoft had done it, just to make clear the hypocrisy. Let’s say that someone (OK, me) had had to reformat their computer and reinstall everything. And before you say, “Hah! See, you admit that Windows is unstable,” let me point out again what I said above: I’m not a mindlessly pro-Microsoft person; yes, Windows has problems; yes, I would most likely have not had to reformat and reinstall if I had a Mac. None of that is actually relevant to the point. Making that case that Apple sucks does not mean that I am making that case that Microsoft is great. It’s possible for them to both suck.

Anyway … let’s say that after this reinstall, there were two pieces of Microsoft software that I needed – their web browser and their media player. So I went to their website, and noticed that I could download both the browser and the media player in one package. Cool. I’m happy to save time with that. So I went and completed the download and then installed. But you know what happened? The installer let me customize the install of the browser. No problem there. But as I went through the install options, I started to get a sick feeling in my stomach. There were all of the standard choices for installing the browser … but nowhere along the line did it ask my to select any options for the media player install. And of course, the media player was kind enough to grab all of the file extensions it wanted, and to hell with what preferences I, as the actual user, might have.

Obviously, this didn’t occur with Microsoft’s software, but rather with Apple’s. I’m a web developer, and as such I need to test sites in a bunch of different browsers. I was quite relieved last year when Apple finally made Safari available for those of us on the Windows side. And as much as I despise it, I do need Quicktime on my computer, because I’m also a Flash developer, and for some inexplicable reason, Flash requires that Quicktime be installed in order to import certain media types. But did you get the sentence above? I hate Quicktime, and while I have to have it on my machine, I absolutely do not want it as the default player for every type of media on my computer. How can Apple get away with having this installer that takes over my file extensions without ever asking? How dare they? I absolutely guarantee that blogs and message boards would be filled to the brim by the anti-Microsoft folks if they did the same thing.

There’s really only one bit of good news amongst all of this. I’m rebuilding my machine incrementally, since one of the reasons for the rebuild is that it had become painfully slow, and I want to figure out what, exactly, was causing this. So I haven’t installed any of Adobe’s software yet, but when I do, it will be very easy to get Quicktime’s grubby claws off of my image files when I install Photoshop, and it’s fairly easy to change the MP3 extension back to MediaMonkey.

Again, I’m really trying to understand why Apple can get any with this crap and still maintain the loyalty of their user base. I honestly don’t get it.

I went ahead and took the plunge and downloaded the iVirus. It took entirely too long to download (how big does it really need to be??) and then even longer to install. During the install, it needed to ask me not once but twice if I wanted to continue installing even though Outlook was open. First off, what is iTunes doing that it needs some sort of hook into Outlook; and second, why did it need to ask the second time? WTF?

I finally got it installed, started it, search for Dr. Horrible, and clicked the Buy Album button, at which point I got:
“An unknown error occurred. Please try again. -9808″
Gee, thanks for the helpful error message. A quick Google search found that this is anything but an unknown error – it is in fact quite common, but I wouldn’t expect Apple to take five damned seconds to research it (or, from what I read while finding the answer, respond to messages about it on their own forums). It turns out that I have to reduce the security of IE on my machine by telling it to not check for expired security certificates in order to get iTunes to work. So … iTunes is obviously using the IE connection settings (lazy), and it is obviously trying to use some sort of invalid certificate (even lazier), and Apple is basically forcing people to compromise their own security in order to use Apple’s POS software. Nice going, guys.

Well, anyway, I went ahead and changed the settings. I don’t use IE anyway, and besides, I’m going to be uninstalling this as soon as I have the soundtrack downloaded. So I have to close and reopen iTunes, and re-search for the music. I click it, try a few different username/password combos to remember mine, and then get a license agreement. OK, whatever. I agree, and then I get this message:
“Thank you for accepting the new iTunes Store Terms of Service. Please try your purchase again.”

WTF!!!!!!!

Seriously! Can this be any less user friendly? Can there have been any less intelligence put into this? Why in the hell do I have to start all over again???? It would be like going to Barnes & Noble, waiting in line, getting to the front, and then agreeing to join their frequent-buyer program, only to be told by the clerk that once you’re done filling out the paperwork for the club, you have to return all of your items to the shelf, drive home, and then come back to the store and start all over, because surely you can’t expect to actually complete a damned transaction in one process, can you? What kind of crazy world is this?

Seriously, I need one of those Mac fanatics out there to please explain to me why this company gets so much respect and loyalty. I simply don’t get it.

So I’ve done a lot of traveling this year, and there’s a lot that hotels can do better, but here’s the big one for me. I’m allergic to feathers, so the “nice” “upscale” hotels that use the fact that their pillows and comforters are down as an excuse to charge more per night aren’t some of my favorites. I have no problem with people being comfortable, and while I’ve never gotten to sleep on a down pillow or under a down comforter, I’m sure they’re nice. But why can’t hotels provide a true, equivalent alternative?

I’m in Milwaukee right now (beautiful city, by the way), staying at the downtown location of one of the world’s largest hotel chains. (I won’t say exactly which one, but I’ll give you a hint: the granddaughter of the founding family is in the news, a lot.) When I checked in, and asked at the front desk if they have feather pillows and comforters, and when the woman said yes, I explained that I was allergic and needed replacements. I went up to the room, and maybe fifteen minutes later someone from housekeeping stopped by.

On the beds already were four giant, fluffy pillows. The housekeeping person had one barely-there pillow for me. Also on the bed was a nice, thick comforter. My replacement? A single flannel blanket, with a two-inch diameter whole in it.

Really? I’m pretty sure I’m paying every bit as much for this hotel as those who can use the feather bedding, so then why do I have to be cold and uncomfortable? I’m going to go down and complain to the manager this morning, but this is, sadly, not the first time it’s happened. I’ll bet anything that the hotel simply doesn’t have any comforters that are not made from feathers – in my experience to date, there has not been a single one that has. Some good hotels will at least provide alternate pillows that are as good as the down ones, but please! Why is it that these places don’t get that this isn’t a matter of personal preference for some guests, but whether or not we choose to return in the future certainly is?

While I don’t use it for my primary email, I do rely on Yahoo mail a lot. I’m involved in several online forums on Dreamweaver and HTML through Yahoo, so I read all of those through their mail. I also use the Yahoo account whenever I sign up with a web site I’m not entirely sure I can trust.

So here’s what pisses me off about them: it’s becoming very apparent that they have some kind of sweetheart deal with DeepDiscount.com and MyPublisher.com whereby Yahoo allows emails to come in from them even if I have identified them as spam. I’ve never knowingly done any business with either of them, but I keep getting email from them. Every single time a message comes in from either of them, I click the “Spam” button to mark them as spam, but that doesn’t stop the email. And no, this isn’t a situation where it’s coming through because they keep switching email addresses – the messages are always from promotions@deepdiscount.com and always from the same address as mypublisher.com. (I don’t have one of their messages handy to check the address, but I just got another one from DeepDiscount.) I’ve gone in and verified that those addresses are in fact in my blocked senders folder, and sure enough they are. So the only logical explanation I can come up with is that Yahoo has some kind of special “allowed spammer” status for these folks.

That’s just not right. I know that Yahoo is a free service, and I appreciate what they do, but come on. If you’re going to claim to have a spam filter, and claim to allow me to block senders, then freaking let me do it, no matter who the sender is. Or at the very least, be up front about it: “If you use this service, you will receive messages from certain preferred vendors, and there is no way for you to block them.” As is, I can’t even find a place on Yahoo to complain to them about this.