The information technology sphere of solutions is filled with advocates, fans, and outright addicts. Whether the solutions choices are segregated by closed source and open source the debate continues. The lion-share of end-point (laptop, desktop) solution market belongs to Microsoft Windows. However, some of that is changing with the increasing sales of smart phones (already ubiquitous in other markets) in America. The Windows Mobile solution and BlackBerry still have a large segment of the market. In to this mix over the last few years we add Apple. Apple represents a closed-source, tightly controlled ecosystem of applications and technologies. Can that model be considered unethical to support?
In this discussion I as the writer have used Linux, Windows products, and Palm Products. Currently I am using the Apple OSX MacBook Pro (2 generations old), an Apple iPhone, and own several other Apple products. Currently in my stable of Apple products are a total of 5 iPhones, 2 MacBook Pro’s, 3 Macbooks, an AppleTV, 2 Apple WAPs, an iMac, several shuffles and iPods, and various iBooks. When considering the many aspects of use I run my product choices through a filter that others may not have. As an example when I teach classes of future information technology students and I pull an Apple branded device from my book bag I am supporting that product line. When I use Apple software to present information I am supporting that applications viability. I am careful to state that I use Apple products because they fit “MY” workflow and may not fit anybody else’s workflow. So, when I am getting ready to make decisions on purchasing a new system (as I am now) I must consider the ramifications of that choice.
Is Apple an ethical choice? Regardless of the issues of market (the tyranny of the majority) I choose based on company actions (don’t support tyrants) and I choose based on the technology itself. The actions taken in the debacle by Apple using law enforcement against Gizmodo is especially troubling. How I’ve been treated when dealing with my MacBook Pro, and how people in my direct influence have been treated also causes me to take pause. I need products that are inclusive of an enlightened corporate philosophy that is as profitable as it is ethical. I’m not telling the corporation what to do I am saying what I am going to do. As such I don’t want a corporation telling me how I will use my tools either.
I have to admit I use my tools with the minimum of “extra” changes. To be honest I don’t jailbreak my iPhone, I don’t use illegal software downloads, every application is licensed, and as such I am very cost sensitive to my choices. If I am making my choices ethically is this also true of the company I am supporting? Apple has a “Green” initiative and tries hard to insure ethical treatment of workers within its supply chain. In my very few warranty issues with Apple products I have generally been treated very well. So far I’ve had the following problems.
- My Generation 1 iPhone screen quit working and replaced 1 week after the warranty expired free of charge.
- My CD/DVD drive received a bad firmware update from Apple as a system update that took away the burner functionality. Apple refused to deal with this issue.
- The Lucinda Grand font is used as the system default font which is not licensed to any other OEMs and as such no .pdf forms filled out using Preview can be read by any other operating system.
From the perspective of how the company treats me I am doing pretty well. I got a new iPhone when mine died suddenly, but Apple released a patch that was later pulled that gutted the functionality of my super drive. Though I had an extended warranty Apple refused to accept anything and said it was my fault. The Lucinda Grand Font issue is one of those issues that starts to make me question other aspects of Apple closely. It appears that using that font is a Steve Jobs design decision that has directly impacted by job as a professor.
How does Apple treat other people? If the company is based on a principle of Think Different, or perhaps is more open to artistic expression then we can expect particular behaviors. If the company is tied tightly into the corporate enterprise we can also expect certain behaviors. In dealing with the application store for the iPhone Apple has banned numerous applications based on their adult themed content. There is nothing illegal with these applications they simply are not desired. This positions Apple Corporate as a magistrate over what is considered objectionable. This is a slippery ethical slope. If content based refusal rather than market forces are allowed to rule the app store then several ramifications for society will occur.
Unfortunately Apple has also treated the developer community poorly. Recently the Electronic Frontier Foundation released through a freedom of information act request to NASA the Apple developer details. To say the details of that agreement were reprehensible would be an understatement. Which means the creative arm of the Apple eco-system is being abused through egregious failures in ethics. If we hold Apple to the “do no harm” level of ethics then their developer agreements simply fail the test. If the censorship of the content on the iPhone platform wasn’t bad enough Apple is also censoring the developer community by not allowing them freedom of speech.
Now to consider the developer censorship and imagine if Microsoft said anybody developing programs for Windows was not allowed to discuss those development practices. Well in the Microsoft EULA for all users it has similar protections against testing, or using the software in section 8 and 9 (pdf). They are not nearly as potentially horrific as the developer agreement from Apple. Not that anybody is going to say Microsoft is blissfully without blame in the commodity personal computer market. As a decision it could be positioned that choosing a vendor is simply a choice of which is the least bad. I could also reject either and make a simplistic argument for open source. Neither though is the point of this discussion. Open source is always an option and I carry an ASUS Netbook with Ubuntu loaded on it as a super portable computing device.
There are several ethical constructs I could utilize (utilitarian, normative, applied) and then balance the evidence presented here and other issues to create a conclusion. In this case an applied ethics approach is simplest. The utilitarian approach would simply ask which technology and vendor makes me happiest. There is the balance of which choice does the least harm and most good. In this case I struggle with corporate nannyism making complete flub of the entire affair.
As a long time Apple user I have to admit that I am troubled with the current changes to the eco-system rules of conduct. Closed systems require increased levels of trust, but the behavior of the company Apple has led to decreased levels of trust. The cutest advertisements, coolest gadgets, newest technology, will not cover the sin of corporate bullies and evil intent. If Apple is going to harm developers (creators), use government agents to violate the civil rights of journalists, and treat consumers poorly through inherently flawed business practices (bad patches) then I have to reconsider the architecture and eco-system as a viable solution.