@RyanNewYork got me thinking about this again yesterday with a tweet that read, "It's always sad when progressives who claim to support Net Neutrality also support censorship of closed systems like iTunes". I couldn't agree more.
Late last year net neutrality supporters were up in arms over Comcast demanding increased fees from Netflix for delivering its content to Comcast subscribers. Net neutrality supporters were rightfully concerned that Comcast could be leveraging its control over the delivery pipeline to hamper a competitor's business and make its own more attractive and accessible. I personally joined the chorus, envisioning the potential abuses this kind of behavior could lead to.
With approximately 17 million broadband subscribers, the potential for a company like Comcast to negatively impact Netfix's business is substantial. Theoretically, if the fees charged by Comcast were high enough, Netfix might even have to stop delivering its service to Comcast subscribers, leaving those subscribers with less options to choose from within a less competitive landscape. Many of those subscribers are likely to be locked into service contracts and/or have few other options available for broadband Internet access.
Now, it's easy to hate Comcast. I mean, they're a cable company. But in reality, their subscriber base and their net neutrality transgression pale in comparison to those of the Wall Street and consumer darling Apple.
Comcast's subscriber base is dwarfed by that of Apple. By the end of Februrary 2011 Apple had sold more than 100 million iPhones worldwide and an additional 15 million iPads (this is prior to the release of the iPad2). Each of these devices is designed to function within an environment where Apple exercises control over which applications can be purchased and loaded onto the devices, how those applications can function, the price at which they can sell and deliver content, and even what programming languages can be used to create the applications.
Yet every day I see people who rail against Comcast and consider themselves staunch advocates of net neutrality tapping away at their Apple devices, seemingly unaware of the contradiction. Why does Apple get a pass? The company's mobile strategy is the antithesis of net neutrality. In fact, it is a deliberate, and so far extremely successful, attempt to position itself directly between content providers and users, profiting handsomely in the process.
Apple's explanations for this strategy are flimsy at best. Providing the best possible user experience? How does limiting my ability to customize my device to my needs do that? How does forcing me to look at white rectangles where Flash video files should appear accomplish that? How does requiring applications to function in ways that insure Apple collects a commission first and consider usability second, align with this goal?
Before Apple fans start bashing me for critcizing the great Oz, I ask that they consider a few questions. 1) Has the ability to purchase, download and install applications and plug-ins not officially approved by Apple or sold through its Mac store, destroyed the computing experience on your Apple desk or laptop? If Apple told you tomorrow that it would now be locking down its desktops and laptops in the same way it has its mobile devices, would you be ok with that? If not, why not?
Now one could argue - if you don't like Apple's approach go buy an android or other device and quit complaining. But that's a myopic perspective. And anyone who makes this argument for Apple while criticizing Comcast is guilty of some serious rationalization.
Apple's App Store requirements will affect content pricing both within and outside of its ecosphere. If a company like Amazon wants to sell ebooks into the Apple ecosphere it needs to do so at a price that allows it to provide Apple with a 30% commission and still make a profit. That would be fine if Apple didn't require that Amazon and others agree to sell those same ebooks at the same inflated price when offered through their own sites or other markets. By doing so Apple effectively inflates prices for everyone, even if they choose not to use Apple devices.
Apple's stance on Adobe Flash has also shown that the company is quite willing to block specific software or technology as well. Adobe is strong enough to weather the storm, but what about smaller companies and start-ups introducing new technologies that Apple considers a threat? Will they simply be shut out of the Apple ecosphere? Will they be asked to pay a price of admission so high that it undermines their ability to compete? Based on Apple's conduct to date these are very credible scenarios, and given the reach of Apple's ecosphere very disturbing ones.
So although I was pleased to see Senator Franken voicing support for net neutrality and criticizing Comcast at SXSW, I think to a great extent he's barking up the wrong trouser leg. Think about it, Comcast represents 17 million broadband landline users, a fading technology. Apple represents 100 million plus users in an expanding one. Yet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the moment Senator Franken stepped off the stage at SXSW, he and hundreds of the net neutrality supporters in the audience all fired up their iPads.
