At the other end of the crazy scale are governments who want to protect their own secrets and communication through encryption but don’t want their citizens to encrypt their data or communications for their protection. See? Crazy, right? Here’s another crazy idea.
Let’s Break Up Apple
Even intelligent, well educated, well heeled people say and do crazy things. Remember, Steve Jobs didn’t want native applications on the iPhone. I know. Crazy, right?
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Or, as is the case with beleaguered BlackBerry’s CEO John Chen, it’s OK to say something crazy so people will remember your company is still in business.
BlackBerry is still in business, right? I’m not really sure. Haven’t seen a BlackBerry in the wild in what seems like years.
Using some rather convoluted logic and a redefining of net neutrality, John Chen says net neutrality blah blah blah, open internet blah blah blah, and Apple should be forced to make apps for Android and BlackBerry. Seriously. He said that.
The key buzzwords here are openness and neutrality, which I can only assume were phrases sanctioned by Saul Alinsky wannabes, used historically by Mao Zedong, and embodied by Frank Luntz as a way of taking ownership of that which does not belong to you.
In Chen’s legislatively rewritten world, openness and neutrality basically mean something akin to “all your base are belong to us.” In other words, if you can’t beat ’em, communize ’em and socialize ’em. If they won’t compete on terms so you win, too, change the terms so you can win also.
Or, something like that.
So, Chen dreamed up a new definition Net Neutrality, went all socialist on capitalism with Carrier Neutrality, and coined the terms Application and Content Neutrality. Wait for it… wait for it… here it comes…
Unlike BlackBerry, which allows iPhone users to download and use our BBM service, Apple does not allow BlackBerry or Android users to download Apple’s iMessage messaging service. Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. This dynamic has created a two-tiered wireless broadband ecosystem, in which iPhone and Android users are able to access far more content and applications than customers using devices running other operating systems. These are precisely the sort of discriminatory practices that neutrality advocates have criticized at the carrier level.
Good grief. He actually put that in print for all the world to see what an educated idiot would and could do when backed against the wall of a monumental business failure. It’s wonderfully written prose which obscures the craziness, insanity, and obvious delirious desperation behind it. Where would such a concept for application and content neutrality end?
Cable TV companies should be forced to deliver their non-broadcast video content to anyone who asks. Why? Content neutrality. Any developer who creates an app for iOS should be required to develop and publish the same app on BlackBerry. Why? Application neutrality.
Neutrality? Why not call it what it really is. 21st century communism with a primer and exterior coating of neo-socialism. It’s major league baseball where every team makes the playoffs, regardless of record; and even the worst team can play in the World Series.
communism |ˈkämyəˌnizəm | (often Communism) noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs
Legislative lunacy is the only reason Apple should be required to make apps for Android and BlackBerry or Windows or anything else because open is winning. Why not Tizen? Why don’t apps for OS X work on Ubuntu? Or, Windows? How does putting Apple’s free apps on BlackBerry or Android or Windows help Apple, since most of Apple’s apps on iOS or OS X are free?
Ideas like Chen’s could destroy the free market system we know and love and live in.
Then what would we be? Europe?
Let’s call Chen’s ploy what it really is. A ploy. A cry for relevance. A spoiled rich kid’s way to get some much needed attention while his company wallows in dire straits and teeters on the edge of obscurity. How? By whining about being a loser because of, you know, winners.