Your PC is more expensive to run with Apple software

I’m not only a PC, I’m a Microsoft lock-in.  I use Windows, Office, Live Mail and Calendar, Live Suite and Windows Mobile.  Why do I exclusively use Microsoft products?  The answer is simple really, it’s just so convenient to do so.  It’s called the lock-in.

Other companies have lock-ins too, top of the list being Apple.  But why isn’t the Apple lock-in something that you choose?

For this article I have installed software from Apple and Google on my PC, the Live Suite was already installed, to see the effects they have on my computer and on my life.  I didn’t choose much, just the types of software you would normally have installed, iTunes, Chrome and Picasa, all using the default options.

So first things first, why would I want to do this?  Surely it’s just an opportunity, as someone who uses exclusively Microsoft software and services to slag off the competition.  No, there are good reasons why I switched away from Google services two years ago and don’t touch Apple services with a bargepole.  In this article I hope to prove why to you.

When I was interviewed by the IEEE Organisation recently about Google Chrome OS and cloud services, one of my criticisms was that there was no interoperability between the services provided by different companies, nor was this likely.  Firstly this was due to protectionism of these companies’ own markets, but a large part of this was the lock-in.  This is where a company will try and make all their products and services interoperate with each other seamlessly, to help give users a more complete service and to encourage you to stick exclusively with that company.

This is where Microsoft excel.  They’ve still got a considerable way to go, integrating services such as Live Mesh and Skydrive into Windows for example (Skydrive integration with Office 2010 already exists) but generally their services don’t only work well together, they compliment each other.

Let’s compare this approach to that taken by Google and Apple.  Google have one of the biggest software and cloud-computing suites in the world, with a vast array of products and services available for download.  Unfortunately these services aren’t very good at interacting with each other, or allowing you to share files between them.  This is a shame as they’re otherwise very good, Their Chrome browser and Google Earth being two brilliant examples.

Apple are even worse however.  Everything that Apple are about these days is centred around the iTunes software, and everything about iTunes is designed to get you to part with your cash.

It’s unfortunate that Apple’s business model is so mercenary.  Clearly it’s working for them and millions of people around the world don’t mind.  I however can’t help but compare iTunes to Windows Media Player.  Both are good music players and in both you can buy music and video, but with WMP it’s so much more understated.  It’s never thrust down your throat the way it is in iTunes.  Microsoft just aren’t so desperate to get you to part with your cash.

Then there’s the effect these programs have on my PC.  Both Google and Apple install ‘updater’ software with their software packages.  Why?  Please can somebody explain to me why I need a constantly running updater for a software package that I’ll use perhaps once or twice a week?

This is by far my biggest beef and the biggest reason why I won’t use this software at all.  The Google Update, QuickTime and iTunes update software (the latter of which is consuming 4Mb of my precious memory when I don’t need it) that runs automatically is only just the start of it. 

Both companies also install services that will run automatically with Windows every time it starts.  These services are very difficult for inexperienced users to switch off.  Google is bad enough with not just one but two updater services but Apple takes the crown by installing a service to interact with an iPod, a piece of hardware I don’t even own and a service that should never be installed unless I buy one!

I also can’t understand why the iTunes software must install QuickTime!?  QuickTime video is hardly used outside of the USA and I almost never come across a video that requires it.  Why do I need this software running all the time on my PC when it could instead simply install a codec that works with iTunes, Windows Media Player or both.  After all, this is what every other company does.

But then Apple commit the worst crime of all.  Anybody who buys their hardware, such as an iPhone or iPod can only interact with that device through iTunes.  Why?  Google and Microsoft see no need to do this.  Are Apple being insecure?  Worst still you can’t even use an iPhone until you’ve installed iTunes on your PC to activate it.  This is madness.

Let’s compare all of this with Microsoft who certainly seem to have got things right.  When you install software such as the Live Suite, not only are they providing software that interacts with other products in the suite reasonably (though there’s still much room for improvement), you won’t get a single program or service running in the background.  The software if necessary will check for updates when you start it, which is what they should all do and the resulting drop in memory and processor usage can have only one effect.  My PC is cheaper to run with Microsoft software installed on it!  I can be absolutely certain that if were using a low-power device such as a netbook instead of a top-end PC, I would notice my PC get a little more sluggish with Google and Apple software installed.

As a proof of this I used to run Windows with the Deskscapes animated desktop running from Stardock.  I stopped using this however when, after some tests I found that just having this one piece of software running on my PC increased it’s power usage from 130 watts to an incredible 151 watts.  That’s a big power increase from having one piece of software running.  Now the iTunes and Google updaters won’t increase power usage by anything like this amount, but any extra, and unnecessary, program running on you PC is guaranteed to push up power consumption.

I’m not averse to the lock-in, I’m a willing participant but one who knows and understands what the implications and ramification of making such a choice are.  I’ve also come out in support of Apple on many occasions, but I wonder if the millions of users of Google and Apple products out there know just what’s going on behind the scenes on their computer when they choose to lock-in with them?