It’s not exactly that. Unfortunately, the thoughts in my head on this issue are hard to put into words, so bear with me.
Most of the outrage I have heard is that Apple is a closed platform. Basically, it’s a little hard to get the development tools, the license terms on them are fairly onerous compared to the tools for Windows or especially Linux, and if you do manage to get something made then you better hope that Apple approves of it or else!
It isn’t a problem for end users who just like a magic box that can get them online, but for those who actually use a computer as more than a portal to the Web, a computer is almost by definition something that is supposed to be able to be customized without restriction. And then there are those who like to be able to at least obtain software that you can’t get from a closed shop like Apple. Hell, that is one of the biggest draws of Linux; you can get anything you want, and if it doesn’t exist, you already have the tools to make it yourself.
Compare dealing with Apple to living in a furnished apartment where you are not allowed to move the furniture or bring in any appliances that were not there when you moved in. Or a car where you are only allowed to refill the gas tank at the dealer and will get sued if you replace the stereo, install an air freshener, or otherwise make any modifications that are not a factory-approved dealer option.
Now compare the alternatives; Microsoft, which for better or for worse is the world standard platform, compatible with everybody and fairly customizable, and Linux, which allows you to do anything you want except steal other people’s work and call it your own. Many more options available if you just leave Apple alone.
Also, tech gurus are kind of like old-school hippies in that most beleive that information is supposed to be free. Shared. No secrets. Many of the early hackers circumvented security measures not because they wanted what was behind the locked doors, but merely because they didn’t like the door.
There are two definitions of “free software”; free as in speech, and free as in beer) and even people who have no problem paying for software want free as in speech software. And if you read many of the licenses for free as in beer software, you will notice that their terms protect intellectual property rights. It is perfectly acceptable to charge money for free software, so long as it is actually free.
Personally, I fond this abhorrent behavior from a company that took Xerox’s work and capitalized on it the way they did. And it gets “better” when you read the OS X EULA and compare it to the BSD license; a fact that has caused some legal issues. Had Apple written OS X from the ground up then fine, but the fact tha there is some BSD code in there makes a big difference. By the same token, I despise hardware makers that make it extremely difficult to write drivers for their products and for all intents and purposes will not allow their stuff to be used with alternative operating systems and/or do not allow the tech-savvy to tune the hardware to it’s maximum potential.
Apple used to be about freedom and all, They used to be the rebels, and I am sure that the disillusionment over seeing them out-Gates Microsoft plays a role in the resentment here, but the simple fact is that you cannot run a shop as closed as Apple does and not piss off those who are not sheep. As for great products…. matter of opinion. They may be great for those who are easily impressed and lack either the skill and/or ambition to change things, just as a stock automobile is fine for people who just want to commute. However, there wil always be enthusiasts who want to tweak this, tune that, replace the other, etcetera, and shutting them out will cause tempers to flare.
Okay, I know I blithered here quite a bit trying to communicate something I can’t convey succinctly, but I hope that now you at least have some idea of how people could be pissed at Apple.