Hardly a new situation
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| SamShazaam Feb 20, 2009 7:44 PM EDT |
This is merely the latest manifestation of what Apple has been like all along. Apple would be just as evil as Microsoft if only they were more financially successful. Apple benefits from being considered hip also. |
| vainrveenr Feb 20, 2009 8:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:This is merely the latest manifestation of what Apple has been like all along. Apple would be just as evil as Microsoft if only they were more financially successful. Apple benefits from being considered hip also.Well the EFF would certainly concur! As Richard Esguerra comments at 'Apple Shows Us DRM's True Colors', http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/apple-shows-us-drms-tru... : Quoting:In fact, an inventory of Apple's remaining DRM armory makes it vividly clear that DRM (backed by the DMCA) is almost always about eliminating legitimate competition, hobbling interoperability, and creating de facto technology monopolies:Note that Esguerra's EFF comment came out the same time as this year's MacWorld announcement that Apple's copy-protection software would supposedly and finally be removed. See the quasi Mac-hip piece on the latter, 'Upgrading to a DRM-free iTunes library will cost you', http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10132759-37.html Caveat emptor ! |
| bhuot Feb 20, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
It seems ironic that the open source community is so negative on Apple. Apple follows all the licenses correctly and contributes to a number of open source projects including webkit. I don't see how people can have a problem with what Apple has done with the open source codes it uses. Either you created the code and gave it the license you did or else it is none of your concern. While Apple may be a successful proprietary company that does not make them evil. I thought the idea of open source was to provide choice, not require people to all use open source. The same copyright issues that Apple is fighting for apply to licenses like the GPL too as it relies on copyright law as well. If open source community takes the side of those who want to violate intellectual property, it is going to only strengthen the position of proprietary software. Microsoft has proven over the years that it is not interested in playing fair, but rather wants to own everything. Microsoft does not come up with new technologies that help solve new problems but rather creates duplicate endeavors that are incompatible and continues to give code away in ways and with conditions that weaken the open source community, make it dependent on Microsoft, and open it up to possible legal issues. Microsoft does not play according to morality, the laws, or any other restraints and tolerates no competitors. To think that they have given that all up because they have not sued Mono yet does not make them trustworthy. |
| NoDough Feb 20, 2009 9:46 PM EDT |
bhout: Clearly, you will never truly understand freedom until you are forced to submit to my version of it. Any business; ANY BUSINESS that does not consult me to ascertain the proper methods and practices is clearly evil; ESPECIALLY if they are successful. And don't go and build the straw man argument that I have never run a small business, much less a multi-million dollar corporation, so I wouldn't understand the pressures of market, government, law, shareholders, workforce, etc. My perspective is more than adequate to guide any of the world's enterprises. Are sarcasm tags really necessary? |
| bhuot Feb 20, 2009 10:16 PM EDT |
"And don't go and build the straw man argument that I have never run a small business, much less a multi-million dollar corporation, so I wouldn't understand the pressures of market, government, law, shareholders, workforce, etc. My perspective is more than adequate to guide any of the world's enterprises." I never said or implied any of that. What are you smoking? |
| tracyanne Feb 20, 2009 11:36 PM EDT |
@bhuot I applaud the fact that Apple complies with Free Software Licenses, that's truly wonderful. What I and so many others object to is not their compliance with Licenses but their attempts to lock out competition through the use of DRM and proprietary protocols. For example My iPhone, which I bought because I have some clients who happen to have iPhones, and I needed to find out how to make their iPhone talk to their Linux boxes, won't talk to my Linux box unless I jailbreak it, something that Apple claims is illegal, even though I actually own the phone - That's a bit like telling me it's illegal to replace the engine in my car, and way too precious. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 1:33 AM EDT |
Apple is selling more than just a device with their iPhone and the average person with an iPhone does not desire to run those types of applications and most of their support calls are tied up with dealing with the relatively small number of customers who jailbreak their phones. When you buy the iPhone, you are getting it subsidized with a whole package which works under certain conditions including service through AT&T for a certain period of time. If you want to pay the full price which would be something like $1000 and void your warranty, I agree you should be able to do whatever you want with it. I really don't understand why someone would want to buy an iPhone if they wanted to do that kind of thing with it. I really don't get the whole animosity between Apple and Linux, because the person attracted to one, would unlikely be interested in the other. The design philosophies are totally opposite. I personally don't own the iPhone or any of the iPods and never have, so I don't understand all of what is involved with that, but that is what I understand from what I have read. By the way, I also run Linux on my iMac and make sure my website works with it as well as make all my work available with Creative Commons licenses as well as have it all available in a variety of open formats. I support the goals of open file formats and standards, but I do not believe in breaking the law or weakening copyright laws to do so. I would also love Apple to provide Quicktime for Linux. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 1:36 AM EDT |
I also find it ironic, when people get upset with Apple for something that is done by the entire industry. It would be interesting to see how much you were able to do with the Palm Pre or the Google Android based feature phones. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 2:04 AM EDT |
Also, if you are talking about ssh, there are already many apps available in the iTunes app store, for instance, there is TouchTerm: SSH Terminal Console which is free. There are about 20,000 apps in the store, so it is likely whatever you want to do already has an approved app for it. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 2:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you want to pay the full price which would be something like $1000 and void your warranty, I agree you should be able to do whatever you want with it. That's very big of you. As it happens I did pay full price, $AU866.00. I own my phone, but according to Apple Jailbreaking it, so that I control it, not Apple, is illegal. What the iTunes Store has is irrelevant. I own the phone, what I do with it is, or should be, my business, not Apples. Same deal applies to Blackberry, Android and Neo. If I own it the manufacturer can take their nose out of my business. That also is one reason why I don't use Windows. The fact that AT and T and or Apple have to deal with jailbroken phones would not be a problem if it wasn't necessary to jail break the phone in order to use those phones in situations where Apple don't want you to use them (like full access from Linux). Apple don't want you to use those phones in those circumstances, for reasons other than the best interests of the customer. You can try to justify Apple's actions all you want, but in the end they are overstepping the mark. They are trying to control what others have access to, and where and when the iPhone can be used, and what it can be used with, for their benefit, not the customers. They are evil. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 2:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:I would also love Apple to provide Quicktime for Linux. Apple won't. They wouldn't have the control they want. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 2:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:I also run Linux on my iMac Is that Linux as a replacement for OSX? or is that Linux on a VM? If the former that would be hypocritical, as I don't think Apple approve, if the later, so what? |
| Alcibiades Feb 21, 2009 3:04 AM EDT |
The test case on this one is the iPod database. There is no conceivable commercial interest in stopping Linux users from managing their iPod databases. It is pure restriction for its own sake. They are just as much legitimate iPod buyers and iTunes store users as anyone else. Left to themselves they would simply get on with it. However, for some crazed reason, Apple objects to them using their - remember, it is their - iPods with Linux, and undertakes technical measures to stop them. This is not even about Apple's commercial interests. Its about controlling people for the sake of controlling them. |
| bigg Feb 21, 2009 7:02 AM EDT |
> While Apple may be a successful proprietary company that does not make them evil. But it makes them proprietary. > I thought the idea of open source was to provide choice, not require people to all use open source. Providing the choice of software that isn't open source? I missed that memo. The idea of open source is to provide software that is open source. Sorry to interrupt your Apple fanboism. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 21, 2009 11:22 AM EDT |
I know some folks who have worked for Apple for a long time, the programmers themselves are all for F/OSS. Their use of the BSD kernel is a good example. Their management has decided, however, that they will remain proprietary with their software and hardware. That's ok, because they get to charge monopoly prices for it that way. Sure, it's 5-10% of the "market", but that slice is both loyal and making plenty of money for the bosses. This economic downturn will be very interesting. Will Linux flourish, or will the volunteer programmers have to pull back their donated time just as businesses have to pull back their development budgets. That's the problem with Austrian economics. It's excellent at explaining and predicting broad trends, but predicting remains as difficult as with any other system in detail. |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2009 12:36 PM EDT |
DRM + suing fan sites and anyone who says something they don't like. Hmm, what's to like? They want to control what their customers can do with their own property that they paid for, and Apple are at the vanguard of attacking free speech, which despite years of relentless attack is still protected in the US. Cory Doctorow has some interesting thoughts on Apple, http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10197 Quoting: "...the DRM stuff keeps getting worse and worse. It seems like every time I turned around, Apple is doing something with its OS to add more BS to it. More DRM, more controls on how users use it....They're anti-features. There's no customer who woke up this morning and said, “Gosh, I wish there was a way I could do less with my music this morning—I hope there's an iTunes update waiting for me.” |
| dinotrac Feb 21, 2009 2:06 PM EDT |
TC -- To be fair, Apple did also contribute to the rise of Microsoft and Windows by taking huge margins on the Mac and refusing to compete with Microsoft until it was too late. Oh, wait... |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 6:38 PM EDT |
"Apple won't. They wouldn't have the control they want." Actually the reason is likely because Apple thinks that because of responses like this in Linux forums that Linux users don't want commercial software. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 6:43 PM EDT |
"Is that Linux as a replacement for OSX? or is that Linux on a VM? If the former that would be hypocritical, as I don't think Apple approve, if the later, so what?" I run it in Vmware Fusion, but you can also run it alongside with Boot Camp or instead of Mac OS X - there is an entire Ubuntu forums dedicated to Linux users on Intel Macs. The Mac is not the same as the iPhone - it is a product not a service, so of course you can run Windows or Linux on it. They actually market this capability. In fact, there was a Linux distribution that was called Yellow Dog that worked on PowerPC Macs that was able to get Apple warranties and sell computers with Linux and Mac OS X side by side on the same machines. Apple even had their own Linux distribution for a while. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 6:47 PM EDT |
The difference I see between Apple and Microsoft is one of honesty. If and when Apple offers anything open source or allows something they don't take it away later unlike Microsoft does. Also their products work properly, unlike my experience with Windows and Office. I think that the AFF does not understand the concept of intellectual property very well. Again, I believe that when someone creates something, they have the right to offer any license they want for that be it GPL or various proprietary licensing. If you don't like the terms, why not buy or use another product? |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 6:51 PM EDT |
"To be fair, Apple did also contribute to the rise of Microsoft and Windows by taking huge margins on the Mac and refusing to compete with Microsoft until it was too late." Apple failed to compete by giving Microsoft almost complete rights to its software and then litigating all Window's competitors out of business. They also foundered by trying to appeal to 2% of the market and inventing things too far ahead of time. People may not appreciate that Apple doesn't cater to a small minority or come out with products before the consumer understands them, but it is now much more popular because of it. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 6:54 PM EDT |
Last time I checked (at work where I have to use Windows) Quick time is free, as in no cost, on Windows, so too is iTunes. Why would it be different on Linux? I think you are conflating proprietary with commercial. There's a great deal of proprietary software that isn't commercial - it's given away (as in free to use under limited and very onerous conditions). There's a great deal of Free Software that is sold, sometimes at quite high prices. The fact that Apple give away both Quicktime and iTunes makes them both non commercial. But by making sure they run only on Windows, another proprietary operating system, and OSX, Apple know they can maintain control over what the software makes available. They don't think they can maintain the same control over what the software makes available with Linux. It is and has alays been about Apple controlling what the user does. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 6:54 PM EDT |
"DRM + suing fan sites and anyone who says something they don't like. Hmm, what's to like? They want to control what their customers can do with their own property that they paid for, and Apple are at the vanguard of attacking free speech, which despite years of relentless attack is still protected in the US. " Apple is not going after everyone who speak against it. Is LXer being sued? Free speech has its limits. People have rights as well as responsibilities. People have the right to protect their intellectual property just as people have the right to licensing their software as GPL. It is called copyright law. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 6:56 PM EDT |
"Sorry to interrupt your Apple fanboism." Sorry to interrupt your blind hatred of Apple. |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2009 6:58 PM EDT |
bhout, you might try making sense. Then some actual discussion would be possible. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:00 PM EDT |
That's very big of you. As it happens I did pay full price, $AU866.00. I own my phone, but according to Apple Jailbreaking it, so that I control it, not Apple, is illegal. What the iTunes Store has is irrelevant. I own the phone, what I do with it is, or should be, my business, not Apples. Same deal applies to Blackberry, Android and Neo. If I own it the manufacturer can take their nose out of my business. That also is one reason why I don't use Windows. The fact that AT and T and or Apple have to deal with jailbroken phones would not be a problem if it wasn't necessary to jail break the phone in order to use those phones in situations where Apple don't want you to use them (like full access from Linux). Apple don't want you to use those phones in those circumstances, for reasons other than the best interests of the customer. You can try to justify Apple's actions all you want, but in the end they are overstepping the mark. They are trying to control what others have access to, and where and when the iPhone can be used, and what it can be used with, for their benefit, not the customers. They are evil. To most users, it does matter if iTunes offers a comparable application, because most jailbreaking was done before Apple had the app store. Why do you always assume some sort of conspiracy against Apple? I just explained why they did this. No one is stopping you from starting you own phone and letting other use it however they want. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 7:00 PM EDT |
@bhuot: Sorry not blind. Based on the very real actions of Apple. Your responses do, unfortunately come across as those of someone who suffers from religious zealotry. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:01 PM EDT |
"bhout, you might try making sense. Then some actual discussion would be possible." In other words, I have a different opinion, so you call me irrational. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:02 PM EDT |
"Based on the very real actions of Apple. Your responses do, unfortunately come across as those of someone who suffers from religious zealotry." That is exactly the way your responses come across to me. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 7:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:so you call me irrational. Irrational is as Irrational does. So far you've attempted to justify the actions of Apple, and, as far as I can see failed. In fact you've simply, like all good religious zealots, simply ignored responses that demonstrate how irrational some of your arguments are, and moved on providing use with additional adhoc arguments in support of your shiny manacles. |
| caitlyn Feb 21, 2009 7:06 PM EDT |
Steve Jobs, if y'all remember, has a real disdain for FOSS software in general and Linux in particular. He refers to all of us as "freetards". When it comes to promoting and enforcing DRM they are as restrictive if not more restrictive than Microsoft. I want absolutely nothing to do with Apple and I won't support them in any way. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:06 PM EDT |
"Last time I checked (at work where I have to use Windows) Quick time is free, as in no cost, on Windows, so too is iTunes. Why would it be different on Linux? I think you are conflating proprietary with commercial. There's a great deal of proprietary software that isn't commercial - it's given away (as in free to use under limited and very onerous conditions). There's a great deal of Free Software that is sold, sometimes at quite high prices. The fact that Apple give away both Quicktime and iTunes makes them both non commercial. But by making sure they run only on Windows, another proprietary operating system, and OSX, Apple know they can maintain control over what the software makes available. They don't think they can maintain the same control over what the software makes available with Linux. It is and has alays been about Apple controlling what the user does." I never said that people can't sell open source software. I don't get what it is you are implying. Have you ever considered that people actually like Apple products because they like what they can do with them? People can like software for reasons other than licensing or cost. Not everyone feels the need to hack products. You must have a very low opinion of most Americans who have ever owned an iPod. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:07 PM EDT |
"Irrational is as Irrational does. So far you've attempted to justify the actions of Apple, and, as far as I can see failed. In fact you've simply, like all good religious zealots, simply ignored responses that demonstrate how irrational some of your arguments are, and moved on providing use with additional adhoc arguments in support of your shiny manacles." I feel exactly the same way about your arguments. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:08 PM EDT |
"Steve Jobs, if y'all remember, has a real disdain for FOSS software in general and Linux in particular. He refers to all of us as "freetards". When it comes to promoting and enforcing DRM they are as restrictive if not more restrictive than Microsoft. I want absolutely nothing to do with Apple and I won't support them in any way." More power to you. Vote with your wallet! |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 7:12 PM EDT |
Quoting: I feel exactly the same way about your arguments. That would be why you haven't "bother" to respond and demonstrate them wrong, I suppose. Or when you have responded you've responded with strawman aguments, as in the above response Quoting:I never said that people can't sell open source software. I don't get what it is you are implying. Have you ever considered that people actually like Apple products because they like what they can do with them? People can like software for reasons other than licensing or cost. Not everyone feels the need to hack products. You must have a very low opinion of most Americans who have ever owned an iPod. Which isn't really a reply to my statement. It is in fact an irrational reply. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:16 PM EDT |
"That would be why you haven't "bother" to respond and demonstrate them wrong, I suppose. Or when you have responded you've responded with strawman aguments, as in the above response" I have responded and you keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. I am not going to change my opinions just because you call me names. "Which isn't really a reply to my statement. It is in fact an irrational reply." So I am supposed to take your word for it? That seems irrational to me. I agree that Apple products do not offer you the ability to customize them the way *you* want to. So what? Apple is a business and to be successful they are going to do what is best for the vast majority of their customers. You are implying there is something wrong with it. Not everyone evaluates things and has the same values as you do. Get over yourself. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 7:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Apple is a business and to be successful they are going to do what is best for the vast majority of their customers. If that were the case, they wouldn't restrict their customers ability to do new things with the computer/device as the customers ability grew, instead they lock the customer down. They make it impossible for the customer to move to say a different operating system on the base computer, unless that computer uses an approved operating system, where the OS manufacturer has also agreed to keep the cusomers choices limited. That is why they go to technological ends to keep Linux out of the equation, NOT for the benefit of the customer, who may want to use Linux on their base computer instead of OSX or Windows. Quoting:So I am supposed to take your word for it? That seems irrational to me. You don't have to take my word for anything. Your statement, the one I'm referring to too is Irrational because it doesn't actually address the point of may argument, but instead addresses some minor detail. Your argument was that Apple won't port Quicktime (and by extension iTunes) to Linux because Apple perceives that Linux users don't Like commercial software. I pointed out that neither Quicktime nor iTunes are commercial software. You replied with Quoting:I never said that people can't sell open source software. I don't get what it is you are implying. Have you ever considered that people actually like Apple products because they like what they can do with them? People can like software for reasons other than licensing or cost. Not everyone feels the need to hack products. You must have a very low opinion of most Americans who have ever owned an iPod. Which address a minor detail, which was part of my explanation of what commercial software is. the first sentence of your reply address no argument that I made (that makes it irrational, at best a red herring, if there is any difference) The second sentence of your reply demonstrates that you have a problem with comprehension. Your third sentence is irrelevent, as I never argued that people don't like Apple products. Same with the fourth sentence. And indeed the 5th sentence. That makes your entire reply irrational. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:52 PM EDT |
"If that were the case, they wouldn't restrict their customers ability to do new things with the computer/device as the customers ability grew, instead they lock the customer down. They make it impossible for the customer to move to say a different operating system on the base computer, unless that computer uses an approved operating system, where the OS manufacturer has also agreed to keep the cusomers choices limited. That is why they go to technological ends to keep Linux out of the equation, NOT for the benefit of the customer, who may want to use Linux on their base computer instead of OSX or Windows."
As far as Apple is concerned giving certain choices to the advance users make a lot of problems for their less knowledgeable users. It is great that open source offers os many options. Why don't you use an Android phone, or start your own one if you want more choices. I do believe that is is possible technically to offer the same kind of Quicktime for Linux as it is for Windows. The reason why they don't offer it is not the reason you think of. People can disagree with you and still be rational. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 7:58 PM EDT |
"If that were the case, they wouldn't restrict their customers ability to do new things with the computer/device as the customers ability grew, instead they lock the customer down. They make it impossible for the customer to move to say a different operating system on the base computer, unless that computer uses an approved operating system, where the OS manufacturer has also agreed to keep the cusomers choices limited. That is why they go to technological ends to keep Linux out of the equation, NOT for the benefit of the customer, who may want to use Linux on their base computer instead of OSX or Windows." You are making the assumption that having more choice in software on the iPhone is positive (again, I am not saying choices are not positive, just on that particular platform). You are also assuming that Apple is deliberately trying to cause customers trouble or has some sort of ego trip about it or that most customers want this choice. I agree that you are not happy about not being able to install some software on the iPhone. I believe that it is legitimate for Apple to make that restriction and I believe this is good for most of the customers and those who don't want those restrictions, should choose another product/service. It comes down to this, was there a contract that you signed? If it told you about certain restrictions on it, then you are bound by it. If not, I think you should be able to do whatever you want with it. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 8:09 PM EDT |
Once again I'm talking about where the iPhone or the iPod can be used, as in with operating systems other than OSX or Windows, and you are talking about software that can be installed on the iPhone. Do you always make irrational red herring type arguments. or are you having an off day today? The only reason I jailbroke my iPhone was so I could use it with Linux. The additional software was merely a nice bonus. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 8:18 PM EDT |
I understand what you are referring to now. You were not clear about what you were talking about. You were very vague when you said "For example My iPhone, which I bought because I have some clients who happen to have iPhones, and I needed to find out how to make their iPhone talk to their Linux boxes, won't talk to my Linux box unless I jailbreak it, something that Apple claims is illegal, even though I actually own the phone - That's a bit like telling me it's illegal to replace the engine in my car, and way too precious." To me, that sound like you wanted to ssh to your Linux computer from your iPhone. If you want to be a precise as arguing about red herrings and straw arguments, you could have avoided this whole discussion if you were more precise about what you wanted to do. Are you referring to syncing your iPhone on Linux? That is a matter of Apple not supporting that system. As I said before, I would love it if Apple would do that, but I think the kind of discussions in Linux forums give an inaccurate view of what most Linux users want to do with their computers and their willingness to use software like Quicktime and to be precise it is Shareware, not Freeware as if you open it up, you will see it asks for a code to unlock Quicktime Pro. Not everybody makes the fine distinction between commercial open source software and commercial proprietary software. I will be more careful in the use of these terms in the future. Again, it depends on what you signed, and if you didn't you should be able to do whatever you want with it. |
| caitlyn Feb 21, 2009 8:20 PM EDT |
@tracyanne: You shouldn't have admitted you tampered with your iPhone. Apple's lawyers might see that. If they are correct in their claim that it's illegal under the terms of their license they can drag you into court. Bhout wrote: "What the iTunes Store has is irrelevant. I own the phone, what I do with it is, or should be, my business, not Apples." The folks at Apple disagree and are prepared to take you to court to prove otherwise. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 8:23 PM EDT |
Bhout wrote: "What the iTunes Store has is irrelevant. I own the phone, what I do with it is, or should be, my business, not Apples." I didn't write that |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 8:27 PM EDT |
You know the technical reason why Apple does not want jailbreaking and is so protective about what is allowed under your contract as that when you jailbreak your device, it often open it up to security breaches as well as interferes with the ability of the phone to do things like making calls. I think Apple does not want to get sued for this. People have come out of the woodwork claiming that Apple owes them money for things that have obvious prior art and the patent office is severely understaffed and does not do an effective job of denying patents that have obvious prior art. Also, if you want to get so technical, it would be nice if you spelled my username correctly. |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2009 8:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:You know the technical reason why Apple does not want jailbreaking and is so protective about what is allowed under your contract as that when you jailbreak your device, it often open it up to security breaches as well as interferes with the ability of the phone to do things like making calls. I........... Then Apple should not go to the extraordinary technical lengths they go to to make sure the only way the phone will work with Linux is to Jailbreak it. Apple are responsible for the situation that calls for jailbreaking in the first place. If it wasn't necessary to jailbreak an iPhone in order to make it work on Linux, it wouldn't happen. All Apple has to do is allow the IPhone to communicate properly with Linux. They could even port Itunes to Linux, that would be nice too. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
I guess it some down to is there a viable market? Where does Apple stop with checking to make sure things are compatible - does it have to work with FreeBSD and OpenSolaris and Be OS, OS/2, and RISC OS or even Amiga, Inferno, and QNX. Quicktime AFAIK is an open format, just not the most popular codecs. MP4 is something that has a lot of patents which is what most the iTunes videos and audio as in the format of. It would be nice if the used OGG formats, but I don't think it is as versatile, and they also may be worried about patent trolls. At least they know who to pay with MP4. |
| azerthoth Feb 21, 2009 9:15 PM EDT |
@bhout, in the end apple will have little choice in the jail breaking clause. There is a specific exclusion in the DMCA for cell phone so that customers may use what ever network they choose with the devices they buy. |
| bhuot Feb 21, 2009 9:21 PM EDT |
"@bhout, in the end apple will have little choice in the jail breaking clause. There is a specific exclusion in the DMCA for cell phone so that customers may use what ever network they choose with the devices they buy." But people can already use the network they want - they just have to pay a lot more than $200 for it. It is also similar with other feature phones. One of the big problems with alternate networks is that in the US we have incompatible technologies, so I think there would only be one other major carrier as a choice. |
| tracyanne Feb 22, 2009 12:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:I guess it some down to is there a viable market? Where does Apple stop with checking to make sure things are compatible - does it have to work with FreeBSD and OpenSolaris and Be OS, OS/2, and RISC OS or even Amiga, Inferno, and QNX. Given thet they take measures to stop it working with Linux, in what way is a viable market (or alleged lack there of) relevant? There can be no market on Linux because Apple make sure there is no market, that must cost them money to to so. It's not what they don't do, it's what they do do. There is no commercial justification for stopping people from using the device on Linux, or any other operating system. There is, possibly, a comercial justification for not caring, as a lot of other device manufacturers do, but deliberately making it not possible, unless one jailbreaks the phone, that's a completely different kettle of fish. Apple have created the market for jailbroken phones, because of their desire for control. When they then turn around and blame the customer, that makes them evil. |
| DiBosco Feb 22, 2009 8:42 AM EDT |
AFAIK, in the UK, you can only use the iPhone on 02. I really dislike Apple's general attitude towards control. I also hate how they took open source software and locked it down, I just find them as objectionable in general as I do Microsoft. I don't care whether what Apple does is not unlawful or whether it is understandable business practice, I just want more from a company - I want an ethical outlook. This is why I drink free trade coffee, buy free range eggs etc - it's not just a software thing. I don't care if that means I come across as a tree-hugging hippy or have a naive outlook and I don't care if my stance makes little or no difference. So, to my mind, Apple are not an ethical company and I wouldn't buy *anything* they produce as a matter of principle. One thing I have to admire about them, despite all this, is their truly admirable hardware design. As an electronics engineer I am at a loss to why they are so far ahead of everyone else all the time. Even now, with the iPhone having been out quite some time I see no-one with anything that comes close to the style of the iPhone. The ultra thin laptop (Air? is it) is also fantastic and all the mainstream laptop manufacturers seem to have utterly failed to produce anything like it. I just don't buy arguments like Apple not wanting jailbreaking for reasons of security. If that's the case why is Linux being used on a massive scale for mobile phones when it's open? Doesn't seem to make sense to me that. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 12:01 PM EDT |
"Given thet they take measures to stop it working with Linux, in what way is a viable market (or alleged lack there of) relevant? There can be no market on Linux because Apple make sure there is no market, that must cost them money to to so. It's not what they don't do, it's what they do do. There is no commercial justification for stopping people from using the device on Linux, or any other operating system. There is, possibly, a comercial justification for not caring, as a lot of other device manufacturers do, but deliberately making it not possible, unless one jailbreaks the phone, that's a completely different kettle of fish." Again, I do not believe that they purposely make it compatible and that they do that because they want control. I think you are assuming a lot from Apple and I think the situation can be explained differently. But if you really feel that way, the thing that really talks is money. Vote with your money. |
| jdixon Feb 22, 2009 12:05 PM EDT |
> Vote with your money. Oh, I do. Apple has never offered a reasonable value/cost ratio. And for that reason, I've never purchased an Apple product. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 12:12 PM EDT |
"One thing I have to admire about them, despite all this, is their truly admirable hardware design. As an electronics engineer I am at a loss to why they are so far ahead of everyone else all the time. Even now, with the iPhone having been out quite some time I see no-one with anything that comes close to the style of the iPhone. The ultra thin laptop (Air? is it) is also fantastic and all the mainstream laptop manufacturers seem to have utterly failed to produce anything like it. " One of the reason they do so well is because they have had a lot of experience with the Newton and software wise they are based on NextStep which is still light years ahead of anything Linux or Windows has and it existed in the 80's. I guess the way I feel about businesses is that they offer a product that works or they don't and I buy it on that level. I don't expect Apple to do anything different than other corporation do. I do not believe that some corporations are good and others are bad. If you feel that way, I respect your right to not own Apple products. But I am just telling you most their customers do not feel that way. If the majority decides that they no longer like Apple's business practices, they will either change or go out of business. I also do things to promote open standards and free content. I create a lot of very well written books and great art and give most of it away for free under a Creative Commons License and in a variety of open formats and some even under BSD licenses. I spend most my time working on them and put a tremendous amount of money into it and never have gotten a cent back. I even sell them in print at cost, and you can get 25 of my books together for only $24. I have never owned a car and use the bus and walk exclusively to get around and I do not eat beef. I do a lot other people would never dream of doing, so I your portrayal of me being a sell out are unfounded. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 12:16 PM EDT |
"I just don't buy arguments like Apple not wanting jailbreaking for reasons of security. If that's the case why is Linux being used on a massive scale for mobile phones when it's open? Doesn't seem to make sense to me that." I think there is a lot more to the management of networks than just using Linux. Linux and Mac OS X can get hacked too. The difference is that they are harder to hack if set up right. I don' think just installing linux magically makes them secure and everything work all right. Maybe if they had access to all the information about how the network and the hardware was designed they could make something like the Android phones. Why not just buy them instead? |
| DiBosco Feb 22, 2009 2:15 PM EDT |
Quoting: One of the reason they do so well is because they have had a lot of experience with the Newton and software wise they are based on NextStep which is still light years ahead of anything Linux or Windows What's Linux and Windows got to do with designing great hardware?! Quoting: I don' think just installing linux magically makes them secure and everything work all right. That's not the point I was making! I wasn't claiming Linux was more secure. I was saying that claiming they needed to lock it [iPhone] up for security and make it proprietary didn't stack up because Linux is open and they wouldn't do that if it ran the risk of being insecure (unsecure?!). I can see tracyanne's point about you introducing spurious and random things to the discussion. Sorry. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 2:43 PM EDT |
I was going to say that the hardware works very well largely because of the software. And the Newton was a big step ahead in learning about ARM processors and that part of the hardware. Without the software, I think the other phones are pretty similar. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 2:46 PM EDT |
"That's not the point I was making! I wasn't claiming Linux was more secure. I was saying that claiming they needed to lock it [iPhone] up for security and make it proprietary didn't stack up because Linux is open and they wouldn't do that if it ran the risk of being insecure (unsecure?!). " The point I was making was that the hacks to the iPhone have caused or will cause security problems along with functionality problems. Because Apple did not design the hardware and the entire ecosystem to work with Linux on the handset that is causes problems. The continued assumption you are making is that the iPhone is the same as a PC or a Mac and can be separated from the rest of the ecosystem that Apple has created. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 2:57 PM EDT |
The thing is that Apple is not going to compete or can compete on a strict separation of hardware and software. On a Mac or on a PC, the hardware is not tied together with a service and the entire network. Apple wants to control the entire experience to give people what is unique about the iPhone. The idea of keeping things simple and easy to use run up against the idea of allowing choices like allowing you to install your own choice of software on the iPhone. If you think you can separate the two, make your own phone or buy another that allows that. If Apple allows you to do whatever you want in breach of your contract, it also means they have to support the hacks you have made and it destroys their business model. You are trying to get me to think the way you do, but I am trying to explain that Apple has an incompatible design, so doing what you want to do with it destroys their ability to compete. It comes down again to the contract you signed. If you didn't sign the contract, you can do whatever you want. People continue to misunderstand intellectual property. With a book, you can do whatever you want with that one book, but if you were to change the words or even copy the content, then you are breaking copyrights. Apple's copyright also contains restriction on how it can be used too. Those restrictions may not be what you are accustomed to, but they are perfectly legal. |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 3:16 PM EDT |
Here is another explanation, as you don't approve of my arguments. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/18/mozilla-skype-suppo... |
| bhuot Feb 22, 2009 3:22 PM EDT |
What he is saying that the same law that you are breaking by installing your software on the iPhone, also opens up a lot of problems for Apple and still the copyright will continue to enforce all the same things, but it would make it harder for Apple to control pirating and other things that would result in a worse experience for the majority of the other users on the network. As it is now, there is very little interest in jailbreaking because most people are content with the 20,000 applications in the store. You want to do something that will make it worse for the majority. |
| azerthoth Feb 22, 2009 4:32 PM EDT |
they arent breaking any law, federal law trumps EULA. DMCA allows for use of provider of choice. the conversation needs progress no further than that. |
| tracyanne Feb 22, 2009 4:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Again, I do not believe that they purposely make it [in]compatible and that they do that because they want control. So, but we know already that you believe only the very best of Apple. Given that it takes jailbreaking to make it possible for the iPhone to work with Linux, given Apples devotion to DRM, which gets more restrictive as time goes by, and DRM is about control, control over whatever it is that is DRMed, and DRM does not benefit the customer, it benefits only the supplier, and given that Linux does not natively implement DRM, as Windows does. Yes I'd say it's all about control, and there may be no way Apple can implement DRM on Linux, which is why they take the opposite stance, lock Linux out entirely. Of course it's about control Apple's entire business model is predicated on the notion of lock in, it's the same proprietary business model that Microsoft uses, only Microsoft has been forced to modify slightly, due to lawsuits basedon abuse of monopoly. The only reason Apple still get away with it is that they are small. |
| NoDough Feb 22, 2009 10:34 PM EDT |
bhout: I tried to warn you. Yeah, I was clumsily sarcastic about it, but I tried to warn you. |
| caitlyn Feb 23, 2009 12:01 AM EDT |
bhout seems to believe that whoever writes the most posts and spouts the most verbiage wins. Quality counts a lot more than quantity, I'm still not at all convinced about Apple's supposed good intention and I am convinced they want absolute control over whoever buys their products and how they are used. |
| tuxtom Feb 23, 2009 7:27 AM EDT |
Quoting:That also is one reason why I don't use Windows.Congratulations on your new job, tracyanne! Glad to hear your hands aren't dirty with that skanky OS anymore. Aside from being a contributing editor on LXer, what are doing to pay the bills these days now that you are no longer a full-time Microsoft Windows developer? Quoting:That's a bit like telling me it's illegal to replace the engine in my carDepending on where you live that can be VERY illegal...even felonious. You try pulling that off in California and you are gonna be in deep do-do with the authorities...way deeper than you would by jailbreaking your iPhone. @bhuot: Don't let them get you down. You are not going to win, but don't let that get you down. When both parties are irrational, neither wins. Personally, I hate Apple...but don't let that get you down. I even agree with some of your viewpoints, but you are new to the rodeo and it shows. |
| tracyanne Feb 23, 2009 8:40 AM EDT |
I never said I wasn't a Windows programmer. I said i don't use Windows - meaning for personal use. I don't live in California, and I really don't care what is illegal in California. It's quite legal to replace the engine in your car in Australia. |
| theboomboomcars Feb 23, 2009 10:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Depending on where you live that can be VERY illegal...even felonious. You try pulling that off in California and you are gonna be in deep do-do with the authorities Are you sure about this, as a car crafter I subscribe to car crafting magazines and they are based in CA and almost every issue they release involves at least one car in it that is daily driven and registered in CA with a non original engine in it. It is illegal to remove or downgrade any emissions components, but other than that I don't think it is a problem. So taking a gas engine and putting in a diesel would be problematic, since most gasoline emission components don't really apply to a diesel, and vice a versa. |
| jdixon Feb 23, 2009 12:52 PM EDT |
> You try pulling that off in California and you are gonna be in deep do-do with the authorities I doubt that's true, otherwise repair shops couldn't replace blown engines. However, I'm certain that you would have to pass all emissions inspections again once you had done so. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!