- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Is Apple The New Neighborhood Bully?
|
|
|
Comments (70)
Hardly a new situation
48 earlier comments in the full thread.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
> 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.
Oh, I do. Apple has never offered a reasonable value/cost ratio. And for that reason, I've never purchased an Apple product.
"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.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Here is another explanation, as you don't approve of my arguments.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/18/mozilla-skype-suppo...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/18/mozilla-skype-suppo...
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.
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.
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.
bhout: I tried to warn you. Yeah, I was clumsily sarcastic about it, but I tried to warn you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
NNBully connected to greater "user empowerment" issues
Miller concludes his New Neighborhood Bully piece here:
Similarly, the main concern with the social-networking gem Facebook's TOS fiasco, was (and remains) "privacy property" and user empowerment. For those somehow unaware of this, Facebook was recently caught by Consumerist to knowingly allow a key clause in its TOS basically declaring "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever." (see http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-servic...) Soon after the Consumerist revelation, Facebook members spoke out en masse regarding the TOS sleight-of-hand, as reported in such online pieces as 'Anger greets Facebook terms of service change' at http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-p... Then again, soon following this outcry Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerman came out with a statement publicly reversing the controversial TOS privacy restrictions (see 'On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information' at http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130) Apparently, from Facebook PR-man Barry Schnitt, 130K persons spoke out regarding the original TOS privacy issue (see 'People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS)' at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=77069107432) So the "user-empowerment" issues for non-commercial Facebook would seem to be resolved.......at least momentarily!
Furthermore, EFF's Hofmann writes in 'Facebook Battle Ends in Major Victory for Users, But the War Continues', http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/facebook-battle-ends-ma...
Indeed, Facebook's non-commercial "user empowerment" approach is clearly opposite to that of Apple's. Facebook users, as per the above, have already made themselves "a rising force to be reckoned with as the power of social networking grows". OTOH, here is what a trio of actual end-users and consumers are writing about similar Apple bullying tactics (from Boing Boing's http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/17/south-park-iphone-ap.ht...) :
Has the line of successfully alienating the Apple user-empowered consumer already been crossed ??
Quoting:Clearly, trying to portray your competitors and your own customers as intellectual property thieves is not going to make friends and influence people. It's time for Apple to call off the lawyers and let the products do the talking. It's a strategy that hasn't failed them yet.
Similarly, the main concern with the social-networking gem Facebook's TOS fiasco, was (and remains) "privacy property" and user empowerment. For those somehow unaware of this, Facebook was recently caught by Consumerist to knowingly allow a key clause in its TOS basically declaring "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever." (see http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-servic...) Soon after the Consumerist revelation, Facebook members spoke out en masse regarding the TOS sleight-of-hand, as reported in such online pieces as 'Anger greets Facebook terms of service change' at http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-p... Then again, soon following this outcry Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerman came out with a statement publicly reversing the controversial TOS privacy restrictions (see 'On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information' at http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130) Apparently, from Facebook PR-man Barry Schnitt, 130K persons spoke out regarding the original TOS privacy issue (see 'People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS)' at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=77069107432) So the "user-empowerment" issues for non-commercial Facebook would seem to be resolved.......at least momentarily!
Furthermore, EFF's Hofmann writes in 'Facebook Battle Ends in Major Victory for Users, But the War Continues', http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/facebook-battle-ends-ma...
Quoting:This week's controversy and past protests about Facebook features like Beacon show that users can and will demand control over their personal information, content and relationships -- and that lines exist that users will not permit companies to cross.
Quoting:Facebook users have won this battle, but the war for control of user information isn't over. Advocates, regulators, attorneys and other professionals will continue to have a role in defending digital rights, but the users of online tools are themselves a rising force to be reckoned with as the power of social networking grows.
Indeed, Facebook's non-commercial "user empowerment" approach is clearly opposite to that of Apple's. Facebook users, as per the above, have already made themselves "a rising force to be reckoned with as the power of social networking grows". OTOH, here is what a trio of actual end-users and consumers are writing about similar Apple bullying tactics (from Boing Boing's http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/17/south-park-iphone-ap.ht...) :
Quoting:Bulls*** Apple.
South Park is sold uncensored in the iTunes Music Store. Apple doesn't want to approve the South Park app because it gives iPhone users free access to content they'd otherwise have to pay for. And if users pay for it, Apple gets a cut.
It's that simple. They could at least come out and say it.
Quoting:posted by sycrotic. So, do we still love Apple? Are we all still standing in line to fellate the most aggressive proponent of DRM in the entire computing industry?
Why is everyone rolling over and accepting the iPhone? This is exactly what we strongly and unanimously opposed on the PC when they called it "trusted computing:" the combination of hardware and software that makes it impossible for third party vendors to create applications without the approval of the hardware vendor.
And to add insult to injury, the hardware vendor has taken it upon itself to discriminate not just based on application quality, compatibility, or even protection of their existing revenue streams, but based solely upon their definition of objectionable content.
Apple has, with this action, managed to hit pretty much every single point on the checklist of evil.
Oh, but it's just a phone, don't take it so seriously! And the interface is just so much better than everything else! And it's just so stylish! Clearly, Apple can do no wrong.
Quoting:posted by biffpow.So it would seem that Apple's marketers, advocates (bloggers and other PR folks), and attorneys are battling for turf against the "user empowered" consumer. But then Apple ignores the user-empowered customer to the own detriment of its [Apple's] current and future product releases! This ties right back into the current LXer thread 'Hardly a new situation' at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28560/
What syncrotic said +1.
I don't own anything Mac and never will as long as they keep acting like this. Who buys a device they can't actually make their own?
Lots of people apparently.... Sad.
Has the line of successfully alienating the Apple user-empowered consumer already been crossed ??
@vv
One thing is that you really ought to shorten posts like this.
OTOH, your points made within are excellent, IMHO.
That and the other recent thread IS getting a bit long with the pro-Apple rebuttals and dubious counterpoints made and doubled-up by one particular person. I do not get it; is this b---- a FUD-toting Apple shill or what????????
EDIT: doubled-up and now at least tripled up. Sheesh!!
That and the other recent thread IS getting a bit long with the pro-Apple rebuttals and dubious counterpoints made and doubled-up by one particular person. I do not get it; is this b---- a FUD-toting Apple shill or what????????
EDIT: doubled-up and now at least tripled up. Sheesh!!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
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.