Is Apple The New Microsoft? 904
Varg Vikernes writes "Even if you don't count Apple's actions this week as a potential threat to first amendment rights (Apple's crackdown on Web sites that love the company), they do nothing to bolster Apple's public image. In fact the company's success of late has yielded accusations of bullying and potentially unlawful business tactics, along with complaints about the fact that songs purchased from its iTunes music service don't work with music players other than its own. According to Forbes, to some these tactics sound like something Apple's neighbor to the North might employ. They wonder aloud Is Apple the New Microsoft?
They wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
I do like (and own) some of Apple's kit, but I'm not one of the blinkered Mac apologists who defend their every action. Apple is not a bunch of nice people; it's a corporation, and frankly I'm not surprised in the slightest at their attempts to monopolise music downloads and attack their own fans' websites. Maybe Wozniak wasn't all about making money, but Jobs and the others left steering the ship certainly are.
Have you noticed that, althought Apple's own operating system owes a lot to the open source movement, and the thousands of developers whose code they use for free, you and I still cannot run iTunes on our Linux desktop to sync an iPod? No money in it for them...
It's time some people took off the rose coloured hippy glasses and realised that Apple is just another wannabe monopolist who've (luckily for us) simply been curtailed by an unfortunate event perpetrated by the current software monopolist.
No, just normal operating procedure (Score:3, Insightful)
No need to single out Apple for finally joining the crowd in order to stay afloat.
No way (Score:2, Insightful)
Yikes (Score:1, Insightful)
What sort of fucking moron writes something that preposterous.
A slashdot editor, of course.
Market share (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily (Score:3, Insightful)
Witness the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
It's ironic that a company as innovative as Apple Computer could have such a regressive view of the changing world of American media.
Apple's view may seem regressive to the average slashdot reader, but to the rest of the world, it's way ahead.
This is a baldfaced attempt to confuse two sources of outrage for the average geek: threats to free speech and threats from Microsoft. It's a common rhetorical and political tactic meant to funnel away attention from the true threat.
Don't be fooled. Microsoft is the new Microsoft, and the old Microsoft.
From the article:
Problem is, the definition of journalism is rapidly changing. "Traditional" media like print newspapers, broadcast news and weekly magazines years ago began being augmented and in some cases supplanted by "new" media on the Web.
The protection of sources is still a source of contention, even among the "traditional" media. Refer to the Valerie Plame case (another classic "divert the opposition" case) for contention about protection of sources in the traditional media. Protection of sources, even for the major media, is not a set part of the First Amendment.
Four letters (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple actually embraces open source, basing its browser on it and releasing the Darwin kernel for its rock-solid (thanks to open source) OS back to the people.
A show of hands,
Who here feels compelled to buy Apple products to stay in business?
What about Microsoft products?
I buy Apple because it works. I buy Microsoft because I have to communicate in business.
Short answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
"No".
Longer answer:
Apple was never really the "friend" of independents. Macs are designed to be closed systems, not particularly open towards user-implemented modifications. This is one of the reasons the systems are so polished, secure and easy to use. The fact that Apple is willing to sue to protect said secrets doesn't make them the new MS... they're just doing the same thing they've always done - protect their products.
ThinkSecret infringed on that, and it could very well have been detrimental - look at how quickly Intel has designed a Mac-mini clone. Redmond doesn't have to worry about that - most of their software is a clone of Mac ideas anyway.
Re:No, just normal operating procedure (Score:3, Insightful)
Not entirely true. I know many local companies and larger corporations that I think do a far better job to maintain common sense and moral while staying in business.
All image no substance (Score:4, Insightful)
They seek to have total control over their platform and how the users use that platform. Sueing their fansites is exactly the behavior I would expect from Apple.
It is ironic that Apple used 1984 themes in their first Mac ad since Apple revels in "thought" control.
You're right (Score:0, Insightful)
You'll take what Apple gives you and be happy.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither will the beaters on my Kitchen Aid mixer plug into my Oster mixer, or anything else like that. It always amazes me that when a company gets runaway success by filling a need in a marketplace that when they end up doing really well people start to want to tear them down.
I work for a computer manufacturer, I've got access to roadmaps that go out for years, if I were to 'leak' these to a 'fan site' that does nothing but try and predict what we were doing my company would go on a witch hunt pretty quickly too. There is a thing called competition and competitors out there, even for Apple. Apple's main 'thing' is to develop innovative products. Their competitors goals are to try and find a way to cobble something together that is 'good enough' and a lot cheaper, and watch people flock too it.
$35B (Score:3, Insightful)
see here [yahoo.com]
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the iTunes Music Store was the only download music store, and they used a proprietary format, then that would be one thing. As it is, the apparently barrier to entry in the downloadable music business is so low that music stores are springing up all over the place (the local radio station now has their own music store where you can download the music from their playlists). MP3 players are for sale at half the stores in the mall.
Nobody is forcing you to use anything from Apple; there are viable competitors in every one of their markets. Nobody is paying an "Apple tax" to buy a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed on it...
forcing you to use anything from Apple?
Re:No, just normal operating procedure (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are these kind of news now and then of companies trying to stifle competition, but why aren't we facing a jungle of lawsuits, if what you're saying is true? Did Intel recently bully and make use of unlawful tactics? AMD? Google? Yahoo? ATI?
Re:New Microsoft? ... or lapdog? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is MS using Apple to attack Linux by saying OS X is a better Unix than Linux? I've seen a variety of individuals say something to this effect, but I've never really seen it as an official company line from either MS or Apple.
Re:Witness the FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't some Slashdotter's blog. This isn't even from a technology focused publication. This is Forbes printing this. So obviously this is the view of at least somebody at one of the nations leading business and finance publications.
Logic error? (Score:2, Insightful)
So you only have free speech if you're a journalist? I guess I didn't read the First Amendment closely enough. This comes as somewhat of a surprise. I thought Apple was generally doing things right and not being stupid, but maybe I was wrong. I wonder where Google stands on this?
No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an odd complaint. I don't think Apple is demonstrating a grudge against OSS or Linux in particular, it's just that the market share of Linux on the desktop is tiny (2%). If Linux had 70% of the desktop market, they'd certainly be offering iTunes for X11 and Linux. Moreover, if it were purely a quid-pro-quo arrangement, I'm not sure that Apple would be bound to produce iTunes for Linux - maybe they should provide iTunes for OpenBSD, since they actually use that team's products (OpenSSH, for instance). Just because you get Apache and Samba with Red Hat, and OS X (OS X Server has Samba) also includes them, doesn't make them "part of Linux," after all, though they're clearly important to making Linux useful.
Ok ENOUGH. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had a contract with somebody and they broke it, I would want to know about it and so would you.
Apple is annoying but not like M$ outside of O$es (Score:1, Insightful)
I really don't see the parallel with M$ but I suppose if Bill gates was selling PC's then maybe. M$ hasn't even "forced" any upgrades to a new OS in 4 years. Apple on the other hand releases service packs for the price of a new O$. Oh wait that's what XP was to win2k. So Ok they are alike in that respect. Apple is just trying to muscle it's way back into the market but they are missing out on a large segement of potential buyers. People like me who want a good system at a reasonable price.
As for iTunes it is just there to sell a product so why should it be compatible with competing technology? If you want to buy music for your non ipod then go to a place that has it.
For the record I do own a 20GB iPod and I love the thing.
-1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is the ONLY Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple may guard their secrets and markets closely, but they also support open standards and open source.
Red Hat makes the source code for all their products easily available by ftp/http mirrors everywhere.
To paraphrase Gandalf: There is only one Microsoft and it does not share power!
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. You can buy a $50 Chevy alternator. Of course, it won't fit, so you might have to make some metal brackets, drill new holes and find the right kind of pulley to make it fit on the belt, but you can still do it legally. No one can stop you trying and no one should be able to stop you trying.
With DRMed works, you can not do the software equivalent of the above unless authorized, because of the DMCA (even though you supposedly have fair use rights). Now as it happens, Apple do authorize it by letting you burn on to CD and re rip (which may be a pain), but you can still put your songs on a different player.
Re:Jobs is not Gates (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's exactly why we need antitrust protection. Power corrupts.
Re:They wish... (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly however, Apple still follows in that old and tired legacy of the monolithic Corporation; and must do everything it can to dominate the market, eventually swelling out of it's designer altruism. Of course this is hardly suprising; the machinery that comprises a Corporation allows for little else - an 'Economy' does imply Scarcity. The bigger you grow the more you need to eat. Steve will eventually go, myths made redundant and a second in charge will take over with a zoo of very big animals to feed.
Regardless, there is everything to suggest that they will become more of an 'Ikea Lifestyle Computing' company and so have opened up a market all of their own to dominate, and why not - this is something they are really good at - making really inflexible, well working machines that users acutally like to become foolishly dependent on.
Your point about no iTunes for Linux rings true. An emblem of their off-white open-source flag. Perhaps they'll be offering less UNIX and more discounts on Intelligent Haircuts by the end of the decade.
They're just a corporation (Score:2, Insightful)
I totally disagree with this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft goes out of its way to steal competitor products (Sybase SQL server and OS2/Windows) copy innovations without any consideration to the originators (see GUI interface and mice: which both copied but apple paid stock for when they borrowed it), choke the life out of people they have contracts with (Look at the spyglass to IE story) and sabotage technology standards that they don't control (See Java and the butchery they did to Javascript/ECMAscript the supposed standard). Even in their originally innovative products, they primarily engage in anti-competitive, intentional incompatibilities (See every upgrade of Microsoft Office) that sabotage the compatibility efforts of others.
Apple does none of these things. They are innovating, inventing and are really careful about asking people to mind their own business. They want to make their money by selling the best products in a category - Microsoft wants to make their money by being the only company to sell products in every category.
To sum it all up: Apple makes, Microsoft takes. If Apple is cooking up new, tasty technology, they have a right to privacy.
The NEW Microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, just normal operating procedure (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying "it's OK because everybody does it" isn't any kind of moral or legal argument at all - even if you were correct, it wouldn't make it right. At best, it indicates a serious problem with the system. At worst, it indicates that Apple is run by ego-centered millionaires who want to model the world in their image.
Re:All image no substance (Score:2, Insightful)
I won't argue with the closed proprietary-ness of the company and their tech.
However, they're not suing the fansite to be a bunch of jerks, they want to know who the source is. The information was too accurate to have been guessed (so the theory goes), so chances are it came from some inside information.
This isn't a BIG deal, but all of the employees involved signed an NDA, and let me tell you from someone that works for a big company that NDA's are taken extremely seriously. Violate one, and you're up the creek without a canoe, let alone a paddle.
They wnat the name of the violater (if there is one). They're going a little far to find him or her, but I can't totally blame them. If a person doesn't take an NDA seriously and leaks info, then you have a problem. Because not only did they leak the info once, but they could do so again and to a competitor instead of a fansite.
What is Love, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Paying Apple employees to break an agreement with Apple and leak Apple's trade secrets isn't a manifestation of "love".
Some people have to grow up and understand that a company is about making money, and a company has corporate interests that some blogger may not be able to appreciate. A company isn't "open", like the government is (supposed) to be.
Re: No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're tying products together artificially, that's normally a pretty good sign.
Since you've clearly forgotten, Apple has contributed enormously to the Open Source movement.
Have they? The only project I can think of where Apple engineers have actually submitted a non-trivial number of patches is GCC, and they maintain their own private fork with many patches not available upstream. Their patches are not available in discrete form anywhere, if you want to get them you have to scrub them out of their own tree.
And that's the best example! The KHTML changes are returned in the form of a massive undocumented patch dump, which makes them extremely hard to use. Note that the latest KDE/KHTML release does not seem to contain many improvements from Apple: that's why. FreeBSD got a few test suites out of it, iirc, and not much else. GNU Binutils is still waiting for many of the patches Apple wrote to be made available in a useful form, etc etc.
Basically Apple have perfected the art of releasing [L]GPLd software they use back to the community in a useless fashion. That's their biggest contribution.
As for the first "large corportation" to embrace open source, I wonder how you can ignore IBM even if you have arbitrarily ruled that Red Hat and other such companies are not "large".
Re:No, just normal operating procedure (Score:2, Insightful)
Just cause everyone else is doing it?
Hmmmmmmmm......
Oh, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, this is about unauthorized publication of private information. Certainly nobody believes that "the press", in any of its traditional or more modern forms, has the unfettered freedom to publish private information, especially if the release of the information is potentially harmful to someone.
Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy of a blogger publishing your private medical information, or financial records. Nobody would claim that the first amendment extends to malicious release of private data.
A reasonable person might argue that a corporation is not entitled to the same protection as a an individual, and it is certainly the case that ThinkSecret's actions were not malicious (although they were arguably harmful). OK, we have the basis for a discussion, but not histrionics about a corporate evil empire trashing our constitutional rights.
I can't believe Forbes published that drivel. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Apple's actions are reasonable or constructive, but this was an inexcusably sloppy start.
And, oh, by the way, my pre-iPod MP3 player (a Creative Nomad II) is currently loaded with mostly iTunes-purchased songs. I guess I failed to notice the Apple-logo'd chains around my neck when I loaded it...
Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's stance on Think Secret is about First Amendment rights. From Apple's perspective, it is trying to protect their trade secrets by limiting information about upcoming products. Apple isn't alone in doing this. Most automanufacturers go to great lengths to protect new models. From ThinkSecret's perspective, it's about their First Amendment rights. A court will settle it.
If it was MS, not only would MS sue ThinkSecret, they would try to influence ThinkSecret's partners, suppliers, and customers in not so subtle ways.
Apple like some companies have and will continue to bully some resellers This behavior could turn away many, and Apple could be nicer. The sad fact of the matter, though, is that Apple owns a monopoly on their own machines, but they have not in recent memory tried to bully resellers against competitors.
Microsoft has not only bullied resellers but strong-armed partners too against their competitors. When Win95 was out, many OEMs were persuaded not to install Netscape but IE or their Windows prices might rise. Intel wanted to develop a Java runtime compiler for i386, but MS hinted that AMD would get a more favorable treatment when MS developed their next version of Windows if they did.
The issue with iTunes keeps coming up, and it never really gets explained. AAC is an open standard. Fairplay contains the DRM. Not many players support AAC and almost all support mp3 (as does iTunes/iPod) and some support wma. Those that support wma have struck deals with MS. Some of those who complain about Apple being closed include MS and Real and that's the pot calling the kettle black. You can always convert the songs into MP3s if you want although it's not a simple process and their will be fidelity loss.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
They make if for the Mac so you can keep it in the family. Apple wants you to only buy Apple, just as any other company. Apple goes the extra mile and actively trys to keep it that way as well (blocking Real comes to mind).
I always post non positive Apple comments as AC because more often then not, the Apple biased moderators will mod things they do not agree with as troll or off topic instead of trying to reply with a logical rebuttal.
Re:What is Love, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
FINALLY, someone gets it! This isn't about fansite's or blogger's "rights as journalists", this isn't about freedom of speech, this is about someone willing to violate a legally binding contract forbidding them from revealing trade secrets to outsiders, and someone else soliciting that violation.
Apple has been such a driving force in the industry in recent years due to their ability to innovate. When someone from inside the company leaks information, that innovation is threatened by the million and one companies clamoring to whip out a cheap knockoff of the latest Apple design.
It's not like these fan sites haven't gotten cease and desist orders for YEARS prior to this. It's not like they didn't know all about Apple's land sharks. The company known as Apple Computer is well within their rights to pursue these legal means to defend their rights.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic they should roll iTunes out for FreeBSD, since Darwin (the base of OSX) is based on FreeBSD 5.x. Ever notice how FreeBSD rolls out a new release and OSX rolls out the next month.
I'm not saying that Darwin and FreeBSD are directly compatible, but the FreeBSD project has benefited from Apple's advancements in Darwin; and porting from one to the other isn't that hard. Google has plenty of good information. [google.com]
Re:Witness the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I really wish I understood that little gem completely before I bought an ipod shuffle.
I did a bit of homework and found out it could be treated as a USB thumbdrive with FAT32 partitioning. Golden, I can mount that... Unlike many of the players out there, I can't just move my music over to the player's file system. I've got a mixed environment, and was really angry over the amount of work I had to do to export MP3's over to my ipod from my Gentoo box. (Hats off to the gtkpod dev team, btw)
As a lightweight MP3 player / thumbdrive the Shuffle is nice. iTunes, not so good. (iconoclastic stance here on
Anyhow, Apple may pitch the iPod as a hardware sale where any music is more or less sold at cost - but they really went out of their way to tie the iTunes software (and thus the on-line store) into the mix. Grrr...
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't blame you. Already that fairly innocent post has had 4 overrated mods, which can only have come from Apple apologists who can't quite identify what about my comment detracts from the discussion but don't want people to see it anyway.
Overrated is a stupid mod, it's not meta-moderated and some people have clearly figured that out. They're now using it to push an agenda without fear of being excluded from the moderation system. Quite why Taco lets this huge hole persist is beyond me, but a "+2 Insightful" post from somebody with the karma bonus is unfortunately something I only ever see on Apple related stories. Shame.
Fortunately I have excellent karma and have had forever, so I'm not bothered by posting.
There is no first amendment issue here (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, Apple is not attacking ThinkSecret.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Apple is trying to track down people who violated their NDA. When you sign an NDA, you are signing a legal contract and violating that contract is a violation of the law. When you sign an NDA you have essentially agreed to forfeit your 1st Amendment right as it relates to the subject of the NDA.
Apple is trying to track down a person or people who willfully and illegally violated the terms of a legally binding agreement that they made with Apple. ThinkSecret is safe. ThinkSecret is not being forced off of the web. They are not being sued for damages. They are not being prosecuted at all. They are being subpoenaed for info that would lead to the prosecution of people who have broken the law (this is not even debatable at this point, these people have violated the terms of a contract that they agreed to). No one is attacking ThinkSecret or their right to say whatever they choose to say.
And the whole idea of media sources being protected is sketchy at best. There has never been a clear and well-defined legal precedent for this supposed protection. In fact, whenever "sources" have provided info that is later determined to be false or defamatory, they are usually pursued with the blessing of the courts. And when someone provides information by violating a legal contract, why should it be any different? If you didn't want to get in trouble for telling people, you shouldn't have signed the NDA.
You people have a funny idea of how the first amendment works.
Re:They wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't 'attacking' fan websites. Take off your bias for a minute and compare this analogy:
Three websites, say Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot, publish articles on an upcoming ATI product that no one has heard about.
ATI has subpoenas issued to Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot in order to discover the source of the leak.
Now replace ATI for Apple, and how is that different than the current Apple legal action?
You also complain about 'formally faithful resellers'. Again, think of it from a business perspective: Apple wants profit. If their resellers satisfied Apple's business needs, why would Apple waste money, effort, and resources opening up stores? Look at the business landscape and tell me that the resellers actually helped Apple; and if they did, do they help more than Apple's own stores? Before the Apple Stores existed in the US, the only place I could acquire them were department stores with broken displays, computer stores with no staffing, and resellers with no customer service. I don't doubt there do exist the odd excellent reseller, but I don't think you can deny there exist a rash of bad outlets either.
Finally you talk about open source. They give back exactly what they owe, and more. Apple doesn't use Linux, they use BSD; FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Towards that end Apple has released their OS core, Darwin, even though the BSD license doesn't require it.
Apple also uses KHTML for their web browser, and releases that back to the KDE folk.
Apple has open sourced their networking kit, Rendezvous, and their Quicktime streaming server, and a few other libraries and projects.
Yes, all of this HAS to have business benefits. If there were no benefits, it would be a waste of YOUR money; you did invest in Apple when you purchased your products. They don't exist to do favors for Linux; when has Linux done favors for Apple?
I don't believe Apple would be worse than Microsoft, given the chance. I think if they grew to Microsoft proportions, they would suffer a host of ills that currently can be seen afflicting HP, Sony, and Compaq: Lack of vision, lack of direction, lack of coordination, lack of innovation. You don't believe that, but I point to ALL the examples out there. The only company of that size that hasn't become listless (and thus surprised by Apple) is IBM.
Re:Four letters (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been debated before, but I'll put in my $.02-- If MS didn't "take" the BSD TCP/IP stack we would be in a world of locked up and proprietary communication protocols-- the internet itself may be a different place.
Apple did not "lock up" the changes they made to the BSD Unix core "darwin"-- in fact not only have they been very open about their changes the entire core is available under and open source license. Apple has done more than expected-- and continues to port back all or most changes to Darwin. It's actually a neat operating system, and can be run w/o Quartz (Apple's WM).
Do yourself a favor and bite down hard the next time you put your foot in your mouth.
Re:All image no substance (Score:3, Insightful)
While the platform is somewhat closed and he hardware very closed, the release of Darwin and the use of numerous open standards doesn't fit your theory. Their software complies more with open standards than Microsoft's has any year, and I don't think they've tried to make their own proprietary revision of those open standards.
I think you've missed a few points on the lawsuits There are laws saying that information knowingly retrieved from NDA'd sources are not protected under journalistic priviledges. Apple isn't trying to protect thoughts, they are trying to protect their platform. There is a significant difference between the two.
I don't think your point means that there is no substance to Apple products, because for the most part, it isn't true.
Re:They wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "beautiful font engine" you are referring to is FreeType which has indeed worked around this patent. The auto-hinter unfortunately does not work correctly for non-Latin fonts as it relies upon aspects of the geometry. Hinting is still required if you wish to display vector based non-Western glyphs, and it's also required to produce metrically compatible glyphs with systems that are hinted.
Re:They wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
How so? What part of Linux has Apple adopted? If anyone should complain it is BSD (because BSD begat NextStep begat OS X) or GNUStep (because NextStep begat GNUStep). Linux has no connection with Apple except precariously: That they use Apache (The Apache foundation), X11 (XFree86.org), GCC (GNU.org) Samba (Samba.org), KHTML (KDE), CUPS (CUPS.org). You can equally argue that Linux uses those tools; those tools don't make Linux!
So what that they don't offer iTunes for Linux? Download Darwin, the Darwin Streaming Server, Rendezvous, KHTML, CUPS, Samba, Apache, GCC, or X11! Is that not the spirit of open source?
Re:Four letters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, just normal operating procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
Subpoenaing TS to find out where the leak is seems lawful.
Bundling free AND non-integrated software seems lawful.
Selling the SAME software in a non-bundled, non-integrated, package seems lawful.
I'm sure half the examples you want to use are alleged violations: Like Apple's treatment of resellers, but truly, where has Apple been stifling competition?
Have you not seen how many small, portable, hard drive based mp3 players exist? I would argue there that by making the market profitable, Apple has encouraged competition.
Have you not seen how many music stores now exist? I would also argue that by making the market viable, Apple has encouraged competition.
Have you not seen Apple's adoption of Open Source software? I would argue that by making Open Source profitable, that Apple has injected new life into the open source movement; that Open Source need not be garage, back-room, or basement, but is viable for the desktop!
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you have Linux users, most of which don't like to pay for things, and bitch like hell if a product doesn't come with the full source code.
Re:Apple = Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store
I'm not talking about ripping a CD and making an mp3 of it, or downloading from Kazaa here. I'm talking about freedom to buy music from an online store other than iTunes. There is none of that with the iPod, and that's why the iTunes store is being investigated for price fixing by the European Union.
Re:All image no substance (Score:4, Insightful)
They've pretty much always had total control over their platform. The exception being during the clone era, which didn't go well for a number of reasons. It's how they've managed to keep the quality of their products higher than average.
I don't understand your argument that they want to totally control how I use my Mac. There's no software on my machine that I can't remove. A lot of their apps are collaborate in neat ways, but if take one of them off, the rest still work. Sure, they dictate what buttons and windows their programs present to me, but doesn't every application writer do that?
Much of their software writes to open formats, and other developers are free to pull apart and write to those files (keynote, ical, etc...).
I've installed various versions of Mac OS dozens of times on many different machines, and not once have I been asked to a serial number, or to authenticate.
I can think of lots of software on my computer that Apple didn't create. I don't even have to ask them for permission to use those programs.
I'm free to try and upgrade my hardware. My mac is filled mostly with pretty standard components. Video card choices are a bit limited because of the mac's smaller marketshare, but not because of any Apple conspiracy. I guess I can't really change my motherboard, but the percentage of computer users who care in the least what sort of motherboard they have is negligible.
There are hundreds, probably thousands of Apple fansites that have been operating for years, and I don't think many of them have been sued.
Linux and OpenBSD and whatnot most certainly do provide an extremely open and free environment. It's an environment that many people thrive in, and really enjoy. There are, however, plenty of other people who like to have a lot of the work already done for them, and that's the market that Apple has always targeted. Paying someone else make a bunch of decisions for you, so that you can get to work on the ones that you're actually interested in, that's not evil. And a company existing to make money off of doing that is not evil either.
Used to??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Used to? Jesus man. I still see so much evidence of this going on today here on Slashdot and everywhere else. To an awful lot of people, Microsoft is still a kind, benevolent company who make secure robust software. Or at least they don't seem to bothered by the rest of the shit MS does.
WTF are you talking about? In order to be able to sell the damned things, they needed to have DRM in place. We don't like it, but that's reality. Their players may only understand their DRM, and other players may not since you'd have to break their DRM to use it. But did you not notice an iPod plays MP3's???
So go buy yourself a friggin' CD and make your own MP3s. Download your MP3s the way you do now and play them. Go buy a non-DRM'd MP3.
An iPod is in my future. iTunes music store isn't something I care about at all. The fact that for the MP3s I've ripped from my legally purchases CDs will play on it is why I'm buying it.
Blaming the economic reality that if you want to sell digital music nowadays and not run afoul of the RIAA it needs to be DRMd on Apple is like blaming a liquor store owner for not selling to minors.
Oh? I have a choice of a whole bunch of MP3 players on the market. The fact that Apple branded players only decode Apple DRM'd things is hardly a shock.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
then over few days you'll get modded down with 'overrated'. why? because apple zealots read the stories even when they're old, normal people that would agree with your valid points don't read old apple stories.
is apple open? hell no. is apple always nice with 3rd parties? hell no. is apple always right? hell no.
is 1024*768 high resolution? hell no.
" Mac mini sports a full-fledged ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM over an AGP 4x bus." is that incredible graphics? HELL NO, thats about as crappy as you can get while still using ati's or nvidia's current line(and 9200 on 4x bus really means radeon 9000).
disclaimer, i got an ibook here. it's got it good sides, but it's also got it's bad sides.
and apples marketing is just full of shit, even when compared to pc gfx card marketing. but what's really bad about is it that some people don't have any criticism over apples marketing terms and really believe that their g4 bundled with 9200 kicks the ass of something that would be considered a general/gaming budget pc, and that 1024*768 is a good resolution.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Force fed iTunes on Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Four letters (Score:3, Insightful)
If OpenDarwin is crippled, then so is every *Linux and *BSD distribution out there.
Yeah, you definitely put your foot in your mouth.
cr
Re: No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has been playing off of their maverick, nice-guy image for way too long. It's about time that people realize that Apple long since shed the original hacker mentality and went big corporate. That happened somewhere around 1982, I'd say. Apple Computer is run just as much by suits as IBM has always been. Sure, you have someone like Jobs at the helm who has a vested interest in maintaining that image
Re:They wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm tired of people calling anyone who defense Apple apologists when it comes to these court cases.
ThinkSecret is a for-profit company, NOT a news organization.
They're convincing people who have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to ILLEGALLY GIVE THEM INFORMATION.
We don't know all the information, but if ThinkSecret convinced them to give them the information by giving them something, then they're also guilty of bribing.
Either way, Apple has a RIGHT to sue ThinkSecret until they give up the names of their sources.
Re:They wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
any monopoly is bad..
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be clear, Apple doesn't owe Linux a damn thing for using FreeBSD as it's base. It's a different group of people. And Apple pays back to FreeBSD in exactly the way that the open source model says it should, by using the software, and feeding back bug fixes.
See for example [osviews.com]
There seems to be an undercurrent on here that companies doing the things that make a profit is somehow immoral. Which is as valid an opinion as any other, but why not just say "all companies are immoral", rather than picking on the ones that you particularly want to spend time on unprofitable stuff.
Re:Yikes (Score:2, Insightful)
It's only a trade secret if you are the one who signed the NDA or other such agreement with Apple, to anyone else it is just news. Apple is having a problem with employees and contractors and is trying to use the courts to pressure third parties, that have no responsibility to maintain trade secrets with Apple to get at those who do.
This is hardly a national security issue and the judge should bounce the whole thing. Maintaining your trade secrets is your responsibility, Apple should be able to prove its case before it gets to court. e.g. Apple should have the names of the leakers and the signed contracts.
If Apple wants to play this game it should use its own money and not ours by bringing it to the courts or harassing innocent third parties with legal action.
Beside NDAs and contracts, companies may often obscure new product plans, create false product plans, "leak" false information and cleverly plan release dates or release date announcements to name a few tricks that are often used instead of our courts.
(IANAL, I have signed NDAs and I have refused to sign other NDAs but have never broken one.)
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Get real, almost anything worth publishing will be damaging and considered private to someone.
Re:Four letters (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X without its GUI would probably fall under crippled. However, OS X as a whole isn't open source software that Apple "took and returned to the community a crippled version to us."
Darwin, the kernel that OS X uses, however, is the OSS project Apple used. Apple has since returned many changes they've made to this kernel back to the community. Aqua, the window manager, was developed by Apple itself, and so does not fall under the category of "OSS product they stole and returned a crippled version to us."
So your original point, that they took Darwin and returned a crippled version of it, is false.
Now, you're saying taking the OSS product, adding a window manager, and returning the changes to the OSS product but not including the WM is what makes Apple evil and against OSS? Who the hell do you think you are? Apple created Aqua on its own; it has the sole right to decide how to distribute it, not you.
Your statement about other distros not adding a WM and commercializing it is moot; most other distros include X11, but if they created their own WM then they would have the sole right to decide how to distribute that.
Re:All image no substance (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. You must be talking about just the chip or something, because on the G5 towers that start at $1400 or something, you can replace/upgrade drives, vid cards, optical drives, memory, etc. as well as add bajillions of compatible 3rd party peripherals. A 16 button mouse, if you want.
Apple also includes X11, you can use fink or another package manager, you can even install yellowdog linux. They include free dev tools for both the BSD and mac environments. A free compiler. Almost RAD-like cocoa app dev tools that give you the low level stuff for free.
So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "total control" over how users use the platform, unless you mean you can't build a mac out of spit and tinfoil with an embedded mach kernel with an opensource mac personallity or something.
Re:Four letters (Score:2, Insightful)
Its like a bakery who takes a cake recipe changes it, lets anyone have their new recipe for the cake, but not the recipe for their new icing. You still have to buy the cake from them to get that.
Compare this to MS who took something and gave back nothing. That said Apple took alot more than MS. Apple gives back more than just Darwin check it out : http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/ [apple.com]
It should be also noted that you can very easily get XFree86 running on Darwin.
Re: No iTunes for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
So on one hand we have Mac consumers, who love rumors. And on the other hand we have Mac Rumor sites which apparently now are seen by the Mac faithful as enemies of the state.
Well, you can't have it both ways! Take away the obsessiveness about Apple's secret plans and all of a sudden nobody cares what The Steve's big announcement is, the online community has nothing to talk about, and new Apple products are greeted with a big Meh.
Apple's Marketing Hype Machine depends almost entirely on the Mac Community's need for the Next Big Thing. Apple walks the line here with ridiculous secrecy to whip up the faithful. But then when the rumor sites actually hits gold, Apple brings out the legal guns. Being an online Mac freak just got a lot less fun, thanks to Apple.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
One off the cuff, but this perhaps serves his point well: http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P2398 [itfacts.biz].
Apple is far from the largest 'shipper' of UNIX in the world, especially considering it's small place in the server market. I figure you're speaking within the context of desktops albeit.
Maybe on planet Mongo (Score:2, Insightful)
I can think of two big reasons why Apple is not the new Microsoft:
1) Apple's products seem to work very well:
http://www.tcf.vt.edu/systemX.html
2) Apple hasn't been convicted of anti-trust violations:
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=02/1
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how many of those that complain that Apple hasn't "given enough back" to the OSS community have given anything back to the linux community themselves.
I see that the originator of this thread, FyRE666 has written games in Javascript [smashcat.org], so perhaps he has some justification for his criticism. But I think there are many free loaders who are just bitter that they can't also freeload off of Apple.
Re:I totally disagree with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Replace Safari with IE and OS X with Win XP in your posting. Tell me again why Apple are not like Microsoft.
All I don't like... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I print out my own weekly newsletter on my computer, am I more of a traditional (and thus constitutionally protected) journalist than a reporter with 30+ years experience who now writes exclusively online?
I think that EVERY citizen has a constitutionally protected right to free press. I don't recall a clause in the constitution that says you have to be certified to truly enjoy that right. The right covers us all.
Additionally, what would Apple's lawyers be saying if this information HAD been published in a big "traditional" paper? Or if it were on CNN?
IMHO, I think they are behaving like Microsoft. They don't really care about constitutional rights or legal protections of free speech, etc. It's just about money. I'm a mac user, but I'm not an Apple apologist - and I think there's something terribly wrong with any corporation's greed can circumvent the rights of ordinary citizens.
Whether you journalism snobs like it or not, anyone CAN be a journalist with enough time and dedication. No certification necessary, according to our constitution.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is, 2 people got modded up for saying the exact same thing. Now your post makes it three.
Oh, what the hell. There's no market share!! Give me my mod points!!
Re:Oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)
What private information? Nixon was fair game as a public official, and the Watergate crime was clearly a matter for the public record. Apple is a private entity, conducting legitimate business (development of products) with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Darwin not giving back? You know, the entire underlying operating system, free and open source, given back to the community? Is open sourcing their entire ZeroConf implementation (aka Rendezvous/Bonjour) not giving back? What about all the improvements to KHTML they've given back? You know, the improvements Apple is donating back so fast that the KHTML literally doesn't have the manpower to merge them all back yet?
The fact is, Apple has been incredibly good about giving back improvements to Open Source that they've made to the community. Even with BSD licensed software where they technically don't have to give anything at all back if they don't want to, AFAIK they always have.
So while Apple certainly does some things I don't agree with, you need to seriously check your facts, and somebody needs to negate the insightful mod you've been given because you're anything but.
Re:Oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)
No we aren't. Apple doesn't have cause to expect their marketing plan should remain private. See below.
Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy of a blogger publishing your private medical information, or financial records. Nobody would claim that the first amendment extends to malicious release of private data.
This analogy is grossly flawed. The public has a legitimate interest in the content of Apple's marketing plan because they buy Apple products and they invest in Apple stock, but the public doesn't have a legitimate interest in my medical history because I'm not a public figure and my medical history has no relevance to the public.
Re: No iTunes for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
You misspelled "stagnant."
The fastest-growing desktop OS in the past three years has been:
(drum roll)
OS X.
A large portion of new OS X users (other than those "upgrading" from the previous Mac OS) since it came out have been, not newbies or Windows switchers, but former Linux users. That statistic includes me. My last remaining Linux box just went off-line about two months ago, and I don't miss it.
Just take a look at Slashdot five years ago, when it was a haven for the "Linux Uber Alles" mindset and compare it to today. Back then, even the editing staff considered the Mac to be nothing more than overpriced toys. Now, they drool over every minor new feature OS X brings to the UNIX desktop experience. It used to be several updates a week on the front page debating the relative merits between KDE and Gnome. Now you hardly see that stuff unless you browse over to "linux.slashdot.org."
The idea that they even need a linux.slashdot.org these days tells you all you need to know. It used to be that the hard-core Linux fanboy section of Slashdot was called "slashdot.org"!
Oh wait... UID 809063... You weren't reading Slashdot back then, were you? Well, ask your dad or something. The dream of a Linux desktop becoming mainstream was much more widely embraced then than it was now. Hell, even I thought it was likely to happen.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. AAC [aac-audio.com] is an MPEG-4 standard, developed independently of Apple by the same Motion Picture Experts Group that developed standards such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and mp3. It is not an Apple-proprietary format. If your portable player of choice does not support the standard, it's not Apple's fault.
If you insist on using a non-DRMed format (and Apple's is the best DRM around, in that it expertly balances both the fair use rights of the user and the draconian demands of the fanatical recording industry), then you are likely a tinkerer by nature, and there are options available. For example, you could "burn" the tracks to an Image Drive, and then "rip" the tracks off the iso image to another format. I'm sure you could even bang up a script to automate the process and transfer the metadata to an ID3 tag. No physical media need be involved.
My point is that Apple is doing things right. The average user has a great deal of freedom with the songs they have purchased. This is a big accomplishment, considering the demands of the recording industry. Don't be so quick to dismiss Apple's efforts.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Four letters (Score:3, Insightful)
They have already done the right thing, in returning the part of the product based on someone else's work.
Re:They wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
iTMS == iTunes Music Store
I've been using my iPod for 3 years without ever downloading anything from iTMS, so don't try telling me that I'm wrong. Yes you need iTunes to put songs on the iPod, but since it ships with the iPod, that's not tying, that's just two parts of the same product that i bought.
BTW, no one has "proved" anything about Apple fixes released to the community. You should learn the difference between an opinion and proof. So Apple don't spoon feed people with fixes in the form they'd like. Boo hoo.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
And what's wrong with that? Is commit access to an arbitrary open source project a prerequisite to criticising a closed source project or a corporation's policy towards the open source community?
Here's a news flash for all of you who think that freeloading users should shut up:
Freeloaders are the secret to the success of open source. There are FAR more users who would love to run a quality, free operating system on cheap hardware without giving anything back to your oh-so-precious community than there are idealistic developers who want to perpetuate the freedom of code. Embrace them. Realize that it is THEY who will make major corporations, main stream media, computer resellers, governments around the world, and most importantly self-centered marketers large and small stand up and take notice. Right now open source software is still mostly a geek's pipe dream in the datacenters and small-to-medium businesses around the world. The bosses know windows, so they buy and invest in windows and microsoft products. If you can get real, honest-to-goodness mom and pop users who don't give a shit about giving back to your self-righteous community using Open Source Software daily, as a Free-as-in-beer product, you'll really start to see the revolution of free-code-anarchy going. There is no killer app. There is a killer mindset. Fuck the developers, we have the licenses to ensure they get when they want - it's all about the freeloading users. Those whose eyes glaze over and are lulled to sleep when you talk about your noble and beautiful self-perpetuating license, how it ensures freedom of information, code, knowledge, and ideas. The best thing for open source software is to realize that you're all a bunch of social retards that no one likes outside of troubleshooting spyware. And...there's nothing wrong with that. It's ok. Accept it and move on. Don't pretend your ability to code elevates you above the average person, the luser, if you will. You are, actually, below them. They feed off of you and your product. You are grass and they are cows in the utopian open source model. Does a cow care if one blade of grass can photosynthesize more efficiently than another? No. You're all food to them. Realize it. Embrace it. Then, with that new found humility, make the software that people use.
Mod it flame bait, off topic, what have you - but realize you're modding down reality. Realize you're modding down the key to your success. Realize that modding it down makes you no better than Apple censoring it's fans. And, for the love of God, stop humping Apple. They're a fucking corporation like all others.
Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. Remember the "fastest PC in the world" campaign that got banned because it was BS? It's that kind of elitist lie that gets the Mac fanboys foaming at the mouth.
Re:I totally disagree with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of crying to Forbes (Score:2, Insightful)
In which part Apple stops them?
People not using Mac as their only system can't understand how absurd those editorials are.
I got a OS X system, I buy original cds and yet there is not a SINGLE ALTERNATIVE ON OS X FOR iTUNES!
How can I respect any other company if they don't respect the computer of mine?
Re:There is no first amendment issue here (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, hiring good lawyers to defend your right to keep your sources confidential doesn't cost a lot of money
Apple is the new ... Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple have always presented a unified platform of software and hardware. That is now and has always been their approach. It is their right to not hold the concept of software and hardware separation as sacrosanct.
For many years this approach has been cited as the reason that they did not succeed in the OS wars with Microsoft. Possibly true too.
It would seem that the approach of "building the whole widget" does work well in the digital music market however.
Apple did not leverage a monopoly in the music player player market to build the success of the iTunes music store. Similarly the success of the iPod was not built on the strength of a monopoly in the download market. IF they are approaching a monopoly in those markets now then it is because the entire strategy has worked.
Fair-play is not new - it was used on day one of the iTunes music store. It was clear that the iPod was the only portable player this stuff would work with. What did the market say? "Gimme"
Apple have always wanted to build the whole widget and that is what they are doing in music. Apparently the users like it this time around.
Re:They wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Rapidly taking over that spot?" Keep on dreaming.
I searched all over IDC's site for this statistic of yours and couldn't find it. Care to cite your link? There are certainly links that show increase in market share usage of Linux (mostly in financial institutions and server markets), but we've also been hearing increases in Apple market share usage since MacWorld 2005.
When searching, I did find out that 6% of iPod users switched to Mac over PC [com.com]. With iPods accounting for over 60% of the market and growing each year, Apple has all their cards played just how they want to.
Moderation Complains (OT) (Score:2, Insightful)
Plenty of people state your point, trust me. I see it everytime I moderate when I set my threshold to -1. The point here is that complaints about moderation are generally offtopic and uninteresting to those seeking to read about the story. If you disagree with a moderation, you can moderate yourself or M2. Or at least throw an (OT) in your subject line and decline your karma bonus. Or, if you're intent on complaining, at least show some effort; provide a more involved comment with reasons why such moderations are undesirable. That way you might actually sway a future moderator to undo what you felt was unjust.
The problem here is you're drawing a general conclusion about moderation in general, when it's an activity done by thousands in aggregate. Sometimes stuff like this gets modded up. Sometimes it gets modded down. It only takes two people to move something like this up to +4 or down to 0. There is no conspiracy.
BTW, I got here when checking context on M2. I M2'd the Troll mod on your first comment as fair because I thought it was fair.
I sincerely hope this helps you post better in the future. After all, that's the whole bloody point of moderation. Please take the criticism constructively.