Apple Lifts Ban On the Word "Jailbreak" 113
Gunkerty Jeb writes "After banning the word 'jailbreak' from its app store and music library, Apple [Friday] reversed course and again permits the term — slang for hacking into a device to download unauthorized content — to appear on iTunes and its App Store. On Thursday bloggers noticed Apple had censored the word, using the Thin Lizzy album 'Jailbreak' as an example. For awhile, the title was listed as 'J******k' in Apple's music library, at least its U.S. version. In other instances, digital content continued to bear the full name Jailbreak."
Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a ridiculous and petty company. The very antithesis of America. It has more in common with Stalinist Russia.
Re:I wonder how AC/DC weathered this storm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet discounting malice without even verifying is the height of stupidity.
First they want to control your speech (Score:5, Insightful)
First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think.
Re:Pathetic.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure Apple fanboys like evil_aaronm will fawn all over this, but it goes to show you just how pathetic this company and its buttboy users really are.
Wrong.
I, too, rolled my eyes at Apple making a common-use word like "Jailbreak" an "unword", as if it was going to keep knowledge of iOS Jailbreaks hidden from public view!!! Utterly ridiculous, and it smacks of overzealous middle-management.
My suspicion is that this was not properly "vetted" as a decision, or surely-to-Diety SOMEone would have pointed out not only the absurdity of the idea, but also the negative press that such a ridiculously heavy-handed example of censorship (yes, it's their store and all, but...) would visit upon them.
HOWEVER, one thing I have seen over my nearly 40 years (since 1976) as an Apple user and occasional developer, is that Apple really DOES listen to its customers and media (including blogs like Slashdot) (and unlike some companies) (I'm looking at you, Microsoft!), OFTEN modifies or, as in this case, completely reverses itself when it is clear that the majority thinks it is being stupid.
Everyone (including multibillion-dollar corporations) makes mistakes. But the true measure of the man (or company) lies in their ability to realize when they have made an error, and quickly and decisively act to correct that error.
And this is what Apple has done.
Re:Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country. Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it."
So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in. All those liberarians who want to vote with your feet... look at how many people are quite happy to take censorship and control far out-stepping the federal government, because of a shiny product. Apple has the very real potential of eventually reaching the critical mass of Microsoft, where you are FORCED to do business with them, or be unable to use digital devices. If that happens, then sorry, I'd rather the government than Apple. Corporations do not value your freedom, and for the most part, neither do their consumers; that's why we have regulations and anti-monopoly laws.
Re:Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism.
Nope. It's made possible by regulated near-free-market capitalism and worse. If it were a truly unregulated free-market, there wouldn't be things like IP that Apple could use to prevent competitors from cloning Apple hardware and software and selling at a lower price or adopting a more free (as in speech) version of iTunes service. Only the power of law keeps the competitors at bay.
Re:Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in.
Yeah, because copyrights, patents and the other sticks that Apple uses to beat the competition are products of an 'unregulated free market'.
Apple is a perfect example of what government-mandated monopolies result in.
Re:Apple... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism.
Nope. It's made possible by regulated near-free-market capitalism and worse. If it were a truly unregulated free-market, there wouldn't be things like IP that Apple could use to prevent competitors from cloning Apple hardware and software and selling at a lower price or adopting a more free (as in speech) version of iTunes service. Only the power of law keeps the competitors at bay.
^ Mod parent up if you value freedom. Most people confuse Libertarians with neo cons. In reality, corpratisim is the exact thing Libertarians are against. A government shouldn't give us regulations, it should give us the tools to regulate ourselves against concentrated power, regardless of its form.
Re:Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people confuse Libertarians with neo cons. In reality, corpratisim is the exact thing Libertarians are against.
In all fairness, you should probably tell the self-styled "Libertarians" that, first. Judging by the pro-corporate dribble most of them echo incessantly, they missed the memo.
Re:First they want to control your speech (Score:5, Insightful)
"First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think."
You realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? I think they followed that list exactly in reverse;
> Reality distortion field, army of fanboys ready to stand up for the stupidest decisions (I am still amazed at the instant turnover that was the end to the years of "PowerPC is better!" when Apple moved to iX86), heavy marketing to make you believe it is something it isn't.
> Walled garden that goes almost totally unquestioned by users. An unfortunate tendency for Apple to offer "official" (and mangled) versions of open source libraries, making use of the real ones more difficult. Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops, compared to non-Apple computers.
> THEN censorship like this.
I am not really sure what they hoped to gain, making it quite possible this specific case was just a screwup of some middle-manager. However, that does not absolve Apple of their other sins; it simply illustrates how much unwarranted power Apple wields, with no oversight, over a growing segment of the computing world. Truly frightening.
Goodness me. Quite a bit to get to here.
"PowerPC is better! followed by switch to x86"
Yes, PowerPC *was* better at the time the commercials ran. They weren't quite as fast as Apple made them out (the Pentium had a snail on it) but at the time PPC did have an advantage. This advantage quickly evaporated, however, to an almost laughable degree - especially regarding memory bandwidth, and the brick wall that IBM ran into with the PPC970. In the meantime, Intel made enormous strides with x86 and left PPC in the dust, so Apple switched. The fact that the facts bore this out meant that people weren't still shouting about how PPC was better - they changed their opinion based on facts. How this is controversial to you is quite perplexing, unless you were expecting their heads to explode because "the Apple mothership" now held a contradictory position to one it had previously expressed.
Not sure how you can bash Apple or Apple users for that one, given that they did the exact opposite of what most of you haters claim Apple users do (blindly stick to things they a mindless fans of). x86 moves ahead of PPC so much that Apple went though a potentially painful total architecture switch - a non-trivial thing to do.
"Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops"
Mhhmmm. People often trot this one out alongside the utterly diametrically opposed argument that Macs are just standard PC parts in a nice case. It's not really possible for both to be true. For the record, it's much closer to the latter.
I'd also question "heavily locked down" when all of the various pieces are pretty standard - you can swap out pretty much all of the parts as you need to on most of their machines. They switched from fixed CPUs and GPUs on the iMac to socketed whitebox Intel CPUs (you can buy an i5 or i7 off newegg and drop it in), and MXM 3.0 for the GPU (you can buy an MXM graphics card and slot it in, although they are rare and expensive). RAM is standard, hard drives are standard, optical drives are standard, the logic board uses PCIe, USB, SATA, etc.
Honestly, other than the custom firmware they had on iMac hard drives to be able to read the temperature (that was factory designed to be switched back to "standard" SATA behaviour with a jumper setting if a non-Apple drive was installed), I'm having a hard time seeing how "heavily locked down" applies? Maybe if you gave me some examples?
"Official "mangled' versions of OS libraries"
Examples?
Re:Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
In all fairness, you should probably tell the self-styled "Libertarians" that, first. Judging by the pro-corporate dribble most of them echo incessantly, they missed the memo.
Funny thing is, the only pro-corporate dribble I hear is from others, talking about the "views" of Libertarians. I personally have never met a Libertarian that was pro-corpratisim. Please do not confuse us for the neo-cons. They like to borrow our rhetoric, but really they are the antithesis of Libertarian philosophy.
Re:Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
No true libertarian is pro corporatism [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nuspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like hackers are bad.
*nix is a tool for said hackers
OS X is Unix, so...