137 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

LOL.

No, this isn't personal at all...

[Redezra]

Pff, course not. I bet phate would think the same (or rather, similar) thing.

[Phate]

Pff, course not. I bet phate would think the same (or rather, similar) thing.

I in fact do. Apple thinks they're better than everyone else, and that they should have complete control over what you do with things *you* own. They were hugely against jailbreaking until, surprisingly, they got ruled against. As Redezra said, they stifle innovation through endless litigation, making the entire technology and development community worse off for it.

At one point in time (they have since revised this policy), Apple was unhappy that Adobe was allowing developers to easily create apps for either iOS or Android, and at other cross-platform tools that let developers write one app that would work on iOS/Android/Blackberry. So, they banned all apps that weren't written especially for iOS from their app store. Apple is petty and childish, and is generally a negative impact upon the tech community.

[Haflinger]

Apple's like every other Silicon Valley company. Let's not get into this whole "Apple litigates endlessly" or I'll start posting comments from the judge in the Microsoft vs. Google case again.

To put it bluntly: If you're going to not buy electronic products produced by companies that use litigation as a business tool, then you're going to ... not buy electronic products. They all do it.

Aaah but that's a product where it's superiority is not measured in it's useability as a platform on which to reach many people.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Are you implying somehow that people using an iPhone can't dial people using Samsung smartphones?

Because I got to tell you, we got this thing called a telephone network, and it doesn't matter which device you use to connect to it; you can speak to whoever is at the end of the phone number you just dialed.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

This gets into an interesting issue: When you buy a product, what do you own, and what does the producer own? Let's say I buy a song from iTunes (or anywhere). I can play that song to my heart's content, but I can't use it for commercial purposes. I can't broadcast, copy, or otherwise distribute it legally (although many people do). What I own is the right to private, personal use, and little else.

When you buy a smartphone, you are really buying two things. One is the physical phone itself, and like any other piece of property, you are free to do whatever you want to it. You can light it on fire. You can drop it from a plane. You can crack it open and mess with the innards (although understand that if you do so you are voiding the warranty). In this sense it is just like any other piece of personal property.

But when you buy a smartphone you are also buying the content of that phone, in this case the software. More specifically, you are buying the right to use that content for private purposes. In this way it is very similar to that music download. But perhaps a better analogy would be a compact disc -- you own the physical disc itself, and can do whatever you want to it, but the music it contains is copyrighted material and you have only limited rights to its use. Now, as has been correctly pointed out, Apple takes a much more proprietary attitude toward its software than, say, Microsoft. But that is their right. Just as an author has ownership of his writing or a musician his music, so too Apple has ownership of its software. If they choose to make it publicly available and free for all (as some authors and musicians do), so be it. But they are under no obligation to do so. If they choose to retain strict control over their product, that too is their right.

It's all well and good to say Apple is a big, evil corporation (for the record, Samsung is much bigger, and just as evil), but that really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I believe that producers of content -- whether artists, writers, software designers, or whoever -- have the sole right to control what they produce. Like it or not, that right applies to corporations as well as individuals.

And one more thing: Do not delude yourselves that Samsung or Google or Microsoft are somehow the "goodguys" in this. If they have chosen to make their content open source it is for one reason and one reason only: because that's where they think the money is. They are not acting out of the kindness of their hearts, nor some deep-seated belief in egalitarianism.

[Haflinger]

This gets into an interesting issue: When you buy a product, what do you own, and what does the producer own? Let's say I buy a song from iTunes (or anywhere). I can play that song to my heart's content, but I can't use it for commercial purposes. I can't broadcast, copy, or otherwise distribute it legally (although many people do). What I own is the right to private, personal use, and little else.

Actually, with some digital media, it's possible to pay for the right to use the thing once. This is more common with video though.

It's ... dumb. The way copyright works is based upon a 19th-century economic system where reproduction of copyrighted goods required large industrial machines, not devices that you can put in your pocket. We really should be rethinking it at a fundamental level because piracy is now incredibly rampant.

[Redezra]

Okay two things:

1. Haf, the purpose of the iOS and Android platforms is to get other people to make crap for them, and to make stuff that people want, allowing those companies to look like they have a bigger consumer base, so that more companies will pay them to incorporate their stuff into the OS (or as in iOS's case, to put it on the market). Thus, the more people the OS has, the more useful and attractive it becomes, and the more successful it becomes.

2. Jor, I'm going to have to take the ridiculous road here, and say that Google *are* the good guys, because they believe in innovation. They are solidly confident that they can do anything they like better than anyone else, but importantly, if people decide otherwise, they can totally use their products to find their competitors products. They are fair, and they are friendly. This incredibly cunning manouver, to play the good guys, has made them the most powerful company on the planet. Just because their motivations aren't white knight, does not mean that they can be discounted as a shady, evil corporation. They are a responsible corp. Possibly the benchmark for fairness in the corporate world.

And another thing, you can't go using Microsoft's old methods as a damnation for their new ones. They are also playing by the good guy book, whereas before, they played the bad guy, and apple played the good guy. Microsoft was forever changed following the antitrust lawsuits laid against it, and it's management is totally different nowadays. They solve their patent problems en masse by compromise.

Hopefully, everyone eventually learns that being friends with your consumers is what gets you the market share, not violently lashing out and attempting to shove your dick in the people's collective face.

Oracle isn't likely to change, they're simply too big, and too powerful. However, if enough people drop apple for Windows or Android, maybe, just maybe, Apple will get the message, and chill the fuck out.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Key word: playing. Corporations don't do anything for altruistic reasons. Ask political dissidents in China about what a great company Google is.

But frankly I am tired of this argument. You don't like Apple. I get it. Time to move on.

I am much more interested in this idea of creator's rights in the digital age. How do we protect those rights while at the same time allowing consumers free and fair use of the products they buy? How does copyright work in a world where copying is so cheap and easy?

[Phate]

When you buy a smartphone, you are really buying two things. One is the physical phone itself, and like any other piece of property, you are free to do whatever you want to it. You can light it on fire. You can drop it from a plane. You can crack it open and mess with the innards (although understand that if you do so you are voiding the warranty). In this sense it is just like any other piece of personal property.

But when you buy a smartphone you are also buying the content of that phone, in this case the software. More specifically, you are buying the right to use that content for private purposes. In this way it is very similar to that music download. But perhaps a better analogy would be a compact disc -- you own the physical disc itself, and can do whatever you want to it, but the music it contains is copyrighted material and you have only limited rights to its use. Now, as has been correctly pointed out, Apple takes a much more proprietary attitude toward its software than, say, Microsoft. But that is their right. Just as an author has ownership of his writing or a musician his music, so too Apple has ownership of its software. If they choose to make it publicly available and free for all (as some authors and musicians do), so be it. But they are under no obligation to do so. If they choose to retain strict control over their product, that too is their right.

My concern is not whether the OS is open source or not, that's not a big issue to me. Although, open source is better. My point is that on hardware you own, you should be able to run whatever you want. If you have a PC, you expect to be able to install Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, or even build a Hackintosh if you were so inclined. A smartphone is no different. It's a computer platform that runs an operating system. Therefore, I should have full control over it and what I want to do with it. If I wish to modify the environment/software, that *should* be my right. Once I own the device, there's no reason someone else should be telling me what I can and cannot do with it. They do *not* have the right to maintain strict control over a product that I own.

[Haflinger]

Haf, the purpose of the iOS and Android platforms is to get other people to make crap for them, and to make stuff that people want, allowing those companies to look like they have a bigger consumer base, so that more companies will pay them to incorporate their stuff into the OS (or as in iOS's case, to put it on the market). Thus, the more people the OS has, the more useful and attractive it becomes, and the more successful it becomes.

No, the purpose of the iOS and Android platforms is to produce a useful device.

What you're mentioning is one way in which both platforms attempt to make the devices using them more useful. However, you are probably aware that both platforms do provide some built-in functions and are not entirely dependent on third-party software to make them useful.

In any event, Apple's App Store features over 700,000 downloadable programs. Your argument appears to be based on the idea that Apple's smaller installed base will lead to a smaller number of available applications for its product, while the reverse is actually true (Google Play weighs in at the also-huge number of 500,000 downloadable programs, which while it's definitely sufficient is actually a smaller number than Apple).

This discrepancy is probably because iPhone owners tend to be more affluent (it is the most expensive smartphone on the market after all) and therefore more likely to pay for apps.

[Phate]

This discrepancy is probably because iPhone owners tend to be more affluent (it is the most expensive smartphone on the market after all) and therefore more likely to pay for apps.

That is the argument I've always heard.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

My concern is not whether the OS is open source or not, that's not a big issue to me. Although, open source is better. My point is that on hardware you own, you should be able to run whatever you want. If you have a PC, you expect to be able to install Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, or even build a Hackintosh if you were so inclined. A smartphone is no different. It's a computer platform that runs an operating system. Therefore, I should have full control over it and what I want to do with it. If I wish to modify the environment/software, that *should* be my right. Once I own the device, there's no reason someone else should be telling me what I can and cannot do with it. They do *not* have the right to maintain strict control over a product that I own.

If you really wanted to you could by a Mac, strip its OS, and install something else. You just can't do it with Apple's support. This is no different than any number of other products. If you buy a new BMW and modify it with anything other than BMW-approved parts, you can kiss your warranty goodbye.

[Phate]

My concern is not whether the OS is open source or not, that's not a big issue to me. Although, open source is better. My point is that on hardware you own, you should be able to run whatever you want. If you have a PC, you expect to be able to install Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, or even build a Hackintosh if you were so inclined. A smartphone is no different. It's a computer platform that runs an operating system. Therefore, I should have full control over it and what I want to do with it. If I wish to modify the environment/software, that *should* be my right. Once I own the device, there's no reason someone else should be telling me what I can and cannot do with it. They do *not* have the right to maintain strict control over a product that I own.

If you really wanted to you could by a Mac, strip its OS, and install something else. You just can't do it with Apple's support. This is no different than any number of other products. If you buy a new BMW and modify it with anything other than BMW-approved parts, you can kiss your warranty goodbye.

I'm glad you agree with me. That is precisely how it should be. What Apple was doing was saying you can buy an iPhone, but what you do with it is their business and that they could tell you what you could or could not do with it. In this case, you couldn't reinstall a modified version of their OS.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

No, you can do those things -- it's your phone, you can do whatever you want to it. But the company won't support it, and you would be in violation of the terms of service. Which is no different than if you bought an Android phone, stripped the OS, and installed one of your own. Good luck getting tech support on that.

[Haflinger]

My concern is not whether the OS is open source or not, that's not a big issue to me. Although, open source is better. My point is that on hardware you own, you should be able to run whatever you want. If you have a PC, you expect to be able to install Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, or even build a Hackintosh if you were so inclined. A smartphone is no different. It's a computer platform that runs an operating system. Therefore, I should have full control over it and what I want to do with it. If I wish to modify the environment/software, that *should* be my right. Once I own the device, there's no reason someone else should be telling me what I can and cannot do with it. They do *not* have the right to maintain strict control over a product that I own.

If you really wanted to you could by a Mac, strip its OS, and install something else. You just can't do it with Apple's support. This is no different than any number of other products. If you buy a new BMW and modify it with anything other than BMW-approved parts, you can kiss your warranty goodbye.

It should be noted actually that I have done this. Well apart from the buying part. I have taken old Mac laptops that were given away and put Debian on them.

Apple makes nice laptops, especially for multi-OS users; the way OpenFirmware handles boot sectors is much better than what you have to deal with in the traditional Intel world. But more importantly their laptop batteries are pretty much the best in the business, ever since IBM quit making Thinkpads.

[Phate]

No, you can do those things -- it's your phone, you can do whatever you want to it. But the company won't support it, and you would be in violation of the terms of service. Which is no different than if you bought an Android phone, stripped the OS, and installed one of your own. Good luck getting tech support on that.

Yes. As I said that would be fine, if that was how it worked. But Apple was suing and attacking people for doing it.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

No, Apple was suing and attacking people for disseminating it. That's not the same thing. Guarantee if you installed your own OS into an Android phone and tried to spread it around you'd get sued.

[Phate]

No, Apple was suing and attacking people for disseminating it. That's not the same thing. Guarantee if you installed your own OS into an Android phone and tried to spread it around you'd get sued.

Really? I haven't heard of a single case against CyanogenMod.

[Manoka]

Hey, when are super amazing hand held computers with microsoft and everything else coming out, controlled by your mind?

Huh, huh, huh huh?


Mhhm.

I rest my case.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Really? I haven't heard of a single case against CyanogenMod.

Probably because they got permission.