Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple The New Microsoft?
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?
In fact, I personally believe that if Gates and co. hadn't screwed Apple over all those years ago to bring out Windows 1.0, then we'd be in a hell of a lot worse position than we are now. At least Microsoft only have a monopoly on Software. If the 2 Steves had managed to create a monopoly where Apple had total control of the OS AND the hardware, then it would be impossible for anyone else to get a look in. We saw how Apple treated the clone system builders, and BeOS for that matter. Actually, now I think of it, Apple are setting up their own stores here in the UK and driving their formerly faithful resellers out of the market with their well know price fixing strategies (try buying apple hardware at better prices than Apple supply it direct to see what I mean).
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.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
In this day and age, everyone does business this way.
No need to single out Apple for finally joining the crowd in order to stay afloat.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They have a LONG way to go to becoming Microsoft. Some of the things done may look, sound, be the same, but c'mon -- like Apple's market pressure is ANYthing like that of Microsoft's. Please.
No, they need some BSODs.
Websites that spread trade secrets and leak important details about upcoming products (including ship dates, manufacturing locations, key design details) months before they're announced are hardly websites that "love the company".
What sort of fucking moron writes something that preposterous.
A slashdot editor, of course.
All they need now is crushing market share...
They way all corporations do their business is by flexing their muscle. When a company starts to measure its success by how much their quarterly results benefit their investors, then they become myopic bullies and innovation stops. MS is far ahead there.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
This is pure FUD, and guess what? It's aimed at you, the slashdot reader.
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.
Microsoft is the New Microsoft. Don't ever forget that, peon hoard!!
(And if anyone else has any "New Microsoft" for sale, won't be long before Microsoft buy that too..)
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Bill Gates in a cape with a shroud over his head...
His crackley voice speaks, "Arise Darth Apple"
Steve Jobs sets up, "Yes my Lord."
when you come over to the dark side, all of the evil consumes you.
Welcome Apple, the Evil that is Gates has consumed you.
Next we will find Linus cut in half laying on the floor with RMS shaking his head, "ready not for the battle were you. Dead you now are."
oh yeah, this will be good......
Even if you don't agree with some of their tactics like iTunes music only playing on an iPod, is that not their right to do so? Not _everything_ in the world has to work with _everthing_ else. This certainly is not a standard outside of the computer world. And besides, how else to catch up with Microsoft who leads in these practices?
They just have a puny market share. Their desire for complete control is just as vast as MS. That is how the marketplace works. You go into business to make as much from as many as you can. They are not a charity, church, or non-profit. They are a business, and like most businesses they would love to have what MS does.
... for a convicted monopolist.
Dumb Ass,
There is a difference between freedom of speech and exposing the industry and trade secrets of a company that you have signed a non disclosure agreement or an employment contract with which stipulates that you will not do that very same thing. How and why is this even news. The only news here is that you are a fuckin' moron.
Remember, when apple gets in trouble, microsoft bails them out.
... this is a troll. No doubt. But it is the truth. Can you handle the truth?
Now, Microsoft is using apple to attack Linux saying that OS/X is a better Unix than Linux.
Yeah, sure, you apple fanboys
Techlander.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
I see that Varg Vikernes was snagged by Forbes' trolling for readership... Oh well. :-/
Jobs, in contrast, is at his core someone who knows marketing and wants to dazzle his customers. With Microsoft it's what they want and you have to go along with it. With Apple, it's about finding the best customer experience and using that for profit.
Look at the quality of their respective products. What kind of quality do you get from Gates? Convoluted, buggy, but hey it's got features so shut up. What kind of quality do you get from Jobs? Look at Pixar. They are a money-making machine, but they do it by providing customers with top-notch quality. People are glad to give them their money. With Microsoft, it's often a case of grudgingly giving their money.
So a world dominated by Steve Jobs would undoubtably have it's own problems, it would be different problems than we have seen from Bill Gates. Their personalities are different enough to ensure that.
...Canada?
Carousel is a lie!
Personally, I aspire to be the New Symantec. But that's just a matter of preference. Anybody here want to be the new Lotus?
BSOD.
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.
"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.
I would say that their products do suck, and are overpriced.
For one thing, Apple software doesn't suck.
Apple the New Microsoft? Another one for the neophiliacs
I've been an Apple user since the Apple II back in the Day. They have always marketed the image the company and the customers as open, free thinkers, and iconoclasts. The reality is that Apple is one of the most closed proprietary companies around. As Apple moves closer to being an entertainment company, I expect the trend will get worse.
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.
along with complaints about the fact that songs purchased from its iTunes music service don't work with music players other than its own
What an absurd complaint! Thanks to "DVD" Jon Johansen, iTunes-bought songs work just fine on any device capable of playing back AAC.
As for the rest, well, nothing new here. The only "new" part about this comes from the fact that Apple fanboys have actually acknowledged the existance of such bullying (though invariably in an apologist tone). But Apple has used exactly these sort of bullying tactics for a great many years... Anyone remember the suits over the original iMac? Or how about their reaction to 3rd-party Aqua theme clones? And god forbid you get a hot anonymous tip about the contents of an upcoming MacWorld - At best you get sued, and if you actually get some real info, Apple will petulantly threaten to pull out altogether!
Nothing to see here, people, move along.
True Apple Inc. love would be swallowing every new product hook, line, and sinker.
You'll take what Apple gives you and be happy.
Vendor lock-in.
If Apple hadn't had a 20 year history of making developers sign exclusive contracts with Apple, maybe then Apple would have more than 2% of the market.
Think different (except when marketing in China in which case don't use the Dali Lama because when making money in China you have to think the same).
Not until they have $35 Billion in the bank. That's with a "B" -- and that's cash.
see here
I believe that Apple has a right to know if one of its employees, who would've signed a NDA, is the source of the leak. How would you all feel if in cases such as this the "news source" were required to provide its sources to a third party, at that point the company that wanted to know if a leak was internal would be provided the names of sources only if it matched a list of employees.
I do love the protections that the press has and feel that those protections should be extended to online media, but I also think that companies should have some protection of their trade secrets.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
Zonk this article is stupid. Why are you wasting our time with it?
Geez. GUI was demonstrated in 1968.
Appleism is historical revisionism to its core.
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.
That apple is mainly suing websites that have had "leaked" information on them, e.g. information about new models coming out etc that could be considered trade secrets before the models are actually put on the market...
developers! developers! developers!
(they only have one)
See, Apple make a decent product. They have the most successful online music service. The most successful music players. Yes, because they chose to control the system and not share, people get pissy about it. Are all of their practices perfect? No. But, they created the environment and don't want to "give" their competitive advantage away. This is a far cry from using computer dominance to go into video games , etc. Let's try this. Create a product. Then give away your IP an see how well you compete.
Web sites were not protected by free speech because they are not legitimate members of the press.
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?
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
...Cornwall the new Soho? - Private Eye
I really don't understand the question. Are you asking if Apple is going to change their name to "New Microsoft"?
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.
how does this sort of inane analysis get here other than through a mod who sees the world through idiot goggles
fire him before slashdot gets any more ridiculous, irrelevant and OFNish
If I had a contract with somebody and they broke it, I would want to know about it and so would you.
That's just the iVac.
Microsoft and apple have one thing in common: DRM For now they are both only application level on computers, microsoft's drm will be hardware soon. Apple is the lesser of the 2 evils as it doesnt have so much inflewence on the laws and isnt so notoriously anti-compeditive. but give apple a turnover of 40bn a year and they will probably be just as bad
I have never been a fan of Apple's business practices. I toyed with getting a powerbook last year but ultimately I went with an HP model because they let me choose what I wanted in it. Apple has a policy where it is their way or the highway. They have some great stuff but the lack of competition selling MAC hardware makes it unfun for people like me to buy. Also they way they deal with iPod is annoying. Want more battery life? Then buy the iPod photo for 500 bucks rather than the adequately sized 20Gb model for 300. They are constanly trying to push products that are more expensive than they should be by bundling options. Look at the iMAC. Neat little machine but if you want a good video card then you have to opt for a standard g5 rig at a higher price.
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.
But make no mistake that if Apple had not bungled the marketing of the original Macintosh way back when, and Apple became the monopoly whey would have made the Microsoft we know and love/hate look like a freakin Saint!!
Gates & Co. are motivated by one force... money, anything that threatens them from making it, they attack. Jobs is motivated by power and ego, and is most certainly a megalomaniac.
I'll take a greedy bastard over a megalomaniac any day!!!
somehow a headshot of jobs with the borg gear doesn't quite grab me...
Just mod this whole article -1 Flamebait and get it over with.
Even if the legal actions are similar, which I'm not saying they are, there is still a major difference between the two:
Apple products are simple, reliable and aesthetically pleasing. Microsoft products are none of these.
I am just amuzing myself with those Windows idiots and their infested machines and those Mac idiots who pay >$2000 for their computer and use itunes just to find their account run down and their credit card number posted on some russian hacker site while I am extremely happy with my Linux machine, its beautiful Gnome desktop, the great performance, and the thousands of high quality and free software packages of the Linux world.
Is far more litigious than MS usually. The really are behaving _very_ badly of late. If MS tried half the tactics that apple currently do then it'd be straight in court from the DOJ/Whoever.
Having said that I'm sure MS were a lot worse when they were smaller, but thier size of everyone watching them has tempered them a lot.
Apple turned the corner in 1989 with the theft of Apple source code and the consequent heavy-handed stimulus initiating the EFF.
The corporate monolithic spirit of John Scully lives on in a CEO suddenly exposed to the mortality of cancer, Steve Jobs.
Has Apple Changed - No! Allegation That Jobs Lifted GUI from Zerox - way back when.
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
There is some reason to believe that a corporation, by its nature, will react in a certain way. The link below points to a movie "The Corporation" that points out that corporations tend to be not just amoral but actually psychopathic. It doesn't matter what kind of nice people run the corporation, corporate behaviour is the way it is just because of the nature of the beast. Whether Steve Jobs is/was a wonderful guy has nothing to do with it. I find the movie's argument persuasive. Basically, if you apply a standard psychological assessment to a corporation, it turns up as a psychopath.
www.thecorporation.tv
I keep reading that "Red Hat is the new Microsoft" or "Apple is the new Microsoft". There is only one Microsoft! They alone have near monoploy market share. They alone have tried their best to lock people into their own proprietary versions (java, web browsers, office suites).
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!
Believe it or not, just like Apple, Microsoft also used to have an army of fanboys for whom MS could do no wrong. I remember the fevered launch of Windows 95, with them all lining up outside stores at midnight to be the first to own a copy - I don't think even the Apple fanboys have got this bad yet!
However, for all the blind loyalty, slowly but surely people started to hate Microsoft. I can see Apple going exactly the same way. Why? Because like Microsoft, they have started to screw the average Joe around and act anti-competitively.
When they make their cute little computers, they can pretty much get away with charging at a premium, as they have total lock-in and nobody else can make a compatible, yet cheaper device (and competition is one of the main things that commerce is founded on). However, with, for example, the iPod and iTunes store, a lot of other companies have been able to produce alternatives that are cheaper, and do the job just as well, but better. What's the Apple answer? Lower the costs? Make their products (Fairplay DRM I'm looking at you) more attractive to consumers? Nope. Instead they try to stifle the competition by making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store (which kind of feels like a car manufacturer only allowing their cars to be used with their own brand gas), and taking legal action against any competitor that tries to provide tracks that can be made to work with Apple's hardware.
If that isn't anti-competitive, and the Microsoft way, then I don't know what is.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
.. what does this make of Microsoft? are they now the new Apple? :)
mod parent up as insightfull...
nobody gives a crap about either apple or microsoft, (execpt for objects of contempt)...
I don't want to sound trollish, but even non-American readers of /. know by now that the first amendment only protects people explicitly from government intervention.
They have to defend their patents and copyrights, and, most significantly, they're a publicly-traded company. Just because they make good products that geeks love doesn't mean that they can all of a sudden act like a privately-owned bedroom company.
They all act like this. Their stuff is made in the same factories as PC clones, they're pretty lousy to their customers when there's a defect or quality control problem, and their only concern is their bottom line and their shareholders. The only reason it's worth picking on them for it is they've had this BS image of being above that for years. They aren't, and weren't. Apple fanatics don't like hearing it, but you can't make yourself an individual by buying a mass-market product from a publicly held corporation.
There are big differences between Apple and Microsoft.
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.
Apple released iTunes for Windows to prevent an anti-trust suit?
They're the old Microsoft. Nobody practiced such harware and software lock-in like Apple did before they produced OSX. However, that's also one of the things that made the mac work so well. Everything was perfectly matched. It wasn't until Firewire and USB that we could use much third party hardware like printers and keyboards and mice(oh my). Really, Apple is more like Sun. Software and hardware lock-in are still there. For me, the quality of the product makes up for it. Now they make a computer that works great AND you can tinker with it to your heart's delight. That's something else you couldn't really do until OSX. Tinkering was(and still kind of is) the only advantage the PC had over the mac.
What?
Apple should have treated those rumor sites more diplomatically, bu I believe they have a right to protect their trade secrets. Just look as the ersatz Mac mini shell that Intel presented a few days ago. The competition copies Apples innovations, and I believe it is Apples right to protect itself. These leaks ae not whistle blowers or brave knights of truth, but people who might cause serious problems. What if Apple cooperates with a third party that takes NDAs very seriously and breaks off when on of these tipsters gives infos to a rumor site? What if Apple wants to buy some essential component at a reasonable price and the cost skyrockets because the seller can read on some rumor site that Apple absolutely must buy from him?
The thing about the songs purchased from its iTunes music service not working with music players other than the iPod is old and dumb. This applies to every music download service that has DRM and limited choice of format. It applies to the WMA stores as well. They are not accused of this restriction because people do not care about WMA-players (many are trashy iPod clones anyway). People want iPods, and notice more readily that the iPod has restrictions.
Apple's OS also runs only on its own hardware (not counting opendarwin), so that is similar and been that way forever.
Also Apple's search for litigation seems in a respect totally justified as people who had access to such information are breaking a contract by sharing. Apple's legal department are only following through on enforcing these agreements. Without doing so having the agreements there in the first place is meaningless. This doesn't seem to me much different than something like tracking down the people leaked Doom3 Alpha or the like. Apple didn't go and try to take the entire site down, they are just searching out the individuals who broke their contract.
Apple's crackdown on Web sites that love the company
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.
I can not avoid Microsoft in the workplace. 25 years ago, it was IBM. The only reason M$ could supplant them is because Gates cares about NOTHING but domination. He has no pride in his products, and would gladly ship bags of pig excrement if it would strengthen the monopoly. Gates is like a disease. He will continue to try to wipe everything out until he is dead. No one will stop him because such people are rare (the last was John D. Rockefeller, whose legacy of evil continues, but was diluted by his death). People like this are thankfully rare, because they make Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader look like model citizens.
Jobs can never dominate like Gates because he cares about delivering compelling products. It's just a different mindset. Viciousness in the service of promoting compelling products can never conceive of evil on the scale of viciousness in the service of simply wiping out an entire market.
I just bought my first ipod the other day, and of course, it is a fantastic product.
That being said, I think that their pricing tactics on the ipod in particular have shown us their true colors: Apple is here to cash in.
Buying an ipod today means you get NONE of the accessories (dock, firewire etc). You have to buy them separately, and they are not so much "accessories" as they are "necessary components that you need to make the product work."
It doesn't bother me that they do this -- I have a degree in business, I understand that any company that isn't looking to make more money will fail, so I am not saying Apple is becoming more evil. I should mention, however, that I do not think that Microsoft is evil for trying to make money either.
The bottom line is, Apple saw lost capital potential in the pricing scheme of the ipod, and decided to capitlize by removing neccessary add-ons from the box and making $50 increments the entire way up their line of products, so that the next better model is _only_ $50 more (with the exception of the $100 gap between the 30gb and 60gb photo models). In fact, if you watched the unveiling of the ipod Shuffle, you saw Steve Jobs specifically say that the intention was to eat away at the smaller flash-based mp3 player market competition. Gee! A company that wants to defeat their competition! Imagine!. I know another company that likes to do the same thing *cough* Microsoft *cough*.
Apple is the underdog, and people, myself included, love to root for the underdog. It is my opinion, as hard as it is for me to admit now, that they put out amazing products, but still.
All companies are in it for one thing ALWAYS: money. That's the bottom line.
Even though apple has not had the best track record when it comes to products. They clearly have atleast some style, creativity, and subtance when it comes to product creation. Microsoft totally lacks this when it comes to their products. When people say that Macs just work, I agree. The fact they actually thought about the product, and have total control over the product (hardware and software) you get a much better computer. Microsoft on the other hand has always seemed to push stuff out to market, and wait for the next verision for it to work. When Apple uses their status to release bad software, then they are the next Microsoft.
mnewberg.com
Bill rules the Earth - Sauron gains control of the ring.
Steve rules the Earth - Galadriel gains control of the ring. All will love him, and his beauty, and despair.
Some of Apple's tactics may be annoying and/or irritating, but they hardly rise to the level of "being Microsoft". The most notable difference is Apple hardly has the monopoly Microsoft has (though they certainly have dominated the download market for music -- I, for one, don't see that as the future of music in the sense that we see it today). So, Apple merely offers their products "their way", or "no way". Similar to Microsoft, but in the case of Microsoft, Microsoft has demonstrated predatory behavior where they:
Apple as Microsoft? I don't think so.
No one likes to admit it, but had Apple stayed in the catbird seat without competition from IBM and MS computing would be a very, very different world. For all of the underhanded things Microsoft has commited (and there've been plenty), I tend to think that Apple is much worse.
For the nth time, Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox.
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...
This is stupid.
People can sit and moan on slashdot about companies not playing by their rules, but the facts are, many of them are irrelevant to businesses. Face it, Apple have better designers, coders and marketers. For me, Open Source missed its chance at the desktop 2 years ago. Next year Linux etc. will be firmly back in third place again on the list of choices for my desktop.
Apple is protecting it's rights here. Trade secret law is a complicated thing. Apple is entitled to protect it's corporate secrets.
Companies aren't open, companies aren't free, companies are typically closed, proprietary, and restrictive. Apparently some Apple employees blabbed and they shouldn't have. Things like this can cost companies millions in lost profit.
Is this bad PR for Apple? Yes, I think it is. Is it within Apple's rights? Certainly. Does it make Apple the next Microsoft? No, last I checked Apple only controlled a fairly modest portion of the market.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The only reason the PC became the defacto standard was because they didnt kill off their clones.
:)
Apple even without windows would not dominated because Apple in the 80s and early 90s was DUMB!
It is likely another company would have created a GUI system for the PC even if microsoft didnt. An example being GEOS which came out BEFORE windows for the Commdore 64. Geos was ported to the PC about the same time as Windows came out...had there been no windows it is likely GEOS would have become the defacto GUI for DOS based systems. In such an event...GEOS and either Microsoft or DRDOS would have merged.
and Voila... GEOS 95.
The fact that the Mac is a closed sytem is exactly why it offers a far superior computing experience to ANY other platform. I'm still trying to figure out why this is so hard for suupposedly intelligent people to understand.
Date Of Licensing Versus Date Of Lifting?
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Personality wise I love the Woz. A great and generous guy. Jobs is well known as being a bully and self-centered. As competitive and unforgiving as the business world is it takes a Jobs to run a company. The Woz is too nice. Woz still represents to me the Apple I love. Jobs makes the company successfull. It will aways make money with Jobs at the helm.
Yes I know Woz is not and has not been at Apple for a long time. He is still the or one of the fathers of Apple though.
How is being closed necessarily a bad thing?
This is one of the best recent Slashdot comments. Really, not being sarcastic. It explains a lot. We seem to be gathered here in some strange anti-MS symbiosis, but this quote sums up the divide between the "new" Mac people here and the "old" Linux/FOSS people that you can see in a lot of the Apple-related discussions lately (and most tend to be lately).
Really, would be a nice touch and a bit better balanced.
Is it OK for a medium sized business with a small percentage of aggregate market-share to use restraint of trade practices, ethically dubious legal machinations to control product information flow, and closed source development methodology? Complaints about Microsoft have ranged from outright code theft and distribution (Stacker) to breach of contract and restraint of trade while holding a monopoly. And closed source development methodology. Which is worse? Which of the two might cause greater damage across the whole economy? Toss these questions in your ethical scale and decide for yourselves. I know where I sit.
I'm not pleased with Apple's behavior of late. But IMO Microsoft has a long history of much worse. I'll stick with Apple as long as their product does what I need at a price I can afford (both time and hardware/software expense). I bought a Mac because I don't have time to maintain a Linux box at home any longer. I ran both Linux or *BSD on my home PCs for over ten years, and if I had the time to tinker, I'd go back. Not now. I work full time, I take two evening classes, and I'm a part time landlord. My computer is now a tool, not a toy. So, Mac it is - warts and all.
*sigh* As good as much Free Software is, sometimes one must make a tradeoff between necessity and available time. And if that means accepting Apple's somewhat rude and abusive behavior, for the moment I'm willing to do so for expidiency's sake. But that doesn't mean I like it. Apple may convince me yet to make my next purchase an Opteron running Linux. --M
I do believe that corporations have a tendency to skew evil by virtue of their servitude to quarterly profits, but just because a company becomes successful does not necessarily make them evil. This reminds me of people who quit listening to bands like REM because they started doing well. "REM sucks ever since they sold out", Whatever.
To compare Apple to Microsoft and ponder "what if" scenarios is just ridiculous. I haven't seen anything remotely on the level of MS evil on the part of Apple. Apple gets special scrutiny because they're Apple. Believe me, Apple will get away with a lot less than IBM, Sun, or Microsoft.
As I understand the suit against "Think Secret", Apple wants to uncover who leaked genuine trade secrets to the media. Whoever that person is has broken the law by violating a non-disclosure agreement of some sort or another. Apple has a legitimate business interest in stopping the illegal flow of business intelligence out of their company.
As for their songs not working on other players - please. Anyone with a pulse and the most basic knowledge of computing history knows what's at stake here. If Microsoft ever overtakes Apple in the DRM space, god help us. Besides Apple has spent millions of dollars developing a kick-ass music store and portable player that work in perfect harmony. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The idea that Apple is being unethical by not helping Dell and Creative sell their inferior solutions is just bizarre.
Now, if Apple ends up with a long-term monopoly in this space, than they should be held to the highest standards regarding laws regulating monopolistic behavior. However, it's a little early to be thinking along those lines as the whole thing could flip-flop at a moment's notice. Besides, the whole game is moving away from iPods and Mp3 players and into cell phones. DRM and distribution are the new prizes and Apple knows this as well as Microsoft. Most of the whining you hear about iTMS not working with other players comes from the companies who make the other players and from MS and MS apologists who want the MS' DRM to be the de facto standard.
My personal vision of the future of computing involves a mixture of open source and for-profit software and industry standards wherever possible to promote competition. Looking at the history of Microsoft and Apple, and looking at what makes them tick, I find it hard to do anything but root for Apple right now.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
Has anybody else noticed that Apple is not suing ThinkSecret? They are not pursuing damages from ThinkSecret. They are not trying to bully ThinkSecret into disappearing from the web.
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.
I am sick and tired of people complaining about Apple's "incompatible" Digital Rights Management. You know what? Back in the 70's I had a big 8-track tape collection that was "incompatible" with my new cassette deck. Then I bought a turntable that was "incompatible" with all my cassettes. Then I bought a CD player that was "incompatible" with my vinyl LP collection. Now I can get DVD-Audio that's "incompatible" with my CD player. Yet somehow I have accepted all this; I didn't sue anybody and I didn't complain, because each new format was somehow better than the one before. So give me a break! Nobody's forcing anybody to buy iPod's or purchase songs from iTMS. If you're not happy with your iPod, take it back and find some other medium to play your music. There's still lots of cassette Walkman's out there....
My fear, isn't so much the litigation, but more with Apple's blatent attempts to cripple smaller resellers. Many of the companies targeted by Apple are in some part responsible for Apple's success in the early years.
Many of these resellers are also well respected service centers in their communities. If Apple manages to drown out these companies, what alternative do we have to playing musical chairs with Apple on defective hardware repairs?
If any of you have read Macintouch lately, a recent poll taken there shows hardware failure rates on new Macintosh computers is as bad, or worse than the failure rate of similarly configured refurbished hardware. As the costs have declined over the years, so has the quality of hardware. Considering the numerous complaints from Mac users who have had to return faulty hardware multiple times, the need for good, local service centers has never been greater.
If Apple does manage to eliminate these resellers/service centers, they will have complete control of the entire service history on every Macintosh system shipped today. This means they could entirely forego quality assurance on their hardware and simply juggle hardware back and forth until the user caves in.
Apple will probably managed to increase their desktop market share over the next few years, but it will come at the cost of platform stability. Once the platform ceases to provide any real benefits over Windows, what's to stop a sudden mass migration back to Windows-based hardware?
Apple has definitely changed in the last couple years, but it's certainly not at the point of no return yet. They can still change things if they have any desire to do so. But if they don't, their success in the industry will be short-lived.
8==8 Bones 8==8
>> Jobs, in contrast, is at his core someone who knows marketing and wants to dazzle his customers. With Microsoft it's what they want and you have to go along with it. With Apple, it's about finding the best customer experience and using that for profit.>>
Yes but Jobs HAS to dazzle to survive. Gates doesn't. Monopoly makes corporations LAZY and that's why competition is so important.
That's why Linux and OSS software like OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Apache, Gimp, etc. are so essential: they crack the whip of competition regardless of the existence of a monopoly. They can't be driven out of business and yet people only use them to the extent they want to so they are wonderful for ensuring a truly free market.
I would argue that in many ways, the existence of Linux as a major and rising competitor to MS helps all the other MS competitors... multiple fronts of competition!
Don't ever believe that right-wing ideologues believe in competition. They believe in maximizing profit. I have no issue with that as long as they face competitors who believe the same thing and we all benefit. To the extent monopoly wipes out competition (and destroys the foundation of a free market) we need OSS to fight back.
The one and only reason that Linux and BSD are still alive is that there are no way to financially attack them... they've tried and failed (the case about copyrightet code in Linux).
Back to the evil world... We saw it comming during the '90 and we didn't do anything to stop it... we didn't even realize it... now the whole world is more or less owned by megacorps. and we have to live in this shit...
well, we've got what we deserve...
Who knows... it might be Apple, it might not be, but whoever it is, it is Coming Soon!
Inspection of the whois record is left as an exercise for the reader.
I used to be pretty big on Mac advocacy since a long while ago --- until the day they officially killed the clones.
I get a chuckle every time i hear some apologists offer their view on how the clones must die for Apple to survive... dude, it's the idealogy of the Mac that matters --- without the ideology Apple is no different from Microsoft.
Now RMS/Linus on the other hand, which ever side of the capitalism divide you may be in, has an ideology that matters: Truly open systems --- no user-developer divide. No eye candy. No marketing lies. Pure programming skills. CS research oriented.
Microsoft is the new IBM, Apple is the new Microsoft, Google is the new Apple... who's the new Google? ...and what's IBM become?
If you were talking about a Desktop I could understand, but a laptop?
There's not much you can do with a laptop anyway; just the RAM (which you can still get from 3rd parties like Crucial.com). You are allowed to customize a Powerbook online (different size/speed of hard drives, blue tooth, wireless, CPU, etc), and as far as I know that's as far as you can go with most other companies. The big difference is that companies like Dell and HP have more models, so yu can choose a chassis and CPU that fits you better than the 2 that are offered for PowerBooks.
The only thing I can think of what you're talking about is you're forced to use their wireless card or bluetooth. That is annoying, especially if you're like me and just re-use the same wireless card on new / replacement PC notebooks, but with the PowerBook you have to use Mac hardware (which you could cannibalize from another PowerBook if you had one I guess).
As for the service pack thing, no. 10.1 -> 10.2 is a different animal. The service packs are 10.1.1, 10.1.2, etc, so they're in much the same respect as SP1 or SP2 for WinXP.
The confusing part is that Apple doesn't want to move away from the "OS X" name, I guess because it "sounds cool" to them. So, each new OS is just OS X 10.y. While the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 isn't as noticeable as Win2k to WinXP, that's mostly because XP went with a completely new UI (if chosen). Each OS X version usually has a lot of changes under the hood.
Also, a full version of MacOSX is rather cheap compared to the full version of Windows.
Apple was never really the "friend" of independents. Macs are designed to be closed systems, not particularly open toward user-implemented modifications.
// series. Those machines were built for hacking and had many many many independent people who did all sorts of things with them. (Think AppleCat.)
Apple actually was around before the Mac and they made quite an impact on the computer industry with their
They still never did want their main system cloned and were quite upset when Franklen was able to make one.
As they grew they realized that if they wanted to really keep their monopoly on hardware they would have to really lock things down which is exactly what they did. They took it a little too far imo because they pushed themselves right into such a niche market that they lost out big time.
Right now I would have to say they are trying to balance the Apple Good Cool image with the MBA suits who you could pull out of an Apple office and stick into a MS office and hardly notice the difference. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Hmm don't see any mention of court case that Zerox ;) brought and won against Apple.
I never thought I'd actually be trolled by Slashdot editors.
...and it should influence your purchasing as well. I love Apple products. They have an excellent platform built on very well-designed hardware and open source technologies. They contribute a lot back to the community. However, poor behavior on the social front is not acceptable. I do not care how good their stuff is, if you're going to lash out at those who are not a threat to the prosperity of your business, you are being a bad citizen.
Why bother.
While what Apple is doing isn't exactly "cool", it isn't exactly "evil".
The fact is that the people who gave some of this information out signed NDAs with Apple. They gave their word that they wouldn't blab. They broke their word and Apple is now calling them on it.
This isn't the same as when a 'whistle blower' breaks their confidentiality agreement to denounce a company in illegal activities, questionable business practices, or abuses of power (in the case of government). This is about some new computer software that will be released to the public in a couple of months.
This is not about "the public good", it's about breaking your word when someone tells you a secret and you promise to keep it. In day-to-day lives we simply don't trust that person anymore; in business it's called breaking a contract and there can be repercussions.
Apple is not going for a power grab, it's simply trying to find out who it can't trust to keep secrets.
Hmm don't see any mention of court case
Which court case? If you're going to make accusations, please back them up.
Guess what though. Your 8-track would play in any 8-track machine. That goes for albums and cassettes as well.
To see so many /.ers defend Apple and it's IP rights and yet if this was any other company, especially MS they's be screaming blue murder. If you don't apply the rules across the board it's a double standard folks.
It's not as much is Apple the new MS. It's that Apple realized that you have to treat people like crap for them to like you.
The biggest difference between MS and Apple is that Apple has better stuff. As long as their stuff doesn't turn to shit like MS's, then I don't really care. All I care about is being able to do my job or other computer related things without having to fight with my computer.
The above is not worth reading.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We'll start with the issue of the "free speech violations," which are nothing more than a website struggling to maintain the sources which generate page views. Journalists protection of sources, as others on /. have pointed out, extend to government and organized crime trials; ThinkSecret is merely trying to keep the source that broke their NDA from being revealed and fired so that TS' stream of insider information can be maintained. They want to play journalist but ignore some of the rules that go with being journalist, and their motivating drive in all of this isn't some holy "free speech" crusade, it's the desire to keep the page (and ad) views coming.
I own an iPod. Less than 1% of the songs on it are Music Store songs, and only two of those are ones I actually purchased (all the rest are from the "Free single of the week" section). Your iPod can be legally filled with music ripped from your own CD collection, downloaded from indy-band sites that allow free distribution, and possibly MP3s ripped from streaming audio sources (the legality of that last one hasn't really been established). There are several other big-name music stores out there, and I'd suggest that they all get used to the disadvantages of being the second or third mover in a market such as this. Either you come up with a good reason for me to jump away from the current market and mindshare leader, or you're not going to make it. MS' Janus DRM system, for example, sounds like an interesting alternative, and might be just what Napster and friends need to pull people away from iTMS.
Would Apple be a nasty monopoly if they were in the same position as MS right now? Probably. They're not, though. The "accusations of bullying and potentially unlawful business tactics" mentioned in the article appear to be nothing other than what the article had already stated: Apple wants to know which employees broke a contract (a reasonable and completely legitimate thing to ask of a journalist), and iTMS is not the only music store or the only way to put music on an iPod.
maybe apple is the new microsoft
and microsoft is the new ibm
and ibm is the new digital
and digital no longer exists.....
I don't know what I'm talking about.
The gun is good - Zardoz
IANAL but if an employee can break a non-disclosure agreement by passing NDA-protected information to a news site, but can then hide behind a cloak of anonymity in the event of their employer following up the leak, wouldn't that (in effect) render the NDA unenforceable?
If you look back at the evolution of most tech companies they all follow the same pattern: come out with an innovative product, a little success; come out with an open-standard-oriented product, major success; after producing an open standard oriented product, the company becomes greedy and starts to produce more proprietary crap, which forces their customers to choose sides; inevitably the company gets lazy because their customers are tired of the mafia marketing and continually inferior products. Until someone else comes along with something new that's open-standard-oriented enough to allow them to migrate away from company A.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Apple's tactics have never changed, they've always been closed and very hostile to third parties that exploit their technologies or news in ways they do not like.
I don't care for it, but it's not going to make me stop buying Apple products. The "problem" is that the Slashdot crowd decided to glorify Apple for OS X and forget their past transgressions, like Pol Pot opening a childrens hospital, yet gets jittery and uncertain each time this happens.
The slashdot crowd is the one who should be ashamed for the selective memory they've exercised.
The whole article is biased with an obvious personal opinion
Other twistedly great minds appropriated for this topic:
He gazed up at the enormous face. 28 years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mock-neck. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two Apple-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
It may be that no such bridge is possible and that two such alien forms of conciousness can never coexist. If this is so, then only one of them can inherit the Solar System.
Which it will be, not even the Gods know -- yet.
I can't believe you're saying
These things just can't be true
Our world could use this beauty
Just think what we might do
Listen to my iPod
And hear what it can do
There's something here as strong as iLife
I know that it will reach you
Don't annoy us further!
We have DOT NET to do
Just think about the average
What use have they for you?
Another toy will help destroy
The elder race of man
Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the Plan!
"Choose your monopoly wisely... you won't get a second chance!"
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/index10.htm#XEROX 5. 1990 - XEROX Sued APPLE Someone put this in a search engine to come across this site "how steve jobs stole xerox ideas to include in the macintosh" XEROX sues Apple in 1990 (XEROX lost) The way I understand it - The GUI have been around since the fifties, and was developed even more by XEROX. Apple devolped it more in the Apple Lisa and Macintosh. XEROX later sued Apple, but XEROX lost in court. Only Apple knows that answer, about what they got from XEROX for a couple days in 1983 for 18 million dollars in Apple stock. (XEROX wanted to buy Apple stock , 1 million dollars in pre IPO stock, ended up being worth 18 million net, for XEROX) and XEROX let Apple tour their lab for a few days. At XEROX the COMPANY SUITS were for it, but the LAB PEOPLE objected. Not exactly a smart thing for XEROX to do. About this time, XEROX also let Bill Gates tour their lab (Gates was writing software for the Apple at that time). It should be noted that Apple hired several XEROX employees a short time after visting XEROX. The question remains who the pirate?
Apple Supports standards like TCP/IP, Kerberos and LDAP. Microsoft provides a broken version of each, which causes difficulty for third party products.
Please people, Apple has always been this way. Apple didn't get beat by Microsoft because they were nicer, they just got beat. If you were surprised by Apples recent moves then you just haven't been paying attention.
Sigs are awesome huh?
I went to download quicktime the other day and found that I had to also install iTunes with it. WTF?!? If I wanted iTunes I would have downloaded it long ago. It's like Apple is really the new Real.
My kids, preteens, use itunes all the time and they don't have an ipod or a Mac. I like itunes because I save money and time. I save money because I give them an itunes allowance and they can download the latest singles instead of buying a whole CD for one song. I save time because I don't spend time trouble shooting the program for them. After they download songs they rip a CD and use it in any CD player around, in the car, at home, at their friends home,anywhere. Also isn't it possible to use an ipod with any mp3 file. Summary. I can use itunes without an ipod. I can use an ipod without buying songs from apple. I can use neither, with any alternative music store or music player, or better yet buy CD's and play them on my home stereo, which I did long before there were ipods or itunes. Apple does not control anything that I do. I can use their produces or not use their products. The choice is mine. If an artist decides to release their music only on itunes then that is a poor business choice by that artist.
1993, 2004. 1993, 2004... Yep, I bet nothing at all has changed at Apple's campus in eleven years.
That's not to say you may not be right, but Apple's security is pretty tight these days, and your argument would be much stronger if it were 1994.
Eleven years is an eternity in the corporate world, particularly when it comes to policy.
Apple stuff is cheaper through amazon, at least that's what i've found on iPods.
o a/wo/0.0.11.1.0.6.21.1.4.1.2.0.0.1.0 - £209 at Apple.com
Z C - £199 at Amazon.co.uk
iPod 20gb
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore.w
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002OXO
I was under the impression that AAC is not proprietary to apple. I thougt that they have licenced it, to provide some DRM in response to the RIAA. I do not believe that no one is stopping other hardware music players (MP3 players to be incorrect about the generic name) from adopting AAC other than licencing fees. Apple was pressured to provide DRM, and they decided on AAC which I believe others can use. So I don't think it is fair to criticize apple for thier choice of DRM for the itunes music store. and no, apple is not the new microsoft, as they do not have a monopoly, unless you consider that they do have a monopoly on cool computer hardware. I did do some googling before this post, but I use MP3 so I really haven't been following the music format choices. I don't use the iTunes music store. I do know that iTunes (not the store) does support other players when it comes to MP3 formats. And, since you can burn CD from AAC music in itunes, you can work around it to provide the music to other hardware players. (there are work arounds such that you don't actually have to burn a CD to convert it to MP3)
I think the idea is to discredit rumor sites in the future. If Apple can get it in people's minds that they sue sites that spread real leaks, then when they do not sue a rumor site, most people will assume that it is because the rumor is not true.
Sure, if you think about it logically, that's not a good assumption for people to make, but we're dealing with perceptions here, not logic. People won't think "well, Apple didn't sue, but they only have sued once, so that doesn't mean anything". They will think "hmmm...if this rumor were true, Apple would be suing".
Ah, how people forget...
At the time, Microsoft still made a double-digit percentage of its profits off of selling software for the Mac OS. Propping up Apple did two things for them:
- kept that profit center open (though since then it's become way less important to them)
- insured that a real competitor existed in the marketplace in an attempt to keep away potential anti-trust lawsuits.
Really, it did Microsoft quite well.
Got any references? Who TF has problems using Firefox? or (shudder) Mac IE? Or Opera? My sister can use any browser on her iBook with very few problems... in fact to access certain sites, she needs Firefox (b/c Safari's CSS support isn't complete), and she's had no problems using what she needs to get her job done.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
http://www.seyboldreports.com/SRDP/dp4/DP04-05b.ht m Xerox sues Appleon user interface Are Apple's copyrights invalid? On December 14, Xerox Corporation filed suit against Apple Computer, alleging that Apple has made unlawful use of copyrighted portions of the Xerox Star user interface. The suit asks the court to declare Apple's own user-interface copyrights invalid. Xerox is further asking $100 million in royalties and licenses fees, plus $50 million for damages. It has also requested a jury trial. Xerox, in announcing the suit, stated that efforts to reach an amicable settlement with Apple, including a proposal that Apple license the copyrights from Xerox, had been rebuffed. Apple officials, however, said that Xerox had only raised the subject recently and the suit came as something of a surprise. Apple later released a statement to the press asserting that the Xerox suit is without merit. Apple said that it would vigorously contest Xerox's claims in court. The Star.There is no question in the computer industry that the work done at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in the late '70s and early '80s was of seminal importance to all the graphical user interface designs that became popular during the '80s. The PARC researchers created nearly all of the concepts that have become commonplace today: the mouse as a pointing device, multiple windows to show separate processes within the computer, popup and hierarchical menus, representation of files and programs by icons, giving commands to the computer by dragging icons onto other icons, and so forth. We described the Xerox Star, the first commercial product to embody these research concepts, in the April 27, 1981, issue of The Seybold Report, (Vol. 10, No. 16). The Macintosh designers clearly were heavily influenced by what they saw at PARC. Some of them had been employed earlier at PARC and were quite familiar with the Star's ancestors, the Alto and Bravo computers. The copyright.Xerox states that it created and copyrighted the Star software in 1981. But Xerox did not actually register a copyright on its user interface until 1986. Since that is five years after the Star had made its public appearance, three years after Apple released the Lisa computer and two years after the Macintosh came out, there is a possibility that Xerox may have blown its chance to secure the copyright. It took no action to protect its copyright until last May, when it announced that it would require licensing fees for all derivative works. So far, only Metaphor Computer Systems and Sun Microsystems have licensed the Xerox copyrights and patents. Sun announced its license as part of the Open Look user interface announcement, which took place shortly after Apple filed its ``look and feel'' lawsuit against Microsoft and HP. The license was clearly intended to preempt an Apple suit against Sun and Sun's Unix partner, AT&T, which has an even deeper pocket. However, it would have made no sense for Apple to begin such a suit until the merits of the Microsoft suit had been decided. Most industry observers expected that process to take several years. Microsoft and Apple buried the hatchet as part of the PostScript/font technology exchange last September, but it was already apparent that Apple's legal grounds for the suit had been greatly narrowed through various preliminary rulings. Besides leaving the validity of user-interface copyrights untested, this also reduced the likelihood that any other computer firms (such as IBM and Microsoft) would feel pressure to license Xerox's copyrights. In effect, Xerox had to sue Apple or give up its claim that it had something to license. Apple's defense.Apple has always acknowledged that it obtained many of the ideas for the Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces from Xerox's Alto and Bravo computers. It insists, however, that its expression of those general ideas is unique and was developed independently. Copyright law.Under U.S. copyright law, concepts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only a specific expression of ideas that is embodied
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone /
Quicktime Standalone, still available.
Apple isn't perfect, and their business practices aren't perfect. But as a rule they make good products - Microsoft routinely makes worst-of-class products (either by making them that way or by crippling or bundling something good) and then forces them on people, often by breaking compatibility with other things to force adoption.
Apple sometimes is behind the times. But Apple very rarely releases a new product that sucks, and at least in recent years they've been wonderful about interoperability and compatibility - with Windows AND with linux.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Funny when I went to school the right to free speech was a right of all Citizens not just the press. Has the US changed to the point that the average Joe or Jane can't express something they know or feel? Has things changed to the point that in order to speak in public you must be approved as in "Certified Member of the Press"?
Freedom is only an illusion in this country.
Yeah, investing $150 million dollars in a company that had several billion cash in the bank at the time makes a big difference...
And font hinting is UGLY.
Of course the snippet in your example isn't sufficient, but it is necessary. Here, quoted for you:
So it's the hinting that makes it ugly (well, it might be broken)! What hinting does is something called 'font smoothing', and what Apple does is called 'antialiasing'.
Here is a guy complaining about Quartz fonts.
Apple's font pages
A developer thread on smoothing vs antialiasing
GPL Deconstructed
Apple tries to force an .mac membership on its users by making it the only practical way to sync adresses, email and calendar on multiple macs. .mac but they are just using it as a cashcow.
I think it would be easy for them to make this possible without
If they started to make webdav webfolders possible with linux that would help
This "article" (not really an article, it's a flamepost) would probably not have been posted had there been a moderation system.
ok, now I understand that there is AAC, and AAC with fairplay (or should it be called fareplay? snicker snicker) AAC is by no means proprietary, but hardware player manufacturers would have to licence it. Fairplay is prorietary, but I understand that one can bypass it thru CD to MP3 or whatever other codec you want to use. Whether that is legal, is another issue. But I do belive you can put fairplay protected music on other players, you just have to work around it with tools that are available within OS X (i.e. burn a cd and re-encode, or convert to AIFF and re-encode) These tools may not be obvious, but I have seen on the net, people being able to do just that, without getting additional software. Of course it is an inconvience.
Firstly, if you don't like iTunes DRM - "go and buy elsewhere"; iTunes doesn't have (or even try to have) a monopoly on digital music delivery. I don't see how you can fault Apple on this? As far as I know, Apple has engaged any sort of predatory pricing tactics or other techniques to push competitors out of the market. Sure, you may have to use iTunes, but, like I said - if you don't like that, go and use RealPlayer or WMP and buy elsewhere.
Secondly, you are wrong about your constititional claims: trade secrets and confidentiality are valid and important mechanisms for various commercial reasons, and to Apple is merely attempting to stop (and, more importantly, be _seen_ to stop) someone from agreeing to terms of confidentiality, and then breaking them by distributing the material.
I think the tone of your comment is far from objective, and in fact, leans towards flame bait, you're inciting a response, rather than presenting and engaging into an objective argument.
For about a year now i have wanted to be able to get myself a mac im very eager to move away from microsoft operating systems and fallen in love with the mac i have saved enough to know i will be able to buy myself a G5 for christmas but in the last 2 months i have started reconsidering im really shocked by whats happening at the moment i fell in love with mac for its f**k you attitude to the big dogs but in the last 2 months or so they turned on us the fan base and frankly i F***in hate them for it right now. i hope steve jobs just steps in and puts an end to this bullshit on behalf of the cock suckers running the legal side of apple.
I Predict A Riot
Having run a startup for 2 years, I can
tell you that every large business operates
on the "We will screw you as much as possible
and make you take all the risks and expense
or no deal" principal when dealing with
smaller businesses. Even to their own
detriment.
The main emotions at work here are greed and
fear. Greed for power and money and fear
of losing what you have. If you can very
strongly appeal to a companies greed then you
can override the fear -- but it is not easy.
The best thing I have found is to go for
low overhead and moderate profit. That way
you stay off the radar of the big guys, and
they will leave you alone (for the most part).
In business listen and watch but do not speak
unless absolutely necessary.
Survivial....
"...Apple's actions this week as a potential threat to first amendment rights..."
Look, just because a company wants to shut down some websites, does not make it an automatic 1st Amendment case. The 1st Amendment was originally ONLY meant for the federal government; i.e. Congress can't make laws saying, "no printing bad stuff about any senators." In the early 20th century, the 1st Amendment was "incorporated" so that it also applies to the states (Schenck v. United States); I think it was the first of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated . BUT THAT IS IT. The 1st Amendment does not apply when Apple is suing a few websites over trade secrets/NDA/etc. This case might be corporate censorship through legal intimidation, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a state or federal government abridging free speech.
A good example of a current case that DOES involve the 1st Amendment is the Novak/Valerie spying case where two journalists have been held in contempt because they're refusing to reveal their sources. I think it's a journalist from the Post and the Times.
It's stupid to shout "freedom of speech" whenever anything remotely relating to censorship occurs.
How on earth does Microsoft make it difficult to use another browser? I downloaded Firefox with no difficulty whatsoever by using IE. Firefox installed correctly and copied my IE bookmarks correctly. After installing Firefox, I ran IE again and it did not automatically restore itself as my default browser. What, exactly, did Microsoft do to make installing and using Firefox difficult for me?
Oh, I get it. XP doesn't ship with the Firefox install. Cry me a river.
And the MS switcher ads - so what if the photos are fakes? 99.8% of all of the ads you see on TV feature paid performers who would otherwise have no connection to the products they are hawking. And it's not as if Apple "supercomputer for the desktop" is a paragon of truth in advertising.
The ultimate weakness of your argument is that it's the equivalent of saying that the genocide in Rwanda wasn't evil because they didn't kill off as many people as the Nazis did in the Holocaust. You need to step away from a black and white worldview and admit that Apple does do some things that are remarkably wrong, and that Microsoft (gasp!) does do some things that are remarkably right. Perhaps in the balance Apple is a much better "corporate citizen" than Microsoft, but this doesn't mean that Apple should be immune from criticism.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Seriously, Apple is a corporation not your buddy you sit next to in programming classes.
Someone metioned that Apple plunders OpenSource...but do we let them? Is people's despise for M$ so great that they will willingly hand over code to Apple just because they think that they can 'get to' M$.
Just some thoughts...
--pete
Yes. We don't all need to give some weird comments as to Apple is this, apple is that... All author wanted was simple yes or no...
buffering...
You act like no one has the right to charge whatever they want for their products! I'm definitly not an Apple apologist - in fact, I agree with a lot of the issues raised against them - but it's almost like you're saying that there is some mind beam that eminates from all Apple's products, compelling all poor saps to buy, buy, buy.
That's complete bullshit.
First off, the premium charge.
I remember wanting my first Apple ][ and it was $2k. My friend got one, but I didn't. My latest Powerbook, while a nice chunk of change, was even more. Am I somehow pissed that I was forced to buy it??? Hell no! I looked at similar PC laptops and they were all shit. And frankly, I'm not very excited about Gnome anymore (and I can't stand KDE), so to pay a little bit more (a little more than a similarly configured Dell brick) for something that all works together AND has a Unix shell?! I have no problem with that. I bought my Powerbook because it was the best for what I needed. Period. And so far, that investment is paying off.
iTunes Music Store.
This is the biggest piece of crap argument I ever hear on a regular Slashdot basis! Oh boo hoo, my iPod only works ON LINE with iTMS; the iPod I was forced to buy at gunpoint! Why can't I get a player that doesn't FORCE DRM on me?! Woa is me..
Seriously, let's see what was before this: Piracy, period! I was at an Apple store when iTMS launched and at that time, NO ONE was making any headway with legal downloads. ALL the players on the market, cept for the iPod, were shit! My friend had a Creative 256MB player that took FOREVER to transfer 8 songs (yah, that's what he got to listen to in one sitting) over its slow ass USB 1 link. Later, the Sony one he got forced him to convert everything to AAC before it would transfer from the propreitary Sony player/transfer app. Oh boy, how EVERYONE complained about that..
During the online music dark ages, what was one to do? Either search on the shit P2P networks for mediocre quality tunes, or go to yr local record store, get gouged, and later get labeled a pirate for ripping your music to mp3 or <ghasp!> making a backup in case your cd (which costs pennies to make) got scratched!
Now in the 21st century, all kinds of people can go to iTMS - yes with their iPod -, or even the Napster service, or even the Walmart or Microsoft music stores, and get, usually, whatever they want. So somehow, again, saying that Apple has twisted everyone's arm to lock them into their service is a joke. And as far as Firplay goes, it's not an issue. Those that really give a shit about DRM always find ways around it. Always. Those that don't, don't. I'm sure when it comes down to it, Apple has to play good corporate buddy to the music cartel and therefore threaten those DRM stripping commies (who I wholeheartedly support) with various lawsuits so the cartel bosses can make sure they're still able to buy their mistresses whatever diamond gadget is all the rage. But in the end, I have to think they don't care much. Or at least not as much as the RIAA or MPAA do. OR as much as M$ does.
There's a big reason why Microsoft wasn't the first (and usually isn't for anything!) to launch a successful music store: because they're so preoccupied with owning all aspects of information. And when this usually bubbles to the likes of Sony, etc, they usually say "uh, see ya later..". Apple wasn't hampered by this mentality, played their hand and won - so far.
Ever walk through Soho on a weekend? It sick. Everyone has white headphones. Sure, it's (the iPod) a total trend, but besides that, it's really a kick ass product. I own a 1st gen iPod and it still works and I love it. And I have a mix of mp3, aac, m4p files on it. So somehow the Microsoft/Real/Napster reality distortion field of "it's not compatible and open" is just that. With their kind of logic, we could equally make the point then that people who only use .
Microsoft didn't take the TCP/IP stack from BSD. Not at all. Not one bit. Not in the slightest.
They used the NDIS stack, which IBM and Microsoft wrote for OS/2.
Some of the small userland programs (like ping and ftp) are from BSD, but none of the sockets implementation.
And Darwin (the UNIXy BSD server and assorted drivers running on top of Mach, which makes up the lower parts of OS X) is open source and can be downloaded from http://developer.apple.com/darwin/. Many people run servers on it.
Too bad it won't amount to anything in the eyes of the Applogists since they and their great systems are just misunderstood and everyone else is stupid for not using them. They seem to think Apple is first to the market with the next great thing, yet if you look they are johnny-come-lately's with their recent string.
apple is okay - I use it for my daughter's computer to run educational stuff - but I sometimes wonder if steve jobs is just as psycho as bill gates.
You are wrong, it's plain and fucking simple for anyone to see.
Shut up.
This proves it... The Stevologists' Prayer Our Steve, who art in Cupertino, Hallowed be thy Apple Computer, Inc. Thy products come. Thy iPod/iTunes be done, On Mac as it is in Windows. Give us this day our daily innovation. And forgive us our rumour-mongering, As we forgive those sites that spout venom against us followers of Mac. And lead us not into too much temptation, For not all wallets are great and filled with great riches But deliver us from boredom. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the cool, for ever and ever. Amen posted by Chidi O @ Sunday, January 02, 2005
Your argument starts breaking down in age of digital media. I can't be the only person to remember Divx DVDs. There are also Music CDs that refuse to work in all CD ROMs and Players. You are also ignoring the fact that while music from some the other online music services out there play on a greater number of players they also do not play on all players.
A real whistleblower is someone who reports illegal corporate activities to the government, not the media. Whistleblowers are protected by law. NDAs cannot shield illegal activities.
The media has the first ammendment right to print anything they learn. They do not have the right to engage in illegal activities, or shield others who do. I realize the media desparately wants to portray the latter as a right, like so many other groups making up self serving rights, but it is not so.
That's spot on.
Apple is in the zone of making products you think you just can't be without. You want them. Have to have them. And you will spend the little extra to get the little extras they spend time investing in making a quality product.
M$ has labored to create a market where you have no choice. There is no rational thought involved. You must buy product X to do whatever it is you need or want to do. If you don't, it's not just the little extras you'll be missing. By design you won't (and can't) be compatible with "the market"--whatever that happens to mean for a given segment.
Even if Apple begins to drive a market segment, their philosophy thrives on competitors, even when they hold a majority of the segment. Having something crappy that you could buy but decide on an Apple product instead nets them more profit per unit. As a company, that short- to mid-term strategy is starting to pay off for all involved big time now. Whereas the M$ long-term strategy of sheer dominance is showing cracks lately.
Apple is worse than Microsoft. Both companies have monopolistic tendencies, but at least Microsoft lets you use WinXP on your choice of hardware, as opposed to Apple forcing you to pay their bloated prices! It's just plain sad to think that I can build a Shuttle-based Linux computer with better specs than an Apple computer that costs 3 times that much.
...with the Hollywood-producer-slimeball beard, and smarmy expression. Good job Forbes photo editor.
Market Cap
Microsoft: $273.86B
Apple: $34.98B
Apple is the darling of tech industry writers and even of Wall Street lately but I just dont see it. Based on the price earnings ratio, Apple is nearly 3x as expensive as Microsoft.
this is mostly redlicious in my opinion. but say if apple were the new microsoft, shit an actual cool monopoly would be pretty neat and with a bitching operating system too? now that'd be pretty intresting.
How dare you suggest comparing Apple and Microsoft! YOU'LL BURN IN HELL FOR YOUR BLASPHEMY!!! Shame! SHAME on your hideousness! SHAAAAAMMEE!!!
http://daringfireball.net/2002/10/microsofts_answe r_to_ellen_feiss
. ht ml
6 97 8/26978.html
, 00 .asp
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec102002
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/2
I think you'll find If you look at the above links, that the use of a "stock advertising photo" was only to do with apple in that it was microsofts own clone of apples switch ads that went wrong. Once again another example of microsoft copying something produced by another company, messing it up entirely and then selling it to end users as something "new and innovative".
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,54944
And I dont know who told you any rubbish about Safari being difficult to remove, or any other program. see the above link for info on microsoft making it hard to remove messenger, IE and Media Player.
On the subject of worms, there are no recorded instances of Mac OS X servers being taken down by automated worms, that would be windows you are talking about. The only mac virus/worm ever seen was in fact only a proof-of-concept that was not dangerous.
I've not heard of Apple sueing any public schools, but I wont say this didn't happen. If companies use software illegally, they get sued. Its like saying, "Im amazed, I walked out of a shop with a new computer, and the police arrested me!! Would you believe that!!" Better than the microsoft alternative. on large networks they run software that keeps a log of how many systems are on at any one time, when they are fired up, and who is using each one, and this is often used rather than a per-machine type licence in larger corporations. Very "Big Brother"
Maybe u should bang some of these things you believe into google before ranting, the truth is often a shock to the uninitiated. I just hope nobody has had their view of Apple, or the rest of the industry perverted by your unresearched waffle over the years.
re read the post you replied to while chanting the mantra "this is irony".
I'm tired of people saying there are no compatible mp3 players. Here's the list, straight from Apple
iPod - Apple
Nomad II - Creative Labs
Nomad II MG - Creative Labs
Nomad II c - Creative Labs
Nomad Jukebox - Creative Labs
Nomad Jukebox 20GB - Creative Labs
Nomad Jukebox C - Creative Labs
Novad MuVo - Creative Labs
Rio One - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 500 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 600 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 800 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 900 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S10 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S11 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S30S - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S35S - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S50 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio Chiba - SONICBlue/S3
Rio Fuse - SONICBlue/S3
Rio Cali - SONICBlue/S3
psa]play 60 - Nike
psa]play 120 - Nike
SoundSpace 2 - Nakamichi
CD MP3 Players
RioVolt SP250 - SONICBlue/S3
RioVolt SP100 - SONICBlue/S3
RioVolt SP90 - SONICBlue/S3
It's been said before, but we really need a moderation system for the summaries.
/. Just when you think there can't possibly be a more stupid person, you find yet another.
There's no way someone could be that ignorant that they don't know the details of the Apple lawsuit they're referencing. The only conclusion is blatant trolling.
Although, this is
c|net: Silicon Valley votes with its wallet (search for "apple" and "microsoft")
Flamebait, here I come!
Really, I am used to seeing (occasionally :-) stupid stories on Slashdot, but this is ridiculous.
Apple gives back to the BSD community. Apple mostly supports standards.
I have made a lot of money over the years because of Microsoft, but I must say that I don't like them for a few simple reasons: lack of support for standards, obfrustcated Microsoft Office file formats, putting marketing before creating simpler more reliable products...
I respect Bill Gates for his donations to charity. It makes me feel great to be able to regularly contribute small amounts of money to organizations like the Heifer Project, American Friends Service Committee, and Habitat for Humanity. But, WOW!!, I can no even imagine what it must feel like for Bill and Melinda Gates to be able to literally help millions of people instead of of a few.
But, as a corporation, I am starting to detest Microsoft.
Apple is my ace in the hole in case Linux is ever outlawed in the USA. I guess that I could live with just OS X.
There are two different problems. One was the releasing a beta of Tiger by someone who should have known that this is not allowed. The jerk at Apple that let him into the beta program should have gotten fired and Apple should have moved on. The OS will be out in a few months and the CVS version forgotten.
The other was leaking of products before Jobs dog and pony show. Some one need to tell Jobs to grow up. Apple is a lot larger than Osborne, the company will not die if the customers put off buying until the new ipods come out. Anybody with a brain knows the rumors are as likely to be wrong as right.
I was thinking about buying an Mac mini, a strange journey from Windows to Linux to Apple. The actions Apple corporation have put a pause on my decision. The Linux desktop is progressing, no big rush to give my money to the jerks at Apple.
Apple has a long history of trying to use the legal system to its advantage when things aren't going its way in the market. In the look-and-feel lawsuits, Apple wanted to get legal ownership of all GUIs, which came to a crashing halt when the court was made aware that Apple didn't even invent the technology.
Microsoft hasn't done any such thing--they have focused aggressively on the business side of things: bundling agreements, volume discounts, marketing, etc. Obviously, Microsoft's strategy has been more successful; Microsoft has had no need for these kinds of legal tricks. In fact, Microsoft's conduct was perfectly fine until they started owning such a major part of the market.
I think in many ways, the world is better off with Microsoft in the driver's seat than with Apple--at least, so far, Microsoft's behavior has allowed open source to flourish. (Of course, in the future, Microsoft may emulate Apple's behavior when they feel sufficiently threatened.)
Uh.... yes. You see exactly what happened in a world where all those manufacturers from the 80's tried to compete with each other.... They died off and we're left with only a couple offerings.
The reason Atari, Amiga, etc. didn't end up "viable choices" in the long run is precisely because they all insisted on being proprietary. The PC clone took hold because of everyone's fascination with inter-operability and compatibility.
I remember fondly owning several Tandy/Radio-Shack Color Computers in the 80's, and finally, I was sucked into buying a first PC clone (a 286 8Mhz box). Why? Simple.... it just got too frustrating seeing the PC clones popping up all over the place, and getting cool new software packages daily, while I was stuck waiting for months for someone to implement a poor clone or similar version for my machine.
I think reality is, the marketplace has very little room for proprietary computers. If you're good enough at catering to a niche and truly offering something different, you can survive - but you're always going to have a small "piece of the pie". This is today's Apple Computer. This is also today's Sun and today's Sparc.
It might be a fun exercise to imagine what "might have been" if all these competitors were still around - but it's also futile. No matter what they offered, I believe they'd have dwindled down to pretty much the situation we see today. Computers have evolved to become tools/appliances for all except the enthusiasts. The typical computer user just wants to power it on and get their work done. They want ease of purchasing new software and peripherals too. They don't want to have to carefully look through everything to make sure it's made for their particular brand of machine.
Who are you kidding?
Apple's persistent proprietary secrecy, its atavistic self-righteousness, and its high profit margins have always been more stringent than Microsoft's.
Which is why Microsoft has always kicked its ass in the market despite lower product quality.
Even after 20 years, I still don't buy Apple because I feel I'll be "locked-in" to a proprietary system with expensive add-ons to do simple things. The fact that they'll be done extremely well doesn't sway me or the other billion Windows users.
the Apple option costs more than a non-Apple option.
The simple and elegant option costs more than the cludgy, infuriating option.
I consider it an investment in health care: all that stress has got to be bad for your heart.
You can't take the sky from me...
http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_kon fabulatorhttp://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboa rd_vs_konfabulatorhttp://daringfireball.net/2004/0 6/dashboard_vs_konfabulatorl .net/2004/07/konfab_confab
http://daringfirebal
Konfabulator sucks in comparison to Dashboard.
And no, I'm not an Apple apologist. I use Macs, but I have a love-hate relationship with Apple. I don't agree with everything they do but they certainly don't have the kind of power to become "the new Microsoft." Please. Think about what the phrase really entails.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Yes, it is. They can do whatever they like (within the law, of course). This is not a problem because unlike Microsoft, Apple are not a monopoly.
:) --M
Right. That's (Whether or not their behavior is a problem) is your opinion. It may fit within the current context of historical legal precedent. It may be a well reasoned, with many facts to back up your assertions. But as you can see from the various threads, many disagree. However, I do happen to (mostly) agree. I find Apple's actions somewhat distasteful, but not morally repugnant. At least, not yet. *shrug*.
My question was intended not to elicit opinions in reply, but to rhetorically delineate the difference in judgments between ethical values and personal necessity. There are almost certainly some folks here who refuse to accept that Microsoft has done anything wrong in thier business practices, and equate Apple's (or any corporation's) behavior here as proper business conduct. They might buy Microsoft products gleefully. Just as there are others who refuse to accept Apple's (and by extension, Microsoft's) conduct for the same reason. They might instead run Free Software exclusively. And there are those of us who sit in the middle weighing ethics with necessity, changing our opinions on the matter over time as circumstances warrant. Not a very principled position, but pragmatic nonetheless. *sigh*
Is Apple's behavior legal? Most certainly. Is it desirable? Not to me. What am I going to do about it? For the moment, not much.
rights do not 'go away'. they are inherent to your existence as a human being.
What's scary and Microsoft like with Apple is the iLife.
.Mac
"All your applications belong to us" mentality is very Microsoft like and when I see Apple doing it, makes me sick to the stomach.
This whole "integration" of address book,mail,iphoto,.Mac trying to "take care" of your total computing experience is very scary.
I bought "Pages" the other day (Aplle's new word processor) and it wouldn't let me import a picture unless it was coming from iPhoto. WTF?
I love OsX but this iLife concept is iCreepy.
I'll try to stay with non Apple Applications as much as I can.
Thunderbird not Mail
Firefox not Safari
GraphicConverter not iPhoto
My website not
Apple and MS may have similar business practices, hey, they both need to make money.
As for Apple being the next Microsoft, I don't see it, Apple stuff actually works.
http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_kon fabulator
http://daringfireball.net/2004/07/konfab_confab
Apple was, and always has been, a far worse monopolist than MS ever could be. So to be accurate, Apple cannot be "The New Microsoft", since they never relinquished the monopolist crown in the first place.
Apple the new Microsoft? This is a joke, right? Ok, I'll play.
1 /0 2/172242&mode=thread
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
Remind me again how Apple is suing people with no NDA who are just randomly speculating and otherwise talking out their ass? The only people they are trying to sue are actual leakers. Only these particular web sites (who received obviously leaked info, as opposed to someone's random photoshopped hoax) aren't telling Apple who violated their NDA, so Apple is suing to get those names.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
" hires PR firms to post stock model photos as M$ switchers, "
like, beep beep beep much?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Sure, the claim that a web sites doesn't equate to a journalists may be dubious, but everyone seems to forget the fact that leakage of the information in question was a criminal act, just like insider trading. If one deals with illegally-obtained information, be prepared to prepared to suffer the consequences.
The only thing that I seriously hate in all this hooplah is the assertion by Apple's lawyers that freedom of the press applies ONLY to the traditional media. I may not have any legal training, but any assertion that certain constitutionally guaranteed rights apply exclusively to people in the elite makes me nervous. Because then you have to start asking where the line is.
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.
Frankly, they were the Microsoft before Microsoft existed. MS is on top of the world because they lock the industry to comply with their appalling incompetence, you can't expect that Apple will fail by locking the industry to their far less incompetent machines.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/anonymous.html
If the source is totally anonymous, how can they, as journalists: fact check, check their sources? How can they be sure that what they receive is in the public interest, is factual and is not a trade secret or in violation of a publication ban?
They are a tabloid at best and a fanboy blogging site at the worst. Neither of those are journalism or eligible for protection by the freedom of press IMNSHO.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
And even if they did have such a statement, it would be ludicrous. You really want Microsoft to tell us which is the better UNIX? Would anyone even take that seriously?
I like Apple, I like my iPod, and I like all the other stuff they make (escpecially what they made a few/many years ago, like the Mac SE and IICx). However, they are a little evil. My dad used to sell computers into education establishments in the UK, working for a private firm. Apple opened up an Apple store in the same region, and managed to undercut the supplier my dad worked for by about 2 or 3% on almost every product. Needless to say, he ended up loosing his job because the orders wern't coming in. I found out a few days ago that the place is still running though. Selling Windows boxes...
Uh, if the Mac Rumor Mill was only talking out of their ass, everyone would ignore them. (For example MacOSRumors, the first rumor site, is now almost totally ignored because of the vast amount of nonsensical BS they've spewed.) The fact is that quite often the rumor sites are right, which is exactly why online Mac fans spend so much time discussing them.
If Apple ever did get "air-tight", there would be a dramatic drop in things for the Mac community to talk about, which would ironically would reduce the Hype Factor for new Apple products.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Is iRonic.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
There's nothing new in Apple acting evilly.
Maybe some of you don't remember the "look and feel" lawsuit, and the "Keep Your Lawyers Off My Computer" buttons. Study your history, young hackers...
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
... when it fails.
I've spent about 3 days trying to burn a relatively simple CD while Panther has frozen, or simply said "Can't do that" and then locked a CD in a slot-loading drive, removable only by booting into Open Firmware. Mac OS only "just works" if you want to do something Apple anticipated. Otherwise, it doesn't even get as far as *just* working.
Apple is too fascinated by its appearance and Microsoft is too fascinated by its earnings. Not a lot to choose, in the end.
..locally to me I can give a realistic figure. I use a local mom and pop ISP primarily, although I also have a cheap earthlink as a backup. The local has a few hundred dialup users and I am the *only* linux customer they have, I asked them to check. No macs, one linux, the rest windows. Maybe planetary wide linux has a slightly larger market share, but I doubt it's even 2% inside the US. Maybe in some college towns, or places like that, but across the board I doubt it. Either way combined mac and linux and bsd is still pitiful small, and it's primarily because only a few places sell macs, and MUCH fewer have linux preinstalled on machines, which is primarily where people get their OSes from, pre-installed. I was just at a computer store today trying to get some parts, a couple other customers in there, so being a ratchet jaw kinda guy I start talking, etc, neither of them had even HEARD of linux, they had no idea what I was talking about.
I blame two things for this, in this order-1- severe fragmentation in the linux "community", because there really isn't a "linux" nor is there a "community", there's dozens of perpetual betaware non compatabile ever changing monthly operating systems basically using a similar sort of kernel and that's it, and they each have a miniscule tiny niche fanbase with hardly any rational cooperation, and 2- lack of decent vendor support at the "on the shelf" retail level. And I don't see number #2 changing until #1 changes and there really IS a true well supported and universally adopted "linux standard operating system". I doubt this will happen though.
Disclaimer - I'm not a coder, and I don't work on BSD, but the above seems obvious enough to me without such expertise.
Apples preliminary lawsuit subpeona thing they just won is the tip of the iceburge. They were justified though, i love to see rumor sites get whats coming to them. They always ruin the product announcement suprises for me, and I dont have enough will power to keep myself from going to them. In any case apple is just trying to protect itself as it grows. I think they still care about the customers and will continue to use good design philosophy to develop products that will more than just compete.
Want to learn about anything sexual? Check out the sex wiki:
really, there never was much difference between the two. Maybe Apple had more "own" ideas, but I'm not sure.
But Apple devices always have been cooler than M$ devices.
So, what? It's capitalism. M$ is to big, Apple can grow quite a bit until getting a pain in the ass like M$ is now. It's not the idea of capitalism that sucks, but a lack of regulation keeping companies away from market domination (which would falsify the market and thus destroy capitalism itself).
I have been working with OS X for a few days now, and it's great. Really, it's the best OS I ever had access too. And as long as they don't mess with my gnome at home, I'm fine with them.
Sigh. That's total crap (and most of it is straight from the article - way to plagiarize on the part of the submitter). Is Apple suing the guy who opened up his Mini and said "Hrm, I think there might be a firewire connector riser for the iPod?" Is Apple suing the guy who is explaining how to get the firmware off your iPod using a series of clicking sounds? No.
The person who leaked information broke an NDA. It's not like some enterprising college student sat in his dorm and said "You know what would be cool? If Apple made a tiny nano-ITX sized computer! And a USB flash-based iPod, too!" and then posted that on his blog and got sued for it.
Suppose you have a cool idea for a new product, and hire some folks to help you work on it, and make them sign an agreement that says they won't talk about the product. And then one of those goes and tells the local newspaper all about, and some company across town markets your product while you're still figuring out what happened. Are you going to be pissed off? Or are you going to say "Oh, well, gee, freedom of the press, I guess I can't be upset with him."
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Gates isn't like most ceos? Well yeah, because Gates isn't the CEO of microsoft, steve ballmer is. Clue phone is ringing, maybe you should pick it up.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
"They shouldn't be able to hide behind the skirts of some web-site"
You are correct. I agree with you in principal if this is in fact what happened.
And also speaking as joe consumer,not a developer, software makers in general shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a no warranty product year after decade after generation now either, whether it's some EULA or whatever. No other manufacturer gets to do that.
Basically, I'm tired of windows, tired of apple, tired of linux, whomever, I don't care (I have all three here), they are all pushing semi functional betaware with zero guarantees of any functionality or security. I'm switching to the first fully warrantied software maker who actually has the nads and the skills to really stand behind their product, if they offer the hardware as well or at least it will run on "normal" non weird hardware. I'm not paying for closed source or open source beta ware any more. I'll take a cheap clone betaware product, that's it, cheap or free, very reluctantly because that's about it for any options nowadays, expensive betaware or cheap betaware, it's all betaware. As soon as it starts to be double figures and up in cost, I want a real consumers warranty, not a "neener neener" EULA that amounts to legalised betaware forever broken crap for sale. Been one of these consumers stuck with betaware since the 80's, gotten old it has.
There's a huge untapped market for that too, just no one wants to offer it at any sort of rational price, and no, thousands of dollars a year or even mutilple hundreds is not a rational price either.
At least the hardware vendors will offer some sort of warranty for the hardware, and it actually has gotten much cheaper and better over the last two decades, but sad to say software just has one million more pieces of betaware out there, no matter who offers it at any price.
And I ask do you have ANY proof that information think secret published came from a person under an NDA?
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
What about all the blindly Apple praising mac zealots? I wouldn't quite call them intelligent and unbiased.
LOL, and it isn't like the Mac fanboys are biased and are "deflecting [themselves] from the real truth."
Apple has a history of being very nasty. Don't forget the FSF boycott of Apple, whereas MSFT apparently was never deemed worthy by the FSF for a boycott.
It is only because they are so much smaller that most have not noticed, but this is a company with a very narrow view. The image of Apple may be very cool, and that may blind many people for the true nature of Apple. But don't be fooled, the recent lawsuits show that Apple still has the same tendencies.
Excellent points. Actually, if I recall correctly, MS at the time, and MS to this day, makes a pretty nice amount from sales of Office for the Mac. Definitely much more than that $150 million "investment". And of course, when you think about it, that $150 million investment turned out pretty nicely for MS as well with as much as Apple's stock has gone up since those days.
The only thing that stopped apple from being a monopolist is they didn't give the value to their custommers that Microsoft did - had they done that, we would be bitching about the monopolists from Cupertino and those brave renegade tools developers up in Redmond
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
There are very good arguments to the effect that if Apple had the same market share that MS has obtained, they would be more abusive.
HOWEVER: Apple has less share of the computer market than Linux does.
This makes a BIG difference. Apple doesn't have the big stick to swing that MS does. Abuse of it's position in the iPod market (i.e., control) doesn't translate into the same major abuse of society that a similar abuse by MS would cause.
I would not want Apple, or any other company, in a dominant position. Monopolies are bad medicine, no matter how they occur. Legal monopolies are no better than the illegal ones. (Read this as a generalized diatribe against patents, among other things.)
That said, MS hasn't been as bad as a dominant company as Apple would have been. But Apple was never in that position, so it's improper to hold them to the same standard. (You just want to make **** sure that they never *do* get into that position.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Jealously runs so rampant on the self proclaimed "News for Nerds" repository. (Sigh)
For a couple of years it was unending support for Apple and a cheer when they released IPOD, and now you're criticizing Apple for using the law to try to NOT lose money on a creation?? Geez.
Bill Gates was a nerd, and used business to get rich.
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were nerds, and used business to get rich.
Now you have three nerds (Coun't em, THREE!!) that are producing jobs, innovation, computer support and the technology support to move us forward in the world of computers and future applications thereof.
And all I read ad-infinitum on this lovely website is attacks on both Microsoft and Apple! They made it! And for years they were sued and sued and sued by companies trying to get out of the ingenious business moves each of them made, and now you kids are complaining that they made it?
Get with the program! Use business laws to your advantage! And why attack Apple for trying to make thier music proprietary? Good for them! If you don't want to purchase an Ipod - DONT! There are alternatives!
If you don't want to use Windows - DONT! Apparently, and according to 90% of the users who frequent Slashdot, LINUX and all of its incarnations are better than Windows anyway! You don't even have to use IE because Firefox apparently is better too! (That is, if you go by readers / writers / ghost-writers here at Slashdot!)
So please contain your Jealously, o community of slashdot. For it is dripping off your loins and staining the rug!
Yup, I think the primary difference (from a technical standpoint) between MS and Apple is that Apple actually gives a crap about the quality of the products they make, and actually innovate. Microsoft honestly just do as little as they can humanly get away with. (I was just pondering today how even the most basic things like Notepad are actually outright broken - try edit in it with word wrap on, for example - it's really completely broken, and MS couldn't give a fart, because they don't have to).
Microsoft have a looong history of shady, unethical and downright illegal business practices ... many of which are enabled only by their position of dominance ... Apple is nowhere near being "the new Microsoft" (they just don't have the industry clout that MS has to abuse), and they have a long way to go to get anywhere near it.
If a monopoly company made good products and didn't charge massive rip-off pricing for them, I probably wouldn't mind as much if they were a monopoly and abused that monopoly position. I guess that's hypocritical, but as an engineer the technical quality of any software/hardware product is what matters most to me.
Actually, this is soooo misguided. Neither Google nor Apple are monopolies, neither have been convicted of illegal actions... No, Microsoft is STILL the only Microsoft. The rest is mental masturbation.
No, i didnt say that. I never claimed it was ok, only that it was normal operating procedures.
Please dont put words in my mouth.
Personally i dont approve of the practices of todays businesses. But i also know that its how thing work. Screw the customer, screw the competition. Make as much $ as you can and forget anything else.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Face it Apple always has been much worse. Apple did not invent the GUI, Xerox did, but Apple in the eighties was sueing companies left and right which did guis. Thanks to apple Digital research could not survive with the back then better GUI GEM, Microsoft could and it has become Apples worst nightmare. But it took Microsoft 10 years and a high investement in Apple to get rid of them (although Xerox basically said to the court let them fight over nothing we invented that stuff)
I own an Apple, and they have solid products but they are also one of the fastest in the computer industry to drag people into the courts. If Apple would have been as successful as Microsoft they would be equally bad, they are not, they are sort of the underdog which Microsoft was back in the eighties compared to IBM. But my fears are not to bad regarding this situation Apple never will be as successful as Microsoft.
I've been saying this for a long time. Apple and Microsoft are just as bad as each other. Both have the same intentions: make money, lots of it. They are companies. They don't really care about our rights, or any of the other issues most of us open source guys care about. They care about their own primary interest.
Gone are the days of hippy hackers in a garage. Apple is not the company it was when it started. The only difference now between apple and microsoft is the fact that microsoft won the race. And you can say they cheated to get there, but apple was playing the same game. And they lost.
So what now? They're still struggling to get the dominance they always wanted. It's no different from the past. They are a company with interests: MONEY.
People don't seem to get that apple really has no incentive to help people, open source, etc. And typically don't do anything that doesn't directly benefit them anyway. What else do you expect though? They are not going to be the ones opening patents for open source use. Novell and IBM? Maybe. Apple? No. Apple has too much self-interest. From it's propaganda-created following to it's media partnerships, apple is just another monopoly that can only hurt us in the end.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
It is Awesome that Apple is able to provide their clients with upgrades.
I might not like what Apple does, but I like their clients. I won't punish them or Microsofts clients just because both companies do things that I find abhorant and counter-consumer.
Judging from Apple's sales numbers over the last 10 years, the boycott seems to have been very effective.
No, it's about freedom of information.
News reporters are not held to reveal their
sources for a lot of very good reasons.
And btw part of Apple belongs to Bill G. so it really isn't surprising to see it going the same way.
Moderation -1
100% Overrated
Like that makes any sense.
Abusing the "overrated doesn't get metamoderated" loophole, are we?
You can't take the sky from me...
Yeah, and eveything Apples does works much better than anything out of Redmond.
Karma Schmarma
... that they are a progressive company. Progressives are always assholes!
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
the old slashdot is the new kmart, but before it was red lobster... totally
The stench of ingnorance is thick here on slashdot.
Karma Schmarma
Over 90% share of mp3 players sales and very large percentage of online music sales.
Vote for Pedro
Apple gives very little back to FreeBSD. FreeBSD developers always bitch about it. Jordan Hubbard tried to get Apple to give more back (he now works there - assimiliated some might say) but they saw no benefit to themselves.
That's Corporate America.
Buy a second hand mac dual g4 with lots of ram, buy OS X panther, buy a cocoa handbook, install developer tools, code the program works better than iTunes and supports your device.
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?
This business of comparing Apple's success in the digital music market to Microsoft's business practices is drawing a long bow at best.
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.
From YOUR link:
To play AAC and AAC Protected songs, your iPod must have iPod Software 1.3 or later installed. Not all digital music players can play AAC songs and only iPod can play AAC Protected songs.
Only the iPod can play DRMed songs purchased from iTMS
Vote for Pedro
Well, arrogance is bliss, isn't it?
OS X's install base has been growing and growing, while Linux has stagnated.
When Google's Zeitgeist was still running OS stats, OS X was at 5%. Guess what was at 1%? "Linux/Other." God, even Slashdot posts tons of Apple articles now. It used to be Linux-only.
No, I didn't, because none of them cited any sources. However, I remember Google's Zeitgeist reporting Linux at 1% and OS X at 5%. Google usage is the best real-world measurement of desktop installbase I can think of.
Most of the hardcore "desktop Linux" guys from the 90s have accepted that Linux will always be a niche in that area, and that its strength is as a free UNIX server platform. Desktop Linux simply does not compare to OS X or Windows XP on so many levels. The only guys left who still push this dream of surpassing Microsoft and Apple are hardcore Slashdot types who sit on irc.freenode.org all day and use Firefox. It's not a criticism of Linux or the OSS movement. Quite simply, no project has achieved the functionality of the commercial desktops, and there is endless evidence and personal examples for that. Based on the current directions of GNOME and KDE, I don't see it happening soon.
A lot of the rest of us have accepted where things stand and use what's best for the job. I stopped using Slackware years ago and got a Mac. I just think it's the best desktop/programming environment right now. I got tired of waiting on Linux (been waiting since 1997).
Just my opinion.
I thought MS paid off Apple in part to reabsorb Newton Inc. and kill off the Newton product. At that point in time (believe it or not, but you can Google it for yourself) Newton MessagePad sales were kiling WinCE sales in the marketplace.
It's not so simple as that. OS X is based on a Mach kernel. It uses some of the userland of FreeBSD, but also borrows from a lot of other sources, including some Linux technologies. For instance, most of the command-line tools are from OpenBSD.
Regardless, the argument is kind of silly. Apple can port iTunes to whatever they want. Obviously, they'll have it for OS X because that is their operating system, and they'll have it for Windows because it is the majority. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to port to Linux.
Their public image is more than fine. As far as the general public knows, Apple makes products that are simple to use and look good. That's pretty much all they know.
In fact the company's success of late has yielded accusations of bullying...
Apple has always dealt with accusations of bullying. For every product they release, there is usually some smaller company that claims they did it first and Apple stole their idea.
I can't comment on this because I'm not aware of any of these tactics. Please enlighten me.
I feel that this is a poor argument simply because Apple is a hardware company. Music from the iTMS only work on iPods for the same reason their OS only works on a Macintosh: it's an incentive to purchase Apple hardware.
Thanks to Apple's suit against Think Secret we now have a court ruling that says that on-line journalists aren't subject to the same protections as those who are employed by print journalists.
Because of the barriers to entry to the print market (cost of an print, ink and distribution) the vast majority in the print media are corporate. Thanks to the Net we have just begun to free ourselves from having to rely on cringing lick-spittals like ABCNBCBS, Clearchannel, and Judith Miller and The New York Times for information. (Hey, Judith! Where are those aluminum tubes now?) Trying to put the genie back in the bottle and the blindfold back on our eyes they are.
And there is Apple helping them.
Yeah, its to be expected that Apple would care more about their profits (or Steve's beloved surprises) than about the First Amendment and the slim potential that we one day may have democracy in the USA. But I don't give a damn about Apple's profits. I care about freedom of speech and I'm willing to defend it.
It's this sort of reckless behavior from Apple that will lead to me switching from my 10-year Mac-habit. If Apple doesn't back off I'll be putting Yellow Dog Linux on my iBook and staying away from Apple's products in the future. I love OS X, but I love Freedom of Expression more.
...and another was the reappearance of Steve Jobs, who clearly favoured an OS based upon NeXT's OS, whether for technical reasons or personal vanity and vindication.
Actually Jobs came into Apple as part of the deal to buy NeXT, so he really had no say about whether Apple should buy Be or NeXT.
After that he and the NeXT people proceeded to quickly take over the entire company astonishingly fast, but that's an other story.
Hell Yeah. Maybe we could have him with horns,red eye and a tail.
Empty the trash.
Now try that with IE on XP . . .
Apple is providing a platform that is way more open thatn anything M$ is offering. Their platforms nature allows for user expansion, but security for the non tech user(auto updates, etc)
How well it works is another question...I know their may be Mac Viri soon, but Mac is way cool.
I say, quit being so GD paranoid and groove a little!
Sorry, but Apple Corp has NEVER been "hacker" friendly. They may have demonstrated their common user aptitude, but that certainly doesn't up their "outlaw" quotient. Apple has always been a lowest commomon demoninator company. They always will be, as there are 99% of users in that category, and 1% of 99% is still pretty good.
The Difference between Apple and Microsoft:
Apple is flamed by those who don't use or own their products (aside from pricing comments).
Microsoft is flamed by those who use / have used their products.
oh.. everyone has used Microsoft products? that stinks
Did Jobs also forbid everyone from bringing in whatever food they wanted to bring? Or did he just forbid the company chef from cooking meet there?
FalconShould there be a Law?
They take their music player, the iPod, which has a near-monopoly, and ensure that it only works with their music store.
Microsoft takes their OS and loads Internet Explorer, and bullies OEMs into not shipping competing products.
Is an iPod a necessary component to operate your computer? your life? Is ITMS necessary to use an iPod? Is Apple pricing iPods below others?
Monopoly is one thing, gaining marketshare because they got it right is another. Remember Microsoft didn't get to where it is by designing great products.
Apple aren't Microsoft. Apple has always sucked balls bigtime. They are the festering puss on the putrid cunt of the software industry. Their practices have fucked me over one too many times many years ago and I refuse to buy their products, because even those that have technical merit have heinous restrictions. One of their latest examples is they build an awesome MP3 player and fuck it over with crap batteries. Fuckers. Smelly stinking fuckers. They can go rot.
and a cheer when they released IPOD
Actually, what Taco said was (and I quote): "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
Geez, forgot to include what processor I'd toss in there. The system I'll build in a few months will have an AMD 64 2800+.
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.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
Let's replace crack with another addictive substance called iPod. The iPod sells itself, and Apple is not forcing anyone to use the iPod. Apple offers the iPod, you can refuse it by not paying for it.
I manage the website for a locally-produced radio show called "News from Neptune". We distribute episodes of the show under a Creative Commons license in three formats: Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, and Speex.
My father has a MacOS X machine (one of the early dual-CPU G4s) and his installation of MacOS X is fully updated as of the time/date stamp on this post. I was curious how easily MacOS X users could play the show file. We tried to play a FLAC-encoded episode of the show using the QuickTime player program.
He installed the FLAC QuickTime component without a problem, and then he downloaded a FLAC-encoded episode of the show to test (streaming the FLAC show was not working). Despite the FLAC component being installed, the FLAC file was not registered to work with the QuickTime Player so double-clicking the file was not going to do the right thing (but he knows how to change this to make it work this way in the future). He went through the file requestor to open the FLAC file.
There was a noticeable delay (about 15 seconds) before the audio began playing (a slower machine might mean a longer delay). Judging by the length of the delay, we guessed that the FLAC file was being converted (in its entirety) to something else. Then he saved a .mov file (not self-contained, a pointer file) using the QTPlayer program. He was left with a small (~180k) file. This file is not large enough to do anything but point to some other file--reading the strings in the file confirms it. This file points to the FLAC file (not a decoded equivalent).
The kicker: Quitting the QTPlayer, and double-clicking on the newly-made .mov file started the QTPlayer and played the file instantly with no delay. Opening the FLAC file still imposed a delay to play. iTunes would only allow him to place the .mov file into an iTunes library. We didn't try doing anything with iTunes beyond this (such as burning an audio CD).
Off the cuff, this gives me the impression that Apple is imposing an unnecessary delay with the FLAC file.
Digital Citizen
Perhaps you think that all Apple has done is repackage X11?
Apple has NOT asserted that freedom of the press applies only to "legitimate members of the press."
Those are not Apple's words. That is the wording of the California Shield Law cited by Think Secret. They are claiming that because of this shield law, they do not have to give up their sources. Apple and the judge in this case are stating that this law does not apply to Think Secret because the site is not a "legitimate member of the press".
Agree or disagree, this is an arguable point-- not whether or not websites should have such protection, but whether or not California Shield Law applies.
If I see another mention of the First Amendment in this thread from people who obviously have no concept of what it says, I think my eyes will start bleeding.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws that restrict press freedom. The term is "prior restraint". If Apple was trying to legally prevent TS from publishing information it had, then the First Amendment would apply.
Apple has done no such thing. There are two actions against TS:
a subpoena for the names of sources;
and allegations that TS induced and solicited parties to Apple NDAs to break those agreements
Under California law, as in many places, offering inducement (such as money) to people in return for them doing something that breaks a contract is itself illegal.
You can continue to use Apple with a clear conscience if you choose-- the company is not crusading against the First Amendment, since that amendment isn't even relevant to the cases currently being heard.
Someone shoot me for posting in a OS holy war.
s tats.a sp
If you look here
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_
It would appear that Linux (3.2%) is on more desktops than Macs (2.9%).
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
When I worked at RN and they created their open source project we got black t-shirts. Because, black is the prefered color of open source developers.
Maybe we can't get an ipod for linux because of the color.
Side note: I've never actually used an iPod. Why is a $500 mp3 player better than my $150 one? is it *really* $350 better? $500 is almost a Zaurus, that'll play mp3's as well as a whole host of other things.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Whenever I hear home computer people arguing about "Mac or Windows - which is your favorite system?" It reminds me of people debating "Hitler or Stalin - which is your favorite dictator?" As misguided as Microsoft is, about the only thing that would be worse would be to have Apple on top. Neither of these firms is customer service oriented. At least Apple's number two position has made them marginally interested in serving rather than leaching off their customers, but that's a strategy, not a policy.
There was a period a while back where Apple looked around and saw that if the apps they wanted were going to be written, they would have to do it on their own. Yes, the beginnings of FCP preceed Apple but the end product, after Apple put their stamp on it, was bait to drive more hardware sales. I don't see iTunes as anything different. Apple has even stated that it exists A) because they thought they could make a better experience and B) to drive iPod and subsequently, computer sales. Is Apple committing some sort of monopolistic action when they limit FCP to Apple hardware? If not, how is it wrong to limit iTunes to the iPod?
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
I personally worked on the FreeBSD port with Alfred Perlstein; I did the initial port of the code, and Alfred did the install. It not only compiles on FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD, it runs, and it runs correctly enough to advertise printers successfully.
What isn't done is the lpr utilitity code for printer iteration integration (I started that for FreeBSD, but couldn't finish it because I have zero free time right now). It's not a task that takes a lot of thinking, it's mostly typing. Without that, you can still issue a command line command and run it through an awk script to generate printcap entries.
If Bonjour doesn't compile on Linux, then send patches; they'd be trivial to write, IMO (the FreeBSD patches were mostly about shell scripts, and default installation locations). I sit across the hall from the owner, and can easily get them integrated.
-- Terry
This isn't that complicated, why do people keep getting it wrong? Apple is doing a good thing with Safari, and in fact makng it easier for people to benefit from it without using it.
Safari's rendering engine, called WebKit in OSX (and KHTML everywhere else), is a library that Safari thinly wraps. WebKit is provided as a service to other OS X developers which lets them render HTML easily. Many parts of the OS use WebKit, but that's no different from any other system library. Nor is its use mandatory.
Safari itself is just a thin wrapper and pref setter on top of WebKit. Safari can safely be deleted and reinstalled at user whim. The only odd thing about Panther is that the Default Browser selection preference is in Safari, not in SystemPreferences. In Jaguar, this was different. I'm not sure what prompted the change, but hopefully they'll move it back in Tiger.
Mac OS X will respect your default browser preferences to the letter. You will recieve no penalty for using FireFox. Other apps will invoke FireFox if that is your default browser. Other apps will only use WebKit if they want an easy way to display HTML. An example of this is the NetNewsWire 2 Beta. Even when they use WebKit internally, when I call out to my default browser it invokes FireFox.
This is in sharp contrast to the IE issue, where for all intents and purposes there was no real default browser setting. Many apps (including MS apps) always opened links in IE, even when Netscape might have been your preferred browser.
Not everything is an evil conspiracy.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Apple is a lot like France.
When compared to Microsoft it seems as if it is
only trying to maintain its identity
(as France is with the US).
But when Apple knows that it has the upper hand
with a smaller entity, it can be ruthless
(as France is with its former colonies and less powerful members of EU).
So, it is in the eye of the beholder.
The Windows-B point is the crucial one. It didn't always work. In fact, with MS products, it never worked.
Also, you can delete Safari without hosing your system. Deleting IE before the anti-trust-case had some, let's say "interesting", consequences.
You're right though. In this case the approaches are similar. This is probably why MS got away with it. They slightly altered what would otherwise be a Good Thing to further their agenda, and when questioned just blamed engineering mistakes.
I dunno if you use a Windows machine for business, but if Outlook and Excel and your other collab tools don't honor your default browser settings, you might as well not have a different browser. Apple Mail, the Cocoa library, Address Book, Help Viewer, and even the WebObjects dev tools all honor your default API setting.
So, to summarize: MS did it but it penalized users and developers. Apple did it without penalizing users for thier choices and aiding their developers.
Oh, and it's not like Apple's choices are locking anyone out. OmniWeb, a competitior to Safari in the higher end browser market, uses WebKit for their rendering. So no, it's not evil. Sorry, try again next time!
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
I thought you were in jail.
Admittedly MS didn't get their monopolistic act together until there was a court order.
> Outlook and Excel and your other collab tools don't honor your default browser settings
Works here.
> a competitior to Safari in the higher end browser market, uses WebKit
And there's a dozen browsers that use MSHTML. I wouldn't really call any of them real competitors because they can't compete with better/faster HTML rendering like Mozilla or Opera can.
> Sorry, try again next time!
Where did I say it was evil? I think that was your concern. I was just commenting on the that Safari is just as integrated as IE on a nuts-n-bolts level (or will be in 10.4).
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Outlook and and Excel didn't honor it.
And you can try and equivocate what MS and Apple did all you want, but in the end it's BS. You can move Safari to the trash and not destroy your system, and all the apple apps honor your default broswer settings.
Pre-anti-trust-allegations, such was not true of Microsoft. This distinction is important to make because what MS did pre-anti-trust was evil.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense