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 ----
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.
"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'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.
If the iTunes Music Store was the only download music store, and they used a proprietary format, then that would be one thing. As it is, the apparently barrier to entry in the downloadable music business is so low that music stores are springing up all over the place (the local radio station now has their own music store where you can download the music from their playlists). MP3 players are for sale at half the stores in the mall.
Nobody is forcing you to use anything from Apple; there are viable competitors in every one of their markets. Nobody is paying an "Apple tax" to buy a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed on it...
forcing you to use anything from Apple?
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
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'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.
If I had a contract with somebody and they broke it, I would want to know about it and so would you.
Just mod this whole article -1 Flamebait and get it over with.
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!
Microsoft's DRM is OS level, not application level.
Yeah kinda cracks me up. That's like bitching that I can't buy a chevy alternator for $50 and put it in my $50,000 BMW.
Not at all. You can buy a $50 Chevy alternator. Of course, it won't fit, so you might have to make some metal brackets, drill new holes and find the right kind of pulley to make it fit on the belt, but you can still do it legally. No one can stop you trying and no one should be able to stop you trying.
With DRMed works, you can not do the software equivalent of the above unless authorized, because of the DMCA (even though you supposedly have fair use rights). Now as it happens, Apple do authorize it by letting you burn on to CD and re rip (which may be a pain), but you can still put your songs on a different player.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I think it's still possible that, if Jobs had the market dominance of Gates, he'd act just like him.
And that's exactly why we need antitrust protection. Power corrupts.
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'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.
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...
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.
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.
This has been debated before, but I'll put in my $.02-- If MS didn't "take" the BSD TCP/IP stack we would be in a world of locked up and proprietary communication protocols-- the internet itself may be a different place.
Apple did not "lock up" the changes they made to the BSD Unix core "darwin"-- in fact not only have they been very open about their changes the entire core is available under and open source license. Apple has done more than expected-- and continues to port back all or most changes to Darwin. It's actually a neat operating system, and can be run w/o Quartz (Apple's WM).
Do yourself a favor and bite down hard the next time you put your foot in your mouth.
transmission_err
Hello? what part of the previous poster's comments did you not understand? Apple has made the source of any code that they have modified available. Darwin is a complete BSD-based OS, which is freely available. They have contributed patches to other OSS projects whose software they make use of. What they have not made available is Quartz, which was not based on OSS, was not ever OSS itself, and is completely an Apple product. Where have they, as you allege, "been able to take that code, modify it, and charge for it (without providing the source)"?
Please take a look at any Mac online discussion board -- a huge chunk of the discussion is chewing over rumors and hypotheses about Apple's upcoming products. Practically all people talk about is rumors -- even the tiniest bit of information is reverberated through the echo chamber of the Mac community, with every implication analyzed long before anyone has any idea if it's true or not. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness, with Mac Fans making fake boxes and photoshopping fake cases.
So on one hand we have Mac consumers, who love rumors. And on the other hand we have Mac Rumor sites which apparently now are seen by the Mac faithful as enemies of the state.
Well, you can't have it both ways! Take away the obsessiveness about Apple's secret plans and all of a sudden nobody cares what The Steve's big announcement is, the online community has nothing to talk about, and new Apple products are greeted with a big Meh.
Apple's Marketing Hype Machine depends almost entirely on the Mac Community's need for the Next Big Thing. Apple walks the line here with ridiculous secrecy to whip up the faithful. But then when the rumor sites actually hits gold, Apple brings out the legal guns. Being an online Mac freak just got a lot less fun, thanks to Apple.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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.