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?
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.
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.
Just mod this whole article -1 Flamebait and get it over with.
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...
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.
You don't have to be a fan or foe to understand good business.
Apple isn't 'attacking' fan websites. Take off your bias for a minute and compare this analogy:
Three websites, say Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot, publish articles on an upcoming ATI product that no one has heard about.
ATI has subpoenas issued to Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot in order to discover the source of the leak.
Now replace ATI for Apple, and how is that different than the current Apple legal action?
You also complain about 'formally faithful resellers'. Again, think of it from a business perspective: Apple wants profit. If their resellers satisfied Apple's business needs, why would Apple waste money, effort, and resources opening up stores? Look at the business landscape and tell me that the resellers actually helped Apple; and if they did, do they help more than Apple's own stores? Before the Apple Stores existed in the US, the only place I could acquire them were department stores with broken displays, computer stores with no staffing, and resellers with no customer service. I don't doubt there do exist the odd excellent reseller, but I don't think you can deny there exist a rash of bad outlets either.
Finally you talk about open source. They give back exactly what they owe, and more. Apple doesn't use Linux, they use BSD; FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Towards that end Apple has released their OS core, Darwin, even though the BSD license doesn't require it.
Apple also uses KHTML for their web browser, and releases that back to the KDE folk.
Apple has open sourced their networking kit, Rendezvous, and their Quicktime streaming server, and a few other libraries and projects.
Yes, all of this HAS to have business benefits. If there were no benefits, it would be a waste of YOUR money; you did invest in Apple when you purchased your products. They don't exist to do favors for Linux; when has Linux done favors for Apple?
I don't believe Apple would be worse than Microsoft, given the chance. I think if they grew to Microsoft proportions, they would suffer a host of ills that currently can be seen afflicting HP, Sony, and Compaq: Lack of vision, lack of direction, lack of coordination, lack of innovation. You don't believe that, but I point to ALL the examples out there. The only company of that size that hasn't become listless (and thus surprised by Apple) is IBM.
GPL Deconstructed
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