Slashdot Mirror


Apple Claims That Jail-Breaking Is Illegal

rmav writes "Apple has finally made a statement about jail-breaking. They try to sell the idea that it is a copyright infringement and DMCA violation. This, despite the fact (as the linked article states) that courts have ruled that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software. I cannot help but think that the recent flood of iPhone cracked applications is responsible for this. Before that, Apple was quietly ignoring the jailbreak scene. Now, I suppose that in the future we may only install extra applications on our iPhones as ad hoc installs using the SDK, and if we want turn-by-turn directions, tethering, and the like, we have to compile these apps by ourselves? Maybe we should go and download the cydia source code and see what we can do with it."

55 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Someone call the wambulance by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People never get up in arms about something till it effects them personally. What a load of crap apple.

    1. Re:Someone call the wambulance by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I hold those who gave Apple money personally responsible for this, and for any legal precedents that end up being set. Those lawyers didn't pay for themselves...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Someone call the wambulance by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you buy your gasoline from?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:Someone call the wambulance by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who do you buy your gasoline from?

      I don't buy it. I bike, walk and use public transit.

      I bet you think you're clever though, with your pithy "Who do you buy your gasoline from" crap. Like living with ideals is an impossible and ridiculous thing that nobody really does and no one is really expected to do. Personally, I disassociate myself permanently from people and organizations I don't like. Won't work for em, won't buy from em, won't be involved, won't help make them strong. Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.

      When I can't do this, I acknowledge that I'm guilty of facilitating that which I despise. I recognize that the statement "I can't sever my involvement" is really "I'm not prepared to live in the fashion necessary to sever my involvement", and therefore I'm really just passing the hardship along to others. That makes me accountable to those others, and I may one day be called on to pay the piper, and if they come for me, it will be right and good and my own damned fault.

      It's called taking responsibility, maybe you ought to look into it.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Someone call the wambulance by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you buy your gasoline from?

      I don't buy it. I bike, walk and use public transit.

      .I bet you think you're clever though, with your pithy "Who do you buy your gasoline from" crap.

      Like living with ideals is an impossible and ridiculous thing that nobody really does and no one is really expected to do. Personally, I disassociate myself permanently from people and organizations I don't like. Won't work for em, won't buy from em, won't be involved, won't help make them strong. Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.

      ...therefore I'm really just passing the hardship along to others. That makes me accountable to those others, and I may one day be called on to pay the piper, and if they come for me, it will be right and good and my own damned fault.

      It's called taking responsibility, maybe you ought to look into it.

      What are you 12 years old? It sounds like you think you're the clever one. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey and sometimes you have to compromise and work with people and organizations you don't like to make progress.

      Just because you don't agree with elected government officials doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes and push the cost onto other citizens under some retarded form of social protest. By living in the country, you are accepting the whole package, including agreeing paying taxes, regardless of who is elected.

      If you don't like it, legally fight for change or GTFO. You can't bury your head in the sand and just ignore things you don't like.

    5. Re:Someone call the wambulance by Risen888 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What are you 12 years old? It sounds like you think you're the clever one. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey and sometimes you have to compromise and work with people and organizations you don't like to make progress.

      Yep, that's the working model of our culture, all right. And it is full of fail. "Working within the system" doesn't do it. I have this argument with a particular friend of mine almost weekly, and he's a well-meaning guy as I'm sure you are, but he's wrong and so are you.

      For God's sake open a newspaper, it's all over the front page. That bit about the "economic meltdown?" Or the "climate crisis," the "energy crisis," and on and on and on? It's because people decided it would be easier to just cut a deal. Our practicality, our comprimises, our working with people and organizations we don't like, has completely fucked us.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  2. Means nothing by halivar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple can claim whatever they want, and can sue whoever they want for DMCA violations. C&D's are freely distributable.

    Whether or not that claim has the weight of law is up to a judge, not a marketing director.

    1. Re:Means nothing by morgauo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if Apple Corp. was suing you with some strange interpretation of the DMCA today and the legal dream team it must be able to afford...

      What you be confident that the judge would sort it all out?

  3. Apple has a problem with this...... by 8127972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..... Because they could potentially make no money off the apps that are installed via jailbreaking. The rest of their reasons are just a smokescreen. Plain and simple.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Apple has a problem with this...... by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alternately, they've finally realized that they can't win on technological grounds. Apple undoubtedly has some incredibly smart people working on plugging these holes as fast as they can, but at the end of the day it's a handful of folks vs. the rest of the world.

      If you can no longer innovate, then it's time to litigate.

    2. Re:Apple has a problem with this...... by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The true motive isn't profit,

      That's just silly. When a giant corporation like Apple makes a decision, the underlying motive is profit. Always. Hell, even when they do stuff like donate money to charity, they do it because they expect the good will they'll get from doing it to be worth more than they're donating. That's just how big companies operate.

      I don't know why they're doing this, but I'm 100% certain they're doing it because they think it'll help them make more money.

    3. Re:Apple has a problem with this...... by kalirion · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. From the page about the Cycorder app linked to in TFA:
      "The free native iPhone app appears to be much better video recording app than iPhone Video Recorder which costs $19.95. "

  4. Apple Lock-in... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When marketing and Reality Distortion (tm) fails, call in the jackbooted thugs and sue the dissidents into submission.

    This, more than anything, is why Apple will never get one coin from my wallet.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Apple Lock-in... by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He refuses to reward the company by purchasing their products because of their business tactics.

      Why does that preclude him from using code that Apple has given away?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Apple Lock-in... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.

      Only if you frame it that way. You can accept their freedom-friendly offerings while rejecting the anti-freedom products without a logical disconnect.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Apple Lock-in... by Vexorian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.

      It may look hypocritical to you, but it isn't. It is also not our fault apple contributed a couple of FLOSS projects, every major company has done that, and I don't really think it should make them immune to criticism or boycott that's just ridiculous.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  5. Hehehe by Who+Is+The+Drizzle · · Score: 5, Funny
    The EFF analyst has apparently been browsing Slashdot for far too long cause even he is using car analogies!

    One need only transpose Apple's arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit.

  6. Remember kids... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

    Just because something right doesn't mean it is legal.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Remember kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

      Also, don't get caught.

  7. Re:And so it begins by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been going like this for a while, just look at their business practices, the only thing they have going for them is that they're cool.

  8. Bad summary by richdun · · Score: 5, Informative

    First off, this is coming now not because of some perceived "recent flood of iPhone cracked applications," but because the Copyright Office asked for exemption proposals to the DCMA on December 28, 2008, and the EFF filed one for jailbreaking. RTFA and RTFlegalbrief.

    Second, while not effectively the same, what Apple is doing is trying to prevent jailbreaking from being ruled legal, not trying to have it ruled illegal. Being a non-lawyer, I'd at first say this is the same thing, but it is different. Just because something isn't ruled explicitly legal doesn't make it illegal, but would definitely help if some day someone wanted to sue over a jailbreak.

    Engadget has a nice write-up on this from someone who has legal training if the three or four of you out there who don't just read the summary and post would like another perspective - http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/13/apple-and-eff-spar-over-iphone-jailbreaking-and-the-dmca//

  9. Playing devil's advocate here... by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Apple is doing this to protect its income for apps on the iPhone store. That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store. Sure, they could try to sell apps only for jailbroken phones, but with all the gray areas around it legally (at least in the public's eye) and with the immense ease of use of the iPhone store (click and download right now!), they would much rather go Apple's route. Right? So Apple could be covering its ass, making sure they don't get attacked from iPhone developers who have trekked through the process to make "legit" apps but could be someday losing out to jailbroken competitors.

    Or else it's just about the money.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  10. Great... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another company taking the high road of suing their customers for profit!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Great... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they said that they don't want to have Jailbreaking made legal. There is a big difference between not wanting the routine violation of your EULA made legal, and actually bothering to sue someone over it.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  11. Jailbreaking != Unlocking by Jon.Laslow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not to nitpick (actually, yes - this is complete nitpicking), but Jailbreaking relates to running unsigned code on the phone (and giving full access to the filesystem). Unlocking is what allows people to use other carriers and SIMs.

  12. An Honest Question by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't take this as flamebait... I am looking for honest answers:

    How is jailbreaking an iPhone different from removing DRM from a game?
    Am I wrong that Jailbreaking an iPhone simply allows you to use more applications on it?
    Is this not "Fair Use?"
    Is it true that there are free, non-stolen programs that wouldn't normally run on an iPhone without it being Jailbroken?
    Or is Jailbreaking simply a means to running pirated iPhone apps?

    1. Re:An Honest Question by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's all nuances. Provided that modifying the software on your own device is considered fair use (and I would presume that unless you are violating something else like FCC regs it is), then you - personally - are not guilty of violating the DMCA. However, anyone who helps you is violating the DMCA. The DMCA is an odd law in that it specifically preserves the right to fair use, while making it illegal to assist anyone in exercising fair use.

      In this way it is the same as DVD decryption software: legal to decrypt your disc for fair use (including standard playback in licensed players and copying for backup or format shifting), not legal to sell or traffic in the software or any instructions on how to do so.

      I don't own an iPhone, primarily because the applications - especially the free (beer and speech) ones - are far more limited than for the wmobile market, and because I have an investment in wmobile software I would have to abandon if I switch. That and the iPhone can't do GPS if you're out of cell service (or couldn't as of 4 months ago when I upgraded my phone)...and that's where I need it the most.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  13. Re:This is like bitching and moaning that... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's like Toyota suing you if you tried to make your own NOx kit for your own use.

    If monkeying around voids the warranty, fine. If monkeying around is outlawed...then only outlaws will have monkeys...er. um. wait.

  14. Apple's reality-distortion field by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a simple-minded person. So correct me if I am misunderstanding this situation:

      Apple makes a little plastic box with an LCD screen, a battery, and a circuit board and sells it to people in retail stores. And they claim that there is some kind of law that prohibits anyone who buys this little plastic box from opening it, determining how it works, and telling other people how to make it work better. Unless, of course, they pay Apple more money beyond the money that was paid for the little plastic box at the retail store.

        If this is a correct interpretation of the situation, then I have to agree that this company is delusional and that they will have a difficult time adjusting to 21st-century reality. These marketing major fantasies may have had some credibility in the 20th-century, but they are meaningless as the economy collapses.

        Reality is reality. If you are exploring the circuitry and firmware of a little plastic box and someone comes up to you and tells you that you are engaged in illegal activity by doing so, politely simply to ask them to go away and something constructive with their short time on Earth. If they persist or attempt to physically prevent you from your examinations of your property (your little plastic box and circuit board), then just shoot them. Don't even give it a second thought. There are far too many people in the world, and the fewer delusional assholes running around making trouble for the rest of us, the better. They won't be missed. When even Republicans are talking about economic collapse, then you know that It's a new world out there. Anything that you can do to make the world a better place for reality-based people to live in (such as sharing iPhone knowledge and applications), to more welcome you are in the new world of the post-20th century fantasies.

    1. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      then just shoot them. Don't even give it a second thought.

      Then continue your study of the internal workings of the iPhone from pound-me-in-the-ass prison ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Copyright (it least in it's original form) governed the reproduction and distribution only. If you purchase a legally produced copy of the work, then it is then yours to do with as you see fit. Saying that you can't modify software that you've legally purchased is akin to saying you can't doodle in the margins of a book you bought. And no, just because the publisher decided to print "THOU SHALT NOT DOODLE IN THYN BOOK." on the first page doesn't change anything.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Phones run software. Software is copyrighted. Modifying the software - that is, creating a derivative work - is unauthorized and may well represent a breach of copyright law.

      No. Let me help:

      Distributing an unauthorized derivative work may well represent a breach of copyright law.

      First sale law dictates that I am free to make whatever modifications I like to any software I've bought. The EULA attempts to form a contract with the user, so the actual legal question (IANAL but come on, we've been discussing this with the assistance of the occasional lawyer for many years now) is whether a EULA is binding. My understanding is that this is still very much up in the air. Right now it is, I believe, the fulcrum upon which the Apple vs. Psystar case rests. I think most of us understand that you're not permitted to redistribute someone else's copyrighted material absent the express permission to do so (which is why the GPL only grants freedoms and does not restrict them - at least as compared to unlicensed copyrighted media, if not material released into the public domain. But there I go on a tangent again.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by atraintocry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And they claim that there is some kind of law that prohibits anyone who buys this little plastic box from opening it, determining how it works, and telling other people how to make it work better.

      Depending on the circumstances, the DMCA can do exactly that. However, there are some allowances for reverse engineering and if memory serves correct there is some case law regarding cell phones specifically which says that it's OK to open them.

      I could be wrong on the second part but my point is that it's not black and white.

      This is a lot like Nintendo saying it's illegal to dump a ROM. The situation as described by written and case law is more complicated, but it serves the company's interest to *basically* lie to people, in order to fight what they see as *basically* piracy.

    5. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And see that's where it gets a bit hazy, and questionable legally.

      I purchased a device that had software on it - or I could have purchased a CD, or even a file. That is, and always has, been purchasing a copy of the object. And THAT is what copyright law allows. It doesn't allow producers to sell "rights to use" something - it allows them the legal right to copy it, and then distribute it as they want (which usually means selling it). Beyond that though they lose control of how you use it. YOU certainly can't copy it again except where copyright law allows via fair use, but you already own that copy and can do with it as you please, without any regard to the original copyright holder because again, that copy has been sold.

      Again, copyright law was created primarily when books were what was talked about, and hence they make a perfect analogy. IT DOESN'T MATTER that after the publisher sees that people are ignoring their first page directive not now doodle the book. If they now decide to claim that "You're not really purchasing the book anymore. You're purchasing a license to use it and the pages are just a delivery method.", then they still have just as little (ie, none) capability of saying that you can't doodle in your book. Because when applied sensibly, the "only a license, not a copy" argument is complete and utter bullshit.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by MadnessASAP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No kidding eh! The occasional /. psychopaths sometime worry me. I know most of them in reality wouldn't even stand up and complain at a McDonalds about getting the wrong drink, but I wonder if maybe some of them really are THAT batshit crazy and would actually go shoot up the Apple HQ because they can't jailbreak their iPhone.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    7. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're not purchasing the software. Almost nobody purchases software.

      Yes, I am. Looks like a sale, quacks like a sale, it's a sale. If it were a license, it would have to be established under ordinary contract law, with all those nasty legal formalities and meetings of the mind and such -- given that neither Apple (based on the Safari for Windows EULA snafu) nor most of the users ("just click Agree and the box goes away") actually reads the thing, it'd be pretty hard to establish that.

      Since the software contains controls, Apple could argue those controls are being circumvented (which is illegal under DMCA) for gaining access to protected works for infringing purposes.

      Unfortunately, you may be onto something there. According to the 2600 case, it doesn't matter whether the work was sold or not. No one argues that DVDs are licensed rather than sold. Yet the Circuit Court in the 2600 case decided that for a purchaser to circumvent the copy protection to gain access to a copy of a work _which he owned_ was a violation of the DMCA.

    8. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ok, Fine,

      Um, Guys, It's time to start the iPhone linux distro.

      I suggest we call it "Screw you apple" but I'm willing to be voted down on the name.
      The logo on the other hand WILL be an apple with a giant screw completely through it on a jaunty angle.

      Meet you at sourceforge.

    9. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by nsayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Modifying the software - that is, creating a derivative work - is unauthorized and may well represent a breach of copyright law.

      Um, no.

      distributing a derivative work that is unauthorized is a breach of copyright law. Making one for yourself is not.

    10. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by Sparks23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple makes a little plastic box, sells the boxes and licenses the software. People modify the software to allow you to write to the 'secured' portions of the device storage, thus allowing third-party software to be installed and device functionality to be modified. Apple turns a blind eye.

      Jailbreaking folks come up with a way to unlock the radio baseband, making it possible to use a SIM card from any provider in the phone. Cellular companies who want exclusivity complain when phones are unlocked to work on any network. Apple complies with the cell companies' demands and makes changes to prevent unlocking. Apple continues to turn a blind eye to the jailbreaking itself, though does warn folks that if you modify the software they can't be responsible for supporting the modified OS.

      Apple releases a new version of the OS containing a locked-down sandbox for third-party apps, allowing people to install apps without jailbreaking. People continue to jailbreak the phones to use private APIs (allowing tethering) or do things like have apps that run in the background and so on. Apple continues to turn a blind eye, and apps exist in both realms.

      Someone in the jailbreaking community comes out with a way to basically point-and-click 'crack' software bought from the App Store, and allow people to send it around freely for jailbroken devices. Some app authors find up to 2/3rds (especially for games) of their users are using pirated copies that weren't paid for. Much fuss and to-do on blogs, news sites, etc. App authors complain to Apple that there needs to be Something Done! Oh noes!

      Apple, after a year and a half of turning a blind eye to the jailbreaking scene, suddenly makes an abrupt about-face and says 'Jailbreaking is verboten.'

      Now, none of us are in the heads of the Apple folks behind this decision, so we can't say for certain whether the sudden shift is due to the EFF's claims, or Crackulous, or maybe just random whim or signs read in tea leaves in the Apple cafeteria. But the timing and sudden nature of Apple's shift here does make a connection to the Crackulous brouhaha at the least a strong possibility.

      --
      --Rachel
    11. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Did you know that if you form a business partnership without an agreement it defaults to a canned thing under the Uniform Partnership Act. So you can make your own agreement or default to the one the law already has. There are tons of contracts that you have to deal with on a daily basis that don't involve lawyers and negotiations and such. The only real requirement is that both parties agree, and read it or not, clicking agree means that you agree. If you recieve a service somewhere, such as a doctor, mechanic, etc, and then refuse to pay you can be sued for breach of contract because it was an implied contract.

      Business classes or Law classes would help you understand that sales neither walk nor quack and will go a long way to clarifying how businesses interact. Like it or not, they are selling licenses and it is perfectly legal. The only times it really has gotten beaten up is when they try to add illegal crap to the license (such as removing First Sale) and trying to prevent me from selling my license to someone else when I don't need it. (See AutoCad)

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    12. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by jaavaaguru · · Score: 5, Funny

      A computer program isn't like a chair

      Yes it is...
      Microsoft uses both of them to make people feel pain

  15. Re:And so it begins by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Begins!? Apple is the only major vendor to have been actively boycotted by the FSF for their efforts to obstruct freedom, force lock-in and undermine competition. Even Microsoft[*] hasn't managed to reach that high water mark. Of course, Apple has come a long way since then, and many of our younger readers may not even remember what they were like at their worst. ("Look-and-Feel" anyone?) Still, those of us who remember the bad old Apple keep a wary eye on the new-and-(mostly-)improved Apple.

    [*] FSF members may not run MS OSes, but they do actively support building software to run under MS OSes, and will even accept patches to help their software run better on MS OSes.

  16. Is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple is about one thing: control.

  17. Mac World by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've always been a PC at heart.

    Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.

    I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.

    Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer... In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.

    As I walked on among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.

    Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.

  18. Are you kidding? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft has never been as litigious as Apple. Apple may make vastly overwhelmingly superior products to MS, but they have also always been more evil.

    The only way Apple can become the new Microsoft, is if they stop suing people so much, and also make their stuff crash a lot more often. As things are right now, there's just no comparison. The two companies' suckiness are totally different.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  19. Re:And so it begins by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple has long been far WORSE than MS. The difference, of course, is that your life is extremely unlikely to be impacted by avoiding Apple's products.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  20. That's an oversimplification.. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's just how big companies operate.

    That's actually not true at all. Corporations are collections of people, and within them are coalitions and constituencies just like any other institution. Quite often, you'll have someone that wants a corporation to do something simply because they think it is cool and they really don't care about the profitability or business climate of it. They must justify some action in that regard, to cover their rears, but their mental game has already made the leap that they want to do something with the corporation just because they think it is cool.

    So, when a company builds a school somewhere, sponsors a race, hires a speaker who climbed mt everest, invests in some wild technology, or any of the other things that corporations do, they do it because they think it is cool, and then they cover their rears to the shareholders and directors by inventing some elliptical story about profitability.

    In fact, to many of the world's top business leaders, the whole point of the corporation is to exist to provide some social order and some revenue so that it can fund the private ambitions of its leaders. I mean, come on, do you really think if IBM funds something like a big art exhibit, they really sincerely think that doing so will yield a return? No, they do it because the board of IBM likes art, and that's that.

    It's good to be a CEO.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:That's an oversimplification.. by citylivin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "the whole point of the corporation is to exist to provide some social order and some revenue so that it can fund the private ambitions of its leaders."

      What a laugh. I havent met a CEO yet who didn't think he was improving / changing the world. CEOs are some of the most deluded people you could support/work with (followed closely by dentists). Of course they think they are a maverick leader who will bring change to the world, and hey, if their pockets get lined on the way, so much the better! The private ambitions of a corporations leaders is to make money for themselves. When they get more money than they can spend, and plenty of revenue streams and projects to fund their future (otherwise known as "security") then of course they start doing crazy things to blow the companies/their money.

      Still does not mean they are being altruistic, they just have more money than they know really what to do with.

      Id much rather have the profits from all these large corporations redistributed equally to all the workers. I think the masses are much more altruistic as a whole than individual ceos, or even their combined board.

      Bottom line, they give more because they have more. They fund crazy things because they have more "crazy" disposable income than anyone else. Of course it is good to be a CEO, for the CEO...

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  21. Re:And so it begins by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know slashdot hivemind loves to hate apple and I myself am not a fan of this whole iphone lock-in crap (I won't buy one just because they make you sign a $70/mo. contract with AT&T & they won't let you officially tether it), but just to make this discussion a little more even-handed, I'll point out a couple of cases where Apple has "played nice" with open source.

    Exhibit A: CUPS. Apple owns it. Nothing bad has happened. In fact it has worked so well that I've been using free gutenberg printer drivers for a laser printer that Apple stopped supporting in Leopard. Works fine.
    Exhibit B: Webkit. Apple forked khtml and now there are several browsers for windows, linux browsers are based off it. Nothing bad has happened, and I think we can all agree that webkit is a darn fast browser engine.
    Exhibit C: Darwin is open source. That's right, the OS X operating system is open source and released by Apple. Granted, the window manager (quartz) is not, nor are a lot of the apps (like the Finder), but you can always use X11, which btw, apple provides also.

    So, it's a little disingenuous to portray Apple as completely proprietary: How many open source projects does Microsoft participate in? Yes I agree that Apple does try to lock you into their hardware, and that sucks, but they're not being completely evil.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  22. New Apple ad... by Torodung · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Want to get sued? There's an app for that."

    --
    Toro }B^>

  23. Re:Jail by hobbit · · Score: 4, Informative

    The term "jailbreaking" comes from the term "chroot jail". It's not just pejorative nonsense like "piracy".

    --
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  24. No More Cowbell by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look, it's very simple.

    Saying that jail-breaking an iPhone is a violation of the DMCA, is the same thing as claiming that if I own a Blue Oyster Cult mp3, and edit the file to add even MORE COWBELL, I would be committing a DMCA violation.

  25. Re:And so it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much of Apple's webkit enhancements are now proprietary and not submitted back. ⦠Further, the little they do submit back has given them leverage to control the package against public interest: I.e. Webkit rejected support for Ogg/Theora+Vorbis citing Apple. (Apple is a holder of MPEG LA licensed patents).

    Go check the gcc mailing list archives. No apple employee is permitted to come in contact with any GPLv3 licensed source code, they had to unsubscribe from GCC-patches mailing lists and have requests people not send patches to the main gcc mailing list.

    Apple is an exploiter of free software. Sometimes giving back is in their interest, but don't let that mislead you into thinking that they are a supporter.

  26. Re:And so it begins by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still remember well the 'special' tools required to open a Mac's case.

  27. you're referring to Declaration of Acquiescence? by vaporland · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just because you don't agree with elected government officials doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes and push the cost onto other citizens under some retarded form of social protest. By living in the country, you are accepting the whole package, including agreeing paying taxes, regardless of who is elected.

    It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't agree with this line of thinking, or we'd all be having tea and cookies at 3pm, and paying a hell of a tax on it.

    It takes guts to live outside a corrupt system. I did it for a while, now I am just Joe Taxpayer. I do respect the LW though for LIVING his principles, not just yakking about them.

    Last time I read the Declaration of Independence, I didn't recall seeing anything called retarded ... social protest - they do mention inalienable rights though. Maybe you're referring to the Declaration of Acquiescence?

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!