Apple Backs Off DMCA Threats Against Wiki

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Backs Off DMCA Threats Against Wiki

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday July 23, 2009 @01:34AM from the red-light-green-light dept.

netbuzz writes "A wiki operator who was pressured by Apple's legal team into removing anonymous discussions about circumventing the company's music-playback software for iPods and iPhones says he is relieved that Apple has backed off and he'll be able to restore the disputed material. Apple dropped its claims of copyright and DMCA violation against BluWiki only under legal pressure of its own in the form of a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."

143 comments

Without a Care for the Consumer by eldavojohn · 2009-07-23 01:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

In November 2008, Apple sent a series of legal threats to the operator of BluWiki, alleging that these hobbyist discussions about interoperability ...

Right because we wouldn't want hobbyists out there devoting their free time to making a hardware device more supported, interoperable, functional, etc. That would be horrible. It's funny how my operating system of choice was created from just that.

You know, I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here? Because if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase. Sure people might not be using my software that goes with the hardware but who cares? Sales of these devices can go nowhere but up. All I can think of relating this to is game consoles. Which--up until the PS3 & Yellow Dog Linux--they have been very wary of people using for alternative purposes for the sole reason that pricing schemes have long involved a loss on the console with massive profits raked in on licensing titles to the console. So you don't want your XBox360 turned into a Linux server never to play a game again or Microsoft just took a loss (not sure if they still take losses on that console, just an example).

So what's up, is Apple selling iPods at a loss with the expected return being iTunes Music Service sales? Or even the monetary value they assign to having iTunes and Quicktime on the consumer's computer?

If a hobbyist or start up company or anyone figures out a way to utilize iPod hardware in new ways, don't consumers have a right to purchase/use this? I don't recall signing a contract when I bought my iPod shuffle. And, as a consumer, I will state that the more functionality the better. This is why I hate that Apple bullies people out of using their iPods with different software and stops hardware makers from integrating with iTunes directly. It's borderline monopolistic in the same way IE was bundled with Windows.

... discussions about circumventing the company's music-playback software for iPods and iPhones ...
After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented. But from Apple's latest letter:

As you know, Apple's objection about the "iTunesDB Pages" (as referenced in your complaint in this matter), sent to OdioWorks over seven months ago, centered on the publication of certain Apple code on those Pages. Since that time, Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone.
So I am to believe that there was a potential exploit in the Apple code that the wiki pages talked about exploiting and Apple has since removed/patched that code to be non-exploitable? I don't think Apple backed down, I think they just stopped discussion until they could render the exploit a non-issue.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by 91degrees · 2009-07-23 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented.
  
  IIRC, Apple accused them of discussing how to circumvent the Fairplay system (This can be confirmed easily). BluWiki claimed they were only discussing software to communicate with the iPod for transferring music, not for circumventing the encryption. The wiki pages haven't been restored yet so we can only take their word for it here. Apple seem to have changed their story and now claim they only objected to decompiled code.
  
  Not sure about the rights and wrongs of it but it looks like Apple have decided to backpedal based on the bad PR from a case that they most likely can't win, and are changing their story to make it look like they haven't lost.
2. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by Late+Adopter · 2009-07-23 02:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You know, I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here?
  Apple's motive is to sell you The Experience, not a piece of software or hardware. Anyone other than Apple who interoperates with Apple products aside from a tightly controlled few avenues (a few open communication standards and their SDKs), is going to be seen as a threat to that.
  
  They want to be able to sell you their vision and their experience, and anyone who deviates from that while piggybacking off their products is going to be seen as a threat. They could be worried about sub-par experiences tarnishing their name, and they could be worried about excellent experiences that they could be making every cent of the money from. But mostly they're worried about people being different, not buying into their vision. Then they can't sell you the next revision of the next product that integrates seamlessly into your digital lifestyle of Apple products.
  
  So they'll bring down every tool they have to fight you, legal and otherwise, because this is the core of their business, and they view it as the thing worth most defending.
3. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by commodore64_love · 2009-07-23 02:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >>>I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here?
  Same motive that leads Apple to lock-up its Macintosh hardware. Apple is afraid they might end-up like IBM, who lost control of their PC invention and was undersold by the clones. IBM was lucky that it had lots of other businesses and didn't need the PC to survive, but Apple without the Mac or iPhone or iPod business would probably go bankrupt. Apple doesn't want to join the ranks of Atari or Commodore.
  So they stringently enforce control over their hardware, to prevent potential loss of business to clones.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
4. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by db32 · 2009-07-23 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I am going to go with zealous lawyers. That whole thing about malice vs stupidity. Apple is hardly alone in that boat. There have been quite a few DMCA and GPL type lawsuits that basically came from fanatic lawyers that probably don't know anything more about technology than how to push the power button on their computer. (And then call the tech guy because it didn't boot up and have him come to their office and push the power on the monitor too).
  
  I view the heart of the problem here is asshats like Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens are being allowed to make the laws regarding technology with absolutely NO working knowledge of the subject they are legislating. To blame the companies for trying to use the laws that these idiots passed isn't exactly fair. Now, that doesn't mean these companies are innocent isn't true either, but now we are back to the malice vs stupidity problem.
  
  Now, Apple does have a pretty nasty history of being very secretive about their stuff and locking people out. However, even this goes beyond sinister. As a company they are VERY focused on the whole "user experience" thing. They have huge design documents and enforce these design rules pretty strictly. Forcing all of your users to play in a well defined sandbox lowers your support costs dramatically. You can have your support staff much smaller, much better trained, and ultimately much more effective because the number of bizarro variables they have to face is drastically reduced. Almost the entire Apple brand is built around that "simply works" image and regardless of whether you agree with their tactics, they defend that "simply works" viciously.
  
  There is also the stupid bits of the American legal system that says they must defend their patents/trademarks/etc or lose them. So it puts these companies in the position of fight everyone or lose their assets. They can't really "look the other way" because it would allow a competitor to come in and eat their lunch and then go to court and say "they didn't defend against this guy, so they can't stop us!"
  
  --
  The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
5. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by burnin1965 · 2009-07-23 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  what's Apple's motive here? Because if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase. Sure people might not be using my software that goes with the hardware but who cares?
  The motive is greed, the objective is monopoly control.
  Apple makes money off more than just hardware, they make a killing off software and services as well. It is no secret that many businesses in the United States utilize ethically questionable and often times out right illegal business tactics to establish and maintain monopolies that provide an opportunity for the business to control the market prices of their products rather than the other way around.
  None of this is new and Federal legislation was passed to provide the Justice Department with the means to stop this type of activity, note the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. Unfortunately there seems to have been a shift in the thinking in the Executive branch and the Department of Justice as one of the most recent and significant cases, the DOJ case against Microsoft, resulted in a slap on the wrist and business as usual to this day.
6. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by hamburgler007 · 2009-07-23 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I basically agree with most of what you said, except for:
  
  Sure people might not be using my software that goes with the hardware but who cares?
  
  Apple makes a ton of money through itunes and the music/software sold there.
7. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by wall0159 · 2009-07-23 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...and I think that's really shitty. It's like MS could use their strong OS position to force out all other browsers, search-engines and office suites, because they have a "vision" of how we should use the internet and word-processor.
8. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 03:25 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  There is also the stupid bits of the American legal system that says they must defend their patents/trademarks/etc or lose them.
  This is both wrong and irrelevant. Only trademarks have to be defended or lost, and trademarks are not involved in this case. Patents, copyrights etc. can be defended selectively or not at all without losing them. Also this case appears to entirly a DMCA case, i.e. about circumventing copy protection measures - no patents or (Apple) copyrights involved.
9. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  The answer seems pretty obvious. Apple was only able to arrange the one-stop music store that is iTunes Music Store by negotiating with record labels and accepting their demand to use DRM. After a few years, and at various times, the record companies relented and allowed iTunes to sell music without DRM.
  Whilst DRM was still being used, it made sense and was perfectly reasonable to fight people trying to hack the iPod via the DMCA. The Apple legal department clearly had standing orders to do that.
  But once music stopped being sold with DRM, it then became pointless to fight the hackery. The DMCA is not relevant where media files are unprotected by technology.
10. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by 91degrees · 2009-07-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  iTunes the application is distinct from the iTunes media store (although I gather it can be used to access it).
11. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 04:02 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The difference is that Apple's visions are well designed, seamless experiences. Microsoft's visions have always been piles of excrement.
  As to the basic thrust of not interoperating with others, this is not generally true. Apple's products conform to all sorts of official standards for interoperability.
12. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by Serenissima · 2009-07-23 04:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think it's even simpler than selling Apple's vision. It's money, plain and simple. The reason they're up in arms about it is because of the iTunes Store. Any way to open up the usability of iPod is a way for them to lose revenue on the sales of movies, tv shows, and music from the iTunes store. Sure, they make money selling iPods; but the real reason to sell iPods, and Video iPods, isn't just to sell more iPods than Zunes. It is so that they can get millions of dollars of residual sales from the iTunes Store. THAT'S why they're against opening up the iPod. They lose all that extra money if there's an easy way for people to jailbreak their iPods so they don't have to come to Apple to buy media to fill the iPods.
  
  --
  Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
13. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  It seems to me that Apple's business model is a whole lot more complicated than "sell more hardware"... further, I guesstimate that their revenue is almost completely from services, and their hardware profits are becoming so irrelevant that soon the hardware will be free because they make more money by people buying $1 apps then they do by making them buy the hardware first. I spent 10 minutes looking for the source blog of this idea but couldn't find it, I'm pretty sure Seth Godin talked about it though.
14. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by js_sebastian · 2009-07-23 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Whilst DRM was still being used, it made sense and was perfectly reasonable to fight people trying to hack the iPod via the DMCA. The Apple legal department clearly had standing orders to do that.
  But once music stopped being sold with DRM, it then became pointless to fight the hackery. The DMCA is not relevant where media files are unprotected by technology.
  Really? then why did ipods starting with the iPod touch (which AFAIRecall came out when DRM on the iTunes store was already dying out) use a hash of the database to make it harder for 3rd party software to load music files into the iPod? Notice that this is about ADDING files, not about copying them out, so it has nothing at all to do with piracy.
  
  I would say exactly the opposite: the hash was added so that apple could keep the ipod tied to the itunes store even once DRM was out of the picture, by using a technical measure (the hash itself) and suing people implementing interoperable software based on the DMCA and a bogus claim that said hash was an "effective protection measure". The only thing I can conclude from TFS is that they were hoping not to encounter legal resistance from amateur hackers, and were proven wrong thanks to the EFF.
15. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Really? then why did ipods starting with the iPod touch (which AFAIRecall came out when DRM on the iTunes store was already dying out) use a hash of the database to make it harder for 3rd party software to load music files into the iPod?
  The iPod touch was launched mid 2007. Apple's announcement that standard downloads from the iTunes store would be without DRM didn't happen until January 2009. There was no way this was agreed upon with the record labels when iPod Touch was being developed. It's an entire generation and a half before that time.
16. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by mdwh2 · 2009-07-23 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Although Commodore didn't go bust because they lost control over the Amiga - in fact, they were probably too controlling of it. (They did however also produce PCs, which probably didn't help their business.)
17. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by marcansoft · 2009-07-23 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  The Wiki pages were about getting ANY music to play at all on a device without using iTunes. They had nothing to do with DRM; it's a separate crypto hash that Apple added to their iTunesDB files for the sole purpose of locking out third party syncing apps. Apple's FairPlay claims stem from the fact that the latest versions are obfuscated using the same obfuscator used for FairPlay and there may or may not be some code shared between the DRM scheme and the hashing scheme.
18. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by mjwx · 2009-07-23 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  So what's up, is Apple selling iPods at a loss with the expected return being iTunes Music Service sales?
  Nope, the ipod is already more expensive then more complex MP3 players. The Cowon iaudio S9 (32GB) is A$100 cheaper then the Ipod Touch 2nd Generation (32 GB). Cowon does not have a music store to derive profits from so they need to make a profit on the device, but to be fair so does Apple as they get pennies to the pound on each song sale on itunes.
  
  Whats going on here is Apple's trademark control. Sony doesn't care that much what you do with the PS3, Even MS doesn't care that much about the XBox even though their taking a loss on each console sold. When we get to products they make a profit on there is even more indifference, MS doesn't care what I do with Windows and Office so long as I paid for them.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
19. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by metaforest · 2009-07-23 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Apple almost did lose their a$$ to the clone manufacturers. Do you remember the licensed clones? Every last one of the licensees did EXACTLY what they promised Apple they would not do.... and that was cannibalize the top and bottom of the market with poorly made over-clocked low priced crap.
  When Apple tried gamely to compete we got the worst machines Apple has built since the Lisa and Apple /// hit the shelves.
  Apple only survived by yanking all the license agreements, thus sending the clone makers back to the PC market.
20. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by db32 · 2009-07-24 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't irrelevant because my whole point is that our legal system is totally hosed in dealing with this kind of crap. This case is specifically DMCA, but I also was bringing up the other issues that were not specifically DMCA related. This was about the general problem, not the specific case.
  
  Also, to say it is wrong is not entirely true. However I was being lazy and didn't make a completely accurate statement. Trademarks are specifically in that forced defense mode or you lose them. The other pieces have other forces "forcing" you to defend them. Shareholders are a good example. There is a whole bunch of stuff that companies must do to keep shareholders happy. Unfortunately "happy" is more important than "best for them". Unhappy shareholders can oust leadership and replace them with guys that do what they want even if it is self destructive crap that only works for short term gains. There is also the problem of getting into the legal battles. You may not lose your patent, but if you are selectively enforcing without pursuing agreements you are going to have a much harder time in a court battle.
  
  Either way...the entire problem comes mostly from a very broken set of laws regarding technology and "intellectual property". Businesses have to play the game according to the rules in place, not according to the rules that should be. In many cases they go overboard, and that is usually zealous lawyers selling stupid ideas to leadership that doesn't understand the problem. However, the root cause is still stupid ass laws signed by stupid or bought legislators.
  
  --
  The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
if a collusion could be seen by nimbius · 2009-07-23 01:47 · Score: 0, Offtopic

more frequently between marketing and legal, im certain random DMCA lawsuits against high profile social services like wikipedia that stand for the common good would never see the light of day.

its like the legal arm of apple is some sort of Gestapo, a silent and deadly KGB willing to erase anyone who crosses party lines or speak future truths before the mighty apple legion makes them known.

alright, maybe im getting a touch fanatical. but the first rule of the computing system for fun and easy of use cant be modelled after fight club.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:if a collusion could be seen by Jedi+Alec · 2009-07-23 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  more frequently between marketing and legal, im certain random DMCA lawsuits against high profile social services like wikipedia that stand for the common good would never see the light of day.
  Yes...because marketing people are the last bastion of hope and common sense in a world otherwise gone mad... :P
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Control fetish by siloko · 2009-07-23 01:47 · Score: 1

Two things:

First, this is what you get when the lawyers hold sway over the techies and visionaries.

Second, why o why don't modern companies just stfu with their legal hollering and get on with making products? If they make good products customers will come flocking and that in and of itself secures brand loyalty.
1. Re:Control fetish by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Third:
  
  Fucking Apple... how can you not hate this self serving, pissing-in-the-face-of-every-consumer company?
  
  Don't get me wrong, I hate all companies. Some more, some less. Not because I'm bitter, but because only idiots are unaware of the fundamental concepts of trade. It's a battle between the seller and buyer, and only an idiot consumer sides with the seller. The consumer, aka buyer, is supposed to pressure the seller to lower prices and increase quality and terms. The whole point of trading is to make profit, and of course not always in monetary means.
2. Re:Control fetish by Chyeld · 2009-07-23 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Chief, this has nothing to do with lawyers taking over a company. Anyone who has ANY knowledge of Apple's history, especially under Steve Jobs, knows the man and the company he drives has a hard on for absolute control over their devices.
  If Steve could find a way to make it profitable, he'd officially stop selling hardware and start leasing.
3. Re:Control fetish by interkin3tic · 2009-07-23 03:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  First, this is what you get when the lawyers hold sway over the techies and visionaries.
  Sounds to me more like a legal department that is granted too much independence. "Defend our property, I'm assuming because we pay you so much that you know what's reasonable and what should warrant a lawsuit."
  I often find that I'm naive when I assume things about companies though.
  
  Second, why o why don't modern companies just stfu with their legal hollering and get on with making products? If they make good products customers will come flocking and that in and of itself secures brand loyalty.
  It's more than just lawsuits. DRM is of course another example of companies foolishly wasting more effort trying to maximize profit than they do making things that are actually profitable.
  If you're spend X dollars developing a product and then spend 2X dollars making sure you get all the money you can out of selling it, you need to be sure you couldn't have made even more money in the long term by spending that 2X$ on another product. Do companies actually do that ever? I don't work at any of them, but it doesn't seem like they do.
4. Re:Control fetish by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 03:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  He's the CEO of a corporation. He makes decisions that he sees as the profitable ones. That's what CEOs are supposed to do. If CEOs didn't have that instinct then none of us would have any sort of cheap hardware to run our choice of OS and software on.
5. Re:Control fetish by Chyeld · 2009-07-23 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And he's also a human with a personality, which influences those decisions based on his world view, likes, dislikes, and etc.
  He could just as easily make money hand over fist if he loosen his death-like grip over Apple products and allowed others to play. Licensing money is 'easy' money. He doesn't because he has a control fetish.
6. Re:Control fetish by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 04:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  He could just as easily make money hand over fist if he loosen his death-like grip over Apple products and allowed others to play.
  Plenty of people and companies "play". There are countless products and open source projects that interoperate with Apple products.
  The particular niches which Apple tries hard to defend are a tiny proportion, and all have sound business reasons. So yes, it really is about making profit, not character flaws.
7. Re:Control fetish by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  The whole point of trading is to make profit, and of course not always in monetary means.
  No, the point of trading is to exchange things you don't want/need for things you do want/need.
8. Re:Control fetish by mdwh2 · 2009-07-23 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is a common Apple defence, and of course what you say is true - but it makes no sense as a defence.
  Consider, when there's a Microsoft story about them doing something bad, imagine people crawling out of the woodwork to say "But they're a corporation, all they're doing is making decisions to make as much profit as possible, and screw over consumers and their competitors. What's wrong with that? If companies didn't do that, you wouldn't have cheap hardware to run your choice of OS and software. So you should be thankful to Microsoft for screwing you over." No, I don't think that would make people change their minds about Microsoft. So why is it different for Apple?
9. Re:Control fetish by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a defence. It's just pointing out the concept that some parts of apple products aren't open because Steve Jobs is a control freak is missing the real reason. i.e.
  3. ...
  4. Profit.
10. Re:Control fetish by HiThere · 2009-07-23 12:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As an ex-Apple advocate, I disagree. They want control for the sake of control. They're limited in what they can do because they also want to remain profitable.
  I supported Apple over MS within the company I worked for for decades...but when it came time that people were willing to listen, I'd switched to supporting Linux. So the company went to Linux. And it's because Apple made things too difficult if you wanted to do something that wasn't what Apple had in mind.
  (My personal switch to Linux was because I could run Linux on the same hardware I had been running MSWind on. I dual booted for 2-3 years. But at that time I'd have supported Apple for anyone who wasn't a real techie. During that time Apple changed their EULAs to the point that I considered them no better than MS. Apple has fewer viruses, but MS was cheaper [in every sense of the word].)
  Now... now I can't think of a purpose for which I'd recommend either MS or Apple. It's largely due to legal agreements, and partially due to technical restrictions. And, of course, price is also a factor. Linux is lots cheaper when you start counting in the cost of ancillary applications.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
11. Re:Control fetish by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has fewer viruses, but MS was cheaper [in every sense of the word].)
  Clearly not in the battling viruses sense of the word. Not other support costs come to that.
12. Re:Control fetish by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2009-07-23 14:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's a battle between the seller and buyer, and only an idiot consumer sides with the seller.
  That's elementary, theoretical concepts of trade. In the real world, all out war between sellers and buyers results in less profits for sellers, and less goods for buyers. Trust is an important part of trade, and without it, sellers won't be able to offload their goods, and buyers won't feel confident in forking over their cash. There is real incentive for being conservative in business, and actually giving customers what they want. The same goes, to a much lesser extent, for buyers; if they rock the boat too much, or demand prices that are too low, then sellers will sell to someone else, or if every seller does it, they'll find some other way to make money.
  That's not to say we should all like companies, or that we should always blindly give them the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't usually hurt to prefer one company over the other, and build some basic trust relationship with them. One example I'm sure we're all aware of is our ISPs, who we trust to provide us internet services.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
13. Re:Control fetish by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2009-07-23 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  A message to all Slashdotters:
  Unless you work high up in Apple, chances are, you don't know what business decisions are most profitable.
  That is all.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Apple is the new Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

>> Right because we wouldn't want hobbyists out there devoting their free time to making a hardware device more supported, interoperable, functional, etc. That would be horrible. It's funny how my operating system of choice was created from just that.

In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft. I am sure this will be moded down very soon, but since the time Apple has hit jackpot with ipod/iphone, they have shown their true colors.
1. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by jpmorgan · 2009-07-23 02:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, they really are. In the past 5-10 years, Apple has risen to a staggering level of popularity, but what has been the end result? More lock-in, more bullying. I think it's important to put this in perspective- Apple eventually dropped their lock-in DRM from the iTMS (but not until more than a year after some of their competitors, like Amazon), and they replaced it with encrypted iPod indexes and legal abuse like this. I understand why they're popular amongst certain groups, but to me they just seem so opposed to the hacker/geek ethos that used to be the rule at places like Slashdot.
2. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Nyxeh · 2009-07-23 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Your not alone! http://piestar.net/2009/07/16/apple-the-new-microsoft/
3. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by commodore64_love · 2009-07-23 02:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  >>>In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft
  No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
  As for the DMCA Notice:
  I wouldn't be happy, but I would look at it as an opportunity. First it's a chance to refuse to comply and stand-up for my second basic right of free speech (with the most basic right being ownership of my body and my mouth). Second I've never been inside a courtroom, so it would be a new and exciting experience (life is dull). And third given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years), I could earn a law degree. My thesis would be about my self and my case.
  Okay I'm just joking on that last bit.
  But I'd still look at the notice as an opportunity not a tragedy. Court cases are how you change legal interpretation for the better. Example: The guy who was sued by a local mall because he owned a website that provided mall information *prior* to the mall's existence. The mall called it cybersquatting, but the U.S. Supreme Court called it free speech. The interpretation of the law was changed in the favor of the average citizen.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
4. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by pizzach · 2009-07-23 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  And Apple is getting lambasted sometimes for the wrong reasons just like MS now. Go figure.
  
  I think it's important to put this in perspective- Apple eventually dropped their lock-in DRM from the iTMS (but not until more than a year after some of their competitors, like Amazon)
  That is because they were fighting to keep the $1.00 price for all their songs while the record industry wanted tiered pricing. Apparently Apple lost that negotiation in the end...not that you noticed.
  For the other Apple related topics...
  
  You know Pre did what they did for the publicity. Palm is not stupid.
  Developers also know that Apple frequently breaks unofficial APIs. Even Palm devs. This hasn't changed for more than a decade.
  Do you think it's better for the Pre to have it's compatibility broken earlier, or later when there is a huge install base?
  Fixing a TIFF exploit that let users jailbreak (and maybe alternatively get a virus from a webpage) is a major hole. What did you expect them to do? Try to write around the jailbreak code to make sure it works?
  Yes, Apple is overly controlling and I personally don't own anything Apple. They should have an API for syncing with iTunes etc. But at least try to keep your comments in perspective please. It doesn't help anyone. Thank you.
  --
  Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
5. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by jpmorgan · 2009-07-23 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Huh? I never mentioned the Pre, which 90% of your comment is about. As for jailbreaking... that's the point. You shouldn't HAVE to rely on a security flaw to do what you want with a phone you own. Apple can even keep their draconian marketplace rules if they want, they just need to let people install apps without going through the app store. This is what Windows Mobile does, and you know what? When your platform is significantly less open than Windows Mobile, you're doing something very wrong.
  
  As it stands Apple won't even allow a C64 emulator because that could let you run C64 games for the iPhone they haven't approved of you playing. WTF? Seriously, what argument is there for that other than Apple being obsessive control freaks?
6. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2009-07-23 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  ...but what has been the end result? More lock-in, more bullying.
  Just as much lock-in, but spread over a larger population.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
7. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mcgrew · 2009-07-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Second I've never been inside a courtroom, so it would be a new and exciting experience (life is dull).
  I've been in one, and my life is FAR from dull. Here are some of my court experiences from back in 2003-4:
  I'm getting a final divorce decree for Christmas!
  At the bar... no, not THAT bar
  Evil always wins
  Stay our of courtrooms unless you absolutely have to be there!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
8. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Locklin · 2009-07-23 03:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You really thought Apple wasn't all about lock-in? Apple is the last vestige of the old proprietary hardware + software-stack business model that MS "rescued" us from in the 80's. Ever since DOS/PC, we have had Free hardware, a necessary step to Free software. Apple has always been a step backwards in Freedom.
  (yeah, I see the gross oversimplifications above, but the message is the same)
  
  --
  "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
9. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Bigjeff5 · 2009-07-23 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years)...
  They only last that long if you have the money or support to fight that long. Typically a long, drug out court case lasts a few months at the most. Most court cases last a week or two, with maybe a month or two of prep time before going to court.
  It's the right to a speedy trial in the constitution, they try to move people through the courts as fast as they can so the world doesn't end when someone requests a speedy trial. It's only when you've got cash to spend and the issue is muddy enough that a decision can't be reached quickly that a trial goes on for years.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
10. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's not Apple's decision whether there is DRM on the music files. The record labels decide. The record labels started with the smaller stores because:
  a) They wanted to experiment. And it's better to start small when you're experimenting.
  b) They wanted to negotiate tiered pricing to go with the DRMless music. Apple resisted this longer than other stores because a single price for all songs is a clearer message for consumer.
  Any citation for them REPLACING unencrypted indexes with encrypted ones? And the legal action seems to be dating from old DRM times and has now been dropped. Rather than being a new thing being introduced, it's an old thing that has been dropped.
11. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 03:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  When your platform is significantly less open than Windows Mobile, you're doing something very wrong.
  
  Sales figures for iPhone are 600% up on the year ago quarter. That seems to indicate they are doing something very right, given that they're a business, not a club for hackers.
12. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by DWIM · 2009-07-23 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >>>In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft
  No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
  And how does that equate to "No?" What you described is the behavior MS engaged in and have been condemned for.
13. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Oh man nothing new... I realized that MS is not being beat up by consumers (and lawsuits)... Hopefully the same (and more severe) will happen to apple. Also I am tired of their i-Fucking-Crap stuff as are so many ppl.
14. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by tomtomtom · 2009-07-23 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sales figures for iPhone are 600% up on the year ago quarter. That seems to indicate they are doing something very right, given that they're a business, not a club for hackers.
  How sustainable is that though? At the moment, Apple have the advantage because people don't realise you can put "apps" on other phone models and noone else has a simple "store" for them.
  When (not if) that changes, their stupid approval model for apps will ensure that developers focus their efforts elsewhere.
15. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by babblefrog · 2009-07-23 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  By that measure, Microsoft is doing everything even more right, since they own the desktop OS market.
  I think we are using differing definitions of 'right', here.
16. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  >> For the other Apple related topics...
  >> ... Pre ...
  >> ... Pre ...
  >> ... Pre ...
  umm....
  
  >> But at least try to keep your comments in perspective please.
  
  Sure...
17. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >> Sales figures ....
  
  I am sure you believe Briney Spears is one of the best singers ever!
  
  Who is arguing they have the best selling music players and best selling phones? We are not debating popularity here. We are debating behavior of the company.
18. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 05:35 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  umm.. then, Amazon must have sold DRM-ed digital music before they came up with free digital music, right?
19. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by sbeckstead · 2009-07-23 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft was doing illegal things to ensure, they owned the desktop OS market.
  
  There fixed that for ya!
  
  --
  Why bother
20. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by carou · 2009-07-23 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Apple eventually dropped their lock-in DRM from the iTMS (but not until more than a year after some of their competitors, like Amazon),
  Not really true.
  Apple was the first legal download service to feature major-label music DRM-free. "iTunes +" was introduced with the EMI catalogue in May 2007. Amazon's MP3 store launched in September 2007, and it wasn't until 2008 that they got all the major labels on board.
  Perhaps you are referring to April 2009, at which time DRM had been removed from the entire iTMS catalogue. Yes, there was a delay here (maybe it was Apple's fault, maybe the music companies were being awkward? We might never know) but your empasis of this milestone over the introducion of iTunes plus is misleading in the extreme. There is no question that Apple led the way with DRM-free downloads from significant artists. If it were not for their successful experiment with EMI, it is barely conceivable that the major record labels would have licensed DRM-free downloads to anybody else.
21. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Nossie · 2009-07-23 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Amazon must have been in negotiations for DRM-ed digital music before they came up with a deal to screw apple and free digital music"
  There, fixed that for you.
22. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Gilmoure · 2009-07-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  My what is not alone? My winkie? I mean, sure, my wife's near by but not that close.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
23. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Lars+T. · 2009-07-23 08:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Gee, posting such an obvious Kharmawhore as an AC - hey, if the mods want to waste their points...
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
24. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Lars+T. · 2009-07-23 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Apple sold non-DRMed music long before Amazon did.
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
25. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Repossessed · 2009-07-23 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  No Apple is the old MS. Hell, Microsoft pretty much rescued us from Apple and the others like it.
  
  --
  Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
26. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, so your assumption is a fact now? All I know is that they did not sell DRM-ed music.
27. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  And when did I say they did not?
28. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Remember it's not enough for another company to be as good as Apple's App Store. They'd actually have to be significantly better to change people's loyalties. There's no sign of that. And Apple hasn't stopped improving their platform yet, so that leapfrogging will be hard to do.
  Ref: 1001 "iPod killers" that have been heralded in the tech press and slashdot. Not a single one has managed to take significant market share from the iPod, let alone over take it.
29. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Read again. Microsoft is doing *SOMETHING* right is the extension, not everything. And sure, when they were gaining market share they were, it didn't just happen. However now, Microsoft is losing market share in most or all markets.
30. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, again by logical extension of what I said one can only say that she's doing something right. Not necessarily singing.
31. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Draek · 2009-07-23 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, if that trend continues there'll be more iPhones than human beings in less than a decade!
  Lies, damn lies, and all that.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
32. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  So, in your opinion, 'right' means making shitload of money. Closed/open/lock-in/lawsuits/suicide/secrecy does not figure at all in that. And that's the reason I mentioned singing, and not making money.
33. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Use Google to look up the S shaped technology adoption curve. Stadard stuff. There's no lies here, iPhone DID increase sales by 600% over last years quarter. Technologies that are heading for market leadership do tend to perform like that.
34. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  No. I'm saying quite clearly that making shotloads of money only happens when you do something right. Where "right" means playing the game well, not some kind of arbitrary moral judgement.
35. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 10:32 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The same thing they always do? Move on once the technology becomes ubiquitous, and develop more boundary-breaking, bleeding-edge devices and services? Just look: the iMac colors (which happened right after Steve got back in the driver's seat in the 90's), which were originally...original, and then became more and more ubiquitous (remember the many colors of the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube?). So after colors became useful, they decided to shift to glossy white iPods and laptops, which people then copied (what color is the Wii and certain Sony laptops?). So, then they shifted to multiple colors of iPod nanos. And then the iPod Touch and iPhone came out and its totally white, metallic, and black. And now have you seen the many iPhone knockoffs from LG?
  Tons of people had mp3 players, and then Apple came out with one that didn't use WMP's shitty syncronization software and actually worked, worked well, and was easy to operate for complete dipshits. And it sold. But then Microsoft tried to shoehorn itself into the market with the Zune, so Apple took it up a notch and came out with the iPod Touch and iPhone, and the app store. Does the Zune have a similar store? Nope (or it sucks a hell of a lot more). Did the Zune have sync software that worked? Nope, it used WMP's still shitty sync with extra sparkles but didn't actually sync (happened to two of my friends who bought Zunes, I've never had a problem with my iPod, which is 3 years old and the only Apple product I have).
  So what do I think Apple is going to do with their next iteration? I have no fucking clue.* It may not be big and ground-breaking for awhile, but they will eventually come out with something that is. It's what Apple does. It's called competition, and while you may run from it, keep in mind there are plenty of other people jumping at the bit to take your place in line for iPhones on the day of release (not me though...college...no money, etc.).
  * Actually, I think they're coming out with a usable tablet with multitouch, but that's just what I want from Apple, so I'm definitely biased.
36. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Draek · 2009-07-23 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  My comment was in reference to an old quote, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics". Growth rate is irrelevant, if I sell a computer last month and sell six this month, I've achieved a 600% growth rate in sales as well but that doesn't change the fact I've only sold 7 computers in total, out of millions being used worldwide.
  Same thing for Apple. It doesnt matter how fast they grew over a trimester, as long as Nokia sells more phones *they* are the ones you should look towards to learn how to do things "right", not Apple.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
37. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by prockcore · 2009-07-23 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Apple was the first legal download service to feature major-label music DRM-free. "iTunes +" was introduced with the EMI catalogue in May 2007.
  
  Nope. Yahoo Music partnered with EMI to offer DRM-free music in 2006.
  Norah Jones was the first artist EMI tested. You can find stories about it published *before* Steve even wrote his DRM letter.
38. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mdwh2 · 2009-07-23 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Nitpicking, but that credit goes to IBM, not MS. MS are still promoting their proprietary product. Whilst computer hardware is now standardised, we are nowhere near that situation with operating systems (and I'd argue that the hardware still has some way to being "free" - for example, the hardware relies on an x86 CPU, and whilst there are clones such as AMD, my understanding that this is only legally possible due to mutual licencing agreements between Intel and AMD, and in general other companies couldn't make their on x86 clone).
39. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mdwh2 · 2009-07-23 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
  But hang on - even if it's just "human instinct", that applies to MS too (as you note). So it's still true to say that Apple are the new MS.
  And I take it that there will be no more slagging off of MS on Slashdot, ever. If anyone does, they can just be referred to your post. "It's okay for MS to act as they do, it's just basic human instinct!"
40. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  It doesnt matter how fast they grew over a trimester, as long as Nokia sells more phones *they* are the ones you should look towards to learn how to do things "right", not Apple.
  Not when Nokia is losing market share and Apple is gaining it.
41. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mjwx · 2009-07-23 13:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  As it stands Apple won't even allow a C64 emulator because that could let you run C64 games for the iPhone they haven't approved of you playing. WTF? Seriously, what argument is there for that other than Apple being obsessive control freaks?
  Not an Apple defender but that has another legitimate reason, the same for not allowing flash. It kills the market for cheap games, with a C64 emulator they cant resell you copies of ancient games. Yes I know, being greedy is only slightly better then being a control freak.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
42. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Lars+T. · 2009-07-23 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  It kills the market for cheap games, with a C64 emulator they cant resell you copies of ancient games. Yes I know, being greedy is only slightly better then being a control freak.
  So they allow free games because...
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
43. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 15:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I am sure raising concerns about a company making shitload of money and then threatening bunch of guys discussing something about your device with DMCA is definitely arbitrary moral judgment.
44. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by DJRumpy · 2009-07-23 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  DRM was required by the recording industry. Back when iTunes was the little guy and RIA held all the cards it was a different story. Cut to today and iTunes is huge. It sets the industry standard for track pricing and is arguably a primary source for music online. Apple actually leveraged iTunes and it's substantial market share to get the RIA to drop DRM. Jobs has always disliked DRM. Only after agreeing to allow the RIA to hike the costs for individual tracks beyond the typical 99 cents.
  
  http://www.macworld.com/article/138009/2009/01/drm_free.html
45. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that the same argument they used for Linux? It hasn't materialized yet and remains a niche OS. Simply because you can do something, doesn't mean you can do it well enough to sell.
46. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mjwx · 2009-07-23 15:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So they allow free games because...
  It's still coming through their distribution source. Developers have to pay US$99 per year if they want to be published, even if they are selling free app's.
  
  What they don't want is people being able to play flash games or ROMS from other sources. This kills the revenue source for selling SDK's as well as that from Tetris clone 297 selling for A$2.99.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
47. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Concerned+Onlooker · 2009-07-23 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  "I am sure you believe Briney Spears is one of the best singers ever! "
  
  Yes, she is a bit of a salty lass, isn't she?
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
48. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Nossie · 2009-07-23 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1312547&cid=28797959
  thanks.. now crawl back under your rock
49. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, in the topsy world of Slashdot, Apple is guilty because they are successful, and the guys are innocent because they are hackers. Not in law, of course, not in any ordinary sense of morality. Just in the slashdot morality book.
50. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by commodore64_love · 2009-07-24 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but I don't have an Evil-X, so that automatically makes my visit to the courtroom ten times happier than your visits.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
51. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by commodore64_love · 2009-07-24 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because the OP's comment makes it sound like Apple caught some kind of disease that is only unique to Microsoft.
  But Microsoft is not unique. Nearly all megacorps act in that fashion, due to a fear of loss. Apple is acting like your average, typical megacorporation. i.e. Perfectly predictable and to be expected.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
52. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by commodore64_love · 2009-07-24 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  I said "no" because the original post makes it sound like Apple caught some kind of disease that is only unique to Microsoft.
  But Microsoft is not unique. Nearly all megacorps act in that fashion, due to a fear of loss. Apple is acting like your average, typical megacorporation. i.e. Perfectly predictable and to be expected.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
53. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Lars+T. · 2009-07-24 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Let's pretend that Apple has absolutely no costs and the 30% they keep from sales on the App Store and the $99 for the SDK are pure profit. Then every developer making freeware apps that keeps people from buying $330 worth of games (111 of your Tetris clone 297) makes Apple lose money.
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
54. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by DCEdwards1966 · 2009-07-24 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  If it had been up to IBM, there would have been no clones. Microsoft licensing DOS to clone makers is how we got to where we are.
55. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by MojoStan · 2009-07-24 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  There's no lies here, iPhone DID increase sales by 600% over last years quarter. Technologies that are heading for market leadership do tend to perform like that.
  Maybe not technically lying, but you are being dishonest (Michael Moore style) by not mentioning that "last years quarter" included only a few days of iPhone 3G sales (released at the end of June) in fewer countries than this year. This year, the new iPhone was released in early June in more countries.
  
  --
  TO START PRESS ANY KEY
  Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
56. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by BasilBrush · 2009-07-24 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  The iPhone 3G was released 11th June 2008.
  The iPhone 3GS was released 19th of June 2009.
  So actually the timing gives more benefit to the year ago quarter rather than this last quarter.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
  I won't accuse you of being dishonest. Just confused.
  Michael Moore isn't dishonest or confused, and neither am I.
57. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mjwx · 2009-07-24 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  Let's pretend that Apple has absolutely no costs and the 30% they keep from sales on the App Store and the $99 for the SDK are pure profit. Then every developer making freeware apps that keeps people from buying $330 worth of games (111 of your Tetris clone 297) makes Apple lose money.
  But it's not happening like that, Apple enforces the US$99 per year just for listing in the app store. Apple wants both the control that comes from being the sole source of applications and the money that monopoly brings in. Apple is not losing a cent over maintaining the app store, in fact they are making money hand over fist.
  
  Google asks for a one time US$25 fee to join the Android Developer Programs which allows you unlimited listing on the Android Marketplace and access to the Android Developer Phone. I'm certain other online markets/distribution services have similar set-ups, I don't know what's required to have your game sold on Steam or Impulse (stardock).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
58. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by MojoStan · 2009-07-25 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  The iPhone 3G was released 11th June 2008.
  The iPhone 3GS was released 19th of June 2009.
  So actually the timing gives more benefit to the year ago quarter rather than this last quarter.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
  I won't accuse you of being dishonest. Just confused.
  The iPhone 3G was released 11th of July 2008. Re-read your own link.
  Also, Apple's fiscal 3Q 2008 ended on June 28, meaning that quarter only included sales of the "iPhone EDGE" which everyone knew was going to be replaced by 3G in a few weeks. That initial surge of iPhone 3G sales was booked in Q4.
  Fiscal 3Q 2009 ended June 27. Those first eight days of iPhone 3Gs sales (long lines, good availability, more countries than iPhone EDGE) were booked in Q3.
  
  Michael Moore isn't dishonest or confused, and neither am I.
  I'm no conservative, but I pity the confused person who thinks Michael Moore is not dishonest.
  
  --
  TO START PRESS ANY KEY
  Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Apple's new motto: Do Evil. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 01:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

Actually, this kind of crap always swirls around Steve Jobs. Remember the stinky way they got around the Mac OS licenses? Ethical, it wasn't. Not even slightly.
1. Re:Apple's new motto: Do Evil. by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 04:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Remember the stinky way they got around the Mac OS licenses?
  No. Could you be more specific?
2. Re:Apple's new motto: Do Evil. by Nossie · 2009-07-23 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  when jobs came back and took the licenses off the cloners... he did it with a sneaky exception in the license for OS8.2 ?
  I dont remember the exact things he did...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maIgu_7oLm0
  If you are going to be pedantic with my comment... provide some better links... I dont spend the same amount of time in my basement these days :) (it was around 8.2 anyway)
3. Re:Apple's new motto: Do Evil. by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm well aware that happened. Just not seeing what is "stinky". Companies terminate contracts all the time. SO long as it's within the terms of the contract to do so, there's nothing wrong.
Usability is king by chipmeister · 2009-07-23 02:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Besides the obvious "protecting revenue" reason, I think there is a very fundamental principle at work here. Apple is obsessed with usability. They spend a lot of time on proprietary designs to achieve this goal. The experience with media/computer/device/store they want to control so that it is all a single, logical, and usbale experience. Interop with things not under their control will introduce usability differences and eventually destroy the overall design - in their minds. Jef Raskin was one of their early champions of usability. He has a great book too. I think if you understand their design culture you can understand their single-mindedness on a closed system. Now. I support interop. But I do have respect for those who take design and usability seriously.
1. Re:Usability is king by commodore64_love · 2009-07-23 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >>>I think there is a very fundamental principle at work here. Apple is obsessed with usability.
  That Apple Kool-Aid is really good isn't it? ;-) Your reason is only a symptom, not the cause. The fundamental cause is that Apple is afraid of clone companies like Gateway or eMachines or Whoever coming-along and stealing their Mac/iPod/iPhone market the same way they took the IBM PC away from IBM.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
2. Re:Usability is king by chipmeister · 2009-07-23 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. That is why my starting point was about protecting revenue.
Re:pee on dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 02:08 · Score: 0

In Soviet Russia, dogs pee on you.
Tech support costs by tepples · 2009-07-23 02:14 · Score: 0

Because if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase.
As would the support costs.

All I can think of relating this to is game consoles. Which--up until the PS3 & Yellow Dog Linux--they have been very wary of people using for alternative purposes for the sole reason that pricing schemes have long involved a loss on the console with massive profits raked in on licensing titles to the console.
Worse yet: console makers have historically not given the time of day to developers of what are called "shareware" games on the PC. The "creators club" model as seen on the Xbox 360 and iPod Touch is a big improvement, albeit still not perfect.

Or even the monetary value they assign to having iTunes and Quicktime on the consumer's computer?
Apple knows how to tech-support the iTunes application and the iPod firmware. It does not know how to tech-support a third-party app or Rockbox firmware.

It's borderline monopolistic in the same way IE was bundled with Windows.
Microsoft leveraged its then-monopoly on operating systems to run Win32-compatible business applications[1] to push Windows Internet Explorer. But Apple doesn't have such a monopoly on devices that play MP3 or AAC format recordings, so what's the basis of an alleged restraint of trade?
[1] Since then, Wine has improved.
1. Re:Tech support costs by jpmorgan · 2009-07-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Compare Apple's market share in PMPs and online music distribution to Microsoft's OS market share. Compare their business dealings, and competitor pricing and tell me Apple is not as much a monopoly in the PMP space as Microsoft is in the OS.
2. Re:Tech support costs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Compare Apple's market share in PMPs and online music distribution to Microsoft's OS market share. Compare their business dealings, and competitor pricing and tell me Apple is not as much a monopoly in the PMP space as Microsoft is in the OS.
  As a consumer it's easy for me to avoid Apple hardware/software/downloads. I can buy one of many mp3 players and download a full range of mp3 tracks from (say) Amazon. (Or even download the now DRM-free AAC tracks from iTunes and play them on a non-DRM AAC supporting music player).
  If I want to avoid Windows it's much more difficult - some important software only runs on Windows, large numbers of devices only function at all or fully on Windows, I can only get full connectivity to an Exchange server with MS software, etc. etc.
  So while Apple may well have a similar market share in the PMP area as MS does in the OS market, the effect on the consumer is not nearly as significant. I can (and do) stand entirely apart from the Apple PMP ecosystem and suffer no significant disadvantage.
  If Apple had the only online store selling a full range of digital music *then* if would be similar to MS in terms of monopoly abuse.
3. Re:Tech support costs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 02:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase.
  As would the support costs.
  [citation needed]
  To give you an example: There are thousands, if not millions, of aftermarket parts for vehicles. None of them increase the support costs for the vehicle manufacturers.
  In short, you're full of shit.
4. Re:Tech support costs by erbbysam · 2009-07-23 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Couldn't let this one go untouched:
  
  As would the support costs.
  and:
  
  Apple knows how to tech-support the iTunes application and the iPod firmware. It does not know how to tech-support a third-party app or Rockbox firmware.
  I will give you the fact that Apple has the right to provide support on whatever they want too. However by opening a my iPod box I did not sign a contract giving Apple the exclusive right to tell me what I can and can not do with my iPod. If I want to use my iPod to unclog my sink then I can. I am capable of reasoning that if I call Apple and say "my iPod broke and it failed to unclog my drains" they arent going to help me get a warranty replacement, nor help me unclog my drains.
  To finish the analogy I want to use XYZ music player to upload music to a portable music player that I own then I certainly hope that I can. At the same time, I am capable of reasoning that I cannot call Apple when XYZ music player stops working properly...
5. Re:Tech support costs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  No. He's right. Sort of. The reason that modding your car doesn't raise support costs is because it voids your warranty.
  I know some people in the tuner community. Granted, most are just idiotic rice boys who think that "Type-R" stickers and spoilers will make thrie front wheel drive car go faster. But there ARE, in fact, some serious guys who do know what they're doing when they swap in those aftermarket parts.
  And the ones who know what they're doing do so with the knowledge and understanding that they're flying without a warranty.
  Either they buy cars that are already past their 3/36 (Old-school Intergras are very popular right now, for example.) Or they just accept the fact that they've voided their coverage. Either way, if you hook a nitrous kit or turbocharger into your Civic's engine, burn it out, and go to a dealer asking for a covered repair; you'll be laughed at and shown the door.
  THAT is why aftermarket parts don't raise support costs for car manufacturers. They simply refuse to support them.
6. Re:Tech support costs by prockcore · 2009-07-23 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  If I want to avoid Windows it's much more difficult - some important software only runs on Windows, large numbers of devices only function at all or fully on Windows, I can only get full connectivity to an Exchange server with MS software, etc. etc.
  Yeah, and some important software only runs on OSX (Apple actively kills off Windows versions of software it purchases, like Logic and Shake). And I can only install iphone apps from the itunes music store, which can only be accessed by Apple's software. All those car audio kits are designed around the ipod, etc. etc.
  You're only locked into Windows because you bought Windows software. I'm not locked into Windows at all. I run linux at work and at home (at work I also run OSX).
Hooray EFF! by castironpigeon · 2009-07-23 02:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm as cynical as the next moderately informed /.er, maybe more so, but I've gotta hand it to the folks at EFF. They're one of the few groups making any noticeable impact on corporate and government actions that threaten us little people.

--
mmmm...forbidden donut
1. Re:Hooray EFF! by vil3nr0b · 2009-07-23 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The EFF strikes fear into the Rotten Apple!!! Couldn't get any better. At least someone is looking out for the users.
2. Re:Hooray EFF! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'm as cynical as the next moderately informed /.er, maybe more so, but I've gotta hand it to the folks at EFF. They're one of the few groups making any noticeable impact on corporate and government actions that threaten us little people.
  http://www.indirmedenfilmizle.net
EFF good, Apple bad, more at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 02:23 · Score: 0

please to be going to fuck yourself apple
and all you twits that buy their products.
1. Re:EFF good, Apple bad, more at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  +10 Amen
I've said it for years by FreeUser · 2009-07-23 02:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft. I am sure this will be moded down very soon, but since the time Apple has hit jackpot with ipod/iphone, they have shown their true colors.
I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes. Before their marketshare fell in the 1990s Apple had been very monopolistic in their practices...sueing and putting clone makers out of business, deciding whose software was "good enough" to run on their platform (sometimes disallowing stuff simply because it competed with, and was better, than Apple's offerings), etc. It is because of those behaviors that Microsoft rose to prominance in the early days, on the back of IBM clone makers, because the Intel platform was perceived to be more open (and it was...until Microsoft established its monopoly. That said, it remains more open on the hardware side).
I like Apple's products. I go so far as to recommend Apple to friends and family who are not technically savvy enough or interested in running Linux, but that said, make no mistake: the moment Apple feels it has market dominance, it's behavior is likely to be very reminiscent of the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, and before them IBM. Perhaps that moment has arrived.
As anathema as it is to Apple fanbois, iPhone addicts, and those who like to wear cynicism as a ficade in a futule effort to look worldly and "wise", it has to be said: once again, Richard Stallman has been vindicated. If you really want freedom in the digital age, be it freedom to innovate, freedom to use, freedom to create, or (apparently in this case, for the past several months) freedom to speak and discuss technical details of interoperability without fear of economic or legal reprisal, you'd better be using a free and open platform. Alas, most people aren't too concerned about that...until something like this happens to them (or something a little less draconian, like...oops, your financial data is no longer accessible and the software you need to access it doesn't run on a current os, and is no longer available for purchase. Then suddenly gnu cash looks pretty appealing, and voila! you have another advocate of free software. You'd be surprised how many in the business world, on the business rather than technical side of things, are starting to adopt that attitude.)

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
1. Re:I've said it for years by 91degrees · 2009-07-23 03:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes.
  
  It's closer than that. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are very much cut from the same mould. Both ruthless businessmen, both willing to take any opportunity for success. Bill Gates was more successful because he was in the right place at the right time. I dare say if IBM decided to write their own OS, Gates would have had a hugely successful software company but MS wouldn't have dominated the market in the way it has. If IBM had decided to sell rebranded and slightly modified Apples, and made a similar mistake in allowing clones, Apple would probably have dominated the computer market.
2. Re:I've said it for years by russotto · 2009-07-23 03:11 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes.
  
  You have it backwards. Microsoft settled for taking over the world because they couldn't be Apple.
3. Re:I've said it for years by BasilBrush · 2009-07-23 03:54 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  I dislike Microsoft because their technology is awful, and they put the makers of far better technology out of business. They grew by outflanking other businesses, often with dirty tricks or actual illegal methods. Not by having the best products.
  I don't feel the same about Apple, because although they behave as you'd expect a successful corporation to do, their technology is good. They make products that are nicer to use than anything else on the market. And that's how they are growing. That couldn't be said about Microsoft.
4. Re:I've said it for years by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well said, sir!
  
  And you know what - Apple has not learnt anything from past mistakes. Android will do the same what PC did to them yeas back. Slowly, but surely.
5. Re:I've said it for years by Nossie · 2009-07-23 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've been waiting on that happening ... .... still waiting.
6. Re:I've said it for years by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Still waiting? Like - for 10 years?
7. Re:I've said it for years by prockcore · 2009-07-23 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Bill Gates was more successful because he was in the right place at the right time.
  I'd say he was the better businessman (which probably means he's more evil). Just look at how he used Applesoft to not only kill MacBASIC, but also secure a perpetual license to the Macintosh UI.
8. Re:I've said it for years by indiechild · 2009-07-23 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom is all very well and good, and I agree with most of the points you made, but in the end I just want something that works really well with a minimum of fuss. For me, that is an Apple Mac, and various other Apple systems like the iPhone and Apple TV.
  I know, I'm supporting an evil corporation etc.
9. Re:I've said it for years by Nossie · 2009-07-23 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  difference is Apple makes good hardware and software.
  That cant be said for android at the moment..
  What killed apple during the 'clone wars' was that their products were inferior and more expensive than the cloners.
  Once/If that happens I'm sure Jobs should reconsider licensing the OS. Until then he can just keep raking in the cash with no worries.
10. Re:I've said it for years by FreeUser · 2009-07-23 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  What killed apple during the 'clone wars' was that their products were inferior and more expensive than the cloners.
  That really wasn't the case. Apples were actually better hardware than the clones (remember CGA?). So was Atari, among others. What allowed the PC clone market to take off was exactly that...it was a market of multiple vendors competing, so while the technology was inferior, it was also much cheaper, and much more open for new products to appear at sensible price points (such as, initially, monochrome graphics capable cards to replace monochrome text-only video output, then CGA which, while crap, was cheap, and so on). Eventually the hardware outpaced Apple's offerings, but Apple had already lost their market dominance at that point.
  It was percieved openness and competition (and the affordability that resulted) of the IBM PC clone market, that knocked Apple out of its dominant position, not any kind of hardware superiority.
  
  --
  The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Support for non-iTunes programs (e.g. Linux) by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 03:23 · Score: 0

The primary purpose of this project is/was to allow users to transfer music over non-iTunes programs, because Apple iTunes hashes the song database with some proprietary function. Apple was suing because they want everyone to go through iTunes, but as we all know, iTunes is not supported in Linux.
So, this is a great day for Linux iPod users! Thanks EFF!
He's lucky to be alive by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 03:43 · Score: 0

Apple could have thrown him out of a 22nd floor window.
I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by NotQuiteReal · 2009-07-23 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

picture this scene; an auditorium full of crazed Apple fanatics, all hailing the speaker - Steve Jobs, up at a podium, and simu-cast on a huge screen.

Suddenly, a pudgy guy in a a rumpled business suit comes running thru the back door, swinging an ugly beige 1980's era PC chassis by its powercord. He runs up the center aisle, and flings it into the big screen, shattering it.

The tag line; I'm free, and I'm a PC.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
1. Re:I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by euxneks · 2009-07-23 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  picture this scene; an auditorium full of crazed Apple fanatics, all hailing the speaker - Steve Jobs, up at a podium, and simu-cast on a huge screen.
  
  Suddenly, a pudgy guy in a a rumpled business suit comes running thru the back door, swinging an ugly beige 1980's era PC chassis by its powercord. He runs up the center aisle, and flings it into the big screen, shattering it.
  
  The tag line; I'm free, and I'm a PC.
  If you're wearing a business suit you are most definitely not free.
  
  Yes, I realise it was a reference to Jon Hodgeman.
  
  --
  in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
2. Re:I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by Duradin · 2009-07-23 05:07 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You forgot that before the pudgy guy in a rumpled business could throw the ugly beige 1980's era PC chassis he had to stop and click "Allow" on the dialog box that read "You are about to throw an ugly 1980's era PC chassis by its powercord, Allow or Deny?".
3. Re:I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-07-23 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  >> If you're wearing a business suit you are most definitely not free.
  
  Well, isn't that the irony? Even the business suit seems like angel of freedom, in this scenario.
4. Re:I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by IronChef · 2009-07-23 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  It's interesting times, when I, a long-time Apple fan, choose to use my old Zune* to play MP3s instead of my iPhone.**
  If you do things the Apple way, the iPhone works well as an MP3 player. But try to deviate from The Way, and it lashes out with retard strength to punish you. (I clicked no, don't sync, I'M SORRY I CONNECTED YOU TO MY WORK COMPUTER, PLEASE DON'T SYNC, and you delete content from my iPhone anyway?)
  The Zune, on the other hand, is eager to please with features like guest mode so you can use it on multiple computers... but sometimes, it craps itself when it's giving you a hug and you have to delete and rebuild the library data.
  When the Zune dies, which won't be long as it has started to randomly reboot, I need to find a MP3 player with a large hard disk and a lobotomy, that just works as a USB mass storage device.
  * I swear to God, it was a gift.
  ** Which I only bought because refurbs were available at that time and I could hack it to work with my current ATT plan. At full price? No thanks.
5. Re:I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by countertrolling · 2009-07-23 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Suddenly, a pudgy guy in a a rumpled business suit comes running thru the back door...
  It would only work if it was Calvert DeForest...Or maybe Drew Carey could be dressed up to look like him.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
That's because the old ones all blew up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-23 05:08 · Score: 0

no text
money talks and money walks by ivogan · 2009-07-23 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The one thing that we as consumers forget from time to time is that questionable business practices are passively approved by us the consumers when we trade said companies our hard earned money for the product/service in consideration. If interoperability is not included in a product I am considering, I find an alternative product to trade my money for. Do I really need an iPod when a mp3 player will do? Is purchasing mp3 tracks from Amazon a better alternative to iTunes since I can put them on any mp3 capable device? Consumers have the power to be in control... We just need to realize it.

--
Who was that pointy-eared bastard?
Wikileaks, Of Course by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2009-07-23 06:16 · Score: 4, Informative

They should have just moved all the existing pages to Wikileaks during the downtime. A legal discussion that Apple was using legal threats to suppress ought to have qualified.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You've just revealed by marcus · 2009-07-23 06:41 · Score: 1

That you don't know what profit is.

--
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Hardly new by Xtifr · 2009-07-23 06:54 · Score: 1

Apple is the new Microsoft
Hardly new. First of all, Apple is one of the only companies (along with Lotus and Xerox) to have been actively boycotted by the FSF and LPF, back in the nineties. The boycott ended in 1995, but still, that proves that Apple has managed to reach a level of dickheadedness that even Microsoft has failed to achieve. So far. :)
(Just to really smear the icing of irony on this cupcake, one of the companies that the LPF/FSF boycott was in defense of was...are you ready for it? That's right...Microsoft!)
The inevitable troll mods by jpmorgan · 2009-07-23 08:55 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the inevitable -1 Troll moderations arrive.
Every buck well deserved. by unity100 · 2009-07-23 09:04 · Score: 1

another $5 is flying to eff from me. my donations may be small, but at least frequent and im doing what i can.

--
Read radical news here