Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Backs Off DMCA Threats Against Wiki

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

42 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Without a Care for the Consumer by eldavojohn · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 wall0159 · · 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.

    7. Re:Without a Care for the Consumer by Serenissima · · 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.
  2. Apple is the new Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 commodore64_love · · 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
    3. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by pizzach · · 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.
    4. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by jpmorgan · · 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?

    5. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by Locklin · · 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
    6. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by DWIM · · 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.

    7. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by tomtomtom · · 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.

    8. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by babblefrog · · 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.

    9. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · · 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.

    10. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by carou · · 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.

    11. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mjwx · · 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.
    12. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by E+IS+mC(Square) · · 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.

    13. Re:Apple is the new Microsoft by mjwx · · 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.
  3. Usability is king by chipmeister · · 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 · · 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
  4. Hooray EFF! by castironpigeon · · 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 · · 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.

  5. Re:Control fetish by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. I've said it for years by FreeUser · · 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 · · 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 Nossie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been waiting on that happening ... .... still waiting.

  7. Re:Control fetish by Chyeld · · 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.

  8. Re:Tech support costs by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Re:Tech support costs by erbbysam · · 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...

  10. Re:Control fetish by interkin3tic · · 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.

  11. Re:Control fetish by BasilBrush · · 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.

  12. Re:Control fetish by Chyeld · · 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.

  13. I'm thinking of an ad campaign... by NotQuiteReal · · 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.
  14. Re:Apple's new motto: Do Evil. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember the stinky way they got around the Mac OS licenses?

    No. Could you be more specific?

  15. money talks and money walks by ivogan · · 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?
  16. Wikileaks, Of Course by Nom+du+Keyboard · · 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."
  17. Re:Control fetish by HiThere · · 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.
  18. Re:Control fetish by TheVelvetFlamebait · · 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.