Slashdot Mirror
FSF Response To Steve Jobs's Letter
boilednut writes "Steve Jobs's recent missive on the deficiencies of Adobe's Flash is still reverberating around the Internet. In this editorial, John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation responds, arguing that Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden."
Letting the users decide is the best option, what's that? the users can't decide because of apple, of course they can, they aren't forced to buy the product. Their own stupid fault if they buy something so locked down and don't like it.
As far as stallman is concerned, it is still another choice, just one that doesn't make sense from the freedom perspective.
I think that what many people are missing is that what Apple is offering is a proprietary implementation of open standards, vs a proprietary implementation of a closed standard. If Apple finds a problem in Safari, it can fix it. If it finds a problem with Flash, it can't. An iPhone owner who doesn't like Apple's implementations of HTML5 or IMAP can get a different smart phone. If he doesn't like Adobe's implementation of Flash, he's hosed.
Yet if the FSF can't put out something mainstream people want to use, this entire argument is worthless. Besides, it's just a cycle. Open - > closed -> open -> closed. Just think pre-web ineternet, compuserve, WWW, and now App Store or Facebook.
People don't see 'free' as good because if it's a bitch to use they're going to ignore it. It's gotten significantly better in the last decade but in general term it's still a PITA to use.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
... Let the market decide? If people value walled gardens over open source or vice versatile, then let users vote with their dollars ornEuros or whatever?
I mean, really. The free software guys care about something that is irrelevant to most of Apple's customers, and vice-versa. What's the point?
If you had read the next paragraph as well, you would probably have held your idiotic comment as well:
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
The FSF is hijacking this debate for their own cause. In fact, the choice is between open standard (html5) or Adobe's format. Another choice you have to make is Apple walled garden vs open platforms (FSF).
Everyone is just trying to get publicity from this. The funny thing is that IF Apple would open up AND accept Flash everyone would go back at bitching about Flash.
He doesnt care that you should care, or not.
Flash apps circumvent the app store, you can make a website app through flash for free (such as a game) and Jobs doesn't get to enforce his Apple Tax.
This is pretty typical for a confidence man or a salesman - he doesn't ask "do you want my product or not" but rather, "do you want the green one, or the blue one?" The trick is accepting the false premise in the first place. As soon as you try to follow the red queen as it jumps around from left, right, and center, the con man has you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden.
It is a real choice, but there are obviously more options to chose from than the enumerated two.
For example:
A free Web needs free software. You cannot have a free Web if your access to the software you use to engage the Web is limited to an arbitrary number of computers, or if you are not allowed to conduct business on the Web using the software, or if you are forbidden from asking someone to develop additional features you need.
The web is a separate entity to the client software that accesses it. If somebody accesses the "free web" with a proprietary client, that doesn't make the web any less free or open. The "free web" is dependent on open standards, not the open source nature of browsers. As long as open source browsers exist, I don't see what the FSF's problem is, users still have a choice.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Steve Job's isn't a tech visionary, he's a *salesman*! That's all you need to know.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Except Jobs isn't offering "freedom". He never really argued that in the essay.
Job's argument was that with open web standards, if he/Apple/or_it's_customers are unhappy with the browsing experience, Apple can throw money at it and make a better browser. But if they hate flash on the iPhone, there is NOTHING apple can do to improve it. In essence, Apple has been selling a seamless user experience. It has never been selling freedom and often times you trade in some freedom for convenience. That is Apple's market and his argument.
I own one of the last generation of PPC notebooks Apple made. It's true, it has a slow 1.67GHz G4 processor. But at it's speed it should offer somewhat decent flash, but nearly all video's are choppy for it. I never got a satisfactory answer. Apple points to Adobe saying they code a crappy implementation. Adobe points to Apple talking about not having accent to libraries they need. All I know is flash is ultra slow.
Frankly, while I think Apple is crummy on things sometimes, I know the Internet is also one giant waambulance too. If Apple wanted a super closed off garden, it's not going to get that with HTML5 anyway. I also think flash sucks, so I'd rather have it die as well.
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
Steve Jobs has one reason and one reason only for disallowing Flash on his platforms: If flash could be run in the browser, the entire app market would fall apart--the same useless apps would be available for free on the internet. Apple wouldn't make any more from the app store. Anything else Stevo says about Flash is complete BS and misdirection. /story
You know who else was a *salesman* who kinda saw the trends early?
Henry Ford
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
Because in this case, the "car" that gives me the freedom to switch parts is kind of crap, and I can't figure out how to get it to do many of things I need. And the freedom itself doesn't offer me anything that I already need or want, nor does it seem like a worth-while tradeoff (for my needs) for the alternative, which is...
The "car" that doesn't give me this freedom is focused on making the few parts I can choose from work *really* well, and saves me the time of figuring it out myself, and manages to anticipate functionality I didn't know that I would find useful -- in a way that I can easily discover it for myself.
Granted, this car analogy is described in black and white, whereas in reality, there are shades of gray, but the two options do tend to personify the given descriptions.
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
I think I speak for everyone at Slashdot when I say open standards *are* good, for reasons that don't need to be explained.
Apple is not being hypocritical here, Apple's platforms do support all of the open standards of the web. Apple doesn't even offer a proprietary standard for the web, other than quicktime, which they are openly and aggressively working to replace with plugin-less HTML5 video.
If your concern is that they are pushing H.264, then you'd better not run into Adobe's arms, because flash supports it too. I would argue that the video codec discussion is only tangentially related (especially since adobe and apple support the same codec here), and that what's being proposed for HTML5 is the big step forward that we need right now (plus we're limited by mobile, power-efficient hardware decoding -- it sounds to me like we'll have two standards, Google's VP8 for patent freedom, and MPEG LA's H.264 for low power, mobile functionality -- a big improvement overall for the web).
Part of 'moving on' is making the rest of the world around you aware of the shortcomings of Apple's strategy.
I mean, there are millions of less tech people out there who rely on us tech types to advise them and help them make the right choices. We have the right to, and are actually responsible to communicate and discuss and raise our objections to what we see as a bad deal.
No company (including Apple) is obligated or required to design their products to suit the whim, desire, or profit motive of some third party. If Adobe, Xiph, or the FSF doesn't like the way that Apple's products are designed, then they are free to purchase some other company's products or to purchase nothing at all. These simple truths should be obvious to anyone. There's far too many comments from various companies, industry pundits, and posters here that complain about Apple being controlling - because Apple doesn't design their products the way that the commenter wants. Think about this for a moment - who is being controlling here? And just exactly what basis do any of them have for dictating the way that Apple should design their products?
That includes you, the one with your cursor hovering over the reply button.
All of this nonsense sounds very much like a bunch of children complaining that they didn't get to blow the whistle when the train left the station. If you don't like company X's products - don't buy them. Buy something you like better or design a better product yourself. Company X isn't forcing you to do anything no matter how you try to claim they are. Those who wished to supply some piece for Company X's new product but were not invited to are welcome to try selling it to someone else; maybe Company X didn't need or want it, or maybe it's junk and they rejected it for that reason. Whatever the reason, those are the breaks. Nothing any wanna-be supplier can say will make their products or company look better or improve their public image one tiny bit.
And for goodness sakes, try to keep things a bit more civil. Raving doesn't improve the way you're perceived or make your point more valid.
Ladies and Gentlemen! Friends and Colleagues! Acquaintances and Strangers alike! You’ve all been duped! Hoodwinked! Bamboozled! What this here computery programy thingy you’ve all been using is closed! Closed! Now let me ask you this! If there’s a door, and you’d like to go through it, is it better if it is open or if it is closed? Why open of course! And how about this fine young lass right next to you sir, imagine it’s Friday night and she’s at your place and you’re ready to go, would you rather her legs be closed or open? You’d be a damn fool to say anything but open! And we all know of those unfortunate situations where a fool mother leaves her infant locked in the car on a hot summer day, and that poor little boy or girl ends up dying from the heat. Now tell me folks, couldn’t this all have been avoided if the window was open, instead of closed? So tell me, why on earth would you want software on your phone that’s closed? Well I’m here to tell you that you need to fear not when it comes to the iPhone because we support technologies that are open! So come on down, and buy what I’m sellin'!
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too. And Apple has the freedom not to support that activity. Everyone's free. Free not to buy a company's products, free to modify them if they don't need vendor support. Free Free Free!
The CB App. What's your 20?
Actually, they're your customer's devices. You get to keep their money.
You're an idiot.
Unfortunately, the criticism is pretty self-serving. The FSF is saying how this clearly illustrates their point that free software is the only way to go, but pretends not to notice that their free software doesn't do any good unless they have hardware to run it on. Until there is an equivalent competitor to the iPad that is also open-source friendly (which will literally never happen), then people are just going to have to deal with Apple and Adobe's competition with each other. Apple is trying to protect its own customer base by ensuring they have a good experience on their hardware. I *want* that. Adobe wants to subvert the application development structure of the mobile computing market for their own financial gain, and in doing so, threatens to ruin my day by encouraging the development of second-rate, lowest-common-denominator software that doesn't actually take full advantage of the capabilities of the device and hampers Apple's attempts to upgrade the operating system should Adobe decide that it's not in their best interests to upgrade their software to keep up with Apple's development cycle. They would, in effect, have a say in that development cycle, which would result in a bunch of pissed-off users who blame it on Apple.
Adobe has a terrible track record in their arrogant disregard for their supposed partners, or even their customers. They are very strongly driven by what they determine to be the most profitable direction to go in at any given moment, and spend the rest of the time smiling and playing lip service as if it was all part of some bigger plan. They have over a decade-long history of burning Apple and specifically in the area of OS development cycles, which has forced their users to refrain from upgrading their operating systems (or even better, forced them to buy all-new hardware), just to cater to Adobe's dictates.
The FSF may have a philosophical interest in this argument, but even they should acknowledge that the users are the ones who need to be taken care of, and that's exactly what Apple is trying to do. When there is an open-source friendly, comparable product released in the next year or so, then they will have a leg to stand on, but until then, they're offering nothing for something; not exactly a bargain.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
The response has been clear, and it's the same response as free software people have given everywhere: "show us your patents". Even the current US legal system is pretty clear about this. If you are aware that your patent is being infringed, you have a duty to come forward to tell the person who is doing that. If you don't; when it comes to damages it is completely obvious that you didn't do your best to minimise the damage caused to yourself and you don't deserve to be paid off.
What Apple and Microsoft are doing is either a) allowing people to continue doing "damage" by using a patent they don't have the right to when Apple or Microsoft could stop that by clearly stating which patent it is or more likely, b) spreading FUD. In case a) since MS and Apple are the only ones who know what the patents are, they should be liable for the continued "damage" from the use of patents from the point where they decided to speak about the patents without stating which ones.
Someone should take this up in a court e.g. in Germany where some parts of the legal system still seem to function.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too.
Jailbreaking your phone is like buying a car with a locked hood, and a contract not to open it. The fact that you can still take a crowbar to it when you get home and likely not get sued for it is not: 'sounds like they have freedom'.
Freedom is having the right or privilege to do something. Being able to get away with doing something is not freedom, and relying on being able to get away with something as a substitute for a right/privilege will eventually fail you.
I see a major misunderstanding here between Free(as in speach), free(as in beer), and "open". Apple is promoting "Open". They are still a for-profit company selling closed devices to access an "open" system. They have no shame here, nor should they.
They make a device to access the web, one non-standard plugin doesn't make the grade for being usable on their hardware so it's not supported. Their options are: 1. Request Adobe fixes their product for mobile devices (10.1, sure we will see with Android being the guinea pig) 2. Apple makes their own workaround (good, but this hack job will probably not good enough or legal). 3. Exclude it as other, more open, standards can fill the void. Apple chose #3. Sorry Adobe, its just business.
Other companies are captalizing on this, as they should be! They are betting on farmville addicts choosing their (possibly inferior) platform over Apple's because of flash support, so they get some sales from people that wouldn't have chosen them without it.
Apple has no problem with that, they just want the people that bought their product having a better overall experience, and then buying v2.0 and v3.0, and also telling their friends. We long-time mac users know what it's like to not have everything, but the stuff we do have actually works
It's called "false choice" because the limit on the number of choices is artificial
Yeah, but in this case, it's the same "false choice" as asking someone whether they are traveling by car or taking public transit to a destination 25 miles away.
It's technically true that someone could bike or run, and some people might even advocate that biking is the "right" approach, but it's thoroughly impractical expectation that cars and public transit should shut down, and everyone should just bike.
I don't see anything in Jobs' letter that would preclude the use of free and unpatented standards in addition to, or in place of as a personal choice, but the FSF's notion that something like Theora is a practical option to the exclusion of H.264 is completely unrealistic, bordering on deluded.
WTF are you talking about ? How is iPhone OS an "open" platform as opposed to any of its competitors ? I see how you could try to (dishonestly) convince us that Apple's software is more Open than adobe : that's arguable but why not. What I cannot see is how iPhone OS is an open platform, when you compare it to other similar platform (i.e. mobile OSs) The iPhone OS locks you into the Appstore, which is itself censored by Apple. How is that open ? Symbian, Android, WebOS (RIP), MeeGo, Blackberry OS are all more Open. (Not to mention Symbian and Android are Open-source but that another debate) Jobs is just using the fact that Adobe's software (which is rather closed) doesn't work on the iPhone (which is also a very closed system) to attack adobe but in fact the only thing that we see here is the following : systems have to be open because else we don't have interoperability which is exactly what we get when we take the champions of closed system together : Adobe and Apple. Now I already am hearing morons yelling in the back of the room about how Apple supports Open-source and blahblahblah webkit blahblahblah. Webkit is not an Apple product.It's not developed by Apple. Apple just uses it and by paying very little money has ensured the control over it's development strategy. But don't be fooled Apple and Adobe has very similar approach to the CE business. Both this company use free (as in beer) sotfware to capture an audience and then lock these people into their integrated solution. So yes this article says Jobs is a hypocritical lying piece of crap. Because he is.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. Your first sentence shows that you couldn't understand the parent post's first sentence.
He said that Apple makes a closed device (iPhone) for accessing an open platform (the web). Please learn to read with both your eyes and mind open before typing your next rant.
I want to shoot the messenger!
But proprietary vendors don't want the competition. Steve Jobs mentioned the MPEG-LA consortium is looking through their patents to see if they can shutdown Ogg Theora before it takes root.
Ogg Theora has been out there since 2001. If it hasn't taken root by now, it ain't gonna.
Surely whether Apple/Jobs are good or bad, have an agenda, have misbehaved in the past, want to rule the world etc. is irrelevant here; Jobs made some telling points about Flash's shortcomings which rang true to me. Don't shoot the messenger. I use a Mac and Flash is one big pain in the ass for me. I have to use Flashblock or all I see is that damned spinning ball.
"We are all born ignorant but one has to work hard to remain stupid". Steal this sig.: I did