Slashdot Mirror
Apple the No. 1 Danger To Net Freedom
CWmike writes "Columbia law professor Tim Wu, who coined the term 'net neutrality,' now says that Apple is the company that most endangers the freedom of the Internet. Wu recently published the book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, in which he details what he calls 'information empires' such as AT&T, NBC, Facebook, and Google. He told The New York Times, 'It's largely a story of the American affection for information monopolists and the consequences of that fondness.' When asked whether the Internet could similarly be controlled by large companies, he told the Times: 'I know the Internet was designed to resist integration, designed to resist centralized control, and that design defeated firms like AOL and Time Warner. But firms today, like Apple, make it unclear if the Internet is something lasting or just another cycle.' Asked which companies he feared most, Wu replied: 'Right now, I'd have to say Apple.'" Wu has been in the news a bit lately.
Information is the new capital! It should be bought and sold on markets, it should have rates associated with it and Perato Law should be applied!
All hail the new information emporer -- he that knowth what is right and wrong by virtue of his vast information resources! We should herald our new turtlenecked emporer and congratulate him on his victory with abjection, not this slime written by a clearly Oriental socialist!
The entire threat posed by Apple comes to nought if people don't buy Apple products. I'm doing my bit.
Anyone would think he had an agenda, maybe trying to drum up some publicity for a book or something. Oh, wait...
Physicists get Hadrons!
And he wants the power.
But he gives no inkling as to how Apple is actually dangerous to the net. I would think internet-focused companies like Google, Cisco or a raft of ISPs like Comcast would be much higher on the list.
This guy just comes off as paranoid.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
What worries you about Apple?
As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control.
Is this supposed to be a revelation that a omnipotent, profitable monopoly like Apple is too controlling?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Don't you need to dominate the market to be considered a monopoly? Last time I checked Apple only dominates the hipster/ trust-afarian/ techno-snob markets. Plenty of other markets for fledgling entrepreneurs.
Mr. Wu seems to be saying inflammatory things to increase book sales.
Apple's website says there's going to be a big announcement tomorrow.
I wonder what it could be.
Greenpeace recently (a year-ish ago) admitted that they picked on Apple, despite there being significantly more egregious examples of companies manufacturing products that weren't friendly to the environment because they knew that talking about Apple would get their name mentioned in the news. This guy is doing the same thing - talk about Apple, in any way, and people will see what he has to say, even if he's completely full of it and wrong.
And, in this case, he's wrong. There are very few significant tech companies that push open internet standards as much as Apple does. Apple was the first major tech company to significantly push for DRM-free music purchases. They strongly support open standards in many ways. Are they perfect? No. No company is so why would anyone expect them to be? But, regardless of their imperfections, there are actually few companies of their significance that are as pro-open standards as they are. Claiming that they are the biggest threat to internet freedom is simply an attempt to get people to pay attention to what you have to say, similar to what Greenpeace did.
The guy's nuts. Apple is more like number 4. 3 tops.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
As far as I've observed, Apple has done a great job of contributing to a number of open source projects and has used their muscle to force the RIAA/MPAA into the digital space.
Personally, I'd put the RIAA / MPAA / Copyright Monglers at the top of this list. They're the ones trying to shove the COICA through Congress.
Which, by the way, they're trying to sneak through by this Thursday.
So let me get this right, the greatest threat to net neutrality isn't you know, Comcast which violated it, Microsoft which runs the majority of desktop PCs, Google which is approaching number 1 in smartphone OS marketshare, and is number one in a multitude of areas, but instead is Apple which has a decent, but falling smartphone marketshare, has a very low amount of marketshare with desktops/laptops, doesn't cater to the masses, and sells expensive stuff that the average person can't afford.
Of course Apple would want to control everyone's computers, Apple loves control but Apple doesn't like selling cheap stuff. When the choice is between a $450 laptop that can do everything you want to do for the average person or a $350 desktop, an Android handset free on contract on any carrier, etc. or a laptop line -starting- at $999, a tablet -starting- at the price higher than most laptops with less features, desktops -starting- at around $500-600, iPhone on AT&T only for $99-200 on contract, etc.
Apple isn't a threat to net freedom because Apple doesn't produce cheap enough things for most people to buy.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Wrong. No. 1 danger to net freedom is the increasing amount of its users that don't understand its nature and thus fall into the lock-in trap of corporations. The problem here is that you can force people who can't drive and want to to make a drivers licence, but sadly no one is forcing them to learn about computers if they constantly confuse G**gle with the Web.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I know we all like to hate Apple but... really? They're fighting against Flash! Yes, they support DRM, but they also pushed for $1 song downloads. I'm not saying their great, but they can't be the number 1 danger.
I think the idea of the Comcast/NBC merger is far more dangerous. That would be one company with control from content creation all the way to distribution. They could block your access to Fox.com streaming. They could prevent Time Warner customers from viewing NBC shows on Hulu or NBC.com. They would have their own news media outlets to spin the stories about how that blocking is good for customers.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Paranoid much, or is this anti-fanboyism of a higher caliber? Apple couldn't control the 'net any more than Microsoft or any other large could, which is to say ... they really can't.
Sure, there can be bandwidth shaping terms and conditions thrown around, there can be prioritization of packets, and all the other things that have been happening on various network segments since the "good old days." I guess it's just more fun to demonize large corporations for taking part in doing business with whatever tools are available to them. Apple, Microsoft, etc. don't own the backbone. Nobody (singly) owns the backbone. Google is moving towards putting a LOT of fiber in the ground, so if you were to throw conspiracy theories around don't you think Mountain View would be more "dangerous" than Cupertino? That's not to say I believe Google is doing anything nefarious, because ultimately they're doing what is in their power to further their own brand, on their own dime. The 'net will operate with or without them - that's the beauty of it. Don't want to use Google's glass? Then don't establish a peering relationship with 'em. Simple.
"As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor."
Every great information emperor?
Just how many have there been? Remember the great global Hollerith card empire of the 30s? Or the Napoleonic empire based on the data-storage capacity of jaquard looms.
This is vapid business book bullshit. What a twat.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Congress is the #1 danger to internet freedom. AS long as people keep voting in these undereducated old fogeys that are only there to help their personal interests, Freedom in general will continue to erode.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Apple is the dominant music download service. It also has over 90% of the app market in that most paid for apps exist in the iTunes App store. These markets are a little less impactful than say a Monopoly on the desktop OS or telephone service, and I might say that iTunes dominance has been, in comparatively good for users in this one instance because they have driven down music prices, given users more choices to download only single songs, and created a huge diverse market for consumers to download apps for, but there is no denying that Apple does now have some form of monopoly presence, it's just not in hardware.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
. I would think internet-focused companies like Google, Cisco or a raft of ISPs like Comcast would be much higher on the list.
Uh, they already are. Check your terms of service. Comcast's, several years ago, had paragraphs outlining how you agreed to be a content CONSUMER, not a content PRODUCER. They banned webservers, mail servers, FTP sites, and most frighteningly: "discussion" systems, aka, web boards, chat systems, etc. Home internet connections long ago went from being a pipe you could do whatever (non-network-abusive) things you wanted to with, to a pipe you're expected to use to read your email hosted somewhere else and watch Netflix.
I also find it laughable that anyone but Google could be #1. They're the largest webmail provider, the largest search engine, the largest advertising network, and the largest video/blog hosting company. For fuck's sakes, they're photographically mapping the world and wardriving while doing so. About the only thing they haven't managed to secure is photo-hosting; I'm pretty sure Flickr (yahoo) still dominates that.
Please help metamoderate.
Apple is more dangerous because the other villains are obvious. Apple makes people want to lock themselves into nice cozy cells. Sure the window is small, but what you can see through the bars is pretty and the chairs are comfy.
Blah blah blah overused quote about safety, security, liberty, yada yada.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
I'm still not able to run arbitrary code on the processor in my microwave or my refrigerator. Why can't I manually deploy the airbag in my car? How come there's no flash client for my wristwatch.
Apple is small potatoes--this goes all the way to the top.
AT&T and Google were mentioned, but not MS. Hmm.
It surely isn't because Microsoft is good, not with such things to remember them by as OOXML, which was merely one of the more recent of many attempts at lock in, forced upgrades through contrived changes with their proprietary file formats, and perhaps most of all, the "Microsoft tax". Has Microsoft become that feeble? Strip away Windows and MS Office, and more than half the company is gone. One doesn't hear about the Xbox, and their music players, e-book readers, phones, and other software offerings being that significant.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Most like that they don't have to run anti-virus/malware programs on them.
It's only the belligerent technorati who insist that everyone should either acquire l33t expertise on every device they use, or be afraid of those devices and forced to enlist the aid of some smug expert.
Jobs will announce that The Internet will now be referred to as iTunes.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
In the best /. tradition, I won't even bother to RTFA.
Since the loss of Sun Microsystems, which in retrospect seems to have been one the most open companies ever and with open source contributions surpassing those of almost any other organization's in the world, I have grown extremely suspicious of people dictating to me that this or that is evil, all in the name of "freedom". All those guys that had been bashing Sun must be really happy now that Oracle has taken over.
I can think of several companies that by /. standards can easily rival the "evilness" of Apple, but almost magically they seldom get mentioned as threats to net freedom. Until I see everyone else get their fair share of bashing and flames, I'll assume articles (and comments) of this class as astroturfing.
Except that the group of people you call "isheep" do a lot of purchasing. Economics are going to drive this, and the economics (influenced by marketing) suggest that the consumer is very much ok with proprietary systems, DRM (of varying degree), and other things which really lock them into the first company's system. You could make a decent argument that the greatest threat to the internet isn't the total volume controlled, but rather the degree of success had at preventing or obfuscating open standards. I'm not talking about open or closed source - but the ability to buy interchangeable cords to jack in with, or transfer the data you purchased from company A to a device made by company B at a later point in time. If you don't have that, you don't have the option of jumping ship with your assets - and that is a serious threat indeed.
No. The "belligerent technorati" point out that PhoneOS is hardly remarkably in being malware free. You don't have to lock down the platform like a tyrant in order to secure it.
MacOS is a great counter-example to the notion that you need PhoneOS to be safe.
Apple (Fanboy) rhetoric is such NewSpeak.
"Forget about last years ads. Only believe what this years ads tell you."
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your argument is that Apple may be doing the right thing, but they are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and who knows what they've got planned once they get us all hooked on a free internet based on open standards?
I mean seriously shut the fuck up and stop existing.
It means that once those wrong reasons are fulfilled they may decide that open standards are no longer in their business interests. The great deal of control they have over their platforms makes this a potential problem for their users. Then there are network effects that mean people other than Apple's customers could be affected. So yes, the reason why something is done is important.
I'm curious, did you think that being rude and mistreating the GP somehow negates this concern? It is a legitimate issue and will remain such as long as single vendors have enough power in the marketplace to decide whether open standards will be used. That, in turn, won't change until average users are educated and understand why vendorlock and proprietary standards are not in their interests. When that happens devices that don't support open standards simply won't sell. Until then, potential loss of freedom is a very real problem.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Mean ol' Apple using that proprietary Apple Audio Codec and putting DRM on Video when everybody else has DRM free files.
It's nice that I don't have to buy Windows to run all those programs that only works on windows. Apple really needs to catch up to the times.
...because the fact that they have sufficient influence to push open standards indicates that they also have the power to do a lot of hypothetical bad things? like (I don't know) mass killing of puppies?
Is the solution to make sure that no entity ever has influence?
By your definition, things which are also bad:
1. Every company in the world.
2. every popular organization ever in the history of mankind ever.
3. all forms of functional government.
4. all forms of media, including the internet and the printing press.
5. anyone who has ever been modded +5
This is ALREADY happening, as people who've bought iPods and iPhones and purchased content are forced to buy MORE Apple devices as they upgrade and evolve. Essentially it's the same thing we saw for years with MS, but on a much larger scale sine it's now beginning to consume every type of media you use (music, movies, etc.).
Umm, I don't see it. I have plenty of friends with smartphones and I've seen most migrate between devices, including away from an iPhone at least once. The music is portable. Not many people buy reusable video content. Many apps have versions for multiple platforms and often even provide them free to switchers. For portable apps, Apple and Google are pushing HTML5 and it's gained significant traction not only on smartphones but now for Web apps on those Microsoft computers you mention.
Apple's "profit motive" is to slowly pull the different pieces of your day to day experience into a DRM, protected, entitled world that requires you purchase one of their devices to access said information.
Umm, the only way to do that is for you to already have bought one, and Apple hasn't been problematic for interoperability in any way. They've been pretty good about standards and protocols. Having 14% of the market, that makes sense as breaking cross platform interoperability hurts them more than helps.
Sure, you can argue that "some stuff" can be moved to another platform, but if the level of technical knowledge required to do it is prohibitive no one will.
And your evidence that this is the case?
all empowered and enabled by Apple who makes money: 1) Selling hardware to do it 2) Taking 30% off the top
Except according to all the credible market analysis, 30% off the top covers the hosting costs, management, overhead for free apps, credit card processing, and a tiny profit that barely shows up on Apple's bottom line. They make money on hardware. Hell, they make more money selling premium apps for OS X than they do selling iPhone apps to date.
Not seeing this and not seeing the frightening power of a walled garden is "daft" to say the least.
No, it's daft to assume Apple is going to take an action that will make things harder for their customers and lose them hardware sales while chasing a mythical profit using a business model they've not only never used, but specifically told their shareholders they aren't using.
It's daft to say a company with a fairly small market share that has driven most of the recent innovation and growth in a market is "stifling" competition without supporting that assertion with anything.
So all those music files I bought on the iTunes Store yesterday don't work on my Linux box... oh wait, they do.
It was as difficult as "dragging and dropping" files from one window to another (although I also access the bulk of my library over a network share, but that might be "too complicated" since it requires "such a level of technical knowledge".
Right now the only format I can think of off the top of my head that is locked in with DRM (at least in the consumer space - I can't remember if the pro-apps formats [eg, final cut pro project files, motion files, logic pro files etc) are open) are the movies and TV shows on the store. .mbox
* They went for documented, human readable XML for their iLife/iWork apps
* they keep a duplicate machine parsable XML copy of the iTunes library alongside their binary blob version that iTunes itself uses (presumably for speed)
* their email format is
* their audio codec is AAC and video codec is H264 (both patented, but both open standards not under Apple's control)
* their address book and calendar data is open (and their address book and calendar servers are open source projects)
* their HTML and JS engines are open source (and given the work they continue to put into it, doesn't look like they will be be moving to a proprietary solution)
* they continue to release open source projects for everyone to use and are strongly promoting HTML5 and basing their browser on Webkit means they can't "embrace, extend and extinguish" it (HTML5 that is, by distorting the spec)
* their entire IDE is free to use, and uses GCC as the compiler. They have also put a serious amount of work into LLVM.
* their programming language of choice is Objective C, and C itself, although Xcode supports many more.
So, they have a phone/tablet platform with a managed store. Oh no! danger internet! A store that is compatible with GPL v2 licensed apps, meaning you don't have to limit your app to just Apple's store, and that just because it is free software doesn't automatically bar entry (although the GPL v3 anti-tivo clause does).
For a company that is supposedly the "biggest threat to the free internet" they sure are hiding it well. The store has DRMed movies, but you can be sure they are trying to get rid of that - just as they did for music when it became clear to the content providers (who demand the DRM) that a DRM-free model would work.