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.
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
Another ipod update that erases all of my music and I have to pay for?
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.
"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.
. 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.
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.
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
...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