Apple Pulls VLC Media Player From AppStore

An anonymous reader writes "Apple has removed VLC media player from the App Store, putting an end to the controversy on the license (in)compatibilities. Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working. VLC developer Rémi Denis-Courmont notes that he is 'not going to pity the owners of iDevices, and not even the MobileVLC developers who doubtless wasted a lot of their time. This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone.'"

Comments

heh

[stoolpigeon]

a glimpse of the future - when the only way to get "apps" on any computer have to come from the company store.

Re:heh

[hedwards]

It used to be like that until the union movement broke it up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU

I just wonder what it will take to stop it next time. People tend to tolerate that sort of behavior for quite a while.

Re:heh

[devilspgd]

1984 adapted to the modern era where instead of the gov't being in control, corporations control the gov't and us.

Re:heh

[Tiger4]

As long as you don't owe your soul to them, no problem

Re:heh

[NJRoadfan]

Ironic that Apple has become the Big Brother they depicted in the original 1984 Macintosh ad. Then again Steve Jobs was always a control freak. Sealed all-in-one Macs with little upgrade options was his thing. When he left, the Mac II with slots showed up.

Re:heh

[carpefishus]

1984? hmmmm...you have a unique concept to sci fi. Corporations taking over. I'll bet that has never been done in print. ;-)

Re:heh

[hsmith]

The nice thing is, no corporation can force me to be part of them.

Government on the other hand, I have no choice to be controlled.

Re:heh

[thesuperbigfrog]

Maybe not in print, but it has been conceptualized in video games

Re:heh

[jo_ham]

So, the summary conveniently "forgets" that the app was pulled *at the request of one of the VLC developers themselves* due to a licence compatibility issue.

No, that would be less sensational and more accurate - what was I thinking?!

Re:heh

[SteveFoerster]

Erich Fromm wrote an interesting essay that was included as an afterword to some editions of 1984 where he argues that the concept of doublethink can be found just as easily in corporate culture as it can in government. And it's not surprising -- big government, big business, and big media are so incestuous it's often difficult to draw lines of clear distinction among them.

Re:heh

[Nemyst]

Right now it seems to be a race between Apple and the UK, actually... Whoever wins, we lose.

Re:heh

[Runefox]

This is pretty wrong. I know it's pretty trollish, but I feel compelled to respond.

computers that can last longer and be cheaper

Trend is actually to computers that are cheaper and more disposable. Once upon a time more companies were trying to release more reliable machines, but the costs were high - Enter Dell, eMachines, Acer and Gateway (the latter three now one and the same), and their business models of inexpensive PC's that aren't necessarily solid broke the market entirely. Computers are becoming disposable, much in the same way mobile phones are.

Used computer market is now becoming HUGE....because no one can afford to retail prices.

Retail prices on PC's have been plummeting for a long time now, and the used computer market is inflating due to the above point: Computers are becoming disposable, and there are even cases where people will toss a computer because of something like a spyware or virus infection.

iPAD subscriptions have taken a complete nose dive of late as people realize how useless and costly the things are

While I never understood the point behind the iPad, its impact on the market in general is undeniable, with Android tablets mimicking its design appearing left and right. Many emerging and future hybrid designs are coming out as iPad-style tablets proper, with a fully-equipped base station featuring a keyboard, mouse, ethernet/display ports, and so on. I know that our provincial government has become very interested in developments by Toshiba in this regard, and may be procuring them to replace laptops in the future.

I want to address the most glaring part last:

too late once open source is OUT into peoples hands its too late.
YOU can't then take it away.

Yeah you can. If, say, Apple decided they wanted to lock down their devices, they could first-off modify their EFI implementation to disable the loading of unsigned (by Apple) software as an operating system. That in itself would disable flavours of Linux from loading, and they could go further still by modifying their operating system to support installation of applications only via their App Store. The beautiful thing is that newer Apple products, both hardware and software, can use a different encryption key for their EFI-OS lockout. Or, they could utilize technology like this:

There exists a real-world potential for such a thing to exist - Microsoft has for a long time been on-again off-again working on something formerly called Palladium, now called Next-Generation Secure Computing Base, which is an implementation of the concept of trusted computing. At the time when this was announced, many thought of this as perhaps being the death of Linux - One major use for this kind of technology is for DRM purposes, wherein only an approved application can access certain data, which could feasibly include the entire system. The hardware required for this kind of thing has been around for a while, and many machines since the AM2/LGA-775 sockets have Trusted Platform Module chips included. One of the more famous applications for this is with Bitlocker.

Re:heh

[Spy Handler]

you sure? I only have 2 choices when it comes to internet access, AT&T dsl or Time Warner cable. If these two merge, I will have no choice but to submit to their control. Either that or don't use the internet (which is not an option)

Re:heh

[stonewallred]

Well, I am not a tech geek, but I am drunk (if that counts). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1gp-k5y67E&feature=related Tracy chapman doing "house of the rising sun"

Re:heh

[commodore64_love]

Wow.
Don't you realize that Government is a monopoly? You have as little choice as if Comcast owned all the internet companies. Plus had the ability to suck money directly from your wallet, and throw you in jail if you do not comply with their rules.

Re:heh

[t2t10]

Not really ironic. Apple hasn't changed much: what they are doing today is not so different from what they were doing back then: there was a threat that they were going to dominate that market with technology they themselves just copied from others and were getting more and more litigious about. And they tried to control tightly the market for hardware and software for their machines.

The "1984" commercial was probably based on the idea that the best defense is a good offense.

Re:heh

[PopeRatzo]

the only way to get "apps" on any computer have to come from the company store.

"License (in)compatibilities" my ass.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 adapted to the modern era where instead of the gov't being in control, corporations control the gov't and us.

Thats not entirely correct, it is more like;

          Governments and corporations operate as a single enterprise and control us.

Seriously, giving the govt a free pass and seeing them as fellow victims will only lead to more trouble, the whole lot has got to go.

Re:heh

[Chaos Incarnate]

Many people in 1776 would have said the same thing. Look how that turned out.

Re:heh

[PopeRatzo]

Corporations taking over. I'll bet that has never been done in print. ;-)

Wall Street Journal. Seven days a week.

Re:heh

[SeaFox]

In Soviet Russia, government was controlled by YOU.

...wait, this isn't funny this time.

Re:heh

[Wain13001]

umm...the entire Cyberpunk genre perhaps??????

Re:heh

[timeOday]

Don't you realize that Government is a monopoly?

Wrong, monopolies aren't controlled by voters, with every individual entitled to a vote.

Monopolies are very much like dictatorships, except limited in scope.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

It's been done in print by L Ron Hubbard. So clearly it's been done by everybody.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the summary conveniently "forgets" that the app was pulled *at the request of one of the VLC developers themselves* due to a licence compatibility issue.

No, that would be less sensational and more accurate - what was I thinking?!

Where do you think you are? Get out of here with your facts.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

On the other hand, there is nothing keeping this from being distributed through Cydia.

Free Software is perfectly compatible with the iPod. It's just not compatible with the Apple Store.

That is by design. That's Apple's fault.

That should worry everyone, especially Apple users.

Re:heh

[letherial]

Looks like it worked well for them How did that PC vrs MAC go, whats there share 10%? i dont know, its so small...

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that so?

If you want to use the internet, you have maybe three choices, and all of them will treat you with equal contempt.

Want to watch TV? You need to buy tons of channels you don't want. "I'll just watch on Hulu," you say. But with Comcast buying NBC, soon you'll need a cable subscription to do that. "Fine, at least I have Netflix, I can wait a year for episodes to become available." But now the ISPs are looking to limit your connection speeds. Think you'll just stick with YouTube? How long before they cap that as well?

And don't think for a second it will stop with videos. Those are just low hanging fruit, since the ISPs can rightfully point out at how much bandwidth they use. But once they've got their foot in the door, why not charge extra for other websites?

So then, maybe you just cut your self off from the web. No TV, no internet. No video games, most likely, as more and more require an internet connection to play. No cell phone service, as soon it will all be data plans, and subject to the same rules. I suppose you can always buy a cabin out in the middle of nowhere and get your entertainment from the library.

Of course, to buy a cabin you need money, and if you have any significant amount of money, you're probably in the stock market, which means corporations are legally robbing you at every opportunity (the money they make with things like HFT doesn't come from thin air, you know). You'll also need a job, and thanks to endless pursuit of more money by the upper crust, you can expect increasingly long hours at stagnating pay, living with constant fear of seeing your job sent off to somewhere where "work place safety" means suicide nets around the roof.

Or, ya know, we could just try to strike a balance between regulation and freedom.

Re:heh

[thegarbz]

Who modded this funny? This should be +1 Sad :'(

Re:heh

[naasking]

Computers are becoming disposable, and there are even cases where people will toss a computer because of something like a spyware or virus infection.

Because the cost of having someone fix your computer is comparable to the cost of a new one. And the new one will probably be faster.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you can. If, say, Apple decided they wanted to lock down their devices, they could first-off modify their EFI implementation to disable the loading of unsigned (by Apple) software as an operating system. That in itself would disable flavours of Linux from loading,

Yeah, cause they're SOOOOO worried about people loading Linux on Macs.

and they could go further still by modifying their operating system to support installation of applications only via their App Store.

Steve Jobs might also decide to burn a million dollars up using a blowtorch right in front of your face. It could happen!

The beautiful thing is that newer Apple products, both hardware and software, can use a different encryption key for their EFI-OS lockout. Or, they could utilize technology like this:

There exists a real-world potential for such a thing to exist - Microsoft has for a long time been on-again off-again working on something formerly called Palladium, now called Next-Generation Secure Computing Base, which is an implementation of the concept of trusted computing. At the time when this was announced, many thought of this as perhaps being the death of Linux - One major use for this kind of technology is for DRM purposes, wherein only an approved application can access certain data, which could feasibly include the entire system. The hardware required for this kind of thing has been around for a while, and many machines since the AM2/LGA-775 sockets have Trusted Platform Module chips included. One of the more famous applications for this is with Bitlocker.

Yay, it's my favorite kind of tinfoil-hattery, TPM paranoia!

1. AM2/LGA-775 are processor sockets. They do not include TPM chips. They do not even directly connect to TPM chips. TPM chips (to date) connect to the LPC bus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Pin_Count ).

Also, to anticipate a typical piece of the paranoid conspiracy thinking on TPMs, there is no x86 microprocessor to date which includes an integrated TPM. It's actually somewhat impractical to do. A TPM needs to have a small amount of integrated nonvolatile memory to store user-supplied and TPM-generated encryption keys, signatures, etc. It turns out to be very difficult to integrate nonvolatile memory such as flash into a super high performance logic chip like an Athlon or Core 2, to the extent that the AMDs and Intels of the world simply aren't going to do it because it's more cost effective to have some other company fabricate it as a discrete chip in a much different (and lower tech) process.

2. TPM chips are mechanism, not policy. One COULD write an OS which uses a TPM to help lock down a computer in a major way, but one COULD also write an OS which uses a TPM as a mechanism to safeguard user data from thieves. You provided a great example in BitLocker. TPMs are just little bitty low performance (you don't put high performance things on LPC) crypto peripherals. What actually happens is entirely up to software.

3. Returning to the topic of "what will Apple do", a handful of Intel Macs from the first generation in 2006 had TPMs. Ever since then they haven't. Apple never shipped software which used TPMs (their firmware doesn't even initialize the chip), so they eliminated it to save money. So that pretty much leaves the TPM out as a method for Apple to control what people do with their Macs. Assuming they want to. Which sane people recognize that no, probably they don't.

Re:heh

[martin-boundary]

So, the summary conveniently "forgets" that the app was pulled *at the request of one of the VLC developers themselves* due to a licence compatibility issue.

It's up to the *distributor* (ie Apple) to make sure that their license terms don't break the GPL. That's the price for the privilege of distributing the software. Just because they're a big company doesn't absolve them from following the rules.

Re:heh

[harlows_monkeys]

Free Software is perfectly compatible with the iPod. It's just not compatible with the Apple Store.

That is by design. That's Apple's fault.

That should worry everyone, especially Apple users.

Free software distributed under nearly any free software license other than GPL is compatible with the Apple Store. It is only free software that uses the most restrictive free software license available that runs into trouble.

And note this has nothing to do with the GPL being a copyleft license. There are free software copyleft licenses compatible with the Apple Store.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sooo disappointed when the futurama episode about the ipod depicted long lines for ipods (there were also long lines in that 1984 commercial), yet futurama missed the obvious opportunity to show this irony (obviously by making leela the woman in the commercial...). It seems like this was a huge missed opportunity on the writer's part, very very disappointing...

Re:heh

[Sajarak]

Don't be so upset. The Mac platform is attractive to developers and users because it has a high level of openness (say, compared to the iOS), combined with elegant interfaces in the APIs and UI (compared to Windows). Apple will start losing customers if they make their platform less open. And if that happens, it will bring opportunities for competitors who can deliver openness on top of a platform that, for the user, sucks less than Windows.

On the other hand, if developers don't really care about the presence of open platforms, and are happy to work within the confines of Apple's new totalitarian empire, then the laissez-faire world of PC development will disappear. But does anyone really think that that will happen?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

While the trend towards disposable computers might be true, I'm not sure it's actually a terrible thing, considering most people buy a new computer before their computer breaks anyway, "disposable" or not. If something is made obsolete within a couple of years, it doesn't really need to be engineered to last a decade. I

f you're one to upgrade your machine, you can buy a nice solid ATX case, put in the components you want, and keep changing them out as time goes on.

Re:heh

[devilspgd]

You're aware of the Apple ad campaigns over the years?

Re:heh

[Khyber]

Do you own a car?

You just got forced into supporting the car insurance industry. You are a part of them by default.

Re:heh

[Tharsman]

Next thing, they will collect our data and sell it, and they will also drive by our houses and take photos, videos, and even record wifi network data! We must stop Apple before they get that far!!!

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this is why we had Linux.

Re:heh

[jo_ham]

Perhaps, but if you submit your app, knowing it is violation, and it gets approved (GPLv2 is compatible with the store) and then one of your devs later complains and asks for it to be removed, or change the entire store licence by "stealth ransom" (the PR fallout) then it's really not Apple's fault. Rejecting the app outright would be just as bad.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Tennessee Ernie Ford write a song about this? Sixteen Tons something...? iGarden is a walled garden. You buy from their store to play on their equipment. You can't play the content anywhere else, and if you want to switch, then you are hooped. Microsoft is exactly the same way (hey, you doubters and ranters: go open a microsoft office document in another (non microsoft) office suite, see what I mean... And they break it on PURPOSE! ...their office suites aren't even compatible with other versions of their office suites.

Re:heh

[Tharsman]

Free software is compatible with the AppStore. Heck, the App Store is even compatible with Open Source. This is all just the result of one whiny developer that decided he hated iOS and decided to make it his personal project to toss a low punch at both, iOS owners and MobileVLC developers by arguing over terms of use.

Rémi Denis-Courmont says he has no sympathy for no one affected by this. But what can you expect from a Nokia software engineer. Objectivity is the last thing I would expect from someone in such a position. I would like to know what is the opinion of the rest of the VLC development team.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

  there was a threat that they [Apple] were going to dominate that market with technology they themselves just copied from others

It's a misrepresentation of Apple's history to claim their technology is merely "copied from others". Apple was clearly inspired by the work at Xerox PARC. Similarly the Xerox Alto and Xerox Star were inspired by Engelbart's NLS.

No technology is created in a vacuum. To complain that Apple didn't create the GUI out of whole cloth is simply the opposite side of the fanboy coin - i.e. hatred of Apple for no good reason - and it's equally as worthless in a discussion.

Re:heh

[tukang]

He may be talking about obsolescence as opposed to durability. Back in the 90s a lot of people were upgrading their computers once a year because most new software required a relatively recent hardware to run well whereas now you can often get by with 5 year old pc. Every new computer I've gotten lasted longer than the previous one.

Re:heh

[Dunbal]

Don't you realize that Government is a monopoly? You have as little choice

      You have choice. You do what I did, and you move. Greetings from Costa Rica. And when this government gets to be too much of a pain, I move again.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

You just got forced into supporting the car insurance industry.

Forced by the government, yes.

Re:heh

[xristy]

At least part of the above post is not just wrong but absurdly misleading. The putative quote regarding nosediving is contextually crippled. The original quote comes from another absurd post: iPad magazine sales drop wherein the observation is made that Wired and other made-for-iPad magazines are not faring well after their initial launches. The article fails to assess the impact of absurd subscription pricing policies on peoples' willingness to engage in self-abuse.

Re:heh

[gandhi_2]

Nope.
1984 was just another piece of the Think Different campaign of posters staring left-wing ideologues to ingratiate Apple to teachers unions, artists, college-town hipsters, and trustafarians.

Mod me down, but you know I am right.

It was a brilliant marketing move that is still paying off today.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 adapted to the modern era where instead of the gov't being in control, corporations control the gov't and us.

I believe that is called "Rollerball".

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's up to the *distributor* (ie Apple) to make sure that their license terms don't break the GPL. That's the price for the privilege of distributing the software. Just because they're a big company doesn't absolve them from following the rules.

And to be sure, Apple did so. When it found out that the app submitter had fraudulently misrepresented GPL'd code, it pulled the app so as to avoid violating the GPL.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

You could move.

Re:heh

[tftp]

You just got forced into supporting the car insurance industry.

You don't have to have a car insurance; instead you can post a certain sum of money with DMV and it will be all legal.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. You can choose not to obey the government, you just need to be willing to either evade detection or face potential consequences.

Re:heh

[im_thatoneguy]

And as we have all discovered... It's really easy to avoid using corporate infrastructure or to purchase their products. If you don't like a company's impact on a country you can just move to... uhh... some place a multi-national megacorporation hasn't reached yet... like... umm.... Antartica?

While a country might impose its rules on you, a corporation can follow you anywhere in the world. The CIA didn't use Coca-Cola as a cover employer without good reason. They're everywhere.

Re:heh

[macs4all]

Ironic that Apple has become the Big Brother they depicted in the original 1984 Macintosh ad. Then again Steve Jobs was always a control freak. Sealed all-in-one Macs with little upgrade options was his thing. When he left, the Mac II with slots showed up.

No.

Actually, his "thing" was to bring Alan Kay's vision of the DynaBook to life. But the tech to do it just wasn't there in 1983 (when the Mac was first designed). So, the "book" format gradually became a "toaster" format. But, those of us who were alive in 1984 will remember that the "toaster" Macs had a built-in HANDLE (as did the original CRT iMac, years later), and Apple even sold a kind of "gig bag" for those Macs, making it a VERY "portable" (for those days) system.

As for "sealed", yes, Macs were kind of "sealed" (to anyone who couldn't come up with a torx screwdriver). But, in addition to the mouse, keyboard, and (IIRC) headphone ports, they had the (unheard of) inclusion of a high-speed (around 20 MegaBYTES per second transfer to up to 7 external devices) SCSI port and two high-speed (capable of up to 1 Mb/sec SYNCHRONOUS data xfer!) RS-422 ports (which allowed them to easily do relatively high-speed (250kbps) differential (push-pull) twisted-pair communications for AppleTalk, as well as RS-232 "emulation").

And if you will note, other than some fairly high end video, coprocessing, audio, and data-acquisition cards, there never were that many "pedestrian" NuBus cards, EVER, for any of the platforms supporting that Texas Instruments'-created bus. So, it wasn't like the Mac II (and all the other NuBus Macs that followed) opened the pent-up floodgates of people wanting to develop expansion cards for NuBus Macs (like the Mac II), so was Jobs really that far off the marketing target? After all, it is ultimately the job of an effective Marketing department to instruct Engineering in what features, performance, and target costs are to be for a particular product. If Jobs had been wrong, the Mac II's inclusion of slots should have started momentum building in a NuBus peripheral card market; but it really never did.

Re:heh

[macs4all]

Looks like it worked well for them

How did that PC vrs[sic] MAC go, whats[sic] there[sic] share 10%? i dont[sic] know, its[sic] so small...

I dunno. How did that "Year of the Linux Desktop" go? What's their share? Has it finally topped 1%?

I know, I know! Don't feed the troll...

Re:heh

[Guspaz]

It's debatable if the app store licensing terms violate the GPL. I'd argue that they do not.

If memory serves, the (one) VLC developer claimed that it was because you were not free to distribute an iOS app, and that that violate the GPL. The GPL does not concern itself with the mechanism of distribution, only that the ability to do so exists.

You could probably successfully argue that a paid application cannot be distributed. However, I would argue that a free application can be. There is nothing stopping me (or wasn't, before it was pulled) from distributing the app by giving you the iTunes URL that will allow you to retrieve a copy. I can distribute a copy to you through this means. It doesn't matter how it mechanically happens, all that matters is that I want to get you a copy of the software, and I provide the means to do so.

As such, any GPL'd app should be perfectly fine on the app store so long as it is free, and providing that it follows the requirements for offers of source.

The thing is that Apple is going to play it safe; they're not going to fight the copyright infringement notification for the app developer. It's up to the iOS VLC developers to dispute the claim. This Rémi character is just a zealot.

Re:heh

[Guspaz]

Or rather he's claiming it's the 5-device-per-account limitation. That's a total non-issue since you can simply create another account. Again, might have a case with paid software where you'd need to pay a second time, but since VLC is free, there's no such limitation.

Re:heh

[Jafafa Hots]

yet

Re:heh

[Cederic]

That's not technically true.

I can get access through three different DSL providers, through cable, through satellite, through five different mobile operators, through my neighbour's wifi, and I haven't even looked at setting up a village wide network, negotiating my own peering arrangements, installing my own cables, internet through powerlines or moving house.

You may have slightly less choice in DSL providers and mobile operators, but you are definitely artificially constraining your internet access options.

Re:heh

[carnivore302]

Apple might not be evil, but they sure are unfriendly.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

So they should have denied VLC from the start, as the license incompatibility voids their "privilege of distributing the software". Well, they have corrected this mistake now.
To me, this story only shows how a to strict enforcement of software licenses (be it the GPL or any other license) screws over the user.

Re:heh

[JAlexoi]

Rejecting VLC on the basis that Apple cannot comply with GPL would be a very wise move.

Re:heh

[mfnickster]

As for "sealed", yes, Macs were kind of "sealed" (to anyone who couldn't come up with a torx screwdriver). But, in addition to the mouse, keyboard, and (IIRC) headphone ports, they had the (unheard of) inclusion of a high-speed (around 20 MegaBYTES per second transfer to up to 7 external devices) SCSI port and two high-speed (capable of up to 1 Mb/sec SYNCHRONOUS data xfer!) RS-422 ports (which allowed them to easily do relatively high-speed (250kbps) differential (push-pull) twisted-pair communications for AppleTalk, as well as RS-232 "emulation").

All these things were added with the Mac Plus, which was produced after Jobs left. Jobs didn't want the original Mac to be expandable AT ALL. His own team had to go behind his back to put in 512k memory expansion capability.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

And business went down ....

Re:heh

[DerPflanz]

When he left, the Mac II with slots showed up.

and sales started to plummet. Apparently, it is not just Jobs' thing, but also his customers. Apple fills a market gap of devices that just work. Most people don't really care about openness and hackability. They just want to use their stuff, and are willing to pay for it.

I am a Linux geek, love the openness of the Linux platform, the Maemo OS and the hackability of the PC platform. But, guess what, i just bought an iPad, and I think it adds 'usability' in the mix. This thing just works, and faster even than my 4-core laptop. I even think we are on the verge of a third paradigm shift in human computer interfacing.

Re:heh

[EMN13]

Whatever his literal argument, he's right that you cannot distribute meaningfully free software via the app-store. You cannot, after all freely *modify* and redistribute it. It completely undermines the whole point of free software, which is not that it can't cost money, but that it may be improved by others.

Apple *definitely* makes that impossible.

Re:heh

[devilspgd]

Perhaps but Apple didn't have a "rollerball" commercial did they?

Re:heh

[arikol]

That is really one of the items that stick out to me a bit. The fact that the VLC developer who complained may have a corporate agenda, seeing as how he works for a competitor to Apple.

What about having someone send in the complaint who won't make the Videolan project (an OSS) look bad, petty and corporate controlled?

So thank you Remi for making me FREE and OPEN to not use VLC (and not have access to the software). GPL for the WIN! Or GPL FAIL...

Re:heh

[am 2k]

If, say, Apple decided they wanted to lock down their devices, they could first-off modify their EFI implementation to disable the loading of unsigned (by Apple) software as an operating system. That in itself would disable flavours of Linux from loading, and they could go further still by modifying their operating system to support installation of applications only via their App Store.

This would also prevent Windows from booting on Macs, which is something I'm sure they want to keep around for at least the next ~10 years (until Windows is obsolete).

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary also conveniently forgets that it was pulled at the request of one of the VLC developers who is currently working as "system software engineer for Nokia in Helsinki"...?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, really ?
how's that mandated health insurance bailout working out for you ? ? ?
(the latest in gummint/korporate 'synergy'...)

Re:heh

[silanea]

Not that I like Apple, but a small market share does not make them unsuccessful. By your reasoning BMW is a failed business.

Re:heh

[commodore64_love]

>>>monopolies aren't controlled by voters

Neither is government. If it was, the Bailout Bill would not have passed when it was opposed by 75% of americans. Or the healthcare bill passed when it was opposed by 70% of Americans. You are naive to think government is controlled by us. It's controlled, primarily, by the Democrats-Republican Duopoly and their war against one another.

Also you missed my key point. The solution to a Monopoly held by the US government is not for voters to pack-up and move to some other Monopoly Government (example: canada) which is equally Anti-choice/anti-individual liberty. The solution is to regulate that Monopoly and limit its power so it is weak and basically harmless. Hence: The Constitution.

"The purpose of a constitution is to bind up the several branches of government by certain supreme laws, which, when they transgress these laws, their acts shall be nullities." - Thomas Jefferson, 1790

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure.

In the old days, companies wanted to be on the internet. In these days, companies want to be on facebook. I see TV commercials with links to facebook-pages.

With a continuing development like this, if you want internet, then you must join facebook. The fact is, that to prevent this kind of monopolly, consumers must protest and opt-out. Not just the aware, but a big enough group of consumers.

I used to browse internet in explorers heydays and it was hell if you used any other browser. It took many users of other browsers to take away that hell.

Re:heh

[PRMan]

If you actually think your vote is changing policy in Washington, you haven't been paying attention for the last 20 years.

Re:heh

[loufoque]

Once upon a time more companies were trying to release more reliable machines, but the costs were high - Enter Dell, eMachines, Acer and Gateway (the latter three now one and the same), and their business models of inexpensive PC's that aren't necessarily solid broke the market entirely.

And anyone with half some experience purchasing laptops knows better than to get one from Acer.

Computers are becoming disposable, much in the same way mobile phones are.

Or rather, that's what the vendors would like you to think. Smart customers realize it's better to purchase quality. But quality laptops are getting quite high to come by these days.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

And when this government gets to be too much of a pain, I move again.

I wish you well with that plan.

However, it reminds me of the story of a man who, when caught in a sudden torrential rain, runs under the nearest tree. At first, he stays nice and dry, but then notices that the rain is starting to make it through the leafs. "No problem," he thinks, "there's a whole forest here. I'll just move to underneath another tree!"

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

The nice thing is, no corporation can force me to be part of them.

Government on the other hand, I have no choice to be controlled.

Of course not. You can always choose which corporation controls you the same way you can choose with government does as well. Choosing masters=freedom, eh?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, no corporation can force you to use their services.

Unless, of course, you want to live in the modern world, and not as a solitary hermit in some hut in the woods.

Re:heh

[index0]

Pretend I am a iPhone owner and user, and I wanted to run VLC on my device. I don't need anyone's permission to run VLC on my desktop device, only my handheld device. Do you honestly believe it is the developer(s) that is the obstacle to running VLC on iPhone?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily, no other corporations will follow the insurance industry's lead and get legislation mandating your purchase of their product.

Re:heh

[cbreak]

Sure you can. All you need is the source code, a compiler and access to the distributor.

Re:heh

[RandySC]

But I enjoy watching rollerball:)

Re:heh

[Kjella]

Because the cost of having someone fix your computer is comparable to the cost of a new one. And the new one will probably be faster.

Fix? Yes. Wipe? No. Hardware trouble OTOH, if a low-end laptop that's all integrated and custom breaks outside of warranty it's very often not worth fixing anymore.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could just take anyone who entertains notions of creating an artificial scarcity and then profiting from it out behind the barn and perform a permanent attitude adjustment on them with a .44 slug in the back of the head.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't listen to Tracy Chapman - even if I was drunk.

Re:heh

[timeOday]

No, the perception that government isn't doing what people really want is mainly comes from people to the left or right of center who are trying to sway the argument by re-defining the mainstream perception of normalcy, i.e. "the moral majority," "we the people," etc. That and the fact that what people want, and vote for, is illogical; we ALWAYS vote for people who overpromise an impossible ratio of services to taxes.

As for polling, it's not everything. Sure, Obama knew many people didn't like the stimulus, but he also knew he'd catch hell even worse if unemployment want over 10%. Both sides knew people wouldn't like the bank bailout, but knew people would be even more angry at a second Great Depression.

When you ask a question like, "do you like the health care plan?" people on both sides can dislike it, but for opposite reasons. It may very well be the most optimal solution (however defined) is one almost nobody likes, because the alternatives (including the status quo) are even less desirable.

Re:heh

[t2t10]

It was a brilliant marketing move that is still paying off today.

That's roughly what I said.

staring left-wing ideologues to ingratiate Apple to teachers unions, artists, college-town hipsters, and trustafarians.

Well, here you out yourself as just another libertarian zombie. Your mind is even more closed than the people you criticize.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, they also had Amelia Earhart who did, you know, fuck all, except be a passenger on a plane when her husband was in PR. Thus, a marketing myth was born. Wait, something familiar there....

Re:heh

[LordVader717]

Trend is actually to computers that are cheaper and more disposable. Once upon a time more companies were trying to release more reliable machines, but the costs were high - Enter Dell, eMachines, Acer and Gateway (the latter three now one and the same), and their business models of inexpensive PC's that aren't necessarily solid broke the market entirely. Computers are becoming disposable, much in the same way mobile phones are.

Computers have been disposable and cheap because of continuously increasing demands. People wanted bigger drives, more multimedia and better graphics, which meant loud fans and big cases at the cost of design and good thermal engineering. But due to the robust nature of modern microprocessors Computer's have never really been "unreriable", except of course for the operating system.

Nowdays demands have stalled and the majority of people's needs can be satisfied by cheap low-power hardware. People don't feel as much urge to upgrade and are interested in specifically low-power designs like netbooks and nettops.

Re:heh

[t2t10]

Well, sleazy business tactics and misleading advertising do indeed work, no question about it. Apple isn't quite there yet, but at some point, institutions like the FTC and antitrust start investigating to protect consumers from such abuses.

Re:heh

[dwightk]

you obviously live in an urban area. Some people don't.

Re:heh

[portnoy]

Um, the Think Different campaign started in 1997. The 1984 commercial was in, well, 1984. Do you really think that Apple kept the same marketing campaign for over 13 years, through two different upheavals of leadership?

Re:heh

[joocemann]

Apple fanboys tolerate it forever.

I like more than just apples in my garden... and wtf are all these walls here for?

Re:heh

[Cederic]

a village wide network

I'm not 18 miles from the nearest post office but I'm not exactly urban.

I haven't even mentioned 'net access through libraries, internet cafes, hospitals, educational establishments..

Re:heh

[joocemann]

The nice thing is, no corporation can force me to be part of them.
Government on the other hand, I have no choice to be controlled.

You can be heavily pressured, though. I've found that corporation's that I disagree with are largely afloat by the same useful idiots that keep the system rolling. My non-participation doesn't affect them very much at all --- and eventually you are pressured to choose between getting something you want by supporting the corporate monopoly that owns it.

An example is AT&T. They are the devil in all cases from my experience and of close friends. But where I live AT&T is often the *ONLY* choice for high speed internet. Much of my life requires HSI so I am pretty much forced to cooperate. It really sucks.

FYI, whenever I call AT&T for assistance/service (because they are not reliable and rip you off on bills), at the end they say "THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING AT&T", I am always glad to remind them that "I DID NOT CHOOSE AT&T AT ALL. YOUR COMPANY HAS A MONOPOLY AND THOUGH I HATE IT, I HAVE NO CHOICE FOR HOME LANDLINE OR DSL."

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, shame on them for actually enforcing provisions of the GPL.

You're a tool. Or a troll. Or both.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

'Many emerging and future hybrid designs are coming out as iPad-style tablets proper, with a fully-equipped base station featuring a keyboard, mouse, ethernet/display ports, and so on. I know that our provincial government has become very interested in developments by Toshiba in this regard, and may be procuring them to replace laptops in the future.'

Uhm, HP had a machine like that several years before the Ipad was even announced, they were being sold at Staples (UK) for a short time, and the UK tends to be a little behind on consumer tech. tx2050, iirc.

Re:heh

[Tharsman]

I have [some] faith that [some] websites will soon start bringing up the more adequate "Nokia developer makes Apple take down Open Source VLC software." Both, Nokia and the Videolan project are looking bad in the eyes of anyone that has bother to look at the guy's page. Was Nokia pulling his strings?

I'm sure this is just one guy acting individually, but any article that just lists the facts [shame true journalism is dead] would make Videolan look guilty of corporate bias and Nokia of anti-competitive behavior.

If Nokia got enough negative press I can see them easily dismissing the guy. I can see the team also rejecting any further contribution from him, but I admit I am not that familiar with open source groups behaviors when it come to this kind of corporate bias.

Re:heh

[Tharsman]

You have at least two options to do this. One is the obvious jailbreak, the other is the apple approved dev program that allows you to install your compiled applications into your iPhone.

With the later you can be less selfish and just put it up in the App store for anyone to download.

Pretend you are the average iPhone owner, you would rest much more easy if you didn't had to worry about what antivirus to run. Apple's approval process do it's best to make sure nothing like that gets into their App Store. But that's hard to pretend, few people have enough open mind to realize what the non-technical masses actually want.

Re:heh

[fredmosby]

That's not true. Nothing in the apple licensing terms prevents developers from making their source code available to users.

Re:heh

[Khyber]

So, those that can afford it don't have to give to a corporation.

Those that can't afford it MUST give to a corporation.

Doesn't seem right at all.

Re:heh

[tftp]

It is right if you see it this way: when you drive you must be able to cover the damage that you may inflict upon others. It doesn't matter if you take it all from your pocket, or if someone else pays for you (and you then pay them, little by little) - it's all up to you to arrange for that; but you must have the money available if you ever need it.

If you can't afford to cover the damage at all then you shouldn't be driving. Other people expect you to be responsible for your mistake if you accidentally make one.

Re:heh

[narcc]

And anyone with half some experience purchasing laptops knows better than to get one from Acer.

Really? At home, I currently have three working Acers (two netbooks and one notebook -- never had any problems) and two dead HP notebooks.

Comparing the two against my experience at work, I've seen significantly more hardware failure on HP laptops than Acers.

It's just my experience, but of the brands I've seen, Acers seem to be of a higher quality.

Re:heh

[narcc]

Pretend you are the average iPhone owner, you would rest much more easy if you didn't had to worry about what antivirus [sharethewarez.com] to run. Apple's approval process do it's best to make sure nothing like that gets into their App Store.

When just visiting a website is enough to jailbreak an iPhone, I think the average users should start to worry a little more about what antivirus they should run...

few people have enough open mind to realize what the non-technical masses actually want.

You seem to think that they want a false sense of security.

I, on the other hand, know exactly what they want: They want to play Farmville.

Re:heh

[akayani]

"a glimpse of the future - when the only way to get "apps" on any computer have to come from the company store."

Or the crack.app.stuff.u corp. No way will this work for the majority of users, if MS tried it we would all swap to Linux in a flash.

Re:heh

[Runefox]

Totally possible the government passed over it because the tech was "too new" or perhaps it even just flew under the radar. At the time, that would have been a fairly experimental device by comparison to the R&D efforts going into the emerging sector that now exists for these kinds of devices. ... That said, I'm STILL not sure how the iPad managed to do that, considering I STILL don't know who it's marketed for or what its actual purpose is.

Re:heh

[NJRoadfan]

The pricing certainly didn't help add market share either. People complain about the Apple Tax today, its nothing compared to what it was in the late 80s/early 90s.

Re:heh

[slashdotjunker]

Future? More like the past. The computer game industry has been doing this for over a decade. Now that computers are becoming primarily mobile entertainment devices, anyone with two eyeballs to rub together can see where this is going.

Re:heh

[smash]

No. Every mac ships with xcode, if you want an app you can download the source and compile it yourself. No one is FORCED to use the app store.

This is a case of apple's licensing being incompatible with the GPL, and cancelling distribution of the app from the app store.

Re:heh

[macs4all]

As for "sealed", yes, Macs were kind of "sealed" (to anyone who couldn't come up with a torx screwdriver). But, in addition to the mouse, keyboard, and (IIRC) headphone ports, they had the (unheard of) inclusion of a high-speed (around 20 MegaBYTES per second transfer to up to 7 external devices) SCSI port and two high-speed (capable of up to 1 Mb/sec SYNCHRONOUS data xfer!) RS-422 ports (which allowed them to easily do relatively high-speed (250kbps) differential (push-pull) twisted-pair communications for AppleTalk, as well as RS-232 "emulation").

All these things were added with the Mac Plus, which was produced after Jobs left. Jobs didn't want the original Mac to be expandable AT ALL. His own team had to go behind his back to put in 512k memory expansion capability.

you are correct that the SCSI port was added with the Mac Plus (I had to go back and check). However, I KNOW it had a DB-9 serial port, a floppy port (which was what I was remembering as the SCSI port), a DB-9 modem port, plus the mouse, keyboard and an audio out. I can't verify it right now, but I think the DB9 serial ports might have been RS-232, not 422, because AppleTalk isn't supported on the 128k or 512k, either.

As for the memory, from what I heard, when he learned of the memory-upgrade "option" left on the 128k Mac PCB, Jobs allowed the extra resistor that made it possible, to remain in the BOM for the 128k Mac. Plus, there was some thought that they would release the 128k Mac as a 256k, but the RAM prices were too high. So, it wasn't exactly a black-bag thing; just one of those "Let's just put this one little extra (fill-in-the-blank) in, and then it will make it way easier to do [x]." things that engineers often do, especially early in the hardware design phase.

Re:heh

[Khyber]

"If you can't afford to cover the damage at all then you shouldn't be driving"

Let's apply this to other sectors of the economy and see how far our nation continues to survive.

Got news for you, for a huge majority, a car is absolutely necessary.

Re:heh

[macs4all]

The pricing certainly didn't help add market share either. People complain about the Apple Tax today, its nothing compared to what it was in the late 80s/early 90s.

On this point, only a fool would argue. I agree that Apple systems were very high priced; but they really were engineered to the hilt. Now, the designs are a little more mainstream. But, OTOH, stuff is getting just too complex, and the timing relationships too critical, to do the sort of mix-and-match roll-your-own-from-the-chips-up mobo designs and get stuff to market in any reasonable time, and for any reasonable cost.

But, even if the chipsets are more typical of other "reference designs" these days, Apple still puts a helluvalotta industrial design into their products (no antenna jokes!), and OS X ain't too shabby, neither!

Re:heh

[Guy Harris]

As such, any GPL'd app should be perfectly fine on the app store so long as it is free, and providing that it follows the requirements for offers of source.

For the GPLv3, those requirements appear to require that you can get the source from the App Store:

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

...

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

(the other clauses refer to offering the object code "in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium)" or "using peer-to-peer transmission"). The GPLv3 might also require that you provide "Installation Information" so that you can install versions of the app built from source, which might mean that you'd have to let the user sign the app to make it installable, depending on how you read the bit about "[retaining] the ability to install modified object code on the User Product":

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The GPLv2 doesn't appear to address those code-signing issues (which might be one of the reasons why the GPLv3 was created).

Re:heh

[Guy Harris]

OK, here's an FSF blog post about the conflict between the GPL - GPLv2, in particular - and the App Store's licensing terms. As it says:

That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that. This specific case involves other issues, but this is the one that's most unique and deserves explanation.

Re:heh

[loufoque]

HP is crap as well, yes.

The decent laptop makers are Lenovo, Asus, Sony and Apple. Dell also does some decent ones but not for end-users.

Re:heh

[Dunbal]

There's always a loop-hole. Always. Unless you have the bad luck of being born in a country like the US where you have to pay income tax on your world income no matter where you live for the "privilege" of being American. Fortunately that's not my case, and I get to see the world and explore other cultures at the same time.

Re:heh

[tftp]

for a huge majority, a car is absolutely necessary.

For an even larger majority money is absolutely necessary. But should we allow them to rob banks?

The social security provides small money disbursements to those who are in need. Similarly, buses exist for people who can't drive for one reason or another. You aren't defending people without licenses, who were convicted of DUI, for example? You aren't suggesting that blind people should drive? If not then why it is OK for otherwise incapable people to drive? If a guy can't find a couple hundred dollars per year for the insurance then it's guaranteed that in case of an accident you will be left holding the bag.

Let's apply this to other sectors of the economy and see how far our nation continues to survive.

It was always applied to other sectors of the economy. Only recently few people started saying that they can pick and choose which laws to obey.

Re:heh

[exomondo]

Sure you can. All you need is the source code, a compiler and access to the distributor.

But there is only one distributor, that distributor requires a fee for distribution and also imposes many restrictions on what can and cannot be distributed.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 adapted to the modern era where instead of the gov't being in control, corporations control the gov't and us.

I made this small animation with blender (http://www.blender.org/) last year: 1984+26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj4_gTT-HgY

That's what I believe the Ministry of Truth would be saying today.

Cogito ergo doleo

Re:heh

[scot4875]

Well, government printed the money that went into my wallet in the first place. It's one of the advantages of HAVING a government, so we don't have to barter pretty stones and seashells to get what we want.

If it wants some of it back so it can continue to function and save me a lot of time by not having to build my own roads, lobby every car manufacturer to "please, won't you make cars that meet these better emissions standards?", and provide other basic services, I guess I can live with that.

--Jeremy

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's ][ series, NeXT and NeXTStep fly in the face of this argument. I'm not suggesting that Jobs isn't a control freak...simply that the closed apple isn't the support you think it is.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate - you're the troll

Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[Kenja]

Still, good to know I was right to not bother with the iOS platform. Its fine for some people and I dont dismiss their choice, but I want better developer support in my mobile devices.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[philj]

Use http://www.plexapp.com on your Mac and then stream to either Plex.app / the new Klexi.app to stream.

Copy or stream & films/videos etc to watch them on/offlne on you ipad/ipod/itouch etc.

Awesome iOS client.

WOrks well, lots of community support and plenty of features in the works (built into a g brand TV later in the year, for one).

You can also run a Plex client on a Jailbroken AppleTV2, which is AWESOME.

Oh, they're also launching Windows support soon I hear.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better developer support? No mobile os is int he same universe as iOS when it comes to apps, quality and support.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[DJLuc1d]

You're right, iOS has more choice in what you can install than android, as long as Steve says it is ok. Choice by proxy ? Because money = choice is the way it has always been right ?

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[perryizgr8]

this is just too stupid. on a device that can play all sorts of videos, but won't because jobs says so, you are ready to watch videos by playing them on your pc and streaming them? this is so fucked up, man. totally, totally fucked up.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[Tharsman]

Any device can play any media it is programmed to. Apple is not against it playing back any form of media. There are other media players that can play multiple formats. I use ZumoCast, that is able to play back any video format I have tossed at it, but unfortunately it got bought out by Motorola (who removed it from the App store and is preparing to make it exclusive to it's own Android phones) and have also used Air Video. The later can stream any format via live conversion, but does not store them locally, it can play back over the internet, though, making me not even need to have anything in my device anyways (ZumoCast also allows this.)

This is not about Apple not wanting this, it is about a VLC contributor that happens to work at Nokia making a big licensing deal and forcing Apple to take the app down.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[DCstewieG]

What about libraries far larger than 32GB, or even a TB? How about the fact that you could start watching a video on your iDevice and then pick up where you left off on your Mac automatically? Still fucked up?

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[perryizgr8]

no, if apple wanted vlc on their phones, they'd have changed the way the store works. they did not, and so its their fault.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[perryizgr8]

yes it is. i'm not surprised at&t imposes a 5gb limit.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Yeah, who do Apple think they are respecting a complaint made by the original developers of the VLC code (!) I'd think this is a win for open source developers ? A third party creates an app that contains GPL code but isn't distributed according to the GPL's terms, the original authors complain and Apple complies and removes the infringing app.

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[headLITE]

Well, that's what happened. The IP owner complained about the infringing app and Apple complied with the IP owner's request. There is really nothing else they could do, but this is slashdot, and things work differently here. And as for accommodating GPL apps... why the hell would you think Apple would go out of their way for an app that competes with their core business?

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[sosume]

So you think that it's a *good* thing that Apple is making so much profit on *your* overpriced hardware?

Re:Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

[toriver]

No, it's their chosen business model. Fuck this entitlement culture, start a business yourself if you think you know what is the right thing to do.

And in this case there is a chance the GPL prevents the app store from distributing the app - have we started to like GPL violations now?

This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Senes]

I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.

All I ask is that the device I pay for allow me to use it as I please instead of requiring the company's permission for each little chunk of code that executes. Give me just that and I'll be happy to buy.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Kenja]

I agree with you, however that is not what many people want. There are enough people who want to only be able to run software that has been vetted by someone to support Apple, Microsoft and everyone else who chooses to follow this behavior. Just accept that the iOS platform is not for you and move on.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[MoonBuggy]

The shame is that the companies seem to feel that it's an all or nothing choice. Flash up a big red warning that states "Unsupported software" if you must, but give me the option to use the hardware freely.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Goaway]

You know the creators of VLC were calling for it to be removed, yes?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[idobi]

It's suddenly Apple's fault that the developers squabble over GNU license?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[SpacePunk]

You talk as if you own the hardware or something.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[codepunk]

Show those bastards you mean business by sending me all of your cool mac gear for free.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Freak]

Not "the creators", but rather "one of the creators" (or possibly "some of".)

The organization VideoLAN officially promoted its use and listing, in spite of one vocal member's protests.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with your android device and the chaos of the supposed open world.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Tiger4]

That could, and should, be two levels of product support. The Basic, "here's a working machine, good luck, we'll return it to this state if you want us to" and the Advanced, "here is a machine tuned to work a lot of apps, according to our sensibilities". Most auto manufacturers offered this two-tiered approach during the Golden Age of Detroit. The luxo makers probably still do.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DJRumpy]

I was wondering if someone would point that out. It was pulled due to licensing issues at the request of one of the developers, not due to some Apple initiated vendetta.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/01/vlc-for-iphone-and-ipad-soon-to-disappear-thanks-to-gpl-complain/

Most iPhone users don't even know what VLC is or care for that matter. The build in media player works fine for pretty much any digital download supplied with DVD's and Blu-Ray, as well any number of h.264 compatible profiles.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[gnasher719]

I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.

What behaviour? You mean the behaviour of a developer who is so desparate to defend user's freedom that he even prevents them from using the software in the first place?

What would be really fun would be to take the guy to court to get a declaratory judgement that publishing a GPL licensed application on the app store is _not_ in violation of the GPL and therefore not copyright infringement.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I was a VLC user until recently. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior. Ohh, and the bugs with missing audio in some MPEG2 files that no other player has, and that they haven't been able to fix for the last couple of years.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the bit about the license argument:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/01/vlc-for-iphone-and-ipad-soon-to-disappear-thanks-to-gpl-complain/

Sorry, Apple's not going to get sued just because you whine loudly - that sort of thing only works on your mom.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Yvanhoe]

Most people don't want a computer. They want a game console that can check emails and facebook. I want a computer. I guess it is time computers become a niche market again.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[aliquis]

Show those bastards you mean business by sending me all of your cool mac gear for free.

Sorry, no can do. You see, he's a Google employee.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[ChunderDownunder]

Or, just don't buy an iDevice in the first place - if the "Apple Way" offends your notion of freedom.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Yvanhoe]

At least it is OUR chaos, we are responsible for it and have the tools to correct it.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Good luck with your android device and the chaos of the supposed open world.

At least they have VLC on Android - ohh, wait ...

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[mardukvmbc]

I'm a dedicated linux user for the past 5 years and I'm thinking of dumping it all and going to macs.

I spend way too much time fiddling and screwing around trying to get normal things to work. The other day for example my wife wanted a sound to come on when she got an email in thunderbird. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on ubuntu without some serious googling/screwing around. Google earth which for some reason vanished from the medibuntu repository... same deal. For some reason the installer set the symlink to point somewhere else. And still the fonts are screwed up, don't know why.

Or one of my favorites? Kdenlive, a great video editor, can't export to h.264 out of the box on ubuntu because it uses lame so you have to put your own custom export in. Or a recent clean install of Kubuntu 10.10 that left the master mixing channel muted (not through kmix but through alsamixer). Or the fact that the newest ubuntu amarok packages kill it's ability to talk to my wife's ipod. On and on. I'm not pointing fingers here, the devs and packagers do a fab job for the most part but it's always just shy of the goal line it seems.

Look, I loves me linux, but I have 3 kids, a wife, a job, and a life. And I won't do windows not for the least part because of the safety factor for my kids and wife not downloading shite. So do I want to come home from my IT job and have a nice safe controlled environment for my wife and kids to hop on, do email, surf the web, etc in a reasonably safe way where I don't need to spend hours on end fiddling when something doesn't work? Sounds f'ing great to me.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Graff]

I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.

What behavior? Apple clearly stated their terms for the use of the service. The VLC media player developers use a license which is not compatible with those terms. In fact, it was those developers who took the first action:

Today, a formal notification of copyright infringement was sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player for iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch.

Apple simply complied with the notification and took down the app in question. If the developers want their software in Apple's App Store then they should release it under a compatible license. I'm sure they can (and perhaps they have) also try to convince Apple to change the terms of the app store.

Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy. Sometimes these rules are going to get in the way of someone's idea of how it should all work. This is one of those times. Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps, both good and bad, in the app store. There's nothing evil going on here, it's just two entities enforcing the terms of use for their properties.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of Linux? I would suggest you try it out.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[UnknowingFool]

So what you're saying is that because some of the creators of VLC had an issue with Apple's compliance with the GPL for Apps and therefore asked Apple to remove the App (which they did), this is all Apple's fault. You'd rather Apple not be able to dictate their policies but follow someone else's policies even though they as a distributor really had no say if GPL code was ported to iOS.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Invert(Basic, Advanced)

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[donny77]

Jailbreak. Do what you want. Face the reality. Their needs to be a high barrier to being able to do anything with your phone. The average person can not tell legitimate software from a keylogger if you write the word "free" on it. Jailbreaking puts a barrier to ensure only technical people do anything with their phone. And Apple doesn't get a phone call from your grandma cause she installed solitaire and it rooted her phone and stole her identity. Everybody wins!

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[hsmith]

Apple does not "Vet" anything - the review process isn't regression or user acceptance testing. It is simply testing to ensure you follow their guidelines for UI and don't use "private" APIs.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Culture20]

But people's well founded fear is that this trend does not stop at iDevice. If it spreads to Macs, expect Windows 9 to do the same thing. Linux Users will have to build beige boxes, and depending on how many congress critters are purchased, may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was pretty sure the concept of VLC is that it works with anything out of the box, why cant a single codec give them trouble?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that VLC has a license and Apple was violating that license?
Apple could have modified the agreement on the iStore, but instead, they chose to remove VLC.

Apple is being dumb in order to retain control of a dying market. Apple is becoming like IBM was in the late '80s.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the source is available and unrestricted, it seems like it might be possible to have it declared compatible with the gpl.

If the binary that was built doesn't work in the way you want, that isn't a gpl issue. You have the source, build it yourself without that restriction.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[pavon]

Apple clearly stated their terms for the use of the service.

The problem is that they have terms of service at all.

Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy. Sometimes these rules are going to get in the way of someone's idea of how it should all work. This is one of those times. Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps, both good and bad, in the app store.

So according to you the Mac is complete anarchy since you can buy and install software from anyone without Apple's approval.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jkerman]

You talk as if the hardware would exist, without the software store

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Entropy2016]

You realize that VLC has a license and Apple was violating that license?
Apple could have modified the agreement on the iStore, but instead, they chose to remove VLC.

Apple is being dumb in order to retain control of a dying market. Apple is becoming like IBM was in the late '80s.

I'm sorry, but it wasn't Apple who violated anything. It was Applidium who ported VLC code to an iPhone app.

And Apple can't fix anything by modifying an agreement, as it's not their license that's in question, it's the GPL. They'd actually have to restructure how their content distribution system works.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[froggymana]

You could triple boot your mac between windows, GNU/Linux and OS X. What more could you ask for? When they start locking that ability down is the time when you should start worrying...

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Doctor_Jest]

Before the "Mac Appstore" I wouldn't have agreed with you (at least w/r/t the desktops), because OS X was so fun to use when it was open (I realize the GUI wasn't, but the rest of the OS was fine...) It is still open now, but Lion is probably going to end the party... I'm glad they went Intel, so I can put Linux on my mini. I'm not interested in supporting the walled garden (I don't want an iPhone/iPad/iwhatever), and the Appstore is another turn for Apple to become the next Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if Lion phoned home like Windows does now...

Snow Leopard looks like the last OS X I'll use. These sorts of moves make the original Mac commercial seem ironic. :)

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[nomadic]

Ever thought about Windows 7? It's actually quite stable and well-designed.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[uglyduckling]

Don't panic, Lion won't end your ability to install whatever software you want on your Mac.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DAldredge]

Why not use Windows 7 and give them an account with limited rights. Rather hard to break it that way.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called jail braking. I'm no hacker, but I see how difficult it is to run unsigned code on an xbox 360, but it takes 24 hours for any iOS device software to be jail broken afte release. This tells me that apple doesn't really wanna cock block geeks, they just want to provide a stable, consistent platform for the masses... If u are into running other apps they have not officially approved, then you are free to do so. No warranty is voided (so long as you restore) unlike microsft who will ban your device for ever. Close system yes, but relative to what? And how tightly closed.

I can see why a company that made most of it's revenue in the last 10 years selling music and iPods (not computer) would have an issue with q player selling on it's own store, made to play pirated videos. Not that I am against pirating, but if I were in their shoes, it's what I would be inclined to do as well.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here... I've used Apples since the IIe, went on to various Performas, Centrises, Quadras and a host of other Macs. Last week I picked up two Android phones. The feature set between Android and iPhone is similar. If anything, the iPhone has the more polished feel. And even though both platforms can be jailbroken or rooted, I went with Android because there's none of that corporate censorship nonsense disguised as "family safety" or whatever it's called.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk with the software store.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Timmmm]

Yes but the reason for the licensing issues is that apple don't allow installing software that isn't from the app store.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy.

Yes, Apple just chose bad rules, which is why both developers and users should start avoiding it. App stores don't have to have bad rules.

There's nothing evil going on here, it's just two entities enforcing the terms of use for their properties.

Apple is asserting rights over what I can install on hardware that I own. That is wrong, and it is a threat to software development and freedom of communications.

Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps

They "work" in the sense of making Apple tons of money. They don't work in the sense of having a free, competitive market, and they certainly don't work in protecting freedom of expression.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jbn-o]

I think most computer users are novices compared to the people likely to frequent /. and I think most computer users don't understand what they're giving up, particularly as we become more dependent on computer-based services. I think most computer users are frequently taught to value the meager conveniences of dependency instead of valuing their own freedom and the freedom of their fellows. It's up to people who understand that computing doesn't mean one has to forgo their freedom to help others understand that.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[couchslug]

"You talk as if you own the hardware or something."

I DON'T own Apple hardware. They are not less evil than Microsoft.

I don't want to adapt Apple hardware to my purpose with Free software, I want to deny them my money. Their fanbitches make them rich enough without my help.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DavidinAla]

Do you realize the insanity of what you're saying -- in THIS context? You're whining that Apple has terms of service for its store, when the software in question was pulled by VLC's developers because publishing it didn't comply with THEIR terms (the GPL). So the people who caused this action -- that you're supporting -- are enforcing THEIR rules. Get it? The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[TheReaperD]

The big problem with you idea is that users have proven time and time again that no matter how nasty you make the warning, they'll click "Yes" on anything to get to those "family" greeting cards.

Note: I don't like the trend any more than you do. For the companies that are doing this, the more likely objective is to cut out open source and protect their business model.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[angus77]

What chaos? I've owned a Desire since April. I've never had the SMS problem, and the only software that didn't work for me was alpha software I downloaded outside the Marketplace. Because I chose to. By default, that capability is disabled---you have to unclick a box to get that capability, so your average Joe won't hurt himself.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jedidiah]

...funny how none of this was ever a problem with something like MacOS until after the iPhone came out.

Now all of a sudden people are crawling out of the woodwork to declare that even MacOS isn't safe if you treat the end user like a free man.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Soviet .. something .. of the future that clause takes the form of "You talk as if you owned the brains or something" in the colloquial language. It does already in the countries and unions of countries lacking in freedom of speech.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jedidiah]

Rubes probably also want something that they can play their home videos on or something that one of their friends sent them. Ironically enough, VLC is the very app that would allow them to do this either on an iPad or on a proper Mac desktop. Apple's policies are hostile to the very things that make the Apple desktop experience more useful.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[mikelieman]

Who needs VLC when you have Mplayer?

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=890761

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jedidiah]

> The build in media player works fine for pretty much
> any digital download supplied with DVD's and Blu-Ray,
> as well any number of h.264 compatible profiles.

It's funny that you actually believe this nonsense. Sad too.

This is the kind of blindered stupidity that allows companies like Apple to thrive.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jedidiah]

> Kdenlive, a great video editor, can't export
> to h.264 out of the box on ubuntu because it
> uses lame so you have to put your own custom
> export in

Sounds kind of like iMovie won't deal with anything except Quicktime files.

If you think the Mac will allow you to avoid all of the annoying futzing, you are sadly mistaken and bound to be disappointed.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Captain Spam]

You talk as if the hardware would exist, without the software store

Few people remember this, but there was a time it did.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you advocating that Apple should ignore the GPL?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[perryizgr8]

that's what nokia has always done. but guess what, it doesn't work. users click 'yes', 'agree', 'continue' to everything. seriously, nowadays on win7 64bit, almost all viruses throw up a uac prompt. and users click 'allow'.
this is why i believe ipad is a great device. it simply cant be fucked with. the user doesn't have to worry about anything.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[harlows_monkeys]

What would be really fun would be to take the guy to court to get a declaratory judgement that publishing a GPL licensed application on the app store is _not_ in violation of the GPL and therefore not copyright infringement.

Since it is a violation, that is not going to happen.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[perryizgr8]

What behavior? VLC clearly stated their terms for the use of the service. The istore guys use a license which is not compatible with those terms.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

You rank this as funny but this is exactly what my parents would be thinking after I got VLC on thier iPad and it didn't work on a lot of files .. except they don't know what MPEG2 is.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be the most retarded and uninformed statement I've read all night. And I've been browsing /. all night.

I have the App Store on my MacBook right now. I can download stuff from the App Store, or I can choose to ignore it altogether.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[rhade]

I have 2.2 on my Galaxy S and its faster and looks best than two of the guys at work who have iphone 4's they all looked at me with disdain the first day, like I was a fool for getting it.

But after they played with it and ran a few comparisons, they dont hang out with me so much anymore

so I .....win?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[perryizgr8]

I wouldn't be surprised if Lion phoned home like Windows does now.

you think snow leopard doesn't?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Ice_Core]

I was also a Linux/Windows user but after several years of codec/audio/video(Linux problems) and viruses (Windows/Wife problems), I switched to Macs two years ago. First I made my laptop into a hackintosh to decide if I would like macs. Then I purchased several Macs(Pros and minis with cinema displays) over the last 2 years and plan to buy a laptop in the next week. I found the conversion rather quick and painless. The bonus is my Wife/Children no longer gets viruses on their systems.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad fanboi, BAD!

Apple has ALWAYS been like this. You get back into the fold, and buy your iPhone, iPad, and overpriced MacBook Pro.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[hedwards]

I know, how dare the GP assert ownership over something that he paid for. The nerve, next thing he's going to demand the ability to rip CDs to MP3 for use on his MP3 player rather than buying an additional copy.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[hedwards]

No, but it is there fault for not noticing the violation when they were doing their review of the application for inclusion. Unlike Google which doesn't seem to exercise any control over what goes in the market at all, Apple exerts quite a bit of control and presumably would be on the hook for such an obvious violation.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy.

Blatant fallacy.

Your whole argument is utter shite.

Are you a fanboy or are you being paid to post this crap?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[l0ungeb0y]

Because of a license INCOMPATIBILITY?
You can still download and install VLC player to your OS X Mac OUTSIDE OF THE APPSTORE.
Ohh wait... you're an asshole troll here to cause trouble over nothing, carry on.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[l0ungeb0y]

Uhh yeah... hello +5 INSIGHTFUL ASSHOLE
VLC for OSX is still here, just get it from their fucking web page AND NOT the fucking APPSTORE
Why are you morons so clueless?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize what are *you* saying? GPL is one of the easiest licenses to comply with! You just include source code in the app bundle, and you are done.

If Apple store does not allow that, then their rules are completely screwed. Get it? But I guess people like you don't get it....

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[ahankinson]

What part of what he said isn't true?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[aristotle-dude]

Sorry, but I don't follow. Rémi Denis-Courmont, an employee of Nokia, demanded the take down. He sited incompatibility with the GPL but VLC is currently licensed under GPLV2 which is compatible with the Appstore. There are serveral GPLV2 apps available on the app store with the only stipulation that it be "free". The developer is still under the obligation to distribute the source code if requested by any interested third party. The app in question was "Free" on the appstore.

Given these facts, I don't see your reasoning and I have to conclude that your post is a thinly veiled troll.

I personally don't care if you use macs or not but please stop spreading FUD.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[EvilIdler]

Yeah, what part? EVERY Mac user who needs more formats simply installs Perian. I have yet to find anything incompatible.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Tharsman]

I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior. All I ask is that the device I pay for allow me to use it as I please instead of requiring the company's permission for each little chunk of code that executes. Give me just that and I'll be happy to buy.

This makes no sense... this "behavior" is exclusive to iOS app distribution. Why would anyone stop using Macs due to this? It's like me refusing to use Windows because the Zune sucks or refusing to use Gmail because of google refusing to do anything about the Android Fragmentation issues.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Tharsman]

It is the submitters responsibility to make sure they have the right to put the software they submit into the AppStore. Apple does not take any license agreement documents from you when you submit, they just warn you that you must be the owner of the stuff you put there. If licensing or copyright issues emerge, the app will be taken down and the publisher may suffer penalties.

If there is any issue with the license, the developers should had found them, not Apple.

As far as I understand, the only issue was one of redistribution, something that is a bit stupid when all you need to do to "redistribute" a free app is let any iOS owner know about it for them to download it.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Tharsman]

Get it? The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.

This is one of the most layman ways to describe the GPL. I would use more tact, but this delivers the message best than tact would.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[BlueBoxSW.com]

I agree with your post, but it has too many facts and not enough opinions for a slashdot post.

Every day there's an Apple story, and every day the same people show up to express the same opinions.

For a bunch of people who claim not to buy Apple products, they sure do spend a lot of time talking about them.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Rinnon]

I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior. All I ask is that the device I pay for allow me to use it as I please instead of requiring the company's permission for each little chunk of code that executes. Give me just that and I'll be happy to buy.

It's for that reason exactly that I really regret my purchase of an iPhone. The simple things I want to do with it are locked down (add my own new text tones), and the improvements I try to make in my experience with my device are disallowed (downgrade to an older firmware that ran faster). Apple stuff is User friendly, but it's certainly not Tech friendly at all. If you're the type of person who wants to do something with your product that isn't already done for you by them, you're screwed.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the license not handle distribution.
And apple are the people distributing the software.

I would say that in that case apple would be the ones that are breaking the license

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, from iMovie "QuickTime files" = "H.264".

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

VLC assumes your files are properly bit-aligned for their encoding..... Other players prefer some wiggle room.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Why not use Windows 7 and give them an account with limited rights.

More to the point, why would you want to use Windows?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Apple is asserting rights over what I can install on hardware that I own.

No, they aren't. They are asserting control over what they sell in their own store. You remain free to install whatever you want on your own hardware.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[donny77]

Define safe. Will you get hosed like a windows machine, no. Can you run malicious and false advertised code, yes. A cell phone is a much more critical device than a computer. Mobility brings greater demands such as battery life. Software, unlike a computer needs to be optimized to the device and targeted to the device. It really is a different world.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that VLC has a license and Apple was violating that license?
Apple could have modified the agreement on the iStore, but instead, they chose to remove VLC.

Apple is being dumb in order to retain control of a dying market. Apple is becoming like IBM was in the late '80s.

I'm sorry, but it wasn't Apple who violated anything. It was Applidium who ported VLC code to an iPhone app.

And Apple can't fix anything by modifying an agreement, as it's not their license that's in question, it's the GPL. They'd actually have to restructure how their content distribution system works.

Apple added a GPL application to their app store, apparently the GPL does not allow you to do that, how did they not violate anything? The porting to an iPhone app is not the issue, distributing it by Apple with their policies is. And yes, Apple *can* fix it by changing their policies on the app store.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what will you do when something that should work *doesn't* work on MacOS?

Why do you think so many people buy AppleCare support?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy. Sometimes these rules are going to get in the way of someone's idea of how it should all work."

Well, I must be in favor of total anarchy then, because restrictions on the use of software practically ALWAYS get in the way of the users, and rarely benefit the creator in any meaningful non-monopolistic way. ESPECIALLY those pieces of software you pay for; if you are forced to pay for it to use it, no one should fucking have the right to tell you how or how not to use it, or tell you that you have no right to legal action for bugs in the software, *especially* after you've broken the seal, making it practically impossible to return due to the possibility of having "copied" the program. It is those licenses that try to ensure its users freedom that tend to be hit the hardest in the typical capitalist, proprietary setting.

The GPL certainly "gets in the way" sometimes when it comes to proprietary licenses and the typical dictator-style terms of services forced onto us by corporations, but at least the GPL is intended for *us*, the *users* of the software (who are, you know... the actual people that will *use* the software in the first place).

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac is not solution either.
It has terrible media support and limited player choice.
Missing hardware acceleration is a big NO.
Only GeForce 9400M 320M 330M are supported.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[JAlexoi]

Oh please.... Everybody know what AppStore is like. It's not like it was different at launch. This issue lies with Apple not defining that GPL conflicts with their AppStore agreement and distribution model and the developers not being legally educated enough to understand what GPL stands for.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[JAlexoi]

Yeah! But his complaint was that GPL was not enforced/followed. So you could say, that there was one sane person requiring the essence of GPL to be adhered to...

-----
Tree non-functioning sites were "fear.microsoft.com.", "uncertainty.microsoft.com." and "doubt.microsoft.com."
The purpose of those sites is not known.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

The other day for example my wife wanted a sound to come on when she got an email in thunderbird. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on ubuntu without some serious googling/screwing around.

This makes me question your competence. It worked for me, first go, when I had to set it up for my father a few months back. No Google, no screwing around.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Ecuador]

I am a software engineer and my favorite working environment is Linux/KDE (I prefer SuSE for a few years now). A little over a year ago my job also put me on an iOS project so they provided a Mac. Apart from the fact that it is unix-based which is great, it has been a big disappointment for me, both hardware and software-wise. I will spare you the lengthy details, but it is enough to say that it is definitely a step up from Linux for simple/media usage, at my home the Mac Mini and the Linux workstation sit idly when I want to watch a movie etc, since that is when I fire up a Windows 7 based HTPC (which does not have to wait for Steve's approval to play my HD-DVD/Bluray collection etc).

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[EMN13]

Apple, not (merely) Applidium violated the license. They're distributing the software, after all. Even with the most positive spin possible you could merely argue they're just a bulk-distributor and not liable as long as they honor take-downs, but even that argument is dubious: after all, they manually approve apps, so it's hard to argue they don't control what "users" (such as Applidium) post.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[EMN13]

Redistribution with modifications is not possible in the app-store.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[EMN13]

They want to avoid vendor lock in, of which Apple's control-freak behavior is a perfect example. The app-store is the very anti-thesis of free software: a world in which you cannot run any program you wrote unless The Man approves.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[EMN13]

The GPL is not about zero-cost distribution, the GPL is about the right for downstream users to modify the program. Apple very intentionally disables this; their app-store is the very antithesis of free software: a world in which you cannot run any program without Apple's stamp of approval.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[noodler]

"I agree with you, however that is not what many people want. "

And if we had to trust what many people think they want then we would not have been talking on a site like slashdot. It would propably be called iSlash.org or something and you would only read articles that were approved by Apple or Microsoft or whatever company with the biggest iMarketshare.
Your iLife would be regulated by your iDevices according to the iLaws brought into existance by the iLobby.

iFreedom indeed....

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here, is that apple has, by technical means, made it impossible for iPhone owners to install apps that are not in apples store on their own phones.

Compare this to a normal store - it has rules like it only sells whatever it likes and you can only take three items into the change room at a time. If I go into an H&M store they won't necessarily have Lewis jeans, but they might have a jacket I like.

But they don't prevent me from going to the JC store and buy the Lewis jeans and then wear both at the same time. Actually, they don't give a flying shit about what I do with the clothes I buy after I've paid and walked out the door. This is how all normal stores work.

That's why Apples store isn't a normal store, and can't be held to the same standard.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[WarwickRyan]

> More to the point, why would you want to use Windows?

Because, dispite what the fruit-hugging hipsters will claim, it's very stable stable, runs on a massive range of hardware (including hardware from Apple), it's the market leader, it's more open then Apple's dictatorship and actually a really nice well designed and implemented OS?

It's not perfect, but it's better than the commercial competition.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[arikol]

Yes, yes and YES

I used mainly Linux and WinXP. Linux (went through debian, tried red hat, and have used Ubuntu) was used on our main computer (living room machine) and XP on my audio recording and mixing computer (hardware, drivers and recording software on Windows and Mac is just WAYYY nicer).
The joy of compiling drivers for the TV tuner card and not being able to update the kernel without a major hassle lost its appeal. So did the 'interesting' audio issues that crop up from time to time in the various audio frameworks being used.
Ubuntu is very nice when it works, and seems like it is one or two versions away from being a realistic desktop replacement. Which is the same as Linux was five years ago.

To cut a long story short, I switched to Mac when windows Vista came out, as I was selling Vista machines at the time and providing support (and I would rather have used Ubuntu than Vista, that much is absolutely clear).
My reward was NO time spent on system mucking.
In the last four years I have spent around 10 hours total on system maintenance, plus I've installed all new versions of the operating system on top of the old one which has alway been troublefree. I DID change hard disks on my macbook pro last summer as I don't trust laptop hard drives past a certain age, and this forced me to do a clean install.

Macs DO freeze (or hang, or crash. Select your term). That said, I generally restart my laptop every two or three weeks (I generally keep an uptime of at least two weeks) and that is partly just out of old fashioned paranoia (3 WEEKS? It MUST be getting slow or something...)

Apple may have some ideological deficiencies, but their devices have given me nothing but joy, as well as additional time with my family (or additional time to post crap on /.)

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[arikol]

It's not that simple, now is it?
The GPL has issues with any sort of limitation or control mechanism and doesn't care whether that control mechanism actually has any effect.
The issue at hand is that an app can only be installed on 5 devices belonging to the same account. Meaning that anyone owning more than 5 iOS devices is likely to have more than one account.

But VLC is a FREE app, which means that installing it through multiple accounts creates no problem for the user.

This is a case of a freetard gone mad (I use freetard in this case, as opposed to an open source developer), and making the free less so. What is the use of an ideologically free if no one can use it?
And Remi's (the freetard in question) employment at Nokia doesn't look good.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[zmollusc]

I wouldn't want to deny Apple my money, I just want to retain the same amount of control over that money as they retain over my iProducts. Astoundingly, Apple refuse to take my money.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[GameboyRMH]

Look at Maemo 5, if you want to root it and be able to type "rm -rf /" into a terminal, all you have to do is install an app from the official community repo. And yet no massive virus outbreaks. How curious.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Goaway]

Apple changed the agreement once already to appease the GPL crowd. But apparently it was not enough for this guy.

He could have tried to work with Apple constructively to figure out what changes he needed. But he didn't, he just stirred up drama on the internet instead, so Apple just pulled the app.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[GameboyRMH]

I think then next version of the GPL has to address this app store problem, just like v3 addressed Tivoization, it's a threat to software freedom.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[peppepz]

Do you realize the insanity of what you're saying -- in THIS context? You're whining that Apple has terms of service for its store, when the software in question was pulled by VLC's developers because publishing it didn't comply with THEIR terms (the GPL).

No, he's legitimately protesting because Apple give you no way to install software on the hardware you own, without abiding to their terms.

So the people who caused this action -- that you're supporting -- are enforcing THEIR rules. Get it?

In fact, they want to stop Apple from gaining profits stealing their work by copying it without respecting its license terms. What's wrong with that?

The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.

Bullshit. The GPL lovers have no control over what people DO with software. They do control how people can copy the software THEY have developed. Can I, in comparison, download iLife for free? Can I reverse-engineer iOS? Can I run OS X in a virtual machine?

Did Apple pay a cent to get the base for the HTML rendering engine which made the first iPhone so successful? No, because it was LGPL. Did they share the improvements they did to it with the community, and in particular with other companies, which led to an explosion of web-capable devices all running the same engine? Yes, and *only* because it was LGPL.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[peppepz]

Good for you. And good thing that the terms of license of your operating system allow you to install another media player without breaking the contract between you and its vendor.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. And he can probably keep all the existing hardware, instead of buying new expensive HW from Apple.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Good for you. And good thing that the terms of license of your operating system allow you to install another media player without breaking the contract between you and its vendor.

Why, yes the Mac OS license does that - as does the iOS license. Doesn't the Android license? Or why can't you get VLC for it?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[GameboyRMH]

The Thunderbird problem is a known bug. Things have bugs sometimes. At least you were able to work around it, on Windows or OSX you might not have had so many options.

Google Earth is a proprietary application, it's up to Google to make it work, and they should have set up their own symlink properly. Here's a possible fix for the font problem: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=204513

Next you have issues configuring video editing software. No decent video editing software is simple and easy to set up to do everything, only simple toys like WMM and iMovie that have very limited functionality are.

Are you sure the muted sound in Kubuntu isn't specific to your sound card? I've seen reports of sound working out of the box so the sound doesn't seem to actually be muted.

And finally your proprietary, intentionally locked down digital audio player doesn't work. What more needs to be said about that?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[index0]

rephrased, "It is suddenly Apple's fault that the iDevice user can not install GNU licensed software?". If not Apple's fault, then who.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[index0]

You ask what behavior? How about the part where you can only install stuff with Apple's permission (unless you pay $100/year or jailbreak).

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[peppepz]

I'm a dedicated linux user for the past 5 years and I'm thinking of dumping it all and going to macs.

Instead I'm a dedicated mac user and I'm thinking of dumping it all and going to linux. ;)

I spend way too much time fiddling and screwing around trying to get normal things to work. The other day for example my wife wanted a sound to come on when she got an email in thunderbird. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on ubuntu without some serious googling/screwing around. Google earth which for some reason vanished from the medibuntu repository... same deal. For some reason the installer set the symlink to point somewhere else. And still the fonts are screwed up, don't know why.

I spend way too much time fiddling and screwing around trying to get normal things to work. And Apple keeps deleting my posts when I whine on their support forums. The other day for example I wanted to connect my Android phone to my macbook. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on a mac at all because "RNDIS is a Microsoft protocol".

Or one of my favorites? Kdenlive, a great video editor, can't export to h.264 out of the box on ubuntu because it uses lame so you have to put your own custom export in.

After I switched to linux, kdenlive exported to h.264 out of the box simply by choosing "H.264" from the format list (which included HDV, DV, MPEG2, MPEG4, Xvid, Flash, RealVideo, Theora and Webm). Of course, that only worked after I enabled the restricted codecs, which aren't "restricted" by any technical reason, but only by the illiberal laws of some countries which sacrifice civil liberties to create monopolies for the profit of big enterprises. Thankfully I don't live in one of them.

Or a recent clean install of Kubuntu 10.10 that left the master mixing channel muted (not through kmix but through alsamixer).

Effectively I have some problems with that %$&%# PulseAudio which keeps eating all of my CPU just to play an MP3 :D ...

Or the fact that the newest ubuntu amarok packages kill it's ability to talk to my wife's ipod.

...but I'm happy anyway because I switched to a non-Apple mp3 player which doesn't require me to either use a closed, buggy, heavy, alien, limited application or to rely on amateur reverse-engineered libraries just to transfer music on it. It also costed much less and does have a removable battery.

Look, I loves me linux, but I have 3 kids, a wife, a job, and a life.

Look, I love Apple devices, but I have an underpaid IT job, so I can't afford to spend 3x the money to buy underpowered hardware.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[cbreak]

You refuse to buy apple products because they honor the requests of Developers about removing their own products from apple's App Store? The reasoning behind that I'd like to know...

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[cbreak]

No, that can't be the case because the software WAS in the app store. So the complaint can't be related with not being in.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[nblender]

Simply not true. I'm both. A linux user and embedded firmware developer so for the most part, I knows my shizzle... My preferred environment is OSX because shit just works. I have to use Linux at my customer site and the fact that I can't play a .wav file in amarok or use aplay to play the .wav file while amarok is playing an mp3 is dumb. The fact that I have to futz around with xrandr to get multiple heads to work on my laptop. The fact that I can't turn off my laptop built-in speakers with a headset plugged in (even though windows on the same hardware manages to do it); blah blah blah blah.. Best example I can see yet? I gave my son my old Powerbook G4 and an Ubuntu 10 DVD. He got Ubuntu installed on the PBG4 and got Firefox, Thunderbird, Tuxkart, and so forth installed and running... But the fiddling was just too much... I mean seriously, in order to get the wireless working, he had to download a broadcom firmware bundle from openwrt.org, open an xterm, build a downloaded .c file to extract the correct firmware image from the bundle, install it in /lib/firmware/mumblemumble and reboot just to get wireless working.... He's 9 years old FFS... It took him 2 days of experimentation to get the wireless working. Eventually he decided Linux wasn't for him and reinstalled OSX...

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dfghjk]

You seem to forget that when the hardware was first created, the company had no intention of offering, or even allowing, a "software store". The hardware most certainly would exist without a software store.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[aristotle-dude]

The GPL is not about zero-cost distribution, the GPL is about the right for downstream users to modify the program. Apple very intentionally disables this; their app-store is the very antithesis of free software: a world in which you cannot run any program without Apple's stamp of approval.

The GPL is about the source code. It is not an EULA. It does not apply to end users but only to interested third parties who can request a copy of the code. There is no mention of DRM in the GPLV2. Please stop inventing new clauses and see clause 6 of the license.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DAldredge]

Because it works.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[mardukvmbc]

I'm a dedicated linux user for the past 5 years and I'm thinking of dumping it all and going to macs.

Instead I'm a dedicated mac user and I'm thinking of dumping it all and going to linux. ;)

I spend way too much time fiddling and screwing around trying to get normal things to work. The other day for example my wife wanted a sound to come on when she got an email in thunderbird. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on ubuntu without some serious googling/screwing around. Google earth which for some reason vanished from the medibuntu repository... same deal. For some reason the installer set the symlink to point somewhere else. And still the fonts are screwed up, don't know why.

I spend way too much time fiddling and screwing around trying to get normal things to work. And Apple keeps deleting my posts when I whine on their support forums.
The other day for example I wanted to connect my Android phone to my macbook. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on a mac at all because "RNDIS is a Microsoft protocol".

Or one of my favorites? Kdenlive, a great video editor, can't export to h.264 out of the box on ubuntu because it uses lame so you have to put your own custom export in.

After I switched to linux, kdenlive exported to h.264 out of the box simply by choosing "H.264" from the format list (which included HDV, DV, MPEG2, MPEG4, Xvid, Flash, RealVideo, Theora and Webm).
Of course, that only worked after I enabled the restricted codecs, which aren't "restricted" by any technical reason, but only by the illiberal laws of some countries which sacrifice civil liberties to create monopolies for the profit of big enterprises. Thankfully I don't live in one of them.

Agreed but there's a point where you get tired of ideologies for the sake of not getting something done.

Or a recent clean install of Kubuntu 10.10 that left the master mixing channel muted (not through kmix but through alsamixer).

Effectively I have some problems with that %$&%# PulseAudio which keeps eating all of my CPU just to play an MP3 :D ...

Pulseaudio... the bane of my KDE life. It's 2010 and we're f'ing around with sound?

Or the fact that the newest ubuntu amarok packages kill it's ability to talk to my wife's ipod.

...but I'm happy anyway because I switched to a non-Apple mp3 player which doesn't require me to either use a closed, buggy, heavy, alien, limited application or to rely on amateur reverse-engineered libraries just to transfer music on it. It also costed much less and does have a removable battery.

I hear you and know why you feel that way but the fact of the matter is that the old packages work, and if you manually download and forbid-upgrade the packages they work again. Some package manager screwed up and it's another half an hour on google and mucking on the command line to get a couple songs on my wife's ipod.

Look, I loves me linux, but I have 3 kids, a wife, a job, and a life.

Look, I love Apple devices, but I have an underpaid IT job, so I can't afford to spend 3x the money to buy underpowered hardware.

Hey man I really appreciate the counterpoint before I jump in to the apple realm. My mind's not set and your points are exactly what's holding me back. Especially the last one.

It just seems to me that the amount of f'ing around with desktops to do basic things should have gone down over the past 5 years on linux, and it seems to have gone up instead. Lots of fanciness but lotsa bugs. I was hoping in the apple realm that because you pay more maybe you get what you pay for. I've had family, friends, etc go this way and all proclaim this. But you've got me thinking. Maybe I'll hackintosh one of my linux machines and see how it goes.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

No, they aren't. They are asserting control over what they sell in their own store. You remain free to install whatever you want on your own hardware.

I'm not, since they are using technological (and, increasingly, legal) means to restrict that. Unlike Android devices, iOS doesn't have an option of installing from sources other than Apple's App Store.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Tharsman]

Although you would need to subscribe to the Apple Dev program, you CAN redistribute with modifications by submitting your own version of the program.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Because, dispite what the fruit-hugging hipsters will claim

You know your argument is flawed when you have to bring mythical "hipsters"and ad-hominem attacks into the debate rather than facts and reason. I guess your verbiage is slightly above "Mac users are gay."

it's the market leader,

Why would this be a reason to choose something? McDonalds might be the market leader in fast food, but that doesn't mean it's good food.

it's more open then Apple's dictatorship

How so? Anybody can develop for Mac OS, just as anybody can develop for Windows or Linux. Moreover, Mac OS is a form of UNIX, so there are many more development possibilities there, especially the ease of porting between Linux and Mac. Windows doesn't even have a proper command line.

and actually a really nice well designed and implemented OS?

It's actually barely designed at all. It's a complete mess of hacks.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the commercial competition.

Except for the fact that Mac OS is much better designed, more modern, and more sophisticated.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Because it works.

So, are you implying that Operating Systems other than Windows don't work? That claim would need some evidence to back it up.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

I'm not, since they are using technological (and, increasingly, legal) means to restrict that. Unlike Android devices, iOS doesn't have an option of installing from sources other than Apple's App Store.

Umm, we're not talking about iOS here, we're talking about Mac OS, which doesn't require you to buy apps from the Apple store.

Even if we were talking about iOS, you are still free to install whatever you like on your own hardware. However, Apple is not required to assist you in doing so, any more than BMW is required to help you install a big-block V8 in your Mini Cooper, or Microsoft is required to help you install Linux apps on Windows.

As for legal measures, what are you referring to? I don't recall any legal action from Apple against people jailbreaking their devices.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Freak]

Or you could say one zealot who wants to punish companies rather than benefit their users.

Apple was perfectly happy to leave it up even AFTER the complaint was made. The source code was completely available.

My mother couldn't compile VLC on Linux, so why does it matter that she can't compile it for iOS, either? It *IS* possible to do so to people who know how. The fact that it is/was available is/was great, in spite of Apple's limitations.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jedidiah]

> Simply not true. I'm both. A linux user
> and embedded firmware developer so for
> the most part,

Apple suffers from NIH and walled garden syndrome.

If you're the least bit creative, it's pretty easy to find something that doesn't "just work" on the Mac. iMovie's inability to deal with camera "files" versus the cameras themselves is a case on point.

Of course the very basics like supporting the hardware that shipped with the device is bound to work better with ANY OEM bundleware.

This isn't just an Apple thing.

Your blithering fanboy nonsense doesn't alter my original point. You're committing a big fat fraud upon the OP and it may have real consequences.

You can't just take it as an article of faith that MacOS will "just work" or "work better".

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[jedidiah]

Sometimes I really wonder if any of these Mac fanboys ever actually run the apps they like to spread propaganda about. It's like Lemmings droning on about Photoshop.

The fact that you can't seem to imagine very trivial use cases where how iMovie approaches things could go wrong seems to indicate either total cluelessness or entirely blinded loyalty.

I can also see where a disgruntled kdenlive user might be coming from.

I've actually used both applications.

_...an odd somewhat beneficial side effect of slightly outdated Macs being made egregiously obsolete by newer hardware.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

Umm, we're not talking about iOS here, we're talking about Mac OS, which doesn't require you to buy apps from the Apple store.

Are you blind? RTFA: "Apple Pulls VLC Media Player from AppStore". That's the iOS AppStore.

Even if we were talking about iOS, you are still free to install whatever you like on your own hardware.

Apple takes active measures preventing me from installing software on my hardware; they designed their hardware and software that way. The fact that they are too dumb to get it right doesn't change the fact that that's their intention.

As for legal measures, what are you referring to? I don't recall any legal action from Apple against people jailbreaking their devices.

Apple made official DMCA arguments against jailbreaking. Fortunately, the feds put a stop to that:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/

However, Apple is not required to assist you in doing so

That remains to be seen. As part of fair business practice and antitrust efforts, we can require Apple (and other vendors) to allow and support the installation of third party software. And we probably should do that.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Are you blind? RTFA: "Apple Pulls VLC Media Player from AppStore". That's the iOS AppStore.

It doesn't actually say that in the summary or the linked article(s)

Apple takes active measures preventing me from installing software on my hardware; they designed their hardware and software that way. The fact that they are too dumb to get it right doesn't change the fact that that's their intention.

Yeah, so what? They made the hardware. It's your problem if you choose to buy it and it doesn't do what you want it to.

Apple made official DMCA arguments against jailbreaking. Fortunately, the feds put a stop to that:

So, in other words, Apple has never taken legal action against an individual for jailbreaking their device?

That remains to be seen.

No, it doesn't. Should you be required to help your neighbor paint his house?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DAldredge]

Why don't you consider PowerShell to be a real command line?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Because it's a hack on top of another hack, not an actual integrated command line?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[peppepz]

Lots of fanciness but lotsa bugs.

Dist-upgrading Ubuntu (unstable) just arbitrarily changed my plain Italian keyboard layout to a dual setup alternating between US and Afghan.

I was hoping in the apple realm that because you pay more maybe you get what you pay for

And you do. I wrote that post just because I have the impression that while Apple's advantages are well publicized, the dark sides aren't.

It just seems to me that the amount of f'ing around with desktops to do basic things should have gone down over the past 5 years on linux, and it seems to have gone up instead.

I share your impression. I think this happens as the average Linux userspace is changing from a set of simple, legacy, documented, user-developed programs, to a set of complex, experimental, undocumented, distro-oriented self-sentient subsystems that often seem designed to serve every use case except the ones you need. And that get deprecated before getting completed.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DAldredge]

What do you mean by "an actual integrated command line"? I can't discuss this with you if I do not know what you mean.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

It doesn't actually say that in the summary or the linked article(s)

Right in the summary! "Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working."

So, in other words, Apple has never taken legal action against an individual for jailbreaking their device?

What I said was that they tried to take legal measures, which they did, for example, by making that DMCA argument official.

Should you be required to help your neighbor paint his house?

Under some circumstances, yes. But that's a bad analogy anyway. There is tons of precedent for legally requiring platform providers to open up their platforms to competitors, There is no reason at all why Apple alone should be able to do whatever they please.

Yeah, so what? They made the hardware. It's your problem if you choose to buy it and it doesn't do what you want it to.

First, Apple is achieving near monopoly status in some markets, so I people increasingly don't have a choice.

Second, the reason we talk about this is that other people become aware of the problem. The more people know about it, the more we can apply economic and legal pressure on Apple.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Guy Harris]

You seem to forget that when the hardware was first created, the company had no intention of offering, or even allowing, a "software store". The hardware most certainly would exist without a software store.

The iPhone definitely existed before the App Store did. Whether that's because Apple originally had no intention of offering a software store, or because Apple didn't want to mention the App Store and SDK before they were ready, is speculation (regardless of which way you speculate).

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[toriver]

Um, VLC is available for the Mac desktop. And has been for ages. Why drag that into the discussion?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[toriver]

Why not? I can get an app from the app store, get the source from the developer, make my changes, build and submit (or do ad hoc distribution). Presto! Redistribution with modification.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[toriver]

This makes me question your competence.

I am sure he's going to miss the arrogance of the Linux crowd when he switches to Mac...

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[toriver]

No, he's legitimately protesting because Apple give you no way to install software on the hardware you own, without abiding to their terms.

Google "iPhone" and "jailbreak" sometime. Interesting stuff. Stuff that hackers have been used to do for ages, before the entitlement culture made people lazy bitches that demanded the manufacturer do the "hacking" for them.

In fact, they want to stop Apple from gaining profits stealing their work by copying it without respecting its license terms. What's wrong with that?

What "profits"? It's a free app! Submitted by some developer! Who is not Apple! Get a grip!

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[toriver]

At least he had arguments, you just have swearing. What do you call that, "Proof by potty-mouthing"?

Or are you really angry at the total lack of VLC for Android?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[toriver]

Unlike Android devices, iOS doesn't have an option of installing from sources other than Apple's App Store.

Yes it does, but you would need to be an iOS developer to know that. And some Android devices are delivered in a way to prevent side-loading apps.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, wrong. You can still get the VNC from their website.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

In UNIX/Linux/MacOS, the command line practically is the Operating System. In Windows, the command line a couple of layers removed from the working of the OS. Besides that, it's non-standard.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Right in the summary! "Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working."

That's kind of meaningless on its own.

The more people know about it, the more we can apply economic and legal pressure on Apple.

Why would you want to apply legal pressure on Apple, when they are doing nothing illegal? Do you disapprove of free markets and capitalism? It would set a bad precedent to try and force companies to do things they shouldn't have to do.

Need I remind you that it was actually a VLC developer who requested that VLC be removed from the App Store? Are you arguing that we should be forcing companies to do things that are against the wishes of the developers/owners of their own property?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[DAldredge]

Part of the operating system? How? It is a normal user mode program which can be easily replaced.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[peppepz]

Google "iPhone" and "jailbreak" sometime. Interesting stuff.

Jailbreaking is not "a way given you by Apple to install software on the hardware you own without abiding to their terms".

The key words are "by Apple".

Stuff that hackers have been used to do for ages, before the entitlement culture made people lazy bitches that demanded the manufacturer do the "hacking" for them.

Lucky for those bitches, other manufacturers still provide them with hardware that requires no such "hacking".

What "profits"? It's a free app! Submitted by some developer! Who is not Apple! Get a grip!

The profits coming from people buying the iPhone because it allows them to run VLC. Or do you think that Apple developed the iOS SDK for philanthropy?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[tsm_sf]

The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.

Why is the GPL so hard for some people to understand? It seems like the divide exists simply because people want to use GPL'd software without following the GPL.

If you don't agree with the license, don't use the software. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[FellowConspirator]

Apple does not prohibit you from installing software that isn't from the app store. In fact, they have an officially endorsed mechanism to do so -- though it's impractical for anything but a business to do. You aren't violating any license by jail-breaking your phone either. Sure, Apple won't support it or warranty it with a jailbreak, but that's different.

Even if it were true, though, the GPL only covers the requirement that the source be available and that you don't charge more than a nominal fee for redistribution.

Apple pulled the app because one of the app developers was making legal threats about the app being submitted to the store. Why would anyone deal with that sort of thing? I wouldn't sell the app either if one of the developers told me he'd force me to lawyer up over it.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Graff]

At least he had arguments, you just have swearing. What do you call that, "Proof by potty-mouthing"?

Don't feed the trolls, especially the anonymous coward ones! ;-)

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

Why would you want to apply legal pressure on Apple, when they are doing nothing illegal? Do you disapprove of free markets and capitalism? It would set a bad precedent to try and force companies to do things they shouldn't have to do.

Apple is interfering with free markets and capitalism, and that is arguably illegal. It is in order to defend free markets and capitalism that Apple's behavior should be curbed.

And Apple should be the last company to complain about that; without anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft, Apple wouldn't even exist.

Free markets only exist if government keeps them free. A "free market" doesn't mean that companies can do whatever they like, it means that customers have a free choice to buy and use what they want in the market.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

You said:

Umm, we're not talking about iOS here, we're talking about Mac OS, which doesn't require you to buy apps from the Apple store.

The summary said

Apple Pulls VLC Media Player from AppStore. [...] Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working.

That tells anybody who knows the smallest thing about Apple that we are talking about iOS (quite apart from the fact that VLC just isn't in the Mac App Store).

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[aristotle-dude]

I think then next version of the GPL has to address this app store problem, just like v3 addressed Tivoization, it's a threat to software freedom.

Software is an inanimate thing. It has no right or freedoms. People have rights and freedoms. By confusing this issue, you are opening up the opportunity for corporations (non-persons) lobbying the government to to have their rights trump the rights of individuals.

Stop anthropomorphizing software, it hates that.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Apple is interfering with free markets and capitalism,

How so?

And Apple should be the last company to complain about that; without anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft, Apple wouldn't even exist.

How so? Apple was established quite independently of IBM and Microsoft, and had nothing to do with anti-trust litigation against those companies. Are you just making stuff up here?

A "free market" doesn't mean that companies can do whatever they like, it means that customers have a free choice to buy and use what they want in the market.

And how does Apple deny them that choice? Apple products are available to buy at the purchaser's discretion. There is nothing forcing people to buy them. There is no forced monopoly like there is with companies such as telecommunication providers, where there might only be one choice in a particular region.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[aristotle-dude]

rephrased, "It is suddenly Apple's fault that the iDevice user can not install GNU licensed software?". If not Apple's fault, then who.

Are you talking about freedom here or trying to force other people and companies to bend to your will?

It is the fault of the squabbling developers who have different interpretations of what the GPLV2 provides. If you were to read the license literally without interpretation then you would see that it is silent on DRM as it is a license for the "source" and not the binary.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Stop anthropomorphizing software, it hates that.

Wrong - information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go with mac, i use different OS's for different uses, and when it comes to everyday work macs simply work. I have not reinstalled my os or dealt with any major problems since i got my Air, and it runs just as perfectly snappy and responsive as it was when it came out of the box, plus if you know linux on comand line level, you will find a mac equally functional and a way more stable. Windows 7 is great if you like getting "drive-by" viruses and jiggley jumpy gui's that consistently violate reason. I swear the only time i feel like tossing a computer out of a window is when i sit down to my windows machine, which is (in a hardware sense) my fastest system. My mac has never caused me any headaches unless i was trying to do something dumb to it like stacking virtual machines 3 deep, in which case a reboot solved the problem. If you like computers that dont force you to constantly fix them and them and fight with the OS to get the results you want. Its not that macs are flawless its that everything else (within practical reason) is infinitely more flawfull. Forgive the windows users for they no not what they are talking about. Windows is a lazy choice for people who would rather learn to use softwre than develop or simply understand it. Additionally, a significant amount of Posix-family software has been either ported or can be simply compiled with minimal or no modifications on a mac, so you wouldn't leave much behind in the switch. As someone who uses 4 or 5 (depending on your definition) OS's, i cant imagine a better family system than a mac. It's the machine of choice for both ultra-nerds and my 83 yo grandmother alike.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Guy Harris]

But people's well founded fear is that this trend does not stop at iDevice.

How well-founded it is is a matter of opinion. Just because person A is convinced, by person A's argument, that it's well-founded, that doesn't mean person B will be convinced - or that it will turn out to be well-founded.

If it spreads to Macs, expect Windows 9 to do the same thing.

Because <cliche>Microsoft have always copied Apple</cliche>? (I can just hear Uncle Fester's mother saying "if Steve Jobs jumped off a bridge, would you do that, too?")

Linux Users will have to build beige boxes, and depending on how many congress critters are purchased, may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Which law might that be? (But, hey, saying that certainly helps some Linux fans think of themselves as Daring Rebels Against The Empire rather than just people who have chosen to run a different OS on their machines.)

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Guy Harris]

That must be the most retarded and uninformed statement I've read all night. And I've been browsing /. all night.

I have the App Store on my MacBook right now. I can download stuff from the App Store, or I can choose to ignore it altogether.

You are aware that this was VLC for iOS, which is an OS where, absent a jailbreak, you can only run applications from the App Store (well, modulo being a developer or an enterprise distributing internal applications or using whatever that "you can distribute 100 copies to others" thing is), not VLC for Mac OS X, which is an OS where you can run applications from elsewhere (which was true before there was an App Store for Mac OS X), right?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Guy Harris]

All I ask is that the device I pay for allow me to use it as I please instead of requiring the company's permission for each little chunk of code that executes. Give me just that and I'll be happy to buy.

So buy one of these.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[luk3Z]

Apple fail again and probably dig your own grave.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[GameboyRMH]

When I say 'software freedom' I mean keeping software free for people to use - preserving people's rights to use software.

And it's a few decades too late to be worried about corporations trumping the rights of individuals. That horse isn't on the same continent as its barn anymore.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your son probably doesn't have a wife, job or kids. I would have thought that would have been a great experience for him (hacking through OS depths trying to get something to work). ...or maybe I have the wrong idea about learning (by doing).

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

How so? Apple was established quite independently of IBM and Microsoft, and had nothing to do with anti-trust litigation against those companies. Are you just making stuff up here?

Apple only had a market to sell to because anti-trust enforcement created the market. And their offenses? Tying of hardware and software sales, and attempts to control distribution channels--just like Apple is doing now.

And how does Apple deny them that choice? Apple products are available to buy at the purchaser's discretion. There is nothing forcing people to buy them.

Many apps are only available for iOS; it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid iOS.

In addition, in many places, there are interoperability requirements on operating system providers; Apple may be violating them.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[janwedekind]

I'd rather recommend Kubuntu 10.04 (Long term release). I admit that it didn't work flawlessly out of the box. Also Canonical offers desktop support for 88.42£/year. And once your kids grow up they'll be able to fix your computer for free anyway ;)

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[aristotle-dude]

Again, there is a difference between "rights and freedoms" recognized or granted by a bill of rights or constitution and rights to copy or distribute granted by a license or contract. Freedoms and rights in the context of citizenship are generally immutable whereas rights granted by a license or contract are transitory. They only exist during the lifespan of the contract or license and you never receive "freedoms" from a license. Stop diluting the meaning of the word "freedom" by using it incorrectly. I do no owe Mr. Stallman one iota for my rights and freedoms as an individual.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[exomondo]

You talk as if the hardware would exist, without the software store

Why wouldn't it?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[exomondo]

It's actually barely designed at all. It's a complete mess of hacks.

How so?

Except for the fact that Mac OS is much better designed, more modern, and more sophisticated.

How is it more modern and more sophisticated?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[exomondo]

Because it's a hack on top of another hack, not an actual integrated command line?

I'm getting the impression you have no idea what a hack is. The foundation on which OSX is built was built by hackers.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, Ubuntu/Linux breaks many things with "updates". I got tired of fixing things that previously worked but got broken on update. I only let it inform me of security updates now. I pin the version of app that works and leave it. Once it's all set up and stable it does work good. I also tend to stick with LTS versions for stability. Having the latest version isn't of concern to me. I have been trying to get my friends to migrate to Linux but their quirks are a deal breaker. It's too bad for Linux cuz I likes mine too!
Raymond Ilano
http://enigmarx.com/

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mac isn't a store, it's a platform...

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the market leader, it's more open then Apple's dictatorship and actually a really nice well designed and implemented OS?

Did you seriously just claim that Windows is "well designed and implemented"?

In case you didn't notice, Windows security has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. Practically MS's entire development effort since Windows 98 has been focused on fixing it.

Did you skip over Windows Vista or something? (I wouldn't blame you if you did) Christ, was that thing a mess!

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[fulldecent]

Great job, you just summarized the majority of people here after they graduate from college.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[travler]

Actually, this was exactly the reason why I switched from linux to mac (and I've been a linux user from the slackware install-via-floppy days). It was do to a gradual change as my life priorities changed, and my desire to _create_ rather than be annoyed because X,Y, and/or Z either broke, or wouldn't work without jumping through many hoops.

I still think linux is great for servers where the environment is more controlled. For the desktop though Mac currently rules. I'm constantly amazed at how everything just _works_. I say go for it, to anyone who is thinking about switching. You won't be disappointed.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Apple only had a market to sell to because anti-trust enforcement created the market.

Are you aware that nothing you are saying is true? Can you please cite which specific anti-trust law enforcement was the only reason Apple has "a market to sell to"?

Many apps are only available for iOS; it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid iOS.

How is it difficult? You just don't buy Apple products. More people have a problem finding the money to buy them. I'm sure they'd love to hear how difficult it is for them to avoid having the cash.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

Can you please cite which specific anti-trust law enforcement was the only reason Apple has "a market to sell to"?

Geez, look for the anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft. There are volumes upon volumes describing its origins and its consequences.

You just don't buy Apple products.

And then you have to live with not having access to a whole variety of services that are available nowhere else. That circumstance makes Apple a potential and legitimate target for anti-trust enforcement, just like Microsoft and IBM before it.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

Geez, look for the anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft.

Yes, there was anti-trust action against IBM and Microsoft. Neither of which had anything to do with Apple's creation as a company. Heck, the anti-trust cases against Microsoft came a couple of decades after Apple's incorporation, and the IBM cases were about a decade before.

Either way, none of the anti-trust actions had any significant effects on either the market at large or Apple specifically. You have some very strange notions of computing industry history.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[t2t10]

Either way, none of the anti-trust actions had any significant effects on either the market at large or Apple specifically. You have some very strange notions of computing industry history.

I lived through that history; you're wrong.

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[dangitman]

I lived through that history; you're wrong.

So, you lived through it, but you can't provide any actual examples?

Re:This is why I refuse to buy apple products.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did provide examples. Sorry, can't help you if you're too stupid to recognize them.

iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Tancred]

Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Android has never 'eaten Apple's lunch' on iPhone sales. It has fed on WIndows Mobile, and RIM for the most part. It's sales also leveled off a few months ago. Although it will be a major player in the market, I don't think it will driving Windows or iOS out of the market any time soon.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=115395

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just plain wrong. Android phones have been by far outselling the iPhone, and they just recently surpassed the total iPhone sales numbers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/05/androids-users-eclipse-iphones-for-first-time-comscore-says/

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[furball]

What are the Android phone manufacturers' profits like? What is Apple's profits like?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Tancred]

"Eating someone's lunch" is a rather ambiguous phrase, so I don't know why you're being so contrary. Hell, I even qualified it with "starting to". If all you're saying is that Android's rise has hurt MS & RIM more than Apple, well then we have no disagreement. But I suggest that most of those lost Windows Phone and Blackberry users would have gotten an iPhone if Android hadn't come on so strong. Which of these trend lines do you think Apple would prefer to have? Android has not leveled off. In fact, Nielsen shows it increasing.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/04/iphone-continues-to-hold-off-android-in-u-s-smartphone-market-share/

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[argmanah]

Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.

Different business models. Android is aiming for it to be installed on everything, so the Android device market is not designed to be a high margin businesses. Since there are no iOS makers except iPhone, they charge what they want and people are forced to pay. Their net profits has exceeded that of the Android market this past year despite a smaller market share. As long as what Apple disciples are willing to pay allows them to net more money than an open system, there's no incentive for them to change business models.

If Apple's market share shrinks to the point that serious handheld app developers no longer feel to make an iPhone version of their apps at all, maybe at that point Apple would be forced to switch, but until then, they're raking in the bucks.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[DragonWriter]

Android has never 'eaten Apple's lunch' on iPhone sales.

Google (Android), per comScore, passed Apple (iOS) as #2 in total active smartphone subscribers. (Still trails Blackberry, though if Android climbs and Blackberry falls in the next quarter at the same rate, Android will be #1 and Blackberry and iOS will be number #2.)

Now, comScore may overstate Google's position (Nielsen, for instance, has Apple ahead of Google -- and RIM -- with Google predicted to take the number 1 slot in Q1 2011), but pretty much all sources have Android growing fast, and on the verge of passing Apple in the smartphone market if not actually ahead.

It's sales also leveled off a few months ago.

Well, no. The Apple Insider forum post you link to interprets an 8% increase in the daily activation rate between August and October as a sign that the activation rate has reached a "plateau", but increasing by 8% in two months is not a plateau. It might be a reduction in the previous rate of increase, but an 8% increase in two months is a 58% annualized rate of increase, which is pretty far from flat.

Its not surprising that Apple Insider distorts things in that direction, of course, but it is a distortion, and not a particularly subtle one.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[c.derby]

But I suggest that most of those lost Windows Phone and Blackberry users would have gotten an iPhone if Android hadn't come on so strong.

...or been available on other carriers. i'm betting that the recent "gain" in android sales is the calm before the verizon+iphone storm. we'll see how the platforms truly compare at mid- or end-of year.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention iOS runs on more than just the iPhone.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[irreverentdiscourse]

So a device that has not been out for 7 months outsold one that has? Hmmmm... It's OK, one day you'll look back on your iPhone and laugh at yourself.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

"Eating Apple's lunch"? I think you meant "eating Apple's ass".

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[halowolf]

You mean a group of handset manufacturers outsold a single manufacturer of handsets.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[dadioflex]

Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if ...

If Apple start sacrificing virgins to Shogoth they still don't need to worry about Android "eating their lunch". Oh. DUH. When there were eleventy billion dumb phones around, did Apple worry? Why would they worry when Android soaks up a percentage of the large percentage of business they don't want? They don't want market share, they want profit.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[blackraven14250]

Then you should also wait for a serious contender on AT&T. The Captivate is the first phone that could even possibly qualify as being in the same ballpark as the iPhone on AT&T, but it isn't quite 100% there - wait for something that can be considered on an equal or better level and has some marketing muscle put behind it (the Captivate was by far under marketed), like the other carriers all have (Evo 4G on Sprint, Droid family on Verizon, G2 and myTouch on TMobile).

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[chaboud]

Both favorable, I imagine, but profits now don't matter nearly as much as viability in 5-10 years, at least to regular joe schmoe users and application developers.

I'm not saying that Apple isn't dynamic or thoughtful enough to look at opening things up, but it's a risk for them that they may not be willing to take. Perhaps a very profitable 2nd or 3rd place is enough for them.

Similar conditions resulted in winning the battle but losing the war in the old Mac OS vs. Wintel fight. I'd have to imagine that Apple's scars from those days have left them equipped to not make the same mistakes again.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[chaboud]

Enjoy explaining how Android outsold the iPhone in the UK, where the iPhone is available on the top five carriers.

Not that a Verizon iPhone won't sell like crazy. There's definitely some pent up demand. Nonetheless, when my mom is talking about how much she likes navigating by voice (and she's not a tech person in the slightest), it's a sign that Apple may have missed an opportunity to really cement their lead in the US. They really hitched their wagon to AT&T for, what, visual voice mail?

With things like Google Voice having already been done in office and land-line based systems, more inventive approaches based on already bone-stock voicemail forwarding (a la Google Voice) could have given Apple the chance to put their platform on the top 4-6 networks in the US with minimal fuss.

Maybe that would have spoiled the simplicity, but a modular radio could have exposed iOS to a *ridiculous* number of users.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[PopeRatzo]

It's OK, one day you'll look back on your iPhone and laugh at yourself.

BOOM! Oh, man, you really faced that dude. You, like, obliterated him. "Eating Apple's lunch" he said, and you were all like "More like eating Apple's ASS"!! Fuckin'-A right, eating Apple's ass. Apple is like so completely awesome, and you're awesome too for handling that weak-ass Android shit.

He'll think twice before he ever disrespects the primacy of the Apple Nation.

Apple totally rules. 4 EVER!!

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[asdf7890]

Fair point. But the same could have been said (and probably was) about IBM and the clone manufacturers at various points in the intel-based PC industry. The fact that there are a couple of significant players and several smaller ones give the Android marketplace a level of survivability that a single competitor would not have. Also Android reduces the hight of the entry barriers, making it easier for new wannabe competitors to join the game.

Apple are far from in trouble on this one, but they need to be careful as that could change quite quickly if their control starts to garner significant bad publicity among the general public, or if significant numbers of people realise that a £150-to-£300 Android based devices will do what they want well enough compared to a £600 iOS based one for the price/utility ratios issue to raise its ugly head.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

They really hitched their wagon to AT&T for, what, visual voice mail?

Speculation: Because before the iPhone, the phone CARRIER determined what was on the phone, not the phone maker.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Chill out there, Pope. Everything will be ok.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[dave562]

He means that given the choice, the market decided that they preferred something other than Apple more than they preferred Apple.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[furball]

The fact that there are a couple of significant players and several smaller ones give the Android marketplace a level of survivability that a single competitor would not have.

Survivability of Android or survivability of the hardware makers? What kind of survivability? Gateway still survives, so I hear. Is this survivability good?

How about Windows? It still survives. That's good right?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Fjandr]

Yes, they're apples-and-oranges cases (or perhaps a pallet of Red Delicious vs a mixed pallet of numerous types of apples).

On the flip side, the same thing happened with clones breaking away from IBM and with the current Mac-v-PC debate (to name just the two most relevant examples). When you have devices of two general classifications where one manufacturer controls one and the production of the other is spread amongst several manufacturers, there is no avoiding comparisons that might (in other circumstances) seem unfair.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations: an entire class of devices, with several different handsets from each manufacturer, has managed to surpass the sales of a single (small) range of devices from one manufacturer.

Sounds similar to how systems based on Windows definitively made Apple an also-ran at one relatively long stretch of their corporate history, come to think of it. Really similar, in fact. Like how they stormed out with something revolutionary and overpriced (though perhaps not the most powerful and many would contend simply built off the work of those that came before them), caught everyone's attention with shine and pizzaz, kept near-dictatorial control over their hardware and licensing out devkits, and sat on their laurels, expecting to remain in control forever, until an upstart came by with a much more open-to-develop-for system, weren't afraid to spread it like wildfire, and came to dominate not only the market but the entire industry, reducing Apple to a pathetic shell of its former self, stubbornly following the leader while being heartily ignored by anyone who actually mattered as they and their dedicated fans sat around with their heads up their asses, insisting nothing was wrong and they were still the bestest thing ever.

Of course, Apple had a magical messiah named Steve Jobs to bail their sorry asses out back then after they were out of the limelight for a decade or so, so the Appleheads shouldn't have anything to worry about. Say, how's his health these days?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wyatt Earp]

Gateway doesn't really survive, as a company it collapsed and the remnants were bought by MPC Corp and went that went over what was left was bought by Acer.

At the end, Gateway was worth a bit under half of its worth at the IPO in 1993.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[PopeRatzo]

Chill out there, Pope. Everything will be ok.

Sorry, man. I get like all jacked up when we talk about Apple.

I mean, the dude said Android was "eating Apple's lunch" and it was, like, ON.

You can't be disrespecting Apple like that. It's just not cool to talk smack about Apple when their shit is like, the shit.

It's OK... I'm alright now. Just don't come with that weak-ass Android shit because you should just take that shit to the park 'cause maybe the squirrels give a fuck, but it's just not cool to disrespect Apple. Like, at all. Claro?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Tharsman]

You're just plain wrong. Android phones have been by far outselling the iPhone, and they just recently surpassed the total iPhone sales numbers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/05/androids-users-eclipse-iphones-for-first-time-comscore-says/

I would like to see more significant numbers. How is the iPhone doing compared to other Android Phones within ATT? After all, no one goes out saying that Sprint HTC Android phones are loosing market because the combination of all other smart-phones across all carriers is greater.

Things will get much more interesting once iPhones become available outside of ATT.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Tharsman]

To add (if this forum has an edit button I cant' find it) it is actually a bit... well, sad, that Android Advocates constantly cite market wide android sales when the iPhone is restricted to just one carrier that, last time I checked, was only about 25% of the total market.

100% of the market has access to Androids, yet the iPhone has enough marketing power to be a challenge, and for a long time (and in many weeks/quarters) beat them.

This is like 4 guys bragging that they finally won a fight against one single guy, after they technically lost that same 4 to 1 fight 3 years in a row. How things will go in a 4 vs 2, I ponder?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[JohnBailey]

What are the Android phone manufacturers' profits like? What is Apple's profits like?

Or to rephrase it.. How much easier is it to part an iFanboy from their money at an abnormally high markup?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Daetrin]

As a consumer, do i care? As long as some companies are making some profit there will continue to be Android phones for me to buy. As long as the total number of Android phones being sold continues to exceed the number of iPhones then Google has every reason to keep on developing the OS.

Apple will continue to make huge profits selling a smaller number of phones at a marked up price. That's great for Apple, but i'm not exactly sure what's in it for the rest of us.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Archangel Michael]

Not necessarily. I don't want AT&T no matter what. My friend, who is die hard Apple freak, is sick and tired of AT&T he's considering moving to Droid X on Verizon, just to get off AT&T, the only reason he hasn't is continued rumors of iPhone on VZ. However, rumors aren't going to keep him on AT&T much longer.

I've known too many people who are sick of AT&T. Job's RDF doesn't extend to that far.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Z00L00K]

If you have a lower margin per phone but sell a lot more you will overwhelm the market with your product so the profit is in money counted maybe even lower but when it comes to market share you can kick out the other player into being a fringe player.

And when consumers discovers that there are devices that can do more than what their iPhone does - and maybe even better - then they will move. People changes phones almost at the same rate as they change their underwear.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[coaxial]

So Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones? Shocking.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[mwvdlee]

Yes, a single mobile OS has managed to surpass the sales of the most popular mobile OS before it.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[macs4all]

You're just plain wrong. Android phones have been by far outselling the iPhone, and they just recently surpassed the total iPhone sales numbers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/05/androids-users-eclipse-iphones-for-first-time-comscore-says/

The problem (for Android) is that its marketshare is far too fragmented to make a dent in iOS market penetration.

From what I can tell (and I own neither an iOS device nor an Android device), unlike the situation with Windows desktops, all those handsets don't run compatible-enough hardware/Android-versions/Vendor-Tweaks to make it practical for the "platform" to leverage the sheer combined numbers of all those handsets.

Nope. Unless Apple REALLY screws the pooch, they are as unstoppable with iOS as Windows was, well, still is, really, on the corporate desktop.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wild_dog!]

Apple will do fine with the iPhone. Android phones will eventually take the lions share of the market, but that won't be the profitable part of the market. Even if apples eventual share of the total smartphone market is 10%, they will still be larger and more profitable than the majority of Android phone makers. And they will be more diverse.

Back 12 or so years ago Dell said apple should sell its assets and pay its stock holders back. But once Steve Jobs took back the company he started, they have had explosive growth. Now they have more than 40 billion in cash and their company value is second only to exxon at over 300 billion. They usually aren't the greatest innovators, but they are able to buy up and leverage the technologies available. They package things in a way that has appeal.

Apple actually benefits enormously from tight control of their products contrary to your thoughts that it might be something that hurts them. The majority of people don't care if something is open source or open architecture or not. They just want functionality for what they want to do. People want a toaster that toast things when they press a button. Apple might not innovate or even create all of the functionality of their devices, but when they sponge existing technologies and package it properly they have enough control over the product to make it work without a hitch. That is what most people want.

Apple will continue to make the big profits and bring products to people that dazzle. The rest of the market will scramble to keep up with apples repackaging of currently available tech that appears amazing and new. I guarantee that 10 years from now, money will not be made using smartphones. Something else will be here which will make all smartphones useless and non-profitable. Where will apple be? Likely Apple will be in the forefront of the newest tech using their enormous purchasing power to assemble a new great product which will make consumers want it.

The open model is only as good its ability to organize and keep cohesiveness. If the android and it's apps become splintered and fragmented, then consumers will become confused and unsure of the devices. Sure there are some who want to do more and on an iPhone you can jailbreak it if that is your inclination, but the majority of folks still find the stock iPhone more than adequate for their needs and they don't care about philosophical debates about openness.

Apple will be coming out with products that nobody anticipated and will try to catch up. Apple will still be making big profits in the future because their business model is not dependent on producing a high volume of cheap devices with low profit margins. They are fine with a lower percent of the market and leading the market in creating new things that people will want.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wild_dog!]

Hmmmm ..... so last time I checked the price of an iPhone vs an Android device was relatively similar. Not sure what the "abnormally high markup" you refer to is.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Accidentally modded you as troll. Posting to undo. Apologies.

I had intended to mod you as insightful.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wild_dog!]

2 for one deals of some Android devices might suck some folks in.
Coverage might also have some folks more inclined to steer clear of carriers without good coverage.

I think that Android devices will become the pre-eminent smart-phone device, but there will also be 20 or so competitors squabbling over the market and trying to introduce things into their devices which could fragment the market. The Android market will not have nearly the profitability nor the cohesiveness of iOS even with superior numbers of units sold.

But both Android phones and iPhones will be loved and used by consumers. It is a great thing there is a choice. Unfortunately, I personally believe that RIM will falter and that is too bad. More choice is always good.

Eventually, however smart-phones as we know them will be obsolete and irrelevant. Who will lead the charge? Apple. Why? They are the ones with a track record of bringing products to the market which make people want to buy them. Will they create the new product?
Probably not.... they usually are not the first one in.

But they have proven resourceful in buying up new technology and refining it to make the early players look cludgy while their products appear novel and become the de-facto standard.

He means that given the choice, the market decided that they preferred something other than Apple more than they preferred Apple.

I would look at it differently...... so far people have preferred multiple smart phones. Apple continues to sell more iOS devices each quarter than the previous one as do Android based machines.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Does posting as anon fix mis-moderation?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Cederic]

People changes phones almost at the same rate as they change their underwear.

That's a scary personal insight. My occasional 'throw out all my underwear and buy 28 new pairs' shopping occasions occur less often than I buy a new phone.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[JAlexoi]

On contract, yes, see the price off contract is 20% higher for iPhone4 than any top of the range Android phones.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are US only numbers. It's also only from one of the tracking companies. Nielsen says iPhone/iOS is still ahead. Either way, take both statistics with a grain of salt.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[JAlexoi]

Not necessarily.I don't want AT&T no matter what.

I know Slashdot is US oriented site, but come on! Even in countries where iPhone is available from everyone and their grandmother, Android devices(collectively) outsell iPhone.
Apple is demanding a lot from operators(that is what "carriers" are called in Europe), some operators in Europe will not touch iPhone with a ten foot pole, because Apple requires minimum sales numbers.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

History doesn't pay the bills.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[zaphod777]

How is it I can never seam to get karma but this blatant troll post can get so many up mods? Oh well but back to the point. I think that Apple will need to do something very quickly. The iPad2 better add more to the game than just front and back facing cameras or they are doomed after all of these Honeycomb tablets come out. My wife has an iPad and the one thing that I haven't seen on the Android market is quality apps like Pages and Numbers. I don't need them so I will be getting an Android one when Honeycomb tablets are available but she will probably stick with the iPad. I don't see why everyone thinks IOS is so awesome all it is a bunch of shortcuts on a desktop geared towards people who have a million icons on their computers desktop and if its not there it doesn't exist.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[JAlexoi]

If Apple's market share shrinks to the point that serious handheld app developers no longer feel to make an iPhone version of their apps at all, maybe at that point Apple would be forced to switch, but until then, they're raking in the bucks.

If you were at the head of Apple, wouldn't you do the same? They have investments that they need to get their returns on.
Apple knows that they will "loose" this market. That does not mean that they will not be able to exist, look at their computer business... 5% and still very profitable. Android development has not just Google behind them, others also "pitch in". They actually take in patches from "ordinary folk". Therefore Android will continue to add new features and become better faster than any single company can manage.
Apple isn't in this game for the marathon, it's a sprint for them. Until they actually find the next product that will "revolutionize the market"(that is what they did with iPhone).

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk like you're a personality. Stop it. Stop trying to be clever, you're failing. You're nobody. We don't care.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't check very well, I just purchased an Andriod phone, NZ$320, the iPhone 3GS is NZ$919, iPhone 4 32GB is NZ$1328. They don't seem relatively similar to me.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wild_dog!]

Don't know many folks who buy off contract. Everyone I know buys thru ATT except a few who have gotten jailbroken devices to run on T-mobile.

Still Apple makes $300 a unit vs maybe $100 per Android device if they aren't on buy one get one free special. At the fire sale point someone is taking a hit and subsidizing the phone. But by and large consumers don't really see the difference much.

Seems like Apple continues to try and make its cash stockpile larger with better business practices that ensure long term viability as a corporation. The Android makers will continue to Cuisinart themselves to try and get greater market share, but profits will go to the .app store controllers in the end, while the Android device manufacturers will just be working to make ends meet and not really get ahead.

Manufacturing cost between Android and iOS devices is pretty similar.

Apple makes sizeable profit by ATT subsidies and still makes a bigger bundle by controlling the app store.

I expect a bigger jump in profits with the Verizon announcement. Too bad I don't have Apple stock. Should have bought some a long while ago.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Disrespect them someone needs to very quickly get some video of Old Job's giving his legal bods a blow job thats how much i dislike apple (ps they aint worth the capital letter)

apple CRAPPLE

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here, guys. Another Fandroid who builds strawman arguments and ignores basic economics.

Edit: I love this. The captcha was "immature"

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[SplashMyBandit]

Market share matters. If you only have the resources to develop for one platform then you'll develop for the biggest. Previously it was Apple and now it is Android. Apple pissing potential developers off (within inferior Objective-C compared to Java, and crappy licensing) means they will lose money in phones just as they once did in PCs. Apple need to relax in order to 'win', they didn't learn from "In order for Microsoft to win the Customer must lose". It took a long time but it did happen for Microsoft (profitability, but stagnation). Apple like to think they are smarter but they are currently making the same mistakes.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[jedrek]

Are we counting position by market share or by profit? If we use the latter, than a very profitable non-first place is where it's at, just look at Apple right now, with its 21% profit margin. Dell's margin is 2.8%, which is why in 2009, when Dell outsold Apple 4:1, it ended up making $8.5bln less.

And as far as viability, I would love for somebody, ANYBODY, to give me some sales figures for Android apps that show them as coming anywhere near the kind of numbers people make selling apps in the App Store.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[jedrek]

I bought one of those £150 android devices. A good 90% of the major apps I wanted to run on it (dropbox, evernote, etc) aren't supported.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Monoman]

The interesting thing about the second graph on that page is that more than 1/2 of the Apple devices were iPads. Take away the iPads and the Android growth rate is higher.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought the thread's thrust was IOS vs Android not motorolasamsunghtclg vs apple

Silly me. I'd better buy an iSomething and support the underdog then.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Not far ahead at all, we've seen these interfaces before from 3com(PalmPilot), Apple's smart move was making it "easy to find" in a store instead of having to search the internet to pirate it or go to a store and stand in line for an hour to purchase an empty box with a plastic disc.

What Google, and Linux have done is giving a choice (competition is good.) Just not a good choice... yet. Microsoft has yet to learn this.

Remember that Microsoft champions cheap hardware and wants everyone to pay for software licenses, where as Apple charges for expensive hardware and cheap software. Linux is free to use but not to get software for (often at the expense of compatibility, forwards and backwards) in terms of time.

Cost can be measured in both Time and Dollars, and the lowest value of both is what the average user will gravitate towards.

So which is really cheaper? The Windows machine that cost 1000$ and comes with Windows,or the same piece of hardware with Linux on it that cost 950$? Or the Mac that cost 1500$? It depends how much time you spend maintaining it. Linux is very high maintenance if you don't put it on the right hardware. Windows is very high maintenance, even if you put it on the right hardware. MacOS and iOS remove the hardware as a variable... so it's very low maintenance.

Provided the software is validated to work.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Kjella]

And when consumers discovers that there are devices that can do more than what their iPhone does - and maybe even better - then they will move. People changes phones almost at the same rate as they change their underwear.

Yes, but dumb phones are also very generic, you use a different one like you'd use a different brand of car. I think people are far more reluctant to change between an iPhone and Blackberry and Android phone that they've learned to do lots of different things on, have a bunch of apps on and so on.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has already started putting concepts on mobile devices onto their larger devices. They eliminated the removable batteries on the macbooks and people just keep buying.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[jedrek]

I find it hilarious how derisive you are of Apple being able to "package things in a way that has appeal". It's this thinking, so prevalent on places like /., that keeps people from understanding why Apple makes billions of dollars a year. The "packaging", the interface, is absolutely key. There is no benefit to the consumer if they buy a product with functionality that's difficult to use. My last Nokia smartphone, a 6370 running Symbian, had, on paper, all the functionality of my iPhone 3G - email, GPS, web browser, ability to install apps, etc. In reality, the only one of those things that was useful was mail app - the GMail app would crash, along with most of the other apps I used. The IRC app would crash if I used T9, usingthe radio would reset the phone, etc. In the end, I only used it as a phone. My previous Nokia, an E51, was a bit better in that respect, fewer apps would install on it but they wouldn't crash as often. GMail worked. The native mail app would crash though and bluetooth was wonky.

Now I have an iPhone 3G, which I bought for $70 from a friend after getting tired of yet another first tier app not installing on my HTC Android phone. It works. I've had one app refuse to install (WordLens), everything else - games, productivity apps, whatever - just works. All the built in apps work and I actually *use them*. And that's that difference that nerds keep making fun of, while Apple's pockets get fatter and fatter.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you wouldn't be saying that if "Android" were replaced with "Linux" and "iPhone" with "Windows".

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Cyberax]

In my country I can get unlocked iPhone from any of the GSM network providers. I can even buy one in a Mac shop and just use my SIM card with it.

So far, situation is the same - Androids outsell the iPhones.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[PRMan]

So, you're saying "An iFanboy and his money are soon parted..."?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF man! He's the fsckin Pope! You (and me), on the other hand are nobody.

Unless you'd like to try not checking "Post Anonymously"

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[PRMan]

My wife and daughter just got Android phones on Sprint for $40 each, and they're running 2.2 (the latest) and are really good phones (slideout keyboard alone makes them superior to iPhone). I'm pretty sure you can't get an iPhone for $40. The latest OS iPhone is $199 minimum, and it doesn't even have a keyboard. And you have to be on the crappiest carrier in the US.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Karl Cocknozzle]

I know Slashdot is US oriented site, but come on! Even in countries where iPhone is available from everyone and their grandmother, Android devices(collectively) outsell iPhone.

I think you're underestimating just how crappy the AT&T network is. A friend of mine lives in lake-country in northern Indiana. In her living room I have 5-bars on T-Mobile (a second-tier U.S. operator) and she had barely 1 on AT&T, a "top-tier" U.S. carrier.

Why does this matter? In the U.S. we're spread out more than you folks in Europe are: More of us live rurally, too, so network and signal strength issues can take on a life of their own if they aren't addressed. And AT&T has sunk money into network improvements, but they haven't done so fast enough to outpace the growth in subscribers. In other words, their expansions have just managed to keep new subscribers seeing the status quo (i.e. slow, dodgy in rural areas,) as opposed to the traditional definition of "improvements" which is to make things better.

Of course, the other problem is that the iPhone just costs too much, and the "premium" data plan you have to eat just adds insult to injury. Is the iPhone cool? Yeah, kinda, though getting less-so by the day as Android advances further and further.

Is it "cool-enough" to overcome price difference, shoddy network, or insanely tight controls Apple has on what I do with the device?

Nope.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Karl Cocknozzle]

it is actually a bit... well, sad, that Android Advocates constantly cite market wide android sales when the iPhone is restricted to just one carrier that, last time I checked, was only about 25% of the total market.

First, bullshit. Its only on one carrier in the U.S. Its on every carrier in England, and still getting demolished on sales over its INSANELY high price. Its just a smart phone--it doesn't split the fucking atom.

It would be a trivial exercise for Apple to begin selling open-iphones to any carrier that wants them. And the "simplicity" argument is bogus: The Brits already sell them this way. Put an obvious label of what network the phone is for ON THE BOX and setup separate skus in your online store, and its possibly the easiest thing to invent since pre-sliced bread.

Secondly, that "restriction" to one carrier was Apples choice, not mine. I think its sad that Apple miscalculated so heinously by going AT&T exclusive. Ultimately, that choice is what made Android viable. If T-Mobile and Sprint and Verizon had iPhones to sell, why would they even have talked to Google about Android? But now Android is out there, in the wild, with millions of people talking texting and emailing on it every day. Apple essentially made its own worst-nightmare come true: A phone that works just as well, in some cases better, than the iPhone that is on every single carrier, (not just their unusably-shitty "exclusive" carrier,) and costs 2/3 less to buy, and doesn't require a "premium" data-plan.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[TheRaven64]

Apple's margins are almost certainly higher, because they don't have any products in the phone market anywhere other than the very top end. On the other hand, Apple has to invest money in developing their OS, while Android handset developers don't, so their costs are lower. One of the major selling points for the iPhone is the availability of apps, but for this to continue it needs to maintain market share or developers will start ignoring it, just as they ignored the Mac in favour of Windows in the '90s.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[TheRaven64]

Still Apple makes $300 a unit vs maybe $100 per Android device if they aren't on buy one get one free special

True in terms of hardware cost, but Apple's $300 has to fund iOS development, while an Android handset maker's $100 is pure profit.

Of course, Apple doesn't actually have to spend much developing iOS, because it's not very different from OS X (UIKit is a butchered AppKit, and everything else in iOS is also in OS X), so they get to subsidise the iOS development costs from Mac sales. This is probably one of the reasons for Microsoft's decision to port Windows 8 to ARM - if they can just maintain one codebase for all systems then it dramatically reduces their costs.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[asdf7890]

It depends what you get. The really cheap ones that can't run anything above Android 1.5 are going to give you compatibility problems, and of course no one tells you this unless you dig for yourself before buying. Really you need at least v2.1. This could be very bad for Androids reputation in the long run as there are a lot of cheap shoddy tablets out there - this is where Apple's tight control of everything really helps them (and the customers that are willing to pay their prices and be locked in).

Another problem that affects some apps is screen resolution, though this is usually games and relative screen sizes is something a buyer really should think about. A lot of cheaper Android phones have a QVGA (320*240) screen and if you plan to use the phone for apps/games a lot then you want at least the next common size up (480*320, like all iPones prior to the 4th edition).

My phone (bought on offer for £150, though the RRP is more like £290 IIRC, running Android 2.1) only has a QVGA screen which I'm told some apps won't like - with that small a screen I'd *expect* some apps not to work well but I've not run into any that I want to run that have failed (caveat: I didn't get it for apps/games so I'm not representative of that sort of user - it was the cheapest phone at the time with a qwerty keypad and 3G capability that I could tether to my netbook, while it being a 'droid was attractive for "play" potential that wasn't why I bought the thing).

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[TheRaven64]

Apple didn't miscalculate by going with AT&T. They have an agreement in place that gives them a share of AT&T's profit in exchange for the exclusivity.

It's the same business model that they have for Macs. They only have 5-10% of the market share, but it's the most profitable segment. If they increased to 50% market share in the laptop computer market, their profits would increase by far less than 50%, so it's not worth it.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[asdf7890]

The fact that there are a couple of significant players and several smaller ones give the Android marketplace a level of survivability that a single competitor would not have.

Survivability of Android or survivability of the hardware makers? What kind of survivability? Gateway still survives, so I hear. Is this survivability good?

The fact that the like of Gateway and Compaq (now part of HP) survive while IMB's PC hardware business does not is precisely my point. Individual companies in the smartphone/tablet arena may fall by the wayside but there will always be more to compete with Apple at their own game or take the low-end of the market that they simply don't cater for (I understand why they don't cater for the low end of any market, and it works out well for them at the moment, but Android could hit critical mass in terms of competing for mind-share at some point with the help of that end of the market).

How about Windows? It still survives. That's good right?

I wasn't stating what is good and what isn't, just why I think that Android as a general entity in the market is much more of a problem for Apple than the individual phone/tablet manufacturers would be it all still working purely on their own OS.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[PopeRatzo]

How is it I can never seam to get karma but this blatant troll post can get so many up mods?

"Troll"? Man, that was some of my best work.

But OK, I'll ignore the insult because I'm big that way.

Now, I don't want you worrying about karma, zaphod777, so here's what I'm gonna do: I'm gonna look out for a brother and hook you up. I'm not looking for thanks, so you can get up now.

And please, friend, learn the difference between trolling and performance art.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[oreaq]

I agree that Android's open approach will give them a much bigger market share and that history will repeat itself.

But at the moment the iOS SDK and IDE are still far superior to Android's offerings. Just try them both if you don't believe me. Android-Java vs. Objective-C isn't really an issue. Picking up the idiosyncrasies of Java for Android (for example to workaround the weaknesses of the current garbage collector) took me about as long as to learn Objective-C; each of them can be done in a weekend. But this is only a temporary edge for Apple. I'm sure Google will catch up and then overtake them in that area too within a year or so.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[LordVader717]

That seems rather irrelevant, or probably even bad news for Apple. Businesses who work on lower margins make more competitive products and become ubiquitous. If all Apple can do to stay afloat lock-in and market segmentation the future looks bleak for them indeed.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk like you're a personality. Stop it. Stop trying to be clever, you're failing. You're nobody. We don't care.

Don't be bringing that weak-ass shit here. He's not just a personality, he's the god-damn mother-fucking rat pope!
You got served before you even tried to play. Just step off brah, step off.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is outselling the iPhone in the US, but not the rest of the world. The difference? In the US iPhone is only available on AT&T, while the rest of the world has a choice of several carriers. They also do not account for the number iPod touches. An iPod touch like device does not even exist as an Android device. Most speculate manufacturers simply can't compete with Apple on scale to bring the cost down without carriers hiding a lot of the price. Hopefully that will change soon, as Samsung is promising to build one. Competition is good, I hope we have the choice of several healthy markets for our mobile computing needs.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[HiThere]

OK then, I'll say it. Apple is too dependent on Steve Jobs, and he has severe health issues. So Apple is no longer a dynamically efficient company. Hope the next time they find a replacement they find someone who at least understands the industry. Scully himself admitted that he turned out to not be the right person for the job, and I think the principle reason was that he didn't understand the industry.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

more like performance fart.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[joocemann]

You mean a group of handset manufacturers outsold a single manufacturer of handsets.

Although you are not wrong, you clearly missed the point. What you point out is only a side-note to the actual point which is that ANDROID is on more phones being sold than iOS.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wild_dog!]

Glad you like them. I hear they are awesome and might pick one up at some point.

Since they cost about $180 each to produce someone is subsidizing the phones. You can get a base level iPhone for $100 bucks I heard somewhere. Up till now ATT has been funding Apple to the tune of 300 bucks a unit.

Is google funding the Android purchasers? I don't know.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Wild_dog!]

I think you misinterpret what I say. I am not derisive of apple in any fashion especially in their business model.

They have done a fantastic job and have done it far better than anyone.

I am constantly arguing with folks who think the Android will kill off the iPhone. They just don't understand that both will continue to exist and that apple will be the one making most of the money and insuring their longevity.

They have great market capitalization. Billions in the bank. Produce products that people want to buy by re-inventing the markets.

Great company. Great products that work for the vast majority of people really well.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

"Eating someone's lunch" is a rather strongly-worded statement that one is dominating and the other is failing. The truth is both Android and the iPhone are doing excellent in mobile phones, and are very profitable. Even RIM, despite their failure at selling to individuals, seems to be doing quite well in the business sector.

Your "trend lines" are misleading in the context you're stating, since Android is still new to the market and hasn't yet leveled off. Not to mention your own link shows browser usage increasing on iOS and flat on Android, which suggests people are getting cheap androids as a normal phone, while people are actually using the iPhone as a smart phone.

There is so much more to the market than just # of sales. Apple is very happy with their profitability, and Google is very happy with Android's high volume of sales. There is no loser here, especially not us as customers.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[toriver]

... by being on more handsets and (in the case of the USA) on more networks. How many new Android owners actually cared that their phone's OS was called Android? SonyEricsson's ads for the Xperia handsets, for instance, are far more interested in pushing their proprietary software (TimeScape, MediaScape) than pushing the Android angle. I mean, which manufacturer would want to say "and this runs an operating system that lets you continue to use your apps if you switch to LG or Samsung!"?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[toriver]

Apple are not competing against this abstract entity "Android", they are competing against Samsung, SonyEricsson, Motorola, LG, HTC etc., all of which compete between themselves. If Apple has 30% of the market and "Android" has 70%, it does not help the other manufacturers because they get 10-15% each on average.

inferior Objective-C compared to Java

Ignorance (and it is Objective-C plus C++ plus C). Talk again after Oracle has raked OHA's asses over the coals for trying to bypass the J2ME licensing by making something that uses Java-the-language but not the VM on a mboile unit.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Tharsman]

First, bullshit. Its only on one carrier in the U.S. Its on every carrier in England, and still getting demolished on sales over its INSANELY high price. Its just a smart phone--it doesn't split the fucking atom.

It stops "just being a smartphone" when anyone attempts to compare the entire smartphone industry to it. That being told, if you quote England market share, can you actually list numbers and link references? Also, I would politely insist on more countries than just England. I also am curious how much it costs there, any single Android phone in any carrier here wants 200 out of my pocket and a 2 year contract, the same ATT wants for the iPhone.

Secondly, that "restriction" to one carrier was Apples choice, not mine. I think its sad that Apple miscalculated so heinously by going AT&T exclusive.

It was not Apple's choice. Only Cingular accepted Apple's terms (no other carrier accepted an app store that would not be controlled by themselves.) Actually, had Apple not accepted this only alternative, Android would not exist (nor would the iPhone be that popular) because no carrier would had accepted any phone to include non-carrier controlled app stores.

Ultimately, that choice is what made Android viable.

Nice, we agree! Android only succeeds because of the ATT lockdown!!! Now lets see what happens when it arrives to Verizon :D

But now Android is out there, in the wild, with millions of people talking texting and emailing on it every day.

Hope they double and triple check who got those texts!!! :P

Apple essentially made its own worst-nightmare come true: A phone that works just as well, in some cases better, than the iPhone that is on every single carrier

Yet AT&T is selling more smarthphones than Verizon (almost every one of them iPhones) despite having such a horrid service and lesser market share than Verizon.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[cynyr]

Does it play angry birds? Then good enough

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just plain wrong. Android phones have been by far outselling the iPhone, and they just recently surpassed the total iPhone sales numbers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/05/androids-users-eclipse-iphones-for-first-time-comscore-says/

That doesn't paint the full picture of iOS vs Anderoid. The iPad and iPod Touch also have iOS and developers sell to them on the app store too. I wonder how the numbers look if you add iPad and iPod in there

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[nametaken]

Wooooooosh! ;)

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart phones are not the only iOS devices being sold so that's a little misleading. If you want to compare OSes you should add iPad and iPod touch to Apples sales figures

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

What you forget is iPhones are limited to one carrier in the US. In other places in the world (like Canada) all carriers have the iPhone and they aren't taking over the market here. They are still falling behind Android even though anyone can get an iPhone from any company.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're just plain illiterate.
different business plans at work here, Android is being pushed to run on everything and is as a result low margin, low profit. Apple is pushing the iPhone in the same way they push all their other products, lower volume, high-margin, high profit. It's like saying Dell is eating Apple's lunch because they move more units (with a fraction of the margins)

Besides that, we're comparing an OS that runs on all sorts of models of phones, versus on that runs on a single device. More Android devices have been sold than IPhones, no shit, captain obvious, but the question is has any one model of Android-powered smartphone outsold Apple's iPhone?

It's a ludicrous claim, Google and Apple aren't even in the same market. One sells an integrated product of which they are the sole OEM, the other sells an OS to many OEMs. When a single model of gPhone has outsold the iPhone, then Google would have eaten Apple's lunch.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're underestimating just how crappy the AT&T network is.

I think this is a myth. I have AT&T and I've never been in an area without service.

I once drove from Minneapolis to some nowhere town two-hours outside Fargo -- I had a good signal the entire trip.

On a related note, where I actually live, Verizon is the carrier with the worst coverage. At my place of work, for example, you can't use a Verizon phone in any building -- and only a few magic spots outside.

The AT&T sucks myth, it appears, started after iPhone users flooded the network. If the iPhone had been a Verizon exclusive instead, I'm willing to bet Slashdotters would be talking about how horrid their coverage was -- and wishing for an AT&T iPhone.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[RDW]

'I also am curious how much it costs there, any single Android phone in any carrier here wants 200 out of my pocket and a 2 year contract, the same ATT wants for the iPhone.'

It's probably easiest to compare the non-contract prices. An 8Gb 3GS is £428, a 16Gb 4 is £510, and a 32Gb 4 is £612. Android phones start at £60 for the most basic models (resistive screen, Android 2.1, PAYG, no contract). There are plenty of more capable models with capacitive screens in the £100-200 price range. Any of these can be used with very reasonable PAYG data tariffs (a single payment of £20 will buy you 6 months worth of net access on T-Mobile). Voice calls are on top of that, so a contract may be worthwhile if you're a heavy user.

With these sorts of prices, Apple is obviously only competing over here at the (lucrative!) high end of the market (though I'm sure if they chose they could introduce a budget model costing not much more than the £193 8Gb Touch - presumably this would cannibalise too many sales from the expensive phones).

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[zaphod777]

LOL thanks man I guess I need to get better at reading between the lines :D

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[deniable]

Bah, just get the video of him saying 'no third party apps on the iPhone' or 'cut and paste isn't needed' or 'multi-tasking is bad' or any of the other statements he's contradicted.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Guardian452com]

I'm sure he meant an operating system based on freedom versus an operating system based on a walled garden. Not sure how to clarify further than that. (Shrugs)

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[deniable]

Karma's a bitch, and it appears in this case it's the Pope's bitch.

I agree with you and I'll wait for an Android tablet. The web, maybe a PDF viewer and some way to watch videos that aren't converted for iOS and I'm set. (Yeah, GoodReader and AirVideo will do that job, but the iPad is pricey for what I'll do with it.)

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[deniable]

>But at the moment the iOS SDK and IDE are still far superior to Android's offerings. Just try them both if you don't believe me.

I will, but I'm having trouble installing the iOS SDK. I guess it's just a Windows 7 thing.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

He means that given the choice, the market decided that they preferred something other than Apple more than they preferred Apple.

No it doesn't. Google's business model is based on the old TV and print media model of pushing ads to a mindless public. Google could care less if the carrier exercises so much control they can fleece their customers for data with out restrictions from a powerful company moving to protect its customer base. Google could care less that at least 99% of the new Android hardware is crap as one geek twittered about the new offerings at CES.

All Google wants is a venue to protect their business model of pushing ads for profit. People up buy apps without ads injure that model and must be discouraged. That is why the Android app store curated by Google has few paid apps and why Google allows rampant piracy of apps anyone tries to sell on the Google platform.

Apple's way is to push for a quality experience and return tremendous value to their customers. Apple has become a company worth many times more that Google by catering to the needs of the customer as opposed to fleecing them like Google does to their Droid customers in their zombie like ignorance.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't always make $300/unit. I've broken iphones before, sent them off un-repairable and been sent back a brand new iphone for $280AU.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[nobodie]

I've embedded myself in the middle of an argument that is like so may i have seen here in the past: This "a" that is considered totally awesome in the US (but is useless or unused or too expensive or whatever for the rest of the world) is going to achieve world domination because EVERYONE (which is to say all the .... ladies and gentlemen of my acquaintance...) bought one and think it is wonderful.

Sorry but your little slice of the universe, no matter how hyped by the ad-people, who are trying to get YOU to buy their shite, feed your sense that you are center of the universe even though you aren't really a microbe in the ocean.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

he's the god-damn mother-fucking rat pope!

Rat pope? Holy shit, I didn't realize it was the mother-fucking rat pope!

On a completely unrelated topic... what in the fuck is a rat pope?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[macs4all]

That seems rather irrelevant, or probably even bad news for Apple. Businesses who work on lower margins make more competitive products and become ubiquitous. If all Apple can do to stay afloat lock-in and market segmentation the future looks bleak for them indeed.

Indeed. with a market capitalization 2nd largest of ANY industry on the planet, the future for Apple looks bleak.

Just how distant is this 'future' you speak of? Given Apple's humongous cash reserves of over $25 BILLION, have you even thought just a little bit about how ridiculous you sound?

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[JohnBailey]

So, you're saying "An iFanboy and his money are soon parted..."?

Exactly.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[jamesofur]

He means that given the choice, the market decided that they preferred something other than Apple more than they preferred Apple.

That logic doesn't make sense. Iphone is ONE phone compared to the enormous amount of options for android. When you combine all android phones of course you're going to quickly get more then Apple that isn't a surprise, or news, especially when Apple does not allow others to use their OS. Android's whole point is to provide options for a ton of phones. You're comparing Apples and Oranges.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[dave420]

No, we're comparing iOS and Android. Who makes the handsets is purely academic.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[oreaq]

Oh ... right. You could try the new "service pack". I hear it fixes a lot of the current Windows 7 things :)

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[exomondo]

Survivability of Android or survivability of the hardware makers?

Of Android.

How about Windows? It still survives. That's good right?

Most likely yes.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[chaboud]

You may have missed Nokia and Sony selling unlocked GSM phones.

That's okay, so did most of the market.

Re:iTunes policy won't work on the desktop

[Psykechan]

...even though you aren't really a microbe in the ocean.

The blue whale doesn't care about a single krill; it doesn't care about krill in general, but it is still dependent on the krill for its existence.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Superken7]

You are very wrong IMHO, my non-geek mother now can't view 99% of her video files, and lots of other users will have to go through a very painful process of re-encoding their videos (which can take a lot of time and cpu resources better spent on their casual tasks).

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[imthesponge]

I'm pretty sure she didn't buy the thing in order to watch movies.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have seen different commercials then. Video playback is a major selling point.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you got her something user friendly and easy to use (tm)

Here is the conflict

[timeOday]

As interpreted (by me) from the horse's mouth: the appStore licence says you can only install the software on 5 approved devices, whereas of course the GPL specifically prohibits that type of restriction. Plus, the appStore licence says, "The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party." That means, the software author cannot undercut the appStore restrictions with a less restrictive licence such as the GPL, even if they want to.

INAL, but I wonder why the developer couldn't offer the identical software through separate, more open channels in addition to the appStore, thus satisfying the GPL even though the appStore distribution channel in itself does not satisfy the GPL?

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. The app store account can only be used to authorize 5 different computers. You can use apps on any number of iOS devices.

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

> INAL, but I wonder why the developer couldn't offer the identical software through separate, more open channels in addition to the appStore, thus satisfying the GPL even though the appStore distribution channel in itself does not satisfy the GPL?
>
Possibly because such channels don't "officially" exist?

Re:Here is the conflict

[Tiger4]

Maybe iPhone users cannot or will not install software that doesn't come from the store? I mean, I'm sure it is possible to do, but the hurdle is too big for them to seriously consider it. Whether that hurdle is technical, or more of an attitude adjustment, or just ignorance is not always obvious.

Re:Here is the conflict

[mariasama16]

From my understanding (Android user here), I thought all iOS apps had to be gotten through the App Store unless the user jailbroke their device.

Re:Here is the conflict

[gnasher719]

As interpreted (by me) from the horse's mouth [fsf.org]: the appStore licence says you can only install the software on 5 approved devices, whereas of course the GPL specifically prohibits that type of restriction. Plus, the appStore licence says, "The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party." That means, the software author cannot undercut the appStore restrictions with a less restrictive licence such as the GPL, even if they want to.

Here is what the app store _actually_ says:

"You acknowledge that: you are purchasing the license to each Third-Party Product from the third-party licensor of that Third-Party Product (the "Application Provider"); Apple is acting as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such Third-Party Product to you; and Apple is not a party to the license between you and the Application Provider with respect to that Third-Party Product. The Application Provider of each Third-Party Product is solely responsible for that Third-Party Product, the content therein, any warranties to the extent that such warranties have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party may have relating to that Third-Party Product."

So for GPL licensed software, Apple just provides a downloading service to the end user; there is no software license agreement between you and Apple at all. Apple limits what Apple will do for the end user: They are willing to put copies onto five computers owned by one person, but not six. That doesn't limit what the end user is allowed to do. They don't get any further assistance from Apple, so making more copies is a bit more complicated (involves downloading the software, modifying it as you like, recompiling it, possible for another device), but Apple is _not_ restricting what they allow you to do. And you only have to jump through these hoops if you decide to be an ass; if you want to give the same software to all your iPhone owning friends, just tell them where to find it on the store.

There is a little bit of subtleness: Apple sells software licenses on behalf of third parties, and that is what the end user pays for, not the application itself. As GPL allows charging for the software, but not for the license, you can't publish GPL licensed software through the AppStore unless it is free as in free bear.

Re:Here is the conflict

[_Sprocket_]

Maybe iPhone users cannot or will not install software that doesn't come from the store? I mean, I'm sure it is possible to do, but the hurdle is too big for them to seriously consider it. Whether that hurdle is technical, or more of an attitude adjustment, or just ignorance is not always obvious.

I believe the idea was to provide the software via the App Store for (most) iOS users but also provide another method to get the software that does not have App Store restrictions, thereby meeting GPL requirements - even if that secondary method has little practical use to the normal iPhone user.

Re:Here is the conflict

[sjames]

Probabl;y because the non-app store method requires that you void your warranty by jailbreaking the phone.

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

Bears should ALWAYS be free.

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a free bear. :(

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

Free as in bear! RAWR

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

The "five machines" has to do with media such iTunes music. You can sync iOS apps on as many iOS devices as you have connected to your machine (though the device can only be synced with one machine at a time, which prevents you from installing your apps on all of your friends devices).

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

Rawr! Free Bear!

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want a free bear. They tend to be quite cumbersome...

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

The appstore license is here:
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html

Under Usage Rule (iii):

(iii) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts at a time on compatible devices, provided that each iPhone may sync ringtone Products with only a single Apple-authorized device at a time, and syncing an iPhone with a different Apple-authorized device will cause ringtone Products stored on that iPhone to be erased.

From my reading, that's five accounts, not devices. ie, each device supports loading of software purchased under five different accounts. To me this a user-level restriction in terms of device technical capability to interact with the market but has no bearing on the market itself or the license of an individual app - should be irrevelant to any GPL concerns. Is this my reading comprehension fail or theirs?

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

As interpreted (by me) from the horse's mouth [fsf.org]: the appStore licence says you can only install the software on 5 approved devices, whereas of course the GPL specifically prohibits that type of restriction. Plus, the appStore licence says, "The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party." That means, the software author cannot undercut the appStore restrictions with a less restrictive licence such as the GPL, even if they want to.

Here is what the app store _actually_ says:

"You acknowledge that: you are purchasing the license to each Third-Party Product from the third-party licensor of that Third-Party Product (the "Application Provider"); Apple is acting as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such Third-Party Product to you; and Apple is not a party to the license between you and the Application Provider with respect to that Third-Party Product. The Application Provider of each Third-Party Product is solely responsible for that Third-Party Product, the content therein, any warranties to the extent that such warranties have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party may have relating to that Third-Party Product."

So for GPL licensed software, Apple just provides a downloading service to the end user; there is no software license agreement between you and Apple at all. Apple limits what Apple will do for the end user: They are willing to put copies onto five computers owned by one person, but not six. That doesn't limit what the end user is allowed to do. They don't get any further assistance from Apple, so making more copies is a bit more complicated (involves downloading the software, modifying it as you like, recompiling it, possible for another device), but Apple is _not_ restricting what they allow you to do. And you only have to jump through these hoops if you decide to be an ass; if you want to give the same software to all your iPhone owning friends, just tell them where to find it on the store.

There is a little bit of subtleness: Apple sells software licenses on behalf of third parties, and that is what the end user pays for, not the application itself. As GPL allows charging for the software, but not for the license, you can't publish GPL licensed software through the AppStore unless it is free as in free bear.

i Love free bears! Soon I shall start my own circus!

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

free bear.

[shudders] ...someone is probably uploading it to Youtube already -- Pedobear covering Skynyrd.

Re:Here is the conflict

[EMN13]

In common sense terms, Apple is restricting modification and redistribution. After all, you cannot actually run let alone redistribute a modified app without Apple's say-so. Were Apple merely the app-store provider - that is, just one-of-many distributors - this wouldn't be an issue, but with iOS devices, they are the only distributor.

Now, it's fine that some free-software apps don't mind this additional restriction and choose not to take action - but Apple, even as a third party distributor, is violating the GPL by imposing additional restriction on the license.

Re:Here is the conflict

[cbreak]

The GPL has nothing in it's text that requires a product to be distributed via multiple channels. Hell, it doesn't even REQUIRE redistribution of the product!

Re:Here is the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless it is free as in free bear.

While your version is much more entertaining, I suspect you mean free as in free beer.

Won't be missed

[Renderer of Evil]

VLC is a nice player on the desktop but there are far more superior solutions for the iPhone/iPad like AirVideo that isn't swamped in petty GPL politics. Plus the VLC interface on the iPhone was pretty bad. I'd be concerned if it was the only game in town. Otherwise, it's a non-story. This is VLC's loss.

It reminds me of Mozilla's backwards, dogmatic horseshit about supporting "open source" and not getting on the h.264 bandwagon with the rest of the grownups, all the while enabling the extremely user-hostile and proprietary Flash. Now their share is slowly being chipped away by Chrome which suffers from none of the political idiocy that comes with some FOSS projects.

Moving on.

Re:Won't be missed

[Cwix]

VLC was a piece of free software, how is it their loss?

Did they lose customers, did revenue go down?

Re:Won't be missed

[Narcocide]

I call bullshit on your claim that Mozilla "enables" Flash in any way. Flash supports the general plugin architecture Mozilla and other browsers inherited from Netscape 4, which predates the existence of Flash entirely. The problem with the h.264 thing is that using it for HTML5 implies that the browser would have to support it natively. Mozilla does NOT support Flash natively. There is absolutely no comparison, your argument is rubbish based on inaccurate, misinformed technical assumptions.

Re:Won't be missed

[Goaway]

Obviously, free software does not achieve success by making money.

It does, however, succeed by having people actually use it.

Re:Won't be missed

[Haedrian]

The h.264 bandwagon involves someone* paying for the licenses for every copy of the browser which is used. They supported flash no problem. And I don't see how Chrome supporting h.264 is 'chipping away' at firefox's use.

*A non-profit organisation paying millions every year?

Re:Won't be missed

[_Sprocket_]

It reminds me of Mozilla's backwards, dogmatic horseshit about supporting "open source" and not getting on the h.264 bandwagon with the rest of the grownups, all the while enabling the extremely user-hostile and proprietary Flash. Now their share is slowly being chipped away by Chrome which suffers from none of the political idiocy that comes with some FOSS projects.

I'm pretty sure it takes an addon for me to get Flash working in my Firefox browser. Mozilla doesn't enable it. The use of H.264, however, would be embedded within Mozilla's code and would require Mozilla to support / license accordingly. I understand that these things are probably difficult to understand as you're still having trouble with what a "grownup" is.

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, AirVideo uses FFMpeg which is distributed under the GPL.

Guess it all comes down to which developers have the screw-users-anti-apple-at-all-costs hatred.

Re:Won't be missed

[Doctor_Jest]

h.264 is going to blow up in everyone's face... you just wait. It's like a dormant cancer that will come alive once it's killed off the other codecs... then the patent holders will reach for YOUR wallet to pay for the "privilege" of using their "IP."

I prefer a dodgy GPL'ed version than a proprietary bunch of nonsense that restricts my freedom to do what I want with what I paid for (my computer...) You can keep your "idiocy free" non-FOSS... I side with the "idiots" who are interested in freedom and choice.

Re:Won't be missed

[rudy_wayne]

I call bullshit on your claim that Mozilla "enables" Flash in any way. Flash supports the general plugin architecture Mozilla and other browsers inherited from Netscape 4, which predates the existence of Flash entirely. The problem with the h.264 thing is that using it for HTML5 implies that the browser would have to support it natively. Mozilla does NOT support Flash natively.

Why does Firefox (or any browser) have to "support h.264 natively"? Why can't Firefox support h.264 through the use of a plugin just like they currently do for all video formats? I ask this as a serious question because the whole HTML 5 /h.264 debate doesn't seem to make any sense.

Re:Won't be missed

[rudy_wayne]

*A non-profit organisation paying millions every year?

Mozilla takes IN millions every year. What's wrong with paying OUT money when necessary?

Re:Won't be missed

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I'm pretty sure it takes an addon for me to get Flash working in my Firefox browser. Mozilla doesn't enable it. The use of H.264, however, would be embedded within Mozilla's code and would require Mozilla to support / license accordingly. I understand that these things are probably difficult to understand as you're still having trouble with what a "grownup" is.

I'm pretty certain that Apple doesn't support Ogg Theora in Safari - yet I'm able to play HTML5 embedded video encoded with Theora. Maybe Safari is the better browser?

Re:Won't be missed

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

h.264 is going to blow up in everyone's face... you just wait. It's like a dormant cancer that will come alive once it's killed off the other codecs... then the patent holders will reach for YOUR wallet to pay for the "privilege" of using their "IP."

So stop supporting Flash - there's a H.264 decoder in there.

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

Go eat a shit, dumbfuck.

Re:Won't be missed

[owlnation]

"Plus the VLC interface on the iPhone was pretty bad."

And on most other platforms too. It has a truly horrific interface on Windows.

I note in the summary that:

"VLC developer Rémi Denis-Courmont notes that he is 'not going to pity the owners of iDevices, and not even the MobileVLC developers who doubtless wasted a lot of their time. This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone.'"

In fact, he pities no-one. No-one at all -- as anyone who has ever tried to get a straight answer in the VLC forums will know. Possibly one of the most arrogant, unhelpful people in France -- and that's saying something.

VLC should be a truly great application, but it's held back by Denis-Courmont and his minions.

Re:Won't be missed

[jedidiah]

It's really ironic that you mention AirVideo since it is dependent on yet another bit of Free Software.

Except this Free Software runs on your desktop PC where Apple is less able to dictate to you the user what you can run.

It's also funny that you try to claim that forcing the end user to run a server for their iPad is simpler than just decoding stuff directly.

The iPad should be able to just connect to a SMB share and play or decode anything it finds.

Of course the iPad would need a better SoC for the more interesting video files.

Although lesser codecs should not be a big problem.

Apple chooses the "my way or the highway" approach limiting most potential options.

It's like their approach to USB.

Re:Won't be missed

[TangoMargarine]

Heh: Everybody tells you you're paranoid for thinking companies would be that evil, and then...one day...yeah. The situation you describe sounds more or less exactly why Stallman started GNU in the first place.

One of my all-time favorite Slashdot quotes: "If there's an insane way to apply a law which everyone dismisses as 'nobody would ever apply it like that' then you can bet your ass it will be abused exactly like that."

Re:Won't be missed

[perryizgr8]

you seem to be confused.
mozilla DOES NOT support flash.
FLASH provides a MOZILLA PLUGIN.
in other words FLASH supports mozilla.
of course, mozilla could just use windows' inbuilt h264 codecs, but does not. i dunno why.

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure it takes an addon for me to get Flash working in my Firefox browser. Mozilla doesn't enable it. The use of H.264, however, would be embedded within Mozilla's code and would require Mozilla to support / license accordingly. I understand that these things are probably difficult to understand as you're still having trouble with what a "grownup" is.

Actually, on most platforms, all Mozilla would have to do is call operating system provided library APIs to decode H.264. They would not have to pay a license fee at all. But they have outright refused to even consider such an implementation, insisting that for some reason video codecs must be integrated into their own source tree even though they rely on outside library code for many other functions... including Flash.

In other words, they're politically opposed to H.264 and their success has convinced them that they can drive the market's direction. And yes, in a sense they are propping up Flash... use of Flash would drop much faster if all the big market share browsers implemented native H.264.

The ironic icing on the cake is that Adobe itself got on the bandwagon. Modern Flash video is H.264 in a Flash wrapper. So according to the Mozilla Foundation, H.264 is OK as long as you go through Flash. Want it without the encumbrance of Flash? No soup for you!

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea- because grownups beat up on those doing the right thing. Mozilla didn't take this bull (@)*!. I hate to break it to you although people who are using Firefox are doing so because Chrome and IE are going downhill. As much as a few techy users are trying it the browser isn't gong anywhere. Chrome is like Apple. It's a (@*# product that only has a user base because of "me too" users who can't make any decisions without consulting the group or doing what they consider popular.

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure it takes an addon for me to get Flash working in my Firefox browser. Mozilla doesn't enable it. The use of H.264, however, would be embedded within Mozilla's code and would require Mozilla to support / license accordingly. I understand that these things are probably difficult to understand as you're still having trouble with what a "grownup" is.

Actually, on most platforms, all Mozilla would have to do is call operating system provided library APIs to decode H.264. They would not have to pay a license fee at all. But they have outright refused to even consider such an implementation, insisting that for some reason video codecs must be integrated into their own source tree even though they rely on outside library code for many other functions... including Flash.

It is one of Mozilla's goals to produce a browser that works just as well on any platform. Giving operating systems an advantage because they have proprietary codecs installed does not work well with that.

Flash is a plugin. They don't directly support it at all. If you count allowing a plugin to happen that supports a feature as supporting the feature, then Firefox does have H264 support (http://www.osnews.com/story/24137/Microsoft_Brings_H264_to_Firefox_on_Windows_7).

In other words, they're politically opposed to H.264 and their success has convinced them that they can drive the market's direction. And yes, in a sense they are propping up Flash... use of Flash would drop much faster if all the big market share browsers implemented native H.264.

The ironic icing on the cake is that Adobe itself got on the bandwagon. Modern Flash video is H.264 in a Flash wrapper. So according to the Mozilla Foundation, H.264 is OK as long as you go through Flash. Want it without the encumbrance of Flash? No soup for you!

Yes, they are politically opposed to H264. It goes against the whole free software thing. Similarly IE and Apple are politically opposed to Ogg Theora and WebM. If not for that, we'd all be be using one of those instead of Flash.

Re:Won't be missed

[_Sprocket_]

Again - Mozilla doesn't support Flash. Adobe does. Adobe makes a Flash plugin that works with Mozilla browsers. I would assume Mozilla wouldn't have much to say if a third party made a H.264 plugin for Firefox, etc. Someone like Adobe... as you've noted.

Re:Won't be missed

[Narcocide]

It is a serious question but it misses out on the relevant *point* of HTML5 in regards to this discussion - which is that browsers need to have native support for video content. Many Mozilla plugins already DO support h.264 - but that is irrelevant to HTML5 which requires *native* video support.

Re:Won't be missed

[Narcocide]

Keep in mind that HTML5 (which is a standard that requires browsers to support video natively) was not spearheaded or even until recently even greeted with cooperation by the W3C or any OSS body. It was introduced and pushed forward primarily by a corporate alliance composed of big for-profit players including Adobe and Microsoft who felt that the W3C had actually done something WRONG with their recent XHTML standard -
"something wrong" such as leveling the playing field. HTML5 is essentially Adobe and Microsoft's retaliation to XHTML 1.0/1.1. The W3C only started backing HTML5 late in the game when it was clear that their lack of participation would do nothing other than eliminate their relevance as a web-standards governing body.

Don't get me wrong, I think HTML5 is pure evil and will be the doom of the internet and I think the things that make it the most popular (like requiring native video support of browsers) are the exact opposite of what we should be requiring out of web browsers, but it is clear that the corporations have spoken; they have decreed that supporting future web standards will require behaving as "grown ups" (i.e. forking over a shit ton of cash for licensing of some questionable proprietary shit that the commercial players have some vested interest in promoting) which includes but is not limited to measures that put not-for-profit organizations like Mozilla at an artificially-created technical compatibility disadvantage to offset their own lack of capability to increase their own software's market share thorough quality, features, security, reliability or cross-platform compatibility or the like.

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

>not getting on the h.264 bandwagon

You do realize they charge royalties for the use of "their" codec? And not a little: at least $2500 per encoder.

http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html
"- using x264 in an open source video conferencing software would give rise to an immediate royalty (the delay until 2011 was only for free internet broadcasts)."

What do you think, they didn't want to include it "just because" or what?
"We contacted the people from MPEG-LA... If we'd bundle x264 we'd have to pay up to 5 million dollars each year (depending on the amount of users, which is extremely hard to accurately estimate). They've also e-mailed us a copy of the full license for review."

Re:Won't be missed

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of Mozilla's backwards, dogmatic horseshit about supporting "open source" and not getting on the h.264 bandwagon with the rest of the grownups, all the while enabling the extremely user-hostile and proprietary Flash. Now their share is slowly being chipped away by Chrome which suffers from none of the political idiocy that comes with some FOSS projects.

Moving on.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Somebody have to pay for h.264 licenses if Mozilla/Firefox were to support it in its official builds and Mozilla browser would also have to use more restricted and expensive means of distribution (to be able to keep count on how many browsers that is distributed).

There are some Firefox/Mozilla plug-ins that you can use to play HTML5-style video with system plug-ins instead of the built-in video, just like you do with Flash. This of course means that you must have such plug-ins (legally or illegally) installed on your computer system [if you live outside US, this is not a problem, there are open source plug-ins to play h.264, if you live in USA most large OSes come with close-source plug-ins pre-installed or available for a fee in their repositories/appstores (e.g. in Ubuntu a h.264 plug-in cost 34.95 USD from the Software-Central)]. The h.264 patents is only (directly and legally) valid in a very small part of the world (USA and... yeah, that's pretty much it), but even though such patents is only directly supported by USA, they cause a lot of trouble in Europe (and, I'm guessing, the rest of the world), since the US government use trade agreements and more pure forms of blackmail and bullying to enforce them there (some examples of this practise can be found on wikileaks). [As the world gets a more fair distribution of wealth, the markets in Africa and Asia is growing while the US market is shrinking, meaning that the US choke hold on the rest of the world (like Europe/EU) is weakening, unless the US government decide to re-institute its former power with violence, wondrous times is ahead.]

As a side-note, I use Chromium, the open source version of Chrome, from the Ubuntu repositories, it too lacks support for h.264 since nobody is paying any license fees for it.

Re:Won't be missed

[oji-sama]

Why does Firefox (or any browser) have to "support h.264 natively"? Why can't Firefox support h.264 through the use of a plugin just like they currently do for all video formats? I ask this as a serious question because the whole HTML 5 /h.264 debate doesn't seem to make any sense.

What do you mean with can't support h.264 through plugin? Go visit Interopbridges from Microsoft for an example.

Re:Won't be missed

[oji-sama]

Mozilla takes IN millions every year. What's wrong with paying OUT money when necessary?

They might have other costs to consider too

Re:Won't be missed

[Kjella]

Microsoft had their own VC-1 codec, but seems to have completely stopped pushing that and just licensed H.264 for everything. Do you think that they did that without a very, very good deal? I doubt Apple was that naive when the licensed it either. Seriously, you seem very patent paranoid but even if I assume all you said was true then open source would be a leaf in a storm. Most Linux users already download x264 and ignore getting a license at all and that wouldn't change, at worst there's a few Ubuntu OEM customers that might possibly suffer.

What you don't get is that H.264 is exactly where they want and have their hands deep in your pockets already. Every H.264 capable camera, set top box, encoder, editing software and so on is money for them. Licenses for commercial use cost a bundle and the cost is passed on to you. To do that I'm pretty sure Microsoft's and Apple's deals are good for the duration of the patents and that you'll always get a "free" software decoder included. And that will, once they've gotten rid of legacy versions like XP and Vista mean that 99% of the market is licensed already.

Re:Won't be missed

[lehphyro]

Free software is developed by developers for themselves first. If someone else wants to use it, fine, but it's not the primary objective. So it only succeeds if it does what the developers wanted it to do.

Re:Won't be missed

[Doctor_Jest]

You've agreed with me without agreeing with me. (Software patents are evil, btw.)

They want to co-opt choice. Right now, it's transparent. And like people have said, these companies (Apple, MS, Oracle) are adopting the drug pusher business model... "the first one's free." I'd rather use standard video and watch it on an open device than be locked into a system that won't let you out once you get in... If others do, that's their choice, but the irony is that in their choice, they have chosen to lose choice.

Re:Won't be missed

[Doctor_Jest]

Where did I say I supported Flash?

Re:Won't be missed

[cpu6502]

>>>superior solutions for the iPhone/iPad like AirVideo that isn't swamped in petty GPL politics

Politics?

Also can AirVideo playback audio/video at varying speeds like VLC could? On Windows you can use a 2xAV plugin for WMP, but for Apple Pad/pod I don't know if that's possible.

Re:Won't be missed

[cpu6502]

>>>pushed forward primarily by a corporate alliance composed of big for-profit players..... HTML5 is essentially Adobe and Microsoft's retaliation to W3C XHTML 1.0/1.1.

And now the Alex Jones Show will take a commercial break.

;-)

History could repeat itself...

[HockeyPuck]

There was a time (ask your parents if you're under 40) when you rented your telephone from the phone company. No different than today you rent your cable box. The only phone that was allowed to plug into the wall jack was the one you rented from the phone company.

Fast forward X years...

There was a time (ask your parents if you're under 40) when you didn't rent your applications from the computer/tablet/smartphone company. No different than today you rent your time machine. The only application that was allowed to be installed on your mac was the one you rented from computer/tablet/smartphone company.

Re:History could repeat itself...

[jo_ham]

And I remember a time when OSS developers weren't shooting themselves in the foot, yelling at Apple to pull their own app because it violated the GPL to distribute it on the store, and Apple complied with that request by pulling it, and how somehow that makes them the bad guy.

For the record, the App Store is compatible with GPLv2, as long as the app is free as in beer.

So, VLC devs submit VLC to store.
Apple approves app.
One VLC dev disagrees and demands Apple remove the app due to licence violation.
Apple removes app from app store.
VLC dev cries and froths that it's "their loss" and "won't cry for users of iOS devices".

What am I missing?

Re:History could repeat itself...

[aristotle-dude]

And I remember a time when OSS developers weren't shooting themselves in the foot, yelling at Apple to pull their own app because it violated the GPL to distribute it on the store, and Apple complied with that request by pulling it, and how somehow that makes them the bad guy.

For the record, the App Store is compatible with GPLv2, as long as the app is free as in beer.

So, VLC devs submit VLC to store.
Apple approves app.
One VLC dev disagrees and demands Apple remove the app due to licence violation.
Apple removes app from app store.
VLC dev cries and froths that it's "their loss" and "won't cry for users of iOS devices".

What am I missing?

Nothing other than the dev filing the complaint works for Nokia. This is anticompetitive behaviour. I would not be surprised if his boss at Nokia bribed him to do it.

Re:History could repeat itself...

[angus77]

It wasn't that long ago. I'm a 33-year-old Canadian and I remember that.

Re:History could repeat itself...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

There was a time (ask your parents if you're under 40) when you rented your telephone from the phone company. No different than today you rent your cable box. The only phone that was allowed to plug into the wall jack was the one you rented from the phone company.

That was a protected monopoly, Apple is no such thing. Eventually the monopoly was broken and people came up with better solutions and wiped the old model away. That's not happening in this case because no-one has created a better solution yet. And they won't for a while because most of other players in this market are bumbling idiots who want to lock everything down even tighter than Apple does.

Re:History could repeat itself...

[fireylord]

Nothing other than the dev filing the complaint works for Nokia. This is anticompetitive behaviour. I would not be surprised if his boss at Nokia bribed him to do it.

sorry, but this is utter nonsense.

Re:History could repeat itself...

[aristotle-dude]

Nothing other than the dev filing the complaint works for Nokia. This is anticompetitive behaviour. I would not be surprised if his boss at Nokia bribed him to do it.

sorry, but this is utter nonsense.

Which part is nonsense? The fact that he works for Nokia or or that he made false claims that the appstore is incompatible with GPLV2 or that other GPLV2 apps exist on the store after the terms of the store where modified to allow the developer to satisfy the terms of the license. The GPL is a source license and it applies to the use and distribution of the source to any interested party after a binary is distributed from modified source code. It does not apply to the end user as it is not a EULA and it does not specify anything about packaging, advertising or DRM (a form of packaging) of the binary. It only refers to the source code. It is not a binary license.

If they are against DRM then they should upgrade to Version 3.

Why is it that only the Nokia employee objected to the iOS VLC app?

Re:History could repeat itself...

[Guy Harris]

Nothing other than the dev filing the complaint works for Nokia. This is anticompetitive behaviour. I would not be surprised if his boss at Nokia bribed him to do it.

sorry, but this is utter nonsense.

Which part is nonsense? The fact that he works for Nokia or or that he made false claims that the appstore is incompatible with GPLV2 or that other GPLV2 apps exist on the store after the terms of the store where modified to allow the developer to satisfy the terms of the license.

The "this is anticompetitive behaviour" part? Nobody's provided any evidence that Remi did this at the behest of somebody in a position of power at Nokia; it's quite conceivable that:

1. he's unhappy that a GPLed work to which he contributes is distributed via a mechanism that he (and the FSF) think imposes extra restrictions on the distribution of the app (which would violate the GPL);
2. he works for Nokia;
3. the first of those has nothing to do with the second of those (his LinkedIn page says he works on what appear to be lower-level mobile phone stuff on Linux, not on media-player stuff, at Nokia).

The GPL is a source license and it applies to the use and distribution of the source to any interested party after a binary is distributed from modified source code.

Or unmodified source code (see clause 3 of GPLv2).

It does not apply to the end user as it is not a EULA

It "applies to the end user" in that it imposes conditions on what restrictions you can impose on the recipient of GPLed software, whether that recipient is "the end user" or not (see clause 6 of GPLv2).

Why is it that only the Nokia employee objected to the iOS VLC app?

Because the VLC developer who's a Nokia employee is also a VLC developer who's a bit grumpier about the requirements of the GPL? I've seen nothing that indicates that the only explanation possible is that this is all part of an Evil Plot by Nokia to sabotage Apple.

more anti-compeditive practices?

[arbiter1]

This sounds more like apple plans to release their own player app maybe so they remove one that compote's with theirs. Its their standard practice, they will claim security of their devices is key but its so they can keep 100% of profit of the app.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that has nothing to do with it. VLC's license does not permit DRM. AppStore apps inherently have DRM. VLC wanted it removed. Apple gladly complied. What is so hard to understand about this?

And are you trying to insinuate that Apple does not have their own movie player on iPads?

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Sable Drakon]

What profit? IIRC, the VLC app was free. Meaning the developers lost money making it due to having to buy a development kit in the first place.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[arbiter1]

i ment for apple, they will release their own player and charge $$$ for it

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Sockatume]

"Release their own player app"? I must be missing something here, but I feel compelled to point out that Apple unsurprisingly ships it with one that supports the same formats that their desktop player supports, basically the ones most commonly available and the ones they sell on iTunes. I don't think Apple has any interest in giving people the ability to play formats beyond those.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Sable Drakon]

Why would they? All of the media formats they want to support are already supported by the built in software. They're simply not wishing to support DivX, WM, MKV, or the various other formats that are out there.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Goaway]

I hate to point this out to you, but you get an Apple-provided movie player for free with the device, and you always have.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

This sounds more like apple plans to release their own player app maybe so they remove one that compote's with theirs.

And leave half a dozen others alone - yeah, that makes fucking sense.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[mr_lizard13]

You're talking so much shit I don't know where to start.

Apple has a built-in 'player app' for iOS devices. For the iPad and iPod touch it's the video app, and for iPhone it's the iPod app.

So Apple aren't releasing a new 'player app' to compete with VLC. It's already there.

Secondly, the app was taken down at the request of one of VLC's code developers. Apple complied with that request.

Lastly, the VLC app in it's current form should never have been submitted anyway. It comes with licensing restrictions that aren't compatible with the terms of the App store.

The developers should have known this, and likely did, but submitted the app anyway knowing that distribution via the App store violated their own licence.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL restricts what can be done with a digital object. This makes the GPL DRM.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a dumbass comment. Quicktime is already on iOS devices and has been for years. Retard.

Re:more anti-compeditive practices?

[scotsghost]

The GPL restricts what can be done with a digital object. This makes the GPL DRM.

clever, but no. the GPL is a license, which you are free to break at any time, although you are potentially guilty of copyright infringement should you do so. DRM isn't a simple restriction; otherwise telling you "stop posting stupid comments on Slashdot" would be DRM. DRM is a restriction enforced by some kind of technological mechanism (encryption or other). breaking a DRM requires a deliberate technological step, and is a DMCA violation and potentially, but not necessarily, a copyright violation.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Anonymous Freak]

So she HAD been using VLC on her iDevice, and now magically VLC has disappeared?

How many movies does the average non-geek have that isn't playable on an iOS device already?

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[unami]

well, she could use some commercial media-player app like oplayer to play back her movies. playback-framerate is slightly worse, but on the other hand, it does play more formats and doesn't crash after 12 minutes like vlc did. there are alternatives - but they are nearly as bad as vlc for ios was.

Details?

[yoshi_mon]

What exactly are the details behind this? I understand that Apple's walled garden really does not have to have any reason for what they allow or disallow. But I don't follow what Rémi is alluding too. (Disclaimer: I've not owned any Apple products since my //e and while I have worked on them they are not something I do much with.)

Re:Details?

[bk2204]

The App Store imposes additional restrictions on what users can do with the apps. The GPL, which is used by VLC, prohibits additional restrictions. So it is impossible to legally distribute VLC (or any derivative work) through the App Store.

Re:Details?

[yoshi_mon]

A lot of other people gave much more detailed explanations but thanks for trying thou!

Overall I have to admire the devs at VLC for taking the rep hit. They are standing up for what they believe and that has always been a rare thing.

Re:Details?

[toriver]

The GPL does NOT care about USE. Only on DISTRIBUTION of binaries and sources. It is a copy-license, not a "running" license. From GPL v2, term 0:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License.

Obviously Apple's fault

[Henriok]

This is obviously Apple's fault and it's inconceivable that it is a negative effect of the GPL since GPL cannot possibly have any. It's impossible to use any other OpenSource license that is compatible with the App Store, even if there are a multitude of such licenses.

Re:Obviously Apple's fault

[mswhippingboy]

VLC was developed under the GPL long before the was an app store. It's not like they can just change the license to suit Apple.

Re:Obviously Apple's fault

[t2t10]

Of course, it's a "negative" effect of the GPL, and an intended one: you are not supposed to benefit from GPL'ed apps in the short term if doing so makes creating more GPL'ed apps difficult in the long term.

Apple and Microsoft do exactly the same thing with their business strategies and licenses.

LOL

[ThisIsNotMyHandel]

This has nothing to do with Apple, rather with VLC. Not sure why people are hating on Apple for this.

Re:LOL

[lewko]

Because Slashdotters like to pretend they are uber-31337 Linux haX0r d00dz even though they are probably using Microsoft Windows and iPhones to say how cool Linux is and how lame other platforms are, despite having never actually used Linux.

Re:LOL

[Haedrian]

Time to run a sudo on my linux computer!

Posted from my iPhone.

Re:LOL

[Doctor_Jest]

In the case of VLC, I'm not faulting Apple, but in the larger ("big picture") I am faulting Apple with their Appstores abandoning choice in favor of a "walled garden" (I used to hate that term, but it really applies here). This kerfuffle illustrates what is bound to happen without FOSS developers going "zealot" on the Apple Appstore. It's coming down the pipe as the grip tightens on what you can and can't do with OS X... iOS is just a sample of how the once vaunted OS X is going to be like someone else in this discussion put it "a game console that checks email."

I used to love Apple's OS... but ever since they got into the phone business, I've been hating them and their direction more and more. And I think I'm not alone in this feeling either... VLC's spat is just a symptom of a greater problem.

Re:LOL

[Doctor_Jest]

Wait, you mean Windows 7 isn't Linux? I'm going to punch that Best Buy salesman in the testicles next time I see him!

Re:LOL

[mswhippingboy]

Self admission? I mean, I assume since you posted here that you consider yourself a "Slashdotter".

Posted from my ENIAC.

Re:LOL

[bm_luethke]

Of course it has to do with Apple - they disallow certain licenses. VLC isn't going to be able to have a different license for each OS it may run on nor should they have too. The stupid thing is that VLC ever made it on there in the first place - it isn't like it was a secret that their licenses were incompatible. Apple may have chosen to ignore this and it certainly looks like on of the developers pointed it out to Apple, but that doesn't make it VLC's fault.

If Microsoft were to decide that you aren't legally allowed to run any GPL software in Windows and then removed your ability too (except for the apps they decided to ignore the incompatibility) I'm fairly certain most here - including yourself - would be blaming Microsoft and not calling for the GPL to go away. That's exactly what Apple is doing, you have to run under a license that allows certain restrictions and the GPL doesn't. That Apple and some projects look the other way doesn't make it a non-issue, indeed with the way GPL works it is interesting that Apple could get in trouble by someone other than author who demands their rights under the GPL (further that they chose to enforce it on some project and not others makes another legal issue for them). Its more surprising that anything GPL made it on their store at all than that they took it off. However it is Apple's choice to limit the license that can be used with their store, not that a project decided to go with the GPL.

You may very well like Apple making this type of decision - obviously a number of people really love the idea of a Walled Garden (everyone of these threads will have someone talking about how great it is to not have that many choices), that is a totally other argument. However Apple clearly chose a license that is incompatible with the GPL. They probably didn't do so intentionally (well, kinda - their Walled Garden idea is anathema to the GPL's Open Garden - it is more a clash of ideas and not directed at GPL directly), but it was their choice to go with that license. Its also been there from the beginning so I don't see why so many are surprised, but that still doesn't remove Apples choice being the limiting factor here.

Re:LOL

[hweimer]

This has nothing to do with Apple, rather with VLC.
Not sure why people are hating on Apple for this.

We feel free to hate Apple for setting up terms for their app store which are incompatible with the GPL.

Re:LOL

[willy_me]

The software was removed at the request of a VLC developer due to licensing issues. Some VLC developers say it's OK, but not all. Anyway, Apple just complied with the request.

If Apple decided to remove the application because they didn't want the competition then you would be right. As it stands, this is just the result of arguing amongst VLC developers. There are lots of reasons to hate Apple, but this is not one of them.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with Apple, rather with VLC.
Not sure why people are hating on Apple for this.

Obvious. Don't hate the player...

Re:LOL

[headLITE]

Both for a phone and a game console, iOS devices are relatively open. Especially for a game console - the $99 an iOS development license costs is peanuts compared to the other consoles. And the iOS HTML 5 implementation is certainly not less powerful than what you can do with midlets on most consumer phones. The walled garden is only becoming a problem as these devices are becoming so powerful that we try to replace computers with them, and then of course we miss the choice we have with real computers... it's somewhat ironic since the first home computers became popular precisely because they were wide open, but the target audience has changed since then. Some day, the OSS community will have to accept that most people don't value choice higher than getting stuff done.

Re:LOL

[EMN13]

The dev asked for the app to be removed because Apple was violating its license term. Apple does not have a license to distribute VLC while imposing additional restrictions beyond those of the GPL, but chose to violate that license.

The fact that Apple claims they don't verify licenses does not make them less legally bound to oblige by them; and in this case the license wasn't a secret, so they can't claim the intermediate distributor (Applidium) misled them either: they willfully (by manually approving distribution) infringed on this dev's license. Of course, they're chosing to ignore licensing issues in their approval process, so it's hard to claim any kind of malice: they just happen to be wrong, that's all.

It is indeed their fault and responsibility - no one elses; not Applidium (who is not violating the license) nor VLC (who isn't party to Apple's app-store in the first place): just Apple.

Re:LOL

[index0]

Yes, cause Apple gives their users freedom to install apps from any source ...

Re:LOL

[gnasher719]

We feel free to hate Apple for setting up terms for their app store which are incompatible with the GPL.

They are not. Just because one jerk claims they are (and if you read his comments about the developers of VLC for the iPhone, he makes it quite clear that he is a jerk), that doesn't make it so.

FI have the right to download the source for VLC for windows, modify it, and install it on my iPhone. It is obviously a lot of work to do that. And Apple makes me buy a Macintosh to run the development software, and makes me pay $99 for the tools to actually install it on my iPhone. But that has nothing to do with the VLC software at all; Apple doesn't affect my rights what to do with VLC for windows at all. Now I could give the complete source code to you. You don't have to do the development work that I had to do, you still have to buy a Macintosh and $99 for the tools. But that is not between me and you; I am not restricting your rights in any way, exactly as the developers for VLC for windows don't restrict your rights (except the jerk).

Now some people developed a version of VLC that does work on the iPhone. These people install it not just on their own phones, and don't just give the source code to others, but they made it available through the Apple Store so that anyone can download it and use it. And anyone who downloads it can get the source code. And once they have the source code for the iPhone version, they have exactly the same rights as someone who has the source code for the windows version, or someone who received source code from me that will actually compile and then run on the iPhone. The developer gives them exactly the same rights. And Apple makes it just as hard for them as it does with the windows version, but that is Apple and it has nothing to do with the developer of the software.

When you want to install software on an iPhone, there are easy ways and hard ways to do it. The easy way is downloading from the App Store, the hard way is getting the source code, get a Macintosh, pay $99 for deployment tools, and install it on 200 iPhones of your choice or put it on the App Store and install it from there. Apple has some limitations on the "easy" method. But there is no license contract between you and Apple about using the software; that contract is between you and the developer. The developer does _not_ in any way restrict your rights.

Now in a practical sense, if I put some GPL'd software on my phone, and you want it as well, then you can get it very easily. And if you want the source code, you can get that as well. And if you want to modify the app, you can do that and have the right to do that as well. So in practice, the end user can do all the things that GPL wants them to be able to do. Except there is this jerk who tries his hardest to prevent everyone from doing so.

There was Richard Stallman, who had a printer, and a printer driver that didn't quite work, and he thought he should have the right to make the driver work with his printer. And there are these guys with iPhones, and there is the VLC software, and these guys think they should have the right to make the software work on an iPhone. And there is the jerk who in the name of "free software" tries to take this freedom away from them.

Re:LOL

[Doctor_Jest]

the OSS community is not the same group as those who "want it handed to them". There's room for both, but Apple is co-opting their rather nice desktop OS into their phone OS and making their computer less useful in the process. It may "get things done" for some people, but it's not what everyone wants. And that is where they fail.

Re:LOL

[toriver]

But are they distributing? If I compile a GPL app, put it in my public Dropbox folder and send someone a link, are Dropbox then distributing?

The fact that Apple claims they don't verify licenses does not make them less legally bound to oblige by them

Yes it does. Do the terms Digital Millenníum Copyright Act and safe harbor mean anything to you? They did what they were supposed to do, by taking down the "offending" app once they were notified. It is the submitter's responsibility to verify they have the right to distribute it, just as it is for people who upload videos to YouTube etc. The App Store applies SOME checks (mainly black box testing of runtime behavior and checks that it does not break other terms they have). But not that licensens like the GPL correctly apply.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

But are they distributing? If I compile a GPL app, put it in my public Dropbox folder and send someone a link, are Dropbox then distributing?

Of course Apple are distributing the app. They are doing far more than hosting a set of files, they are acting as middlemen in a business sense. You have to sign an agreement with them, and they provide a service. They approve or reject the app, digitally sign it, promote it, handle the transaction, and take a cut of the profits. They decide whether to keep selling it or discontinue it. They hold all the cards, so don't try to compare Apples to oranges.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[93 Escort Wagon]

You are very wrong IMHO, my non-geek mother now can't view 99% of her video files, and lots of other users will have to go through a very painful process of re-encoding their videos (which can take a lot of time and cpu resources better spent on their casual tasks).

And why, specifically, is this the case? Is it because you decided to rip all her videos in Theora? Or is it something more innocuous?

I tend to be suspicious of statements like yours, because there are too many things left unstated - so please spell out what formats, exactly, her videos are in.

I like VLC, and use it all the time - but my non-geek mother doesn't know VLC exists. What video files she has came from her video camera; and that exports Quicktime files.

Dictaroship Era

[kavehmz]

Welcome to dictatorship era, benevolent and genius ones.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[unami]

but as anonymous_freak pointed out - if your hypothetical mother had used vlc, it would still be on her device. and she could still watch her 12-minutes xvids

Nokia

[WarpedCore]

I've read his resume. He works at Nokia, not for Free Software Foundation. He's not a philosopher or a lawyer either. It's pretty easy to say that he's acting in the interest of the company that feeds his face and lines his wallet Remi went out on his own to try to pull the app and succeeded. This guy just wants to code himself a bigger cock.

Re:Nokia

[Culture20]

I've read his resume. He works at Nokia, not for Free Software Foundation. He's not a philosopher or a lawyer either. It's pretty easy to say that he's acting in the interest of the company that feeds his face and lines his wallet Remi went out on his own to try to pull the app and succeeded.

This post makes me want to buy an n900.

Re:Nokia

[Rexdude]

What has his working at Nokia got to do with anything, and where does Nokia fit into an Apple vs. VLC debate?
There's no Symbian port of VLC, the latest Symbian OS natively supports a host of video codecs/formats and there are plenty of other 3rd party video players available for Symbian. So what exactly is
the connection?

Re:Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

What has his working at Nokia got to do with anything, and where does Nokia fit into an Apple vs. VLC debate?

Does it take a genius to figure out that Nokia's main product lines compete with iPhone? And anything that hurts Apple/iPhone indirectly benefits Nokia?

If a Microsoft employee went out of his way to take an app out of App Store, wouldn't you question the motive of that person?

Re:Nokia

[Guy Harris]

If a Microsoft employee went out of his way to take an app out of App Store, wouldn't you question the motive of that person?

Not if the only information I had was that the person in question happened to work for Microsoft.

Re:Nokia

[toriver]

Google "Nokia vs. Apple" someday. In case you recently crept up from under a rock, they are at it over patents and the licensing (or lack of) thereof. Perhaps VLC on the app store was considered to be beneficial to Apple, and Nokia got grumbly - until they discovered one of the developers worked for them...?

Re:Nokia

[Rexdude]

I know about the spat between the 2 companies, but this sounds highly farfetched.
The patent lawsuit is to do with Apple infringing Nokia's GSM patents and Nokia infringing Apple's UI patents; video playback and codecs have nothing to do with it. Like I said, both platforms have sufficient support and alternatives in place already.
At any rate, the current issue is over GPL vs. Apple's license incompatibility, that's all.

Re:Nokia

[Guy Harris]

I know about the spat between the 2 companies, but this sounds highly farfetched.

You must be new here. Discussions in an article that mentions Apple specialize in the highly-farfetched (no matter what side the person's on), and this also involves the GPL, which can be another farfetchedness magnet. Now if it involved guns, we'd have won the Trifecta....

It's free...

[nzac]

why do they want to make you go though the buying process again to install it on a sixth device.

intentional fail?

[drb226]

Is Apple *trying* to lose the hearts and minds of FOSS developers? Why not just make a special section of the App store that is GPL-friendly?

Re:intentional fail?

[Haedrian]

Is there money in that?

Re:intentional fail?

[UnknowingFool]

Since when has Apple ever catered to FOSS for their App store? It has been apparent since before the App store launched that GPL code would be incompatible with the licensing agreement.

Re:intentional fail?

[jo_ham]

The app store already is GPLv2 friendly, as long as you don't charge for the app. They amended the licence conditions/ToS after the first GPL run-in before the VLC one to specifically make it friendly to GPLv2.

This is merely them responding to a VLC dev demanding that Apple remove the app from the store - and they complied, and somehow this makes them evil and the masters of some conspiracy to squash OSS.

Re:intentional fail?

[mswhippingboy]

I don't think they really care enough either way to try. Seems to me they are working toward devices that cannot be programmed at all by outside developers so all apps must be purchased from Apple. Once they have everything locked down, they'll probably start charging out the ass for the development tools if not stop providing them to third parties at all.

Re:intentional fail?

[MadMaverick9]

Is Apple *trying* to lose the hearts and minds of FOSS developers?

Steve and Larry have been talking ...

Re:intentional fail?

[headLITE]

They complied with a request from the OSS community, I don't see how that makes them try to squash OSS. If there's any squashing going on, it's one part of the OSS community against another.

Re:intentional fail?

[EMN13]

They aren't "merely" honoring a take-down request; they're the designers, builders and distributors of a software system that's antithetical to free software; in which users no longer have the right to modify or redistribute software regardless of who wrote it.

The app store is most certainly not GPLv2 friendly.

Re:intentional fail?

[Trolan]

You do realize those development tools you're talking about are FOSS-derived, right? Xcode sits on gcc/llvm. Apple is a huge backer of LLVM (BSD licensed). Aside from the IDE UI bits and codesign, the dev tools are the same as you'll find on your own *nix system.

Re:intentional fail?

[mswhippingboy]

Yep. Think how much $$$ and time FOSS has saved Apple from having to develop their own OS and tools from scratch. They have taken and (in all fairness) given back to the FOSS community. However, most everything the have used is BSD license which means they can release proprietary code based on BSD licensed software. It also means they don't have to contribute their code back to the community. My point was that once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store, they could easily stop providing development tools and iOS/OSX users would no longer be able to do development.

Re:intentional fail?

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's why they developed, llvm, clang, and lldb from scratch because gcc and gdb were saving them so much money.

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

So that's why they developed, llvm, clang, and lldb from scratch because gcc and gdb were saving them so much money.

To be fair, Apple didn't develop LLVM from scratch; it started as a research project at the University of Illinois. Apple did hire Chris Lattner, and is doing development work on it.

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

My point was that once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store, they could easily stop providing development tools and iOS/OSX users would no longer be able to do development.

Yeah, because God knows they never boast about the number of third-party applications available for iOS or Mac OS X, so they clearly hate having third-party developers and are eagerly looking forward to the day when they all go away and the set of applications available for their computers is much smaller.

Re:intentional fail?

[mswhippingboy]

Only time will tell, but every move Apple has made since they became a dominant player has been to restrict how and what applications are allowed on their iOS platform. Now with the app store for OSX the trend toward a walled garden for OSX is not far fetched at all. There is considerable speculation that iOS will eventually merge with OSX to become the platform on desktop, server and mobile devices. When (and if) that happens, there is no reason to believe that Apple will be any more open with their desktops than they are with their mobile devices. If they are able to maintain their dominant position yet be able to maintain absolute control over what software is available for their devices, why wouldn't they do it. In my mind, the only reason they wouldn't do this is if the third party developers refused to play their game and forced them to be more open before they get to that point. However, signs so far have not been very encouraging as apple fanbois seem to believe Apple can do no wrong and are willing to play the game Apple's way, regardless of the implications (even if it is to their own detriment).

In any case, I'm sure there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise so I've probably just waste more time on this topic. You can stay in Apple-land (aka Oceania) as long as you wish. Me, I'm taking a different road and we'll see in a few years who was right.

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

If they are able to maintain their dominant position yet be able to maintain absolute control over what software is available for their devices, why wouldn't they do it. In my mind, the only reason they wouldn't do this is if the third party developers refused to play their game and forced them to be more open before they get to that point.

And what makes you think they could maintain a dominant position for smartphones and tablets (they don't have a dominant position for desktops or notebooks) if they disallow third-party applications?

In any case, I'm sure there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise

Well, you'll probably have to work pretty hard to convince any rational person that "[Apple] they are working toward devices that cannot be programmed at all by outside developers (this is, obviously, completely different from claiming that they want some level of control over the applications on the iOS platform; no rational person would deny that claim, as the iOS App Store rules impose such a level of control).

so I've probably just waste more time on this topic.

Yeah, saying "Seems to me they are working toward devices that cannot be programmed at all by outside developers" was rather a waste of time, given the clear evidence against that.

You can stay in Apple-land (aka Oceania) as long as you wish. Me, I'm taking a different road and we'll see in a few years who was right.

Yup, in a few years I predict that either 1) development tools will still be available, either free or cheaply, for iOS and Mac OS X or 2) Apple won't have a dominant position in smartphones or tablets. (They have, as indicated, no dominant position to lose in desktops or laptops; if third-party software development is stopped for Mac OS X, they probably won't have much of a market position at all in those markets.)

Re:intentional fail?

[toriver]

Why can't they "modify or redistribute"? I mean, Apple lists the developer on the download page for the app, you contact them to get the source, and then edit and build. The GPL does not mandate it should be easy to do modifications and builds.

As Apple state in the terms you obviously did not read but just guessed at, any extra license - such as the GPL - between the developer/publisher and the person downloading, is of no concern to Apple.

Re:intentional fail?

[toriver]

once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store

Fear-mongering much? There is absolutely no indication that will happen. Heck, it is more likely thet Lord RMS will decree that GNU/Linux shall not allow any non-GPL software to be installed.

Re:intentional fail?

[jo_ham]

That's exactly my point. They did as they were asked, yet somehow this still makes them the bad guy.

Re:intentional fail?

[mswhippingboy]

Just wait and see.

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

If they are able to maintain their dominant position yet be able to maintain absolute control over what software is available for their devices, why wouldn't they do it. In my mind, the only reason they wouldn't do this is if the third party developers refused to play their game and forced them to be more open before they get to that point.

And what makes you think they could maintain a dominant position for smartphones and tablets (they don't have a dominant position for desktops or notebooks) if they disallow third-party applications?

And, even if you go by plurality rather than majority, maybe Apple doesn't have a dominant position in smartphones to maintain.

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

Just wait and see.

Just wait and see something, at some point. I'm sure you'll justifiably pat yourself on the back if OS X does go "App Store only"; you can be sure others will justifiably laugh at you if it doesn't.

Re:intentional fail?

[mswhippingboy]

Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.

I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store. Sure, developers are welcome to come on board for now. Of course, it'll cost $99 for the privilege of placing their $0.99 product in the store and out of that they'll get $0.65 per sale. How generous. I'm sure a lot of software developers will hang around for that when they could pay a one-time $29 fee to put their wares on the Android store (or one of the many new stores popping up) and receive 100% of the proceeds.

Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct) is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors. They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.

The last figures I saw, the desktop/laptop segment only accounted for around 15% of Apple's revenue. By a wide margin, the iPod, iPhone and iPad markets are the real money makers for Apple and the real markets they are interested in. If they extended the walled garden to the desktop/laptop market (they've already all but given up on the server market, discontinuing the XServe line) they surely would lose some some business but they might well reason that the amount loss was justifiable to regain absolute control of their platform.

It's not just me speculating that OS/X will merge with iOS at some point in the near future, that's been on the Mac blogs for some time. The app store for OSX is a reality - it's not speculation anymore. There is also speculation that Apple is planning on shipping machines for use in their cloud initiative without CD/CD-ROM drives. This will further prevent users from loading apps from outside sources.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Won't be the first time either. I actually hope I am wrong. I find it comforting that Apple fanbois stay in Apple land, far away from roads I travel.

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.

Here's a deal: you don't bogusly assume I'm a blind fanboy adherent of the Cult Of Apple and I won't bogusly assume you're one of those people who thinks buying an Android phone is somehow Striking A Blow Against The Empire.

I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store.

And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?

Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct)

...and you also believe that is, in fact, their reasoning...

is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors.

...because, of course, once you have those "good" apps, there will never ever ever ever ever ever ever be any need for a new application ever again, other than the ones you think of. If Apple starts thinking that all the smart people work for them, they're fucked.

They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.

"Tampering" in what sense? No, you can't write a kext or a program that requires, say, root privileges, but you can add new applications, and develop hardware that attaches to the dock connector. (The word "appliance" is overused, BTW; if it accepts third-party applications, it might not be a self-hosting device that can be used to develop applications for the device, but it's more than a sealed-box "appliance".)

The last figures I saw, the desktop/laptop segment only accounted for around 15% of Apple's revenue.

And what figures were those? According to this chart for the calendar Q4 2010 hardware revenue, it's a little over 25% of the hardware revenue; if that's 15% of total revenue, hardware would be about 60% of total revenue. The Q4 2010 iTunes Store revenue was "over $1 billion", but the Q4 2010 total revenue was $20 billion, so either there's another significant non-hardware revenue category, there's a significant hardware revenue category other than Mac, iPhones, iPods, and iPads, Apple made a lot of money from servers, or the iTunes Store revenue was a lot over $1 billion, if the desktop/laptop segment (non-server Macs) were only around 15% of revenue in Q4 2010.

By a wide margin, the iP

Re:intentional fail?

[mswhippingboy]

Ummm, where to begin....

Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.

Here's a deal: you don't bogusly assume I'm a blind fanboy adherent of the Cult Of Apple and I won't bogusly assume you're one of those people who thinks buying an Android phone is somehow Striking A Blow Against The Empire.

Actually, I don't give a damn who or what you are. I merely posted my opinion on /. (as sometimes people have been know to do) and, as is always the case, if anything is said that can be construed as not pro-Apple, it's like watching the roaches scramble when the light comes on. I'd get less reaction if I posted "Jesus was gay" or "Rush Limbaugh is the new Saviour". It's ridiculous.

I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store.

And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?

If you actually read my previous posts, you'd understand (even if you didn't agree with) my reasoning. I'm not interested in covering the same ground again.

Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct)

...and you also believe that is, in fact, their reasoning...

Correct. It's called an opinion.

is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors.

...because, of course, once you have those "good" apps, there will never ever ever ever ever ever ever be any need for a new application ever again, other than the ones you think of.

No, there will always be new apps, but there will only be new apps that Apple deems are what people want/need and make available through their store, created either by them, by contractors or through licensing deals.

If Apple starts thinking that all the smart people work for them, they're fucked.

Maybe so. It won't be the first nor the last time.

They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.

"Tampering" in what sense? No, you can't write a kext or a program that requires, say, root privileges, but you can add new applications, and develop hardware that attaches to the dock connector.

You can add new application if you've purchased it through their app store and (i.e. it h

Re:intentional fail?

[Guy Harris]

And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?

If you actually read my previous posts, you'd understand (even if you didn't agree with) my reasoning. I'm not interested in covering the same ground again.

I've read all of them several times. I haven't seen any reasoning to support your belief that somehow an App Store is a sign that third-party apps are considered something to eliminate.

You can add new application if you've purchased it through their app store and (i.e. it has their approval). You can develop new hardware that attaches to the dock connector if you work out a license with them to use their patented dock, otherwise you risk getting your ass sued off (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hypermac_accessory_maker_over_magsafe_ipod_cables.html).

I never said otherwise. The question is whether "they don't want people tampering with iOS devices" means "they wish they could seal them in plastic and not let anything non-Apple on" or "they want to keep out applications and peripherals of which they don't approve". You appear to have a firm opinion that it's the former; I have no firm opinion one way or the other, and, in particular, see no strong case that it's the former.

That's Job's whole justification for the walled garden - to ensure that third party apps don't diminish the users experience. Appliance simply means the device is usable by someone with little or no technical expertise. The Apple IIe and Radio Shack TRS-80 were termed "appliance computers" because you didn't need a soldering iron to get them up and running. You simply plugged them in and pressed a switch. It's doesn't mean they can't be upgraded or enhanced or anything of the sort.

So, again, "they don't want people tampering with them" does not necessarily imply "they'd like to cut off third-party appliances and peripherals", and does not inherently strongly suggest that the plan is to return iOS to the "the only programs that run on it are created by Apple or at Apple's behest" state it was in before 2.0.

You may actually be right on this point. 25% may be a more accurate estimate. The information I was basing this on was for desktop sales and not combined desktop/laptop sales. However, interestingly enough, if you read the very article you reference, you'll notice that even they are speculating that Apple's has been trending toward mobility and may discontinue their consumer desktop line altogether.

So? This doesn't say anything whatsoever about iOS vs. Mac OS X; it's just a shift within the market segment of Mac OS X devices. A similar shift is taking place within the market segment of devices that ship running Windows 7.

Oh - sorry - it's a valid analysis when it makes your point, but I'm sure any information supporting my argument within the same article is a bogus, unsupported claim. Got it.

No, it's just information that doesn't support your argument. Shifting from desktops to laptops is not the same as shifting from Mac OS X to iOS.

Or right. Only time will tell. However, if you find a line of thinking on one Mac blog, you can take it with a grain of salt. When you find the same line of thinking on nearly every (pro-Apple) blog, it does tend to increase the likelihood that it may be correct.

Or it might just be that they're all reinforcing each other's prejudices. When it comes to long-term speculations - which is what we're talking about here, not "Apple will probabl

They already have their own player...

[yabos]

It's built into the OS and it's Quicktime(scaled down). Apple won't make a competitor to VLC because VLC played many formats that Apple won't bother supporting due to no hardware acceleration. This is why Apple supports only a small set of codecs and bitrates. The A4 chip in the iPad and iPhone 4 has specific hardware for decoding this codec up to a certain bitrate.

Re:To hell with Apple!

[Goaway]

What the hell do Apple think they are anyway?

People who respect software licenses when the license holders request software be removed from their store?

VLC player works alright.

[unity100]

its the only player i know so far, that works without any codec hassles on any computer. download, run, play anything on it. its almost magical.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[Macrat]

its the only player i know so far, that works without any codec hassles on any computer. download, run, play anything on it. its almost magical.

Many times it displays no video playing avi files.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[larry bagina]

eh, on OS X, it's a steaming pile of shit. I only use it when a file isn't supported in QuickTime. Of course, the vast majority of the time, it doesn't play correctly or crashes VLC.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[zachdms]

Naw. It works well with the content you use it to play. There's 500+ video codecs, many many of which it doesn't work with.

Generally all players are at the mercy of the content creator. Having good codec support out of box is excellent, but you'll still hit problem scenarios (Duck, L&H, Indeo, latest screen codec, latest vendor codec, etc.) with every player.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[Anonymous Coward]

its the only player i know so far, that works without any codec hassles on any computer. download, run, play anything on it. its almost magical.

Well, vlc is pretty good, but not perfect. It doesn't play .3gp files properly - no audio (many cell phones record video in .3gp):

http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41727

Re:VLC player works alright.

[jedidiah]

> Naw. It works well with the content you use it to play.
> There's 500+ video codecs, many many of which it doesn't
> work with.

Perhaps.

Still. It does a HELL of a lot better than the limited things from Microsoft or Apple.

VLC is what MacOS and Windows users download when they have something that the limited OS bundleware can't do the job.

This happens a bit less in Windows these days but MacOS is the same as ever.

If you do decide to use a "plugin" for the default player, then you will likely be steered to yet another different bit of Free Software.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[perryizgr8]

so lets see. vlc works perfectly on windows xp, vista, 7 probably even 2000. it works perfectly on all conceivable flavors of linux. but it does not work on osx.
guess what's broken?

Re:VLC player works alright.

[CharlyFoxtrot]

It has a horrible, crappy interface though. I've mostly abandoned it on my mac for Movist, also open source and plays everything I've thrown at it with a nicer GUI to boot.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[toriver]

guess what's broken?

The skills of the devs bothering to port it to OS X? As with most open-source projects, VLC is only as good on a given platform as the people interested in getting it to work there.

Other non-GPL software like Flip4Mac (to play/convert WMV) runs fine on OS X.

Re:VLC player works alright.

[zachdms]

The libavcodec library is indeed excellent and very useful. I'm not knocking nor would I knock that in any fashion. I was just pointing out that most/500+ is still just "most", not "all". As a hobby/side project at work (the M, but I speak for myself only always) I've been tracking down and trying to get fixed codec issues for the past long while... so that differentation is sadly important.

Better ""integration"" of libav or more/better out of box codec support is excellent. You might not *currently* need to play G2M3 or MetaSound content, but it'd be nice if it just worked when you decided you needed it to. I'm a huge fan of VLC and other players that makes things just work.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[gcerullo]

Really? Your "non-geek" mother was encoding videos in a format that is incompatible with the codecs natively supported by iOS. Now be honest. Was it you who showed her how to encode those videos or did your "non-geek" mother figure it out all for herself?

Because Apple honors licence challenges??

[SuperKendall]

But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.

You refuse to use Apple because when someone issues a copyright challenge against an App Apple actually listens and removes it from the store?

Re:Because Apple honors licence challenges??

[hedwards]

Um, the app should never have appeared in the store to begin with. Considering the amount of time that Apple employees spend verifying that it can't be used to look at porn or counting the dirty words in word games, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to verify the license is compatible with their ToS. I mean it's not exactly an unusual license.

Re:Because Apple honors licence challenges??

[Anonymous Coward]

they should say this: "you can do whatever the creator of the application allows you to do. we actually didn't write the software so we don't impose our ideas and restrictions on it."

Re:Because Apple honors licence challenges??

[peppepz]

I think he's referring to the fact that he has to cope with the store's terms because his hardware won't allow software from other sources to be installed on it.

which rock...

[alienzed]

which rock are you living under? Apple already has a very successful player app called Quicktime, ever heard of it?

Tell your mother to slap you

[SuperKendall]

my non-geek mother now can't view 99% of her video files

Right, because YOU chose to either torrent them for her or encode them in something like OGG for the principal of the thing - not thinking of how well she'd be able to fare without your help.

Geeks just do not get how valuable technical independence is to people, not having to worry about all this crap. You should not have saddled her with this kind of burden.

Re:Tell your mother to slap you

[Superken7]

No, just because the iPad doesn't play most of the video files she would want to see.

And yes, some of them are torrented or stem from megaupload, because most of them are not available through any other means. (i won't get into a moral debate as to whether this is "correct" or not)

Re:Tell your mother to slap you

[SuperKendall]

It's not about if it's moral. It's about YOU setting her up to fail, technologically speaking.

VLC pulled it

[SuperKendall]

VLC was pulled at the request of a VLC core developer who did not agree with their code running on iOS devices.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[mr_lizard13]

How did your non-geek mother encode her video files in the first place?

Most non-geeks I know wouldn't have even heard of the word 'encode'.


Perhaps a geek encoded them for her? If that was the case, it's interesting s/he chose to encode them in a format not natively supported by your mother's device.

Because the other company pulled them

[SuperKendall]

They guy who requested VLC be pulled works for Nokia. So you do the math as to why Apple was asked to remove an app Nokia had power over...

Re:Because the other company pulled them

[Tharsman]

They guy who requested VLC be pulled works for Nokia. So you do the math as to why Apple was asked to remove an app Nokia had power over...

I don't know why this post got moded down. It is true it overshoot by stating "Nokia had power over" the application, but it is true the developer works for Nokia and it is very unlikely the guy can be considered the most objective of parties in this discussion.

Re:Because the other company pulled them

[SuperKendall]

If he's employed by Nokia they obviously have some pull over him. Although it's not clear they used said influence, it does look REALLY bad. Can you imagine what the posts would look like here if an Apple employee had worked to have a popular app killed from Android use?

The person who modded me down is just a typical Apple Hater wishing to bury factual information; I would no be concerned about them as they have no lasting effect.

Spin much?

[leamanc]

There's a lot of spin here. Apple pulled this at the request of a developer, over concerns of the GPL-licensed components contained in VLC. A lot of folks were surprised that VLC even made it the store, as App Store rules pretty much violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL. Apple was more than happy to keep VLC in the store, but everyone is very happy to spin them as evil yet again. Not that they haven't done some tacky things with App Store takedowns, but really that seems to be more and more a thing of the past.

For more info on the reasons VLC was pulled, check out this Engadget article, just one of many articles out there that reports the truth of the issue.

As a side note, I love VLC; it does a lot on the Mac mini hooked to my HDTV. It's absolutely essential on Linux. But the iOS version was not that great. The one thing I use VLC for more than anything is its network streaming capabilities (remember, it's the Video LAN Client, first and foremost), and this feature didn't make it to the iOS version. So I never used it. Yeah, it's good to have to play videos that QuickTime can't handle, but I've never had occasion to view such videos on my iPhone or iPad. And if I have to use iTunes to load the videos onto my iPhone or iPad, that means the videos are on my computer, where I am more likely to watch them (with the OS X version of VLC, or QuickTime with Perian).

Re:Spin much?

[jedidiah]

> It's absolutely essential on Linux.

Nonsense.

The automated codec handling in the default video player on Ubuntu makes VLC moot.

Don't get me wrong. It's a nice player but it is hardly unique or "essential" on Linux.

Re:Spin much?

[leamanc]

Yes, I will concede that Ubuntu has made great strides with regards to making things like MP3, AAC, MP4 video, WMV, DVD playback, etc., "just work." So VLC on Ubuntu is probably not essential anymore, although I still put it on all my Ubuntu installs because it has a ton of functionality in a single app, and I like its interface, flexibility and ease of configuration better than the built-in players. I also like software that is available for--and looks and works the same--on Mac, Windows and Linux.

Also, remember that there are thousands of other Linux distros that don't handle automatic codec installation with anything resembling Ubuntu's grace and elegance. Keeping in mind that Ubuntu != Linux, VLC is, if not essential, pretty darn nice to have around for Linux.

Re:Spin much?

[Archimonde]

As a side note, I love VLC; it does a lot on the Mac mini hooked to my HDTV. It's absolutely essential on Linux. But the iOS version was not that great.

The main feature of the iOS version was that you could drag and drop pretty much any unconverted/torrented video file to the iphone and VLC would play it.
Try that with the default player and report the results please.

Re:Spin much?

[janwedekind]

The developer requested compliance with the GPL. I.e. customers should have the same freedoms when Apple distributes GPL software to them. The problem is that Apple wants to be the sole distributor of software. If I where a software developer of VLC, I would be really pissed off about my work becoming the carrot to Apple's stick.

I understand Apple and why they are doing this. I think the company's survival instinct has turned to greed at some point in time.

What I don't understand is their customers. Why do they side with Apple when they are at the receiving end of a policy which is designed to prevent them from bypassing the 30% Apple-tax they are paying on every song, book, and piece of software? What do faithful customers gain from this? A job at Apple for one in a million? A simple life where somebody else makes decisions and takes their money? A sense of community by paying the bill together?

This kind of things make me think that mankind is doomed.

Re:Spin much?

[Just Some Guy]

Option one: convert a file one time on a host computer with vastly more processing power and hooked into line current, then watch it many times in its hardware acceleratable form on your iOS device.

Option two: convert it many times - once per playback - using CPU-intensive algorithms on a relatively weak, battery-powered device.

I love VLC, but the iPhone isn't a great host environment for it.

Re:Spin much?

[toriver]

If I where a software developer of VLC, I would be really pissed off about my work becoming the carrot to Apple's stick.

Why? I mean, it's not like they didn't know that as soon as they released their software under the GPL then anyone could modify and compile it for any platform they liked? If they wanted to retain control they should have picked a different license.

And: what 30% Apple tax? You mean the cut they take from paid apps (in case you missed it VLC is free) for providing all the services (payment, bandwidth, iTunes presence) you otherwise would have to get elsewhere? That cut is small compared to what a J2ME developer has to live with for instance. Do you also consider the 50% of CD proce that the store gets to be a "record store tax"?

Re:Spin much?

[janwedekind]

Why? I mean, it's not like they didn't know that as soon as they released their software under the GPL then anyone could modify and compile it for any platform they liked? If they wanted to retain control they should have picked a different license.

Porting VLC to another operating system is good for the project and that is not the issue here. The issue is that VLC should remain free software and it should not be controlled by anyone.

And: what 30% Apple tax? You mean the cut they take from paid apps (in case you missed it VLC is free) for providing all the services (payment, bandwidth, iTunes presence) you otherwise would have to get elsewhere?

Bandwidth? Give me a break. Have you looked at Amazon EC2 prices for hosting bandwidth recently? And they are not even the cheapest. If Apple's offering was so great, they wouldn't use DRM to technically lock out potential competitors.

That cut is small compared to what a J2ME developer has to live with for instance. Do you also consider the 50% of CD proce that the store gets to be a "record store tax"?

AFAIK GetJar charges 0% for hosting paid J2ME applications.

Not Quite

[pavon]

One of the developers, Rémi Denis-Courmont, was calling on Apple to allow users to use VLC in the manner that the GPL requires. However Apple decided that they would rather remove VLC from the repository than modify their ToS to allow developers to set their own licensing terms.

Re:Not Quite

[yeshuawatso]

The app store allows you to upload your own software license when you submit your app. What you meant to say was Apple would rather remove VLC from the repository than allow the USERS to COMPLY with the license.

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. On the one end, when it becomes that the developers were behind it getting pulled, this whole article becomes a "Whatever. It may suck for some, but such is life." type of article. But then it goes to what you describe and it confirms (to some degree) my hatred for Apple on these things. The fact that some (not enough, yet) open-source projects, using whatever license they deem fit for their project, exist on Android is actually one of the things that turns me to it. I'm a minority--this, I realize. But I'm not trying to speak for anyone but myself here anyway.

Re:Not Quite

[harlows_monkeys]

Actually, after the FSF complained about a port of GNU Go for iOS, Apple did modify their terms in a way that on first reading seemed to address the issue. It now does say that if an app store product is covered by a valid EULA from its developer, that applies instead of Apple's app store EULA. (I'd normally quote the exact language now, but until Slashdot fixes their copy/paste bug that makes paste not work in Safari and Chrome if there is anything already in the text box, it is too much work).

Many reading the new terms of service thought this ended the matter, but an FSF spokesmen decided that the product's EULA did not override all of the objectionable terms. It's arguable either way.

Maybe Apple will make a second attempt to clarify this, or maybe they'll give up since whatever they do (if it is short of making it a requirement that all apps on the store be GPL...) will not meet with FSF approval and just leave it the way it is.

Re:Not Quite

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Maybe I'm dense but what was stopping the app developer from putting a link to his site, offering the source or part of it, in the description on the AppStore ? The distributer has to offer the source code but he doesn't have to host it does he ?

Re:Not Quite

[lederhosen]

No, it is only the one distributing the software that needs to agree to anything. As an end user you are free to *use* the GPL software without agreeing to anything.

Re:Not Quite

[yeshuawatso]

True, But the replied to post made the assumption that developers can't set the license of their software, which isn't true. I don't think he/she was trying to be misleading, just uninformed; however, my comment about user compliance is just as wrong not out of being uninformed but rather being reply-happy. Apple is a distributer of the software and therefor must comply with the GPL and provide source, but the developer could also just distribute the source code with the ipa package, since it's just a glorified archive file. This would force Apple to comply with the GPL without further effort.

Thanks for clarifying though.

Re:Not Quite

[Delkster]

End users of software don't have to comply with the (L)GPL. The license only places restrictions on distribution. The problem is that the App Store terms and services also place restrictions on the software downloaded from the App Store, and any license provided by the authors of the software applies in addition to that. Apple's terms place restrictions that the (L)GPL disallows and thus the two conflict.

(source: http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement)

It is, of course, no surprise that Apple would remove a piece of software rather than modify their terms of service to be compatible with the GPL. Apple's terms serve the interests of Apple above all, and the interests of app authors are secondary; even if an app were deemed desirable by itself, a single app isn't significant enough to warrant changes that Apple might consider risky, difficult or otherwise undesirable; and Apple doesn't even like the GPL.

corporations are only in control

[Anonymous Coward]

where law gives it to them, and government creates niches where it delegates its power to them. For example, insurance corporations under the new "health care reform" will be happy to serve as the arm of the government that mandates that you should buy their services.

The solution is simple: do not give more power to the government, no matter how "progressive" the goals may seem to be, and you will not have the corporations controlling you. Vote down "progressive" candidates who promise wonders if only their were given power to coerce and "redistribute".

Recall that copyright monopoly grants, which became the primary tool for corporate control of information these days, had started with a grant of power to the government to promote "progress" of "useful arts" for the "public good". In reality it got the corporations as much control as they could technologically get.
     

Re:To hell with Apple!

[mr_lizard13]

Yeah, who the hell do they think they are, removing apps at the request of the app developer.

On second thoughts, who do the developers of the VLC app think they are, submitting an app to a store knowing full well that the licensing terms of that store would violate their own licensing terms.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Plex. It is easier to use, and plays 1080P content well (unlike VLC).

Ad inspired by 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zhHwim6cV8&feature=related

what an ass

[Anonymous Coward]

lol so basically Nokia's butt boy got VLC yanked from the appstore.

Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[Anonymous Coward]

The proper title should be "Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore".

Rémi alone is to blame for this mess.

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[Tharsman]

The proper title should be "Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore".

Rémi alone is to blame for this mess.

Agree

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[headLITE]

The GPL is to blame. It's fundamentally incompatible with the app store's terms of service. The app store terms forbid you from sharing apps you downloaded from it, even if they are free. The GPL does not recognize pointing people to a free download on the app store as the re-distribution that it wants to enforce to be possible.

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[gnasher719]

The GPL is to blame. It's fundamentally incompatible with the app store's terms of service. The app store terms forbid you from sharing apps you downloaded from it, even if they are free. The GPL does not recognize pointing people to a free download on the app store as the re-distribution that it wants to enforce to be possible.

No, the GPL isn't to blame at all. What is to blame is a developer who has apparently developed a hatred against Apple (which may be related to his employer being Nokia), making legal threats, and claiming that his copyright is infringed.

Apple makes very, very clear that any GPL software in the app store is distributed under the GPL license, and that any legal relationship is between the developers submitting the software and the end user receiving the software. Apple just provides a service to allow users to download software. That service has limitations. And it isn't easy for the end user to distribute further, but it is possible, and Apple doesn't disallow it.

However, the spirit of the GPL software is that anybody should be able to get the source code, adapt it, and use the modified software. Here we have a developer who actively prevents people from doing just that. You can argue all you want about app store rules and walled gardens and so on, but this guy clearly does not want people to have the freedom to modify software that he participated in developing and to make it work on the device that they want it to work on.

Imagine Stallman had bought an iPhone.

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[janwedekind]

However, the spirit of the GPL software is that anybody should be able to get the source code, adapt it, and use the modified software. Here we have a developer who actively prevents people from doing just that. You can argue all you want about app store rules and walled gardens and so on, but this guy clearly does not want people to have the freedom to modify software that he participated in developing and to make it work on the device that they want it to work on.

What prevents you from just downloading the application from somewhere else? It's not as if the binaries are not available any more.

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[index0]

Here are the steps: 1) ./configure 2) make 3)make install
How is this Nokia developer preventing you from doing any of those steps? Do you realize that it is Apple that is preventing you from doing step 3.

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[Guy Harris]

The proper title should be "Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore".

Rémi alone is to blame for this mess.

If so, then the proper title should be "Rémi Denis-Courmont gets Apple to pull VLC from AppStore". There's no proof that he acted as he did because he works at Nokia.

Re:Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a little more complicated. Parts of the App Store terms (with outrageously GPL-incompatible terms) do not apply if the software is already covered by a valid EULA. But there are other parts that do still apply, notably the part that says you can have the software on 5 devices, and use it for personnal purpose.

For the GPL and the App Store to be compatible, you need to assume that the this section of is unapplicable too, and that the GPL is a valid EULA. That might be the case (until/unless proven in court, we cannot know for sure). And Apple might think exactly that way. Otherwise, I find it odd that Apple waited over 2 months to act on a DMCA take-down notice!

On http://planet.videolan.org/ it's clear that nobody (other than Apple) knows for sure why VLC was pulled.

The company store...

[aztracker1]

It's not like you owe your soul to 'em.

Anyone keeping score?

[mswhippingboy]

Android +1, iOS -1 http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/27/vlc-player-android/

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Android gets +1 for "coming real soon now, as we said for some time now"?

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[mswhippingboy]

It's open source isn't it. There's no such thing as "coming real soon now". You can get it NOW if you know how to use git.
Will it work? Maybe. Would it be better to wait until the official full release ? Probably, if you want a somewhat bug free version.

The point is, it is available for Android in pre-release and will eventually be available in general release form. It will not (ever) be available for iOS.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

It's open source isn't it. There's no such thing as "coming real soon now". You can get it NOW if you know how to use git.

So you can't get it, but you can git it.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[mswhippingboy]

Actually, it's more accurate to say you can get it if you know how to git it.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[TangoMargarine]

TWSS?

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

But can you then use it? Because if the source code could just be compiled it would be fucking available for download ready to run already

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[peppepz]

IMHO it also gets +1 because, should VLC violate the rules of the Android market, people would still be free to download the .apk from the VLC home page, as they would do with any other OS, and install it on their phones, by their own choice and at their own risk.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

So it gets +2 for not being available on either the Android market nor the VLC homepage, and the iPhone gets -1 because those that have it can keep it, and those that want it can jailbreak their phones. Wow, that sounds like a really fair scoring system.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[peppepz]

Leave VLC aside and look at the question from a more abstract point of view.

Allows installation of user-provided applications:

iPhone - NO
Android - YES

That said, given the source of the information, I'm really confident that VLC for Android will be relased soon. Then we'll be able to see with hindsight who got more and who got less.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Leave VLC aside and look at the question from a more abstract point of view.

Allows installation of user-provided applications:

iPhone - NO Android - YES

Allows installation of VLC as a developer

iPhone - YES

Android - THERE IS NO FUCKING VLC ON ANDROID.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[peppepz]

Do I, as a user, care about things that developers can do but I can't do? - NO

Can I trust the VLC development team when they say that VLC for Android is nearly complete and will be released in early 2011 - I'D SAY YES

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Do I, as a user, care about things that developers can do but I can't do? - NO

Yet you as a user care that you can no longer install VLC on an iPhone (for now, because an employee of Nokia wants it that way), but you don't care that you still can't on an Android.

Re:Anyone keeping score?

[peppepz]

Correct.

I am also surprised that employees of Nokia have the power to remove apps from Apple's app store, I wonder why they don't remove them all. It would be a good thing for their employer.

Re:To hell with Apple!

[gnasher719]

On second thoughts, who do the developers of the VLC app think they are, submitting an app to a store knowing full well that the licensing terms of that store would violate their own licensing terms.

Whether that is the case or not is very much debatable. Apple quite clearly says that if you download third party applications through their store, any license agreement is between you and the developer. Apple provides a free download service, and that service is limited. That has nothing to do with the license agreement between you and the developer.

nothing new about that

[t2t10]

It's not "instead". Rather, corporations and government cooperate more and more closely. It's called "fascism", and it's how the Nazi state functioned.

and nothing of value was lost

[NiceGeek]

Got it weeks ago, never used it. It served no useful purpose.

nonsense

[t2t10]

And Apple can't fix anything by modifying an agreement, as it's not their license that's in question, it's the GPL. They'd actually have to restructure how their content distribution system works.

Nonsense. The problem is a licensing problem, not a content distribution problem. If Apple would fix their licenses, the problem would go away, even if their app store couldn't actually implement the more permissilve licenses.

Re:nonsense

[perryizgr8]

well played.

Re:nonsense

[batkiwi]

Nonsense. The problem is a licensing problem, not a content distribution problem. If VLC would fix their license, the problem would go away, even if external contributions couldn't actually be distributed under the more permissilve license.

Re:To hell with Apple!

[mr_lizard13]

If it's debatable someone should tell the VLC developer who requested the app be taken down for that very reason.

For me..

[n_djinn]

I own 2 Macs and 3 iOS's. I love the simplicity, the way they work together, then they started ruining it. I upgraded my desktop to one of the newest and fastest Mac's. I got one with a defective sound card. While I was on hold with -10 teired support. And I shit you not, they told me I needed to update my desktop speaker set. I have a wall mounted yamaha YAS 70 surround sound system, not some $25 per amped pos from WalMart. What the holy fuck, support selling me a new speaker set that is crap by a magnitude of 10! Back on topic, I understand a walled garden for mobil computing (my iPhone is jail broken), but now I question even writing this as it's less and less of a stretch to think Apple is snooping. An AppStore for the desktop is nothing but greedy and controlling. Now to get truly functional software we are going to have to look for it.

Naa...

[deesine]

I'll pass on the strong dose of ideologue fueled hyperbole. Besides, I only buy dogma from people over 30.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Denis-Courmont is a notoriously abrasive prick with a bigtime chip on his shoulder against Apple and Mac users. Try taking a look at the VLC forums to find out what a dick this guy is. Serious, serious attitude problem, and much as I'm glad that VLC exists, I'm also kind of amused (but not surprised) that he's become a PR liability for the project.

Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[aristotle-dude]

Way to go Rémi Denis-Courmont. You have successfully alienated a bunch of people for your own selfish reasons. Your ego will be your own undoing. As I understanding it, VLC depends upon not just the good will of people contributing their time to code, fix bugs and/or QA for bugs but also donations from individuals.

I thought that open source was supposed to be about collaboration and sharing. These kinds of personal pissing contests do nothing to promote good will.

You could have had the opportunity to get VLC into the hands of more people which I thought was the whole point of software development regardless of your philosophy. Software without users is a waste of time and just a bunch of irrelevant mental masturbation.

Instead of choosing to be to be the bigger man and work with other people, you decided to be a prick.

I predict that the VLC project will die on the vine.

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[EMN13]

The point is to just Say No to vendor lock-in; to the benefit of users and small software firms around the world. It's rather noble of him to take this stand despite the unfair vilification he gets for it, don't you think?

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[amorsen]

So you're saying that he shouldn't have picked the GPL as a license. The 80's called, they want their flame wars back.

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[aristotle-dude]

The point is to just Say No to vendor lock-in; to the benefit of users and small software firms around the world. It's rather noble of him to take this stand despite the unfair vilification he gets for it, don't you think?

His actions cause vendor lockin. If a person wants VLC on their phone, they will have to buy an android phone and many Android phones are sold with carrier software lockin where you have crapware that you cannot remove without rooting the phone.

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[aristotle-dude]

So you're saying that he shouldn't have picked the GPL as a license. The 80's called, they want their flame wars back.

Go read the GPLV2. I dare you to actually read what is says, not what you think it says. There are other GPLV2 programs on the appstore which were initially removed but added back in at the request of the authors after Apple modified the terms of the appstore. Nothing in the Appstore agreement prevents you from fulling the terms and conditions of the GPL as it is a "source" license. It is not an EULA.

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is imposing additional restrictions on all software distributed through the App Store. One of the restrictions is that you are only allowed to install the software on 5 additional devices. Apple has to accept the GPL to be allowed to distribute at all, and thereby they accept that they cannot add additional usage restrictions beyond what is in the GPL. Yet they still do so.

The end user doesn't have to accept the GPL, but Apple does.

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[Delkster]

I predict that the VLC project will die on the vine.

I predict that it won't die as long as people keep thinking it's useful for them, you know, on all the other platforms they use than iOS.

Re:Rémi Denis-Courmont, you reap what you sow

[aristotle-dude]

Apple is imposing additional restrictions on all software distributed through the App Store. One of the restrictions is that you are only allowed to install the software on 5 additional devices. Apple has to accept the GPL to be allowed to distribute at all, and thereby they accept that they cannot add additional usage restrictions beyond what is in the GPL. Yet they still do so.

The end user doesn't have to accept the GPL, but Apple does.

If you are going to bother to discuss this with me then please get your facts straight. There is a limit of 5 computers which can act as the syncing source library per account but there is no limit on how many iOS devices can be synced with that library. That's right, the app can be installed and run on an unlimited number of iOS devices. That 5 library computers per iTunes Store list can be changed. You can de-authorize any computer to free up a slot. There is never any need to authorize or de-authorize an iPhone/iPod Touch or iPad because there is no limit.

Stop spreading FUD and outright lies.

Sending feedback to Apple

[Lord Satri]

Despite the licenses compatibility challenges, you can tell Apple you want the 'VLC Media Player' app back in the app store. Color me utopic, but that's trying to be part of the solution.

Re:Sending feedback to Apple

[VendettaMF]

Far better to just not develop for Mac or iOS and not purchase crippled hardware.

Re:Sending feedback to Apple

[ledow]

If a license is incompatible, it's incompatible. The bit people miss is that the Apple Store licence is incompatible with the GPL. Completely. As in you can't mix the two. Never could. This was "overlooked" until one of the authors challenged it. It always was actually illegal to distribute it in that fashion. Doesn't matter if everyone in the world wants it - unless copyright licensing laws change globally, or every VLC contributor allows their contribution to be licensed under a non-GPL licence, it can't happen.

Re:Sending feedback to Apple

[cbreak]

You should tell the VLC devs that. It's not apple's decision if a Developer stops distributing his app.

Re:Sending feedback to Apple

[toriver]

the Apple Store licence is incompatible with the GPL

How? I mean, you should be able to quote where it is incompatible.
1) The binary is distributed via the App Store, but the App Store in effect is just the channel, like a FTP server or whatever else you would use. The App Store is a "third party" in the GPL sense and do not need to provide the source
2) People can get the source from the developers, which the App Store helpfully names and links to.
3) They can then modify, compile and distribute as they see fit.

However, the devices are picky about running the software, and it is not super-easy to build it, what with the need for XCode and the developer program membership.

But you know what? The GPL does not care about that. Nowhere does it say it should be easy to compile or modify.

And nowhere does it say that the user should be able to run the binary result (it is not an EULA).

So again, HOW is the GPL - a license between the developer and the user - incompatible with the App Store license?

Re:Sending feedback to Apple

[ledow]

Actually, the GPL does have provisions about providing all necessary headers and working environment in order to reproduce the binary. So it's not as simple as "the GPL doesn't care". It goes to specific lengths to ensure that the build does not depend on external files. The binary produced may or may not include parts of the Apple code / code signing in order to build that particular executable and none of them would be redistributable. Does that binary load on it's own, without the aid of Apple Store?

Does the Apple Store license do anything to modify terms of distribution (YES IT DOES, even if it's only an additional indemnity waiver, but it also says lots of other stuff concerning redistribution). As such, it extends the terms of GPL (i.e. it's like me saying I'm distributing this GPL software, but the license I'm doing it under prohibits you from giving it to anyone else, and/or means you can't sue Jack either - by extension I've overrode the GPL and without all the copyright holders consent, that's illegal). You could DUAL-license it (one under the Apple Store licence and one under the GPL) but that means copyright holders have to do that, not any random joe, and you can't just take GPL code and "add extra terms" (Section 7 of the GPL) without being the author / copyright holder.

This is the thing that stopped this particular instance, and this is also the thing that EVERYONE knew would stop it. Apple has clauses related to its DRM (i.e. don't circumvent it, don't let other people have that particular binary, etc.) and that's what is contrary to the GPL. It doesn't matter that A binary can be put onto another iPhone or whatever - it has to be THAT binary, or any binary made from the GPL code. AIn fact, it's absolutely amazing that Apple ever let themselves get that deep because they should have KNOWN it would provide a legal avenue for trouble. They are lucky that it hasn't ended up before the courts, but only because the VLC team haven't taken that much interest in doing so. It takes a single copyright holder, with a single line of code / documentation / image in VLC for someone to force it to go to court. And Section 7 would be my prime candidate to concentrate on and I assure you, I could get it past any court's viability tests and have it actually come to trial quite easily.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[mark-t]

Time consuming, perhaps... but painful? Not in the slightest. http://thomer.com/howtos/mp4ize

You can even automate the task and put it behind a gui so that people who don't like command lines can do it.

EU citizens, contact the EU about Nokia

[aristotle-dude]

Rémi Denis-Courmont is a Nokia employee and it is possible that someone and Nokia put him up to this. If this is the case then there could be a violation of EU competition law.

Re:EU citizens, contact the EU about Nokia

[amorsen]

You think the EU competition law prevents people from enforcing their copyrights? You are severely deluded.

Re:EU citizens, contact the EU about Nokia

[aristotle-dude]

You think the EU competition law prevents people from enforcing their copyrights? You are severely deluded.

Strict copyright no longer applies when you have multiple contributors. The GPL V2 applies. Remi is free to remove his contributions from the source tree. When you have one contributor disagreeing with other contributors then it is not just a simple case of "copyright" unless if all copyrights are assigned to Remi which I doubt very much.

There is no mention of DRM or packaging of binaries in the GPL. There is nothing preventing distribution of the binary in a password protected ZIP file in Version 2 of the GPL. It is a source license and dictate what the responsibilities are with regard to the source code if a binary is released.

The current appstore agreement has been deemed to be compatible with the GPLV2 by other developers.

If Remi wants to be difficult then he should convince the VLC team to relicense under the more restrictive GPLV3, remove his code from the repository or shut the hell up.

Re:EU citizens, contact the EU about Nokia

[amorsen]

Strict copyright no longer applies when you have multiple contributors.

Yes it does. He can simply ignore the contributions of the others and sue about illegal distribution of his code. The others can respond by removing his code, but that only fixes the problem going forward and does not stop the people who distributed the code without a license from having to pay damages.

Re:EU citizens, contact the EU about Nokia

[Guy Harris]

Rémi Denis-Courmont is a Nokia employee and it is possible that someone and Nokia put him up to this.

And it's also possible that nobody at Nokia did. Any claim in either direction is just speculation. (It'd be fun to watch the "lynch Apple!" and "lynch Nokia!" mobs go at it in a thread, though....)

Re:EU citizens, contact the EU about Nokia

[aristotle-dude]

Strict copyright no longer applies when you have multiple contributors.

Yes it does. He can simply ignore the contributions of the others and sue about illegal distribution of his code. The others can respond by removing his code, but that only fixes the problem going forward and does not stop the people who distributed the code without a license from having to pay damages.

Why you may be correct and while he may have a right to his code, his code is pretty much useless without the code of the other contributors. Even though he is the main contributor, he cannot act unilaterally and relicense VLC unilaterally for example.

Regardless, he has gone against the mission statement of VLC which is:

VideoLAN is a project and a non-profit organization, composed of volunteers, developing and promoting free multimedia solutions.

You can be technically right while being wrong and I think Remi exactly that.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[jedidiah]

> Really? Your "non-geek" mother was encoding
> videos in a format that is incompatible with
> the codecs natively supported by iOS.

See. This is the "blindered moron" mentality in action.

No one has to go out of their way to have files that PhoneOS devices can't use. They are generated by any number of consumer devices or applications. Any consumer video camera will generate output that no PhoneOS device is capable of dealing with. It doesn't matter if it's an 8 year old Firewire camera or a new USB camera.

"What Apple uses" is not the global video standard.

Video that is incompatable with PhoneOS or a stock Mac is what happens when you DON'T try to "encode" anything.

Apple has a "our way or the highway" approach to "standards".

They support Quicktime and that's it. Also, it's h264-lite.

hey Rémi Denis-Courmont

[markf78]

who p*ssed in your cornflakes today? the post on his website was obnoxious. just sayin' is all.

Apple is anti-competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs has a great eye for form factors and is a marketing genius. He has a vast army of fanbois with hip ad campaigns into thinking they are somehow buying outside "the man" and getting a great deal.

That said.

Apples is a corporation like any other corporation. It's products are generally good quality but clearly overpriced. This is not a crime (especially for those that are driven by marketing slogans and prefer spending money on glitzy appearances...rather than actual performance) but where I do have a problem.... Apple is, and essentially always has been, one of the most anti-competitive I/T companies out there. The ONLY reason why no one notices is because Microsoft dominated the PC market for years (thus drew away all the flack away from Apple's control freak licensing practices). The irony is Gates was made into greedy Vader by Apple fanbois for years... meanwhile he's the one giving billions to help developing nations while stingy Jobs has.....?

Jobs business model is a far far bigger threat to open source and innovation than Bill ever was. Jobs controls the hardware. Controls the form factor. Controls the OS. Controls who gets to put apps on that OS. Jobs won't even allow competitive frameworks like Flash on the iphone (because it would undermine Apple's control of apps... not because of that ridiculous "oh it hurts performance" line Jobs sells to the idiotic fanbois that mistake standard corporate marketing as some sort of "deep" philosophy).

Pass.

Smartphones are great. However, it could have been far far better if the platform had been more standardized and modularized like the PC market is. I refuse to buy ANY Apple product out of principle at least until they start allowing people to run (and sell) whatever apps they want. When I buy a car I do not want to be told by Ford I can't modify something I paid for... nor do I want to be told I can only buy my floor maps from a Ford dealership... nor do I want as a maker of floor mats being told by Ford I can't sell my products to Ford car owners.

I've owned Smartphones for years. My next one will definitely not be an iStalin.

Apple Is Teh Suck

[Derwood5555]

Yet another reason why I'll never buy an apple product ever again.. Last one I owned was an Apple IIe.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Tharsman]

Tell your non-geek mother to download Air Video, you set her download folder in her PC as the streaming directory and it will be easier for her than having to transfer movies into her iPad/iPod/iPhone to play in VLC.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing the thing is still available for anyone that already downloaded it! Your mom can keep watching her videos happily.

How would they know?

[SuperKendall]

App reviewers do not do a code review - they just run the app. How would an app reviewer know there was a licence dispute until they were told?

Re:How would they know?

[EMN13]

The fact that apple says "we don't verify the license" doesn't mean that's suddenly OK or the law or whatever. It's not as is Applidium lied about the license, so Apple can't claim to be innocent of the issue - they just choose to ignore it; that's their responsibility, even if they don't want it.

Re:How would they know?

[batkiwi]

look, man, I've got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, uh, uh, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new shit, you know,

Re:How would they know?

[SuperKendall]

The fact that apple says "we don't verify the license" doesn't mean that's suddenly OK or the law or whatever.

It means it's irrelevant to @hedwards point, that Apple should not have approved it - again, they had no way to know there was an issue. When Apple was told there WAS an issue, they pulled it, so in all instances Apple was doing exactly what you would hope they would do.

Re:How would they know?

[Deliveranc3]

Well presumably they are trying to find acceptable free applications to serve their user base. They might have made note that many files share an encoding with a closed video codec.

First VOIP now media, where did all this closed codec shit come from again. I thought we dealt with this in 1998?

Maybe it's one of the inevitable cycles of software, maybe it's the same old corporations up to the same old tricks.

Tuesday

[SuperKendall]

the only reason he hasn't is continued rumors of iPhone on VZ.

Then he should be pretty happy next Tuesday.

Talk about wrong!

[SuperKendall]

This is pretty wrong. I know it's pretty trollish, but I feel compelled to respond.
That goes double for me! Well except for the troll part. I'm pretty sure you believe what you type - it's just that so much is not right.

Once upon a time more companies were trying to release more reliable machines, but the costs were high - Enter Dell, eMachines, Acer and Gateway (the latter three now one and the same), and their business models of inexpensive PC's that aren't necessarily solid broke the market entirely.

You even admit that three of them collapsed together, yet you insist that computers are becoming disposable? Huge year on year growth in Apple laptop sales during a down economy totally disposes of that argument. People seem more willing to pay for quality products now than they ever have been, because they've seen cheap and it wasn't pretty (and it didn't last. People already hate buying computers, so buying them again is something normal people avoid like the plague.

Retail prices on PC's have been plummeting for a long time now, and the used computer market is inflating due to the above point: Computers are becoming disposable,

WTF. Let me ponder for a moment, and repeat; WTF.

How are USED computers worth more in a world where computers are becoming disposible? In said world computers that were at all used would be unusable. That's practically the definition of "disposable" - when my razor blades are done I don't donate 'em to Good Will!

Yeah you can. If, say, Apple decided they wanted to lock down their devices, they could first-off modify their EFI implementation to disable the loading of unsigned (by Apple) software as an operating system.

Yes, just ask Sony how easy it is to lock people out of systems they physically control. Oh that's right, it's totally impossible which is why on OS X systems Apple doesn't and NEVER will try, and on iOS Apple puts up the thinnest veneer of prevention over the hardware which they could improve but they don't even bother.

Re:Talk about wrong!

[Runefox]

You even admit that three of them collapsed together, yet you insist that computers are becoming disposable? Huge year on year growth in Apple laptop sales during a down economy totally disposes of that argument. People seem more willing to pay for quality products now than they ever have been, because they've seen cheap and it wasn't pretty (and it didn't last. People already hate buying computers, so buying them again is something normal people avoid like the plague.

Actually, they didn't collapse together - They purchased each other (Acer bought Gateway bought eMachines). Dell even went so far as to purchase Alienware, for all intents and purposes a high-end, "quality" computer company. I actually think that increases in Apple sales are something of a good indicator for what I'm talking about, too. Apple's business model isn't to sell people one good machine and let them keep it for five or six years before moving on (though they promise two OS revisions to any hardware sold) - Just like the iPods, iPhones and now the iPads, Apple's major driving force in their business model is the idea that, even if there's really nothing wrong with the device you currently have, you absolutely have to have the new models. While I'm sure that not everyone is hooked this way (at the very least, people with half a brain), there do exist a fairly strong base which do follow this trend. To that end, think of the users that are causing Apple's growth: PC users switching to Apple because they supposedly "have no viruses" and other lovely things, regardless of the fact that it's virtually the same components inside (Hitachi hard drives, for example). They are switching for the OS - Not for the machine.

WTF. Let me ponder for a moment, and repeat; WTF.

How are USED computers worth more in a world where computers are becoming disposible? In said world computers that were at all used would be unusable. That's practically the definition of "disposable" - when my razor blades are done I don't donate 'em to Good Will!

Used markets for anything are very lucrative markets - Buy for dirt and sell for a generous percentage and you have a lot of pure profit going for you. The computer market hasn't yet truly become disposable; You don't toss it in the trash when you buy a new one if the old one still "works." You offload it onto someone who will pay you to take it. Compared to your razors, I'm pretty sure people won't be lining up to take those off your hands!

Yes, just ask Sony how easy it is to lock people out of systems they physically control. Oh that's right, it's totally impossible which is why on OS X systems Apple doesn't and NEVER will try, and on iOS Apple puts up the thinnest veneer of prevention over the hardware which they could improve but they don't even bother.

Actually, it would be fairly easy. Sony's PlayStation 3 has only recently been cracked open, and that's because of a static root key for software signing. If every generation of computer that coincided with an OS release by a company who really wanted to do this were set up with a different key (and with a bit more security than that Sony placed into the PS3), or more severely, change the key at will via protected software updates (they could get away with this because their software is the only software they want you to run), that would effectively A) remove the ability for earlier machines to use new OSes, requiring more frequent hardware purchases - Apple's big money-maker, and B) Stop cold attempts to run unapproved software on the machine. As stupid and needlessly complex as that may sound, Jobs and the Apple crew have a fairly extensive history of wanting to rule over their devices with an iron fist - Remember not long ago when they were telling people that jailbreaking their iDevices violated copyright law? It might be a veiled threat, but it also outlines their view on control over their devices. It isn't that big a stretch, quite frankly, and if they could find a way to make it work, I have no doubt in my mind that they would.

Re:Talk about wrong!

[SuperKendall]

Actually, they didn't collapse together - They purchased each other (Acer bought Gateway bought eMachines). Dell even went so far as to purchase Alienware, for all intents and purposes a high-end, "quality" computer company.

Thus supporting the notion that the market is moving to more quality brands.

Apple's business model isn't to sell people one good machine and let them keep it for five or six years before moving on (though they promise two OS revisions to any hardware sold) - Just like the iPods, iPhones and now the iPads, Apple's major driving force in their business model is the idea that, even if there's really nothing wrong with the device you currently have, you absolutely have to have the new models.

That's bullshit because that's not the way I or anyone I know use Apple systems. We buy and use them for several years, because they hold up well enough to do so. In fact Apple's model is more like "are you tired of buying cheap computers every year? Buy one that will last". That's again why they have seen such a huge uptake, party verified by well over half of laptop purchasers being new to Apple laptops.

Actually, it would be fairly easy. Sony's PlayStation 3 has only recently been cracked open, and that's because of a static root key for software signing. If every generation of computer that coincided with an OS release by a company who really wanted to do this were set up with a different key

Then software you bought would cease to run when you upgraded systems, which you said was Apple's intent... your idea is utterly infeasable and would leave most systems unusable. That's why iOS doesn't even bother with anything like a master signing key, because they are intelligent enough to realize how utterly batshit insane it is to think said system will protect anything.

Again there is ZERO indication Apple, or any OS maker, is going down that road so it's absurd to say that's the future.

Does not matter

[aepervius]

In the very end , the manufacturer are not given the CHOICE of using iOS. And the market share of the Operating system iOS and Android doesn't have to be interpreted differently. The bottom line is that if in the end the market share of Android is much greater than the one of apple (and long term I think it will if only by the virtue it is available for everybody) then developper will migrate to where they can get a greater market share for their apps (or do both market). This is also the reason why even if MAC were a better operating system, in the end windows with all its incompatible machine, video driver, and other sheenanigan, got the lion share of personal application.

Re:Does not matter

[jedrek]

Except that iOS developers tend to make a lot more money from their apps than Android developers. There are a lot more Symbian headsets the world over than iOS or Android phones, and nobody's making a killing on Symbian apps for the simple reason that Symbian users don't use apps and if they do, they very rarely pay for them.

Look, Windows might have more applications by sheer number, but I find OS X apps to be of higher quality, and it sure does seem like more of the people I know who run OS X tend to actually buy software.

Is Rémi Denis-Courmont in violation of the GP

[aristotle-dude]

If the VLC codebase is licensed under the GPLV2, could his demands, which are contrary to the wishes of the other contributors be a violation of the GPLV2 conditions? Isn't he trying to impose additional conditions not present in the GPLV2 language? INAL but this is an interesting question. Will the rest of the team have to do a fork that removes/rewrites any of his contributions to the codebase to restore GPLV2 compliance?

Best reason to jailbreak

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you apple, the vlc player on my ipad has a "no sound is available" label, so now i'll have to jailbreak my ipad and not pay for software anymore, so thanks

How is that freedom?

[igomaniac]

I must be confused, but you're saying that the browser that won't let me play certain formats is looking out for my freedom while the browser that lets me play anything I install/develop a codec for is restricting my freedom?

While Apple might be 'politically opposed to Ogg Theora and WebM', at least they don't restrict my freedom to play those formats in their browser.

Re:How is that freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

While Apple might be 'politically opposed to Ogg Theora and WebM', at least they don't restrict my freedom to play those formats in their browser.

And neither does firefox. Just as apple allows you to install ogg and webm plugins, so too can you install an h264 plugin in firefox. In neither case are those plugins automatically installed into the browser, you must do it manually for both.

Re:How is that freedom?

[igomaniac]

Please point me to this alleged plug-in that can be used to view h264 encoded HTML5 video in Firefox. I'm using OS-X so the windows media player bridge for windows doesn't count.

Not needed anyway

[gig]

iOS devices all have hardware H.264 video decoders and iTunes. There is absolutely no need to play nonstandard video formats on one of these devices. Even if you have nonstandard video, there are hundreds of easy and free ways to transcode that video into H.264 for iTunes and your iOS device. In fact, VLC for Mac or PC is one of those ways.

Running VLC on an iOS device would be like hacking VLC to run on a DVD Player, so you could burn nonstandard video onto DVD and play them in the DVD Player. Who needs that?

Re:Not needed anyway

[amorsen]

Running VLC on an iOS device would be like hacking VLC to run on a DVD Player, so you could burn nonstandard video onto DVD and play them in the DVD Player. Who needs that?

Basically every low-to-mid end DVD player will play several "nonstandard" formats. At least DivX.

Re:Is Rémi Denis-Courmont in violation of the

[headLITE]

No, he's not trying to impose additional conditions. The GPL doesn't allow distribution under terms that are more restrictive than the GPL is. The app store terms of use are more restrictive, so apps affected by the GPL can not be distributed through it.

Won't be missed

[janwedekind]

MacOS is a nice operating system but there are far more superior solutions for the desktop like KDE that aren't encumbered by Apple's DRM harassment. Plus the MacOS interface on the Psystar PC was pretty bad. I'd be concerned if it was the only game in town. This is Apple's loss.

It reminds me of ... ah. Forget it!

Re:trusted computing

[airdrummer]

as onerous as this is to those of the r.stallman persuasion, how else would asimov's 3 laws b implemented?

hah

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really the point who the creator works for, is it?
Copyright infringement by way of not complying with an application's licensing terms is still copyright infringement.

Go back to your iLemming house, Mac fanboi

Windows VLC looks "90ish", iPad version unstable

[Anonymous Coward]

I use VLC on Windows all the time, and despite it looking like an app from the 90's at least it's fairly robust under Windows (you think they'd have gotten a designer to do something about how but ugly it is by now though).

The iPad version was so unstable that I still heavily use the uninspiring Apple Videos App most of the time instead (going to the trouble of converting media using MediaCoder).

I wonder if one of the developers felt ashamed and found a pretext to get it removed? :)

Totally irrelevant fanboy comment; mod down.

[RichiH]

How are profits relevant when we are talking about the lack of lock-in on Android devices? Fanboy much?

And yes, Android as shipped today is far from truly open in several regards. Still, it's a lot better than iOS. Here's to hoping Meego will heat up the battle even more.

Re:Totally irrelevant fanboy comment; mod down.

[Afell001]

Just because lock-in doesn't happen by the manufacturer doesn't stop the carrier from locking in the phone. Aren't we already seeing carriers installing proprietary versions of Android on the phones purchased by their customers that will not allow them to delete applications put there by the carriers? How long until the carriers decide to lock-in the phones so that you can't use any marketplace but theirs? And tie this lock-in to access to their network?

And yes, I know that all you have to do is wipe the phone and reinstall Android from Google's source, but we are talking about the average customer here...as George Carlin said, "Consider how dumb the average person is, and realize that half the people out there are dumber than that".

I'm not saying that the iPhone is the best smart phone, just that there are different models out there for different people. IMHO, as much as some developers complain about Apple's closed garden, there are a larger number of them pleased as punch because it ensures them an open opportunity to make money for the serious development effort a lot of them make. Sure, in the end, a lot of apps out there are no better than fart-noise-makers, but a lot of them are also seriously well designed and polished programs that deserve a decent price tag. And if a developer only has to upload it to one marketplace and start watching the money roll in, where do you think they are going to put forth their greatest effort?

Android with its open policy and schizmatic marketplaces leaves an open opportunity for piracy, and thus leaves the original developer who put forth the effort to write the software with little to show for their effort, even if it is an extremely popular download. Apple's model encourages said developer to continue writing great apps because the developer eventually profits from their endeavor.

Another irrelevant fanoby comment

[RichiH]

No, one platform outsold another. It's not the world's fault that Apple decided not to sell their OS to other manufacturers.

Re:To hell with Apple!

[index0]

Where is the respect for ownership of physical things that people buy, like iPhones. Why is it that people that purchase iPhones can not run any software they want, without jumping through hoops to jailbreak or paying a $100/year fee. Is it really respect or the law that is making Apple pull the app?

same mistake again

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies are getting their hand on your computers again.

OMG !

What happened to 20 years of freedom fight ?

Hello guys ! The gatekeeper displeases you ? leave the house. Many free oses are there, with a lot of softwares ready to freely install.

Re:Is Rémi Denis-Courmont in violation of the

[aristotle-dude]

No, he's not trying to impose additional conditions. The GPL doesn't allow distribution under terms that are more restrictive than the GPL is. The app store terms of use are more restrictive, so apps affected by the GPL can not be distributed through it.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
See section 6. The GPL applies to the developer, not any distributor. The store selling a CD with GPL'ed programs is not bound by any more than the end user. It is not an EULA. Remi is trying to impose additional restrictions upon VLC which are not present in GPLV2. His actions are preventing end users from accessing the program. The developers who wrote the port are in no way violating the GPLV2 as long as they provide a written offer for the source code to any interested third party. Stop trying to read in languages which does not exist in V2 of the license.

We should note that his employer is Nokia which is a direct competitor to Apple in the mobile space and that Nokia has an app store as well called OVI. I would consider that a conflict of interest for Remi. Perhaps he should leave the project to avoid a conflict of interest.

it's all OT.... I know, this is /.

[cellocgw]

But, really: I skimmed 2 pages of posts and couldn't even find "VLC" anywhere.
Can't you at least *try* to stay OT?

(and, no, I'm not new here. Just having an especially frustrated idealist moment)

GPL vs Apple's license

[Lord Satri]

I tend to believe it is easier for Apple to change their license and allow GPL software in the app store than having VLC move away from the GPL.

Re:GPL vs Apple's license

[cbreak]

GPL Software is allowed in the app store. But that won't do anything if the application owner doesn't want it there.

Re:GPL vs Apple's license

[toriver]

They did. But that does not help against pissy Apple-hating devs.

VLC guys wasted their time

[Ilgaz]

One of the developers, Rémi Denis-Courmont, was calling on Apple to allow users to use VLC in the manner that the GPL requires. However Apple decided that they would rather remove VLC from the repository than modify their ToS to allow developers to set their own licensing terms.

Just the time when there is Android (as /. is US centric), Symbian 3, Maemo and even upcoming QNX based BlackBerry tablet they wasted their time for iPad.
I would really understand if they were a commercial company who has to be on Apple market but they aren't. There are no idiotic shareholders pushing them.
Asking Apple for GPL compliance, especially GPL, not BSD is absolutely tragicomic.
Lets say they don't understand Symbian 3 (which is just a kernel, rest is Qt 4), what about Maemo and Meego which are pure Linux? Intel and Nokia would even offer them some coding and devices for free.

Mac retailers will be pissed for sure

[Ilgaz]

Don't panic, Lion won't end your ability to install whatever software you want on your Mac.

While on it, everyone who watched logs during Snow Leopard install can tell that Apple was thinking about "online upgrade of OS" or mass testing it and for some reason they didn't do it.
With App Store in place now, Lion OS X will sure have "upgrade from app store" option. Macbook Air owners will sure say "Thank God" as it doesn't have DVD.

Can anyone ask Remi this?

[Ilgaz]

Where the hell is VLC for Maemo and Symbian 3 if he is from Nokia.
I mean, instead of doing funny things like releasing it to draconian App store at first hand.

What is the problem, anyway?

[Glyndwr]

What exactly *is* the conflict between the GPL and the App Store T&Cs, anyway? The FSF have a piece up that talks about the "only install app on five devices limit" but I think that's a red herring -- AFAIK you can only sync iTunes DRM content (i.e. movies and music) on five computers, but iOS apps can be installed on limitless devices attached to an iTunes account. And the company who ported VLC, Applidium, were hosting a full download of the VLC app source on their own site. I can't really see the difference between this and, say, a Netgear router firmware where the company hosts a download for the source; in both that case and the VLC app, the user gets a binary file, and can optionally grab the source and compile the binary themselves and run it (in an emulator, admittedly, in the case of the iOS app, but you're still running it. Pretty sure the GPL distribution clause doesn't have to target the exact same platform, does it?)

What am I missing, if anything? What exactly is it that blocks GPL on the App Store?

Re:What is the problem, anyway?

[gnasher719]

What am I missing, if anything? What exactly is it that blocks GPL on the App Store?

The problem is that one of the copyright holders has told Apple that making this application available for downloading would infringe on his copyright.

We have here three different parties: The copyright holder, the developer, and Apple. If Apple is told by the copyright holder that the copy is infringing, then in most cases outside GPL we would assume that the copyright holder should know whether someone has the right to put an application on the store or not. Here we have the rare situation where the question is reasonably open. But Apple will not want to get involved in this copyright fight, which is why they drop the application.

I think the only way to get this application onto the store would be to sue the developer to declare that this would not be copyright infringement.

Was this a way to watch avi on iphone?

[hesaigo999ca]

Was this a way tio watch avi movies on my iphone, cuz man, that is the weakest link to the iphone right now, does anyone know of a player that lets me watch avi movies on my iphone...?

Re:To hell with Apple!

[Goaway]

Yes. Yes, it is. A VLC developer requested it be pulled, and Apple pulled it.

With ONLY AT&T

[mitchell_pgh]

We need to remember, it's Apple on AT&T vs. Google on AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and just about everyone else. I think you are going to see a sea of people go with the iPhone once it is available on Verizon.

Also, Android is the less expensive option. There are regular 2 for 1 deals... and also crazy 29.99 deals with Google. You just aren't going to see that with the iPhone.

That's not true

[SuperKendall]

I think he's referring to the fact that he has to cope with the store's terms because his hardware won't allow software from other sources to be installed on it.

Five million or so Jailbreakers disagree with you.

Re:That's not true

[peppepz]

They're not honouring iOS' license terms.

And there's no warranty that they'll be able to continue doing so on future hardware/software releases.

To me it seems like a good reason to avoid purchasing the hardware altogether, as the OP was saying.

Re:That's not true

[SuperKendall]

They're not honouring iOS' license terms.

Sure they are, find where in the licence it says you cannot do this

And there's no warranty that they'll be able to continue doing so on future hardware/software releases.

More apple hater FUD since you simply restore the phone to factory OS before servicing - and if the phone is dead they have no idea what was on it anyway.

To me it seems like a good reason to avoid purchasing the hardware altogether, as the OP was saying.

If you have an ideological slant that is fine; but at least be honest to admit there is no valid technical backing to your position.

Re:That's not true

[peppepz]

They're not honouring iOS' license terms.

Sure they are, find where in the licence it says you cannot do this

Ok, here you are. I suggest reading the last paragraph, in particular.

And there's no warranty that they'll be able to continue doing so on future hardware/software releases.

More apple hater FUD since you simply restore the phone to factory OS before servicing - and if the phone is dead they have no idea what was on it anyway.

I didn't mean this. I meant that you can't know in advance if the iPhone 5 will be hackable, or if the next iOS update will be hackable, or even if it will brick already-hacked iPhones. You can't know it while you're in a shop, deciding whether to buy an iPhone. That's because jailbreaking is not supported by Apple.

Since you introduced another argument, I can remind you that proper phones include an encrypted storage area, not accessible by the user, which can hold security information (e.g. the IMEI number, which for obvious reasons shouldn't be changeable by phone thieves) and can log (authorized or not) firmware updates. The PDS in Motorola phones used to do that. I don't know if the iPhone has one.

To me it seems like a good reason to avoid purchasing the hardware altogether, as the OP was saying.

If you have an ideological slant that is fine; but at least be honest to admit there is no valid technical backing to your position.

I haven't used words of ideology. I didn't talk about "fud" or "haters". My technical position is the following:

The iPhone does not support the installation of user-supplied applications without resorting to hacker-devised modifications which are officially unsupported, violate the iOS license, void the warranty, and aren't guaranteed to work in future firmware releases.

In comparison, Android (Symbian, ...) phones support running user-provided applications simply by accepting their installation using the phone's standard user interface.

You might not care about the difference between these two situations and it's fine. You're in good company. But it has nothing to do with my honesty, or the OP decision.

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Superken7]

exactly right, I said 99% of her video files because 99% of the files she wants to download or transfer from another device just don't work unless you use something like VLC

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Superken7]

theora? nope, I tend to avoid re-encoding video files, and don't usually encounter those in the net.

Most common video files are not supported by the ipad. AVI and MKV formats among others, Xvid and Divx codecs sound familiar? ;)

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Superken7]

Thanks for the tip.
Unfortunately, the ipad was meant to be a laptop replacement (and for portable-mobile usage), in part because most of the stuff she does, its done more comfortable with the ipad.
And the stuff the ipad doesn't do she usually doesn't do as well :)
She was mostly using her iphone as her main device anyways since its usually more convenient than having to boot up and use a traditional windows laptop.

Unfortunately the ipad still is very PC and iTunes-dependent because of syncing and stuff like this. But I am glad to hear about Air Video, thanks!

Re:Doesn't matter in the slightest

[Tharsman]

Also take a look at OPlayer (noted somewhere else in this.) Have not tried it yet but seems to do all Air Video does plus is extended to audio streaming, and the ability to load files into the iOS device either via iTunes or wireless. Both seem to cost the same. I would say OPlayer seems to be superior but have not tested it.

I love the fact that Air Video supports multiple audio tracks and subtitle tracks (either embedded in the file or as .srt files.)

As many have said throughout the article comments, the VLC removal is a sad story of a one-man grudge against Apple, but VLC for the iOS was far from being the best media player available.

Excuse me?

[RulerOf]

Because Slashdotters like to pretend they are uber-31337 Linux haX0r d00dz even though they are probably using Microsoft Windows and iPhones to say how cool Linux is and how lame other platforms are, despite having never actually used Linux.

WTF is wrong with you? Linux is rock solid and I love using it for appliance-type setups in my deployments. And kernel hacking is by far one of my favorite past times.

You're so judgmental!


-Sent from my iPhone.

Stallman's Antics

[Ukab the Great]

The whole FSF/iPhone kerfuffle (that started with GNU Go) is basically Stallman trying to exploit a technicality and wording in his license and a technicality and wording in the Apple terms of service to try in a vain and most likely symbolic attempt to get apple to complete ditch their DRM for all apps.

The spirit of the GPL is being adhered to. The code for GPL'ed iPhone stuff is available to everyone, and everyone can install a GPL'ed binary on their iDevice without paying apple a cent.

I can't blame Apple for not wanting to deal with this nonsense and just keeping all GPL apps out of the app store.

Apple is the distributor

[Nurgled]

I think the crux of the issue here is that Apple is the party distributing the app via its app store, and as a distributor it is bound by the licence of the software. In this case the licence is the GPL which requires that all binary distributions be accompanied either with source code or an offer of source code. Therefore to be in compliance Apple must at the very least make available the source code of the application by some means. Other requirements in the GPL may apply here too.

bad moderation?

[zachdms]

Meta: This is slashdot, where I would expect that most of us are remotely technically competent. The statement "any codec hassles on any computer" is flat wrong, technically. Whomever moderated my comment as "troll": shame on you. It's cool if you don't understand an issue, but don't inflict your technical blind spots on others. It's that ignorant mentality (the notion that there's one magic pill for codecs) that led to the proliferation of codec packs and thus led to most of the multimedia-related system destabilization of the past six years or so.

I work at the big M and knows most of the stats. I've helped out the VLC team (and many others) repeatedly and have nothing against them (nor anyone else). I do however care that nobody is ignorant enough to believe that there is *any* magic codec pill. It's a misleading concept that's proven destructive.

Licensing issues aside, the purpose of software is

[aristotle-dude]

Software is written to be used by people. The goal of any developer who is releasing their software for free public consumption should be to make it available on as many platforms as possible. If one believes in the philosophy of open source, one should welcome volunteers willing to port to platforms that one does not have expertise in.

Software without users using it is worthless. It has no purpose to exist.

Let us get something straight here.

[aristotle-dude]

There is no limit on the number of iOS devices that an app purchased from the appstore can be installed on. There is a 5 computer limit on how many computers can act as the library syncing source for those devices but those computers can be changed easily by de-authorizing then in iTunes.

The 5 computer limit is irrelevant to this discussion or the GPL covering VLC since we are talking about an iOS version which runs on iOS devices and those devices do not have any limits. You can sync as many iOS devices as you want to each library.

How do you work, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you work, then? You are completely self-sufficient? Or are you beholden to your corporation for your salary which is the only thing that keeps you alive?

It's part of the App Store agreement

[mbessey]

When you sign up as a developer, one of the terms that you need to agree to is that you won't upload anything to the app store which has a license that is incompatible with other parts of the developer agreement.