Slashdot Mirror
The Un-Internet and War On General Purpose Computers
theodp writes "Apple,' writes Dave Winer in The Un-Internet, 'is providing a bad example for younger, smaller companies like Twitter and Tumblr, who apparently want to control the 'user experience' of their platforms in much the same way as Apple does. They feel they have a better sense of quality than the randomness of a free market. So they've installed similar controls.' Still, Winer's seen this movie before and notes, 'Eventually we overcome their barriers, and another layer comes on. And the upstarts become the installed-base, and they make the same mistakes all over again. It's the Internet vs the Un-Internet. And the Internet, it seems, always prevails.' Thinking along the same lines, Cory Doctorow warns the stakes are only going to get higher, and issues a call-to-arms for The Coming War on General Purpose Computation."
Like 2 days ago? Unless you're in Samoa and Tokelau, then it was yesterday.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
In a true free market there would be more closed solutions too and the one most people want will win. I'm not sure why he's upset that most people are actually computer illiterate and want something that can be easily controlled rather than the ultimate swiss army knife of computers. Open computers won't go away and there is no need to get upset because most people don't care for that.
... will be security. Securing your boxen from invidious bastards trying to control them "for your own good", and de-securing every damn thing you buy so you can actually use it.
I'm tired of these articles. They seem like such trolling. Does and editor have some vendetta against the iWhatever/Android market? Last time I checked, nobody was having their arm twisted to use these devices. The free market is saying "We dont always need a PC." not "We don't need computers." Seriously, guys, take your paranoia back to mom's basement where you can be secluded and make your uninformed projections on other people in peace.
Oh for God's sake... Name one thing Apple prevents you from doing on OS X. Not a feature they left out, not a Windows app you like that isn't available, not a hack to customize Windows that isn't also present on Macs, but something that Apple EXPLICITLY PREVENTS YOU OR ANYONE FROM DOING.
... by competing. If you feel that closed platforms are wrong, provide open platforms.
Complaining about other people that choose a different business model that you would have is just being a donkey. Put your moolah where your food-hole is and run your business model for real.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
SOPA
The locked bootloader
"Approved" software
All this will end your freedoms, what are you doing to fight it?
I'm not happy with the way I see the industry going
You do realise those great minds in congress, largely funded and heavily lobbied by the MAFIAA attempted to make it legally mandatory, for your computer to not be a computer, they tried to legally mandate approved security and digital restrictions management systems in ALL electronic systems, personal computers and devices designed for your use. This would make your PC closed like an apple iPad where only the DRM compliant software could legally run, locked bootloaders would be everywhere, and it would be a crime (DMCA) to circumvent it
This would have made alot of problems for Linux too, thankfully the GPL v3 has *some* protections against DRM schemes that take away your freedoms
The interests of big business and distributors like the RIAA/MPAA are not very well aligned with the interests of end users, and they are more than happy to ride roughshod over your end user freedoms in order to gain all the control over the market for themselves and the profits that follow
I think we should be doing more to protect our freedoms
I gave it a view a few days ago (don't worry at the seeming length - half of it is Q&A), and found it thought provoking. While it's more a statement of what is and soon will be, with less on action items, the general themes will resonate here on /., I think.
Lot of interesting talks at CCC this year, more broadly: do dig through their list on youtube - lots of neat stuff in there. This talk on timing attacks on websites was pretty darned neat (starts mild, ramps up to "cool!").
apple app store censorship is close to anti trust levels.
Now it's one think to ban apps that are ruining away with cpu use and crash a lot.
But's a other to ban based on content.
lot's of big business have in house apps or old software so any kind of super locked down systems will not work or will take a long time to roll out.
I guess I'm not understanding how using a "controlled" platform hinders me.
because after all most people preferred the simplicity of macintosh.
that is why after about 1986, the x86 and IBM PC died... as did linux.
General purpose computing is Cheap. Back when Macintosh was still using Motorola processors, guess how much they were paying per mhz compared to intel? Not just on the processor, what about on the mobo and in memory and in disk and technology developement and and and (list goes on and on). Same with Intel and Rambus.
Why did they switch? Aah....
And now? Now we can install Mac OSX onto a virtual machine or do hackintoshes for the quarter of the price of a mac because why? The hardware is now functionally similar.
Android, Windows Mobile, ChromeOS, they're all functionally similar insofar as they run on the same hardware. The only real difference is in the security protocols built into that hardware which are, well, expensive and in many cases generic and used on several platforms.
Every company wants to make their special little app to control the user experience so they can control the user and they fail to realize this is a trojan horse; yes I will sign up with my name as IWANTBUTTSECHS at 404 GO!!$!# YOURSELF Rd, and even if you validate the address, I can pick a random one with a random name and go masquerading. That's illegal? Pfft, Proove to me you've lost money in court loser.
This is a Coders argument; the argument of someone who ignores the hardware completely.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Repost! Repost! Repost!
Do Slashdot editors not read Slashdot? There seem to be dupes every day now.
with a working regulation system.
we do not have that in the united states. the regulators like the FTC who would ordinarily care about this sort of thing are completely captured (owned, bought, bribed) by corporations and hedge funds and investment banks.
they do some 'anti trust theatre' like the recent AT&T thing... but honestly its ridiculous.
the real reason Apple beat MS to all of the 'integrated platform' thing is because MS was afraid of another anti-trust action by the government. Now that it has realized the government no longer exists, in any meaningful regulatory fashion, as proved by the Apple business model, MS is trying to catch up with Windows 8.
apple app store censorship is close to anti trust levels.
What does that sentence even mean?
Advice: on VPS providers
Your content cannot be displayed by Twitter unless you're one of their partners. How you get to be a partner is left to your imagination. We have no visibility into it.
Sure you have: you have to create a Twitter account, and after that you can post whatever content (although calling tweets content is a bit of a stretch) you damn well please.
Oh here we go.
Freedom to compute is for criminals. Right.
--
BMO
... and every new introduction is the "[---]-killer"?
Right now the only way to find sites on the internet is to use Google or one of its competitors. But they are all based on advertising revenue. So it often makes it brutal to find anything in the usually returned storm of bullshit ads that isn't trying to sell you something when you do an online search. The only choice you have to get away from this are a few well known havens where search terms aren't geared on sales, and in fact spam and unwanted advertising get you kicked. Like on Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and others. Possibly the same with some Apple related sites as well (not really liking Apple's business practices, I don't use their products).
When I search for something on Wikipedia it might have errors in it, but at least I am getting something that is 99% accurate, and more importantly I don't have to wade through a ton of crap to find the results I am interested in learning about. When people search the hash tags in Twitter they can find stuff they are interested in. There are groups on Facebook where people can easily share passions and ideas. Sure, using a search engine like Google you can find the same information outside of these sites, but by the nature of their need to generate revenue, Google, Yahoo, et al have all too often made this far too painful for the average bear.
How many times do we search for something on Google only to get tons of crap that we're not interested in. Mostly stuff trying to sell you something that based on the fact one of your search terms matches one of numerous key words they have registered to respond to. For example yesterday I wanted to see what information was around on why a product Line6 (guitar effects products) called a UX8 was discontinued; but not from the Line6 site. I wanted to hear the 'buzz on the street' so to speak. Whatever I searched I was still presented with almost entirely links to sites that sold music equipment but telling me they don't sell it any more, it was discontinued. I couldn't find a discussion about this based on numerous queries I made to Google. Granted in the mix might have been something I was interested in, but the results are so swamped with crap I don't care about that a mere mortal human is unable to filter it all.
Controlling the user experience allows sites to provide a kind of coherence lacking in hoards of websites howling for you money. Until Google and the other search services provide a search filter to remove online retailers (and/or other options) without having to figure out our own search terms to do so, these sites will live, thrive, and survive, and will be one of the futures of the internet.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Crime is not freedom. Learn to understand the difference.
Apple keeps viruses and malware and phishing apps off their phone platform. Viruses and malware and phishing apps aren't needed for "freedom" on the Internet any more than burglars and rapists are needed for freedom in your neighborhood.
But that's not all Apple keeps off, and they don't always keep it clean anyway.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That it's about time the government hit Apple with antitrust suit.
Most end users are concerned with the user experience, and little else.
This doesn't negate the legitimacy of the Free Software Movement. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be championed and taken as far as it can. What it does mean is that the vast majority of people just want shit that works right out of the box. Free Software has yet to provide an experience many find superior to things like iOS, so iOS continues to gobble-up marketshare while people write articles about how awful it is that it's happening.
What most users want is this: Open box. Turn on computer. Search for the app they want. Hit "Install". Use app. That's it. Get shit done, and do other shit when the desire strikes.
People who don't understand this often adopt a condescending tone and claim iPhone / iPad users are just dumb sheep who buy into PR, etc. And that if users only opened their eyes and realized how they're being controlled...
But that's not going to win any converts. People want to do shit with as few hassles as possible. Years of "Grrr. If you want X, Y or Z, code it yourself!" have reenforced ideology and alienated users, while companies like Apple have been making and releasing products. And that's really the difference in the end. Dogmatic essays and arguing over the minutiae of license revisions vs. shipping products that do things people want in a manner in which they find appealing. The latter always wins.
Most end users don't give a damn about ideology, licenses or figureheads spouting the latest opinions on how things should or should not be.
They want: "Here is a new device. This is what it does. If you like it, buy it. Come back in 12 months and we will have an updated version."
They like that discovering and installing software is now about as easy as you could possibly hope to make it.
They like that they can download an application once, delete it, and reinstall it for free whenever they want, as many times as they want, on all of their devices. Simultaneously.
They like that their devices automatically backup their applications and user data while they're walking down the street.
They like that they can go into a store, buy a new device, enter their email and password, and have all of their applications and settings just appear within moments.
You can bemoan the licenses and lack of tinker-ability in each piece of hardware and software. You can talk about walled gardens and developer fees. Remind us how annoyingly arbitrary the application approval process is.
And I will probably agree with you.
But the fact remains, people want a user experience, not a license. Not an ideology or a movement.
Firefox took Internet Explorer's market share because Internet Explorer sucked, and Firefox was great. And you could point-out why it was great in ways that someone who didn't know what a compiler or license was could say "Wow, this is great!" And most of all, even if you didn't tell them, even if they had never heard of Firefox or the GPL, you could see people start using it and not stop using it. Because it was better. At the end of the day, clicking "Firefox" instead of "Internet Explorer" made things happen faster, with fewer problems. People liked that.
It was a triumph of free software. Lower case. The Free Software movement won a victory, but at the end of the day you have to write your code and release your applications and hardware with the assumption that no one will know, or care what the Big Ideas are behind the project. Anything you want to get across to the user must come out in the time spent interacting with a program. Kinda-sorta functional, pre-Beta / endless Beta software excused with a "But it's free and makes the world a better place because..." won't cut it.
If you want to fight the likes of iOS and win, look at what's appealing about the experience and improve on it. Don't you dare tell people they don't want what they're currently enjoying. Offer them a better alternative. Cut the condescension and smug sense of supe
They have to dumb down both of them to control them both. Good for the vendor, but the society?
Me, I don't think a society which manages to make their citizens an interchangeable commodity with a well-defined but artificially limited set of skills that match a narrow range of "appliances" is going to be "cutting-edge" in anything; rather, as a monoculture they - and their "appliances" - will be sitting ducks for the electronic version of Phytophthora infestans just as Ireland - and the potato - were in 1845.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
... is the sound of parallel universe version of you briefly passing through this timeline and leaving this post from an iPad 6G.
But that's not all Apple keeps off, and they don't always keep it clean anyway.
Hence my use of the phrase "...tries to walk the thin line...".
Your message suggests imperfections may exist in a human-devised system for dealing with human-caused problems.
They don't try to walk the thin line, or at least not the one you are talking about.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Sure, and they'd be, well maybe not happy, but willing to jump through the licensing hoops to allow such to run on those locked-down systems, or to purchase unlocked hardware.
Options that might not be available (or be prohibitively expensive, or require an inordinate amount of paperwork) to Joe Public.
IOW, never rely on big business to defend your freedoms for you. It turns out that businesses have freedoms that individuals don't.
-- Alastair
Really?
I'm on the iPad and Slashdot is giving me this semi- mobile version. Half of the web these days hates mobile devices and I don't know why can't we always have desktop versions and only have mobile sites on request?
and that time line give room for laws to work into the court system and get over turned be for they take full or end up like the DMCA where the law open's the door for some stuff like any app or any network on your phone.
All of this is the predictable result of growing technology. Technology amplifies human intent. There are two great forces in the world. The first being the human desire to own, control, manipulate and squeeze to benefit me or us (focused self interest.) The other being to human need to create, advance, promote the greater good for all, collaborate and serve to benefit all. These are not intrinsically right or wrong, just different. Its when technology has amplified these ambitions in humanity to world shaking heights that we find ourselves at odds.
We must allow for artists to create new visions of what is possible closed or open. These creations however must sit inside of a world designed to serve all for the benefit of all. The greater good must dominate the worlds infrastructure. It is only in a context that serves all, that the more limited context of single self expression can flourish without destroying the very people for whom the creation should be serving. We need to make this a clear and public conversation, such that new creators can fully understand the repercussions of their choices and the ultimate value of their inventions. By making the total environment clear, and seeing how the many parts work inside the larger system, we can allow new players to choose positions that will server precise who they choose to serve.
This is why Linux on the desktop has prevailed.
Yes, they've banned apps for lots of other reasons. As TFA says, the App Store is Disneyfied.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
about what's going to happen when 3D printing and bioscale assemblers hit the mainstream. Right now we're having trouble because the [MP/RI]AA, who represent comparatively tiny industries, are pushing to destroy open systems. Imagine what happens when the Monsanto's and Walmarts of the world jump on the bandwagon because consumers stop consuming and start manufacturing on their own.
I imagine that if we win that battle an era of unparalleled advancement, freedom, and opportunity for humanity lies on the other side; however, the powers that be will not go quietly, and there will likely be an unprecedented era of repression that will only be overcome with a great deal of trouble and not a little bloodshed.
The only way I can imagine it breaking our way without said bloodshed is if we plan it such that it all happens at once everywhere from as many places as possible, using darknets, ad-hoc mesh networks, and other ways to ensure freedom of information and clever replication schemes to make sure you, me, and everyone we know gets in on the quantum leap in capability immediately instead of the usual diffusion model that has been constant in human history. That is, we can't afford to wait the 20 years for everyone to get a computer and online to get everyone's hands on 3D printers; and that means we have to build dead-simple interfaces into those technologies from the outset to cut the learning curve to zero.
We can't give the powers that be time to react. We can't give them the chance to divide, deflect, and defeat the change.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Is your point that we'd be better off with viruses and malware? Or is your point that Apple does an imperfect job? Or Apple's banning policy doesn't precisely map to your preferences? Or what?
You should post a perfect policy that no one will ever argue with.
what about a digital music store monopoly
But that's not all Apple keeps off, and they don't always keep it clean anyway.
Hence my use of the phrase "...tries to walk the thin line...".
Your message suggests imperfections may exist in a human-devised system for dealing with human-caused problems.
Or they are alluding to the fact that Apple also keeps any apps that may compete with any of their own ones off. Or ones that might be 'offensive'.
In short, Apple doesn't come anywhere close to merely keeping off phishing apps, viruses and the like. They keep off anything they feel you shouldn't have regardless of whether or not it is 'safe' or not. It might be easier to defend the walled garden approach if it didn't lead to such actions as surely as the Sun will rise tomorrow.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
We'd be better off without what you foolishly call 'civilization.' Now, I would be fine with Apple providing a way to safely and easily offer users high quality, well vetted software, just so long as users can easily install software that Apple doesn't approve of.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
But they will be damned hard to find, and will be lots of legal hoops to jump thru to get one, legally.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Who is "we"? And, by what practical measure would "we" be better off? What's the specific, tangible value that Apple is depriving you of? And why do you think you're entitled to benefit from Apple's efforts at no cost?
I like the fact that Apple keeps malware off my phone. Their other restrictions are not a problem for me because I don't write, nor do I want to use, hate-apps or porn-apps.
They may make a mistake when banning something sometimes. Human systems are imperfect, but these imperfections are better than viruses and malware in this case.
Please post a perfect policy that no one will ever argue with.
Apple publishes plenty of apps that compete with Apple apps. The Kindle app is an example.
Please post a perfect app policy that no one will ever argue with.
The walled garden is a false dichotomy because you can have optional curation without mandatory curation, and the first company to get the former right will eat the latter's lunch
The gaming PC has optional curation (Steam, Impulse, GOG), yet consoles with their mandatory curation are soundly beating gaming PCs in several gaming genres, especially those that involve connecting multiple gamepads and one large monitor for local multiplayer. How should gaming PCs get optional curation right when most PC owners can't even be bothered to set up the large monitor?
You should post a perfect policy that no one will ever argue with.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Without generic PCs I doubt Linux would survive. And without Linux you lose android. Without android the demand for generic PCs increases.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Slashdot is racing toward irrelevance, and articles like this
are the equivalent of increasing the boost on a turbocharged
vehicle.
Can't you people come up with anything better ?
Here's a hint :
Empty white space is better. And a chimpanzee can do that.
any more than burglars and rapists are needed for freedom in your neighborhood.
Right, and I don't think that the way to get rid of these supposed burglars and rapists is to inconvenience innocents and start arrested people at random. I don't believe in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude because that seems to rely on the notion that humans can't abuse their power, make mistakes, or be outright corrupt.
As long as you can choose between locked down systems and non-locked down systems, I won't have too much of a problem with it. Personally, I think people should learn how to use a computer rather than relying on locked down devices to baby and 'protect' them, but it's their choice and I'm sure they don't care about my opinion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I don't know about you guys, but I _like_ carrying only one computer that does everything.
This statement is so backwards it has me dumbfounded. How do you see letting people do what they want with a device as benefiting from Apple's efforts, and how is it at no cost if you still have to pay Apple for the device?
Good for you. I like freedom, and I don't think a corporation should tell me what I can do with something I own.
Why do you keep bringing this up? This isn't about what individuals like, but the principles of freedom. As I've said, I'm fine with them offering safe software, so if you want a safe and sterile environment, you can get that. But if someone else wants a porn app, then they should be able to get that easily too. In this proposed scenario, which would take very little work, you can get what you want, and I can get what I want. What is the problem with that?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
so sick of your types running around bitching about how we're too free. please kill yourself so the rest of us don't have to listen to it anymore.
the discussion is about General Purpose Computing, Apple is an example, it applies to all of the major companies. If I don't like Apple, I buy from someone else. If you don't like what is happening in the computer world, learn carpentry or cooking, or build your own hardware.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Do you really understand the implications of that? If we follow that out, there's nothing preventing me from hacking your computer and stealing all your shit.
"It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[3] A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats it as equivalent or nearly so no matter who produces it. "
i.e., the IBM PC 'platform' whipped everyones ass, and so did x86... funny thing... what CPU does Apple run on btw?
wikipedia - citation!!
Intel x86 CPU
single motherboard
exchangable RAM modules
cabled disk drives coming off motherboard
standardized bus architecture for 3rd party manufacturers
open design that allows easy cloning by anonymous hordes of skilled Asian laborers
sorry, where is the 'dead' part?
Yay, another internet lawyer offers some pro bono advice.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Natural monopolies are a myth. This article (PDF) explains how the alleged natural monopolies commonly attributed to public utilities came about: governments owned the roads, and they failed to set an efficient price on access to the roads to lay utility conduits.
As I understand grandparent, the IBM PC died in April 2005 when "IBM compatible" became "Lenovo compatible".
C64 = Commodore 64 emulator
Two and a half years ago, Apple had games pulled from the App Store just because the end user could reboot the C64 emulator they ran in to the BASIC REPL. Exactly when did Apple reverse this policy?
what about a digital music store monopoly
Amazon's the one with the monopoly here. Amazon has its own music store, adn Apple had to license one of Amazon's patents to get iTunes Store to work.
The restrictive developer program? Necessary to prevent the casual hobbyist from introducing a less-than-professional product.
How do people learn to produce professional products, other than by starting as casual hobbyists?
What most users want is this: Open box. Turn on computer. Search for the app they want. Hit "Install". Use app. That's it. Get shit done, and do other shit when the desire strikes.
Which pretty much matches my Ubuntu Software Center experience under Xubuntu 11.10. And with the automatic backup to Ubuntu One in recent versions of the OS, the Ubuntu distributions are inching closer to matching iOS on your litany of "They like that" lines. But this still doesn't stop me from installing the build-essential or idle package and getting a programming environment.
However, I do not see GP computers going away because the hardware/content folks need software developers, who can't/won't work on closed systems.
Which doesn't rule out a future in which only a select few professional software developers have access to systems that aren't closed. For example, video game consoles since 1985 are closed systems. The less-closed systems that developers of console games use are kept carefully under lock and key under orders from the console maker.
Nope, not even close. Several alternative digital music stores exist.
also, what is to stop people from either buying old hardware, buying hardware from countries that don't engage in this bullshit, or creating vendors that are built around not doing this crap..
all It will do is create a black market for unlocked electronics.
Or are you telling me someone is going to get 20 years jailtime for having a tablet without a TPM?
We is society here. The practical measure is user freedom, which is a very precious resource.
Lots of people used to live in the woods and sleep in caves or simple temporary structures. They were free. Most choose a tiny bit less freedom for all the benefits of civilization.
This statement is so backwards it has me dumbfounded. How do you see letting people do what they want with a device as benefiting from Apple's efforts, and how is it at no cost if you still have to pay Apple for the device?
And the development tools, and the APIs, and the hosting and publishing of apps. This is Apple's effort. The cost is $99 plus a percentage of the app price.
This isn't about what individuals like, but the principles of freedom.
Freedom to write viruses and malware then.
As I've said, I'm fine with them offering safe software, so if you want a safe and sterile environment, you can get that. But if someone else wants a porn app, then they should be able to get that easily too. In this proposed scenario, which would take very little work, you can get what you want, and I can get what I want. What is the problem with that?
To prevent malware, Apple publishes and hosts and installs all the apps. This is the method they use. It works. Apple chooses not to publish or host or install porn apps or hate apps. Shouldn't Apple be free to choose not to publish and host porn? Or should they have to do what you prefer instead?
Civilization is a tradeoff between absolute perfect freedom and the value of some rules and enforcement. There's a thin line where a few rules are better. You aren't free to use your phone when it has been hijacked by malware.
Do you have a policy and a mechanism that will be effective in preventing malware and that no one could ever criticize as "not free enough"?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the owner of a iPhone (or other smartphone) has the legal right to circumvent the trusted computing measures built into the device. Apple is not telling you that you can't run software that they do not approve of. They are selling a device which is configured by default to only accept software from trusted sources. They are also telling you that if you circumvent the trusted computing measures, their warranty agreement may no longer apply. No Apple employees (or US law enforcement acting on the behalf of Apple) will show up at your house and penalize you for jailbreaking an iPhone. Mind you, they are under no obligation to provide a simple or supported method of disabling the trusted software source model. It is their product and they sell it as-is.
Part of the concept of competition is that there can be multiple varieties of a similar product, produced by different companies. If an individual chooses an iPhone or other "locked down" device over another device lacking such restrictions, they are indicating that they value the features of the iPhone more than the features of the open device. This is of course assuming that said individual is aware of the software source restriction. The fact that there is a large base of users that do not jailbreak their iOS devices, despite the relative ease with which it can be accomplished for most models, indicates that not all people value software freedom equally. Ultimately it is the freedom of choice of the end user which device and philosophy they carry around with them.
"Ubik" "Insert coin to continue".....
You're conflating 'console' and 'PC' with 'closed' and 'open' -- the advantages you're citing are advantages of the console format (i.e. big screen + game controllers), not curation.
My point is that the market has made the same conflation. All notable consoles still in production are closed.
I'm not claiming they are breaking the law. I'm claiming they are being assholes about it, as Apple is prone to do. I understand the warranty thing, and if that's all they did to prevent you from doing that, I wouldn't be concerned, but they take active and repeated steps to block jailbreaking via updates, which are a necessity for security and other problems to be fixed.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If Apple wants to charge for the dev tools, that's their business, but has nothing to do with this. If third party dev tools work, then Apple didn't provide them. There are no hosting and publishing costs if the apps in question are hosted and published by someone else, which is what I'm proposing.
Can you get your head out of your ass for just one minute, please? If it was malware and just malware, I wouldn't be that concerned, but it's far more than just malware that is blocked from the store. There are a number of reasons something can be rejected, and being malware is only one of them.
Under my proposed model, Apple wouldn't publish the apps outside of the App Store. Those apps would be published by third parties. Now, Apple doesn't HAVE to do that, but there's no good reason for them NOT to take the five minutes it would take to allow that (jailbreakers have already done the work needed for that) if all they are concerned about is the safety of poor little users. Just let them push the 'I'm a big boy' button, give them a warning, and let them be on their merry way.
I JUST explained that. Apple has their own repository. You push a button and read a warning that you are going into the scary world of software not vetted by Apple, and you install third party repositories. People like you don't have to push the button, and can be JUST as safe as they were before. You have either dodged explaining why there is a problem with that, or you don't understand how repos work.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
By definition, rooting a phone is exploiting a security hole to gain root access. They are patching these security holes because that just happens to be a very bad type of security hole. As you may be aware, at least one of the older version of iOS could be rooted by viewing on the device a PDF file crafted to take advantage of a buffer overflow. That was probably one of the easiest jailbreaks, where all the user had to do was go to a website and click a button to load the PDF. If that hole had remained unpatched (as I recall they released an update extremely quickly), before long there would have been drive-by rooting attacks that put the device at risk of being infected with malware simply by visiting a malicious website.
I feel the need to repeat that Apple has absolutely no obligation to create easily-rootable devices. If the buyer does not agree with the design principles of an iPhone, they shouldn't be buying an iPhone. You shouldn't call Apple assholes for fixing jailbreak exploits, they have a duty to their customers (the individuals that bought iPhones with the understanding that apps could only come from the App Store) to fix those security holes and bugs that the jailbreak creators exploit. And for what it's worth, it is effectively impossible to make a complex piece of software such as an operating system totally bug-free and secure. I highly doubt there is anything Apple could do to permanently prevent jailbreaking.
The point is that you will get your app delisted/banned; if apple adds something that does the same thing to a future version of iOS, a corp complains about it, it contains nude girls (unless you are playboy), wants to sell something without giving apple a piece, the reviewer doesn't like the name, it's an app from google(well this isn't really true, all that does is delay the process), it runs third party code dynamically.
Anyways, this is the issue. It wouldn't be much issue if you could side load, but without hacking the iPhone, no go.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
"check this box to only see apple approved apps in the app store. If not checked this will show every app submitted to the app store." Problem solved.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
I understand the concern with jailbreaking, although I'm not sure all jailbreaks have utilized security exploits, or at least not ones that didn't require physical access to the device. However, there would be no need for jalibreaking if Apple allowed for a simpler mechanism of installing third party repositories. They are under no obligation to do this, but I am under no obligation to not call them jackasses for not doing so. I am not buying an iPhone, but other companies often follow trends Apple starts, so their behavior can get in my way even as a non-customer.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That war has already started and is also for some part lost. Look at consumer electronics limiting user freedom by implementing the HDM| interface. Intel has had various initiatives securing the processor against the user. Look at the wikipedia on trusted computing.
The objective of jailbreaking is to execute a script as root so you can install sudo. Then use sudo to perform other root tasks, including installing software. Since by design the end-user is never supposed to have root access the method that a jailbreak uses to gain it is exactly the type of dangerous security hole that software companies patch every day. This is called a privilege elevation bug in the OS world, and is akin to you booting up your standard (non-administrator) account on Mac OS X and writing to a system-owned folder (e.g. /System is owned by root with permissions 755).
"Fair competition" is a liberal social construct; most corporate captains are conservative to a feudal degree. The eventual goal of controlling public access and demand is designed to give the monopolist essentially similar control over their subjects as a feudal lord. Basically, it's about handing business a power previously reserved for government, the power of taxation. Don't ya just love social progress?
A PC is not made into a console by plugging in a TV and a game controller. The UI is totally wrong for that usage
What about the UI is wrong? I agree that the Start Menu as seen in Windows XP through 7 is not the correct UI to launch games on a TV, and the font size often needs to be set for the seating distance and screen size. PC game launchers designed for the 10-foot experience already exist; XBMC includes one.
The argument is that all else equal, open will win over closed.
I want to help make all else equal, to help make gaming PCs more appropriate for the set-top environment. To accomplish this, what other steps need taken to help open win over closed in this context?
More like last decade's.
And Cory is still a douche for pointing out what we already knew.
You can go out and install XBMC, but you can't (as far as I'm aware) go to Walmart and pick up a PC with it already installed.
PCs with Windows 7 Home Premium have Windows Media Center; does that count? If not, then I guess the real problem for a company that wants to sell computers with preinstalled XBMC is getting a distribution deal with nationwide big-box chains, and a startup isn't going to have an easy time of that.
The PC version assumes you're going to be using a mouse and keyboard. If you plug in a game controller of some kind, you generally have to do some key mapping to make the buttons right. [...] make sure the PC version of their company's games have good default key mappings for common game controllers
But apart from the Xbox 360 wired controller, what are the common game controllers? There's no standard for the arrangement of buttons on a USB HID. In my own projects, I've been counting the number of connected controllers and number of axes and buttons on each, and if the configuration has changed since last run, players are prompted to reconfigure the controllers, one button at a time: "Player 1, move the joystick to the left. Move the joystick to the right. Press the jump button. Press the fire button." Might that help?
Probably the best way to solve this is to throw some marketing dollars
If I were to start such a company reselling PCs as consoles, how would I come by these marketing dollars?
We already have civilization, no need for Apple to invent/impose it's own. These crimes you are referring to are already punishable by existing law (hence the name "criminal").
As long as you can choose between locked down systems and non-locked down systems, I won't have too much of a problem with it.
Which non-locked-down set-top video gaming device can I choose? PCs don't come with a game launcher optimized for set-top use, and consoles are locked down.
I never saw Stallman point out that Cory is a douche. :) I think Stallman has been somewhere on the computer-control issue for decades.
Your scheme would probably work, but it deprives Apple of the 30% revenue share from the App Store for most Apps. The revenue share subsidizes the low cost of the dev tools and all the rest of the work Apple puts in to maintain working APIs and documentation.
Also, it allows people to install malware. This will result in support calls and other costs to support people who installed malware. It also allows software to be installed to circumvent enforcement of contract restrictions on something like tethering.
But why should Apple rewrite their software, endure additional support costs, and invent new systems to satisfy your "needs"? Maybe they just don't want to. Maybe they would rather create a system that works good for them and the 99% of everyone else who wants to do something besides complain about App Store restrictions.
Meanwhile, people can make HTML5 Apps for porn and for Klan-rally scheduling.
is that they're trying to prevent heterosexuals from owning smartphones.
You seem to be assuming that the App Store wouldn't remain the most prominent app store for iPhone. The App Store is still going to get you the biggest audience, and that's probably worth giving Apple a cut in many cases.
Then they can refuse support for anyone who installed third party software. As for tethering, the contract restrictions shouldn't have been legal in the first place.
It's hard to find good numbers, but I've seen estimates that about 10% of iPhones are jailbroken. That's 10% already willing to void their warranties, not to mention the potential customers they might take from Android by being more open.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're still suggesting Apple should do work and spend money to create new ways for people to stop paying Apple. And you seem to think you're entitled to have this done for you. Freedom for you, but none for Apple. Apple must obey.
If you ended copyright, Apple's iTunes Music Store revenue would be cut by more than 90%, for example. That alone might be more than they could adapt to before going out of business.
What makes you think that ending copyright would have any effect whatsoever on the iTunes Music Store? Apple could simply stop paying the record industry, cut its prices by a third, and continue breaking even, selling the same DRM-free music that it already sells.
Then, if you made an album and put it online for free as some kind of snub to iTunes, Apple could rip it and drop it into their store anyway, and grow their business on your back, while you had no recourse to the law.
And then, when their pipe is the preferred conduit for loading music onto their devices - which it already is - they could just as easily quash your ability to promote yourself, by refusing to stock your album.
Without copyright, you are far more vulnerable, not less.
Again, much of the work has been done already. It's not a new way for people to not pay Apple, because jailbreakers and people using other operating systems are already getting software without paying Apple. Now, I do think it's very rude for Apple to try and act like they own MY devices.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
As for a distribution deal, probably the best way to do this is to do it in cooperation with a major company like Dell or Samsung. You make the software, they make the hardware and provide the distribution network.
Say I want to get something like XBMC included with a company's PCs. How would I start to partner with manufacturers in this manner?
So create a standard. Write an RFC.
As Andrew S. Tanenbaum put it: "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." How do I start to partner with manufacturers to follow this RFC?
Or create a database of mappings for as many existing controllers as possible, concentrating on those with the highest sales volumes first
How do I start to do market research to determine which PC-compatible game controllers, other than the Xbox 360 controller, have the highest sales volumes?
and get Microsoft and other OS vendors to include it in their operating systems.
Microsoft wants to sell more Xbox 360 controllers and thus isn't likely to want to include mappings in the operating system for anything but an Xbox 360 controller. "Other OS vendors" tend not to make operating systems on which to run notable PC games.