Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry
chicksdaddy (814965) writes "Given Apple's status as the world's most valuable company and its enormous cash hoard, the refusal to offer even meager support to open source and industry groups is puzzling. From the article: 'Apple bundles software from the Apache Software Foundation with its OS X operating system, but does not financially support the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) in any way. That is in contrast to Google and Microsoft, Apple's two chief competitors, which are both Platinum sponsors of ASF — signifying a contribution of $100,000 annually to the Foundation. Sponsorships range as low as $5,000 a year (Bronze), said Sally Khudairi, ASF's Director of Marketing and Public Relations. The ASF is vendor-neutral and all code contributions to the Foundation are done on an individual basis. Apple employees are frequent, individual contributors to Apache. However, their employer is not, Khudairi noted. The company has been a sponsor of ApacheCon, a for-profit conference that runs separately from the Foundation — but not in the last 10 years. "We were told they didn't have the budget," she said of efforts to get Apple's support for ApacheCon in 2004, a year in which the company reported net income of $276 million on revenue of $8.28 billion.'"
Google doesn't contribute to (insert some random pet project of mine) but apple does.
Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.
You have selection bias, there isn't actually anything to see here, Apple contributes to just about every OSS project they themselves use themselves in the form of code contributions.
Just because they aren't buying favors doesn't mean they don't contribute.
This post will be followed by many people throwing out long lists of Apple products that are OSS and the contributions back to those projects from other posts so I feel no need to bother reposting the various pages that show their contributions but ... LLVM would be a really good place for you to start.
Selection bias doesn't make your point valid.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Does this article exist for any purpose other than fanning the flame?
Yes, Apple should probably throw some cash at the Apache foundation, but that's not why this was posted to Slashdot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So Apache is now is equal to the entire tech industry? Nice title there.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Parent has a certain point. Apple has no real obligation to pay. If one really wants a return, they should either charge for it, or maybe use a license that includes a return, e.g. GPLv2 with return of code. Unfortunately GPLv3 scared most serious users, Apple included.
Why would I contribute to open source, when Apple - and Google - use it to build walled gardens and make millions - billions - of dollars I'll never see a penny of? The exploitation of open source by companies that use it to build products that are the opposite of the open source philosophy - I mean walled gardens - is getting hard to take. You can say that they're free to do whatever they want with open source as long as they comply with the licenses, but that's not my point. What could possibly motivate me to donate my time and skills to making Apple and Google more money? The walled garden is going to destroy open source. The funny thing is no one seems to care. People are abandoning GNU's forced openness and going to licenses that basically let big companies exploit the software any way they want to. I guess the days of principled opposition to what Apple and Google are doing are over.
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Well your understanding is wrong. He donated anonymously.
They all need to be contributing to OpenSSL or a fork.
https://groups.google.com/foru...
Security theater is sometimes more like security exhaustion.
Okay, you're stunned that a company as culturally blinkered and rapacious as APPLE isn't turning over some of their huge cash hoard to fund Open Source projects that are outside of their control and might sabotage their patent warchest?
Why not just walk up to Smaug, kick him in the eyeball and demand the Arkenstone "OR ELSE" there Bilbo!
As long as you are witholding something Apple wants, they're either charming as fuck or litigious as hell in an effort to acquire it.
Once they have what they want out of you, you're a one-night-stand, it's the next morning and they can't be rid of you fast enough.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Your understanding is incorrect.
He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.
He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.
He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Your understanding is incorrect.
He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.
He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.
He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.
But still, somehow, you know and it makes him even better in your eyes. Interesting that.
A big cash hoard is a bad thing. It represents money which could be re-invested in R&D, given to investors as dividends, used to increase salaries/benefits to make it a more attractive employer, given to charity to increase PR, or any number of things.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Innovation is always built on the back of others. Nothing pops out of the blue. It is only the lack of education that makes on believes otherwise. The entire affordable microcomputer industry is based on Compaq's reverse engineering(stealing) of the IBM OS. The free browser for everyone is due to MS conning a profitable firm, then giving away the browser and forcing that firm into bankruptcy. Innovation has never been about pulling a product out of you ass. A knife was not suddenly one day made. We had to figure out how to mine the melt, smelt it, and then how to make it a knife that is not brittle.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"The company lists dozens of open source projects and components that it contributes code to: from the Apache web server"
And that, my friends, is what open source is all about. You use, you give code back.
The article title should really be "Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Monetarily To The Apache Foundation." To agree with that Apple should be giving them money is the moral equivalent of saying that users should have to pay to use Apache.
I absolutely despise the phrase "giving back" when referring to charity, because it implies they took something.
Apple has already given back, every dollar they got was in exchange for either an app, iphone, ipad, laptop or something else that the customer got. They have already given something back for every penny they made. This goes for every single company selling products or services (Except when governments are involved)
I donate quite a bit every year for worthy causes without asking for anything in return, and I hate it when my efforts are diminished by calling them "giving back".
Charity is not "giving back", charity is charity, it is a company or individual willingly giving up profit in order to help someone. Ideally, the company benefits from the charity by getting good PR, so it becomes a win-win; it becomes an investment instead of charity, which makes it more sustainable and will hopefully cause it to repeat in the future.
As far as open source code goes, Apple does invest significantly in projects like llvm and webkit and the world is a better place because of it.
The idea that apple somehow owes me and you or the apache foundation is just entitlement mentality.
If you bought apple's products, it is because you think their product is worth more than the money you paid for it, otherwise you would not have gotten it. In that case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you did not buy apple's product, then what they do does not affect you. In this case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you want to encourage Apple to donate code or money, then highlight, applaud and buy products from companies that behave the way you want them to. If enough people vote with their money and show that charity pays off, then either apple will do it, or the companies you support will do it more thanks to your support.
Have you ever used/looked at PARC Star? It bears about as much resemblance to what actually released as Mac OS as a Model T does to a Ferrari: The parts are recognizable, but someone has obviously put a lot of time and work into making someone _want_ the second.
Well, he was a shrewd business man so maybe it was part of his plan.
Of course, the reason I know is because I get interested in learning more about why people are assholes ... And in this particular case, I found out that he wasn't nearly as bad as the haters want to make it out.
The organization his wife created ... Many of its employees don't know that she created it nor that she donates massive amounts to it ... Because it was designed from the start to hide her contributes.
That could be a money laundering scheme of course, but considering the scrutiny you get as a member of the Job family, that would be surprising.
It's more likely that this is just an extension of the fact that they are very private people.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It was my understanding that when they depreciated OpenSSL they just asked software vendors and users to bundle/get the latest version themselves.
No, developers use the Apple provided cryptography libraries where most people would import openSSL.
Which means that a lot of OSX servers _are_ vulnerable while Apple can claim OSX is not./em?
Now that may be so, if you're running an OSX server you probably have a number of open source programs running that were brought over by MacPorts or the like, and they would probably include a more recent verso of SSL.
Also, I don't know if Apache that ships with OSX uses the Apple crypto library or not... that could be an issue.
But honestly how many public facing OSX servers are there likely to be? And most home users do not run Apache. Most of the software consumers will be running on OSX is safe.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple funds the majority of WebKit which is open source. So they are funding open source to the tune of millions of dollars a year. I'm guessing they have between 50 and 200 programmers on WebKit. I'm guessing they have a few other open source projects as well.
it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.
What nonsense is this? Pretty much all open source software Apple uses is under BSD style licenses, they don't have to give back anything.
And yet they have for EVERYTHING they use. There is no "force of license". They do this because it is STUPID not to. It costs WAY more money to re-merge your internal mustache-twirling changes to a library with every new release, than it does simply to contribute back and be able to upgrade with everyone else.
As for the OSX thing, just what are you referring to? Just about all of the open source software Apple makes use of (like BSD) is also in IOS,
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When Apple has released stuff as open source software, it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.
Clang puts the lie to this.
And just why do you find that interesting? If making himself look better was Jobs's game plan, he would have been public with the donations. What I will find interesting is how much of a dent this makes in the Jobs-never-gave-money-to-charity talking point. Sort of like how you could dig up the Apple -> XEROX stock receipts and it wouldn't make a dent in the "Apple stole from PARC" talking point.
That there are fanbois of any corporation is stupid (the corporation will never love you back), but if you're going to be a fanboi of a corporation, Apple isn't as bad as many. At least they contribute source code.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, they did actually buy cups, then hired the guy who they purchased it from to maintain it...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
But still, somehow, you know and it makes him even better in your eyes. Interesting that.
There can be many reasons why this knowledge became public. Yet you seem to imply one particular reason. Interesting that.
I'm still skeptical, and you posting a link to the daily mail doesn't help your cause as proof. It's one step away from a tabloid, you are aware. Lets look at their front page right now. (yes, this is the American front page, but yeah)
What does $120M buy you these days
'I was assigned to her and fell in love': Decorated NYPD officer reveals how she adopted sole survivor of Palm Sunday Massacre thirty years later
Kate looks blooming lovely in floral at Coachella
Gisele Bundchen audited by IRS after being named top-earning supermodel in Forbes for seventh year running
Man busy checking out alligator in Florida bitten by poisonous SNAKE after stepping on it
Racist man, 62, ordered to hold 'I'm a bully!' sign for tormenting neighbor and disabled children for 15 YEARS starts his sentence
Former Bowie saxophonist blamed for selling Philip Seymour Hoffman heroin claims that he is being made a SCAPEGOAT for the actors death
'My son is dead, how can I relax?' Family of youngest victim of Boston bombings speak for the first time about moment attack ripped family apart and left Martin Richard, eight, dead
And this is the source of your irrefutable evidence? Now, I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you might want to find a better source.
Yeah, when they bought CUPS and then hired the guy they bought it from in order to have him continue maintaining it, and then kept it completely open, they were clearly forced to do so. Oh, and CUPS clearly only runs primarily on OS X.
Are you cracked?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I think thats down to Xerox Parc, not Apple
Umm, other than spouting a cliché, have you ever seen what PARC designed? No such thing as direct object manipulation (you clicked on an icon and then got a menu; you couldn't do anything with that icon. Couldn't drag it, move it, double-click it.). No hierarchal space, nothing analogous to QuickDraw, etc. I could go on...
Just because a buggy also had 4 wheels doesn't mean your BMW is much of a derivative.
Funny, because a guy that worked at both PARC and Apple says you're wrong.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
They just converted KHTML to Webkit and never looked back.
And no project in the history of open source has ever been forked because someone wanting to do a lot of work did not want to deal with the maintainers...
Is it open source or not? If you don't support the right to fork totally and let the previous guys worry about carrying back changes, you don't support open source.
Webkit probably remains OSS only because the KHTML foundation requires it.
That is bullshit and you know it. Apple keeps lots of other projects open they do not have to. And they benefit from other people's work on Webkit so it's no mystery why they would keep that open, you don't have to believe there's an altruistic motive at work.
Apple understands what few other companies seem to, that if an open source project is strongly backed you'll find other work and ideas from outside the company help improve it beyond what you as a single company could ever hope to do. That is why they make such extensive use of open source work, and why they open source most Apple-originated projects.
It's also why Apple can spend so little on R&D and yet stay ahed of most other companies technologically.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging money for GPL licensed software. You appear to be confused on this point. Based on a large sample set of previous discussions on the effects and merits of various licensing schemes, I suspect you are also confused on the definition of the word "freedom." In case you're not confused, but offering a goalpost moving teaser into a discussion on the latter point, I'll preemptively note that neither you nor Stallman get to redefine words to fit any particular ideology. I choose to license most of my software under derivatives of BSD style and Artistic licenses, and I do so for what I believe are good reasons. While I absolutely encourage you to engage in persuasive public discourse on the merits of your favorite licensing schemes, I also absolutely insist on honesty while doing so.
Write failed: Broken pipe
This is too long, sorry I can't help myself...
Ok. I'll assume you are an Actually Interested Person and not just a fanboy in disguise. Maybe you can clear up a possible misunderstanding I have with some facts, or at least give a compelling alternative interpretation. I was a fan of Apple until a little after they really took off. Yes, I'm a fan of FOSS, and let's face it, I'm a bit of a Google fanboy. I don't need to hate everyone though, and Microsoft was doing a sterling job of being my pinup demon.
Then I read about about Guru Steve's Mercedes Manoeuvre. While I didn't grow up with rich parents in a privileged area, I did grow up in a highly educated family in the West, and the only thing I wanted for was the most expensive Reebok's or latest gadgets. While I'm not particularly beautiful, I am physically fit and healthy, have white skin, am male and heterosexual. In the grand scheme of things, I've got it pretty damn good - I don't suffer from any discrimination and all the doors are open for me. I believe that all people should be treated equally but I also believe that some people have not had the same cards dealt to them I have. I think that society as a whole benefits when we make the lives of those who haven't had such luck a little easier - the more productive people there are, the better for all, including me personally.
So, many people have heard about Steve's Mercedes manoeuvre - California law allows owners of new vehicles to drive them around without number plates for 6 months. Steve strikes an agreement with a company (a dealership?) to change his new Mercedes every 5 months and 29 days, so in reality he can drive without ever having a number plate. Why would he do this? One reason could be he doesn't want people to know who owns the car. Possible, and I don't know how common it is in California, but I would have thought not having a number plate would draw considerably more attention than having one, and Steve definitely wasn't stupid. Then you look a little and you start seeing pictures around the web of a Mercedes with no number plate in handicapped parking spots. And yes, Steve was regularly seen getting in and out of said Mercedes.
Having worked for several years for a company owned by a non-profit whose sole purpose was to give handicapped (of all sorts) people a chance to get some confidence in the workplace by giving them a job with enough support that they could gain valuable skills, this needed some explaining. Why would he do this? I read that he simply wanted to save time. Ah.... WTF? So Ok, you want to save time. I can accept that. You are a multi-millionaire, and then you are a multi-billionaire, what do you do? You get a driver. Very simple. What does Steve do? He parks in handicapped parking spots. Now this is my interpretation and I don't know how it works in California but my further assumption was that the lack of number plates meant that he would avoid getting parking fines. It might just be so that it's impossible to tow, which would fit nicely with the time thing. Even the possibility that it was to avoid getting fines has meant that Apple has been firmly off my shopping list. Whether it was to avoid the fines or just the towing, I can't find a remotely passable excuse for what he did - I find it completely morally repugnant.
Is this collection of facts incorrect? What about my interpretation? Did he secretly donate millions to handicapped charities? Something else I might be missing?
Regardless, his point still stands--open source is about sharing code. Open source groups share with Apple, Apple shares back, even when they don't necessarily have to. That, to me, is a great record. While it would be nice for Apple to give some money, I don't believe Apple should be shamed for not doing so. So many people champion open source for being free (as in beer) for their own benefit, but suddenly it's bad for Apple to use things for free even though they contribute back and sometimes create new projects that are open, too? Isn't that what open source is supposed to be all about?
Scorta futuere amo!