It doesn't matter if it is free or not, the GPL grants you all the rights of the distributor upon receipt of GPL software (whether you paid for it or not). Apple's DRM violates this provision of the GPL, which makes Apple's license to distribute null and void, which means they are violating copyright law.
Their options are to remove the DRM (not gonna happen for a single app), or remove the app.
It doesn't matter if there is an easy way around it, Apple is breaking the law either way, and they are doing it in such a way that they could potentially be held criminally liable (instead of the usual civil liability).
There is only one practical option for Apple, but it doesn't mean they aren't still douche-bags.
Apple's DRM limits the software to 5 authorized devices. That is a very clear and blatant violation of the GPL.
Apple will not distribute an app via the App Store without their DRM, so any GPL software must be removed. The article is complaining about Apple's inflexibility in the matter (i.e. all they have to do is not DRM the app and it's fine to sell in the App Store, but Apple won't).
It's just another reason to hate Apple, it's not really anything epic. There could be a lot of GPL software going on the iPhone and iPad if Apple would be a little more flexible, but they always have been and always will be a "my way or the highway" kind of company, and I don't expect things to change.
Anyway, given that developers have to know and agree to the App store terms before submitting apps, wouldn't it be the developers who caused the infringement (FSF seems to say this)? Though I guess copyright is strict liability...
Copyright applies to the distributor. You must have a license for distribution. That's no problem for Apple, since they get this rights as soon as the developer sends them the software to be distributed. The developer can agree to the terms all they want, and be held by them. However, the distributor (Apple) must abide by the terms of the license (GPL) in order to distribute the software.
In other words, it's A OK for Apple to DRM any GPL software they want. However, according to the GPL it is NOT OK for Apple to distribute a DRM version of a GPL software, because the GPL explicitly grants recipients of the software the rights to redistribute the software (which is what DRM restricts), and also explicitly prohibits any restrictions of the rights granted by the GPL. The two are incompatible, and since the developer does not have the rights to re-license the software (he would need to have copyright on every single line of GPL code to do so) Apple does not get to apply their DRM to GPL software.
Apple's options are to remove the DRM, or stop distributing the app. Apple always chooses to stop distributing the app, which is what the article is complaining about.
It doesn't really matter what the VLC developer says. What matters is what the GPL says, since it's the GPL that is legally binding.
According to the GPLv2, under which VLC is licensed, Apple's DRM would violate the terms of the license (by further restricting the rights of the recipients of the software which have been expressly granted by the GPL - see section 6).
It's certainly reasonable for Apple not to care to adjust their policies for a single class of application, but it doesn't mean it can't be yet another reason I hate Apple.:)
Besides that, a very large part of why the app store exists is to make money. (of course some is to add feature value to their hardware) They won't make money off this. So why should they do it if it's only going to cost them money?
I don't get what you are saying, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from charging for your software, it simply requires that the person who purchased it get the exact same distribution rights you yourself have. You can even charge a nominal fee for access to the source to cover your costs for making it available. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be sold for a profit on the App Store.
Apple DRM restricts re-distribution of the software by limiting it to five authorized devices. These are further restrictions on the copying/distribution of the software not included in the GPL, and the GPL expressly forbids any further restrictions on the copying and distribution of GPL software except what has already been stated in the GPL.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what Remi Denis-Courmont thinks, unless he re-licenses it (which he almost certainly cannot do without violating the GPL himself) it is the GPL that counts, and only the GPL.
Apple's DRM pretty clearly violates the GPLv2 license.
The TiVo DRM issue addressed by GPLv3 is completely different. It is the opposite in fact. TiVo did not restrict the distribution of their GPLv2 software in any way. They properly made the source and binaries available to anybody who wanted them. What they did was prevent modified kernels from being installed on the TiVo boxes by using a verification scheme (which qualifies as DRM). They were restricting the hardware, not the software, and GPLv3 aims to prevent that for any GPLv3 software. Apple's DRM prevents the distribution of the software itself, which violates the terms of the GPLv2.
The GPL doesn't prohibit charging for software. It specifically states in the license that this is ok, even charging for the source code is fine.
Once the recipient has the binary and/or source code, however, they have absolutely the same rights to distribute that software as the person they bought it from. They don't have to pay any royalties for selling it themselves, and they are perfectly free to just give it away to anybody they want.
This is what the App Store violates. DRM is mandatory, and DRM is specifically designed to prevent re-distribution of software, a restriction on the GPL which is expressly forbidden on the GPL.
People are incorrectly equating this to the GPLv2 TiVo issue, where TiVo removed any modified version of the Linux kernel from their boxes. This was not a violation of GPLv2, because TiVo provided the binaries and source code and TiVo owners were able to modify and distribute the software to their heart's content. What TiVo did not allow was installing a modified version back onto the TiVo box. This is not a problem under GPLv2, because it only addresses the software and its distribution. GPLv3 directly addresses the TiVo behavior in order to force manufacturers to allow modifications to any GPLv3 software to be installed on the original hardware.
It's a completely different issue though. App Store DRM isn't restricting whether or not modified GPL software can be re-installed on an Apple device, it's restricting the actual distribution rights granted by the GPL. That's a direct violation of the GPL, and is something TiVo didn't do.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
That clearly falls on the distributor, and Best Buy would clearly be responsible for making sure the source code was available, and that the user was free to copy it. Charging for a copy is no problem, but once the user has purchased it they must be able to freely copy and distribute it as they wish under the guidelines of the GPL. DRM prevents that by design, and is therefore incompatible with the GPL.
One of the key tenants of the GPL is that the each receiver of a GPL'd piece of software gets all the distribution rights of the copyrighted material, with the caveat that each new recipient must receive and be aware of those exact same distribution rights. Like I said, DRM is designed to restrict the distribution of copyrighted software, and therefore by definition violates the GPL.
The key points here are 4, 5, and 6 of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sub-license, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License...
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
This states, basically, that the only copy/license/distribution rights for GPL software are those granted by the GPL (4), you cannot distribute the software without accepting the GPL (5), and you cannot impose any further restrictions on the usage rights of the recipients beyond what is granted by the GPL (6).
GPL requires that the recipients' rights under the GPL not be restricted. DRM clearly and obviously restricts the recipients' rights under the GPL - you can only install on a certain number of devices, you can only install on authorized devices, no source code availability, etc. These all violate the GPL. They could clear this up by either removing the DRM or making the DRM "wide open" (which would be the same as removing it). As has been pointed out already, the responsibility to uphold the GPL falls on the shoulders of the distributor, not necessarily the developer (though the original distribution by the developer would obviously have to abide by the GPL).
Applidium may have put Apple in that position, but Applidium is not using any third-party materials in a manner that would infringe or violate anybody's rights. It's Apple that is doing the violating, not being violated. That clause does not apply.
That clause is saying Apple is not responsible if Applidium violates another party's rights. That doesn't mean Apple gets to violate another party's rights (in this case, the end users).
The DRM itself is a problem. It restricts the usage rights granted by the GPL by limiting where and how you can use the software. Therefore, it violates the GPL.
VLC wants to publish their app via the App Store with no DRM. It may be possible for them to work around the issue, but they are making a principled stand, and good on them.
GPL being a EULA or not has no bearing on the issue. Apple's license policies really have no bearing on the issue either. The fact is, Apple is going to DRM VLC if it is in the App Store, and that violates the GPL (that's the "further restrictions" part). Period.
A lawyer patented the wheel in Australia a few years back; patenting patent-trolling in the US can't be much harder than that! Didn't one of the more recent patent rulings suggest business method patents were going to be legit again? If so this one is definitely possible.
He's saying the core tech and patents are that old, not that there were any devices then. Patents expire based on the date they were filed, it doesn't matter how long it takes to get a product to market. 17 years from the initial filing and it's done.
Those aren't particularly good examples if you're trying to wow us with technological innovation.
The first one isn't even an innovation, it's just expensive and inferior in a couple ways some people find very important. Overall a good idea, but it isn't like they created a new manufacturing process to pull it off. It's just a hollowed out piece of aluminum instead of a molded piece of plastic.
Magsafe is cool, and I like it very much, but I wouldn't really call it a "technological innovation", just a clever idea. Worthy of a patent, but not exactly a game changer in any respect.
Mac Mini you might have something, except there were thin clients before it which had similar capability (though intended to connect to a larger machine over the network) - it was more of a new use of old tech. Good idea, not really innovative though.
Apple's big innovations are in the application of technology, not the creation of it. iPod/iTunes - the technology was nothing new, but the application was unique and superior, which is why the combination still dominates the portable music player market. The iPhone was nothing new either, smartphones have been around almost a decade, but targeting the retail phone market was new (at least in the US), and the slick iPhone OS has spawned quite a lot of new tech. The iPad is doing the exact same thing.
I'd say they are good at bringing technology to market by making it really useful and attractive to the end user. They aren't particularly good at generating new technology themselves though.
The original analogy is forks and spaghetti (which is apparently difficult to eat with one fork - I've personally never used more than one fork and never had a problem).
Chopsticks and rice makes the problem more obvious.
More importantly, though, is that the analogy makes absolutely no sense in this context. The problem only occurs in mutual exclusion environments with no communication (i.e. computers). The only reason two vendors wouldn't cross-license is because they were pissed at each other and both being purposefully unreasonable.
Honestly, in a patent war on cell phones, I don't see how Apple can win. Motorola has a whole lot more cell phone tech locked up than Apple does, multi-touch or no multi-touch.
Why is that bad? Usually, when you are looking for a specific widget, it's to buy said widget. I would expect the first organic results to be the widget's website and where to buy it, and hopefully some independent reviews of the product. Those are the most relevant items to someone looking for an iPad.
For example: the Apple iPad web site is the first organic listing for a search on the Apple iPad, and the official features list from the Apple website is second. The next two links are to the Apple store, where you can buy the iPad. Next is a set of news articles about the iPad, followed by a major third party review of the iPad. Are these not the most relevant links on the entire internet if someone is looking for an Apple iPad? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it's working exactly as it aught work.
I honestly can't fathom what exactly you are looking for other than an iPad when you do a search on an iPad.
So yes, there is a clear delineation between paid ads and organic results. But under the covers it certainly appears there's something major going on. Note the number of Amazon ads that appear in the first 4 results where approximately 80% of the clicks happen.
Do you think that might possibly be because Amazon.com is the largest retailer on the internet? I dunno, only 4 for the #1 online retail website doesn't seem too bad to me. And if you're looking to buy a widget, Amazon.com's page on the item is probably exactly what you are looking for (I know that has been the case for me many times).
OTOH, if I really want to find a good page on someone's experience fixing the widget, I personally have no problem going 4 or 5 pages deep to get there. Or tightening the query via long-tail. And imho Google is still the best SE to do that; it's a delicate balance.
If that's what you're looking for, you should probably tack on "troubleshooting" or "repair" to the end of your widget search. You know, so Google knows what the fuck you're looking for. I do this for my iPad search and OH MY GOD! It's the Apple support website! The fourth link down is even a third party repair outfit. Sixth link is even a DIY how-to for a common iPad problem. Who would have thought?
Even Google isn't psychic, you do have to actually tell it what you really want to find. Do you want an iPad? Or do you want to find out if there is a way you can fix your broken USB connector for your iPad? The second search is going to necessarily be very different than the first no matter what search engine you use.
He apparently doesn't know how search engines worked before Google.
Used to be, you paid for a search ranking. Whoever paid the most got the top spot, no if's, and's, or but's about it. These were completely indistinguishable from non-paid search results! For a popular subject, you could pretty much guarantee the first 10, 20, even 100 pages of search results were paid results. I remember constantly digging into the back of a set of search results to get past the bullshit irrelevant results.
In comes Google. All search results are now 100% determined by their algorithm (which can still be gamed, but it's a million times better than the old way). In addition to the search results are a handful of fairly obvious advertisements at the top and side of the page. These are similar to the old "pay per click per keyword" ads, except these are also ranked in a similar algorithm in order to make the advertisements as relevant as possible to the search. You can spend $10 per click on the keyword "Buggy Whip", but if your website is all about deep sea diving supplies your advertisement is probably not going to show up in a search for buggy whips.
Because of this it's entirely possible that the advertisement is exactly what the searcher was looking for, and they will find it legitimately.
Yeah, Google isn't perfect - for one thing they are constantly fighting people gaming their search algorithm - but to think their system is anywhere even remotely similar to the 90's way of doing internet search is absolutely idiotic. The only way you can say that with a straight face is if you have absolutely no idea how bad it was in the 90's.
If you want to find out, go hit up Excite, LookSmart, Altavista (one of the better ones), 7search, or any of the other pay-per-click engines out there to see how it used to be. They're still around, and they still suck balls compared to Google. Bing is the only thing that comes close, and is even better in some respects.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if it is free or not, the GPL grants you all the rights of the distributor upon receipt of GPL software (whether you paid for it or not). Apple's DRM violates this provision of the GPL, which makes Apple's license to distribute null and void, which means they are violating copyright law.
Their options are to remove the DRM (not gonna happen for a single app), or remove the app.
It doesn't matter if there is an easy way around it, Apple is breaking the law either way, and they are doing it in such a way that they could potentially be held criminally liable (instead of the usual civil liability).
There is only one practical option for Apple, but it doesn't mean they aren't still douche-bags.
It's the DRM.
Apple's DRM limits the software to 5 authorized devices. That is a very clear and blatant violation of the GPL.
Apple will not distribute an app via the App Store without their DRM, so any GPL software must be removed. The article is complaining about Apple's inflexibility in the matter (i.e. all they have to do is not DRM the app and it's fine to sell in the App Store, but Apple won't).
It's just another reason to hate Apple, it's not really anything epic. There could be a lot of GPL software going on the iPhone and iPad if Apple would be a little more flexible, but they always have been and always will be a "my way or the highway" kind of company, and I don't expect things to change.
Anyway, given that developers have to know and agree to the App store terms before submitting apps, wouldn't it be the developers who caused the infringement (FSF seems to say this)? Though I guess copyright is strict liability...
Copyright applies to the distributor. You must have a license for distribution. That's no problem for Apple, since they get this rights as soon as the developer sends them the software to be distributed. The developer can agree to the terms all they want, and be held by them. However, the distributor (Apple) must abide by the terms of the license (GPL) in order to distribute the software.
In other words, it's A OK for Apple to DRM any GPL software they want. However, according to the GPL it is NOT OK for Apple to distribute a DRM version of a GPL software, because the GPL explicitly grants recipients of the software the rights to redistribute the software (which is what DRM restricts), and also explicitly prohibits any restrictions of the rights granted by the GPL. The two are incompatible, and since the developer does not have the rights to re-license the software (he would need to have copyright on every single line of GPL code to do so) Apple does not get to apply their DRM to GPL software.
Apple's options are to remove the DRM, or stop distributing the app. Apple always chooses to stop distributing the app, which is what the article is complaining about.
It doesn't really matter what the VLC developer says. What matters is what the GPL says, since it's the GPL that is legally binding.
According to the GPLv2, under which VLC is licensed, Apple's DRM would violate the terms of the license (by further restricting the rights of the recipients of the software which have been expressly granted by the GPL - see section 6).
End of story.
But is Apple under any obligation to put that software on their devices?
No, but it doesn't mean they aren't assholes either.
It's certainly reasonable for Apple not to care to adjust their policies for a single class of application, but it doesn't mean it can't be yet another reason I hate Apple. :)
Besides that, a very large part of why the app store exists is to make money. (of course some is to add feature value to their hardware) They won't make money off this. So why should they do it if it's only going to cost them money?
I don't get what you are saying, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from charging for your software, it simply requires that the person who purchased it get the exact same distribution rights you yourself have. You can even charge a nominal fee for access to the source to cover your costs for making it available. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be sold for a profit on the App Store.
Apple DRM restricts re-distribution of the software by limiting it to five authorized devices. These are further restrictions on the copying/distribution of the software not included in the GPL, and the GPL expressly forbids any further restrictions on the copying and distribution of GPL software except what has already been stated in the GPL.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what Remi Denis-Courmont thinks, unless he re-licenses it (which he almost certainly cannot do without violating the GPL himself) it is the GPL that counts, and only the GPL.
Apple's DRM pretty clearly violates the GPLv2 license.
The TiVo DRM issue addressed by GPLv3 is completely different. It is the opposite in fact. TiVo did not restrict the distribution of their GPLv2 software in any way. They properly made the source and binaries available to anybody who wanted them. What they did was prevent modified kernels from being installed on the TiVo boxes by using a verification scheme (which qualifies as DRM). They were restricting the hardware, not the software, and GPLv3 aims to prevent that for any GPLv3 software. Apple's DRM prevents the distribution of the software itself, which violates the terms of the GPLv2.
The GPL doesn't prohibit charging for software. It specifically states in the license that this is ok, even charging for the source code is fine.
Once the recipient has the binary and/or source code, however, they have absolutely the same rights to distribute that software as the person they bought it from. They don't have to pay any royalties for selling it themselves, and they are perfectly free to just give it away to anybody they want.
This is what the App Store violates. DRM is mandatory, and DRM is specifically designed to prevent re-distribution of software, a restriction on the GPL which is expressly forbidden on the GPL.
People are incorrectly equating this to the GPLv2 TiVo issue, where TiVo removed any modified version of the Linux kernel from their boxes. This was not a violation of GPLv2, because TiVo provided the binaries and source code and TiVo owners were able to modify and distribute the software to their heart's content. What TiVo did not allow was installing a modified version back onto the TiVo box. This is not a problem under GPLv2, because it only addresses the software and its distribution. GPLv3 directly addresses the TiVo behavior in order to force manufacturers to allow modifications to any GPLv3 software to be installed on the original hardware.
It's a completely different issue though. App Store DRM isn't restricting whether or not modified GPL software can be re-installed on an Apple device, it's restricting the actual distribution rights granted by the GPL. That's a direct violation of the GPL, and is something TiVo didn't do.
From the GPL v2 link you posted:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
That clearly falls on the distributor, and Best Buy would clearly be responsible for making sure the source code was available, and that the user was free to copy it. Charging for a copy is no problem, but once the user has purchased it they must be able to freely copy and distribute it as they wish under the guidelines of the GPL. DRM prevents that by design, and is therefore incompatible with the GPL.
One of the key tenants of the GPL is that the each receiver of a GPL'd piece of software gets all the distribution rights of the copyrighted material, with the caveat that each new recipient must receive and be aware of those exact same distribution rights. Like I said, DRM is designed to restrict the distribution of copyrighted software, and therefore by definition violates the GPL.
The key points here are 4, 5, and 6 of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sub-license, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License...
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
This states, basically, that the only copy/license/distribution rights for GPL software are those granted by the GPL (4), you cannot distribute the software without accepting the GPL (5), and you cannot impose any further restrictions on the usage rights of the recipients beyond what is granted by the GPL (6).
GPL requires that the recipients' rights under the GPL not be restricted. DRM clearly and obviously restricts the recipients' rights under the GPL - you can only install on a certain number of devices, you can only install on authorized devices, no source code availability, etc. These all violate the GPL. They could clear this up by either removing the DRM or making the DRM "wide open" (which would be the same as removing it). As has been pointed out already, the responsibility to uphold the GPL falls on the shoulders of the distributor, not necessarily the developer (though the original distribution by the developer would obviously have to abide by the GPL).
Internetwork Operating System (Cisco's actual trademarked name for IOS) is so much better.
Actually IOS really is slick - by far the easiest command line I've ever used (though I certainly haven't used them all).
I remember hearing about the iPhone trademark issue when the iPhone was in development.
Apple sure likes Cisco's naming schemes. ;)
Applidium may have put Apple in that position, but Applidium is not using any third-party materials in a manner that would infringe or violate anybody's rights. It's Apple that is doing the violating, not being violated. That clause does not apply.
That clause is saying Apple is not responsible if Applidium violates another party's rights. That doesn't mean Apple gets to violate another party's rights (in this case, the end users).
The DRM itself is a problem. It restricts the usage rights granted by the GPL by limiting where and how you can use the software. Therefore, it violates the GPL.
VLC wants to publish their app via the App Store with no DRM. It may be possible for them to work around the issue, but they are making a principled stand, and good on them.
GPL being a EULA or not has no bearing on the issue. Apple's license policies really have no bearing on the issue either. The fact is, Apple is going to DRM VLC if it is in the App Store, and that violates the GPL (that's the "further restrictions" part). Period.
Your mom also depends on air. Just let that sink in for a bit.
This conspiracy runs deep!
Damn clouds!
A lawyer patented the wheel in Australia a few years back; patenting patent-trolling in the US can't be much harder than that! Didn't one of the more recent patent rulings suggest business method patents were going to be legit again? If so this one is definitely possible.
He's saying the core tech and patents are that old, not that there were any devices then. Patents expire based on the date they were filed, it doesn't matter how long it takes to get a product to market. 17 years from the initial filing and it's done.
If it happened before 1993, it dun expired already.
Those aren't particularly good examples if you're trying to wow us with technological innovation.
The first one isn't even an innovation, it's just expensive and inferior in a couple ways some people find very important. Overall a good idea, but it isn't like they created a new manufacturing process to pull it off. It's just a hollowed out piece of aluminum instead of a molded piece of plastic.
Magsafe is cool, and I like it very much, but I wouldn't really call it a "technological innovation", just a clever idea. Worthy of a patent, but not exactly a game changer in any respect.
Mac Mini you might have something, except there were thin clients before it which had similar capability (though intended to connect to a larger machine over the network) - it was more of a new use of old tech. Good idea, not really innovative though.
Apple's big innovations are in the application of technology, not the creation of it. iPod/iTunes - the technology was nothing new, but the application was unique and superior, which is why the combination still dominates the portable music player market. The iPhone was nothing new either, smartphones have been around almost a decade, but targeting the retail phone market was new (at least in the US), and the slick iPhone OS has spawned quite a lot of new tech. The iPad is doing the exact same thing.
I'd say they are good at bringing technology to market by making it really useful and attractive to the end user. They aren't particularly good at generating new technology themselves though.
There can only be one winner here, and it won't be companies who are suing each other.
Actually I figure anywhere from 20-50 winners, but yeah Apple and Motorola won't likely be among them.
The original analogy is forks and spaghetti (which is apparently difficult to eat with one fork - I've personally never used more than one fork and never had a problem).
Chopsticks and rice makes the problem more obvious.
More importantly, though, is that the analogy makes absolutely no sense in this context. The problem only occurs in mutual exclusion environments with no communication (i.e. computers). The only reason two vendors wouldn't cross-license is because they were pissed at each other and both being purposefully unreasonable.
Honestly, in a patent war on cell phones, I don't see how Apple can win. Motorola has a whole lot more cell phone tech locked up than Apple does, multi-touch or no multi-touch.
Why is that bad? Usually, when you are looking for a specific widget, it's to buy said widget. I would expect the first organic results to be the widget's website and where to buy it, and hopefully some independent reviews of the product. Those are the most relevant items to someone looking for an iPad.
For example: the Apple iPad web site is the first organic listing for a search on the Apple iPad, and the official features list from the Apple website is second. The next two links are to the Apple store, where you can buy the iPad. Next is a set of news articles about the iPad, followed by a major third party review of the iPad. Are these not the most relevant links on the entire internet if someone is looking for an Apple iPad? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it's working exactly as it aught work.
I honestly can't fathom what exactly you are looking for other than an iPad when you do a search on an iPad.
So yes, there is a clear delineation between paid ads and organic results. But under the covers it certainly appears there's something major going on. Note the number of Amazon ads that appear in the first 4 results where approximately 80% of the clicks happen.
Do you think that might possibly be because Amazon.com is the largest retailer on the internet? I dunno, only 4 for the #1 online retail website doesn't seem too bad to me. And if you're looking to buy a widget, Amazon.com's page on the item is probably exactly what you are looking for (I know that has been the case for me many times).
OTOH, if I really want to find a good page on someone's experience fixing the widget, I personally have no problem going 4 or 5 pages deep to get there. Or tightening the query via long-tail. And imho Google is still the best SE to do that; it's a delicate balance.
If that's what you're looking for, you should probably tack on "troubleshooting" or "repair" to the end of your widget search. You know, so Google knows what the fuck you're looking for. I do this for my iPad search and OH MY GOD! It's the Apple support website! The fourth link down is even a third party repair outfit. Sixth link is even a DIY how-to for a common iPad problem. Who would have thought?
Even Google isn't psychic, you do have to actually tell it what you really want to find. Do you want an iPad? Or do you want to find out if there is a way you can fix your broken USB connector for your iPad? The second search is going to necessarily be very different than the first no matter what search engine you use.
He apparently doesn't know how search engines worked before Google.
Used to be, you paid for a search ranking. Whoever paid the most got the top spot, no if's, and's, or but's about it. These were completely indistinguishable from non-paid search results! For a popular subject, you could pretty much guarantee the first 10, 20, even 100 pages of search results were paid results. I remember constantly digging into the back of a set of search results to get past the bullshit irrelevant results.
In comes Google. All search results are now 100% determined by their algorithm (which can still be gamed, but it's a million times better than the old way). In addition to the search results are a handful of fairly obvious advertisements at the top and side of the page. These are similar to the old "pay per click per keyword" ads, except these are also ranked in a similar algorithm in order to make the advertisements as relevant as possible to the search. You can spend $10 per click on the keyword "Buggy Whip", but if your website is all about deep sea diving supplies your advertisement is probably not going to show up in a search for buggy whips.
Because of this it's entirely possible that the advertisement is exactly what the searcher was looking for, and they will find it legitimately.
Yeah, Google isn't perfect - for one thing they are constantly fighting people gaming their search algorithm - but to think their system is anywhere even remotely similar to the 90's way of doing internet search is absolutely idiotic. The only way you can say that with a straight face is if you have absolutely no idea how bad it was in the 90's.
If you want to find out, go hit up Excite, LookSmart, Altavista (one of the better ones), 7search, or any of the other pay-per-click engines out there to see how it used to be. They're still around, and they still suck balls compared to Google. Bing is the only thing that comes close, and is even better in some respects.
Yeah, is the shitstorm about saying "retarded" over yet in the US ? Pot meet kettle.
What shitstorm?
Indeed, all the old search engines are still around. There is a reason nobody uses them any more.