All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now
(emphasis mine)
Emphasis mine.
In other words, the amount of reading between the lines and such required to reach your interpretation is rather excessive.
For example, what difference does it make that VP8 is going to be Open Source? And how does VP8 threaten Apple in the first place? If it becomes popular, and if it's superior to H.264, Apple will license it (and if it's fully Open Source in the way people are thinking, Apple won't even *have* to license it).
Apple's objections to Theora aren't strictly financial (outside of the uncertainty of the codec's legal status), they're practical. In terms of quality, level of adoption and hardware support (specifically as it affects battery and heat), Theora is vastly inferior to H.264. The only real advantage of Theora is that it's (presently) free and open.
Somehow, content providers decide this is a great idea and they all jump on the VP8 band wagon. How does this hurt Apple?
It doesn't. But it does hurt the theory that Steve Jobs is out to control eveyone's minds and only Google can stop him, and as such, he is perpetually afraid of Google and is out to destroy them at all costs.
Um, Jobs was the first music industry figure to call for DRM-free music. Charging 30 cents is required to pay the labels. Do you think the labels would be fine letting you redownload a DRM track DRM-free? On the other hand, what motivation does Apple have to charge you to do so? They make very little money on their Music Store. The purpose of the store is to add value to the iPod (and there's little doubt that this has worked very well for them).
My point? Just because Apple now sells DRM-free music doesn't mean Apple is anti-DRM.
Not a single person said they were. They are anti-DRM with regards to music, though.
1-2 years ago, microsoft appeared only as evil as apple. precisely similar discussions were going on in/.. people were still defending ms.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Apple's "evil" at its worst is equal to MS's "evil" at its best? (not even a premise I agree with, but I'm trying to figure out your point)
1-2 years ago, MS had already established decades worth of "evil". In such a case, most defenses ring hollow given how out of character any non-"evil" interpretation is. On the other hand, Apple has no such history. Their history is one of more tightly controlled products and secrecy, which perfectly fits in with all of the current complaints against Apple, from the iPad to the App Store, and from the iPhone HD theft to the closing of Lala. The Lala one is still unfolding, so it remains to be seen if it's simply quashing a competitor, or if it's closing down one aspect in order to redirect the acquisition towards some other ends (such as a cloud variation of iTunes).
Maybe it is "evil", but given the way Apple has acted in the past, and how it fits with that past, it's rather premature to place them in the MS-style "evil" of any era.
If the Lala closure does turn out to be "evil", then that sure sucks, and sets precedent for further doubt of Apple's motives in the future. Which is the difference I'm getting at. MS has already lost all right to doubt in their favor.
my point is, at the RATE things were going it was evident that we would reach this point in regard to microsoft villainy. currently apple's rate is the same. so...
I can't even parse this. What rates? In which directions? It's just not coherent.
As for the Daily Show clip, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, but Apple had something they consider to be highly valuable stolen. This focus on secrecy is nothing new with Apple, it's just the first time something like this theft has ever really occurred (at least, so publicly, who knows what other episodes never made it this far).
I completely fail to see how Apple's actions, whether assholish or not, are evil.
Taken out of context, sure. But the context of Microsoft and the context of Apple are quite different. MS has a long and proud history of "evil" (in terms of business practices), Apple does not.
That doesn't preclude Apple from changing, or even simply engaging in a one-off bit of "evil". But with MS (unlike Apple), there are so many examples of such behavior that it's more notable when they don't do something like that, not when they do.
What evil things are you referring to? They shut Flash out of their products, sought the return of stolen goods, and are closing down one of their acquisitions (for reasons not yet clear). You may not like what they've done, or how they are doing it, but it's hardly evil, even for hyperbolic nerd values of evil.
+5 Insightful, except for the little issue that Apple didn't ever do the first two E's. EEE is when Microsoft embraces a standard, then makes proprietary extensions to that standard, which tends to fracture that standard, extinguishing the actual non-MS version of that standard.
Buying and killing is something else entirely, and most likely not what Apple intends (or at least, initially intended). We'll see though. Here's to hoping this was for a cloud-based iTunes or some similar ends. Otherwise, shitty move on Apple's part.
Given Apple makes plenty of acquisitions in order to gain products, IP, and talent, and hasn't made any[*] to simply kill a competitor, it's not all that rational to jump to that conclusion just yet. Time will tell (unless you are a hater, in which case any port in a storm, right?).
[*] At least, not that I'm aware of. Anyone have any notable examples of this?
That depends on what cones of this. Apple doesn't tend to buy competitors just to crush them. They tend to buy for products, IP, and/or talent. I doubt, unless things unfold otherwise, that this is a change in that trend. Apple would have to buy quite a number of companies to quash the competition (and given their maret share, they won't even benefit much from it anyway).
The assumption has been that Apple wants to add a web or cloud aspect to iTunes. You can already see an inkling of this in the way iTunes Store links open now. And with so many iPods, iPhones and iPads with wifi and 3G, it's not difficult to see the appeal. And there can be no doubt that Apple has at the very least looked into something like this.
And if that is what Apple intends, then shutting down Lala is exactly what you'd expect before launch of a cloud iTunes, and May 31st is right before WWDC.
That doesn't mean any of that will come to fruition, but it is more in line with Apple's past actions than buying Lala just to close them. Only time will tell.
Apple hasn't sold DRMd music for a couple of years now.
No, but they still want me to pay [a total of] $100 to get non-DRM versions of the music that I already bought and own...
Music you bought and own knowing at the time of sale that it was wrapped in DRM. Apple hasn't taken away anything, thrive simply made an offer for you to download a non-DRM track if you want, for the difference in price (at the time iTunes Plus was announced, variable pricing which the studios required for all music to be DRM-free). You also get the music in 256k instead of 128k.
Anyway, point being you knew what you were doing, and apparently didn't have too much of a problem with it since you did it over 300 times.
Pure, unadulterated vaporware whose only purpose was to get some people disinterested in the iPad. And it appears to have worked.
So, my choices went from iPad vs Courier to iPad vs nothing else on the market, and this helped Microsoft in some way.
You don't seem to understand how vaporware works. If you actually had a competing product, you wouldn't need vaporware, you'd just promote the real thing you have to offer. But MS has nothing to offer.
For at least for a short amount of time, potential iPad buyers were holding off for a Courier. For this tactic to work, MS never has to actually release Courier. All they have to do is slow iPad sales.
There used to be a time when people would put off purchases, in favor of some vaporware MS product, for years, by which time the superior technology (that actually existed) would fail to gain traction and die, all without MS ever shipping anything. The market doesn't really work that way anymore, so at best it will buy them a few months. The fact that they didn't make the best use of those few months doesn't negate the potential upsides of this tactic.
And besides, Courier helped make the iPad appear less interesting and less advanced than it is, this helped play a small role in the "iPad is lame" nerdfest, which is still active and is still benefitting Microsoft. It's hard for a real product to compete with a product that is completely made up, and once you're able to convince at least some people into accepting that this wonderful imaginary product is real, it sours one's impressions of real products that can, and do, actually exist.
It's too wonderful and too practical a concept to be gone for long.
Yeah, Microsoft finally canned it because it was so wonderful and practical...
The video that went out right around the time the iPad was announced was a concept video. It was a rendering and not an actual product or even a prototype. Pure, unadulterated vaporware whose only purpose was to get some people disinterested in the iPad. And it appears to have worked. There are numerous Slashdot posts about how, "I don't want an iPad, I'm waiting for MS's Courier." This is one of Microsoft's oldest tactics, vaporware.
The thing about vaporware is that it's vaporware for the very reason that's it's both wonderful and *not* practical. It's biting off more than you can chew, so of course it has to be wonderful (easy to do when it doesn't even exist), and it's not practical since if it were, it would either exist, or if it doesn't exist yet, it would be something you'd not want to show off until it's just about finished since someone else could presumably beat you to the punch (if it's so practical, after all).
Apple is a corporation and they will make the best choice that benefits their duty as a corporation. They will only contribute to open standards when it benefits them and they will close anything and control anything when it benefits them.
Corporations are not rational entities that only do things which meet their objective goals. They are groups of humans. Sometimes they follow rules, sometimes they follow committees, sometimes they follow an individual.
In the case of Apple, they follow an individual. When a corporation follows an individual, that corporation's actions and intentions take on the characteristics provided by that leader. Steve Jobs' primary motive force isn't to make money, it's to create the best products he and his company are capable of. The fact that seeking his goals allows him and Apple to make money is what allows him to do this.
People often mischaracterize this as saying Steve Jobs is some sort of selfless saint and that Apple is a non-profit seeking organization or some other hippy bullshit. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Steve Jobs (and by extension, Apple) are doing what almost any one of us would do, which is to do the one productive thing we love most if it were capable of making us the money we need.
For the situation right now, they cannot control the web, therefore it is to their benefit to "play along" and "contribute" (or poison) the web till they can control it or have it work in their favor.
You're right that they can not, and that it's not in their benefit to try to control the web.
When they don't have control of course they will agree to a standard; the standard benefits smaller players much more than bigger players. So by agreeing to "standards" they can guarantee that they can play.
Who is a bigger player in the web than Apple? Microsoft, certainly. Google? No. Cisco? No. Sun? Linux? Mozilla? No. No. No.
Apple already is big enough to muscle the web, and in fact, they are. They are muscling it towards open standards. They are muscling it away from their control, not towards it. As are Google, for example.
But when they become the big fish, I guarantee that the standard will be theirs, come with an license agreement, and probably cost an arm and leg.
Upon what do you base this guarantee? What action has Apple taken on the web that leads you to think this is even remotely true? Apple competes not by controlling the standards, but by being the best implementation of those standards. The iPhone OS and App Store, and the locking of Mac OS X to Apple branded hardware are the only really notable exceptions to this, and these are all examples of Apple exerting control over their own products. This is what you'd expect any corporation to do, whether the most ruthlessly, cynically avarice-minded corporation on the planet, or the most generous, giving, non-profit organization on the planet. Ubuntu, for example, exerts control over their product. Mozilla exerts control over theirs. There are very few examples counter to this, and are mostly just individuals who toss their code out there and abandon it.
What's important to understand is why Apple exerts control over their own products. Some companies do this to nickel and dime you. Apple does this to help ensure their products maintain a high standard and outshine the competition. This ends up benefiting Apple greatly, because it's one of the single-most important ingredients in their success. But the thought process isn't, "exerting control means higher profits", it's "exerting control means better products means higher profits".
If you want an example of a company that would lock the web into using their own proprietary technologies if they could, it's Microsoft. I say this because they've already tried this many times in the past, and it's something that they did succeed with on the PC.
He is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard when he is the biggest pusher of closed standards on the planet.
Microsoft is. Apple is likely the largest proponent of open standards and open source, outside of primarily open source companies and organizations, on the planet.
So are the vast majority of the media he pushes in his store.
Interesting. Since all of the music on the iTunes Store is non-DRM, you mean "closed" as in "copyrighted"? Or are you just plain wrong?
While it is true that he recently recanted on music, there's still a lot of legacy music out there that is trapped in DRM and is essentially being held hostage. Sure, Apple customers can cough over a ransom but they really shouldn't have to.
I see, just plain wrong. In other words, situation normal.
Adding DRM to an open standard makes it a closed standard.
No it doesn't. The term Open Standard does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Steve's binary standards are under his thumb. That's kind of the whole point of him trying to ban any sort of intermediate programming layer. He's not content to trap customers on his devices, he also wants to make sure that programmers are too.
If you'd read his letter (I know, that's asking a lot), you'd see that he's not trying to "trap" customers or developers (it's amazing how insanely paranoid some slashdotters are). It's because, as outlined in his letter, and as pointed out to you by the non-mad among us, he wants the iPhone OS devices to provide the best user experience Apple can create. That's how Apple tries to sell their products, by actually making them better than the competition. Yeah, I know, crazy concept right?
By allowing Flash-developed apps on the iPhone, Apple couldn't just improve the iPhone OS and have those advances widely and quickly taken advantage of. Many developers would also have to wait for Adobe to support those new features, which they may never do. This negates one of the biggest competitive advantages that Apple has--their superior operating systems.
Now, you may not agree that Apple has the most superior mobile operating system (after all, it would be uncharacteristic of you to actually be right about something like this), but Apple sure thinks they do, and their actions, from the App Store, to the developer agreement, to Flash, all fit this explanation perfectly. This explanation also has the added benefit of being the simplest, most rational one.
The egomaniacal, all-controlling, all-censoring explanation suffers from at least two major flaws. First, it isn't terribly consistent. Webkit being open source and html5 being an open standard as well as the many other open source and open standards that Apple supports (many of which Apple created), all contradict this view. The other flaw is that this requires Jobs to be exceptionally villainous, beyond anything you'd find in a Bond film. A lot of the "control" people here seem to want to attribute to Jobs makes no sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs doesn't want to control what you think or do. How absurd is it that one would have to write that sentence as a legitimate rebuttal?
Programmers are a little more unwieldy in this respect.
Yeah, I'm sure vast untold hordes of developers are fleeing the App Store as we speak./sarcasm
That Apple limits the first two is an example of them placing limits on their tech, not on their users.
How can you say that with a straight face? It's a straight-out logical fallacy.
How so? They aren't doing this to limit the users, they are doing it to limit the technology.
I'm not saying that it doesn't also limit the users. But that's not why they are doing it. Further, my point has always been that these limits both bother only a small portion of users, while simultaneously helping a much larger portion of users. Some people (a minority) find the limitations too restrictive. For them, Android is a nice choice.
However, and this is something that a lot of Slashdotters miss due to many of them being so thoroughly immersed in their nerdy, techie ways, Apple is not placing these restrictions in order to restrict their users. Such a move would be utterly moronic. They're doing it to restrict the technology. Specifically, to restrict the complexity, maintenance requirements, and overall annoyance of the technology.
I didn't mean it that way. I was agreeing with you and wanted to build upon your premise.
I see that now. I guess the "don't believe me?" part tipped the scales toward "he's agreeing with me, but sounding like he's not" to me while I was reading it.
It's a good point about lots of nerds preferring the simplicity (I tend to count myself in that camp, and before Mac OS X, I ran Debian GNU/Linux exclusively). There's also a group the other way round, non-nerds who like the more bare-bones but customizable approach (who often trend toward the Windows and Blackberry crowd).
Your whole post centers around "can't be *nobody* cares, since *somebody* does, douche!" and "Flash only benefits Apple, you're full of shit".
On the first point, would it be too terribly honest of you to quote what I wrote, where I clarify that point? Specifically:
It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares. You know why that is? It's because, no one cares. By that I mean, sure, to a few it's important, but to most people, they really don't care
It's pretty clear from that that I don't mean it literally. Douche?
On the second point, Flash on mobile devices is shit. It's funny how people seem to pretend like Android has Flash. It doesn't. The actual Flash player, that is coming to Android, presently sucks. It's slow, crappy, annoying, a security flaw, and crashy. The reason Apple is not supporting it are for those reasons. Humans don't like things with those sorts of attributes. Nerds don't mind a bit of shit so long as they can choose how they want things to work.
Humans: no flash, it sucks. Nerds: flash, even though it sucks.
Before you get all semantic again, of course nerds are humans. And of course not all humans (and likewise, not all nerds) hold the views above. It's just illustrative of how the general feelings are.
And this is what I mean about taking what is actually a weakness and spinning it into a strength.
Because it's *not* a weakness. It *is* a strength.
These "weaknesses" are deliberate, not simple limitations in design or components. Apple makes these choices *not* because they want to control you (really? this is one of the most idiotic lines of reasoning perpetrated on Slashdot in recent times). It's because they want to control the technology so that it's appealing to more people.
The iPhone is brilliant because it doesn't force people to conform to technology. It does this by limiting features?
Yes! Glad you finally understand.
You make the same logical fallacy that you criticized the GP for. You don't care. You assume that nobody else cares.
It's not an assumption if it's true. And before you get technical, I've made it clear that I don't mean there aren't *some* people who care, just that most people don't. And the popularity of iPods and iPhones backs me up.
Empirically, it can be said that Apple's platform is far more restrictive for developers and users than Android (or WebOS or even Windows Mobile).
And like I said, nobody fucking cares.
All things being equal, closed/restrictive systems tend to attract fewer developers than open/permissive ones. Fewer developers means fewer applications, less innovation on the platform...
All things aren't equal, and it's irrational to assume they are.
You act like there are only two options.
1. Let Apple decide what's best.
or
2. Have a terribly complicated experience that only a techie could love.
the GP and myself would like an option 3:
make the hardware and software as capable as possible and let the users/developers determine the boundaries of its capability.
Option 3 is an illusion. It's just #2. And of course, I don't advocate "Let Apple decide what's best". QUIT WITH YOUR FUCKING STRAW MEN.
p.s. "nerd rage"? you do know you're on Slashdot right? "News for Nerds" and all.
Exactly why it's so prominent here. I'm just pointing out that the nerd rage that's so prevalent here is quite notably absent outside of nerd circles.
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything.
Apparently you've missed all the Slashdot stories and posts about the limitations placed on the iPhone and iPad. Those "limitations" are exactly this.
Even something as simple as using base 10 for filesystem information is an example of this.
They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology.
Who said it was?
Apple's brilliance is in marketing.
Marketing without substance to back it up would not be enough to bring Apple to the level of success it has now. People would just buy one iPod, then never buy another, if that were the case.
Apple's marketing works because their products are things people enjoy using.
You want to watch video on a site that doesn't do special encoding for you phone? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want to run apps in the background? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want an app for hardcore pornography? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
just three examples off the top of my head of Apple technology forcing users to conform to their technology.
You are completely backwards. Apple's technology can play flash. It can run apps in the background. It can display hardcore pornography. That Apple limits the first two is an example of them placing limits on their tech, not on their users. The purpose of those first two are due to Apple's desire to make the iPhone (and iPad and iPod Touch) things that are enjoyable to use.
The third thing is outright false. Safari and the bundled media player (as well as third party browsers and media players) will display hardcore porn to your heart's content.
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
Nerd rage hyperbole.
so this is like a car enthusiast telling everyone to not buy that car with all those restrictions because when you buy something, you should have control over what you can do with it.
Nobody fucking cares. That's my point. Do you think even 1/3 of all PC users have ever "opened the hood"? The only reason to open the hood in the first place (outside of enthusiasts) is because they have (either fix something that's gone wrong, or for maintenance).
Outside of the enthusiast crowd, every time someone has to "open the hood" on their computer, it's a failure on the part of the design or operation of the device, and not something that most people ever want to do.
Nope. Apple trying to turn back the clock to the 80s is not right for most people in the end.
You highly overestimate your similarity to "most people". Most people are served by simpler interfaces, not more complex ones. You think of this as "turning back the clock" because the things being given up along the way to a more usable device are things that are (presumably) important to you, but these things are meaningless to most people when compared to the benefit of being something they will more fully enjoy using. The counter to this is that the few people like yourself are in the opposite camp, and the things being gained do not make up for the things lost.
But above all you are in the minority. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is somethings wrong with mistaking your viewpoint with the viewpoint of others.
The nature of the walled garden needs to be repeatedly brought to light.
It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares. You know why that is? It's because, no one cares. By that I mean, sure, to a few it's important, but to most people, they really don't care, and in fact they gain far more than they lose in the bargain.
For those for whom this is important, they already know this. So, no, it doesn't need to be repeatedly brought to light. It's just a bunch of nerd rage that annoys everyone.
As a recent iphone user, I find the excitement over both the iphone and ipad unwarranted.
This is the part that should be the biggest clue to you that I'm right. The fact that there is so much excitement indicates that people really do like Apple products. That you cant see such excitement as warranted means that you don't like them, but the disparity should clue you into the fact that your opinion is in the minority, not that there's something out of whack between the excitement and the reality of the situation.
In other words, when everyone else seems to like something that you don't, it's time to consider that you're the odd one out.
Apple's "tight integration" is more of a burden than anything. This point is especially germane in a discussion about what video containers that Apple will or won't support.
Burden to a few, benefit to most.
Apple forces you and the rest of the world to adapt yourself to them.
Not quite. Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans, which benefits most people. The only ones really complaining, ironically, are those that prefer to adapt themselves to technology. It's those like you that seek to pose an imposition upon most people.
That adaption you make to conform yourself to technology feels so natural, and you find so enjoyable, that it's extremely difficult for you to understand how people can feel otherwise, unless they are either old or stupid. But the fact is that most people do feel the opposite of how you do on the matter, and it's not because they are old or stupid. They are people, and they have different interests than you do.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology, but most people overwhelmingly choose automatic transmissions because the loss in control and power is far outweighed for them by the increased ease of use, and more natural interface, of not having to deal with a third petal, keeping track of gears, and the constant focus dealing with all that implies.
Slashdot Mirror
All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now
(emphasis mine)
Emphasis mine.
In other words, the amount of reading between the lines and such required to reach your interpretation is rather excessive.
For example, what difference does it make that VP8 is going to be Open Source? And how does VP8 threaten Apple in the first place? If it becomes popular, and if it's superior to H.264, Apple will license it (and if it's fully Open Source in the way people are thinking, Apple won't even *have* to license it).
Apple's objections to Theora aren't strictly financial (outside of the uncertainty of the codec's legal status), they're practical. In terms of quality, level of adoption and hardware support (specifically as it affects battery and heat), Theora is vastly inferior to H.264. The only real advantage of Theora is that it's (presently) free and open.
This isn't about Xiph ... this is about Google.
Apple is in a very similar position as Microsoft was a while ago, and they are using the EXACT same playbook ... FUD.
Attacking Theora is an attack on Google how exactly?
And now Apple drops all pretense of being the underdog and joins the ranks of the FUD purveyors.
Underdogs can't be FUD purveyors? Somebody needs to tell Mozilla that, given their FUD about H.264.
Somehow, content providers decide this is a great idea and they all jump on the VP8 band wagon. How does this hurt Apple?
It doesn't. But it does hurt the theory that Steve Jobs is out to control eveyone's minds and only Google can stop him, and as such, he is perpetually afraid of Google and is out to destroy them at all costs.
Facts and reality need not apply.
Um, Jobs was the first music industry figure to call for DRM-free music. Charging 30 cents is required to pay the labels. Do you think the labels would be fine letting you redownload a DRM track DRM-free? On the other hand, what motivation does Apple have to charge you to do so? They make very little money on their Music Store. The purpose of the store is to add value to the iPod (and there's little doubt that this has worked very well for them).
My point? Just because Apple now sells DRM-free music doesn't mean Apple is anti-DRM.
Not a single person said they were. They are anti-DRM with regards to music, though.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
This was written before there were any truly above-board, major-label, DRM-free online music stores.
1-2 years ago, microsoft appeared only as evil as apple. precisely similar discussions were going on in /.. people were still defending ms.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Apple's "evil" at its worst is equal to MS's "evil" at its best? (not even a premise I agree with, but I'm trying to figure out your point)
1-2 years ago, MS had already established decades worth of "evil". In such a case, most defenses ring hollow given how out of character any non-"evil" interpretation is. On the other hand, Apple has no such history. Their history is one of more tightly controlled products and secrecy, which perfectly fits in with all of the current complaints against Apple, from the iPad to the App Store, and from the iPhone HD theft to the closing of Lala. The Lala one is still unfolding, so it remains to be seen if it's simply quashing a competitor, or if it's closing down one aspect in order to redirect the acquisition towards some other ends (such as a cloud variation of iTunes).
Maybe it is "evil", but given the way Apple has acted in the past, and how it fits with that past, it's rather premature to place them in the MS-style "evil" of any era.
If the Lala closure does turn out to be "evil", then that sure sucks, and sets precedent for further doubt of Apple's motives in the future. Which is the difference I'm getting at. MS has already lost all right to doubt in their favor.
my point is, at the RATE things were going it was evident that we would reach this point in regard to microsoft villainy. currently apple's rate is the same. so ...
I can't even parse this. What rates? In which directions? It's just not coherent.
As for the Daily Show clip, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, but Apple had something they consider to be highly valuable stolen. This focus on secrecy is nothing new with Apple, it's just the first time something like this theft has ever really occurred (at least, so publicly, who knows what other episodes never made it this far).
I completely fail to see how Apple's actions, whether assholish or not, are evil.
Taken out of context, sure. But the context of Microsoft and the context of Apple are quite different. MS has a long and proud history of "evil" (in terms of business practices), Apple does not.
That doesn't preclude Apple from changing, or even simply engaging in a one-off bit of "evil". But with MS (unlike Apple), there are so many examples of such behavior that it's more notable when they don't do something like that, not when they do.
What evil things are you referring to? They shut Flash out of their products, sought the return of stolen goods, and are closing down one of their acquisitions (for reasons not yet clear). You may not like what they've done, or how they are doing it, but it's hardly evil, even for hyperbolic nerd values of evil.
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
+5 Insightful, except for the little issue that Apple didn't ever do the first two E's. EEE is when Microsoft embraces a standard, then makes proprietary extensions to that standard, which tends to fracture that standard, extinguishing the actual non-MS version of that standard.
Buying and killing is something else entirely, and most likely not what Apple intends (or at least, initially intended). We'll see though. Here's to hoping this was for a cloud-based iTunes or some similar ends. Otherwise, shitty move on Apple's part.
Given Apple makes plenty of acquisitions in order to gain products, IP, and talent, and hasn't made any[*] to simply kill a competitor, it's not all that rational to jump to that conclusion just yet. Time will tell (unless you are a hater, in which case any port in a storm, right?).
[*] At least, not that I'm aware of. Anyone have any notable examples of this?
That depends on what cones of this. Apple doesn't tend to buy competitors just to crush them. They tend to buy for products, IP, and/or talent. I doubt, unless things unfold otherwise, that this is a change in that trend. Apple would have to buy quite a number of companies to quash the competition (and given their maret share, they won't even benefit much from it anyway).
The assumption has been that Apple wants to add a web or cloud aspect to iTunes. You can already see an inkling of this in the way iTunes Store links open now. And with so many iPods, iPhones and iPads with wifi and 3G, it's not difficult to see the appeal. And there can be no doubt that Apple has at the very least looked into something like this.
And if that is what Apple intends, then shutting down Lala is exactly what you'd expect before launch of a cloud iTunes, and May 31st is right before WWDC.
That doesn't mean any of that will come to fruition, but it is more in line with Apple's past actions than buying Lala just to close them. Only time will tell.
Apple hasn't sold DRMd music for a couple of years now.
No, but they still want me to pay [a total of] $100 to get non-DRM versions of the music that I already bought and own...
Music you bought and own knowing at the time of sale that it was wrapped in DRM. Apple hasn't taken away anything, thrive simply made an offer for you to download a non-DRM track if you want, for the difference in price (at the time iTunes Plus was announced, variable pricing which the studios required for all music to be DRM-free). You also get the music in 256k instead of 128k.
Anyway, point being you knew what you were doing, and apparently didn't have too much of a problem with it since you did it over 300 times.
Pure, unadulterated vaporware whose only purpose was to get some people disinterested in the iPad. And it appears to have worked.
So, my choices went from iPad vs Courier to iPad vs nothing else on the market, and this helped Microsoft in some way.
You don't seem to understand how vaporware works. If you actually had a competing product, you wouldn't need vaporware, you'd just promote the real thing you have to offer. But MS has nothing to offer.
For at least for a short amount of time, potential iPad buyers were holding off for a Courier. For this tactic to work, MS never has to actually release Courier. All they have to do is slow iPad sales.
There used to be a time when people would put off purchases, in favor of some vaporware MS product, for years, by which time the superior technology (that actually existed) would fail to gain traction and die, all without MS ever shipping anything. The market doesn't really work that way anymore, so at best it will buy them a few months. The fact that they didn't make the best use of those few months doesn't negate the potential upsides of this tactic.
And besides, Courier helped make the iPad appear less interesting and less advanced than it is, this helped play a small role in the "iPad is lame" nerdfest, which is still active and is still benefitting Microsoft. It's hard for a real product to compete with a product that is completely made up, and once you're able to convince at least some people into accepting that this wonderful imaginary product is real, it sours one's impressions of real products that can, and do, actually exist.
The awesome thing about how Slashdot moderation works is your insane theory should make it to +5 in no time.
Excuse me while I grab some popcorn, this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
It's too wonderful and too practical a concept to be gone for long.
Yeah, Microsoft finally canned it because it was so wonderful and practical...
The video that went out right around the time the iPad was announced was a concept video. It was a rendering and not an actual product or even a prototype. Pure, unadulterated vaporware whose only purpose was to get some people disinterested in the iPad. And it appears to have worked. There are numerous Slashdot posts about how, "I don't want an iPad, I'm waiting for MS's Courier." This is one of Microsoft's oldest tactics, vaporware.
The thing about vaporware is that it's vaporware for the very reason that's it's both wonderful and *not* practical. It's biting off more than you can chew, so of course it has to be wonderful (easy to do when it doesn't even exist), and it's not practical since if it were, it would either exist, or if it doesn't exist yet, it would be something you'd not want to show off until it's just about finished since someone else could presumably beat you to the punch (if it's so practical, after all).
Apple is a corporation and they will make the best choice that benefits their duty as a corporation. They will only contribute to open standards when it benefits them and they will close anything and control anything when it benefits them.
Corporations are not rational entities that only do things which meet their objective goals. They are groups of humans. Sometimes they follow rules, sometimes they follow committees, sometimes they follow an individual.
In the case of Apple, they follow an individual. When a corporation follows an individual, that corporation's actions and intentions take on the characteristics provided by that leader. Steve Jobs' primary motive force isn't to make money, it's to create the best products he and his company are capable of. The fact that seeking his goals allows him and Apple to make money is what allows him to do this.
People often mischaracterize this as saying Steve Jobs is some sort of selfless saint and that Apple is a non-profit seeking organization or some other hippy bullshit. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Steve Jobs (and by extension, Apple) are doing what almost any one of us would do, which is to do the one productive thing we love most if it were capable of making us the money we need.
For the situation right now, they cannot control the web, therefore it is to their benefit to "play along" and "contribute" (or poison) the web till they can control it or have it work in their favor.
You're right that they can not, and that it's not in their benefit to try to control the web.
When they don't have control of course they will agree to a standard; the standard benefits smaller players much more than bigger players. So by agreeing to "standards" they can guarantee that they can play.
Who is a bigger player in the web than Apple? Microsoft, certainly. Google? No. Cisco? No. Sun? Linux? Mozilla? No. No. No.
Apple already is big enough to muscle the web, and in fact, they are. They are muscling it towards open standards. They are muscling it away from their control, not towards it. As are Google, for example.
But when they become the big fish, I guarantee that the standard will be theirs, come with an license agreement, and probably cost an arm and leg.
Upon what do you base this guarantee? What action has Apple taken on the web that leads you to think this is even remotely true? Apple competes not by controlling the standards, but by being the best implementation of those standards. The iPhone OS and App Store, and the locking of Mac OS X to Apple branded hardware are the only really notable exceptions to this, and these are all examples of Apple exerting control over their own products. This is what you'd expect any corporation to do, whether the most ruthlessly, cynically avarice-minded corporation on the planet, or the most generous, giving, non-profit organization on the planet. Ubuntu, for example, exerts control over their product. Mozilla exerts control over theirs. There are very few examples counter to this, and are mostly just individuals who toss their code out there and abandon it.
What's important to understand is why Apple exerts control over their own products. Some companies do this to nickel and dime you. Apple does this to help ensure their products maintain a high standard and outshine the competition. This ends up benefiting Apple greatly, because it's one of the single-most important ingredients in their success. But the thought process isn't, "exerting control means higher profits", it's "exerting control means better products means higher profits".
If you want an example of a company that would lock the web into using their own proprietary technologies if they could, it's Microsoft. I say this because they've already tried this many times in the past, and it's something that they did succeed with on the PC.
He is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard when he is the biggest pusher of closed standards on the planet.
Microsoft is. Apple is likely the largest proponent of open standards and open source, outside of primarily open source companies and organizations, on the planet.
So are the vast majority of the media he pushes in his store.
Interesting. Since all of the music on the iTunes Store is non-DRM, you mean "closed" as in "copyrighted"? Or are you just plain wrong?
While it is true that he recently recanted on music, there's still a lot of legacy music out there
that is trapped in DRM and is essentially being held hostage. Sure, Apple customers can cough over
a ransom but they really shouldn't have to.
I see, just plain wrong. In other words, situation normal.
Adding DRM to an open standard makes it a closed standard.
No it doesn't. The term Open Standard does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Steve's binary standards are under his thumb. That's kind of the whole point of him trying to ban
any sort of intermediate programming layer. He's not content to trap customers on his devices, he
also wants to make sure that programmers are too.
If you'd read his letter (I know, that's asking a lot), you'd see that he's not trying to "trap" customers or developers (it's amazing how insanely paranoid some slashdotters are). It's because, as outlined in his letter, and as pointed out to you by the non-mad among us, he wants the iPhone OS devices to provide the best user experience Apple can create. That's how Apple tries to sell their products, by actually making them better than the competition. Yeah, I know, crazy concept right?
By allowing Flash-developed apps on the iPhone, Apple couldn't just improve the iPhone OS and have those advances widely and quickly taken advantage of. Many developers would also have to wait for Adobe to support those new features, which they may never do. This negates one of the biggest competitive advantages that Apple has--their superior operating systems.
Now, you may not agree that Apple has the most superior mobile operating system (after all, it would be uncharacteristic of you to actually be right about something like this), but Apple sure thinks they do, and their actions, from the App Store, to the developer agreement, to Flash, all fit this explanation perfectly. This explanation also has the added benefit of being the simplest, most rational one.
The egomaniacal, all-controlling, all-censoring explanation suffers from at least two major flaws. First, it isn't terribly consistent. Webkit being open source and html5 being an open standard as well as the many other open source and open standards that Apple supports (many of which Apple created), all contradict this view. The other flaw is that this requires Jobs to be exceptionally villainous, beyond anything you'd find in a Bond film. A lot of the "control" people here seem to want to attribute to Jobs makes no sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs doesn't want to control what you think or do. How absurd is it that one would have to write that sentence as a legitimate rebuttal?
Programmers are a little more unwieldy in this respect.
Yeah, I'm sure vast untold hordes of developers are fleeing the App Store as we speak. /sarcasm
That Apple limits the first two is an example of them placing limits on their tech, not on their users.
How can you say that with a straight face? It's a straight-out logical fallacy.
How so? They aren't doing this to limit the users, they are doing it to limit the technology.
I'm not saying that it doesn't also limit the users. But that's not why they are doing it. Further, my point has always been that these limits both bother only a small portion of users, while simultaneously helping a much larger portion of users. Some people (a minority) find the limitations too restrictive. For them, Android is a nice choice.
However, and this is something that a lot of Slashdotters miss due to many of them being so thoroughly immersed in their nerdy, techie ways, Apple is not placing these restrictions in order to restrict their users. Such a move would be utterly moronic. They're doing it to restrict the technology. Specifically, to restrict the complexity, maintenance requirements, and overall annoyance of the technology.
I didn't mean it that way. I was agreeing with you and wanted to build upon your premise.
I see that now. I guess the "don't believe me?" part tipped the scales toward "he's agreeing with me, but sounding like he's not" to me while I was reading it.
It's a good point about lots of nerds preferring the simplicity (I tend to count myself in that camp, and before Mac OS X, I ran Debian GNU/Linux exclusively). There's also a group the other way round, non-nerds who like the more bare-bones but customizable approach (who often trend toward the Windows and Blackberry crowd).
Your whole post centers around "can't be *nobody* cares, since *somebody* does, douche!" and "Flash only benefits Apple, you're full of shit".
On the first point, would it be too terribly honest of you to quote what I wrote, where I clarify that point? Specifically:
It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares. You know why that is? It's because, no one cares. By that I mean, sure, to a few it's important, but to most people, they really don't care
It's pretty clear from that that I don't mean it literally. Douche?
On the second point, Flash on mobile devices is shit. It's funny how people seem to pretend like Android has Flash. It doesn't. The actual Flash player, that is coming to Android, presently sucks. It's slow, crappy, annoying, a security flaw, and crashy. The reason Apple is not supporting it are for those reasons. Humans don't like things with those sorts of attributes. Nerds don't mind a bit of shit so long as they can choose how they want things to work.
Humans: no flash, it sucks.
Nerds: flash, even though it sucks.
Before you get all semantic again, of course nerds are humans. And of course not all humans (and likewise, not all nerds) hold the views above. It's just illustrative of how the general feelings are.
And this is what I mean about taking what is actually a weakness and spinning it into a strength.
Because it's *not* a weakness. It *is* a strength.
These "weaknesses" are deliberate, not simple limitations in design or components. Apple makes these choices *not* because they want to control you (really? this is one of the most idiotic lines of reasoning perpetrated on Slashdot in recent times). It's because they want to control the technology so that it's appealing to more people.
The iPhone is brilliant because it doesn't force people to conform to technology. It does this by limiting features?
Yes! Glad you finally understand.
You make the same logical fallacy that you criticized the GP for. You don't care. You assume that nobody else cares.
It's not an assumption if it's true. And before you get technical, I've made it clear that I don't mean there aren't *some* people who care, just that most people don't. And the popularity of iPods and iPhones backs me up.
Empirically, it can be said that Apple's platform is far more restrictive for developers and users than Android (or WebOS or even Windows Mobile).
And like I said, nobody fucking cares.
All things being equal, closed/restrictive systems tend to attract fewer developers than open/permissive ones. Fewer developers means fewer applications, less innovation on the platform...
All things aren't equal, and it's irrational to assume they are.
You act like there are only two options.
1. Let Apple decide what's best.
or
2. Have a terribly complicated experience that only a techie could love.
the GP and myself would like an option 3:
make the hardware and software as capable as possible and let the users/developers determine the boundaries of its capability.
Option 3 is an illusion. It's just #2. And of course, I don't advocate "Let Apple decide what's best". QUIT WITH YOUR FUCKING STRAW MEN.
p.s. "nerd rage"? you do know you're on Slashdot right? "News for Nerds" and all.
Exactly why it's so prominent here. I'm just pointing out that the nerd rage that's so prevalent here is quite notably absent outside of nerd circles.
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
Um, that's not the question he asked.
You seem to be frequently prone to using straw men to make your point. I suggest you heed Brannon's second sentence. The man speaks the truth.
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything.
Apparently you've missed all the Slashdot stories and posts about the limitations placed on the iPhone and iPad. Those "limitations" are exactly this.
Even something as simple as using base 10 for filesystem information is an example of this.
They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology.
Who said it was?
Apple's brilliance is in marketing.
Marketing without substance to back it up would not be enough to bring Apple to the level of success it has now. People would just buy one iPod, then never buy another, if that were the case.
Apple's marketing works because their products are things people enjoy using.
You want to watch video on a site that doesn't do special encoding for you phone? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want to run apps in the background? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want an app for hardcore pornography? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
just three examples off the top of my head of Apple technology forcing users to conform to their technology.
You are completely backwards. Apple's technology can play flash. It can run apps in the background. It can display hardcore pornography. That Apple limits the first two is an example of them placing limits on their tech, not on their users. The purpose of those first two are due to Apple's desire to make the iPhone (and iPad and iPod Touch) things that are enjoyable to use.
The third thing is outright false. Safari and the bundled media player (as well as third party browsers and media players) will display hardcore porn to your heart's content.
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
Nerd rage hyperbole.
so this is like a car enthusiast telling everyone to not buy that car with all those restrictions because when you buy something, you should have control over what you can do with it.
Nobody fucking cares. That's my point. Do you think even 1/3 of all PC users have ever "opened the hood"? The only reason to open the hood in the first place (outside of enthusiasts) is because they have (either fix something that's gone wrong, or for maintenance).
Outside of the enthusiast crowd, every time someone has to "open the hood" on their computer, it's a failure on the part of the design or operation of the device, and not something that most people ever want to do.
And even more so on handheld devices.
You word your post like I disagree with you.
Nope. Apple trying to turn back the clock to the 80s is not right for most people in the end.
You highly overestimate your similarity to "most people". Most people are served by simpler interfaces, not more complex ones. You think of this as "turning back the clock" because the things being given up along the way to a more usable device are things that are (presumably) important to you, but these things are meaningless to most people when compared to the benefit of being something they will more fully enjoy using. The counter to this is that the few people like yourself are in the opposite camp, and the things being gained do not make up for the things lost.
But above all you are in the minority. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is somethings wrong with mistaking your viewpoint with the viewpoint of others.
The nature of the walled garden needs to be repeatedly brought to light.
It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares. You know why that is? It's because, no one cares. By that I mean, sure, to a few it's important, but to most people, they really don't care, and in fact they gain far more than they lose in the bargain.
For those for whom this is important, they already know this. So, no, it doesn't need to be repeatedly brought to light. It's just a bunch of nerd rage that annoys everyone.
As a recent iphone user, I find the excitement over both the iphone and ipad unwarranted.
This is the part that should be the biggest clue to you that I'm right. The fact that there is so much excitement indicates that people really do like Apple products. That you cant see such excitement as warranted means that you don't like them, but the disparity should clue you into the fact that your opinion is in the minority, not that there's something out of whack between the excitement and the reality of the situation.
In other words, when everyone else seems to like something that you don't, it's time to consider that you're the odd one out.
Apple's "tight integration" is more of a burden than anything. This point is especially germane in a discussion about what video containers that Apple will or won't support.
Burden to a few, benefit to most.
Apple forces you and the rest of the world to adapt yourself to them.
Not quite. Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans, which benefits most people. The only ones really complaining, ironically, are those that prefer to adapt themselves to technology. It's those like you that seek to pose an imposition upon most people.
That adaption you make to conform yourself to technology feels so natural, and you find so enjoyable, that it's extremely difficult for you to understand how people can feel otherwise, unless they are either old or stupid. But the fact is that most people do feel the opposite of how you do on the matter, and it's not because they are old or stupid. They are people, and they have different interests than you do.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology, but most people overwhelmingly choose automatic transmissions because the loss in control and power is far outweighed for them by the increased ease of use, and more natural interface, of not having to deal with a third petal, keeping track of gears, and the constant focus dealing with all that implies.
Understanding my point requires the ability to read this thread.