Why create a virus that only hits 7% of computers when you can hit one that hits 85% of computers?
This is a tired argument. People write software for the Mac, why wouldn't they also write viruses? Why are IIS worms so much more prevalent than Apache worms? And why did the classic Mac have viruses?
All of these things make the market share argument less reasonable.
The problem is viruses are extremely hard to write, let alone distribute, for the Mac. Trojans are much easier, and it's no surprise that everything seen so far have been trojans.
The argument could be turned around against windows. Why create a virus for a system that has a strong antivirus market, when you could write one for a system where virtually no one uses antivirus software?
Besides, even if every virus writer really does do a market analysis and decides Windows is more profitable (as though all, or even most, viruses somehow create revenue!), being the first to conquer this new land and giving us Mac users our comeuppance seem like they would be strong motivators.
Nope I did not make it up, there is no need for horror stories while talking about DRM issues, thanks to real-life cases.
And this is not one of them. You don't lose your apps. Apple lets you re-download them all for free. They also provide at least two mechanisms to transfer your apps to a new computer.
On the other hand, same user has a Treo, which also carries paid -usually more expensive, mind you- software on it. In the same scenario, all the user has to do is plug in the phone and type username into a field. Which product is better?
The iPhone. It's got a better interface and has better apps.
I am not even getting into Apple's ability to kill applications remotely and other possible similar options...
You are referring to the CoreLocation blacklist which can disable CoreLocation for apps which end up being privacy concerns.
This is a bunch of DRM fear mongering. This is worse than telling the truth, which is that Apple's DRM isn't really that bad. By making the iPhone an example of why DRM is bad is going to make people think DRM is no big deal, because Apple's DRM is about as benign as it gets.
Go ahead and tell us how your horror story ends. How your wife just re-downloaded her apps for free, or how she just resynced with her old computer, then (after activating her new one with iTunes) synced with it?
Really? If you 'rebuy' them, iTunes tells you you've already bought them and asks if you want to re-download them again for free. Plus, if you sync your iPhone or iPod Touch to your new computer, it will automatically copy all of your apps to your new computer. Lastly, when you copy your iTunes folder to your new computer, your apps come along anyway.
Did what you wrote really happen? Or did you make it up to scare people about DRM?
You are describing the Ideal of Communism. I was describing the Reality.
And you are describing the 'Ideal' of capitalism, not the 'Reality'.
Capitalism and the Free Market don't really exist. They cannot. They are susceptible to abuse and manipulation.
The same is true of Linux. Linus controls what goes into the kernel. RedHat and Ubuntu (essentially the big players) control many of the standards and have strong influence over the popularity of various programs.
The install numbers of GNOME vs KDE is not based on merit or preferences of the users. It's based on a mix of merit/preference and default choices made by the big distros.
These are all flaws with the Linux 'free market'. They aren't terribly bad, but they do show the deviation from the ideal that such systems necessarily take.
It would be foolish to say Ubuntu is seriously competing for Red Hat's userbase.
It would be foolish to say they aren't in competition. They are in competition for users, for developers, and for overall mindshare.
A distro without developers dies. A distro without users loses developers. A distro without mindshare loses both users and developers.
You don't get a more classic example of the free market than open source development. It is totally darwinian, if its fit for purpose and accessible, people find it and it lives. If not, it dies and becomes extinct - except for the sourceforge search results.
In other words, all distros compete for resources, and if they fail, they die?
The problem with this whole argument is that there's no such thing as a free market, and there's no such thing as a completely communist system, nor no such thing as a system with no communism whatsoever, so every side has something they can latch onto to make their case.
Linux is communism in that it's a community effort. Linux is centrally planned in that Linus is the master of all things kernel, and distros all have a central planning body of some sort. Linux is 'free market' in that there are various distros all competing with one another. Linux is capitalism in that anyone is free to enter the marketplace and try to make money off of Linux. Linux is socialism in that everyone involved 'owns' Linux.
Just about the only things Linux isn't (at least, not very much), are things that are dictatorial. Linux isn't terribly feudal, or monarchial, or despotic. This is because there's no real way to 'force' any of those systems, and all of those systems depend on force to get to full steam.
Not at all. Apple has done this sort of thing before, and whenever public opinion has been strong enough that they made the 'evil' choice regarding privacy, they've always corrected it. This happened with the initial iTunes mini store, it happened with the initial Safari bundling with iTunes, and they bypassed it altogether with the iTunes Genius (by choosing to be conservative in the first place).
As people have noted further down, this isn't as much of a problem as it might seem. If what they are saying is true, it just downloads a black list hash, and if anything matches, it double-checks with Google. It doesn't send your browsing history to Google, only your positive matches, which I wouldn't think is terribly concerning.
However, if this is wrong and people make a big fuss, Apple will almost certainly add a, "Turn on Phishing Filter?" dialog in an update. I doubt the level of public concern will hit that level.
I'm not saying Apple 'does no evil', or that they don't make mistakes, etc., but their mistakes are usually honest mistakes, and when they've been called out on them, they usually fix them.
The only category where that notion can be in much contention is the control Apple places over their platform (OS X only on Apple hardware, iPhone apps, etc.). That control is key to the high quality user experience of Apple products, so it's not likely to change much any time soon, nor should it. But I can understand people wanting more openness, although I don't think these people realize that doing so would make Apple products much more prone to the inconsistent experiences that send Windows and Linux users to Apple in the first place.
No, the problem is complexity. Presenting a user with a prompt like this places the burden on them and requires them to make a choice that most people really don't care about.
Additionally, to make it accurate enough to explain what it's actually doing will confuse most people, and making it so prominent might scare off people who will decline it for the wrong reasons.
Apple has chosen a sane default, and those in-the-know can turn it off. This isn't tinfoil hat level of privacy, but it is average joe level of privacy, and very consistent with Apple's general policies.
Anyone who updated Safari will have had presented to them (although they may have chosen to ignore it) the fact that the new version of Safari has a phishing filter. For those who care, they know it's a setting somewhere, and can easily change it.
That's a problem. Mathematical structures ("models") are real.
Maps are real, but they are not the thing they map. Models are real, but they aren't the thing they model. A virtual machine is not the thing it virtualizes.
The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that every model of the first order logic has a physical reality.
Close. The many worlds interpretation implies that every model models an actual reality. But the model is not the reality.
Which brings us back to the original point. A virtual machine (say, of a Game Boy, or an Amiga 2000), isn't actually a Game Boy or an Amiga. The reason being that a Game Boy and an Amiga are physical devices. It's a matter of identity. An Amiga is an Amiga because it was made by Commodore. Because it has specific chips and specific pieces of plastic. A virtual Amiga is none of those, no more than a knock-off Louis Vuitton is a Louis Vuitton or a twin is his brother or a map of a city is the city.
Simple. It has to be an actual, physical machine. Not a virtual machine.
You can look at it, and using a joystick/keyboard, interact with it; you can enter it and "drive". Since you can even take it apart with virtual "tools", put it back together again, and since it obeys the laws of physics within its virtual world, how is it NOT a machine?
You can't touch it. That's what makes it virtual.
Auto manufacturers do this all the time - "create" cars virtually for crash, drag-coefficient, and general performance testing prior to making prototypes. It saves billions of dollars annually, as well as dramatically reducing time to market.
These are mathematical models, not actual cars.
Another way to look at it is that 'virtual' means 'not real'. A virtual machine is, by definition, a not really the machine it's acting like. A patent on a real thing shouldn't apply to a not real thing. For those, only virtual patents should apply, which would involve virtual lawyers and virtual licensing requirements. Which is nice, because virtual money is much easier to come by.
Sure, they don't force you to buy music from iTunes, sure, but they do control the way the user generally uses it. iPods appeal the most to the non-technical crowd, who probably don't know, for example, that the Amazon mp3 store exists. iTunes is much more a store than a music player. I'm not saying its unfair, but its not like its the most open system either. It's like MS doesn't force you to use WMP or IE, its just what's most likely going to happen for the average user.
MS engaged in practices that made it difficult to use MP3s in WMP, and made it difficult to use Netscape on the web. Apple does nothing to make it difficult to not use iTunes.
And yes, Apple tightly controls the iPod user experience. That's why it's so well liked.
Also, if Apple REALLY wanted a DRM free store, then it would be. Amazon REALLY wanted it, and they have it, and Apple has far more pull in the digital music front than Amazon does.
You can be damned sure they really want it. They're not going to give up the viability of their store to get it. The labels gave Amazon the DRM-free store first, because they are afraid of Apple's dominance in the online music market. Jobs was the first industry leader to call for an end to DRM on music. The iTunes Music Store was the first mainstream store to offer DRM-free music, at the time, Jobs stated that he wanted all the other labels on board as well, and music industry insiders are reporting Apple is currently negotiating DRM-free music from the remaining major labels.
By the way, neither mp3 or aac formats are open. Both require a patent license for manufacturers and developers. ogg is open, and Apple does not support it at all as far as I know (it was definitely incompatible with iTunes in the recent past).
They are open. They are not free. There's a difference.
Finally, Apple's philosophy is to make money. That is the be all and end all for companies. NEVER romanticize this
I never have. Apple's method for making money is to make products that provide the best user-experience around. MS's method is to get their products used as widely as possible, quality-be-damned. Canonical's and RedHat's method is to provide the most free and open system they can, and charge for support. Google's is "2. ???". It's not being romantic to see the various methods used by different companies.
I also disapprove of the abuse of the word irony.
'May contain' does not mean 'does contain'. Unless of course you were being ironic. However, in case I've some sort of quota to fill, disregard the entirety of my post up to this point and replace it with:
Pick one of the many times Apple has removed posts from forums complaining about a bug or security issue. Apple are notorious for this, and such has been commented on Slashdot numerous times.
Oh, that. When you mentioned 'silencing developers and [critical] users', it sounded more like lawsuits and C&D's. It's silly on Apple's part, but hardly 'silencing' anyone. This is, however, all in line with Apple's intense focus on controlling their image, which is part of promoting an image of quality. If you want me to call it foolish or silly or whatever, sure, it is. But I can't quite get to the point of hanging them for it since it is their forums, and they aren't going into other forums and taking down posts or suing detractors (somehow your posts slipped through the Apple legal team?).
The iPhone NDA was enforced to harshly (in my opinion, of course) to prevent developers from talking about why their applications were removed from the iPhone store.
I'm pretty sure the iPhone NDA has never been enforced, other than people self-enforcing it. Don't we know about a few apps that have been denied? Don't we know why? Haven't those developers not been sued or even been talked sternly to?
And I agree, it's over-broad. But again, it's Apple trying to control their quality. They want the NDA to keep control over the iPhone development process. They're erring on the side of over-caution because it's easier to keep things in control than to regain control later. This is also why the iPhone 'SDK' was originally just web pages. They knew they wanted to let other developers on board, but they didn't know how to go about it. If you look at the whole process from the beginning to now, and the direction it's heading, you'll see it fits this idea perfectly.
[Xerox and Creative]
Apple purchased the IP from Xerox. That's an absolute absurd example. As for Creative, the lawsuit was settled. I don't go around saying MS 'stole' their GUI from Apple. Having owned a Creative Zen, a Diamond Rio, and a Sony Network Walkman, prior to my first iPod, I can't come close to seeing any merit in such a patent to begin with. Style-wise they were all different. The basics, though, of text menu systems are pretty much the same. You can't really innovate much on the generalities, so I can't really have any sympathy on such a generic patent, just like I can't complain about MS's GUI being so much like Apple's.
This is exaggeration at best. I don't think you can say anything about iPod or iTunes is 'open', and there's a story on the front page right now regarding that very thing. The OS may well be, but nothing over the top of it seems to follow suit.
They support mp3 and aac, all without DRM. They can accept music from any source, and do nothing to lock away your media. That's what I mean by open. The devices themselves are, to varying degrees, closed. My point, however, is that you can go from an iPod to any other brand of MP3 player without any trouble, unless you bought music from the iTunes store, which is never required or implied to be required, and there's no artificial technical limitation intended to promote the iTunes Store.
I disagree. They're very, very good at it. iPod now accounts for about 70% of all MP3 players, and each one of those leverages FairPlay and iTunes and thus lock-in to the iTunes platform.
Already addressed. Apple wants to get rid of DRM from music (and have already done so with one label). It's pretty clear that Apple isn't trying to lock people into the iPod by force. They're doing it be making the iPod what people want. The average iPod only has a handful of DRMd songs on it. Apple knows this. If they stopped making the players people wanted, there's little stopping people from jumping ship. People switched from 8-track to cassette, and from cassette to CD, knowing they'd have to repurchase music. To
I'm not sure whether you're trolling me or not, but I'm going to bite anyway.
I'm replying to you. I'm not calling you names. I'm not insulting you or saying you're drinking kool-aid and positing that you might be a troll. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll.
You've picked the examples I provided that are convenient to prove your point, obviously ignoring those that might have a chance of proving you wrong.
No, I stopped at a point where I wasn't just quoting your whole post, and without making cuts. But for your points you feel so strongly about, I'll take them on. Let me know if I miss anything.
How does pushing Safari as a security update for iTunes associate Apple products with a certain level of quality?
It doesn't, and that's not what happened. It wasn't marked as a security update, and it was clearly marked (i.e., not hidden). Apple put it as a default update, and when people cried about it, they changed the default to "no". They did the same thing with the mini store. This behavior is consistent with someone guessing at a balance, guessing wrong, and making it right.
In case you missed it, I'll repeat that their initial choice was wrong.
How does silencing developers and users who try and criticise them improve their image?
Name one example. The iPhone NDA wasn't about silencing their critics. It's about Apple being overly cautious. They stated, long before they did lift the NDA, that they were going to. The reason Apple does things like that is because once something is public, it's public. It's really important to them that they get the SDK and APIs right. If it's under NDA, you don't have google searches showing wrong information. This is very much in line with Apple wanting to promote quality.
Stealing UIs from Xerox and Creative?
Neither are true.
Preventing installs of OSX on unsupported hardware?
I already covered this.
If all they're after is improving their product, there are other ways to move which would do the same thing without happening to increase potential lock-in.
Just because there's more than one way to skin a cat, that doesn't mean your way is right. Apple's way is to be extremely cautious about quality and image. Virtually every action they've taken is consistent with this idea.
I'm not saying their way is right, just that it is what it is. One thing that is missing from their way is any sort of monopolistic lock-in. If monopolistic lock-in was their tactic, they're extremely bad at it. They support open standards all throughout every product they sell, and every time they make a choice that people complain about with regards to bundling, they change the default behavior.
Some monopolist!
The kool-aid is strong with you, it seems.
A Clue: not everyone who disagrees with you drinks the kool-aid.
It's even simpler than that. Just consider the fact that MS lowered their standards for "Vista Capable" at the request of Intel. This is strong evidence that there was once a choice made as to what would be a reasonable level of capability to be called "Vista Capable", and it was lowered below that level. This whole case is that "Vista Capable" is below a reasonable level. It damn near proves itself. The only real counter-argument would be if the original standard was set too high, which given how poorly Vista runs on low-end "Vista Capable" systems, that's a pretty difficult position to defend.
2) Apple's ONLY strategy is to innovate and have the better product
Say that with a straight face. Apple repeatedly leverages what control it has to improve it's marketshare without necessarily innovating at all.
Let's see... refusing to license FairPlay to other MP3 players to push iPod/iTunes lock-in, banning applications from their distribution store that 'replicate features' in Apple-owned products, banning any other form of distribution other than their own under the pretense of 'security'
You just don't get it. Apple does these things in order to maintain their high standards. If Apple were to license their systems to others, you'd end up with a mess similar to what Microsoft finds itself in. Sure, there are a lot of quality PCs out there, but there are also a ton of shit PCs. Same with phones. There's a lot of great phone apps for other phones, and a lot of shit apps.
Apple wants their products associated with a certain level of quality, and their actions are consistent with this motive. Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't all that concerned about quality. They are more concerned about market share, and their actions are consistent with this motive.
Inconvenient for you, it's not a truth. Apple doesn't force any of their iPod owners into using their store. iPods will play any MP3 or AAC file just fine, no DRM required.
Furthermore, Apple is actively seeking to remove DRM from their store, and was the first mainstream store to call for it. If they were a monopoly, and were trying to lock their users in, would they really clamor for the ability to remove the only artificial lock in the whole system?
Apple's philosophy is to compete on quality. They use open formats just about across the board. They give their users a way to export just about everything. The only lock-in is in people actually wanting Apple's products.
Except, and this is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said one could come up with reasonable exceptions, it's part of a news story, not simply a portrait. The reader has to be able to trust the entirety of a news story.
I agree that, as a portrait, it really doesn't matter. But as a part of a news story, I'd be concerned that they think any factual alterations are OK. I know that if they draw the line at "all factual alterations", I can place a high deal of trust in their reporting. On the other hand, if their line is anywhere else, I'm going to have to always be more cautious about what I take as reporting vs what I take as fiction. Multiply this by all the different news organizations, and not always knowing where a particular story is from, and the problem is compounded.
[portraits are] about making someone look as pleasant as possible while still retaining a likeness
I fully disagree with this. Portraits are about showing a particular person's face. Whether the intent is to make them look best or worst, funniest or saddest, most ideal or most realistic, most stately or most common, etc. is up to the artist/photographer. As a consumer of news, I'd rather see people shown as they are, not as they can best (or worst, or whatever else) appear.
Most simply put, however, it's unacceptable for a news organization to present any such photoshopping unless it's clearly marked as such, and even then, there needs to be a reason, such as no other photo is available.
I don't think his conclusions are sound, though. The fact is, advertising has a real benefit and Linux advertising borders on non-existent - especially compared to Apple or MS. There are no "Ubuntu Stores", no Ubuntu counter at Best Buy... without this, Linux will not gather desktop market share approaching that of OSX or MS.
You don't think that things "just working" is more important to most people that total freedom? You think that it takes advertising to get someone to go with the platform that works best for them? Really?
Advertising would definitely help Linux, but it wouldn't be enough to get Linux market share up to the level of OS X.
Let's imagine that dollar-for-dollar, ad-for-ad, and store-for-store, Linux was marketed completely on par with OS X. Wait, let's say that Linux got double the marketing all around. Even then, I would not expect people would flock to Linux. Some would definitely try it, but few would stay with it.
You're wrong. SerpentMage's conclusions are very sound. It's not about 'freedom', it's about things working. It's about the GUI, and as far as the GUI goes, Linux is vastly inferior to OS X for a good 90+% of computer users.
If all it took was marketing, don't you think HP, or Dell, or Sony, or someone unheard of, wouldn't jump at the chance to be first to the Linux market, to be the go-to brand for your Linux PC? Why hasn't this happened yet? If not a PC maker, then why not Shuttleworth? He could do it. He could market Ubuntu directly to pretty much all computer owners, Mac or PC.
Apple went from, "they still make those?" to, "oooh, I want one, I want one!" in the minds of users over the last 8 years. Marketing helped, but if the products sucked, the marketing wouldn't have resulted in such a high level of success. If the only thing holding Linux back is marketing, the bring it on.
Note that Linux products that are advertised can be quite successful... EeePC, phones, routers, TiVo, server products, etc.
The only product listed where people are actually using Linux directly is the EeePC, and most of those ship with XP. Even pretending all Eee's run Linux, despite common delusion, they aren't doing well at all in the consumer market. They appeal primarily to geeks who are already sympathetic towards Linux.
Honestly, this "zero tolerance" stuff hardly ever seems to work out because reality is not binary.
This isn't about fooling people, or about what rational, objective line to draw between acceptable and unacceptable alteration. It's about journalistic integrity. I realize many news outlets make a mockery of the term, but that's what this policy is about. Their readers need to be able to trust their journalism. It doesn't matter if the idea of the photo is unchanged, or (as people who seem to think a background change is OK must think) that the photo now better serves its intended purpose. None of that matters if you can't trust the photo as real.
This is key. I'm not a journalist, I've never been to journalism school. But if there is one absolute ideal every journalist must follow, I imagine it would have to be along the lines of "you cannot change the facts". Contrast, white balance, sharpening, noise/dust filter, etc. None of these change the facts of the photo. They are merely part of the inherent technical steps for processing photos. These processes do not alter the facts. It's more like spell- and grammar-checking of an article.
Changing a background changes a fact. Adding smoke changes a fact. Adjusting the white balance does not change a fact. Applying a sharpness filter does not change a fact. Moving a pyramid changes a fact. Removing a blemish or changing make-up colors changes a fact.
You might reasonably argue that changing some facts are inconsequential. For example, removing a wrinkle or skin blemish, or even removing an obstacle (say, a tree branch in front of your subject). The problem here is that you've changed a fact, and the rule of "never change a fact" is broken, and to some extent, trust is broken. Once you do that, you introduce doubt into your journalism, which is the one unforgivable sin. It's better to never alter the facts, even if sometimes this means you must have a slightly less appealing photo, than it is to have a better photo, but place doubt into the minds of your readers. You have to run with the facts (photos) that you have. Not the facts (photos) you wish you had.
Sorry, but there are better ways to spend money than throwing out last year's projector because it isn't HDCP compliant. Never mind that it works perfectly fine...
Sorry, but I don't have any year's projector, so I've nothing to throw out. Why should I care about something that isn't going to bother me in any way whatsoever? It won't even affect me in the "first they came for them" sense, as by the time they "come for me" every display I have will have HDCP (in fact, that's already true--not because I want HDCP, but because it's built into everything these days).
Calling someone a 'fanboi' because they don't hate something that has absolutely zero affect on them is a bit much. It makes you sound like a freetard. Are you a freetard? You sure seem like one. Did that help my argument at all, calling you a freetard, freetard? Normally I wouldn't think so, but since you're so quick to toss around 'fanboi', I figure name-calling must be customary as a valid argument tool where you're from.
However hearing about this has changed my mind. I will not let a company dictate what my fair use rights are.
This only applies to some iTunes Store purchases. They don't do anything with your own creations, or any other non-DRMd content.
I will now be looking at a nice small laptop with an AMD CPU running Linux (probably Ubuntu).
Interesting logic. You're avoiding Apple because of their DRM, which is completely avoidable by not using their music store, by switching to a platform which doesn't even support their store? How is that any different than simply not buying anything from their music store?
Maybe you're trying to 'send them a message' or 'vote with your dollar', but again, wouldn't just not buying any of their DRMd media accomplish the same?
I'm not questioning your choice of computer. Choose whatever you want, I don't care. I'm just questioning the logic behind your choice.
Only reason those are not popping out on every corner is the still too high price of hardware and well... plain old DVDs being good enough for most people.
No. The reason they aren't popping up all over here is that stores don't sell divx discs. And they won't so long as DVD and Blu-ray are selling.
Slashdot Mirror
There never was a ~/Applications folder in OS X.
Why create a virus that only hits 7% of computers when you can hit one that hits 85% of computers?
This is a tired argument. People write software for the Mac, why wouldn't they also write viruses? Why are IIS worms so much more prevalent than Apache worms? And why did the classic Mac have viruses?
All of these things make the market share argument less reasonable.
The problem is viruses are extremely hard to write, let alone distribute, for the Mac. Trojans are much easier, and it's no surprise that everything seen so far have been trojans.
The argument could be turned around against windows. Why create a virus for a system that has a strong antivirus market, when you could write one for a system where virtually no one uses antivirus software?
Besides, even if every virus writer really does do a market analysis and decides Windows is more profitable (as though all, or even most, viruses somehow create revenue!), being the first to conquer this new land and giving us Mac users our comeuppance seem like they would be strong motivators.
Nope I did not make it up, there is no need for horror stories while talking about DRM issues, thanks to real-life cases.
And this is not one of them. You don't lose your apps. Apple lets you re-download them all for free. They also provide at least two mechanisms to transfer your apps to a new computer.
On the other hand, same user has a Treo, which also carries paid -usually more expensive, mind you- software on it. In the same scenario, all the user has to do is plug in the phone and type username into a field.
Which product is better?
The iPhone. It's got a better interface and has better apps.
I am not even getting into Apple's ability to kill applications remotely and other possible similar options...
You are referring to the CoreLocation blacklist which can disable CoreLocation for apps which end up being privacy concerns.
This is a bunch of DRM fear mongering. This is worse than telling the truth, which is that Apple's DRM isn't really that bad. By making the iPhone an example of why DRM is bad is going to make people think DRM is no big deal, because Apple's DRM is about as benign as it gets.
Go ahead and tell us how your horror story ends. How your wife just re-downloaded her apps for free, or how she just resynced with her old computer, then (after activating her new one with iTunes) synced with it?
Oh, the horror!
Really? If you 'rebuy' them, iTunes tells you you've already bought them and asks if you want to re-download them again for free. Plus, if you sync your iPhone or iPod Touch to your new computer, it will automatically copy all of your apps to your new computer. Lastly, when you copy your iTunes folder to your new computer, your apps come along anyway.
Did what you wrote really happen? Or did you make it up to scare people about DRM?
You are describing the Ideal of Communism. I was describing the Reality.
And you are describing the 'Ideal' of capitalism, not the 'Reality'.
Capitalism and the Free Market don't really exist. They cannot. They are susceptible to abuse and manipulation.
The same is true of Linux. Linus controls what goes into the kernel. RedHat and Ubuntu (essentially the big players) control many of the standards and have strong influence over the popularity of various programs.
The install numbers of GNOME vs KDE is not based on merit or preferences of the users. It's based on a mix of merit/preference and default choices made by the big distros.
These are all flaws with the Linux 'free market'. They aren't terribly bad, but they do show the deviation from the ideal that such systems necessarily take.
It would be foolish to say Ubuntu is seriously competing for Red Hat's userbase.
It would be foolish to say they aren't in competition. They are in competition for users, for developers, and for overall mindshare.
A distro without developers dies. A distro without users loses developers. A distro without mindshare loses both users and developers.
You don't get a more classic example of the free market than open source development. It is totally darwinian, if its fit for purpose and accessible, people find it and it lives. If not, it dies and becomes extinct - except for the sourceforge search results.
In other words, all distros compete for resources, and if they fail, they die?
The problem with this whole argument is that there's no such thing as a free market, and there's no such thing as a completely communist system, nor no such thing as a system with no communism whatsoever, so every side has something they can latch onto to make their case.
Linux is communism in that it's a community effort. Linux is centrally planned in that Linus is the master of all things kernel, and distros all have a central planning body of some sort. Linux is 'free market' in that there are various distros all competing with one another. Linux is capitalism in that anyone is free to enter the marketplace and try to make money off of Linux. Linux is socialism in that everyone involved 'owns' Linux.
Just about the only things Linux isn't (at least, not very much), are things that are dictatorial. Linux isn't terribly feudal, or monarchial, or despotic. This is because there's no real way to 'force' any of those systems, and all of those systems depend on force to get to full steam.
It won't cost small companies millions to fight a patent like this, and large companies will not pay millions of dollars if they don't have to.
Even if both situations may actually happen from time to time, they would only have to not happen once to completely invalidate a patent.
Not at all. Apple has done this sort of thing before, and whenever public opinion has been strong enough that they made the 'evil' choice regarding privacy, they've always corrected it. This happened with the initial iTunes mini store, it happened with the initial Safari bundling with iTunes, and they bypassed it altogether with the iTunes Genius (by choosing to be conservative in the first place).
As people have noted further down, this isn't as much of a problem as it might seem. If what they are saying is true, it just downloads a black list hash, and if anything matches, it double-checks with Google. It doesn't send your browsing history to Google, only your positive matches, which I wouldn't think is terribly concerning.
However, if this is wrong and people make a big fuss, Apple will almost certainly add a, "Turn on Phishing Filter?" dialog in an update. I doubt the level of public concern will hit that level.
I'm not saying Apple 'does no evil', or that they don't make mistakes, etc., but their mistakes are usually honest mistakes, and when they've been called out on them, they usually fix them.
The only category where that notion can be in much contention is the control Apple places over their platform (OS X only on Apple hardware, iPhone apps, etc.). That control is key to the high quality user experience of Apple products, so it's not likely to change much any time soon, nor should it. But I can understand people wanting more openness, although I don't think these people realize that doing so would make Apple products much more prone to the inconsistent experiences that send Windows and Linux users to Apple in the first place.
The problem isn't complexity or difficulty.
No, the problem is complexity. Presenting a user with a prompt like this places the burden on them and requires them to make a choice that most people really don't care about.
Additionally, to make it accurate enough to explain what it's actually doing will confuse most people, and making it so prominent might scare off people who will decline it for the wrong reasons.
Apple has chosen a sane default, and those in-the-know can turn it off. This isn't tinfoil hat level of privacy, but it is average joe level of privacy, and very consistent with Apple's general policies.
Anyone who updated Safari will have had presented to them (although they may have chosen to ignore it) the fact that the new version of Safari has a phishing filter. For those who care, they know it's a setting somewhere, and can easily change it.
That's a problem. Mathematical structures ("models") are real.
Maps are real, but they are not the thing they map. Models are real, but they aren't the thing they model. A virtual machine is not the thing it virtualizes.
The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that every model of the first order logic has a physical reality.
Close. The many worlds interpretation implies that every model models an actual reality. But the model is not the reality.
Which brings us back to the original point. A virtual machine (say, of a Game Boy, or an Amiga 2000), isn't actually a Game Boy or an Amiga. The reason being that a Game Boy and an Amiga are physical devices. It's a matter of identity. An Amiga is an Amiga because it was made by Commodore. Because it has specific chips and specific pieces of plastic. A virtual Amiga is none of those, no more than a knock-off Louis Vuitton is a Louis Vuitton or a twin is his brother or a map of a city is the city.
Simple. It has to be an actual, physical machine. Not a virtual machine.
You can look at it, and using a joystick/keyboard, interact with it; you can enter it and "drive". Since you can even take it apart with virtual "tools", put it back together again, and since it obeys the laws of physics within its virtual world, how is it NOT a machine?
You can't touch it. That's what makes it virtual.
Auto manufacturers do this all the time - "create" cars virtually for crash, drag-coefficient, and general performance testing prior to making prototypes. It saves billions of dollars annually, as well as dramatically reducing time to market.
These are mathematical models, not actual cars.
Another way to look at it is that 'virtual' means 'not real'. A virtual machine is, by definition, a not really the machine it's acting like. A patent on a real thing shouldn't apply to a not real thing. For those, only virtual patents should apply, which would involve virtual lawyers and virtual licensing requirements. Which is nice, because virtual money is much easier to come by.
Sure, they don't force you to buy music from iTunes, sure, but they do control the way the user generally uses it. iPods appeal the most to the non-technical crowd, who probably don't know, for example, that the Amazon mp3 store exists. iTunes is much more a store than a music player. I'm not saying its unfair, but its not like its the most open system either. It's like MS doesn't force you to use WMP or IE, its just what's most likely going to happen for the average user.
MS engaged in practices that made it difficult to use MP3s in WMP, and made it difficult to use Netscape on the web. Apple does nothing to make it difficult to not use iTunes.
And yes, Apple tightly controls the iPod user experience. That's why it's so well liked.
Also, if Apple REALLY wanted a DRM free store, then it would be. Amazon REALLY wanted it, and they have it, and Apple has far more pull in the digital music front than Amazon does.
You can be damned sure they really want it. They're not going to give up the viability of their store to get it. The labels gave Amazon the DRM-free store first, because they are afraid of Apple's dominance in the online music market. Jobs was the first industry leader to call for an end to DRM on music. The iTunes Music Store was the first mainstream store to offer DRM-free music, at the time, Jobs stated that he wanted all the other labels on board as well, and music industry insiders are reporting Apple is currently negotiating DRM-free music from the remaining major labels.
By the way, neither mp3 or aac formats are open. Both require a patent license for manufacturers and developers. ogg is open, and Apple does not support it at all as far as I know (it was definitely incompatible with iTunes in the recent past).
They are open. They are not free. There's a difference.
Finally, Apple's philosophy is to make money. That is the be all and end all for companies. NEVER romanticize this
I never have. Apple's method for making money is to make products that provide the best user-experience around. MS's method is to get their products used as widely as possible, quality-be-damned. Canonical's and RedHat's method is to provide the most free and open system they can, and charge for support. Google's is "2. ???". It's not being romantic to see the various methods used by different companies.
I also disapprove of the abuse of the word irony.
'May contain' does not mean 'does contain'. Unless of course you were being ironic. However, in case I've some sort of quota to fill, disregard the entirety of my post up to this point and replace it with:
I'm glad you agree.
Pick one of the many times Apple has removed posts from forums complaining about a bug or security issue. Apple are notorious for this, and such has been commented on Slashdot numerous times.
Oh, that. When you mentioned 'silencing developers and [critical] users', it sounded more like lawsuits and C&D's. It's silly on Apple's part, but hardly 'silencing' anyone. This is, however, all in line with Apple's intense focus on controlling their image, which is part of promoting an image of quality. If you want me to call it foolish or silly or whatever, sure, it is. But I can't quite get to the point of hanging them for it since it is their forums, and they aren't going into other forums and taking down posts or suing detractors (somehow your posts slipped through the Apple legal team?).
The iPhone NDA was enforced to harshly (in my opinion, of course) to prevent developers from talking about why their applications were removed from the iPhone store.
I'm pretty sure the iPhone NDA has never been enforced, other than people self-enforcing it. Don't we know about a few apps that have been denied? Don't we know why? Haven't those developers not been sued or even been talked sternly to?
And I agree, it's over-broad. But again, it's Apple trying to control their quality. They want the NDA to keep control over the iPhone development process. They're erring on the side of over-caution because it's easier to keep things in control than to regain control later. This is also why the iPhone 'SDK' was originally just web pages. They knew they wanted to let other developers on board, but they didn't know how to go about it. If you look at the whole process from the beginning to now, and the direction it's heading, you'll see it fits this idea perfectly.
[Xerox and Creative]
Apple purchased the IP from Xerox. That's an absolute absurd example. As for Creative, the lawsuit was settled. I don't go around saying MS 'stole' their GUI from Apple. Having owned a Creative Zen, a Diamond Rio, and a Sony Network Walkman, prior to my first iPod, I can't come close to seeing any merit in such a patent to begin with. Style-wise they were all different. The basics, though, of text menu systems are pretty much the same. You can't really innovate much on the generalities, so I can't really have any sympathy on such a generic patent, just like I can't complain about MS's GUI being so much like Apple's.
This is exaggeration at best. I don't think you can say anything about iPod or iTunes is 'open', and there's a story on the front page right now regarding that very thing. The OS may well be, but nothing over the top of it seems to follow suit.
They support mp3 and aac, all without DRM. They can accept music from any source, and do nothing to lock away your media. That's what I mean by open. The devices themselves are, to varying degrees, closed. My point, however, is that you can go from an iPod to any other brand of MP3 player without any trouble, unless you bought music from the iTunes store, which is never required or implied to be required, and there's no artificial technical limitation intended to promote the iTunes Store.
I disagree. They're very, very good at it. iPod now accounts for about 70% of all MP3 players, and each one of those leverages FairPlay and iTunes and thus lock-in to the iTunes platform.
Already addressed. Apple wants to get rid of DRM from music (and have already done so with one label). It's pretty clear that Apple isn't trying to lock people into the iPod by force. They're doing it be making the iPod what people want. The average iPod only has a handful of DRMd songs on it. Apple knows this. If they stopped making the players people wanted, there's little stopping people from jumping ship. People switched from 8-track to cassette, and from cassette to CD, knowing they'd have to repurchase music. To
I'm not sure whether you're trolling me or not, but I'm going to bite anyway.
I'm replying to you. I'm not calling you names. I'm not insulting you or saying you're drinking kool-aid and positing that you might be a troll. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll.
You've picked the examples I provided that are convenient to prove your point, obviously ignoring those that might have a chance of proving you wrong.
No, I stopped at a point where I wasn't just quoting your whole post, and without making cuts. But for your points you feel so strongly about, I'll take them on. Let me know if I miss anything.
How does pushing Safari as a security update for iTunes associate Apple products with a certain level of quality?
It doesn't, and that's not what happened. It wasn't marked as a security update, and it was clearly marked (i.e., not hidden). Apple put it as a default update, and when people cried about it, they changed the default to "no". They did the same thing with the mini store. This behavior is consistent with someone guessing at a balance, guessing wrong, and making it right.
In case you missed it, I'll repeat that their initial choice was wrong.
How does silencing developers and users who try and criticise them improve their image?
Name one example. The iPhone NDA wasn't about silencing their critics. It's about Apple being overly cautious. They stated, long before they did lift the NDA, that they were going to. The reason Apple does things like that is because once something is public, it's public. It's really important to them that they get the SDK and APIs right. If it's under NDA, you don't have google searches showing wrong information. This is very much in line with Apple wanting to promote quality.
Stealing UIs from Xerox and Creative?
Neither are true.
Preventing installs of OSX on unsupported hardware?
I already covered this.
If all they're after is improving their product, there are other ways to move which would do the same thing without happening to increase potential lock-in.
Just because there's more than one way to skin a cat, that doesn't mean your way is right. Apple's way is to be extremely cautious about quality and image. Virtually every action they've taken is consistent with this idea.
I'm not saying their way is right, just that it is what it is. One thing that is missing from their way is any sort of monopolistic lock-in. If monopolistic lock-in was their tactic, they're extremely bad at it. They support open standards all throughout every product they sell, and every time they make a choice that people complain about with regards to bundling, they change the default behavior.
Some monopolist!
The kool-aid is strong with you, it seems.
A Clue: not everyone who disagrees with you drinks the kool-aid.
It's even simpler than that. Just consider the fact that MS lowered their standards for "Vista Capable" at the request of Intel. This is strong evidence that there was once a choice made as to what would be a reasonable level of capability to be called "Vista Capable", and it was lowered below that level. This whole case is that "Vista Capable" is below a reasonable level. It damn near proves itself. The only real counter-argument would be if the original standard was set too high, which given how poorly Vista runs on low-end "Vista Capable" systems, that's a pretty difficult position to defend.
Fact: Prepending a statement with "Fact:" does not make it so.
Except Windows doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive.
2) Apple's ONLY strategy is to innovate and have the better product
Say that with a straight face. Apple repeatedly leverages what control it has to improve it's marketshare without necessarily innovating at all.
Let's see... refusing to license FairPlay to other MP3 players to push iPod/iTunes lock-in, banning applications from their distribution store that 'replicate features' in Apple-owned products, banning any other form of distribution other than their own under the pretense of 'security'
You just don't get it. Apple does these things in order to maintain their high standards. If Apple were to license their systems to others, you'd end up with a mess similar to what Microsoft finds itself in. Sure, there are a lot of quality PCs out there, but there are also a ton of shit PCs. Same with phones. There's a lot of great phone apps for other phones, and a lot of shit apps.
Apple wants their products associated with a certain level of quality, and their actions are consistent with this motive. Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't all that concerned about quality. They are more concerned about market share, and their actions are consistent with this motive.
Is that too inconvenient a truth?
Inconvenient for you, it's not a truth. Apple doesn't force any of their iPod owners into using their store. iPods will play any MP3 or AAC file just fine, no DRM required.
Furthermore, Apple is actively seeking to remove DRM from their store, and was the first mainstream store to call for it. If they were a monopoly, and were trying to lock their users in, would they really clamor for the ability to remove the only artificial lock in the whole system?
Apple's philosophy is to compete on quality. They use open formats just about across the board. They give their users a way to export just about everything. The only lock-in is in people actually wanting Apple's products.
Except, and this is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said one could come up with reasonable exceptions, it's part of a news story, not simply a portrait. The reader has to be able to trust the entirety of a news story.
I agree that, as a portrait, it really doesn't matter. But as a part of a news story, I'd be concerned that they think any factual alterations are OK. I know that if they draw the line at "all factual alterations", I can place a high deal of trust in their reporting. On the other hand, if their line is anywhere else, I'm going to have to always be more cautious about what I take as reporting vs what I take as fiction. Multiply this by all the different news organizations, and not always knowing where a particular story is from, and the problem is compounded.
[portraits are] about making someone look as pleasant as possible while still retaining a likeness
I fully disagree with this. Portraits are about showing a particular person's face. Whether the intent is to make them look best or worst, funniest or saddest, most ideal or most realistic, most stately or most common, etc. is up to the artist/photographer. As a consumer of news, I'd rather see people shown as they are, not as they can best (or worst, or whatever else) appear.
Most simply put, however, it's unacceptable for a news organization to present any such photoshopping unless it's clearly marked as such, and even then, there needs to be a reason, such as no other photo is available.
I don't think his conclusions are sound, though. The fact is, advertising has a real benefit and Linux advertising borders on non-existent - especially compared to Apple or MS. There are no "Ubuntu Stores", no Ubuntu counter at Best Buy... without this, Linux will not gather desktop market share approaching that of OSX or MS.
You don't think that things "just working" is more important to most people that total freedom? You think that it takes advertising to get someone to go with the platform that works best for them? Really?
Advertising would definitely help Linux, but it wouldn't be enough to get Linux market share up to the level of OS X.
Let's imagine that dollar-for-dollar, ad-for-ad, and store-for-store, Linux was marketed completely on par with OS X. Wait, let's say that Linux got double the marketing all around. Even then, I would not expect people would flock to Linux. Some would definitely try it, but few would stay with it.
You're wrong. SerpentMage's conclusions are very sound. It's not about 'freedom', it's about things working. It's about the GUI, and as far as the GUI goes, Linux is vastly inferior to OS X for a good 90+% of computer users.
If all it took was marketing, don't you think HP, or Dell, or Sony, or someone unheard of, wouldn't jump at the chance to be first to the Linux market, to be the go-to brand for your Linux PC? Why hasn't this happened yet? If not a PC maker, then why not Shuttleworth? He could do it. He could market Ubuntu directly to pretty much all computer owners, Mac or PC.
Apple went from, "they still make those?" to, "oooh, I want one, I want one!" in the minds of users over the last 8 years. Marketing helped, but if the products sucked, the marketing wouldn't have resulted in such a high level of success. If the only thing holding Linux back is marketing, the bring it on.
Note that Linux products that are advertised can be quite successful... EeePC, phones, routers, TiVo, server products, etc.
The only product listed where people are actually using Linux directly is the EeePC, and most of those ship with XP. Even pretending all Eee's run Linux, despite common delusion, they aren't doing well at all in the consumer market. They appeal primarily to geeks who are already sympathetic towards Linux.
Honestly, this "zero tolerance" stuff hardly ever seems to work out because reality is not binary.
This isn't about fooling people, or about what rational, objective line to draw between acceptable and unacceptable alteration. It's about journalistic integrity. I realize many news outlets make a mockery of the term, but that's what this policy is about. Their readers need to be able to trust their journalism. It doesn't matter if the idea of the photo is unchanged, or (as people who seem to think a background change is OK must think) that the photo now better serves its intended purpose. None of that matters if you can't trust the photo as real.
This is key. I'm not a journalist, I've never been to journalism school. But if there is one absolute ideal every journalist must follow, I imagine it would have to be along the lines of "you cannot change the facts". Contrast, white balance, sharpening, noise/dust filter, etc. None of these change the facts of the photo. They are merely part of the inherent technical steps for processing photos. These processes do not alter the facts. It's more like spell- and grammar-checking of an article.
Changing a background changes a fact. Adding smoke changes a fact. Adjusting the white balance does not change a fact. Applying a sharpness filter does not change a fact. Moving a pyramid changes a fact. Removing a blemish or changing make-up colors changes a fact.
You might reasonably argue that changing some facts are inconsequential. For example, removing a wrinkle or skin blemish, or even removing an obstacle (say, a tree branch in front of your subject). The problem here is that you've changed a fact, and the rule of "never change a fact" is broken, and to some extent, trust is broken. Once you do that, you introduce doubt into your journalism, which is the one unforgivable sin. It's better to never alter the facts, even if sometimes this means you must have a slightly less appealing photo, than it is to have a better photo, but place doubt into the minds of your readers. You have to run with the facts (photos) that you have. Not the facts (photos) you wish you had.
Sorry, but there are better ways to spend money than throwing out last year's projector because it isn't HDCP compliant. Never mind that it works perfectly fine...
Sorry, but I don't have any year's projector, so I've nothing to throw out. Why should I care about something that isn't going to bother me in any way whatsoever? It won't even affect me in the "first they came for them" sense, as by the time they "come for me" every display I have will have HDCP (in fact, that's already true--not because I want HDCP, but because it's built into everything these days).
Calling someone a 'fanboi' because they don't hate something that has absolutely zero affect on them is a bit much. It makes you sound like a freetard. Are you a freetard? You sure seem like one. Did that help my argument at all, calling you a freetard, freetard? Normally I wouldn't think so, but since you're so quick to toss around 'fanboi', I figure name-calling must be customary as a valid argument tool where you're from.
However hearing about this has changed my mind. I will not let a company dictate what my fair use rights are.
This only applies to some iTunes Store purchases. They don't do anything with your own creations, or any other non-DRMd content.
I will now be looking at a nice small laptop with an AMD CPU running Linux (probably Ubuntu).
Interesting logic. You're avoiding Apple because of their DRM, which is completely avoidable by not using their music store, by switching to a platform which doesn't even support their store? How is that any different than simply not buying anything from their music store?
Maybe you're trying to 'send them a message' or 'vote with your dollar', but again, wouldn't just not buying any of their DRMd media accomplish the same?
I'm not questioning your choice of computer. Choose whatever you want, I don't care. I'm just questioning the logic behind your choice.
Only reason those are not popping out on every corner is the still too high price of hardware and well... plain old DVDs being good enough for most people.
No. The reason they aren't popping up all over here is that stores don't sell divx discs. And they won't so long as DVD and Blu-ray are selling.