Parent was talking about iTMS. You're talking about iTunes.
Do you see the logical fallacy of talking about two different things as if you are talking on common ground?
The iPod and iTunes are integrated; iTunes was developed for the iPod, and the iPod was developed for iTunes. Further, Apple has made iTunes free in order to sell more iPods; if you like iTunes, you are likely to like the iPod.
So don't be talking about the iTMS as if it were iTunes, or iTunes as if it were the iTMS; the only connection is that if you like iTunes, you will like the iTMS, and if you like the iTMS, you will probably buy music from Apple.
Why does everyone keep saying this only on Slashdot? At least Google doesn't find anything when I do, "KHTML Apple mangle"
If I look for "KHTML Apple contributions" I at least find this, which specifically says, "We still have not finished merging in the fist batch of patches.
No this is not because of incompitance on ANYONES part, but because of the lack of time and resources. We already broke BC in KJS just to support apples changes because they where that awesome. Its just these things take time. So if you anxious, get out your text editor and lend a hand!"
Searching for "KHTML Apple patches" gets you this, which says, "pple also tends to submit their changes in large patches that incorporate a great number of changes, in some cases leaving code to do with future feature additions barely documented, making it difficult for the KDE developers to sort through and incorporate the changes. However the KDE project has managed to incorporate a number of changes that have added features and improved KHTML's rendering speed."
So Apple isn't exactly making it easy for KHTML folk, but they aren't, as you say, "useless and cannot be put back into the main project." Rather, "the KDE project has managed to incorporate a number of changes that have added features and improved KHTML's rendering speed."
Unless you are a KDE developer? I know I'm not, but I've never heard these allegations except in Slashdot.
Oh wow, you actually think a one button mouse is user unfriendly?
Can you not imagine the unwashed masses, 20 years ago, heck, even 20 days ago, having this phone conversation with their geek son/daughter?
"Okay, dad, right click My Computer" "Nothing happened." "Did you use the right mouse button?" "Oh, okay, a menu appeared." "No click on Properties" "Right or left?" "Left click."
Or
"Right click and select Rename" "Okay, the text got highlighted" "Type in the filename you want to use." "Okay." "Double click the file." "Nothing happened, though the menu popped up twice." "Use the left mouse button and double click on the file."
Now, as for Apple being innovative: Mice Windows Icons Fonts Color W YSIWYG Laser printing Networking HD MP3 players smaller than a deck of cards Online music stores that allowed you to burn to CD Wireless networking Firewire
How many of those things were normal on Macs, and adopted later by the industry?
If Microsoft bought a company that took over management and design and implementation, then the company is no longer 'Microsoft'. Apple today is not Apple of 10 years ago.
So NeXT developed OS X, but released it under the Apple brand. And certainly Cassidy and Greene developed iTunes, but released it under the Apple brand, and so on and so on.
What matters also is that the companies and products purchased are innovative.
Apple released iMovie and Garageband and iTunes after purchasing the core competencies of the companies that produced similar products (Final Cut Pro, Logic, and SoundJam).
The companies they purchased were innovative before, and remained innovative after.
Is that true of, say, Direct3d? Or did they do nothing more than 'catch up' with OpenGL for 6 years? Is that true of Microsoft's Antivirus software? Or are they 'fixing holes' that Microsoft left behind?
If Microsoft isn't given credit, it's because they aren't being innovative.
Then try this analogy: A blogger publishing your social security number, driver's license, and mother's maiden name.
How is that kind of 'leak' different than competitors finding out early about Apple's product?
The public may have a legitimate interest, but competitors have an illegitimate interest; in other circles it would be considered corporate espionage and the leaking of trade secrets IS considered a crime. A marketing plan is MORE than just a date; it is a product, and imagine how Apple would have fared if the Apple iPod or iPod mini had been leaked to the press three months early and Creative or Sony had released an iPod killer a week after Apple released an iPod?
That is the concept of 'damages' in a lawsuit. All the millions that Apple has earned by making the worlds best (arguably) mp3 player could have been lost if a leak HAD distributed the right product at the wrong time.
Hard drive mp3 players existed for a year before the iPod and they consisted of two models:
The Creative Nomad, 14oz, 5"x5"x1.5" The PJB100, 10oz, 6"x4"x1"
Apple released the iPod and made it a consumer object, rather than a geek object. Apple changed the entire market! Before Apple they were: Large (bigger than a paperback. Now all of them, LIKE the iPod, are smaller than a deck of cards) Heavy (at 10oz or more. Now all of them weigh less than 6oz) Slow (using USB 1. Now all of them, just like the iPod, use USB2 or FireWire)
They were good for cars, good for work, good for train trips, and good for airplanes, before Apple got a hold of them. After Apple they became good for walking, roller blading (yes I have rollerbladed with iPods), working out at the gym, anywhere.
It was like the difference between a desktop and a laptop, in mobility.
The same with music stores. Before the iTMS, there were NONE that let you burn to CD. NONE that let you upload to an mp3 player. NONE that let you listen on multiple computers. NONE that let you back the music up. You say, "In the works", and I say, "Quickly saw what Apple did and tried to match them."
The only other player besides Apple who has made any money off Open Source would be... IBM. Red Hat hardly makes money, GNU and Apache aren't profit centers.
Here's the initial announcement and response about Safari's use of KHTML, with positive response from developers.
This suggests developers haven't been able to keep up with Apple's changes, which makes sense; a handful of developers working full time on anything can outstrip hundreds of developers working part time over weekends and evenings.
As for gcc, the idea is to search gcc-patches and look for apple.com addresses. Searching Google shows over 6k hits, though I'm sure some of them are duplicates. Some Apple devs maintain special branches (for example, in implementing ObjC specific features) while others contribute fixes, or add Altivec/VMX specific patches.
Where do you get your info that Apple ISN'T contributing?
That's like saying, "Unfortunately you spoke, which is perfectly legal under the First Amendment."
The fact of the matter: Apple has complied with the letter (and spirit) of every license they use. Is not the point of open source, "One pot, many cooks"?
So any improvements Apple has made in X11, KHTML, BSD, or CUPS, all other users are free to enjoy as well.
When was it ever part of the open source spirit that Apple has to release their GUI, nay, their entire product, because they used open source libraries and sources?
I was oversimplifying in my first post. OS X still has font hinting and does use it in small points; you can choose to turn off antialiasing for a certain range of sizes, up to 12, and there is no hinting or antialiasing.
Apple has had a page on fonts before where they talk about subpixel antialiasing and supersampling, but I can't find it anymore. Quartz, Apple's display engine, doesn't use font hinting in favor of using a more 'true' antialiasing. Font hinting, to the best of my knowledge, has traditionally been more about grid fitting, kerning, and 'smoothing' jaggies (technically antialiasing, but a much different technique). Apple's rendering engine today is designed to target both screen and printer, and thus doesn't use hints embedded in fonts.
Subpixel antialiasing further breaks down pixels horizontally, effectively tripling the screen resolution by using the RGB values as separate screen elements.
So I understand your technical points and I apologize for being dramatic. My original point still holds I think: Linux doesn't need font hints or those patented techniques to make pretty fonts. It isn't Apple's patents holding back Freetype.
Font hinting is an old technology for small displays and small fonts.
In a world where 1024x768 is the norm, font hinting is not necessary, and trying to duplicate Apple's old font engine is stifling. Let go of old technology and use modern rendering techniques: Font antialiasing. Freetype, I think, doesn't use it yet. Why not?
Font antialiasing ignores hinting; it has a different goal entirely.
Hinting is all about making it look good while constrained by greyscale and low pixel count. Accuracy isn't the point.
Antialiasing is about making it look good and accurate, because the same engine used for the printer is used for the screen. Fractional screen values are used; the simplest method is to draw a glyph 2x bigger than the screen resolution, and then scale it down to fit.
Only when when you use SMALL fonts does OS X use hinting. At normal (and 'pretty') sizes, it uses antialiasing. I don't think FreeType uses antialiasing.
And font hinting is UGLY.
Of course the snippet in your example isn't sufficient, but it is necessary. Here, quoted for you:
he kerning trouble turned out to be related to font hinting. When you get to small point sizes, the fonts sometimes contain hinting which basically adjusts the positions of the characters in small text. At the time we were able to fix the problem by changing the hinting settings.
So it's the hinting that makes it ugly (well, it might be broken)! What hinting does is something called 'font smoothing', and what Apple does is called 'antialiasing'.
Enlighten me and tell me what Apple has done that is unlawful?
Subpoenaing TS to find out where the leak is seems lawful. Bundling free AND non-integrated software seems lawful. Selling the SAME software in a non-bundled, non-integrated, package seems lawful.
I'm sure half the examples you want to use are alleged violations: Like Apple's treatment of resellers, but truly, where has Apple been stifling competition?
Have you not seen how many small, portable, hard drive based mp3 players exist? I would argue there that by making the market profitable, Apple has encouraged competition.
Have you not seen how many music stores now exist? I would also argue that by making the market viable, Apple has encouraged competition.
Have you not seen Apple's adoption of Open Source software? I would argue that by making Open Source profitable, that Apple has injected new life into the open source movement; that Open Source need not be garage, back-room, or basement, but is viable for the desktop!
Your point about no iTunes for Linux rings true. An emblem of their off-white open-source flag. Perhaps they'll be offering less UNIX and more discounts on Intelligent Haircuts by the end of the decade.
How so? What part of Linux has Apple adopted? If anyone should complain it is BSD (because BSD begat NextStep begat OS X) or GNUStep (because NextStep begat GNUStep). Linux has no connection with Apple except precariously: That they use Apache (The Apache foundation), X11 (XFree86.org), GCC (GNU.org) Samba (Samba.org), KHTML (KDE), CUPS (CUPS.org). You can equally argue that Linux uses those tools; those tools don't make Linux!
So what that they don't offer iTunes for Linux? Download Darwin, the Darwin Streaming Server, Rendezvous, KHTML, CUPS, Samba, Apache, GCC, or X11! Is that not the spirit of open source?
You don't have to be a fan or foe to understand good business.
Apple isn't 'attacking' fan websites. Take off your bias for a minute and compare this analogy:
Three websites, say Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot, publish articles on an upcoming ATI product that no one has heard about.
ATI has subpoenas issued to Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot in order to discover the source of the leak.
Now replace ATI for Apple, and how is that different than the current Apple legal action?
You also complain about 'formally faithful resellers'. Again, think of it from a business perspective: Apple wants profit. If their resellers satisfied Apple's business needs, why would Apple waste money, effort, and resources opening up stores? Look at the business landscape and tell me that the resellers actually helped Apple; and if they did, do they help more than Apple's own stores? Before the Apple Stores existed in the US, the only place I could acquire them were department stores with broken displays, computer stores with no staffing, and resellers with no customer service. I don't doubt there do exist the odd excellent reseller, but I don't think you can deny there exist a rash of bad outlets either.
Finally you talk about open source. They give back exactly what they owe, and more. Apple doesn't use Linux, they use BSD; FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Towards that end Apple has released their OS core, Darwin, even though the BSD license doesn't require it.
Apple also uses KHTML for their web browser, and releases that back to the KDE folk.
Apple has open sourced their networking kit, Rendezvous, and their Quicktime streaming server, and a few other libraries and projects.
Yes, all of this HAS to have business benefits. If there were no benefits, it would be a waste of YOUR money; you did invest in Apple when you purchased your products. They don't exist to do favors for Linux; when has Linux done favors for Apple?
I don't believe Apple would be worse than Microsoft, given the chance. I think if they grew to Microsoft proportions, they would suffer a host of ills that currently can be seen afflicting HP, Sony, and Compaq: Lack of vision, lack of direction, lack of coordination, lack of innovation. You don't believe that, but I point to ALL the examples out there. The only company of that size that hasn't become listless (and thus surprised by Apple) is IBM.
That's bullshit. Have you paid any attention lately to OS X and it's font system?
Apple stopped using font hinting four years ago when they released OS X. All OS X does is supersampling: Draw the font bigger than it would display, and then scale down and you'll get perfectly beautiful fonts in Linux.
Linux does not do this: Has Apple also gotten patents on this technique too?
And you're going to think me an Apple apologist, but so what? If Linux really wants beautiful fonts, then they someone should design a beautiful font engine. I'm sure one exists, but I don't think it's Apple's font patents that stop it from succeeding.
They don't NEED any other evidence. They aren't trying to use the courts to punish the NDA violators.
If they have a list of, say, 100 names, then they have a much better chance of finding, internally, the leak than if they had to comb through 1,000 names or 10,000 names.
The whole point of Apple's subpoena isn't to punish TS or NdP (That may be another lawsuit entirely); it's to find out more information of who's leaking.
If you've got a tanked heater inside your home, then it isn't losing heat to the outside environment. If you've got it on a south facing side, it can absorb heat from the sun too.
So it isn't always the right solution. You can probably reduce your energy costs for your tankless if you get a tank, paint it black, place it in a solar closet, and have that feed your 'cold' water line.
If Wired isn't lying or mistaken and they did get the info at the CPR then it HAS to be that the intersection of people who eat at CPR, who work at Intel, and who work at Wired has to contain the culprits.
That's a much, much, more manageable number than, "Everyone at Intel".
Why won't this work? If TS reveals their sources, Apple can reprimand and fire, and they are happy. Isn't that exactly what they want and exactly what this suit is about?
Isn't that the case only if Wired or the CPR were the ones being held liable? If they were only being subpoenaed to gain access to enough information to fire or reprimand the inside leak, how is that a fishing expedition?
One of the products known as Asteroid has not yet been released.
Think of it this way: If the iPod or iPod mini or iPod shuffle had been leaked three months in advance of Apple's introduction, what kind of financial harm could have occurred if Creative, Sony, and Dell quickly released counters the day before the actual announcement?
No one said my success or my company's success hinged on secrets not getting out... but I think it's true of any company: If you have a new product that competitors do not, then keeping it a secret is not 'security through obscurity', so much as 'ambush'.
We don't want it to be secret forever. We only want it to be secret until we launch it.
Why does it even matter that bloggers are or aren't journalists?
If they were, are they immune from subpoenas?
I don't think they are. Yes, they could refuse to talk. They could also be held in contempt of court AND thrown in jail, being material witnesses, or at least possessing material evidence, in knowing who leaked this information to them.
Yes, it is less critical than national security and treason; but it is still law, it is still a valid issue of trust and contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent was talking about iTMS. You're talking about iTunes.
Do you see the logical fallacy of talking about two different things as if you are talking on common ground?
The iPod and iTunes are integrated; iTunes was developed for the iPod, and the iPod was developed for iTunes. Further, Apple has made iTunes free in order to sell more iPods; if you like iTunes, you are likely to like the iPod.
So don't be talking about the iTMS as if it were iTunes, or iTunes as if it were the iTMS; the only connection is that if you like iTunes, you will like the iTMS, and if you like the iTMS, you will probably buy music from Apple.
Why does everyone keep saying this only on Slashdot? At least Google doesn't find anything when I do, "KHTML Apple mangle"
If I look for "KHTML Apple contributions" I at least find this, which specifically says, "We still have not finished merging in the fist batch of patches.
No this is not because of incompitance on ANYONES part, but because of the lack of time and resources. We already broke BC in KJS just to support apples changes because they where that awesome. Its just these things take time. So if you anxious, get out your text editor and lend a hand!"
Searching for "KHTML Apple patches" gets you this, which says, "pple also tends to submit their changes in large patches that incorporate a great number of changes, in some cases leaving code to do with future feature additions barely documented, making it difficult for the KDE developers to sort through and incorporate the changes. However the KDE project has managed to incorporate a number of changes that have added features and improved KHTML's rendering speed."
So Apple isn't exactly making it easy for KHTML folk, but they aren't, as you say, "useless and cannot be put back into the main project." Rather, "the KDE project has managed to incorporate a number of changes that have added features and improved KHTML's rendering speed."
Unless you are a KDE developer? I know I'm not, but I've never heard these allegations except in Slashdot.
Oh wow, you actually think a one button mouse is user unfriendly?
W YSIWYG
Can you not imagine the unwashed masses, 20 years ago, heck, even 20 days ago, having this phone conversation with their geek son/daughter?
"Okay, dad, right click My Computer"
"Nothing happened."
"Did you use the right mouse button?"
"Oh, okay, a menu appeared."
"No click on Properties"
"Right or left?"
"Left click."
Or
"Right click and select Rename"
"Okay, the text got highlighted"
"Type in the filename you want to use."
"Okay."
"Double click the file."
"Nothing happened, though the menu popped up twice."
"Use the left mouse button and double click on the file."
Now, as for Apple being innovative:
Mice
Windows
Icons
Fonts
Color
Laser printing
Networking
HD MP3 players smaller than a deck of cards
Online music stores that allowed you to burn to CD
Wireless networking
Firewire
How many of those things were normal on Macs, and adopted later by the industry?
To each their own I guess. I prefer antialiasing to hinting on a 100dp.
BTW, I had heard that 200dpi approaches the visual resolution of paper? Why 300dpi? And why does it look so bad at 150dpi?
I don't understand your first point at all.
I've always been able to 'stream' my iTunes library from my desktop to my laptop; is it that your wife's computer doesn't have iTunes?
Because NeXT renamed themselves Apple?
If Microsoft bought a company that took over management and design and implementation, then the company is no longer 'Microsoft'. Apple today is not Apple of 10 years ago.
So NeXT developed OS X, but released it under the Apple brand. And certainly Cassidy and Greene developed iTunes, but released it under the Apple brand, and so on and so on.
What matters also is that the companies and products purchased are innovative.
Apple released iMovie and Garageband and iTunes after purchasing the core competencies of the companies that produced similar products (Final Cut Pro, Logic, and SoundJam).
The companies they purchased were innovative before, and remained innovative after.
Is that true of, say, Direct3d? Or did they do nothing more than 'catch up' with OpenGL for 6 years? Is that true of Microsoft's Antivirus software? Or are they 'fixing holes' that Microsoft left behind?
If Microsoft isn't given credit, it's because they aren't being innovative.
Then try this analogy:
A blogger publishing your social security number, driver's license, and mother's maiden name.
How is that kind of 'leak' different than competitors finding out early about Apple's product?
The public may have a legitimate interest, but competitors have an illegitimate interest; in other circles it would be considered corporate espionage and the leaking of trade secrets IS considered a crime. A marketing plan is MORE than just a date; it is a product, and imagine how Apple would have fared if the Apple iPod or iPod mini had been leaked to the press three months early and Creative or Sony had released an iPod killer a week after Apple released an iPod?
That is the concept of 'damages' in a lawsuit. All the millions that Apple has earned by making the worlds best (arguably) mp3 player could have been lost if a leak HAD distributed the right product at the wrong time.
Hard drive mp3 players existed for a year before the iPod and they consisted of two models:
The Creative Nomad, 14oz, 5"x5"x1.5"
The PJB100, 10oz, 6"x4"x1"
Apple released the iPod and made it a consumer object, rather than a geek object. Apple changed the entire market! Before Apple they were:
Large (bigger than a paperback. Now all of them, LIKE the iPod, are smaller than a deck of cards)
Heavy (at 10oz or more. Now all of them weigh less than 6oz)
Slow (using USB 1. Now all of them, just like the iPod, use USB2 or FireWire)
They were good for cars, good for work, good for train trips, and good for airplanes, before Apple got a hold of them. After Apple they became good for walking, roller blading (yes I have rollerbladed with iPods), working out at the gym, anywhere.
It was like the difference between a desktop and a laptop, in mobility.
The same with music stores. Before the iTMS, there were NONE that let you burn to CD. NONE that let you upload to an mp3 player. NONE that let you listen on multiple computers. NONE that let you back the music up. You say, "In the works", and I say, "Quickly saw what Apple did and tried to match them."
The only other player besides Apple who has made any money off Open Source would be... IBM. Red Hat hardly makes money, GNU and Apache aren't profit centers.
Here's the initial announcement and response about Safari's use of KHTML, with positive response from developers.
This suggests developers haven't been able to keep up with Apple's changes, which makes sense; a handful of developers working full time on anything can outstrip hundreds of developers working part time over weekends and evenings.
As for gcc, the idea is to search gcc-patches and look for apple.com addresses. Searching Google shows over 6k hits, though I'm sure some of them are duplicates. Some Apple devs maintain special branches (for example, in implementing ObjC specific features) while others contribute fixes, or add Altivec/VMX specific patches.
Where do you get your info that Apple ISN'T contributing?
And BSD has nothing to complain about because they got more than they wanted:
Apple releases Darwin as another BSD.
Among other contributions.
Unfortunately?
That's like saying, "Unfortunately you spoke, which is perfectly legal under the First Amendment."
The fact of the matter: Apple has complied with the letter (and spirit) of every license they use. Is not the point of open source, "One pot, many cooks"?
So any improvements Apple has made in X11, KHTML, BSD, or CUPS, all other users are free to enjoy as well.
When was it ever part of the open source spirit that Apple has to release their GUI, nay, their entire product, because they used open source libraries and sources?
I was oversimplifying in my first post. OS X still has font hinting and does use it in small points; you can choose to turn off antialiasing for a certain range of sizes, up to 12, and there is no hinting or antialiasing.
Apple has had a page on fonts before where they talk about subpixel antialiasing and supersampling, but I can't find it anymore. Quartz, Apple's display engine, doesn't use font hinting in favor of using a more 'true' antialiasing. Font hinting, to the best of my knowledge, has traditionally been more about grid fitting, kerning, and 'smoothing' jaggies (technically antialiasing, but a much different technique). Apple's rendering engine today is designed to target both screen and printer, and thus doesn't use hints embedded in fonts.
Subpixel antialiasing further breaks down pixels horizontally, effectively tripling the screen resolution by using the RGB values as separate screen elements.
So I understand your technical points and I apologize for being dramatic. My original point still holds I think: Linux doesn't need font hints or those patented techniques to make pretty fonts. It isn't Apple's patents holding back Freetype.
Okay, let me rephrase my point.
Font hinting is an old technology for small displays and small fonts.
In a world where 1024x768 is the norm, font hinting is not necessary, and trying to duplicate Apple's old font engine is stifling. Let go of old technology and use modern rendering techniques: Font antialiasing. Freetype, I think, doesn't use it yet. Why not?
Font antialiasing ignores hinting; it has a different goal entirely.
Hinting is all about making it look good while constrained by greyscale and low pixel count. Accuracy isn't the point.
Antialiasing is about making it look good and accurate, because the same engine used for the printer is used for the screen. Fractional screen values are used; the simplest method is to draw a glyph 2x bigger than the screen resolution, and then scale it down to fit.
And font hinting is UGLY.
Of course the snippet in your example isn't sufficient, but it is necessary. Here, quoted for you:
So it's the hinting that makes it ugly (well, it might be broken)! What hinting does is something called 'font smoothing', and what Apple does is called 'antialiasing'.
Here is a guy complaining about Quartz fonts.
Apple's font pages
A developer thread on smoothing vs antialiasing
Enlighten me and tell me what Apple has done that is unlawful?
Subpoenaing TS to find out where the leak is seems lawful.
Bundling free AND non-integrated software seems lawful.
Selling the SAME software in a non-bundled, non-integrated, package seems lawful.
I'm sure half the examples you want to use are alleged violations: Like Apple's treatment of resellers, but truly, where has Apple been stifling competition?
Have you not seen how many small, portable, hard drive based mp3 players exist? I would argue there that by making the market profitable, Apple has encouraged competition.
Have you not seen how many music stores now exist? I would also argue that by making the market viable, Apple has encouraged competition.
Have you not seen Apple's adoption of Open Source software? I would argue that by making Open Source profitable, that Apple has injected new life into the open source movement; that Open Source need not be garage, back-room, or basement, but is viable for the desktop!
How so? What part of Linux has Apple adopted? If anyone should complain it is BSD (because BSD begat NextStep begat OS X) or GNUStep (because NextStep begat GNUStep). Linux has no connection with Apple except precariously: That they use Apache (The Apache foundation), X11 (XFree86.org), GCC (GNU.org) Samba (Samba.org), KHTML (KDE), CUPS (CUPS.org). You can equally argue that Linux uses those tools; those tools don't make Linux!
So what that they don't offer iTunes for Linux? Download Darwin, the Darwin Streaming Server, Rendezvous, KHTML, CUPS, Samba, Apache, GCC, or X11! Is that not the spirit of open source?
You don't have to be a fan or foe to understand good business.
Apple isn't 'attacking' fan websites. Take off your bias for a minute and compare this analogy:
Three websites, say Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot, publish articles on an upcoming ATI product that no one has heard about.
ATI has subpoenas issued to Ars, Anandtech, and Slashdot in order to discover the source of the leak.
Now replace ATI for Apple, and how is that different than the current Apple legal action?
You also complain about 'formally faithful resellers'. Again, think of it from a business perspective: Apple wants profit. If their resellers satisfied Apple's business needs, why would Apple waste money, effort, and resources opening up stores? Look at the business landscape and tell me that the resellers actually helped Apple; and if they did, do they help more than Apple's own stores? Before the Apple Stores existed in the US, the only place I could acquire them were department stores with broken displays, computer stores with no staffing, and resellers with no customer service. I don't doubt there do exist the odd excellent reseller, but I don't think you can deny there exist a rash of bad outlets either.
Finally you talk about open source. They give back exactly what they owe, and more. Apple doesn't use Linux, they use BSD; FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Towards that end Apple has released their OS core, Darwin, even though the BSD license doesn't require it.
Apple also uses KHTML for their web browser, and releases that back to the KDE folk.
Apple has open sourced their networking kit, Rendezvous, and their Quicktime streaming server, and a few other libraries and projects.
Yes, all of this HAS to have business benefits. If there were no benefits, it would be a waste of YOUR money; you did invest in Apple when you purchased your products. They don't exist to do favors for Linux; when has Linux done favors for Apple?
I don't believe Apple would be worse than Microsoft, given the chance. I think if they grew to Microsoft proportions, they would suffer a host of ills that currently can be seen afflicting HP, Sony, and Compaq: Lack of vision, lack of direction, lack of coordination, lack of innovation. You don't believe that, but I point to ALL the examples out there. The only company of that size that hasn't become listless (and thus surprised by Apple) is IBM.
That's bullshit. Have you paid any attention lately to OS X and it's font system?
Apple stopped using font hinting four years ago when they released OS X. All OS X does is supersampling: Draw the font bigger than it would display, and then scale down and you'll get perfectly beautiful fonts in Linux.
Linux does not do this: Has Apple also gotten patents on this technique too?
And you're going to think me an Apple apologist, but so what? If Linux really wants beautiful fonts, then they someone should design a beautiful font engine. I'm sure one exists, but I don't think it's Apple's font patents that stop it from succeeding.
They don't NEED any other evidence. They aren't trying to use the courts to punish the NDA violators.
If they have a list of, say, 100 names, then they have a much better chance of finding, internally, the leak than if they had to comb through 1,000 names or 10,000 names.
The whole point of Apple's subpoena isn't to punish TS or NdP (That may be another lawsuit entirely); it's to find out more information of who's leaking.
Tankless heaters aren't always more efficient.
If you've got a tanked heater inside your home, then it isn't losing heat to the outside environment. If you've got it on a south facing side, it can absorb heat from the sun too.
So it isn't always the right solution. You can probably reduce your energy costs for your tankless if you get a tank, paint it black, place it in a solar closet, and have that feed your 'cold' water line.
If Wired isn't lying or mistaken and they did get the info at the CPR then it HAS to be that the intersection of people who eat at CPR, who work at Intel, and who work at Wired has to contain the culprits.
That's a much, much, more manageable number than, "Everyone at Intel".
Why won't this work? If TS reveals their sources, Apple can reprimand and fire, and they are happy. Isn't that exactly what they want and exactly what this suit is about?
Isn't that the case only if Wired or the CPR were the ones being held liable? If they were only being subpoenaed to gain access to enough information to fire or reprimand the inside leak, how is that a fishing expedition?
SCO might be termed a fishing expedition.
One of the products known as Asteroid has not yet been released.
Think of it this way: If the iPod or iPod mini or iPod shuffle had been leaked three months in advance of Apple's introduction, what kind of financial harm could have occurred if Creative, Sony, and Dell quickly released counters the day before the actual announcement?
Wow, you counted!
No one said my success or my company's success hinged on secrets not getting out... but I think it's true of any company: If you have a new product that competitors do not, then keeping it a secret is not 'security through obscurity', so much as 'ambush'.
We don't want it to be secret forever. We only want it to be secret until we launch it.
Why does it even matter that bloggers are or aren't journalists?
If they were, are they immune from subpoenas?
I don't think they are. Yes, they could refuse to talk. They could also be held in contempt of court AND thrown in jail, being material witnesses, or at least possessing material evidence, in knowing who leaked this information to them.
Yes, it is less critical than national security and treason; but it is still law, it is still a valid issue of trust and contracts.