"I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."
That's actually the best argument she can make. Any case prosecutors will have against this man will be much stronger because the library complied with the applicable law(s) when responding to a police request. What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?
Convenience my friend, simple consumer convenience. If I can walk in and purchase a new battery and replace it myself in 30 seconds, I prefer that to having to bring it and leave it at the shop.
You don't have to. You can replace it yourself in 5 minutes instead of 30 seconds, the one time you'll need to do so every 2 to 4 years or so.
Or you can just not get an iPod, I suppose, if having a battery door is really that important to you.
And as for consumer benefit, don't you think there might be benefits in terms of size, weight, and unblemished, sleek appearance from not having to have battery doors or other access mechanisms? Because - and I hate to say this, because people don't seem to believe it - it WOULD be bigger and heavier. That's because it's not just a matter of having the back come off with screws. They'd need to design the innards such that the battery was physically segregated from the rest of the inside, likely requiring some tradeoffs that would increase size and weight, however slightly. If people want to think "Apple fucked up" or that this was done to make iPods disposable, they'd be completely wrong, for one (since the batteries can be replaced in myriad ways), and it would seem they'd also not be a good decisionmaker at Apple, since the decisions on the iPod so far have led to it having 92% share for portable music players.
what happens to that fantastic apple warranty if i replace my own battery? that's the difference.
Why the hell would you do that? Frankly, I don't even know why we're talking about needing to replace the battery while the iPod is still under warranty, since I haven't heard of that many people (other than ones who actually have *defective* batteries, which is a different story) that needed to replace their battery in the first two or three years, much less one year.
But just for the sake of argument, if your battery "failed" for some reason in the first year while your iPod was under warranty, it would seem to me that if you're not a complete fool you'd, oh, I don't know, have it handled by Apple, since your iPod is still under warranty, and the battery is covered? While under warranty or AppleCare, if you have a fault with the unit, it will be replaced with a new unit (not a refurbished one). So, the answer to "what happens to my fantastic Apple warranty" is "you get a new iPod".
Now, if you're really a whiny moron and you come back with "Yes, but what if I want to replace it with the Super Duper High Capacity battery I saw online while it's still under warranty? What then?" The answer is:
- Risk it. - Wait until your warranty is up. - Don't get an iPod if you insist on being such a tool.
there are different qualities of batteries, regardless of the manufacturer.
Yes, pay $25 (PLUS shipping) to replace the battery on your (overpriced) iPod yourself -- successfully voiding your expensive warranty.
Huh?
If your iPod is under warranty, and it needs its battery replaced, it's covered by the warranty. Therefore you're not "voiding your warranty" by doing something utterly retarded like BUYING a battery when you can get the entire iPod replaced by a new (not refurbished) iPod under the manufacturer's warranty. So what the hell are you talking about? (I don't expect you'll respond.)
(To say nothing of the fact that while all lithium iPod batteries degrade, it's a hugely small minority that would actually have batteries defective to the point of needing to be replaced within one year. Most peoples' iPod batteries last longer than two and three years or more, and that's just the pure and simple fact of the matter.)
If the item is not meant to be opened like that, opening it would void your warranty (and probably statutory rights) due to tampering.
Nice try. If the unit is under warranty, the battery is covered, and your iPod will be replaced with a new (not refurbished) iPod if the original iPod was under its factory warranty or AppleCare. (And 3rd party service plans, like Best Buy, will simply replace it with an equivalent new (or newer) model.) Strike one.
If the device is intended to last 6 years, but the battery will require service before then, the manufacturer should, nay, must make the battery user serviceable unless they want to replace it for you (at no extra cost except for the parts).
No, they mustn't do anything of the sort. Batteries sometimes need to be replaced. There are numerous mechanisms to replace them in iPods, both from Apple and others, both do-it-yourself and full service. These are all only needed out-of-warranty, so there are no warranty or rights to be voided. Strike two.
It is simply NOT user serviceable on those iPods. Period. Apple charges more to replace the batteries than the batteries are worth by a long shot. If Apple were to offer a program to replace the cases with user serviceable battery cases, then that's ok. Until then, I think the grandparent has it right.
Manufacturers ALWAYS charge more for their branded battery. I dare you to find any place with a cell phone, PDA, laptop, etc., where this isn't the case, sometimes by significant margins. The case is no different with Apple. And like with any other such device that uses lithium ion batteries, it is a pure and simple fact that the iPod battery can be replaced, by you, the end user, in mere minutes for as little as $25, with batteries that are many times better and longer-lasting than the OEM battery. The "user replaceable" argument is only meaningful in the context of the warranty, which you can't void once the warranty is over. Further, if you're *that concerned* about the possibility of damage, there are numerous non-Apple vendors that will replace the battery for you, overnight. Strike three.
As I said elsewhere, this is the tradeoff for making the device have no doors, access panels, screws, and so on. Clearly the sleek, unblemished form factor is at least one of the things that made the iPod so successful that it controls 92% of the portable music player market, even at prices that rival - and indeed, sometimes exceed - those of cheap desktop computers. If there were any traditionally "user serviceable" access mechanisms, the size of the unit would be markedly increased. It's not just a matter of making the back come off with screws; they'd have to segregate the battery from other innards, adding bulk, size, and weight, and likely also requiring a different design philosophy on the inside that would add at least a couple of millimeters. On a device where the thickness is already measured in millimeters, that's a lot.
What a hassle. So my never-dropped iPod is going to be replaced with "refurbished" guts with who knows what history. Then I pay for shipping and handling. Then I have to be able to back up my music before my iPod dies so I can reload it again (assuming I CAN reload my music on the "refurbished" guts I get back). And, this program used to cost $99 for the battery, it has been reduced to "only" $59.
By comparison, I can pick up a name brand or generic battery for my cell phone anywhere I want to, and just snap it in.
So don't use Apple's replacement service, then. Get any number of third-party batteries, some of which are name brand, some of which are generic, and many of which are even better than Apple's batteries themselves. These can be gotten for as low as $25. So every couple of years you take 5 minutes to replace your battery instead of 5 seconds? So what?
Also, you make "refurbished" sound a little bit worse than it is. First of all, all of the electronics and disk/disk surface are checked over and tested. Second, everything is mounted in a brand new enclosure, so that the iPod physically looks and appears to be brand new. And lastly, that replacement iPod has a warranty of its own. Of course, no one makes you use that option, as you can replace your own battery in your own iPod yourself, or have any number of non-Apple entities do this for you in your own iPod. Again, this only happens every 2-4 years or so, depending on your usage cycle and style, so is it really that big of a deal?
That's the tradeoff for the iPod having no access mechanisms, doors, or screws, giving it the sleek appearance everyone apparently likes so much. (And even if they did screws and not doors, Apple would still have to follow regulatory guidelines for segregating the battery from the rest of the electronics and innards, which would significantly increase the units size. And even a millimeter is significant for an iPod.)
Saying that iPod batteries (or anything else about the iPod) last "one year" is complete and total bullshit. Hell, the warranty is one year. And you can extend it to two years for $59 (or get a third party service plan), and yes, all of those cover the battery.
They're lithium ion batteries just like any other lithium ion battery, so why not recommend people not buy anything else with lithium ion batteries in it in the UK? There's nothing worse about, or wrong with, the lithium ion batteries Apple uses in the iPod. They come from the likes of Sony, Sanyo, and other leading lithium ion battery manufacturers. The original iPod batteries were stock, pre-existing Sony batteries and weren't even built to Apple specifications
And before anyone says the battery is "sealed inside", so what? Let's say you buy a Nokia phone, and the Nokia-branded battery replacement is $60. Well, Apple will replace your iPod battery with the Apple-branded battery replacement (actually, by giving you a new or factory-refurbished-in-a-brand-new-enclosure iPod with its own warranty) for $60. Or, you can get a replacement battery that's even higher capacity than Apple's for $25 from any of dozens of outfits selling iPod batteries and replace it yourself in about 5-10 minutes.
For the truth, see iPod Battery FAQ. Disclaimer: iPod Battery FAQ is my site. It does have Google Adsense on it, but I don't sell anything. So if you think this is some "trick" to get people to visit it, by all means, don't click an ad. I believe I have covered the iPod battery issue extensively, and extensively disproven the crap. I challenge anyone to find anything incorrect on the site.
I currently have the issue where the machine simply turns off when the battery has reached around 30-40%, according to the operating system's battery meter.
Then, there is the issue of some batteries swelling, slightly to severely. If this is shown to be heat related, it may be also related to the issue of too much thermal paste being applied during manufacturing, thereby not allowing heat to be dissipated properly via the heatpipe and associated fans in a controlled fashion, but rather causing it to be dissipated in an uncontrolled way. Like, discharged into the interior of the case, affecting things like the battery.
The battery has definitely not suffered an "internal explosion", as the submitter speculates. This appears to occur over time to the batteries that do exhibit this issue, and it is by no means representative of the majority of MacBook Pro batteries. We've got plenty of MacBook Pros here, and we have yet to see one that exhibits this issue in a noticeable way.
These issues have not yet been acknowledged by Apple. While Apple is actually, from a statistical and reporting standpoint according to consumer organizations like Consumer Reports, the best at responding to these types of problems, it generally does not respond to or acknowledge any problems unless it already has a solution (or there is a defined safety risk that meets the muster of an immediate recall (which this is not (no, really, it's not))).
When Apple does acknowledge and address the issue, if it is indeed determined to be widespread (and anecdotal blog evidence aside, there is no reason to believe it is), Apple does make it very easy to get a replacement. See the examples for the previous PowerBook and iBook battery exchanges here. Just type in the serial number, Apple sends you a new battery. In this instance, Apple is most definitely replacing batteries that have failed or swollen; so, the end result is that affected customers still get a new battery. And, in the event that there is any larger problem that hasn't been addressed by the battery OEM, if that battery were to fail, it has its own warranty under which it will be replaced as well.
In any event, further awareness of the problem may adjust Apple's priorities in addressing the heat and battery issues on the MacBook Pro. For the record, with regard to thermal paste, Apple applies this much thermal paste on the new MacBook as well, and in the service manual, they specifically state that it is the correct, intended, and verified amount of thermal paste to be applying (even though that's a ridiculous assertion). So there's obviously more going on there, and anyone who has ever worked in a massive manufacturing operation knows how long a simple procedural change like this can take, and everything else that's involved.
As an aside, from the level of coverage all of these "issues" receive with Apple products, I can't help but wonder if some people get the impression that Apple just turns out one shoddy product after another, when the reality is that Apple is generally and consistently considered to be the best in the entire industry for quality, need for repairs, technical support, and so on, above all other manufacturers.
"CNET reports that a new browser, Maxthon is gaining wide popularity in China. 14 percent of Chinese websurfers have used it... Part of the reason, it has features that help in circumventing the Shinese government censors. CNET says it was shown at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas this year, and is slowly gaining foothold in Europe as well as the U.S."
First, women slaving away making iPods. Now, they've got trained dogs doing their network censorship. This could have an impact on Shinese-American relations.
Where will it end?
Perhaps China will start using Slashdot editors to proofread the English versions of official propaganda for spelling and grammar! That's almost like trained dogs!
Apple has not, and still does not, get the enterprise.
While Apple has been *extremely slowly* working to provide enterprise services (Apple's enterprise-specific phone support options are extremely improved, particularly the Preferred and Alliance levels), there are other areas that are still sorely lacking. Currently, we use AppleCare Enterprise Help Desk support, and have been fairly satisfied.
Apple does now offer 24x7 and 4 hour on-site service and support plans, and matches fairly well, most of the time, with our other vendors (primarily Dell, Sun, and IBM).
Where we get killed is on any kind of roadmap or planning information.
At Macworld San Francisco 2004, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which used to be the largest Mac site in the world, talked about what they learned integrating Macs in their enterprise. I've made the presentation available here. I recommend people take a look at it, as it covers other issues as well. Like many organizations, Apple suffered during the late 90s, when it wasn't clear what Apple's direction was, and when Apple's future seemed uncertain. This meant that LLNL went from having 14000 Macs in 1997 to having about half that in 2003. In the meantime, the Windows installed base increased commensurately. (I believe that since then, we've gone to being one of the largest Mac sites outside of Apple, with well over 10000 institutionally-owned Macs, and many Apple server and storage products both deployed centrally and around the campus. Someexamples.)
What is one of LLNL's top recommendations for Apple?
Develop a working balance between Apple's needed "confidentiality" and Corporate IT's need of "roadmap" information
This balance, or lack thereof, is also listed as one of their top "difficulties" when working with Apple. And I couldn't agree more.
You touched on some other issues related to software development, integration of OSS components into the OS, acknowledgment of and tracking of bugs, bug fixes being pushed out to next major releases of the operating system (e.g., 10.3.x -> 10.4), and so on. One small victory has been that Apple does now provide semi-detailed information about security updates, and does provide security updates for the previous major version of the OS.
However, the list of deficiencies is much longer. At WWDC, pretty much the only information we get is with regard to software development (and to be fair, that's all the original article actually refers to). We get virtually no information on hardware futures. We don't need to see pictures or know exactly what speed something will be. We want to know where Apple's headed. What form will the Intel servers take? We don't want to find out the DAY they ship. Will they use multiple cores? How many? Which architectures? Will they finally have redundant power supplies? How many drive bays will they have? How many expansion slots, and what kind of expansion? Will the Xserve RAID transition to SATA? Will Apple provide onboard video on the Xserve? Will there be an expansion beyond light-duty servers? How will they integrate into our existing management infrastructure? Will Mac OS X Server make provisions for virtualization of multiple instances of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? Where is Apple going with Darwin? What is the EOL schedule for Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? (Apple still makes NO INFORMATION available about official end-of-life or end-of-support for any versions of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server. We just have to guess that the previous major version of Mac OS X is what's supported.) How long will PowerPC be supported? This list goes on and on and on and on.
Yes, you can glean and infer some of this stuff unofficially from things happening in th
To reiterate, or, indeed, repeat, something I've told you before:
The source code for Windows has never been open[1]; the argument is not the same.
The source for xnu has been open, continues to be open on PowerPC, and is available in an earlier incarnation for x86 (parity with Mac OS X 10.4.0). Therefore, saying that a final decision might not have been made on current iterations of xnu on x86 is perfectly reasonable.
Further, if anything, MORE source is now released than previously: x86 sources for all non-kernel components are released with parity with Mac OS X releases for PowerPC and x86; previously, x86 sources, including the kernel, were only available with major releases, e.g., 10.x.0.
The bottom line is, while Intel xnu is closed *right now* (and I have never disputed that fact), it's also accurate, given all of the information we know and can infer[2] right now, that the decision isn't final, and indeed may only be temporary.
Further, it's disingenuous of Yager (and anyone else) to paint this as a bigger issue, given that the majority of utility many enterprise customers have gotten from "Darwin" has been from other the many other open source projects and components that continue to be open. That is an indisputable fact, not opinion. Does this mean that no one benefited from and/or used the kernel source? No, of course not. It means exactly what I said: that the MAJORITY of the utility of Darwin has come from the other projects. Not from the kernel source, nor from the ability to build Darwin as a bootable OS. This does not diminish anyone's need or desire for the x86 kernel source; it's simply stating a fact.
For the record, I completely agree that Apple should have made some specific statement. But I think it's pretty clear from what we know that they simply haven't decided yet. While I would have loved a statement, what would they have said? "We are temporarily closing xnu on Intel, and it may or may not be permanent"? "We think we might want to close xnu, but want to test the waters first"? "We are closing xnu on x86 temporarily because of some licensing issues that need to be resolved for some components of xnu on x86"? The fact is, we really don't know why xnu source on x86 is currently unavailable, as you state.
[1] Ridiculous academic source agreements aside.
[2] Since two separate development trees are being maintained for Mac OS X 10.4.x, and since we won't have any news on Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5x) until WWDC, it might do well to give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this topic at least until WWDC. Because Apple has publicly stated that Mac OS X 10.5 will be unified across PowerPC and Intel, it would stand to reason that Apple's intentions for xnu will become clear once a unified OS (Leopard) is released.
Tom isn't "speculating", it's quite honestly a fact that Apple has not released the source to Intel XNU.
To date, yes. I will 100% agree that the Intel xnu source is currently closed. However:
- Intel xnu source hasn't always been closed - PowerPC snu source is still open - The change happened with Intel-based Macs began shipping - He is speculating as to the *reason* xnu on Intel isn't currently open source - The implication in Yager's articles is that because it's closed now, it must/might be closed permanently
Excuse me, but when was "OS X" ever open? And since when does one component on one architecture being closed constitute everything being closed, especially when all non-kernel sources that have been traditionally released to date continue to be released.
The first sentence is:
Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system.
Again, huh? First, Mac OS X has always been a proprietary operating system. Nothing has changed. Second, all of the Darwin sources are still released on both architectures. With ONE, admittedly large, exception: the kernel (xnu) on x86.
The problem is exactly as Apple framed it in Yager's followup article:
- Yager presented this inaccurately and sensationalistically, making it seem to a broader audience as if "OS X" itself was previously "open", and is not "closed" - Yager does not discuss the nuance of what the kernel being closed means from a practical standpoint - Yager incorrectly asserts this somehow matters more now because Intel-based servers will be coming, because people who buy servers and equipment for enterprise will somehow have needs to use the kernel source, but Apple has been selling into this marketplace for over 4 years, and the fact that the server platform will be on Intel changes none of that - Yager generally makes it seem like this "matters" to ordinary users in a broader audience
In any case, get your story straight. Either this "doesn't matter", because "nobody needs source code anyway", or "Apple has hit a problem releasing the source code but will do shortly, but cannot dare say such a thing in public because, erm, yeah, RDF! RDF! Our refusal to release source needs no justification, it "just works". Insert hypnotoad here".
There's no logical inconsistency in anything I've said, either here, or previously. Of course it matters. It matters to me. It matters to the people who actually want or need the source, which is an extremely small subset of Mac OS X users. (And no, users who don't even know what a kernel is don't receive a substantive benefit from others outside of Apple being able to see the kernel source.)
I'm tired of hearing pretty much every excuse from the insulting to the flat-out false. Maybe they will release XNU for Intel in the near future. Hey, guess what, MAYBE MICROSOFT WILL RELEASE THE SOURCE TO WINDOWS IN THE FUTURE TOO! Yeah, that's it! We can all start describing MICROSOFT as a FUCKING OPEN SOURCE COMPANY because they MIGHT release the source code under the GPL in a few hours!!!
Wrong.
The source code for Windows has never been open; the argument is not the same.
The source for xnu has been open, continues to be open on PowerPC, and is available in an earlier incarnation for x86 (parity with Mac OS X 10.4.0). Therefore, saying that a final decision might not have been made on current iterations of xnu on x86 is perfectly reasonable.
Further, if anything, MORE source is now released than previously: x86 sources for all non-kernel components are released with parity with Mac OS X releases for PowerPC and x86; previo
To sum up Apple's objections, they felt I had given a year-old story a fresh coat of paint and sensationalized it for an audience that wasn't affected by it.
Just to be clear, Tom Yager was *speculating* about why we have -- so far -- not released the source code of the kernel for Intel-based Macintoshes. We continue to release *all* the Darwin sources for our PowerPC systems, and so far has released all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel.
Nothing has been announced, so he (and everyone else) certainly has the right to speculate. But please don't confuse "speculation" with "fact."
Thanks, -- Ernie P.
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. (408) 974-3075 Product Manager, Open Source & Open Standards; Mac OS X Product Marketing Apple Computer; 303-4SW 3 Infinite Loop; Cupertino, CA 95014
and a response to a private message I sent:
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:08:45 -0700 From: Ernest Prabhakar To: Dave Schroeder Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Apple [may not open] OS X Kernel for Intel
Hi Dave,
On May 21, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
When *will* something regarding a xnu source release on x86 be announced?
I know you probably can't answer this, so it's somewhat of a rhetorical question, but seriously: the lack of release of source for xnu on x86 represents a significant change in strategy to some customers with no corresponding announcement or roadmap. When will concerned customers be informed as to what is happening?
Generally speaking, when a final, irreversible decision has been made, we will find _some_ way to let affected customers know about it.
If nothing else, the very fact I am telling you to *not* assume that something is true, means *I* don't believe it is true.:-)
-- Ernie P.
Seriously, might there be kind of a, you know, huge developer conference coming up in a month and a half or so here where some of these questions might be answered? Especially since Tom Yager's speculation is just that - speculation - and extremely old news at that? Is it any wonder that both of Yager's articles are under "Opinion" headlines?
How is using such images in a now- (and long-)defunct ad campaign staking the company's entire image on progressive politics?
Is the idea that if Apple has EVER used any such ideas, that it's entire image is permanently tied to progressive politics, and therefore can't honestly do anything counter to what, e.g., Ghandi and Chavez stood for? Is Apple currently capitalizing in imagery of Ghandi and Chavez?
I think my point is that Apple's alleged "image" isn't much different than anyone else's.
I have a lot of faith in Apple, but I'll find it very hard to purchase future products if these allegations are true, and the company that Jobs built is unwilling to take steps to ensure good living conditions for their employees.
Whose products will you purchase, then, exactly? This is exactly the type of reaction I talked about here.
That Apple uses subcontractors in China to manufacture its hardware, like countless other manufacturers the world over do, and that the prevailing labor conditions in those subcontractors' facilities is not unlike it is, and has been for ages, elsewhere in China?
- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries? (Yes, yes, we can all say that "consumers" have the power to force companies to take up the banner. After all, you can't make China change, so why not go after Apple?)
- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living? (Yes, I'm aware that the article makes reference to food and rent consuming "half" their salary.) If the pay is "dismal" even by China's standards, as one of the articles asserts, then why is anyone even working there?
- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative. (Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me. And if it's Chinese police or governmental entities that don't let workers leave and/or don't let them have visitors, well...)
- Who cares if there are more female than male workers? What possible bearing does this have on the situation? (I'm trying to figure out exactly why this was mentioned, because it's clearly intended to imply something, though I'm not quite sure what.)
- How, precisely and specifically, has Apple "staked its image" on "progressive politics"? (And wouldn't more effective change come from the US being able to have a global position such that it can exert pressure on the Chinese government and other human rights abusers, rather than trying to mobilize consumers to target US companies?)
I guess it always pays to go after the market leaders. And I'm saying that in all seriousness: I'm sure people saw targeting Nike as the most effective way to fight sweatshops at large, just as some might say, "Free Tibet, and you free the world." I will say that it's rather unfair that, in campaigns like these, it's often that one target, however, that bears a hugely disproportionate burden of vilification, blame, and bad press. I can't blame them though; the iPod is certainly an easy and high profile target.
I'm fairly certain that this will be read by a number of people who think that corporations and corporate behavior are inherently "evil", and that the larger a company or business interest is, the more "evil" it is and indeed must be by definition, which is an awfully one-sided and half-blind way to look at corporations.
I'd expect and hope, from a supposedly intelligent group of readers, that the majority of the comments here will be examining China's labor laws and China's human rights record, and mechanisms via which those might be changed and how responsible governments of the world can affect that change, rather than thinking about ways that corporations that legally do business in China may be further targeted.
SIRA's main aim is clearing the way for online music services by revising the current mechanical compulsory license set out in Section 115 of the Copyright Act to accommodate "full downloads, limited downloads, and interactive streams." So far so good, but the devil is in the details. This license specifically includes and treats as license-able "incidental reproductions...including cached, network, and RAM buffer reproductions."
By smuggling this language into the Copyright Act, the copyright industries are stacking the deck for future fights against other digital technologies that depend on making incidental copies. Just think of all the incidental copies that litter your computer today -- do you have a license for every copy in your browser's cache?
But, the "Blanket Licensing" section of says:
First, by simply filing one license application--or in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses, a limited number of applications--a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally, we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright owners and licensees.
Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently, there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues, the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies involve additional intermediate copies or not.
So it would seem that SIRA is trying to do the exact opposite from what is being alleged in various "calls to action" regardingm SIRA.
Regards,
Dave Schroeder University of Wisconsin - Madison
----
There's a reason we've "never heard of" this bill: it's not trying to do any of the evil things the submitter or TFA say it is. Yes, it may suck in other ways and probably does, like pretty much any proposed law will in some respect or another. But it's not trying to enforce separate licenses for cached, buffered, and incidental copies of digital works; it's trying to eliminate all of the ridiculousness with regard to that and allow one license to cover all of the incidental copies that might pop up in digital distribution. It sure would be nice if people actually read it.
a large part of your post appears to be demanding that I supply a solution if I'm going to point out a problem. I'm not.
Fair enough. I'm one of those people who expects a solution, or at least suggestions for one, as alternatives to whatever it is they have problems with. I'm not saying it's mandatory for someone to provide a solution when they point out a problem, but often the most helpful, informative, and productive discussion comes from someone suggesting alternative courses of action, and then having to defend them. Especially having to defend them as better than the status quo.;-)
Do you agree with XP OEM licenses that preclude installing that copy on a different machine?
Let's just say that I generically agree that an OEM might structure its pricing differently for an OEM OS, and structure it with the expectation that that license not be used with any other computer other than the one it's sold with, and that further, their pricing across the board may be based on such assumptions, and that if there are legal frameworks in certain jurisdictions that allow for things like intellectual property protections and license agreements in some form or another, I certainly wouldn't hold it against the company to use whatever legal frameworks that have been provided.
(and I should have said prohibit reasonable use, not fair use).
Yes, but reasonable (or even fair) to whom?;-)
What if Apple were to say "Well, if everyone was going to use our OS the way you propose, we're going to increase the price of all of our CPUs by X dollars, and increase the price of the standalone OS X by X dollars?" One might argue that, regardless, Apple wouldn't be hurting, or that ultimately, it would be better for that to happen.
In any event, I appreciate what appear to be your honest answers to my questions.
you can most certainly breach an XP license for installing it on a PC it was not sold with.
(Yes, I realize this is off topic.)
Sorry, I wasn't talking about OEM bundled licenses; I was really just saying that it's possible to get legal (e.g., retail) copies of XP and install them on any machine you wish, legally, and within the scope of the license agreement. That is not so with Mac OS X (Intel).
The doctrine of "fair use" does not come into play here. I'm not necessarily saying who is right or wrong, whether copyright has or hasn't been abused, etc.
The community that supports OS X on generic hardware does so by hacking it to run in an unsupported and unpredictable state, which, even though it can be argued that the people who are using it "know what they're getting into", is not the best or even a reliable way to run Mac OS X. Also, it most certainly does encourage the piracy of Mac OS X: how many people using the OS X hacks have legitimately "moved" a Mac OS X (Intel) license from an Intel-based Mac where that same license has been abandoned and is no longer in service? I'd wager VERY few. EXTREMELY few, if any. Almost all people using Mac OS X in this state have pirated it, period.
Further, home/individual users who make their own moral judgments aside, corporate/institutional users will most certainly not breach the license agreements of software; are corporate/institutional taking non-transferrable OEM XP licenses from abandoned/decommissioned machines and moving them to other machines? Hell no. Just as they won't with Mac OS X. I am curious why you would even respect this notion of "1:1" for OS to hardware, since the only thing that principle is held in is the license agreement, while ignoring other aspects of the license agreement (e.g., that it can't be used on other hardware, or used on non-Apple hardware)?
Further, how, exactly, would anyone get their hands on these alleged licenses? Since it won't be corporate/institutional users doing it, are you proposing some type of "license trading post"? How exactly would these copies be tracked? Physical media? Why even tie the notion of the usability of the software to the media, or whatever principle you're tying it to? Why respect the 1:1 ratio? Why not be able to run OS X wherever and whenever you want? If you're willing to break some aspects of the license agreement, why not all? Or is this just your own moral compass, saying "yes, I'll buy one copy of the software, but if I choose to use it against its license agreement in other ways, I will, and I also think it's within the 'spirit' to 'take' copies of Mac OS X that may have been associated with Intel-based Macs that are now no longer in use and use them elsewhere"?
I guess that would jibe with an attitude that many seem to have that they'll only do what THEY feel is right, and disregard any laws/guidelines/rules that society may set forth.
Oh - lastly, I agree that if you want to run OS X on a portable that a macbook of any description is (by far) the best choice, but I'm not sure that its the only legal choice (if I can move my copy of XP to a different PC, I feel the same way about OS X).
Well, if you're not in the US (and it's even questionable in the US), it might be "legal", strictly speaking.
But it's DEFINITELY against Apple's license agreement for the OS, and requires modifying Mac OS X in such a way as to render it un-updateable by Apple's standard update procedures, it's running in a totally unsupported state, and it uses a modified kernel and many other core OS components. Is that really the way you want to run Mac OS X?
Also, should Apple have even a small amount of say in how a proprietary product is used that it has invested billions of dollars in R&D and tens of thousands of manhours in development, design, QA, and marketing? Do you not think part of Apple's pricing structure and selling point for Mac OS X is that it would be used in a predictable, supported environment, with great integration and attention to detail, thereby creating satisfied customers who would be interested in continuing to patronize Apple? Just asking...does Apple have ANY rights in this regard? Does a concept of respect for the work and wishes of others in general apply?
Also, while I would agree that you are certainly welcome to do what you wish with Mac OS X under your own roof, if you use/encourage/contribute/etc. the resources of a community dedicated to hacking Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, you are supporting a community that is essentially encourage piracy and/or illegal use (in some jurisdictions) of Mac OS X.
Further, you can move XP to or use XP on a Mac or any other computer because it is not prohibited by any law or license agreement. I know some people don't consider license agreements valid, and believe they're just another tool of corporations to keep the little guy under their thumbs, and don't believe in any copyrights or intellectual property protections for the same reasons. But the only thing even causing one to purchase a software product in the first place, or not use it simultaneously on multiple computers, is the license agreement, or at least its spirit. If one thinks a license agreement is invalid on its face, they might as well pirate all their software and never pay a dime for anything that isn't physically tangible.
On this topic - and yes, I'm aware of the various issues with the MacBook Pro (whine, thermal issues, etc, etc, etc.) that don't rise to anything better or worse than any other vendor issues with first-run products - what's wrong with the MacBook Pro? Is there something you don't like about it, or deficient about its features? Is there something bad about it being the only portable able to run Mac OS X and Windows legally, and also run pretty much any x86 OS in virtualization alongside Mac OS X (assuming a person liked and/or wanted Mac OS X)? Do you dislike its industrial design? Featureset? Specifications? If your only jabs at it are going to be related to whine/thermal grease/etc., consider that, statistically, at least by organizations like Consumer Reports' measures, Apple is better than all other vendors in initial quality, need for repairs, product support, and so on. Yes, this varies a bit, but if you'll rip Apple on that, I'd be interested in alternatives that would be better in that and other respects than a MacBook Pro, again assuming that being able to run Mac OS X is desirable for someone. (And, another qualifier: yes, Mac OS X has a lot of faults, but it's a damned good polished desktop UNIX, wouldn't you agree?)
No need to joke or troll me; actually seeking an honest reply again, as you were kind enough to give me before.
From the original article: "The winner will get a fancy laptop. We haven't picked the exact one yet, but it's going to be a good one- we're not cutting corners. You'll be able to choose from a MacBook Pro or else a bleeding edge Alienware laptop. We'll pick the specs when we pick a winner so you get whatever is supremely awesome, but valued up to US $4500. We'll also be offering a $250 runner up prize."
Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac, and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini.
Based on these and other benchmarks it would appear that Merom ("Core 2 Duo", the next generation portable processor, Conroe (the next generation desktop/workstation processor), and Woodcrest (the next generation workstation/server processor) will have quite a bit to offer.
Slashdot Mirror
"I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."
That's actually the best argument she can make. Any case prosecutors will have against this man will be much stronger because the library complied with the applicable law(s) when responding to a police request. What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?
Convenience my friend, simple consumer convenience. If I can walk in and purchase a new battery and replace it myself in 30 seconds, I prefer that to having to bring it and leave it at the shop.
You don't have to. You can replace it yourself in 5 minutes instead of 30 seconds, the one time you'll need to do so every 2 to 4 years or so.
Or you can just not get an iPod, I suppose, if having a battery door is really that important to you.
And as for consumer benefit, don't you think there might be benefits in terms of size, weight, and unblemished, sleek appearance from not having to have battery doors or other access mechanisms? Because - and I hate to say this, because people don't seem to believe it - it WOULD be bigger and heavier. That's because it's not just a matter of having the back come off with screws. They'd need to design the innards such that the battery was physically segregated from the rest of the inside, likely requiring some tradeoffs that would increase size and weight, however slightly. If people want to think "Apple fucked up" or that this was done to make iPods disposable, they'd be completely wrong, for one (since the batteries can be replaced in myriad ways), and it would seem they'd also not be a good decisionmaker at Apple, since the decisions on the iPod so far have led to it having 92% share for portable music players.
what happens to that fantastic apple warranty if i replace my own battery? that's the difference.
Why the hell would you do that? Frankly, I don't even know why we're talking about needing to replace the battery while the iPod is still under warranty, since I haven't heard of that many people (other than ones who actually have *defective* batteries, which is a different story) that needed to replace their battery in the first two or three years, much less one year.
But just for the sake of argument, if your battery "failed" for some reason in the first year while your iPod was under warranty, it would seem to me that if you're not a complete fool you'd, oh, I don't know, have it handled by Apple, since your iPod is still under warranty, and the battery is covered? While under warranty or AppleCare, if you have a fault with the unit, it will be replaced with a new unit (not a refurbished one). So, the answer to "what happens to my fantastic Apple warranty" is "you get a new iPod".
Now, if you're really a whiny moron and you come back with "Yes, but what if I want to replace it with the Super Duper High Capacity battery I saw online while it's still under warranty? What then?" The answer is:
- Risk it.
- Wait until your warranty is up.
- Don't get an iPod if you insist on being such a tool.
there are different qualities of batteries, regardless of the manufacturer.
Yes, and Apple uses some of the best out there.
and the warranty is free, right?
Yes. (???)
Yes, pay $25 (PLUS shipping) to replace the battery on your (overpriced) iPod yourself -- successfully voiding your expensive warranty.
Huh?
If your iPod is under warranty, and it needs its battery replaced, it's covered by the warranty. Therefore you're not "voiding your warranty" by doing something utterly retarded like BUYING a battery when you can get the entire iPod replaced by a new (not refurbished) iPod under the manufacturer's warranty. So what the hell are you talking about? (I don't expect you'll respond.)
(To say nothing of the fact that while all lithium iPod batteries degrade, it's a hugely small minority that would actually have batteries defective to the point of needing to be replaced within one year. Most peoples' iPod batteries last longer than two and three years or more, and that's just the pure and simple fact of the matter.)
If the item is not meant to be opened like that, opening it would void your warranty (and probably statutory rights) due to tampering.
Nice try. If the unit is under warranty, the battery is covered, and your iPod will be replaced with a new (not refurbished) iPod if the original iPod was under its factory warranty or AppleCare. (And 3rd party service plans, like Best Buy, will simply replace it with an equivalent new (or newer) model.) Strike one.
If the device is intended to last 6 years, but the battery will require service before then, the manufacturer should, nay, must make the battery user serviceable unless they want to replace it for you (at no extra cost except for the parts).
No, they mustn't do anything of the sort. Batteries sometimes need to be replaced. There are numerous mechanisms to replace them in iPods, both from Apple and others, both do-it-yourself and full service. These are all only needed out-of-warranty, so there are no warranty or rights to be voided. Strike two.
It is simply NOT user serviceable on those iPods. Period. Apple charges more to replace the batteries than the batteries are worth by a long shot. If Apple were to offer a program to replace the cases with user serviceable battery cases, then that's ok. Until then, I think the grandparent has it right.
Manufacturers ALWAYS charge more for their branded battery. I dare you to find any place with a cell phone, PDA, laptop, etc., where this isn't the case, sometimes by significant margins. The case is no different with Apple. And like with any other such device that uses lithium ion batteries, it is a pure and simple fact that the iPod battery can be replaced, by you, the end user, in mere minutes for as little as $25, with batteries that are many times better and longer-lasting than the OEM battery. The "user replaceable" argument is only meaningful in the context of the warranty, which you can't void once the warranty is over. Further, if you're *that concerned* about the possibility of damage, there are numerous non-Apple vendors that will replace the battery for you, overnight. Strike three.
As I said elsewhere, this is the tradeoff for making the device have no doors, access panels, screws, and so on. Clearly the sleek, unblemished form factor is at least one of the things that made the iPod so successful that it controls 92% of the portable music player market, even at prices that rival - and indeed, sometimes exceed - those of cheap desktop computers. If there were any traditionally "user serviceable" access mechanisms, the size of the unit would be markedly increased. It's not just a matter of making the back come off with screws; they'd have to segregate the battery from other innards, adding bulk, size, and weight, and likely also requiring a different design philosophy on the inside that would add at least a couple of millimeters. On a device where the thickness is already measured in millimeters, that's a lot.
What a hassle. So my never-dropped iPod is going to be replaced with "refurbished" guts with who knows what history. Then I pay for shipping and handling. Then I have to be able to back up my music before my iPod dies so I can reload it again (assuming I CAN reload my music on the "refurbished" guts I get back). And, this program used to cost $99 for the battery, it has been reduced to "only" $59.
By comparison, I can pick up a name brand or generic battery for my cell phone anywhere I want to, and just snap it in.
So don't use Apple's replacement service, then. Get any number of third-party batteries, some of which are name brand, some of which are generic, and many of which are even better than Apple's batteries themselves. These can be gotten for as low as $25. So every couple of years you take 5 minutes to replace your battery instead of 5 seconds? So what?
Also, you make "refurbished" sound a little bit worse than it is. First of all, all of the electronics and disk/disk surface are checked over and tested. Second, everything is mounted in a brand new enclosure, so that the iPod physically looks and appears to be brand new. And lastly, that replacement iPod has a warranty of its own. Of course, no one makes you use that option, as you can replace your own battery in your own iPod yourself, or have any number of non-Apple entities do this for you in your own iPod. Again, this only happens every 2-4 years or so, depending on your usage cycle and style, so is it really that big of a deal?
That's the tradeoff for the iPod having no access mechanisms, doors, or screws, giving it the sleek appearance everyone apparently likes so much. (And even if they did screws and not doors, Apple would still have to follow regulatory guidelines for segregating the battery from the rest of the electronics and innards, which would significantly increase the units size. And even a millimeter is significant for an iPod.)
Saying that iPod batteries (or anything else about the iPod) last "one year" is complete and total bullshit. Hell, the warranty is one year. And you can extend it to two years for $59 (or get a third party service plan), and yes, all of those cover the battery.
They're lithium ion batteries just like any other lithium ion battery, so why not recommend people not buy anything else with lithium ion batteries in it in the UK? There's nothing worse about, or wrong with, the lithium ion batteries Apple uses in the iPod. They come from the likes of Sony, Sanyo, and other leading lithium ion battery manufacturers. The original iPod batteries were stock, pre-existing Sony batteries and weren't even built to Apple specifications
And before anyone says the battery is "sealed inside", so what? Let's say you buy a Nokia phone, and the Nokia-branded battery replacement is $60. Well, Apple will replace your iPod battery with the Apple-branded battery replacement (actually, by giving you a new or factory-refurbished-in-a-brand-new-enclosure iPod with its own warranty) for $60. Or, you can get a replacement battery that's even higher capacity than Apple's for $25 from any of dozens of outfits selling iPod batteries and replace it yourself in about 5-10 minutes.
For the truth, see iPod Battery FAQ. Disclaimer: iPod Battery FAQ is my site. It does have Google Adsense on it, but I don't sell anything. So if you think this is some "trick" to get people to visit it, by all means, don't click an ad. I believe I have covered the iPod battery issue extensively, and extensively disproven the crap. I challenge anyone to find anything incorrect on the site.
I currently have the issue where the machine simply turns off when the battery has reached around 30-40%, according to the operating system's battery meter.
Then, there is the issue of some batteries swelling, slightly to severely. If this is shown to be heat related, it may be also related to the issue of too much thermal paste being applied during manufacturing, thereby not allowing heat to be dissipated properly via the heatpipe and associated fans in a controlled fashion, but rather causing it to be dissipated in an uncontrolled way. Like, discharged into the interior of the case, affecting things like the battery.
The battery has definitely not suffered an "internal explosion", as the submitter speculates. This appears to occur over time to the batteries that do exhibit this issue, and it is by no means representative of the majority of MacBook Pro batteries. We've got plenty of MacBook Pros here, and we have yet to see one that exhibits this issue in a noticeable way.
These issues have not yet been acknowledged by Apple. While Apple is actually, from a statistical and reporting standpoint according to consumer organizations like Consumer Reports, the best at responding to these types of problems, it generally does not respond to or acknowledge any problems unless it already has a solution (or there is a defined safety risk that meets the muster of an immediate recall (which this is not (no, really, it's not))).
When Apple does acknowledge and address the issue, if it is indeed determined to be widespread (and anecdotal blog evidence aside, there is no reason to believe it is), Apple does make it very easy to get a replacement. See the examples for the previous PowerBook and iBook battery exchanges here. Just type in the serial number, Apple sends you a new battery. In this instance, Apple is most definitely replacing batteries that have failed or swollen; so, the end result is that affected customers still get a new battery. And, in the event that there is any larger problem that hasn't been addressed by the battery OEM, if that battery were to fail, it has its own warranty under which it will be replaced as well.
In any event, further awareness of the problem may adjust Apple's priorities in addressing the heat and battery issues on the MacBook Pro. For the record, with regard to thermal paste, Apple applies this much thermal paste on the new MacBook as well, and in the service manual, they specifically state that it is the correct, intended, and verified amount of thermal paste to be applying (even though that's a ridiculous assertion). So there's obviously more going on there, and anyone who has ever worked in a massive manufacturing operation knows how long a simple procedural change like this can take, and everything else that's involved.
As an aside, from the level of coverage all of these "issues" receive with Apple products, I can't help but wonder if some people get the impression that Apple just turns out one shoddy product after another, when the reality is that Apple is generally and consistently considered to be the best in the entire industry for quality, need for repairs, technical support, and so on, above all other manufacturers.
"CNET reports that a new browser, Maxthon is gaining wide popularity in China. 14 percent of Chinese websurfers have used it ... Part of the reason, it has features that help in circumventing the Shinese government censors. CNET says it was shown at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas this year, and is slowly gaining foothold in Europe as well as the U.S."
First, women slaving away making iPods. Now, they've got trained dogs doing their network censorship. This could have an impact on Shinese-American relations.
Where will it end?
Perhaps China will start using Slashdot editors to proofread the English versions of official propaganda for spelling and grammar! That's almost like trained dogs!
Apple has not, and still does not, get the enterprise.
While Apple has been *extremely slowly* working to provide enterprise services (Apple's enterprise-specific phone support options are extremely improved, particularly the Preferred and Alliance levels), there are other areas that are still sorely lacking. Currently, we use AppleCare Enterprise Help Desk support, and have been fairly satisfied.
Apple does now offer 24x7 and 4 hour on-site service and support plans, and matches fairly well, most of the time, with our other vendors (primarily Dell, Sun, and IBM).
Where we get killed is on any kind of roadmap or planning information.
At Macworld San Francisco 2004, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which used to be the largest Mac site in the world, talked about what they learned integrating Macs in their enterprise. I've made the presentation available here. I recommend people take a look at it, as it covers other issues as well. Like many organizations, Apple suffered during the late 90s, when it wasn't clear what Apple's direction was, and when Apple's future seemed uncertain. This meant that LLNL went from having 14000 Macs in 1997 to having about half that in 2003. In the meantime, the Windows installed base increased commensurately. (I believe that since then, we've gone to being one of the largest Mac sites outside of Apple, with well over 10000 institutionally-owned Macs, and many Apple server and storage products both deployed centrally and around the campus. Some examples.)
What is one of LLNL's top recommendations for Apple?
Develop a working balance between Apple's needed "confidentiality" and Corporate IT's need of "roadmap" information
This balance, or lack thereof, is also listed as one of their top "difficulties" when working with Apple. And I couldn't agree more.
You touched on some other issues related to software development, integration of OSS components into the OS, acknowledgment of and tracking of bugs, bug fixes being pushed out to next major releases of the operating system (e.g., 10.3.x -> 10.4), and so on. One small victory has been that Apple does now provide semi-detailed information about security updates, and does provide security updates for the previous major version of the OS.
However, the list of deficiencies is much longer. At WWDC, pretty much the only information we get is with regard to software development (and to be fair, that's all the original article actually refers to). We get virtually no information on hardware futures. We don't need to see pictures or know exactly what speed something will be. We want to know where Apple's headed. What form will the Intel servers take? We don't want to find out the DAY they ship. Will they use multiple cores? How many? Which architectures? Will they finally have redundant power supplies? How many drive bays will they have? How many expansion slots, and what kind of expansion? Will the Xserve RAID transition to SATA? Will Apple provide onboard video on the Xserve? Will there be an expansion beyond light-duty servers? How will they integrate into our existing management infrastructure? Will Mac OS X Server make provisions for virtualization of multiple instances of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? Where is Apple going with Darwin? What is the EOL schedule for Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? (Apple still makes NO INFORMATION available about official end-of-life or end-of-support for any versions of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server. We just have to guess that the previous major version of Mac OS X is what's supported.) How long will PowerPC be supported? This list goes on and on and on and on.
Yes, you can glean and infer some of this stuff unofficially from things happening in th
To reiterate, or, indeed, repeat, something I've told you before:
The source code for Windows has never been open[1]; the argument is not the same.
The source for xnu has been open, continues to be open on PowerPC, and is available in an earlier incarnation for x86 (parity with Mac OS X 10.4.0). Therefore, saying that a final decision might not have been made on current iterations of xnu on x86 is perfectly reasonable.
Further, if anything, MORE source is now released than previously: x86 sources for all non-kernel components are released with parity with Mac OS X releases for PowerPC and x86; previously, x86 sources, including the kernel, were only available with major releases, e.g., 10.x.0.
The bottom line is, while Intel xnu is closed *right now* (and I have never disputed that fact), it's also accurate, given all of the information we know and can infer[2] right now, that the decision isn't final, and indeed may only be temporary.
Further, it's disingenuous of Yager (and anyone else) to paint this as a bigger issue, given that the majority of utility many enterprise customers have gotten from "Darwin" has been from other the many other open source projects and components that continue to be open. That is an indisputable fact, not opinion. Does this mean that no one benefited from and/or used the kernel source? No, of course not. It means exactly what I said: that the MAJORITY of the utility of Darwin has come from the other projects. Not from the kernel source, nor from the ability to build Darwin as a bootable OS. This does not diminish anyone's need or desire for the x86 kernel source; it's simply stating a fact.
For the record, I completely agree that Apple should have made some specific statement. But I think it's pretty clear from what we know that they simply haven't decided yet. While I would have loved a statement, what would they have said? "We are temporarily closing xnu on Intel, and it may or may not be permanent"? "We think we might want to close xnu, but want to test the waters first"? "We are closing xnu on x86 temporarily because of some licensing issues that need to be resolved for some components of xnu on x86"? The fact is, we really don't know why xnu source on x86 is currently unavailable, as you state.
[1] Ridiculous academic source agreements aside.
[2] Since two separate development trees are being maintained for Mac OS X 10.4.x, and since we won't have any news on Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5x) until WWDC, it might do well to give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this topic at least until WWDC. Because Apple has publicly stated that Mac OS X 10.5 will be unified across PowerPC and Intel, it would stand to reason that Apple's intentions for xnu will become clear once a unified OS (Leopard) is released.
Tom isn't "speculating", it's quite honestly a fact that Apple has not released the source to Intel XNU.
To date, yes. I will 100% agree that the Intel xnu source is currently closed. However:
- Intel xnu source hasn't always been closed
- PowerPC snu source is still open
- The change happened with Intel-based Macs began shipping
- He is speculating as to the *reason* xnu on Intel isn't currently open source
- The implication in Yager's articles is that because it's closed now, it must/might be closed permanently
Also, in Yager's first article, he uses the title:
Apple closes down OS X
Excuse me, but when was "OS X" ever open? And since when does one component on one architecture being closed constitute everything being closed, especially when all non-kernel sources that have been traditionally released to date continue to be released.
The first sentence is:
Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system.
Again, huh? First, Mac OS X has always been a proprietary operating system. Nothing has changed. Second, all of the Darwin sources are still released on both architectures. With ONE, admittedly large, exception: the kernel (xnu) on x86.
The problem is exactly as Apple framed it in Yager's followup article:
- Yager presented this inaccurately and sensationalistically, making it seem to a broader audience as if "OS X" itself was previously "open", and is not "closed"
- Yager does not discuss the nuance of what the kernel being closed means from a practical standpoint
- Yager incorrectly asserts this somehow matters more now because Intel-based servers will be coming, because people who buy servers and equipment for enterprise will somehow have needs to use the kernel source, but Apple has been selling into this marketplace for over 4 years, and the fact that the server platform will be on Intel changes none of that
- Yager generally makes it seem like this "matters" to ordinary users in a broader audience
In any case, get your story straight. Either this "doesn't matter", because "nobody needs source code anyway", or "Apple has hit a problem releasing the source code but will do shortly, but cannot dare say such a thing in public because, erm, yeah, RDF! RDF! Our refusal to release source needs no justification, it "just works". Insert hypnotoad here".
There's no logical inconsistency in anything I've said, either here, or previously. Of course it matters. It matters to me. It matters to the people who actually want or need the source, which is an extremely small subset of Mac OS X users. (And no, users who don't even know what a kernel is don't receive a substantive benefit from others outside of Apple being able to see the kernel source.)
I'm tired of hearing pretty much every excuse from the insulting to the flat-out false. Maybe they will release XNU for Intel in the near future. Hey, guess what, MAYBE MICROSOFT WILL RELEASE THE SOURCE TO WINDOWS IN THE FUTURE TOO! Yeah, that's it! We can all start describing MICROSOFT as a FUCKING OPEN SOURCE COMPANY because they MIGHT release the source code under the GPL in a few hours!!!
Wrong.
The source code for Windows has never been open; the argument is not the same.
The source for xnu has been open, continues to be open on PowerPC, and is available in an earlier incarnation for x86 (parity with Mac OS X 10.4.0). Therefore, saying that a final decision might not have been made on current iterations of xnu on x86 is perfectly reasonable.
Further, if anything, MORE source is now released than previously: x86 sources for all non-kernel components are released with parity with Mac OS X releases for PowerPC and x86; previo
To sum up Apple's objections, they felt I had given a year-old story a fresh coat of paint and sensationalized it for an audience that wasn't affected by it.
:-)
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
To date, the only official response has been:
Just to be clear, Tom Yager was *speculating* about why we have -- so far -- not released the source code of the kernel for Intel-based Macintoshes. We continue to release *all* the Darwin sources for our PowerPC systems, and so far has released all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel.
Nothing has been announced, so he (and everyone else) certainly has the right to speculate. But please don't confuse "speculation" with "fact."
Thanks,
-- Ernie P.
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. (408) 974-3075
Product Manager, Open Source & Open Standards; Mac OS X Product Marketing
Apple Computer; 303-4SW 3 Infinite Loop; Cupertino, CA 95014
and a response to a private message I sent:
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:08:45 -0700
From: Ernest Prabhakar
To: Dave Schroeder
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Apple [may not open] OS X Kernel for Intel
Hi Dave,
On May 21, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
When *will* something regarding a xnu source release on x86 be announced?
I know you probably can't answer this, so it's somewhat of a rhetorical question, but seriously: the lack of release of source for xnu on x86 represents a significant change in strategy to some customers with no corresponding announcement or roadmap. When will concerned customers be informed as to what is happening?
Generally speaking, when a final, irreversible decision has been made, we will find
_some_ way to let affected customers know about it.
If nothing else, the very fact I am telling you to *not* assume that something is true,
means *I* don't believe it is true.
-- Ernie P.
Seriously, might there be kind of a, you know, huge developer conference coming up in a month and a half or so here where some of these questions might be answered? Especially since Tom Yager's speculation is just that - speculation - and extremely old news at that? Is it any wonder that both of Yager's articles are under "Opinion" headlines?
I did read the article, thanks.
How is using such images in a now- (and long-)defunct ad campaign staking the company's entire image on progressive politics?
Is the idea that if Apple has EVER used any such ideas, that it's entire image is permanently tied to progressive politics, and therefore can't honestly do anything counter to what, e.g., Ghandi and Chavez stood for? Is Apple currently capitalizing in imagery of Ghandi and Chavez?
I think my point is that Apple's alleged "image" isn't much different than anyone else's.
I have a lot of faith in Apple, but I'll find it very hard to purchase future products if these allegations are true, and the company that Jobs built is unwilling to take steps to ensure good living conditions for their employees.
Whose products will you purchase, then, exactly? This is exactly the type of reaction I talked about here.
That Apple uses subcontractors in China to manufacture its hardware, like countless other manufacturers the world over do, and that the prevailing labor conditions in those subcontractors' facilities is not unlike it is, and has been for ages, elsewhere in China?
- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries? (Yes, yes, we can all say that "consumers" have the power to force companies to take up the banner. After all, you can't make China change, so why not go after Apple?)
- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living? (Yes, I'm aware that the article makes reference to food and rent consuming "half" their salary.) If the pay is "dismal" even by China's standards, as one of the articles asserts, then why is anyone even working there?
- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative. (Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me. And if it's Chinese police or governmental entities that don't let workers leave and/or don't let them have visitors, well...)
- Who cares if there are more female than male workers? What possible bearing does this have on the situation? (I'm trying to figure out exactly why this was mentioned, because it's clearly intended to imply something, though I'm not quite sure what.)
- How, precisely and specifically, has Apple "staked its image" on "progressive politics"? (And wouldn't more effective change come from the US being able to have a global position such that it can exert pressure on the Chinese government and other human rights abusers, rather than trying to mobilize consumers to target US companies?)
I guess it always pays to go after the market leaders. And I'm saying that in all seriousness: I'm sure people saw targeting Nike as the most effective way to fight sweatshops at large, just as some might say, "Free Tibet, and you free the world." I will say that it's rather unfair that, in campaigns like these, it's often that one target, however, that bears a hugely disproportionate burden of vilification, blame, and bad press. I can't blame them though; the iPod is certainly an easy and high profile target.
I'm fairly certain that this will be read by a number of people who think that corporations and corporate behavior are inherently "evil", and that the larger a company or business interest is, the more "evil" it is and indeed must be by definition, which is an awfully one-sided and half-blind way to look at corporations.
I'd expect and hope, from a supposedly intelligent group of readers, that the majority of the comments here will be examining China's labor laws and China's human rights record, and mechanisms via which those might be changed and how responsible governments of the world can affect that change, rather than thinking about ways that corporations that legally do business in China may be further targeted.
From: das at doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Incorrect information about SIRA?
Date: June 6, 2006 8:21:46 AM CDT
To: fred at eff.org
Security: Signed
In your post you say:
SIRA's main aim is clearing the way for online music services by revising the current mechanical compulsory license set out in Section 115 of the Copyright Act to accommodate "full downloads, limited downloads, and interactive streams." So far so good, but the devil is in the details. This license specifically includes and treats as license-able "incidental reproductions...including cached, network, and RAM buffer reproductions."
By smuggling this language into the Copyright Act, the copyright industries are stacking the deck for future fights against other digital technologies that depend on making incidental copies. Just think of all the incidental copies that litter your computer today -- do you have a license for every copy in your browser's cache?
But, the "Blanket Licensing" section of says:
First, by simply filing one license application--or in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses, a limited number of applications--a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally, we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright owners and licensees.
Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently, there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues, the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies involve additional intermediate copies or not.
So it would seem that SIRA is trying to do the exact opposite from what is being alleged in various "calls to action" regardingm SIRA.
Regards,
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
----
There's a reason we've "never heard of" this bill: it's not trying to do any of the evil things the submitter or TFA say it is. Yes, it may suck in other ways and probably does, like pretty much any proposed law will in some respect or another. But it's not trying to enforce separate licenses for cached, buffered, and incidental copies of digital works; it's trying to eliminate all of the ridiculousness with regard to that and allow one license to cover all of the incidental copies that might pop up in digital distribution. It sure would be nice if people actually read it.
a large part of your post appears to be demanding that I supply a solution if I'm going to point out a problem. I'm not.
;-)
;-)
Fair enough. I'm one of those people who expects a solution, or at least suggestions for one, as alternatives to whatever it is they have problems with. I'm not saying it's mandatory for someone to provide a solution when they point out a problem, but often the most helpful, informative, and productive discussion comes from someone suggesting alternative courses of action, and then having to defend them. Especially having to defend them as better than the status quo.
Do you agree with XP OEM licenses that preclude installing that copy on a different machine?
Let's just say that I generically agree that an OEM might structure its pricing differently for an OEM OS, and structure it with the expectation that that license not be used with any other computer other than the one it's sold with, and that further, their pricing across the board may be based on such assumptions, and that if there are legal frameworks in certain jurisdictions that allow for things like intellectual property protections and license agreements in some form or another, I certainly wouldn't hold it against the company to use whatever legal frameworks that have been provided.
(and I should have said prohibit reasonable use, not fair use).
Yes, but reasonable (or even fair) to whom?
What if Apple were to say "Well, if everyone was going to use our OS the way you propose, we're going to increase the price of all of our CPUs by X dollars, and increase the price of the standalone OS X by X dollars?" One might argue that, regardless, Apple wouldn't be hurting, or that ultimately, it would be better for that to happen.
In any event, I appreciate what appear to be your honest answers to my questions.
you can most certainly breach an XP license for installing it on a PC it was not sold with.
(Yes, I realize this is off topic.)
Sorry, I wasn't talking about OEM bundled licenses; I was really just saying that it's possible to get legal (e.g., retail) copies of XP and install them on any machine you wish, legally, and within the scope of the license agreement. That is not so with Mac OS X (Intel).
The doctrine of "fair use" does not come into play here. I'm not necessarily saying who is right or wrong, whether copyright has or hasn't been abused, etc.
The community that supports OS X on generic hardware does so by hacking it to run in an unsupported and unpredictable state, which, even though it can be argued that the people who are using it "know what they're getting into", is not the best or even a reliable way to run Mac OS X. Also, it most certainly does encourage the piracy of Mac OS X: how many people using the OS X hacks have legitimately "moved" a Mac OS X (Intel) license from an Intel-based Mac where that same license has been abandoned and is no longer in service? I'd wager VERY few. EXTREMELY few, if any. Almost all people using Mac OS X in this state have pirated it, period.
Further, home/individual users who make their own moral judgments aside, corporate/institutional users will most certainly not breach the license agreements of software; are corporate/institutional taking non-transferrable OEM XP licenses from abandoned/decommissioned machines and moving them to other machines? Hell no. Just as they won't with Mac OS X. I am curious why you would even respect this notion of "1:1" for OS to hardware, since the only thing that principle is held in is the license agreement, while ignoring other aspects of the license agreement (e.g., that it can't be used on other hardware, or used on non-Apple hardware)?
Further, how, exactly, would anyone get their hands on these alleged licenses? Since it won't be corporate/institutional users doing it, are you proposing some type of "license trading post"? How exactly would these copies be tracked? Physical media? Why even tie the notion of the usability of the software to the media, or whatever principle you're tying it to? Why respect the 1:1 ratio? Why not be able to run OS X wherever and whenever you want? If you're willing to break some aspects of the license agreement, why not all? Or is this just your own moral compass, saying "yes, I'll buy one copy of the software, but if I choose to use it against its license agreement in other ways, I will, and I also think it's within the 'spirit' to 'take' copies of Mac OS X that may have been associated with Intel-based Macs that are now no longer in use and use them elsewhere"?
I guess that would jibe with an attitude that many seem to have that they'll only do what THEY feel is right, and disregard any laws/guidelines/rules that society may set forth.
Oh - lastly, I agree that if you want to run OS X on a portable that a macbook of any description is (by far) the best choice, but I'm not sure that its the only legal choice (if I can move my copy of XP to a different PC, I feel the same way about OS X).
Well, if you're not in the US (and it's even questionable in the US), it might be "legal", strictly speaking.
But it's DEFINITELY against Apple's license agreement for the OS, and requires modifying Mac OS X in such a way as to render it un-updateable by Apple's standard update procedures, it's running in a totally unsupported state, and it uses a modified kernel and many other core OS components. Is that really the way you want to run Mac OS X?
Also, should Apple have even a small amount of say in how a proprietary product is used that it has invested billions of dollars in R&D and tens of thousands of manhours in development, design, QA, and marketing? Do you not think part of Apple's pricing structure and selling point for Mac OS X is that it would be used in a predictable, supported environment, with great integration and attention to detail, thereby creating satisfied customers who would be interested in continuing to patronize Apple? Just asking...does Apple have ANY rights in this regard? Does a concept of respect for the work and wishes of others in general apply?
Also, while I would agree that you are certainly welcome to do what you wish with Mac OS X under your own roof, if you use/encourage/contribute/etc. the resources of a community dedicated to hacking Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, you are supporting a community that is essentially encourage piracy and/or illegal use (in some jurisdictions) of Mac OS X.
Further, you can move XP to or use XP on a Mac or any other computer because it is not prohibited by any law or license agreement. I know some people don't consider license agreements valid, and believe they're just another tool of corporations to keep the little guy under their thumbs, and don't believe in any copyrights or intellectual property protections for the same reasons. But the only thing even causing one to purchase a software product in the first place, or not use it simultaneously on multiple computers, is the license agreement, or at least its spirit. If one thinks a license agreement is invalid on its face, they might as well pirate all their software and never pay a dime for anything that isn't physically tangible.
On this topic - and yes, I'm aware of the various issues with the MacBook Pro (whine, thermal issues, etc, etc, etc.) that don't rise to anything better or worse than any other vendor issues with first-run products - what's wrong with the MacBook Pro? Is there something you don't like about it, or deficient about its features? Is there something bad about it being the only portable able to run Mac OS X and Windows legally, and also run pretty much any x86 OS in virtualization alongside Mac OS X (assuming a person liked and/or wanted Mac OS X)? Do you dislike its industrial design? Featureset? Specifications? If your only jabs at it are going to be related to whine/thermal grease/etc., consider that, statistically, at least by organizations like Consumer Reports' measures, Apple is better than all other vendors in initial quality, need for repairs, product support, and so on. Yes, this varies a bit, but if you'll rip Apple on that, I'd be interested in alternatives that would be better in that and other respects than a MacBook Pro, again assuming that being able to run Mac OS X is desirable for someone. (And, another qualifier: yes, Mac OS X has a lot of faults, but it's a damned good polished desktop UNIX, wouldn't you agree?)
No need to joke or troll me; actually seeking an honest reply again, as you were kind enough to give me before.
From the original article: "The winner will get a fancy laptop. We haven't picked the exact one yet, but it's going to be a good one- we're not cutting corners. You'll be able to choose from a MacBook Pro or else a bleeding edge Alienware laptop. We'll pick the specs when we pick a winner so you get whatever is supremely awesome, but valued up to US $4500. We'll also be offering a $250 runner up prize."
All of your questions are answered in the "Development Programme" section of the ITER FAQ:
http://www.iter.org/a/index_faq.htm
Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac, and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini.
Based on these and other benchmarks it would appear that Merom ("Core 2 Duo", the next generation portable processor, Conroe (the next generation desktop/workstation processor), and Woodcrest (the next generation workstation/server processor) will have quite a bit to offer.