While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.
What utopia are you living in? In what is essentially a capitalistic business world, you ask companies to forget the money, do what's good for mankind? Can I have some of your drugs?
Seriously, companies like Nokia that "open" their products need to be rewarded regardless of their motivations, we can't change certain qualities of for-profit companies in a for-profit world.
If it were any other vendor Slashdot would be in 100% agreement that Apple doesn't 'own' the product once it is bought, in fact they would be venting almost as much fury at/. for posting such drivel since the way it is posted isn't attacking such a notion as stupid. But since it IS Apple we are talking about and so many here live fully inside the Reality Distortion Field you get Slashdot editors leaving otherwise insane sentences like that one in a post. And no, this isn't just a pile on kdawson rant, CmdrTaco is equally within the Field.
You're missing the point of the question about the iPhone.
Of course you own the phone, you're not leasing it after all.
What Apple says is that if you want a firmware upgrade, you can't hack it for third-party apps. As several have pointed out, if you don't get the firmware upgrade, unlocking your iPhone for third-party apps still works just fine.
It's a smelly policy on Apple's part, they may end up missing the party. But do they have the "right" to do things this way? I think so...
So really, the only thing going on here is that if you hack your iPhone, don't expect firmware upgrades from Apple...
The iPhone's is a fine phone, but its UI and hardware are well suited for all kinds of other apps that will drive sales way beyond just the smart phone market: games, vertical business apps, voip, home controller, etc. It's not just an mp3 player. If you need to rework the AT&T deal just do it, because the platform play is a much bigger opportunity.
And there is the exact issue for Apple. Clearly they want a cut of the profit from anything designed to run on iPhone, i.e. Apple approved third party apps. They obviously think they can make more from licensing third part apps than from additional phone sales as an open generic platform. I think this is pretty much in line with what I would expect from Apple given past history.
Now then, how about fuck the iPhone. What happened to that iPhone clone that came out right after the official iPhone launch? I seem to remember a story about it here. Looked like it had the groovy iPhone look and feel with much more open software / hardware access?
Here's another little gotcha with Microsoft license validation, discovered by security and PowerShell expert Tyson Kopczynski. The Microsoft Office 2007 add-on site refuses to download legitimate add-ons for Office 2007 when a legitimate -- but not yet activated -- additional Microsoft product is installed on the computer.
Only at Slashdot would this be considered a problem. Obviously, Microsoft does not consider unactivated software "legit" for the purposes of downloading add-ons. To me, this makes sense within the product activation concepts. Why would a company want to provide additional functionality to products that had not been activated? Within their scheme of DRM, products that have not been activated are probably not legit.
There's a whole generation out there now that's grown up with piracy, and that's totally comfortable with it. Because this fight has polarized people so much, it's pushed a lot of people into the pro-piracy side who wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Actually, the Record Industry had the same opinion of cassette tapes, it's just that they couldn't track the copying as you can with Interweb p2p. But "back in the day" there where "public service" campaigns against cassettes, and they tried many times to get laws and taxes passed on cassettes as well.
Exactly. Ingrates. All we get where I work is a box or rocks, and I don't mean those smoothe river rocks, I'm talking those sharp crushed rocks. And we're not allowed to actually sleep n them, we can only look at them.
No. The simple answer is that we like to encourage people to use GPLv3...
Yes, and just HOW MUCH of Google's Super Secret Code is GPL/anything? I don't mean to be a troll, but while Google might very well encourage others to use license THEIR work under Open Source, Google tends to be quite tight with their own code.
They'll need to continue to support XP until they get a system out that is an actual improvement, and not just a corporate-ass kissing piece of crap.
That's an interesting statement. Clearly there's some corporate ass kissing going on, but it's not the ass I work for that has 10 or 15 *thousand* PC's running on XP (DoD). We have no plans to migrate to Vista any time soon.
I mean, taxes suck, but they also pay for my healthcare, used to pay for my education, and I do a lot of work for the Government, so I realize that taxes ought be collected.
So maybe taxes don't suck? They pay for things most of us like and use... Do you like driving on reasonably nice roads more than your iPod? Is a reasonably sane national healthcare plan more valuable to you than, say, Halo3? Would your prefer allowing crack-heads to cart of your TV, or perhaps you would like a latte instead?
There's nothing wrong with the idea of taxes, it's just that sometimes our taxes get spent on things we the public don't approve of.
The problem is not taxes, it's that your chosen representatives in government are not always representing their constituents. It is these people that are the problem...
True. They have a tough road ahead to make Vista live up to Win98. But seriously, I suspect that there are many great code advances in Vista, and that if it where not encombered by paranoid we-must-control-the-consumer DRM security model, it might actually be better than XP. As long as the consumer (vs corporate) is not Microsoft's actual customer, they will continue to offer the opertunity for user friendly Linux distros like Ubuntu to gain market share.
If there's one good reason to support windows, it's to help sorority girls upload their pajama party photos
Why? Is there a problem with the photos I took through the second story window from a ladder? I know they're only 6 mega pixels and the lighting is a bit uneven, but I thought they looked kind of "arty"...
To the majority of people in this country, CNet is not a major news source. Also, the link you quote supports my statement that he is not taken seriously. Anyone can petition the Courts, and many many many NUTCASES do. Jack is one of these nutcases. His complaints are NEVER sustained.
Didn't watch much TV after the VA Tech shootings, did you? He was all over the airwaves. FNC already has sputtering reactionary jowl-waggers on staff, and doesn't need Thompson as much I guess.
Every nutcase and their mother came out of the woodwork during the VA Killings. Doesn't mean they where taken seriously.
I haven't seen him on FOX News (which I watch several hours a day), he hasn't been quoted to any significant level in either my local paper or the national general news outlets. Sure he gets ink at WIRED or El Reg, but take a look at a search for his name at Google News and tell me which one of these publications holds any weight with anyone that influences laws? You will note that the places his name shows up are lefty tech sites, obscure game sites, and right wing Christian sites.
Jack Thompson isn't even a "has been", he's a "never been". The only people listening to him now are his lunatic cult followers and gamers like you who don't yet understand that he is a nobody.
"The guy is mentally ill, is not in any way a policymaker and the only reason why he keeps getting attention here and from the gam3r media is that they think it's amusing to kick around a mentally incompetent person."
And then...
No, the reason he gets attention is because he's trying to infringe on our rights and has enough power to be dangerous.
Lots of people try lots of things. It doesn't mean that they should be taken seriously. It's a fact that the only people that still take Jack Thompson seriously have no influence to do anything. Jack Thompson is not a realistic threat. Foaming at the mouth about Jack Thompson is just spinning wheels focusing on nonsense while our rights are taken away behind a different curtain.
The sooner we ignore Jack Thompson as we should, the sooner we can focus on real threats to our freedoms.
Re:Is this really different from the RIAA or MPAA?
on
GPL Lawsuit May Not Settle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Using GPL software without complying with the GPL is a liability for any business. As is using any proprietary software without complying with the license that comes with the software.
Using any licensed intellectual property without complying with the appropriate license is a liability for any business, and they know it. The difference here is that there is a perception in business that Open Source projects are operated by dirty hippies that don't have it "together" enough to do anything about it (nor the money, even if they did have it "together").
This is why it's important for this suit to move forward with an objective of some type of damages and at least attorney fees. This will send the message to business that there are repercussions to ignoring or trying to circumvent Open Source licenses like the GPL.
The only businesses that will be scared off from using Open Source because of this are dishonest businesses that shouldn't be allowed to use Open Source anyway
The software is part of the configuration of the phone, not the phone itself.
I think that's a pretty liberal view. The phone was designed specifically to work with the software, it is an integral part of the phone.
I don't see a problem with cracking the software issue and customizing it with your own brew. But don't expect Apple to want to support something they didn't make (the software) and have no control over.
Naturally, the whole thing is taken out of context as far as the law is concerned. This is what happens when non-lawyers hack up a plate of leagl code.
But even if it wasn't, I don't understand why certain sectors are frothing about this. The iPhone is a product and it's configured in a certain way at the factory to work a certain way. It's not "commodity" hardware, a generic phone. I just don't understand why, if you dink around with it's software, which is an integral part of its operation, its "total experience", why Apple shouldn't void the warranty. It's not the same thing they sold you, why should they be responsible for it?
Support for security patches and feature upgrades will end April 2009.
I know that it's a unacceptable solution for "enterprise" / "corporate" users to pick up random Windows patches from "non-trusted" sources, but I wonder if there would be a market for a "legitimate" company to start offering such support after Microsoft abandons XP users?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, companies like Nokia that "open" their products need to be rewarded regardless of their motivations, we can't change certain qualities of for-profit companies in a for-profit world.
You're missing the point of the question about the iPhone.
Of course you own the phone, you're not leasing it after all.
What Apple says is that if you want a firmware upgrade, you can't hack it for third-party apps. As several have pointed out, if you don't get the firmware upgrade, unlocking your iPhone for third-party apps still works just fine.
It's a smelly policy on Apple's part, they may end up missing the party. But do they have the "right" to do things this way? I think so...
So really, the only thing going on here is that if you hack your iPhone, don't expect firmware upgrades from Apple...
And there is the exact issue for Apple. Clearly they want a cut of the profit from anything designed to run on iPhone, i.e. Apple approved third party apps. They obviously think they can make more from licensing third part apps than from additional phone sales as an open generic platform. I think this is pretty much in line with what I would expect from Apple given past history.
Now then, how about fuck the iPhone. What happened to that iPhone clone that came out right after the official iPhone launch? I seem to remember a story about it here. Looked like it had the groovy iPhone look and feel with much more open software / hardware access?
Only at Slashdot would this be considered a problem. Obviously, Microsoft does not consider unactivated software "legit" for the purposes of downloading add-ons. To me, this makes sense within the product activation concepts. Why would a company want to provide additional functionality to products that had not been activated? Within their scheme of DRM, products that have not been activated are probably not legit.
Actually, the Record Industry had the same opinion of cassette tapes, it's just that they couldn't track the copying as you can with Interweb p2p. But "back in the day" there where "public service" campaigns against cassettes, and they tried many times to get laws and taxes passed on cassettes as well.
Wait. I'm sorry, most of you don't know what cassettes tapes are... Here's a linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette
Exactly. Ingrates. All we get where I work is a box or rocks, and I don't mean those smoothe river rocks, I'm talking those sharp crushed rocks. And we're not allowed to actually sleep n them, we can only look at them.
Yes, and just HOW MUCH of Google's Super Secret Code is GPL/anything? I don't mean to be a troll, but while Google might very well encourage others to use license THEIR work under Open Source, Google tends to be quite tight with their own code.
GPLv2?
It was a "joke". I can't think of much worse than Win98...
There's nothing wrong with the idea of taxes, it's just that sometimes our taxes get spent on things we the public don't approve of.
The problem is not taxes, it's that your chosen representatives in government are not always representing their constituents. It is these people that are the problem...
Maybe, but it's as lame a story today as it was yesterday. You need to get out more, maybe get laid now and then.
True. They have a tough road ahead to make Vista live up to Win98. But seriously, I suspect that there are many great code advances in Vista, and that if it where not encombered by paranoid we-must-control-the-consumer DRM security model, it might actually be better than XP. As long as the consumer (vs corporate) is not Microsoft's actual customer, they will continue to offer the opertunity for user friendly Linux distros like Ubuntu to gain market share.
This is not the Washington State LUG, it's the Washington State University LUG
To the majority of people in this country, CNet is not a major news source. Also, the link you quote supports my statement that he is not taken seriously. Anyone can petition the Courts, and many many many NUTCASES do. Jack is one of these nutcases. His complaints are NEVER sustained.
Jack Thompson isn't even a "has been", he's a "never been". The only people listening to him now are his lunatic cult followers and gamers like you who don't yet understand that he is a nobody.
Lots of people try lots of things. It doesn't mean that they should be taken seriously. It's a fact that the only people that still take Jack Thompson seriously have no influence to do anything. Jack Thompson is not a realistic threat. Foaming at the mouth about Jack Thompson is just spinning wheels focusing on nonsense while our rights are taken away behind a different curtain.
The sooner we ignore Jack Thompson as we should, the sooner we can focus on real threats to our freedoms.
Using any licensed intellectual property without complying with the appropriate license is a liability for any business, and they know it. The difference here is that there is a perception in business that Open Source projects are operated by dirty hippies that don't have it "together" enough to do anything about it (nor the money, even if they did have it "together").
This is why it's important for this suit to move forward with an objective of some type of damages and at least attorney fees. This will send the message to business that there are repercussions to ignoring or trying to circumvent Open Source licenses like the GPL.
The only businesses that will be scared off from using Open Source because of this are dishonest businesses that shouldn't be allowed to use Open Source anyway
I think that's a pretty liberal view. The phone was designed specifically to work with the software, it is an integral part of the phone.
I don't see a problem with cracking the software issue and customizing it with your own brew. But don't expect Apple to want to support something they didn't make (the software) and have no control over.
The software that runs the phone is part of the phone.
If you buy a Chevy arnd replace the engine with some aftermarket engine, Chevy isn't going to fix it when you break it.
But even if it wasn't, I don't understand why certain sectors are frothing about this. The iPhone is a product and it's configured in a certain way at the factory to work a certain way. It's not "commodity" hardware, a generic phone. I just don't understand why, if you dink around with it's software, which is an integral part of its operation, its "total experience", why Apple shouldn't void the warranty. It's not the same thing they sold you, why should they be responsible for it?
I know that it's a unacceptable solution for "enterprise" / "corporate" users to pick up random Windows patches from "non-trusted" sources, but I wonder if there would be a market for a "legitimate" company to start offering such support after Microsoft abandons XP users?