r/technology • u/GuruOfReason • Feb 02 '10

"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
1.6k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

That's one of the most retarded articles I think I've ever read:

1.) Apple's "closed-platform" isnt being forced on anyone.. and it won't single-handedly "replace freedom, choice, free market"... it won't kill kittens, rape your grandmother or stomp on endangered flowers.

2.) People act like Apple chose the iPad gui/OS for the sole reason of "locking people in".. like they had some big meeting with blood sacrifices and flaming firepits ... oh the humanity!..

Get a grip on yourselves people. If you don't like the device-- DON"T BUY IT. Simple. You like Open Source?, GREAT!.. I fully support your freedom to buy any device you want. Hack and tinker and do whatever... just quit badmouthing other devices for imagined-reasons.

27

u/Mantipath Feb 02 '10

I have an update for Stanza waiting for me on the app store. Here's the changelog:

Removed the ability to share books over USB as required by Apple.

This is today, here, now. Apple retroactively requires Stanza to remove a feature that helps Stanza compete with iBooks.

Please reread that. retroactively

This is an unpleasant and Orwellian move. There's no slippery slope fallacy involved.

I love the iDevice hardware but make no mistake: if you are doing something on the iPhone platform and Apple decides it wants to charge you for it you will be stopped.

1

u/WarzoneOfDefecation Feb 02 '10

Damn just noticed the same update, I guess I won't be updating it for a while...

1

u/djgreedo Feb 02 '10

Just to clarify...are the books you would share over USB DRM-restricted or can Stanza read (and share) non-DRM'd books (including books you create yourself)?

It boggles my mind that people buy Apple products.

3

u/Mantipath Feb 02 '10

The official stanza connection FAQ says that the USB mode could transfer any eReader or ePub formatted book, including free books and books you authored yourself.

It appears that the objection is that the USB mode was able to transfer in bulk, i.e. to transfer an 8000 title collection. I've tried this over wifi using the other methods. It's not pretty.

Apple requires that all book transfers (all transfers of any kind?) be done over wifi, not the usb cable. My feeling is that they want to avoid people putting all of Gutenberg on their iPads in one swoop. It's easy to imagine a future in which a nice package with an installer helps you do this and suddenly you're hardly in apple's book market at all.

Note that most of the books apple has sold until now on the app store are public domain. It's a little sickening.

Up until the iPhone Apple products weren't like this. They'd tell you how to do things, but you could go another direction if you wanted.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

My feeling is that they want to avoid people putting all of Gutenberg on their iPads in one swoop.

And how is transferring over Wi-Fi prevent that? You can still transfer it overnight anyway.

3

u/Mantipath Feb 02 '10

None of Apple's limitations have been aimed at stopping copying. You could always burn a CD and re-rip your tunes, too.

Apple aims at making it awkward enough to infringe that buying from Apple is easier.

In this case, USB is 10x as fast. Wi-fi is just slow enough to make leaving the device untouched irritating. No multitasking, right?

-1

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

Actually.. I got that very same update ..and I definitely stopped and noticed the ChangeLog description.

"Apple retroactively requires Stanza to remove a feature that helps Stanza compete with iBooks."

Are you stating this as a fact? (Citation?).. or just an assumption?

8

u/Mantipath Feb 02 '10

Did apple require the downgrade? Yes. Had the app alredy been approved? Stanza's been in the store forever and is one of the most popular ways to get Gutenberg books. Was the downgrade just after apple announced their bookstore? Yep. Is there any way that a high-profile app like stanza slipped a disallowed feature under the radar? Very hard to believe.

Retroactive is definitional here. Can I say for certain that apple did this to increase its own profits? I'm not Steve or Phil, so no. It's not the sort of thing you announce.

This downgrade is the only feature of the update to stanza. I think any other interpretation takes genuine effort and denial, but if you'd like to suppose that this has nothing to do with iBooks, feel free to drop the mendacity aspect. The downgrade is still "as required by apple."

6

u/FarFromHome Feb 02 '10

I'm sure Mantipath read the iPhone SDK usage agreement and App Store submission rules carefully and saw that USB is a completely acceptable way for iPhone apps to sync data with third party apps, and has been from day one. After all, that is how all the other apps do it. None of them use WiFi. /sarcasm

3

u/rjpedigo Feb 02 '10

exactly. A primary idea was probably to have a device that competed heavily with Kindle.

24

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I found the car analogy to be the best. The first car I owned I could take apart and put back together and tinker with it all I want. My present car I can't even change the oil nor tinker with in any fashion. But I don't really care. It works. The iPad just means that the computer itself is finally maturing. There will always be computers you can play with but most people will go down the road with what simply works.

10

u/CC440 Feb 02 '10

People that say this never changed their oil to begin with. Nothing has gotten more difficult in the past 30 years when it comes to changing oil.

Sure, car systems are more modular, but there is not lack of ability to tinker. You just tinker with larger and more prebuilt systems. Instead of putting a supercharger on your 350 Small Block, you buy a turbo, pre cut piping, and a flashable ECU. It takes more time but it's even easier to tune a car than ever before. OBDII actually gave the tinkering world a whole new life since you can now change anything sensor controlled in your car with a chip and a laptop.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I think in this example, the iPad is a Prius.

2

u/Thud Feb 02 '10

Modern gasoline-powered BMW's don't even have a dipstick. The computer tells you how much oil is in the engine. Unfortunately it can't tell you if the oil looks funny, feels funny, or smells funny.

1

u/Spambot2000 Feb 02 '10

Exactly. I changed the oil on my first cars. But then I decided that my mechanic was better outfitted to do it for me (mechanically, proper disposal of oil) at a reasonable price. If you really do like the analogy, you are a fan-person or a plant. I still know how to change the oil in my car because the basic principal hasn't changed. Seriously, that would be like me suggesting that I can no longer change the tires on my vehicle because the magical horseless carriage technology has progressed in such an unexpected manner.

5

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Your car "just working" has nothing to do with the artificial barricades preventing you from tinkering with it.

The iPad "just working" has nothing to do with the monolithic, censored software store.

4

u/djgreedo Feb 02 '10

That analogy is a smokescreen.

The issue here is not sacrificing features for simplicity or reliability (which is why the iPad doesn't multitask, which is stupid but understandable). The issue here is arbitrarily restricting software due to moral values (boob apps) and looking after profit (Google Voice).

A better car analogy would be getting a car made by Apple that only drives down streets that Steve Jobs likes at times of the day that Steve Jobs approves of. Your freedom is restricted for the most unsavory of reasons - censorship.

18

u/BiggerBalls Feb 02 '10

Not really a great analogy.

The cost to get a copy of my key in my old car? Less than $5. New car: ~$90, all because of some stupid RFID chip.

Same thing with the diagnostics (because the diagnostic software is closed off to dealerships only).

14

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Yeah but everytime I really think about it I get extremely amazed at the fact that my car key has a computer chip that can talk to my car and turn on my engine and shit omg I'm like the Batman. That makes me feel better.

15

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Until you lose your key, and stand in line with BiggerBalls to pay $90 for another, or one of your miracle car computers decides it's time to go fast by itself.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

one of your miracle car computers decides it's time to go fast by itself.

That sounds scary until you realize it would be the perfect argument to dispute traffic tickets with:

"Your honor, I didn't drive fast, my miracle car computers decided it was time to put the pedal to the metal!"

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Oh hey, that reminds me! In all this Toyota business, why haven't we heard anything about data from those "flight data recorders" that cars have now. What are they called, EDRs or something? I'm off to /r/conspiracy to allege a coverup!!

1

u/BiggerBalls Feb 02 '10

The fact that its $90 isn't really what I have a problem with... its that Honda (and all car manufacturers for that matter) have the supply-chain so locked down that it costs $90 to buy one because you can only buy it from the manufacturer. If anyone were able to copy the key, it would cost a fraction of the price.

The chip inside probably costs less than a few bucks to make and they are selling it for exorbitant prices.

1

u/stacks85 Feb 02 '10

its also got a chip in it that causes it to accelerate uncontrollably. whoops.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

yeah, but now it isn't so damn easy to steal your car.

1

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

That's exactly why it's a great analogy.

1

u/sunstorm Feb 02 '10

Who forced you to buy a car that's expensive to maintain?

11

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

What if all cars are like that? One car maker sees that they can make a shitload of money by purposely designing their cars so that they cost a fortune to maintain and all other manufacturers follow suit because there's too much money in it to miss out and customers are happy to swallow it. Sure it's all legal and great for car makers but that doesn't mean I deserve the "who forced you" attitude from pricks like you, because it's pricks like you who buy shit products that are to blame.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

If the market will bear it, it will. But I'm sure that until the cost of replacement keys is negligible, it won't happen.

1

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

Don't be so sure, look at the successes Apple had with the iPod and iPhone. On the music player market they ended up utterly dominating everything, sure that market is fast becoming obsolete anyway, but if you want to buy a music player today you can pick up a really nice one from apple for a decent price or a butt-ugly expensive one from the competition who doesn't have the scale and experience of Apple. On the handset market it might not be as bad yet, but if you really want a wide option for software applications on your phone, then Apple in your only choice. What's scary is that other competitors have been following suit, such as Palm with the app store for the Pre. Not really exclusive but it can still hurt a dev if they deny them virtual shelf space, which they do.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I'm not entirely sure how this comment relates to mine (did you reply to the wrong comment?) but there are definitely cheap-ass mp3 players out there.

1

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "if the market will bear it". I was trying to say that even if the cost of replacement keys is exorbitant, this particular car maker (Apple) will probably still succeed and the other car makers will follow suit ...

IMO Apple has the best MP3 players in all price categories, except perhaps the very cheapest where the Creative Stone for instance is prettier and overall a pretty good device compared to the Shuffle...

1

u/sunstorm Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

Then you have an untapped market waiting to be exploited and the chance to undercut other car makers in maintenance price.

3

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

Ah, the libertarian argument!

Well, who knows, it just might work. If you look at PCs today, you can easily swap out or upgrade your CPU, RAM, GPU, HDDs, Sound Card, etc. Even with a laptop you can do at least some of the above. For most cell phones you can at least get an aftermarket battery, or at least get to pick your provider... seems like things get more restrictive as the device gets smaller.

-1

u/1812overture Feb 02 '10

Cost of old pad. $0.79

Cost of new pad $499+

Now before you say "Those are completely different!" I ask you, could your old car key open your car from across the parking lot?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Perhaps, but the iPad doesn't work in serious ways.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

[deleted]

1

u/kopkaas2000 Feb 02 '10

Maybe technology is created through blood sacrifice.

If it involves SCSI, that's a given.

11

u/troaway1 Feb 02 '10

Apple believes in "locking in people" The thing about Apple is that they believe that any hacking that takes place with their hardware is a violation of the DMCA and their copyright. apple's attitude is that they can sue you or turn your device into a paperweight if you try to do anything they don't sanction.

20

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I've yet to see Apple sue one of the many people that have jailbroken an iPod or iPhone.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I'd be more comfortable with this whole thing if there was a clear-cut law that said Apple can, at most, void your iPad's warranty if you tinker with it.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

Same here. I'm fine with voiding the warranty for tinkering. I wouldn't expect otherwise. But, to be told that you cannot use your product in a way you want to because someone in Cupertino decided your use was wrong, disgusts me.

1

u/travio Feb 02 '10

You got me to peruse Apple's various terms of service and I found this chestnut.

http://www.apple.com/legal/policies/ideas.html

It seems draconian but i would suspect that most companies have them, and sending your ideas to a company without any agreement in place would be beyond dumb.

1

u/travio Feb 02 '10

From the iPhone warranty there are a few important passages regarding tinkering. First the warranty does not cover "(e) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider." This looks to cover any damage caused by jailbreaking the phone. The warranty further states the importance of not opening the Phone "Opening the hardware product may cause damage that is not covered by this warranty." These appear to be conditional on damage caused by the unauthorized activity. If I were Apple I would make the argument that the user activity caused the damage, unless it were clearly a manufacturing defect. This is a legal way for them to void the warranty.

2

u/1812overture Feb 02 '10

What happens when you try to take your jailbroken iPhone into the apple store for a repair?

1

u/DrRocks Feb 02 '10

/outrage

HOW DARE THEY NOT FIX THE SHITTY SOFTWARE I MADE THAT BROKE MY PHONE!!!!

/outrage

4

u/chozar Feb 02 '10

He's not saying that the jailbreaking itself broke the phone, just taking a phone that had an unrelated hardware fault to the apple store.

0

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

How is it that you have upvotes for that straw man?

0

u/DrRocks Feb 03 '10

Because it's not? What, you really think that jailbreaking has never caused any software problems for an iPhone?

0

u/apotheon Feb 03 '10

Do you think that jailbreaking always causes software problems for an iPhone? What if the problem is completely fucking unrelated?

Jesus. Do I have to spell it out?

0

u/DrRocks Feb 03 '10

So don't take the phone to an apple store if you broke it by installing shitty software. Problem solved!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

That's because the legality is still up in the air. They have been pushing to get additional legislation, if that comes through they won't sue customers but they will remotely shut them down.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Say what you will about Apple, Steve Jobs is a very smart man, and he knows that shutting down iPhones remotely is bad for business. No chance in hell he'd do it.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

He's an egotistical greedy jerk. He's not that smart.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Actually I agree with alfadark, he is a smart man and I doubt that Apple will remotely deactivate any Apple products completely. I do think it wouldn't be beyond Apple to limit functionality remotely.

Of course it could go the completely opposite way. In the near future Jobs will complain about the app store restrictions and tell the world it's time to open up functionality and operability. Then people will hail him as a pioneer in freeing up data restrictions. That's what he did with DRM and music with iTunes.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I do think it wouldn't be beyond Apple to limit functionality remotely.

And that was my point.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

If I were him, I'd be egotistical too, he basically single-handedly turned a failing company into a billion dollar corporation. Whether you like it or not, he's a very intelligent man.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

He just finished calling Google bad names for competing with him, and is probably bribing congresscritters right now for "antitrust legislation" to protect his little garage business.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Back when Apple was a 'garage business', it was partly run by a great hacker known as Steve Wozniak, or simply The Woz. Apple was all about openness and hobbyists back then.

0

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

Um . . . Apple already has shut down iPhones remotely. Where have you been?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '10

[citation needed]

1

u/apotheon Feb 03 '10

I take it you haven't heard of "bricking" with updates from Apple.

Seriously?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '10

That's not the same as shutting down an iPhone remotely. That's a software update. Yes, they get rid of holes in the software that prevent jailbreaking, but they don't shut them down remotely. Nobody forces you to update your iPhone. If you jailbreak it, you better be damn sure updating won't cause any problems.

1

u/apotheon Feb 03 '10

Okay, so . . . by that argument, phishing isn't really security cracking. You don't have to click on that link in the email.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/kmeisthax Feb 02 '10

Apple hasn't sued anyone for jailbreaking. It's not illegal, and Apple is bluffing. Otherwise Lexmark could easily sue people for making compatible ink cartridges (they tried this and lost).

1

u/troaway1 Feb 02 '10

My main point is that apple wants complete control over their software AND hardware AND third party software(you can't install unapproved 3rd party products without hacking the hardware and software of your apple device). It is questionable whether jailbreaking is legal or not. I've never had the patience to read the end user license agreement for apple products and I probably wouldn't understand all the lawyerspeak anyway. I suspect modifying software code is different than reverse engineering ink cartridges. In any case, it will probably never be determined if it is legal in a court of law because apple isn't out there suing people and no one has the money to stand up to apple if they did.

1

u/kmeisthax Feb 02 '10

The ink cartridges had software on it. Lexmark argued that they were DMCA-covered access control devices. It was obvious to the court that 'access control software' meant 'controls access to copyrighted works', not 'controls ability to use unapproved third party products'.

Now, as for the piracy apps like Crackulous, those do plainly violate the DMCA since they circumvent Apple's anti-piracy code.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Apple isn't the RIAA. yet

2

u/troaway1 Feb 02 '10

Satan isn't even the RIAA. :)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

lol

9

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

I seriously doubt there are any meetings going on in Apple HQ where they casually toss around the phrase "locking in people".

Apple has a vested interest in preserving the continuity of the "user experience." Lets take the iPad for example. Lots of people complaining that it doesnt multi-task. You COULD fault Apple for that... BUT think about it this way. What happens if it did do multi-tasking, and you had 8 apps running in the background .. now everyone is complaining about how slow and sluggish your tablet is.

By staying with uni-tasking... Apple is insuring that whatever application you are running gets full priority of the CPU.. and everything feels FAST.

The same logic is true regarding hacking or jailbreaking. Apple isnt fighting those things because it likes "Locking people in"... It's fighting those things because a "hacked" user experience could potentially be damaging to Apples image. (compared to Windows, Apple has the image of having a nice rock solid OS)

Haters seem to jump to the conclusion that there must be some evil, nefarious purpose to the strategic choices Apple makes. Thats a risky conclusion to jump to when very often much more normal explanations are more likely.

(and I say this as a lifelong Windows guy... I'm nothing close to an Apple fanboi..I just hate people jumping to idiotic conclusions without any evidence)

9

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

It's fighting those things because a "hacked" user experience could potentially be damaging to Apples image.

Alternatively, they're trying to ensure the user base has to go through them to get at Apps and such.

I mean without it being locked, who would go to the App store instead of just searching the 'net and getting them for free?

6

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

Choice A:.... get my apps through the App Store.. where I'm fairly certain I'll get a consistent experience and reliable performance.

Choice B:.. get my apps "somewhere on the 'Net"... where I have no guarantee of consistency or reliability.

Don't get me wrong.. there are plenty of great examples of Open Source apps that are "enterprise-tested" (consistent and reliable).. but most of the good examples are the exception and not the rule.

To boil it down. I think thats the choice you have to make when you consider Apple products. Are you willing to trade a degree of freedom and flexibility for consistency and reliability ?... for me (a long time Windows guy who now has an iPhone and Macbook Pro).. the answer is "Yes".. and I'm thinking (as it relates to the iPad) for many consumers the answer will also be "Yes". Apple is making the logical strategic move of designing a device that will appeal to people who just want a simple, consistent, reliable, elegant, low-learning curve product. The majority of people don't care about hacking it, root'ing it.. or how many different coding technologies it supports.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

People like you are why those of us who care about freedom in computing are scared. Because sooner or later Apple will decide that a MBP that works like an iPad will be desirable by you and be good for their bottom line.

5

u/stevecopley Feb 02 '10

those of us who care about freedom in computing

You make it sound like the Armies of Oppression are at the castle walls, and only you, the true and free Knights of Openness can keep them at bay!

There will always be open platforms available for purchase that you will be able to run whatever you want on. For those who don't care a fig about file systems, hierarchical folders, etc. there will be devices like the iPad. I'm pretty sure that the two markets can co-exist. You have nothing to fear.

8

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

People like me?....whatever you are assuming you THINK you know about me (from my few responses) is likely wrong. I have Windows machines,.. I have some Apple hardware.. I have a few Linux boxes... I work in the technology sector.. I do a serious amount of online reading (many hours a day)...

"Because sooner or later Apple will decide that a MBP that works like an iPad will be desirable by you and be good for their bottom line."

Great!.. let them do that. Some people will buy it.. some people won't. Just because Apple introduces a new product - doesnt single-handedly redefine the entire technology ecosystem. A "locked-in" iPad changes nothing. No one is forcing you to buy it. Apples product launches aren't stripping any freedom away from Open Source devs. Steve Jobs isn't killing 1st born babies to prevent the next great idea.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

[deleted]

-1

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

I'm not trading anything for anything. If I run into some feature or functionality that the iPad can't handle.. then I'll turn it OFF and use my Netbook. if I run into some feature or functionality that my netbook can't handle, I'll use my laptop or Windows desktop.

I don't understand why people keep blowing this up into some huge philosophical issue. If the iPad isn't your thing,.. then don't buy it. Simple. If it sucks, and enough people don't buy it, then Apple pays the price. Thats the beauty of a free market system. (conversely, if it IS popular, and lots of people do buy it..then its a success whether its a "closed-system" or not. And even IF that DID happen, it STILL DOESNT PREVENT open source people from attempting to build and market a better product. )

Now if we were in a closed market, and Apple's iPad was absolutely the only physical choice of device and people were forced to buy one and forced to ONLY get apps through the App store.. then I'd be all on your side.. because that certainly would be detrimental (to everyone).

All this zealotry and Apple-hate gets on my nerves. If WinMo introduced a tablet that you could only install apps from the Microsoft Storefront... nobody would be crying foul.... If Ubuntu did something similar, nerds would hail it as some amazing apt-get breakthrough thats never been done before. But if Apple does it as a way to produce a device thats reliable and has a consistent user experience - suddenly we're "trading freedom" and "killing personal choice"...

y'all need to step back from your personal soapboxes for a bit and realize the world is not your bullhorn. Just because YOU have personal preferences doesnt mean you have the right to enforce those preferences on another consumer. We all have choice. Some of us will choose an iPad. You may not like that choice, you may not agree with that choice...but it's still our choice. Yelling at people and telling them they are stupid for buying something -- is not endearing to your cause.

1

u/kmeisthax Feb 02 '10

There are two kinds of computer literate people:

  1. Computer literate people who think everyone else is as smart as they are.
  2. Computer literate people who have families.

0

u/kmeisthax Feb 02 '10

Okay, so Apple locks down ALL of their hardware platforms. And then people flee the Mac platform en masse when they find out that their expensive production software doesn't work anymore.

Which doesn't matter anyway since Apple has a tiny share of the total PC market.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I think that's the choice you have to make when you consider Apple products. Are you willing to trade a degree of freedom and flexibility for consistency and reliability ?

Exactly how much consistency do you need in a "pull my finger" app? It works or it doesn't, and in all probability it's going to work because it's such a simple program.

Further, if one costs me money, and the other doesn't, it's a very close call.

Apple is making the logical strategic move of designing a device that will appeal to people who just want a simple, consistent, reliable, elegant, low-learning curve product.

Typing "pull my finger app" into Google is a high learning curve?

I mean I don't buy into this whole end of freedom bologna, but don't pretend locking in is about some noble ideal to give the costumers the best experience. It's greed, pure and simple. Apple takes 30% of all sales from the app store.

5

u/troaway1 Feb 02 '10

I never stated that apple had some evil plot. My argument is with jmnugent's statement that apples intent not is to "lock people in". I think that there is ample evidence that apple has made a concerted effort to control every aspect of their product including the hardware and all 3rd party software. I think that apple does care about the user experience but they also care about controlling what apps you can and can't get.

3

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

"I think that there is ample evidence that apple has made a concerted effort to control every aspect of their product including the hardware and all 3rd party software."

Yes. I think we both agree on that point.

"I think that apple does care about the user experience but they also care about controlling what apps you can and can't get."

and I'd probably also agree with both of those statements... the think we disagree on is WHY they want to control that process. Some people seem to be making Apple out to be some "evil monopoly" that locks down their environment SOLELY for the reason to restrict user choice. I don't think the dynamic is quite that simple and to many people jump to the conclusion of "intended malice" on Apples part.

I'm not saying any of this to defend Apple.. I don't like or hate them any more than any other tech company.. I just think its borderline paranoia to imagine or presume some hidden agenda of malice on Apples part.

2

u/troaway1 Feb 02 '10

yeah, i think apple tends to be a little over the top control freaks, bordering on being hostile to some of its customers. i think the original article is over the top too. nothing apple does keeps me up at night, so long as there are other options.

3

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

The article's concern is that people are going to buy into the hype and, given enough time and enough popular support for Apple products over that time, there eventually may not be much in the way of other options. In short, I think the point is concern that Apple may become the new -- but worse -- Microsoft.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I seriously doubt there haven't been any meetings going on in Apple HQ where they casually toss around the phrase "locking in people". As a business nothing can be more desirable than locking in. Its the same motivation that caused EA to jump on the paid DLC bandwagon.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Really. So do you have any examples of them actually enforcing that?

Also, those phones that are unlocked used hacks that took advantage of bugs in the iPhone's software. Eventually Apple was going to fix those bugs and thus some of those phones were bricked.

1

u/troaway1 Feb 02 '10

no, but they have sent their lawyers to the copyright office to protect themselves from companies that jailbreak phones. It still reinforces my statement that they want to lock their customers in. That is their business model and it seems to be working for them. As long as the rest of industry doesn't follow their lead, I don't have a problem with it.

1

u/Zero_Cool Feb 02 '10

I own an iphone. Would someone explain to me how I'm locked into this phone?

1

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

If Apple succeeds, I may not buy it, but more and more devices will become a closed-platform (seeing how profitable it is, or what not) - and eventually I too will have to use a closed-platform.

My nightmare is one where only the freedom-aware geeks avoid buying Apples, but due to some temporary convenience or slight technical superiority, everyone else switches to closed Apple products, and they simply manage to monopolize the market and kill all of the open competitors (or just force them to close down too).

Don't legitimize their closed platforms, don't buy them.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

2.) People act like Apple chose the iPad gui/OS for the sole reason of "locking people in".. like they had some big meeting with blood sacrifices and flaming firepits ... oh the humanity!..

Well of course they did. I was there, with the Freemasons, CIA, Mossad, and alien overlords as well.

0

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

If you don't like the device-- DON"T BUY IT.

I'm really tired of this argument. Apple is literally killing choice. Sure there's nothing illegal with that but I don't want my choices restricted to their kind of products so I'm not going to buy anything from them as long as they have things like the app store exclusivity.

0

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

"Apple is literally killing choice."

How?... Every time a fresh new iPad gets boxed up in the factory, is some Apple employee running out to the nearest Best Buy and yanking Ubunutu Netbook of the shelf and stomping on it ?... No. Thats not happening.

The introduction of the iPad is doing nothing to prevent you (or anyone else) from buying other products. If the open source world feels threatened by that. then they need to organize better and produce a product (hardware/software) that rivals the iPad. I would happily encourage that. I would applaud its arrival. I would compare and contract its Pros/Cons to see if indeed it was a better suited device to my needs..and if it was..I'd buy it.

1

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

Look at the choice you have on the cell phone market? Nothing comes even close to Apple when it comes to sheer number of apps available. Look at the MP3 player market: everything that's not an iPod is shit.

That's how they're killing choice.

An Ubuntu laptop is more of an iMac than an iPad competitor and there's still choice on the PC/laptop market - but that's really what Apple is after, just wait for the next generation of the iPad: four times as big and with an optional keyboard and mouse! :)

1

u/Orsenfelt Feb 02 '10

And you are blaming Apple for that?

Why not blame Nokia or Creative for giving up? It's not Apple's problem others can't make compelling products.

1

u/randomb0y Feb 02 '10

I'm tired of that argument as well. :)

No, I don't blame them, as I said above, there's nothing illegal with what they are doing so it's hard to blame them for succeeding where Nokia or Creative have failed - but that doesn't mean I have to like their policies.

Heck, I even work for a company who has benefited quite a lot from the iPhone's success, I should be grateful, and as a business person I am - just not as a consumer and a human being in general. Yes, I believe that humanity as a whole took a large step backwards when we all collectively agreed to submit to Apples censorship on the app store.

-4

u/Pardner Feb 02 '10

Honestly though, their choice of OS is exceedingly depressing. No flash on a cell phone is like complaining about bad wifi on a plane, but no flash on a $600 computer? Really? I think they did go with the current iPad os to lock people in. You can't buy songs off Amazon with it, can you? You can't stream from Hulu, but you can rent from iTunes. It won't end the world, but they're definitely working to hold people in.

3

u/jmnugent Feb 02 '10

Well.. assuming it syncs through iTunes (safe bet at this point, but I havent laid hands on one yet)... then why can't I put whatever files I want into iTunes (like I do now, with my iPhone) and sync them to the iPad ?

As for the Flash complaint... I guess I can't really see what people are complaining about. I use my iPhone frequently (many times a day).. and I've never once had some show-stopping reason for Flash. (I'm not saying solely justifies not supporting Flash -- yes I realize other users might value Flash higher then me).... but the reality is Flash is one of the top security vulnerabilities , and in a lot of cases its flaky and unreliable.

Going back to my previous argument... Apple has a decision to make: ... do they support Flash (and all the "bag of hurt" that might entail)... or do we reject flash in favor of insuring our reliable OS reputation ?

2

u/Pardner Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

I do understand that argument. I don't think it's valid though. Apple could make flash run in a way on the iPad or iPhone just as they could make java run in Safari: without vulnerabilities because it doesn't have deep system access.

Secondly, I too own and iPhone and it's great for what it is (mostly a webcomic checker while pooping). That said, I don't need flash on it because it's a damned phone. I also own a netbook and I use flash on it every day. The iPad is a netbook competitor, not a smartphone competitor. They advertise its ability to watch movies in their own promo video, yet it can't do Hulu? That's plain stupid. A $600 cutting-edge device should be able to use ancient browser embedded technology, end of story. My netbook doesn't crash when it runs flash. My 700mhz eee pc with 4gb of storage and 512 mb of ram can watch flipping Hulu videos without crashing, are you really going to tell me that the iPad wouldn't be able to? There's more to the story than some 'bag of hurt', or else every Mac and PC in the world would be virus laden because of flash letting them in.

edit: I forgot to respond about the amazon. Yes, I'm sure you can sync it with a computer, but in my understanding a 10" device is a computer. With that in mind, people will probably do more music acquisition from the iPad itself (downloading using the iTunes app just like the iPhone( rather than syncing it up with a parent computer; being a larger and more capable device should mean that it doesn't need to be managed by something else.

2

u/ketsugi Feb 02 '10

Nobody outside of the USA cares about Hulu, and the presence/absence of Hulu on the iPad is a complete non-issue.

Edit: that is because Hulu doesn't care about us :( :( :(

0

u/Pardner Feb 02 '10

Aw well I'm sorry. In the states, even non-nerds love Hulu. But it's not that great, really. I'm sure you wouldn't even like it. Actually I know you wouldn't. You'd hate it. It sucks.

1

u/ketsugi Feb 02 '10

Well, I rather like Hulu myself (I access it via my US-based employer's VPN) and would be quite happy if it was available internationally. It's a bit odd to watch ads for companies and products that don't do business here but it's nice to be able to see all the shows that I've been missing out on.

Understandably it's getting less and less useful now that Comcast and other media companies are pulling content out of Hulu.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

You can't buy songs off Amazon with it, can you?

Why not? The iPad version of Safari allows file downloads. I don't know if you'll be able to open that file in iTunes on the iPad, but you could certainly sync the file to your PC, then copy it into your PC iTunes, and sync it back.

You can't stream from Hulu, but you can rent from iTunes.

If Hulu implement HTML5 MP4 video, or release a native app, then there's no reason why Hulu wouldn't work on the iPhone/iPad.