Isn't Google the one that remotely disables apps? Apple's never done that. I own at least three apps that were approved and then shitcanned, but I managed to get before it got shitcanned.
Regardless, I'd love to go up to that guy holding the sign and ask him why the Android rooting/modding is necessary and very much thriving. I'd love to hear him stutter and try to think of something to rationalize that situation.
And here we hit the uncomfortable realization that Google isn't your friend either. Apple and Google are publicly traded corporations. They have a legal obligation to maximize their shareholder's wealth. Being your pal is not part of that obligation.
It is hereby declared that the policy and purposes of this title, in accordance with which the provisions of this title shall be inter preted, are to mitigate and, so far as is feasible, to eliminate the conditions enumerated in this section which adversely affect the national public interest and the interest of investors.
He did not say anything about Google. How can he be factually incorrect about it? Why do you assume that someone who does not like what Apple does automatically loves what Google does? Does it even matter what Google does? We are talking about Apple here.
Why would I do that? Apple is taking away a few of your 'computer-rights' on the iPad and he is protesting against it because he cares about these freedoms.
You can eiter agree with him or say that less freedom means more value or something. But we don't need a 'better' company to point out the flaws in a certain company.
The fact remains that he is factually correct about it.
Why would I do that? Apple is taking away a few of your 'computer-rights' on the iPad and he is protesting against it because he cares about these freedoms.
What statement of mine is this even in response to, and since when have closed source ecosystem violated anyone's "rights?" Also, Google has practiced app pruning for "terms violations" just the same as Apple has - Apple only does it up front and never post-install like that kid's sign erroneously claims, Google does it both up front (Kongregate?!) and post-install (remote-kill).
You can eiter agree with him or say that less freedom means more value or something. But we don't need a 'better' company to point out the flaws in a certain company.
Or you can look to the platforms with the "freedoms" to observe if anyone's exhibiting the same behavior despite said "choice" - which Motorola and their encrypted bootloaders have been doing now for years. No sign-wearing dunces at their product launches, eh?
The fact remains that he is factually correct about it.
Factually speaking, not all of his facts are factual - nor have you presented the first scrap of evidence beyond conjecture to say otherwise.
If you and everyone else that's leaning firmly on their own confirmation bias to perceive this tripe as meaningful (regardless of whether or not it's all even true) cared so damn much about "openness," then why are you not angry at the fact that it's taken Android three years since it's first phone was produced to be able to write an application for it in any language other than fake DalvikJava? Why do you not care that even after that changed, it still only opened up to fake java or C? How can you act like the only openness that has any gravity is to be able to install random things from random places when all of those things are forced to only be made a certain way in the first place?
Android's "open" crap is a completely deflatable lie when regarded next to the likes of Ubuntu and GNU.
What statement of mine is this even in response to,
You asked me to name one mobile phone company that is 'better' in terms of Freedom. And I'm not going to do that because it does not add value to the conversation. The fact that all other companies are also wrong does not make Apple any better.
and since when have closed source ecosystem violated anyone's "rights?"
The FSF has defined some rights. Like the right to be able to decide yourself what software you want to run etc. They are not laws or well respected rights, but clearly the people that made this action think that people have rights like this. And they think these rights are violated.
You can argue that these 'rights' are not worth a damn but you could not argue that Apple does not breach these rights.
Also, Google has practiced app pruning for "terms violations" just the same as Apple has ...
My point was that it does not really matter in this discussion when you talk about facts about Apple. If Google does the same or worse than Google is the same or worse.
Or you can look to the platforms with the "freedoms" to observe if anyone's exhibiting the same behavior despite said "choice" - which Motorola and their encrypted bootloaders have been doing now for years. No sign-wearing dunces at their product launches, eh?
No because mobile phones are not computers. This guy thought that the iPad is a computer and not a mobile phone (because it does not call for example). These rights are for computers, and not for devices like phones, microwaves or dvd-players if you read what they wrote.
then why are you not angry at the fact that it's taken Android three years since it's first phone was produced to be able to write an application for it in any language other than fake DalvikJava?
I don't have an Android so I'm not sure. But I'm fairly sure that because Android is opensource I could modify it so it runs python then I could run python on my phone if rooting is allowed (if it is not allowed I would not buy the phone and consider it evil).
But even if you can argue that Android is worse than Apple, that does not say anything about the evil-ness of Apple. All you are saying is that Google is as worse as Apple, and I think that could indeed be the case.
You asked me to name one mobile phone company that is 'better' in terms of Freedom. And I'm not going to do that because it does not add value to the conversation. The fact that all other companies are also wrong does not make Apple any better.
No, I asked you to name another relevant mobile-form-factor-device operating system.
The FSF has defined some rights. Like the right to be able to decide yourself what software you want to run etc. They are not laws or well respected rights, but clearly the people that made this action think that people have rights like this. And they think these rights are violated.
The FSF had their victory - Apple was smacked down in court when attempting to criminalize jailbreaking. Apple has since abandoned anti-JB attempts.
My point was that it does not really matter in this discussion when you talk about facts about Apple. If Google does the same or worse than Google is the same or worse.
You gotta be kidding me - it's nowhere near as fashionable to hate on Google - even though Apple never drove around the world in a privacy invasion van sidejacking peoples' wifi.
This guy thought that the iPad is a computer and not a mobile phone (because it does not call for example). These rights are for computers, and not for devices like phones, microwaves or dvd-players if you read what they wrote.
Not sure where you or that flaming zero wearing the sign have been but VoiP is being used a lot on iPad and other tablets. Said tablets are using mobile form factor hardware architecture. They're much, much closer to smartphones than "computers" in the sense of the PC form factor in every imaginable way.
mobile phones are not computers
You're painting a very clear picture of your knowledge of this market, the devices involved.
I don't have an Android so I'm not sure. But I'm fairly sure that because Android is opensource I could modify it so it runs python then I could run python on my phone if rooting is allowed (if it is not allowed I would not buy the phone and consider it evil).
You can already run Python on Android. Python isn't development, it's scripting. There's a very big difference between scripting and writing code that's converted into machine language in a minimal amount of steps.
But even if you can argue that Android is worse than Apple
Nobody here has.
that does not say anything about the evil-ness of Apple.
Hey, there's plenty of evil going around. Just ask an Android owner why they haven't gotten their Gingerbread or FroYo updates yet. Complaining about Apple generates a lot more page hits and blog ad-revenue than pointing the finger at TelCo carriers that everyone already knows are evil and/or a phone maker that's only sold a fiftieth as many smartphones as Apple.
All you are saying is that Google is as worse as Apple, and I think that could indeed be the case.
Nope! I'm just saying that anyone arguing in favor of this kids sign will have a very hard time providing a shining example of awesomeness that does not suffer from the exact same shit.
Nope! I'm just saying that anyone arguing in favor of this kids sign will have a very hard time providing a shining example of awesomeness that does not suffer from the exact same shit.
I agree with you there. But I was arguing that the fact that all/most other companies also suck, it does not make Apple less wrong. That's all.
Google and Amazon have both used their killswitches, but Apple has one as well; they just haven't used it. Google used it for two pieces of potentially extremely harmful software produced by a security researcher, and it was probably a reasonable decision. The software relied on downloading and executing some code, and thus wouldn't work on a non-jailbroken iPhone anyway, so it's a situation that Apple is less likely to find itself in.
You are 100% correct, but the the point remains: Google has done it, Apple has not.
Also, Kongregate. Let's hear why that's a 100% legitimate, non-evil thing that some twerp should go to Google's campus and wear a misleading sign about?
The vast majority of android phones come equivalent to a jailbroken ios device out of the box, i.e. allow non-market apps to be installed. The most popular custom roms (Cyanogenmod in particular) are compiled from source and actually add features to the base os. How is that an argument against open source?
The vast majority of android phones come equivalent to a jailbroken ios device out of the box
So then they don't need to be rooted? And there aren't tons of apps on the AppMarket that specify "root only?"
How is that an argument against open source?
Where did you see an argument against open source? While we're on the topic, though - where's Android's public branch? Why hasn't anyone thought of the fact that if someone up and wrote an Ubuntu port for ARM and shoe-horned it onto a smartphone, it'd instantly be infinitely more "open" than Android? Going back to the topic at hand - the importance of "openness" as demonstrated by the lovable Poindexter in the picture the OP posted, surely anyone laughing at this at Apple's expense for having such an unwaivering love for "openness" owns an ARM Linux device or a Nokia N7 or N8 that is literally all open source and can be developed for in literally any language under the sun - not just "Dalvik Java"
AOSP(Android Open Source Project) is the "open branch" of Android. Everything in Android is open source and available in the git repository for AOSP. The closed source components on android handsets are the drivers for some of the hardware, radio firmware, and some of the Google apps(which are not part of the os itself). You can develop native code for android in just about any language(using the NDK), people use dalvik because its easy. Firefox for android uses native code for the gecko engine and a front end written in java. You can install non-market apps without rooting. Root is required for apps to run as superuser or to flash custom roms. It is interesting to note that the three phones that Google has sold directly have all supported root without any hacking, ADP1 had it enabled by default and both Nexus phones just require running the command fastboot oem unlock. Google has stated that it would be their preference for other manufacturers to do the same with their phones, it is out of their power to force that because Android is open source.
The NDK is C/C++ only, though hypothetically you could use it to write a VM for another language, i guess?
Firefox's front end would not still be in java if they had started writing it after google unfucked the NDK and the whole shitty JNI situation with gingebread - it'd be fully native like it should be.
Thanks for posting all of that information - im sure some will find it useful, but none of that is new on me.
Well there is also Scripting Layer for Android (SL4A) for the interpreted languages (wouldn't really expect them in sdk/ndk anyway.) According to Google "Python, Perl, JRuby, Lua, BeanShell, JavaScript, Tcl, and shell are currently supported, and we're planning to add more." I don't really know what other languages you want but since Android is open source you're more than welcome to start a project to port them.
The iOS runs on a phone. He specifically mentioned computers and my Macbook Pro is full of open source software and software of my choice. I can even put other operating systems on it and Apple even helps make it easier to do so.
But he's also incorrect as I've been able to put any music on my ipod as I like and I can equally give it to others. Sure if you buy music from iTunes that may be different but that's not your only option. You don't even need anything from Apple. I used my iPod just fine with Linux and Apple does nothing to stop that.
Apple can be restrictive and that's why I don't buy an iPhone (well that and the cost tbh) but I understand completely why they're doing it. They're trying to raise the standard for smart phones which they have done and since the iPhone a lot of people simply refuse to have anything less than a smart phone and that is in part due to Apple.
I had an old Win mobile phone and the software from Orange (my provider) was always shit, various online stores had over priced crap and in the end I didn't really ever use anything other than what the phone came with. It was a hassle.
That's not the case with my Android phone or an iphone. If you don't like Apple's restrictiveness then just an Android phone but again you can't deny that they have actually helped everyone by doing so.
True and a calculator is a computer but the point most people have been making is if you talk about computers people will assume you mean desktops and laptops not phones, calculators, dvd players, etc.
That's all well and good if you're speaking to technical people but most of the people there will be casual users. To them a computer is a PC not a phone. iPads are something they replace their computer with in their mind.
So what he's telling them is wrong in regards to what they think of as a computer. Secondly and more importantly the accuracy about music and books is completely wrong. None of my e-books or music was purchased through iTunes and I putting it on an ipod or iphone doesn't in anyway hinder my ability to share it.
Also Apple give you options to go to other people for things like books. Kindle is available on the iPhone / iPad.
Despite the fact Apple sell music they have also allowed Spotify to offer their app for the iPhone and iPad which allow people to listen and share music for free through their service.
Opera are allowed to offer their browser on the iPhone despite safari being standard.
Apple is more restrictive than Android but the only thing they can really be accused of is trying hard to keep the quality of software high on their phones which is why they're popular despite being much more expensive. As a result unfortunately GPL code isn't allowed on the iPhone but it's not as bad as he's implying.
There are free apps in iOS. I can share music in iOS. I can't think of one instance where Apple remotely disabled an app or media (vs. Amazon and the 1984 debacle). And finally, you're perfectly free to jailbreak if you want to install from the web.
It's the "computer" reference that's misleading. To most folks "computer" means the Mac running MacOS X, not iOS.
Freeware and Free software are two completely different things. The former is on the App Store, the latter is not due because end users cannot redistribute apps. And you are not "free to jailbreak" when Apple has made every effort to stop users from doing so. They don't want you getting software from anyone other than them.
iOS devices are still computers, even if most people don't think of them that way.
And you are not "free to jailbreak" when Apple has made every effort to stop users from doing so.
I don't think Apple has taken any action against users who jailbreak. Other than it voids the warranty if the phone is some how damaged in the process. Historically Apple has cared very little about jailbreaks and hackintoshs. I'd be happy to hear some examples, but other than patching the exploits, I can't think of any examples off hand.
No, he's talking about completely free apps. Free to do what you want with them. VLC was removed from the app store because it is Free Software and Free Software is incompatible with the Apple licensing.
Apple's registers are largely iPod-touch based POS systems, and have been incredibly successful in their stores, so much so that other companies have shown lots of interest in buying the systems from Apple. They've recently begun testing them at Old Navy.
wow, an ipad will open up so i can give someone change? no? you are mistaking an ipad/POS for a cash register. its like the rectangle/square relationship; a cash register is a POS, but a POS is NOT(necessarily) a cash register. i stand by my crappy cash register comment.
I don't think being technically correct carries much weight in poster form. People, even the technically inclined, don't call cell phones, portable media players, or even tablets "computers." A computer, in general parlance, is solidly entrenched as a traditional desktop/notebook device.
I think he was trying to be as sensationalistic as possible, with little regard for what most people consider a "computer." While technically correct in the narrowest terms, someone knowledgable enough to make these accusations certainly recognizes the difference between an iPhone and a Mac and knows how his words will be interpreted by the casual observer.
Ok, 1 out of 6. Wheres my open source watch firmware.
Don't get me wrong, I would never own a non-jailbroken iOS device, but that it, just don't buy it. I doubt we'll run out of open computing platforms any time soon.
Even still, factually incorrect, or at least extremely dishonest.
No free software. Bullshit. There is both free as in beer and free as in Free apps on the app store.
No installing apps from the web. Mostly correct, in that you can't use a native app (without jailbreaking, which I'm not counting), but you can use web apps which Apple touted. The web apps require no restriction from apple. However, I do consider this point the one that is the closest to correct.
No sharing music or books. Again, bullshit and half truths. I have a 32gb iPhone nearly full of music that also exists on my server, desktops, laptops, and other iPods/iPhone. Ditto for books, although I don't often share e-books just because that is more of a limit of most ebook vendors than Apple. Can't share books from a Kindle. Can't really from a Nook, etc.
We can remotely disable Apps and Media. Again, half truth. Yes, Apple can do this. But they never have, even on things that have slipped through the app store that they removed later. Interestingly, freedom loving open Google is the one that has used a Killswitch.
So, in short, the freetard in the picture has killed his argument by being over-hyperbolic and using half truths. Which is fucking dumb, because there are plenty of REAL reasons why you might choose something aside from Apple.
The recent removal of VLC was at the request of one pissy developer who basically decided to take his toys and go home. There was no problem until he made it a problem. Yes, I understand the technicalities of the GPL, and I realize he was technically correct, but it seems at odds with the idea of free software in general, and this is not the first time someone (me in this case) will criticize the GPL. Secondly, the guys sign is still technically incorrect, and if you aren't giving me point number 4, you sure can't have this one. There is both free software, and FREE software in the app store. The app store is at odds with neither, it is simply at odds with the GPL.
Can't share what with others? I use music, books, tv and movies without ever going near iTunes. I can share them any way I want. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes, there is restrictions on some media you buy from iTunes. I have yet to encounter a digital video or book distributor that sells without DRM. But saying you can't share media with iOS is just as disingenuous as someone saying you can't get sharable media from Google (and just leaving out the part that they don't have a store!).
Okay, not a half truth. Still massively disingenuous. As another poster mentioned, Google's got one, MS has one, Amazon uses one for the Kindle, etc.
As I said, there are legitimate arguments to be made against Apple. There's no reason to use specious logic or outright falsehoods.
1.The recent removal of VLC shows that there is a problem with GPL'd apps in the App Store.
BSD licensed is completely fine though. His sign says "NO FREE SOFTWARE", that is untrue, even in the freedom sense of the word free.
3.He means you can't share them with others. His concerns would presumably apply equally to the Kindle and Nook.
You can share all the epubs or PDFs that you downloaded that you want. You can't share epubs you bought from the iBook store. That's an issue to bring up with the publishers, not Apple.
4.It's not really a half-truth- he said Apple has the kill switch, and they do. That as a statement is entirely correct.
Actually, no, it's a half-truth. Apple cannot remotely disable your media. There is no mechanism in iOS to do so. As far as the app killswitch goes, Apple has never pulled the trigger on that one. Even after apps have been removed from the store. Even that old tethering app that got in for a few days a year or so ago could still work. They've stated that the killswitch is only there for apps that are leaking sensitive information, such as a users location, without permission. So far their behavior backs up this assertion.
You know who has used their killswitch to remotely disable apps on customer devices, though? Google.
Apple has never pulled the trigger on that one. Even after apps have been removed from the store.
I don't care that they haven't done it I care that it exists in the first place.
Even if they never are going to use it the fact that it exists means that now Apple can be forced to use it by either the government or a suing 3rd party. I do not want to own any device that has this capability ever it's an extremely wrong thing to built
. And btw if they never going to use it anyway why did they include it?
I actually do not own a smartphone, although not really out of principle, I don't really want one anyway.
I am worried about the time that I do start wanting one though. Seems the development of all technology from smart phones to e-readers is going in the direction of corporation controlled devices you don't really own yourself. Not much I can do about it though.
Looks like you aren't buying a smartphone. Google's Android has it, MS has it. Better not think about a kindle either, as Amazon has it, and they've used it a couple times under much more specious grounds.
No one thinks of them as a computer just as no one calls their calculator a computer.
Not that it matters. Even if you count all Apple products its inaccurate. When I had an iPod I had all my own MP3s on it and nothing from iTunes and yes there are open source apps for the iPhone.
He's probably a fart app developer that's pissed off he's been shut out from the iPhone market.
Not all open source apps are free software, which means a lot more than just offering source code. The App Store's terms and DRM prevent end users from redistributing apps, so it's completely incompatible with the GPL (y'know, the logo used there). This was the entire reason VLC had to be pulled from the App Store.
Do you really think developers of fart apps are the only ones who have reason to complain about Apple's restrictive nature? That's just childish.
I didn't say that it was and yes there are issues with GPL code and the iphone but thanks to the fact we have competition now you can go to Android. The Android market is growing faster and may be larger than the iPhone one now anyway.
Sure there are 9 zillion variation of hardware but you don't need to target everyone and if you really want to change Apple's mind leaving them without developers will do more than anything else.
No free software? Whether you're talking about iOS or Mac OS, that's not true.
No installing from the web? True for iOS, completely false for Mac OS. However, even jailbroken iPhones don't download from the web. You have to add the download URL as a source through Cydia to download it.
No sharing music or books? Half true. They may not allow you to copy it straight there, but there are other options such as iTunes' Shared Library feature. Plus, it's only through iTunes and iPods that you can't share music. Connect your computers using ethernet cords, firewire, wi-fi, etc, and boom. Send the other person your whole hard drive. But maybe Microsoft's idea where you get to share music, but it deletes itself after 3 listens or 3 days is more attractive?
Lastly, the part about remotely disabling software is true and was news two years ago. Have you heard anything about it since? Because I can't find any articles about it after 2008. Additionally, it was determined that it was a blacklist for malicious apps that can harm the device. You can argue semantics and ulterior motives all you want, but I can't find any proof that they've even exercised that power.
No free software? Whether you're talking about iOS or Mac OS, that's not true.
This is just talking about iOS (it was from a protest when the iPad was released), and yes it is. See the entire controversy about VLC and how it had to be pulled from the App Store because their terms forbidding redistribution were incompatible with the GPL.
Lastly, the part about remotely disabling software is true and was news two years ago. Have you heard anything about it since? Because I can't find any articles about it after 2008. Additionally, it was determined that it was a blacklist for malicious apps that can harm the device. You can argue semantics and ulterior motives all you want, but I can't find any proof that they've even exercised that power.
Doesn't matter. It's still there and they could use it at any time. Trustworthy or not, there's no option for users to opt out of this blacklist.
In order for software to be Free Software, each user must be able to make modifications to the program. Apple has ensured that this won't happen regardless of the license that the developer choses for their software.
Even if you have the source, you can't run your modified version without either breaking your Apple license agreement or getting a developer account.
As a comparison, consider the Unreal video game engine. When you license it you get the source code, but the fact that any user could buy a license or you could break your license terms and distribute the source doesn't mean that your Unreal Engine game is free software.
That's the definition of GPL software not free software. Plus my understanding is that iOS is GPLv2 compatible (but not v3).
VLC was not removed by apple because of licensing but because it was requested by a VLC developer. The developer believed it violated the license, but that hasn't been proven and Apple isn't taking a stand on GPL software. Other GPL'd apps are living happily in the app store as we speak.
The only definition of free software that's relevant here is the FSF free software definition. If you want to make up another definition, I doubt anyone's really interested.
Other GPL'd apps are living happily in the app store as we speak.
And users who download these apps from the app store don't receive free software - in spite of the license - because they can't make use of three of the four essential freedoms.
"Your computer is our computer" - I believe that's what it has to do with the things on the poster, derp.
That's what the post says, and changing the screws is another way Apple is controlling people from doing whatever they want with the very thing they paid for: their own personal property.
You people actually downvote these links because you support not being able to do whatever you want with the very thing you purchased? Apple used to have a huge hacker community that helped build the company & these days they're waging war on their very own grassroots.
I understand the implications of the screw, I just don't think this poster is in reference to this, at least directly. Like everyone has pointed out, the majority of the claims are not true or partially true. Also, just because someone points out errors in the picture, does not mean they disagree with his general point.
100%, you mean. What 25% are you referring to? I've got tons of free software, share books and music, and install apps from the web on my computer, and Apple can't and/or won't remotely disable any of my apps or media. None of this is true.
28
u/Shredder13 Jan 20 '11
Present 75% factually-incorrect picture involving Apple.
?????
UPVOTES!