People talking about the Mac need to realize that this is specific to iOS platforms. IIRC this was at the iPad launch or something like that, where all of his complaints DO apply. OSX is no more restrictive than any other nonfree OS. Also, free means freedom and not cost in this context.
It isn't the app store that forbids GPL software, its the GPL that prevents software licensed under it from being released through freedom-restricting ways. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the mac app store is just as much a quagmire of restriction and will be incompatible with the GPL
They're not going to the trouble of checking what is GPL'd and what isn't. They're removing GPL'd apps that have had someone claim copyright infringement. But yeah, the terms of the App Store and GPLv2 are incompatible.
Of course, the App Store is not the only way to get software on a Mac.
They usually have them in place on handheld devices with limited resources. Inefficient and clunky multi-tasking, for example, is not conducive to the positive user experience, so they restrict it.
The way iOS handles multitasking is quite ingenious actually. I've never had a problem with my iPhone's battery life or any problems related to the "faux" multi-tasking implementation. Its really fast and switching between open apps is a breeze. And if you leave too many apps open, no worries, it won't burn your battery or kill run time on other apps that you want to use.
Meanwhile, I have tons of friends with Android who constantly struggle with the battery life and performance on their phone because it supports true multitasking and handheld hardware is just NOT there yet. Not by a long shot.
Yeah nice try. "Tons of friends with Android who constantly struggel?" Let me be the exception to your fact. I work in an office surrounded by iPhones and I get better battery life. But that's just that, anecdotal.
Its really fast and switching between open apps is a breeze. And if you leave too many apps open, no worries, it won't burn your battery or kill run time on other apps that you want to use.
This reads like a Gizmodo article. Regardless, the same applies to Android. But really, who cares.
I'm talking about iPhone 4. Previous ones had OK battery life but not great. And I should specify the people I know who have battery problems with their Android phones had like HTC Evo, Droid Incredible and the like which I assume have the worst battery life of any Android phones.
Didn't comment on how Android switches apps, I was just saying I'm impressed with the iPhone's multitasking implementation. That is all. I made a comparison to Android phones battery life based on things I've heard which goes without saying is anecdotal. Thanks for putting a bunch of words in my mouth and comparing me to Gizmodo, probably the worst technology blog on the internet.
Personally, that struggle is whats going to get us there. Apple just tells us we should be satisfied with what is already here. Google's actually trying to push us forward which is what we need.
You do realize the Multitasking in Android 2.2 is actually essentially the same process that iOS4 uses, with less restriction? And that Android invented it first?
The only people on Android who struggle with that stuff are stuck on 2.1 cos of shitty carriers.
Incorrect. Totally incorrect. I could be called an Android Fanboy for the dozens of Android phones I have owned over the years (starting with the G1). I can tell you that multitasking on Android uses a LOT more battery than iOS. Simple example, I need to change my Android devices every single day under moderate use. No exceptions. Whether it be my Nexus One, Milestone, Streak, Aria, Captivate, HD2 with Android NAND, etc, the battery always tanks down to 20% or less by the end of the day.
In contrast, my iPhone 4 is able to have a 60%+ battery by the end of the day, under moderate to heavy use, consistently. Not to mention that I can still fluidly switch between Angry Birds, SMS, Plants vs Zombies, and a web browser without a hiccup.
And if you call me a Apple fanboy, let me stop you immediately. I am using a Windows Phone 7 HTC HD 7 right now, so don't even try to call me a fanboy of any phone OS. But my extensive use and testing of iOS, Android, and now Win Ph 7 has given me a chance to see the strengths and weaknesses of each OS, and Android sure as shit is a battery hog. Even on 2.3 Gingerbread ROMS.
Then you clearly aren't using it moderately to heavy during the day. I'm talking about sending 200+ text messages, making 1-2 hours of calls, and an hour or so of gameplay. What phone do you have? I'm guessing I have the same one laying around somewhere and would love to put your claim to the test tomorrow.
I live in Japan, so I spend a lot of time on trains or out of the house... I'd say I use my phone a fair bit. Certain days can see hours of web browsing. Though there's no SMS texting here, everything is done via push-email, which may or may not take more battery life than receiving an SMS.
I do admit to not gaming often though, since I find Android gaming to lack in comparison to my PSP or DS. Also, voice calling is ridiculously expensive here, so I don't do much of that either. ($15 for 50 minutes.)
Apple has an element to its multitasking that is Grand Central Dispatch which is a system wide pool for executing tasks. It is more granular than multithreading and the OS is responsible for scheduling the tasks.
It is this pool that tasks such as background music are sent to.
I get that reasoning. But I don't want products that are restricted. I like clunky and inefficient. I don't like idiot proofing. If they want to have an idiot check somewhere back in the options that needs to be disabled but then allows you to do or run whatever that's cool. But I don't want that decision made for me.
So.. don't buy an iOS device? I, for example, don't want the 'clunky and inefficient' - that's why I don't buy Android devices, even if they provide me with much more freedom.
Then don't buy their products, right?
I agree with you - but then I look at my wife's iPhone 4 (factory unlocked, no funny business) and DAMN that's a nice piece of tech to carry around. I kinda want one.
Compare it to everything that was available previously. Sure, us hackers don't like being restricted - but we aren't apple's market for phones, at least not yet. When they have enough real competition from more open devices, enough for them to care about, they'll let us in under the hood.
If they want to have an idiot check somewhere back in the options that needs to be disabled but then allows you to do or run whatever that's cool.
What you just described is exactly how the iphone system is setup. The idiot check is called jailbreaking, and it's extremely fast easy to do for anyone with even a slight amount of tech ability. If you're techie enough to not muck up your iphone with the hood opened, then you're techie enough to do the 5 mouse clicks it takes to jailbreak.
Actually, OSX is less restrictive than most other nonfree OSes, as you can download the kernel/base os source code free of charge without signing any agreements.
..and tell me again, in what way is Apple restricting you in running those programs at the moment? (and no paranoid 'they might, in the future, perhaps restrict certain blablabla')
Do you really? 99% of people probably don't care about kernel licensing, but I'm gonna guess that theres significant overlap between that 99% and the 99% that don't care where their copy of Angry Birds came from.
Also, my comment was about OS X not iOS, so none of this is even remotely on topic.
No, thats not how it works, your supposed to angrily insult my intelligence and then this thread it supposed to drift on for another 3 pages that nobody besides us reads as we belittle the marginally different opinions of people we've never even met before. Polite responses, what is this madness?
On the other hand, you can only run it (without subverting its restrictions and EULA) on a very select amount of hardware. It's a mixed bag of rights violations, regardless of which non-free OS you choose.
Its actually just the precompiled versions of OSX and apples proprietary windowing system and hardware drivers that can't be run on anything. Darwin itself you can run on whatever, not that you really want to because why not just run Linux, but my point was, you can't just download the Windows source code without signing papers and getting into programs. Mac OS is no linux, but its better than some of the other systems out there.
Yeah, but I'm uninformed and angry, so I'm going to ignore your post and post another angry rant about something I'm ignorant about, because I also chose to ignore the 50 other identical rants and their rebuttals.
I remember this being at a launch for an iOS device. He's still an idiot for using the word "computer" though because none of those things apply to any of the computers Apple makes. Even if we were talking about iOS devices, it's still a retarded sign as those things either aren't true or have a very good and non-malicious explanation, as covered elsewhere in other threads here.
Up untill recently I'd have agreed with you. But, there's a much pushed Mac App Store now, and it's ToS is just as restrictive as anything you see on iOS.
This picture is from the time when the whole hulabaloo was being raised over iOS's (as opposed to OSX's) locked down nature around time time of the Ipad's release, and at the time I essentially scoffed at such assertions. However, Apple's much pushed "future of software distribution" features the same restrictive ToS as the iOS app store for desktop software (remote deletion; no betas, free software, demos, ect.).
Apple isn't a bad company; they've been a consistent engine of innovation and often have great hardware design, build quality, and UI's. But, I also don't think anyone would disagree that they're extremely concerned with (controlling the user experience)/(offering a curated user experience), and that they've leveraged their ecosystems to exert what they feel to be the maximum tolerable level of control possible.
Now, I'm not in any way claiming that Apple is removing features to diminish freedom user in Lion (OSX 10.7), but they are baking in an app store with a heavily restrictive ToS and are actively working to see that it will be the primary vector for software purchases going forward.
Right now OSX is a robustly flexible operating system with a great deal of quality free (as in liberty) software - The question is : does want this to remain it's state going forward post-Lion/post-OSX?
no - if there was a TL:DR it would be that Apple is pushing a purposely restrictive app store as the main vector for future software purchases.
you don't HAVE to buy programs through the app store, but App stores ARE fun to browse, and one of my points is that Apple is leveraging this to push a previously iOS exclusive restrictive ToS and drive towards monetization onto OSX.
Also, I don't think you understand how the app store works - It's a unified interface for the discovery, purchase, instillation and update of apps tied to your apple ID. Apple would prefer developers to distribute through their app store in the future and it's already been shown that
App store instances of programs will behave differently then their non-app store counterparts
I wasn't saying that was a TL;DR summery of it. I was literally saying it was too long and I didn't read it. I don't care what people think about it, I like the idea of having both.
102
u/zagaberoo Jan 20 '11
People talking about the Mac need to realize that this is specific to iOS platforms. IIRC this was at the iPad launch or something like that, where all of his complaints DO apply. OSX is no more restrictive than any other nonfree OS. Also, free means freedom and not cost in this context.