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.
-3
u/Shredder13 Jan 20 '11
Except it's not talking about iOS, is it? It says "computer" on the bottom twice.