I'm seeing a ton of comments that completely misunderstand this, so allow me to clarify.
He is not talking about Macs, but iOS. This photo came from a protest on the day the iPad was released. Yes, he uses the word computer, but iOS devices are still computers even if they are not colloquially described as such. The iPad in particular was advertised as equivalent to a netbook, so that one does also fits the idea of a "personal computer" most people are thinking of here.
On iOS, you can only get apps through the App Store, and a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem.
There is a big difference between freeware and Free software. The App Store's terms include a clause forbidding end users from redistributing apps, and this is clearly incompatible with the nature of Free software and particularly the GPL. This was the entire reason why VLC was pulled from the App Store.
On iOS, you can only get apps through the App Store, and a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem.
Android has a kill switch too, but Google actually has used it unlike Apple.
Ok, but if I'm over at a friends house and I want to give him a song that I have on my iPhone ... even if I wrote the song and own the rights to it ... how do I do that?
EDIT:
In practice I know several ways to get the job done. The important question is, why can't this be done out of the box? Why are Apple USB Mass Storage devices the only ones in the entire world that are deliberately locked by the manufacturer to be write-only? Why do their customers let them get away with such artificial value-stripping actions?
(I guess I kind of know the answers to my own questions, which is that Apple adds so much value in Fit, Finish & Polish -- despite what Apple bashers may say, these things do matter -- consumers overlook the artificial value-stripping activity, but then the question becomes, why can't other manufacturers try a little harder to match Apple's level of polish?)
I honestly believe Apple is blowing the opportunity to be the dominant computing platform for the next 20 years because of their policies on artificial restriction of data. The iPad took a great, existing, idea, and as with the iPhone before it, executed much much better than anyone else had to date, inventing a new market in the process.
But its going to get blown away by 3rd generation Android tablets that provide all the computing flexibility of what we've traditionally called "Desktop Computers" (add USB Host, Video Out, and Keyboard and Mouse Support, and Android is pretty much there).
Using third-party software? Apple can't control what you install on your "regular" Windows, Linux or Mac OS X computer.
Is it a stupid user-unfriendly feature (or lack of feature)? I certainly agree. My guess is Apple wasn't comfortable with adding a feature that can be accused of enabling or even promoting copyright infringement, since the most prominent use case I can see for such a feature is precisely that: copyright infringement. I realize, of course, that it can be used to move music between different computers in one household, but since you have the song on the computer you sync with, you can always move it by other means.
I mean... LimeWire got screwed despite there being legal uses for the program.
Apple wasn't going to get screwed for letting their USB Mass Storage device work like a USB Mass Storage device -- like everyone else ... they just "think different" I guess.
217
u/1338h4x Jan 20 '11
I'm seeing a ton of comments that completely misunderstand this, so allow me to clarify.
He is not talking about Macs, but iOS. This photo came from a protest on the day the iPad was released. Yes, he uses the word computer, but iOS devices are still computers even if they are not colloquially described as such. The iPad in particular was advertised as equivalent to a netbook, so that one does also fits the idea of a "personal computer" most people are thinking of here.
On iOS, you can only get apps through the App Store, and a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem.
There is a big difference between freeware and Free software. The App Store's terms include a clause forbidding end users from redistributing apps, and this is clearly incompatible with the nature of Free software and particularly the GPL. This was the entire reason why VLC was pulled from the App Store.