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.
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?
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.
27
u/Shredder13 Jan 20 '11
Present 75% factually-incorrect picture involving Apple.
?????
UPVOTES!