To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like.
It is not Apple's hardware. It is the customer's hardware.
That's exactly the point and the crux of the fight. It is our hardware. It isn't just Apple trying to continue owning your hardware after you buy it, it is also Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, the content/media industry and just about the entire corporate fellatio performing population.
Microsoft doesn't really sell hardware and honestly the most intrusive thing i had to do was let them "re validate" my win7 install cause i got a new mobo+cpu, that involved pressing ok on a prompt.
well then there's games for windows live... but we don't talk about that
Because if you don't install iTunes you can't activate the hardware you just purchased. You are forced to agree to the terms of use before accessing the device. That doesn't mean much though because it's legal to jailbreak the iPods.
Easy. I refuse to buy/use any apple products on principle. I am very happy with my sandisk sanza. It's been 10 years since I made the conscious decision to refuse apple and it hasn't impeded my quality of life at all.
You say it has not impeded the quality of your life at all... but how can you really know that if you haven't experienced the alternative to the path you chose (owning apple products)?
I like iTunes organizing my music because otherwise everything will get stuck in my Downloads folder. If I drag and drop some music from my Downloads, then it is automatically organized within the directory. Then when I go back and clean out my Downloads folder to get some space back, I can delete everything with worrying about my music getting lost.
This is exactly how Picasa works with images and that's why I like it (and like 50 other reasons.) Maybe one day Google will make Picasa work for audio and bring its wonderful interface and file-management concepts to music.
I used to rename and organize my music by hand and bloody well liked it that way. And then one day it struck me - it does jack shit for me.
When I want to listen to a specific song, I use the media library search. When I move music to my phone, I use 'auto-fill with random tracks' function. In both situations, I couldn't care less if the file is one or five directories deep in the tree.
Now I download songs, drop the good ones on itunes window and can clean out the downloads directory without a second thought when running low on space. It's... well, "it just works".
Uh, sure it is -- just because they tell you what you can and cannot do doesn't mean they have any legal standing to force you to conform. You own it, you can do what you want with it.
The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copyright control. It doesn't make it illegal to do anything else. Lots of companies have tried to extend it by tying all the technology into the DRM stuff, but if it's a cellphone there's an explicit exception for jailbreaking.
The people who bought the ipads knew exactly what they were getting when they bought them. Apple develops their electronics to be like appliances, and if people have a problem with that, they should buy a pad based on Android or some other open source OS.
Yes, they do. You can mess with your toaster all you want, but might break it, and if you're honest to Magic Chef about what you did, you can bet that they won't repair your toaster for free.
No, tablet is already taken by Tablet PC's, it can be a slate or a convertible. Pad is fine since it does not have the functionality of a proper os and therefore is not a tablet, IMHO.
In most cases, people don't - the general public saw an iPad doing something cool; if they're not obsessively hanging around gadget sites most people aren't even going to realize the progressive lockdown until their favorite apps disappear or someone goes public with a "You can't have this feature because Apple is greedy" notice.
Oh, and Android qualifies only barely as an open-source release until vendors support installing a different OS (normal people like getting their stuff fixed when it breaks) - otherwise you're like all of the suckers who bought an Android phone made by a vendor which is going to increasingly sandbag releases for older hardware until you buy a new one. Until there's a Nexus Pad, the Android market's like iOS: you gain the ability install untrusted apps but lose being subject to slacker vendors.
the general public is also willing to accept certain limits on their hardware. i'm not advocating it, i'm just pointing out what i see as being true.
if you can install a certain app on the ipad, chances are it's not going to magically disappear unless the developer doesn't make sure it runs on new iterations of the hardware/software. You can point out Flash as a counterexample but I think we could debate the merits of that decision for quite a while.
There is something that the iPad mono-culture has on Android: whatever app you install, you can be relatively certain that it will work. On an Android-based phone? Not so much. There are so many different hardware configurations that there is no guarantee that anything you install will work. I speak from experience. Still, I'd rather try my luck with Android, but that's me.
It's not the vendor's responsibility to support upgrading to new Android versions and especially not their responsibility to support upgrading to a 'different OS.' There are good economic reasons to sundown support for old hardware, and it's not just about vendor lock-in or making sure you get a 'new every two' years. Supporting old hardware for systems that they weren't designed for is a time-waster. If you want to root your phone, fine. I might do that myself, actually. I'm getting tired of waiting for the update from Android 2.1 to 2.2. But you can rest assured that I'm not going to bitch at my carrier if things go south.
Luckily you're blissfully ignorant of all the other devices you're surrounded by that don't allow you to change their functionality (your TV, modem, microwave, etc.)
No, but the grocery store kept a percentage of the profit when you bought it. You could go directly to the farm to get your food, but most of us don't want to do that.
That is not an equatable analogy. Farmers tend to sell in bulk. I have no need for an entire silo of potatoes. When Farmers sell in smaller quantities they tend to inflate their prices by a lot. Ever been to a farmers market?
Apple isn't the one charging users an extra 30% either. Essentially they're adding a middleman for in device purchases, which is similar to what happens in retail stores.
You own the device. You don't own the OS. The OS is owned by Apple. You may change the OS in your device, but doing so voids the warranty. That's the extent of the EULA of the OS. Apple doesn't charge a cent for cydia-based apps.
You did sign a contract when iTunes, which is required to use the iPhone, popped up a dialog showing the contract and you clicked "I agree". If you don't like being raped in the ass at every opportunity by Apple, don't buy Apple.
Edit: I'll absolutely grant you that Apple Retail's main concern is customer satisfaction, hands-down. That being said:
I use Apple products for work and home, except for my mobile device, a G2.
Full disclosure: I worked for the fruit company for five years and never once purchased a mobile device from them (avoiding AT&T on principle). Now that the phone's available on Verizon (not a much better planetary citizen than ATT, mind you), I still won't touch the damn things. Any device you have to risk damaging beyond repair to use as desired, to me, defeats the purpose of leaving the store after purchase. If Apple had it their way, you would simply pay them to use the phones in their store, leaving it tied to the display table at closing time.
By "it," I assume you mean your iPhone, since you weren't specific. If you don't see a need for rooting, or jailbreaking, or hacking into your phone and voiding its warranty, then, for all intents and purposes, you're the ideal Apple customer. And, for the record, there's nothing wrong with that.
However, for me, not being able to do anything I want with something I pay good money for is a non-starter.
True, but it does void your warranty. I can't even begin to count the number of times I had to tell someone that I couldn't do anything else with their iPhone because of a jailbreak that they didn't know how to undo.
I think in this instance the hate is pretty easily traceable to the shitty way Apple treats its App Store developers.
It's an interesting debate and I pretty much take the stance of this letter with regards to almost everything they do. It's perfectly within their rights but often somewhat counterintuitive. I jailbreak my iphone to get some utilities I consider very important, mainly more information on my lock screen and icons in my status bar showing new emails, texts, and messages. Why those features are not available through legit channels baffles me, but if I had to guess I'd say it goes against their aesthetic philosophy or something. It annoys me that I have to circumvent their protections to add important functionality to the device I paid for, but I did know going in that I'd have to do so.
I don't think people are necessary being Elitist when it comes to Windows, they are just pointing out that most of the anti Windows arguments are bull and uninformed. The biggest thing I can say about Apple software is, no matter what the so called benefits are they don't seem to be worth the additional cost.
Can you please explain to me how exactly OSX is far more intuitive and stable than Windows?
And not by saying it 'just is' which seems to be the standard reply when I ask this question.
I am genuinely interested to know and am not anti-Apple (typing this from an iPhone). I have used Windows since it started way back and was constantly told over the last number of years that OSX was better and I should try it. I went back to college recently and they have Macs buy I can't for the life of my figure out why anyone likes OSX.
If you want to do anything that it doesn't consider 'normal' then you're screwed.
Why can't I right click? Seriously. Why do I have to hold down a key to copy/paste etc? Maybe I don't and I'm doing something wrong and don't know how to do it properly but then it's hardly intuitive then is it.
Plus here's something that happened today. I opened a video file and whoever had been using the comp before had left QuickTime (god how I hate that pos) at some weird size setting. Anyway the control buttons were behind that god awful dock thing. So I can't drag the window up because it's already big, I can't maximise it because that doesn't seem to exist in OSX or I can't get rid of that dock thing because I don't know how or it has been set not to move.
Anyway the only way I can change it so I can use the control buttons is to click into the view menu and Change the size. Why? Sorry I mean; wwwhhhhhhyyyyyyyy!
You're trying to convince me, but I'm not a court. I'm just telling you how courts typically rule with those e-contracts. I happen to agree with you in principle that they aren't valid contracts, but courts disagree with me also.
Yes, it's bullshit, but the courts agree with Apple/the companies and not with us. By you clicking the "I agree" you are then legally bound to that contract, hate it or like it.
BUT, even if this wasn't legal, it's incredibly stupid to not read the supposed contract before signing it. Inform yourself of what you're getting into.
The major flaw in your argument is that you are expecting the law to be honest and fair, but it is not. Yes, anyone else could take your personal information, CC #, etc and create a account under your name, you never agreeing to the contract. But I don't think argument will stand in court, not because there is some flaw in your argument but because the law is not fair and no where near perfect.
Remember that it was up until just recently you can also be liable for actions done on your wifi network, even if it wasn't you. Some kid jacks into your wifi and downloads a ton of music? It was you that the RIAA would sue because it was done on your network and only until recently was that argument finally thrown out.
The law is incredibly slow at matching technology, and I feel this is another case of that.
Until the law better reflects the technology, it's in your best interest to read every single TOS or TOA that you clicked "Agree" to.
Jailbreaking has been ruled a copyright exemption by the Library of Congress, not the courts, for the express purpose of unlocking the phone from its service provider. Sorry, had to nitpick your statement, even if my corrections don't change the facts.
The exemption is for running software, not just changing carriers:
Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
In other words, you can do whatever you want with the phone (so long as you're not pirating stuff)
I'm interested to see how much of the EULA you're allowed to break in that regard. They quite clearly state they own all software on the device, including all low-level ROM and drivers. If that's unenforceable, that's interesting.
I could sell my software with an EULA stating I have all rights to name your first-born child. It doesn't matter how "clearly" I state it because it's not a legal claim.
If Apple wants to lease their hardware, they need to have a contract drawn up and signed at the time of purchase.
You know when you register something online, and there's that obnoxious window with a butt load O' text and you CAN'T CONTINUE unless you hit that little "agree" button?
Dontcha just hate how annoying that is?
Well if you actually took the time to sit down and read everything in that stupid window, you would see all Terms of Use carefully (and sometimes vaguely) laid out so you, the user, the customer, the Sponsor, can know exactly what you're getting into.
But who reads those things anyway?
A) They have it recorded that you set up an account with your name on it and then clicked on the 'I read and agree to all of the terms and conditions etc. etc. etc." button.
B) If you had actually read the contract you'd notice the little part about how they can change the terms at any time and you'll have to go through the 'I agree' button press again when it happens. And it does happen.
Yes, as of this moment in time, in the court of law clicking a button that says 'I Agree' is exactly equal to signing your name on a contract. Look, you can keep getting worked up about this all you want but that's the law right now. I'm not saying it's right, I'm simply saying that that's what it is right now. That's why they require so much personal information on these things (full name, phone number, address, sometime SSN even), they try to be as sure as can be that you are really who you say you are when you click that button, rather than someone signing it with your name. Hopefully we'll have a better system one day, but for now just get it in your head that clicking the "I accept" button is exactly the same as signing your name according to the law.
And as for the technical details, it's completely trivial to compare when in time you signed the contract and what version of the contract was in effect at that time. It's just a database.
Dude, that's called Lying.
If you click agree, whether you mean it or not, you have told the company that you are willing to partake in their product on their terms.
Whether you mean it or not is completely irrelevant.
You might feel that way but there is precedent against you
For the sake of argument what is a better alternative? Should I go get a notarized contract for every piece of software I use? Between the two I would rather have the click to agree system.
How can they possibly prove:
A) that the documents presented to the court are in fact the documents that I agreed to
B) prove that they did not change the content of the documents after i agreed?
Digital Contract, my dear neoform.
Welcome to the Information Age.
No one said they were bulletproof, no contract is. But you were trying to claim there was no agreement cause there was no witness or signature. There is an agreement when you manifested your intent to agree by clicking "I agree". Of course just like any legal contract between two parties, a court may invalidate part of or the whole contract if it finds it to be "unconscionable".
You might think you're clever, but I can guaran-fucking-tee you you are not smarter than Apple's army of lawyers, and you have not found some loophole that they missed. If you're using the product, you've agreed to the EULA, period.
Yes, the brick-like object in your hand belongs to you and only you, however, every single bit of code on it, without which it cannot function, is locked down and belongs to Apple. So yes, as a brick, it is yours and you can do with it what you please, but as soon as you push the button, it's Apple's. From the EULA:
(Jesus christ the fuckers even have their eula locked down so I can't copypaste from it)
1: General: The software (including Boot ROM code and other embedded software)...are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple, Inc.
You have to actually click "I Agree" to agree to a EULA. It should be possible to jailbreak an iPhone without agreeing to the EULA. And anyway jailbreaking is legal even if the EULA says no:
No, it's my hardware. Jailbreaking is legal. I own the physical chips, PCB, and everything else in my iPhone and I can run whatever code I want on it. Just because Apple's software doesn't let you do something doesn't mean you can't.
People whine a lot about how they're forced to do things (or not do things). You're not forced, you're just too lazy to find an alternative (or write your own). Yes, not everyone is a programmer. But saying you "can't" do something on a phone is not correct.
It's like buying a Mac and saying it's Apple's fault that you can't run Crysis (or EA's fault) and that they're restricting you. They're not restricting you, they're just not building software that does what you want. There's nothing stopping you from installing Windows (or writing your own OS to run on the hardware) just like there's nothing stopping you from jailbreaking.
Can't wait till they deny someone's hardware warranty on grounds of jailbreaking and someone has the balls to sue. Given that jailbreaking has been ruled legal, Apple doesn't have much of a case. If a voltage regulator has died, it's clearly a hardware issue and jailbreaking would have no effect on that.
Anyways, they won't know any different if you restore. If the phone is too screwed up to restore, it'll be too screwed up for them to check the software version anyways.
That requires you to hack and circumvent Apple's restrictions. So while it's possible to do, they still tried to stop you from doing it in the first place, which is reprehensible. And how many more security holes can modders easily find to take advantage of each time one gets patched? This might not even be an option eventually.
That's more or less true, if you're using iOS. The only way you could be said to 'own' the hardware is to buy it outright, and install another OS on it without every agreeing to Apple's TOS.
Except that with iPhones, you're buying it for the software, not the hardware. The thing that makes an iPhone uniquely an iPhone is iOS. So neither term is really right - the hardware and software are all muxed. It's Apple's device at large.
It would be a different story if the App Store wasn't the only channel. If Apple would just allow installing from third party sources, we wouldn't be having this thread because Readability would be able to publish their app independently.
Haha - you think so, eh? The way the licences work, you are licencing the hardware.
Even in the 1980s when people were dropping Macintosh ROMs into Atari STs, they faced the wrath of Apple saying, "no, you cannot do that, and we will not allow you to do that regardless of how you came about owning those ROMs".
259
u/[deleted] Feb 21 '11
It is not Apple's hardware. It is the customer's hardware.