Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th May 2012 18:28 UTC
Apple "I think that Apple could be just as strong and good and be open, but how can you challenge it when a company is making that much money?", Wozniak told a crowd in Sydney, according to ITNews. They'd score so many brownie points the internet would explode.
Order by: Score:
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

1. Reverse the ban on GPL software in the App Store and Mac App Store. The GPL only requires making the source available at no cost to people who have the binary, which could be as simple as putting a working link to the source repository in the application's "about this app" message.

2. Set each iOS device to jailbroken by default. Most users are, quite frankly, morons that wouldn't know how to take advantage of the added functionality if you mailed them a thousand page printed manual going over every possible action in explicit detail.

3. Remove any remaining DRM from the app stores, iTunes, and iBooks. Seriously,they're not popular because of lock-in, they're popular because of convenience and selection.

4. Open source the rest of the operating system and all the Apple software. Again, this doesn't mean you have to put download links on apple.com to download bootable Darwin images, but it'd help. Darwin for ARM would be especially cool, as it would give GNU/Linux some competition in the embedded world.

5. After #4, there's no penalty to using GPLv3 software, so for the love of Jobs, update bash, gcc, and any other software you've let stagnate.

6. Remove the gray area and make Hackintoshing explicitly legal. A limited hardware lineup like Apple's is never going to meet everybody's needs - why not sell an operating system to the rest? $30 for a pure open source OS with superb vendor support and tons of commercial applications is entirely reasonable.

If all of this happened, I'd get an iPad tomorrow. Seriously.

Reply Score: 7

lmprods Member since:
2012-05-14

If all of this happened, I'd get an iPad tomorrow. Seriously.


Instead of responding point-by-point, I'll just respond to your final statement. So your point is that Apple should reverse every policy that has contributed to its success over the last 10 years, and then you'll spend $500?

Reply Score: 6

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

You know, I can think of a lot of ethical, moral, technological wrong ways to be extremely successful in business. Crippling your product, blocking interoperability, taking a huge cut on any transaction done on your platform, etc.

Reply Score: 4

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

blocking interoperability


Apple is a master of blocking interoperability and lock-in. If something they should gain some decency to use more open standards (USB, free codecs, no DRM and so on).

Edited 2012-05-14 19:59 UTC

Reply Score: 12

kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

"blocking interoperability


Apple is a master of blocking interoperability and lock-in. If something they should gain some decency to use more open standards (USB, free codecs, no DRM and so on).
"
speaking of USB:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec7/index.html

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think he was mentioning Apple's remarkable reluctancy to use industry-standard mini- and micro-USB connectors in their iPods and iOS-based products, instead insisting to use "iPod connectors" proprietary crap.

I agree that "USB" alone was a bad example, though. Except if we're talking about USB 3.

Edited 2012-05-15 12:46 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

#4 is never going to happen, and frankly I'm fine with that.

IMO though, the best thing Apple could possibly do for its business model would be to sell a version of OSX for PCs, and try to make their way into the mainstream PC market. OSX has an enormous usability advantage over Linux, and plus brandname appeal, and it's just pretty. I'm telling you, if they did this, they could crush Microsoft overnight.

P.S. You forgot #0: "Use some of those immense cash reserves to give a decent paycheck to the workers you've been gratuitously exploiting." Seriously.

Reply Score: 11

sicofante Member since:
2009-07-08

1. OSX does not have "an enormous usability advantage over Linux". That's just your opinion. Lots of other people think otherwise.

2. PCs (iMACs, Macbooks, etc.) provide Apple just a 15% of its income (and declining). Why would they even care to "crush" Microsoft in such a small market for them? MS is already "crushed" in the market that counts: mobility. They're no one there.

Apple is fine as it is. They get the biggest profit while not having the biggest market share. They're just doing fine as company. Nobody is forced to use their products (I don't). Just leave them alone and move on.

Reply Score: 5

novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Hello everybody,

First of all, sorry for my english. As you'll quickly notice it's not very good ;-)

Even if it's only annecdotical, I just want to answer on this one

Nobody is forced to use their products (I don't). Just leave them alone and move on.


You're right... For private buyers.

I work in the headquarter of a quiet big company (for Switzerland) and have to fight everyday agains the wanna be system engineers that want to show me how much better Apple is than the PCs we gave them.

As long as these people are simple users it's not a problem... BUT when leaders (Without any idea how IT works) of this company (or friends of these leaders) start to ask you everyday about that, it becomes much more complicated.

We have about 20 Apple boxes and these machines causes more trouble than the 500 win7 boxes. USERS of these apple boxes are also a pain in the a... They will NEVER accept that their Apple box could be the cause of a problem or an incompatibility.

I don't even talk about the lack of interoperability of iPhones and iPads with the rest of the world.

From what I've heard from other system engineers it's a quiet common situation in other companies too.

Reply Score: 4

Nikato Member since:
2005-12-17

Apple has essentially destroyed the market for traditional windows PC's. This is similar to how the ebook has basically destroyed the market for traditional printed books. Apple's strategy of extinguish and re-imagine works quite well. As the market for PC's shrinks into oblivion, the Mac, will continue to hold onto its users. As much as I love the ipad, i would NEVER Sacrifice my Mac. If I can have both, Great, but Ipad only, NO WAY. Apple's market-share for Desktop Computers will start to rise sharply as the number of windows users declines. Once Microsoft has thrown in the towel on the "Dead" desktop market, Apple will be left to Re-imagine the spoils.

Reply Score: 0

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has essentially destroyed the market for traditional windows PC's. This is similar to how the ebook has basically destroyed the market for traditional printed books. Apple's strategy of extinguish and re-imagine works quite well. As the market for PC's shrinks into oblivion

RDF is strong with you, young padawan...

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is already "crushed" in the market that counts: mobility. They're no one there.

Well, MS does get royalties out of Android, the ~dominating player...

Apple is fine as it is. They get the biggest profit while not having the biggest market share. They're just doing fine as company. Nobody is forced to use their products (I don't). Just leave them alone and move on.

Still, they can be easily seen as a bit despicable - for example, it's a company with two major quite clearly stated goals of 1) blocking others from their supposed innovation 2) not interested about selling to "lesser" people (instead targeting that minuscule part of human population which brings largest profits); in effect, the goal of limiting overall human progress.

Reply Score: 2

gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

...the best thing Apple could possibly do for its business model would be to sell a version of OSX for PCs, and try to make their way into the mainstream PC market. OSX has an enormous usability advantage over Linux, and plus brandname appeal

I agree with you on the brandname appeal. Hipsters will always be hipsters. But I disagree on the "crushing MS/Windows" thing. Strange as it may sound to you, I've noticed more and more people install Win7 on their Macbooks over the past year. Of course, they keep OSX installed, but many seem to use Win7 more often on it. Whether that's to do with their workflow needs or just a factor of familiarity, I cannot say.


... and it's just pretty

One man's hero is another's terrorist. I frankly can't stand widgety bubbly shiny stuff. Nor can I tolerate fuzzy unsharp fonts.

Probably explains why I've run either Xmonad or ScrotWM/SpectrWM on top of OSX on my workplace's Mac Pro and use them as much as I can. Even rolled back to Snow Leopard just because Lion refused to play nice with those two window managers.


P.S. You forgot #0: "Use some of those immense cash reserves to give a decent paycheck to the workers you've been gratuitously exploiting." Seriously.

All mega-corporations should be doing this, not just Apple.

Edited 2012-05-15 01:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I'll only respond to the first one which is easy...they can't use GPL V3, sorry. To be compliant with GPL V3 thanks to the TiVo clause they would have to open ALL DRM so that one could compile and use the app on any apple device which would destroy the market. After all one could argue its their control that has kept the Apple appstore a hell of a lot cleaner and malware free than the Android appstore which has been hit by one bug after another.

So i'm sorry friend but if you think Apple, which like it or not has a history of tight grained control of their devices, is gonna give up ALL DRM just to allow GPLed apps? sorry, not gonna happen. Personally I would not be surprised if the opposite becomes true in that all appstores will simply ban GPL so you will either have to have the ability to offer it under another license or not at all as in the case of VLC.

I have noticed that more new projects are refusing contributions if you don't sign rights away which tells me the days of "everyone can contribute" will probably end up dead. After all if you can't get your app into the Apple or MSFT appstores what good is it? Between those two companies you are looking at probably 90%+ of the devices on the planet!

So as much as i like old woz i just don't see an "Open Apple" ever coming about. they make too much money with the current model and are in fact last i checked the biggest corp on the planet. does anyone really think they are gonna risk such a successful model to please such a small group? after all their customers don't seem to have a problem with the way things are judging by the lines around the block when a new iDevice is released. if it ain't broke?

Reply Score: 2

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

That's stupid and wrong. DRM is not the same thing as control over the market. You can and should be picky about what goes in to your operating system's main repository - note the lack of viruses in Debian. DRM is just restricting what people can do with software and data they already have.

Reply Score: 3

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I'll only respond to the first one which is easy...they can't use GPL V3, sorry. To be compliant with GPL V3 thanks to the TiVo clause they would have to open ALL DRM so that one could compile and use the app on any apple device which would destroy the market.

Ehh no, and were not talking about Apple using GPLv3 here. Microsoft showed how easy it is to allow GPLvX licenced software in their marketplace by simply saying that when it comes to OSI approved licences like GPLvX then their conditions will override that of those in the market place.

And for the record the whole 'open all DRM' is pure FUD, just like hundreds of thousand sites all across the web can distribute GPLv3 licenced software without opening their web site source code so can Apple when distributing through their AppStore.

The whole thing hinges on Apple enforcing their own restrictions on the software distributed through the AppStore, which in this case is the number of copies you are allowed to make of said software. GPL explicitly allows you to make and distribute as many copies of GPL licenced software as you want, Apple says you can only make X copies and this is where the terms collide.

However as we've seen from Microsoft, it's easy to fix this problem by making OSI approved licenced excempt from this restriction. Apple doesn't want to.

Reply Score: 5

jebb Member since:
2006-07-06

The GPL only requires making the source available at no cost to people who have the binary, which could be as simple as putting a working link to the source repository in the application's "about this app" message.

Not even at no cost, mind you, at "no more than your reasonable cost".

However it does require YOU (you being the distributor, not the original programmer who maintains the cvs/subversion/git), to provide the source for, I think, a minimum of three years. Meaning Apple would have to maintain a source repository for GPL programs they offer. A link to somebody else's repository is not good enough, as far as I understand.

Reply Score: 1

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

The GPLv3 allows the distributor to provide a simple link to the upstream source repository if they haven't changed the code. It's only the GPLv2 that requires Apple to run a source repository.

Reply Score: 2

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

1. Reverse the ban on GPL software in the App Store and Mac App Store. The GPL only requires making the source available at no cost to people who have the binary, which could be as simple as putting a working link to the source repository in the application's "about this app" message.


There isn't a ban (at least not one that is mentioned in the developer license contract), there is simply no legal way for GPL software to be in the App Store due to the GPL itself. The source is not just what you seem to think it is.

From version 2: (emphasis mine, not sure what version 3 says about such things)

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.
"

You can't install the executable on a device without a developer license and so therefore cannot fulfil the above, so without also allowing one of your other points of jailbreak by default they cannot allow GPL software.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You can't install the executable on a device without a developer license


So my binary-only Linux servers and desktops are in violation of the GPL then? Of course not.
Apple would just have to offer source packages for download via the App store or some other means.

Reply Score: 3

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

"You can't install the executable on a device without a developer license


So my binary-only Linux servers and desktops are in violation of the GPL then? Of course not.
Apple would just have to offer source packages for download via the App store or some other means.
"

You have completely missed the point. In order to install on an iOS device you need to digitally sign the binary. A developer license provides you with this certificate. If a user buys an app and gets the source package they still do not have the capability of installing it on their device. Therefore the GPL cannot be upheld. Your servers and desktops are not in violation because you can take the source code and build/install the software in the same way the binary you have received was built / installed.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If a user buys an app and gets the source package they still do not have the capability of installing it on their device.


Hmm..they really have to be install-able on the same device as you're using the binary package on? That's very odd.

Reply Score: 2

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

2. Set each iOS device to jailbroken by default. Most users are, quite frankly, morons that wouldn't know how to take advantage of the added functionality if you mailed them a thousand page printed manual going over every possible action in explicit detail.


"Apple Support, how can I help you?"

"I installed this great system tweak from a repository my buddy gave me, but I can't remember what it was, and now my iPod Touch won't boot."

6. Remove the gray area and make Hackintoshing explicitly legal. A limited hardware lineup like Apple's is never going to meet everybody's needs - why not sell an operating system to the rest? $30 for a pure open source OS with superb vendor support and tons of commercial applications is entirely reasonable.


"Apple Support, how can I help you?"

"I paid $30 for this POS software and it won't install on my 15-year old Pentium 2! I want a refund!"

Once you allow your OS onto machinery you don't control, and you charge money for the privilege, you take on the duty of supporting a vast number of unknown configurations. That means more testing, more support lines, more drivers to be written. All of which will have to be paid for. Forget $30. Make that $130 or $230. Yes, what you pay for Windows.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I installed this great system tweak from a repository my buddy gave me, but I can't remember what it was, and now my iPod Touch won't boot."


"Sorry, your warranty is no longer valid."


"I paid $30 for this POS software and it won't install on my 15-year old Pentium 2! I want a refund!"


"Sorry, that is not a supported system."

Why do people think this is rocket science? Apple don't have to support these systems. Besides, making your own hackintosh from your own retail DVD is perfectly legal. It's just that it's not legal for someone else to make and sell hackintoshes.

Reply Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Soulbender,

"Why do people think this is rocket science? Apple don't have to support these systems. Besides, making your own hackintosh from your own retail DVD is perfectly legal."


Legal yes, you're almost certainly not breaking a law. But it is against the TOS, so it becomes a civil matter. The big question is whether these kinds of license agreements would stand up in court. Given that courts are all over the place these days, I honestly don't think I could predict any outcome. Since apple has not been prosecuting end users for violations, we may never find out.


"It's just that it's not legal for someone else to make and sell hackintoshes."

It was very long ago and I barely remember the case at all, but I don't remember there being a law against what psystar was doing? At the end, psystar was selling hardware, macos, and it's own shim software *separately* so customers were installing macos themselves, and to be honest I was very tempted to buy one myself. But apple kept suing and kept winning till there was nothing left of it's little hardware competitor.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The big question is whether these kinds of license agreements would stand up in court.


I'm pretty sure post-sales restrictions aren't legal and that's what this essentially is. Presuming that I have purchased a copy of a a DVD set Apple has no valid contractual means by which to restrict what I do in private. It's not like I'm renting or leasing the DVD's.
Granted I'm not entirely up on the DMCA but since I don't live in a corporate fascist state I don't have to.

Reply Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Soulbender,

"I'm pretty sure post-sales restrictions aren't legal and that's what this essentially is."

Yea, but then go take a look at the Sony v GeoHot case where restriction violations were the basis of Sony's case. There were so many bad rulings on so many fronts with that judge - Sony's judge shopping and highly contorted jurisdictional maneuvering paid off.

http://www.techspot.com/news/42878-judge-lets-sony-access-geohots-p...

So I really do think the answer to "what would the courts say?" is unpredictable and depends on which judge is answering the question. They each have their own understanding & bias of the case.

In my own opinion, copyright law should only apply when a person creates copies of something in excess of their fair use rights - this is really basic stuff. The DMCA is an example of an unpopular and undemocratic law that corporations simply bought, it highlights the systemic corruption that we see over and over again.

This video says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c
"Corporations Are People, My Friend."

Reply Score: 3

FellowConspirator Member since:
2007-12-13

While there are some good points, I wouldn't have them distribute iOS devices jail-broken since jail-breaking does explicitly and intentionally disable security features of the device (in exchange for the flexibility of doing whatever you like). The current default is correct. They simply shouldn't get their panties in a wad when someone does jailbreak the device, nor should they actively thwart it.

Apple open sources a lot, but I'm not sure that many of the things that they don't open source are of much value to the community unless they want to fork OS X, which Apple has no rational interest in supporting.

Also, there's really no grey area for hackintoshes. In most jurisdictions, they represent copyright infringement. Apple could decouple it's OS from it's hardware, but they aren't organized or sufficiently supported by the existing industry for it to be anything more than a hassle for them right now. It would be nice, yes, but from a business standpoint it doesn't make sense for them (now).

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Also, there's really no grey area for hackintoshes. In most jurisdictions, they represent copyright infringement


How so? I was under the impression that a hackintosh is just an standard PC with a retail OSX installed. If I have a retail DVD set I can install it on any device I want and it will not be a copyright infringement. I am using the product for it's intended purpose. I am not making copies of the DVD's and am am not redistributing anything.
The fact that I don't use it exactly the way Apple wants is of no relevance. Apple can not tell me what I can and can not do in private with the things that I own.

Reply Score: 3

Facts ($$$) prove that closed works
by Shamster on Mon 14th May 2012 19:45 UTC
Shamster
Member since:
2012-05-14

Via it's financial success, Apple has proven that you can keep your hardware and software proprietary if the marketing and quality meets the needs of end users. This doesn't mean that there are no crashes, that there are no security issues, or even that it's the best operating system and hardware combination.

The reasons people make purchases are a lot more complicated than simple facts and right now, Apple has tapped into the right combination of efforts. There is simply no justification to gamble on the effect of an "open" company right now.

Edited 2012-05-14 19:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Facts prove that you can keep your software open-sourced and even if it is top-notch quality, that single quality makes it the best operating system: millions of linux servers and supercalculators, millions of Android phones (and others) with features and hardware iPhone users can only dream of at every price point, tens of thousands of machines, robots, planes, copters, capters, whole PhD projects powered by Linux and Arduino.

All that without discontinuity for the last twenty years and counting.


Just take that "facts" that suit you more. Live happily ever after in your confirmation bias bubble.

Now, maybe, if you are a bit curious about the real details of how people buy, you may be interested in taking design and marketing lessons. That should clear a few things up.

But never, ever, mistake a "trend" for a "sound success".

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

"Supercalculators" - thank you for that term, I shall use that ;)

machines, robots, planes, copters, capters

But... planes, copters - not really (more stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_(operating_system)#INTEGRITY-178B ). Machines and robots - depends (also on dependability); generally, there are many many more with some embedded OS (also open source among those, of course)

And what's a capter? ;p (quick search didn't really give anything beyond http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capter which didn't really help)

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Via it's financial success, Apple has proven that you can keep your hardware and software proprietary if the marketing and quality meets the needs of end users. This doesn't mean that there are no crashes, that there are no security issues, or even that it's the best operating system and hardware combination.

The reasons people make purchases are a lot more complicated than simple facts and right now, Apple has tapped into the right combination of efforts. There is simply no justification to gamble on the effect of an "open" company right now.


Facts have also proven that open works too:
* Redhat
* Virtualbox / Xen / KVM
* Firefox
* Apache
* MySQL
..and i could go on.

However I agree that there's no point in Apple open sourcing their products. They'd gain nothing but nerd points.

I'd rather see Apple open up their compatibility:
* Don't litigate against the jailbreak community (they don't have to support either, but don't criminalising users for wanting more out of their hardware)
* Allow Hackintoshes (again, they don't have to support them, just allow users the choice of an unsupported home build or a fully supported official Mac)
* And most importantly, cut all the petty bullshit App Store restrictions! Allow users to install outside of the store (even if it's an option that needs to be manually enabled), allow software to link to purchase pages etc, allow adult content.

Apple are just software manufacturers - period. So I don't want to be policed by the developers of the software I used any more than I want car manufacturers to tell me where I can or cannot drive to and what music I'm authorised to listen to on route.

Edited 2012-05-15 08:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

As far as I am aware they haven't sued anyone from the iOS jail breaking community. In fact, some have landed a job at Apple.

But I don't see why they should allow the ability to freely install whatever you want. Apple will miss their cut on any sales, malware/crapware can infect iOS devices and damage the brand image, app developers might not like it being too easy for people to install cracked apps.

Reply Score: 0

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

As far as I am aware they haven't sued anyone from the iOS jail breaking community. In fact, some have landed a job at Apple.

They've sent plenty of cease and desist letters to web sites that offer advice as well as campaigned for it to be criminalised.

As no websites nor individuals have the resources nor income to take on Apple, cases never make it to court.

So my point stands.


But I don't see why they should allow the ability to freely install whatever you want.

Because when I buy an iPhone, I own said phone. It's now my hardware and I can do anything I want with it so long as that doesn't break any laws (eg I cannot bludgeon kids to death with it). Installing your own software does not break any laws, it only contradicts an EULA which is nether law nor been upheld in a court of law.

Hence my car comparison. I own the hardware and thus I can drive it / install whatever (legal) software I want. Apple cannot -edit: should not- dictate this to their users.


Apple will miss their cut on any sales,

Boohoo, so Apple will miss a cut on sales of products they contributed nothing towards the development of. How unfair that would be to Apple. *rolleyes*

Worse yet, they charge twice for the distribution (both the devs for adding to the app store and a percentage for each sale).

Given they pride themselves on appealing to the creative industry, the least they could do to give back to their key demographic would be to stop robbing them blind.


malware/crapware can infect iOS devices and damage the brand image, app developers might not like it being too easy for people to install cracked apps.

That's all FUD.
People who want cracked apps can already jailbreak and don't care about the ramifications of doing so. So that market wouldn't change.

And as for the malware issue, Apple could still pull apps plus if it's an opt out feature (as I suggested), then the really stupid (or paranoid) wouldn't be exposed anyway.

So your points are moot.

Edited 2012-05-15 09:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


They've sent plenty of cease and desist letters to web sites that offer advice as well as campaigned for it to be criminalised.

As no websites nor individuals have the resources nor income to take on Apple, cases never make it to court.

So my point stands.


I'm not sure it does, when I do a search on "cease and desist apple jailbreak" I get nothing related to actual jail breaking and Apple making a problem of it. It seems that their stance on it is that it may void your warranty.

It also seems they only go after people abusing their logo's, trademarks and systems.


Because when I buy an iPhone, I own said phone. It's now my hardware and I can do anything I want with it so long as that doesn't break any laws (eg I cannot bludgeon kids to death with it). Installing your own software does not break any laws, it only contradicts an EULA which is nether law nor been upheld in a court of law.

Hence my car comparison. I own the hardware and thus I can drive it / install whatever (legal) software I want. Apple cannot -edit: should not- dictate this to their users.


Like I mentioned it doesn't appear Apple makes a problem of it. So go ahead and do whatever you want to do with your iPhone, but don't expect Apple to assist you to do what you want to do or help you out when you mess it up.


Boohoo, so Apple will miss a cut on sales of products they contributed nothing towards the development of. How unfair that would be to Apple. *rolleyes*

Worse yet, they charge twice for the distribution (both the devs for adding to the app store and a percentage for each sale).

Given they pride themselves on appealing to the creative industry, the least they could do to give back to their key demographic would be to stop robbing them blind.


Being in the app store makes it easier for your product to be found. Apple takes care of the hosting and financial bit. Apple just doesn't steal your money, they give something in return.


That's all FUD.
People who want cracked apps can already jailbreak and don't care about the ramifications of doing so. So that market wouldn't change.

And as for the malware issue, Apple could still pull apps plus if it's an opt out feature (as I suggested), then the really stupid (or paranoid) wouldn't be exposed anyway.

So your points are moot.


No doubt if you don't need to do anything special to install cracked apps more people would install them.

And you want Apple to spend money and recourses to police apps you install outside of their app store? I don't think they'll do that.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm not sure it does, when I do a search on "cease and desist apple jailbreak" I get nothing related to actual jail breaking and Apple making a problem of it. It seems that their stance on it is that it may void your warranty.

I assure you I'm not making this up:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jailbreak+criminalise

Being in the app store makes it easier for your product to be found.

I'm not saying they should remove the app store. I'm saying it shouldn't be mandatory. They are two completely different points.


Apple takes care of the hosting and financial bit. Apple just doesn't steal your money, they give something in return.

Not offering consumers nor developers an opt out and actively banning apps that link to sites with their own stores (as they had done with Amazon and Dropbox, to name but two high profile cases) is literally forcing developers to use Apple's own store and pricing model.

Hence why I'd welcome an app store opt out rather than seeing their core products open sourced. In my opinion an open platform is more useful to more people than open source.

No doubt if you don't need to do anything special to install cracked apps more people would install them.

That's pure conjecture and quite honestly the argument of jailbreaking vs cracked software has been done to death on multiple platforms.

As I said before, if people are really that bothered to save < $2 per app, and happy to download from untrusted sources and install god knows what, then jailbreaking is the least of their worries. They'd likely already be jailbroken so Apple are clearly already ineffective at stopping piracy.

So why punish everyone - or more specifically: you're genuine paying customers - for the unpreventable actions of a small few (relatively speaking).

And you want Apple to spend money and recourses to police apps you install outside of their app store? I don't think they'll do that.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never suggested Apple should police 3rd party apps. I'm just saying that the remote nuke option is still there if known trojans are discovered.

However I don't think Apple should even need to do that as if the official app store is an opt out (a point I keep stating and you keep ignoring), then you're also stopping the very stupid from installing such apps and thus putting the onus on the individual when things cock up. And unofficial app stores will likely police their own catalogue of apps else gain a negative reputation (app stores with a negative reputation will thusly be avoided by users).


Furthermore you seem to have bought into this weird belief that Apple's way is the only safe way and anyone that strays from that path is automatically a pirate, and anything outside of Apples ecosystem is full of malware. The world outside of Apple really isn't that grim. ;) So while Apple might make arguments about their walled garden being for users own protection, in reality it's just a way of locking you guys into Apple's pricing structure.

Edited 2012-05-15 11:24 UTC

Reply Score: 5

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


I assure you I'm not making this up:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jailbreak+criminalise


That's their lobby a few years ago to make jail breaking illegal, this is something different than your claim they were sending cease and desist letters.

At least in the US jail breaking is legal.


Not offering consumers nor developers an opt out and actively banning apps that link to sites with their own stores (as they had done with Amazon and Dropbox, to name but two high profile cases) is literally forcing own developers to use Apple's own store and pricing model.

Hence why I'd welcome that over seeing their core products open sourced. As an open platform is more useful to more people than open source.


Well, that's the deal they offer and you can take it or leave for Android, WP or BlackBerry. Don't know about Amazon, but apps with a Dropbox function are back.

That's pure conjecture and quite honestly the argument of jailbreaking vs cracked software has been done to death on multiple platforms.

As I said before, if people are really that bothered to save < $2 per app and happy to download from untrusted sources and install god knows what, then jailbreaking is the least of their worries.

So yeah, you might see a slight incline in the distribution and installation of cracked software if Apple relaxed their stance on jailbreaking, but it would likely be minuscule - far less than what's already around and far to small of an increase to argue that Apples strict anti-jailbreaking rules are an effective anti-piracy measure.


Okay, but what's in it for Apple?


You're putting words into my mouth. I never suggested Apple should police 3rd party apps.

Plus if people install apps outside of any app store (be it official or unofficial), then that's their own responsibility. If the official app store is an opt out (a point I keep stating and you keep ignoring), then you're also stopping the very stupid from installing such apps and thus putting the onus on the individual when things cock up. And unofficial app stores will likely police their own catalogue of apps else gain a negative reputation (app stores with a negative reputation will thusly be avoided by users).


It sounds like your making the whole iOS ecosystem much more complicated and open to malware. Opting in, out, different app stores, so probably different accounts.


You've seem to have bought into this weird belief that Apples way is the only safe way and anyone that strays from that path is automatically a pirate and anything outside of Apples ecosystem is full of malware. The world outside of Apple really isn't that grim ;)


I live in many different worlds, but I'm seeing that Apple is making loads of money so it's hard to claim they are doing it wrong. Any iDiot can use an iPhone and figure out how everything works. Most people prefer simple, why complicate it? Apparently iOS users are more active users of their device than other users. I think complicated devices don't motivate users to use them.

Your suggestions complicates the situation and doesn't offer Apple any benefits. Why should they do this while gaining nothing in return?

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


That's their lobby a few years ago to make jail breaking illegal, this is something different than your claim they were sending cease and desist letters.

At least in the US jail breaking is legal.

Actually I claimed both things and made the biggest emphasis on this particular item. And this item alone backs up my argument that Apple are proactively trying to control how people use their own hardware.

As for the cease and desist letters, they have definitely happened as I remember a wiki getting taken down after receiving one. However once the site goes offline (as it does when people stop visiting due to the core content being removed), the evidence you want goes with it. Which is probably why your search came up blank.


Well, that's the deal they offer and you can take it or leave for Android, WP or BlackBerry. Don't know about Amazon, but apps with a Dropbox function are back.

If we were talking about Microsoft people would cry foul. But because it's a cool company making desirable products then it's OK?


Okay, but what's in it for Apple?

A better platform? People jailbreak because they find the app store's restrictions oppressive. You only have to look at the number of cool apps outside of the official app store to see how intrusive Apple's T&Cs are.


I live in many different worlds, but I'm seeing that Apple is making loads of money so it's hard to claim they are doing it wrong.

Where did I say that? Seriously, where?
Please, for the love of God, stop making shit up and stating they're my arguments.

I'm not accusing Apple for doing it wrong. Goggle have a very different business model and I don't think they're doing it wrong either. All I'm asking is Apple relax their obsessive grip over the entire ecosystem and allow paying customers to use their device without being criminalised for it.


Any iDiot can use an iPhone and figure out how everything works. Most people prefer simple, why complicate it? Apparently iOS users are more active users of their device than other users. I think complicated devices don't motivate users to use them.

Your suggestions complicates the situation and doesn't offer Apple any benefits. Why should they do this while gaining nothing in return?

Do you not understand the concept of "opt out"? It means users have a normal platform and more advanced users who know what they're doing and specifically choose to can then do so with the minimum of fuss. The alternative you offer means users have to jailbreak their hardware - which is MASSIVELY more complicated than an opt out.

So your own argument is a contradiction.


It sounds like your making the whole iOS ecosystem much more complicated and open to malware. Opting in, out, different app stores, so probably different accounts.

Yeah, lets just ignore ***EVERYTHING*** I've just posted and revert back to your same ignorant opinion shall we? *rolleyes*

I don't suppose there's any chance of you actually meeting in the middle with some of these arguments, or is that against the EULA you agreed to when signing up for iZealot?

This is also why fanboys (in any camp, not just Apple nutjobs) are essentially just bigots. It seems fail to budge on any single point - regardless of how insignificant that point might be. For once it would be nice for an Apple fan to say "Yes, I agree that xyz is a little naff / whatever" even if they just go on to say "but personally I don't mind that" or "for me the other benefits out way it's faults". Hell, I've been more than reasonable in this discussion as if we're supposed to be playing up to our stereotypes then I should be calling for Apple to release all their code as GPLv3. But even as a full time Linux user I know such ideologies are retarded and have even stated that Apple are better off keeping the code itself closed. So why can't you guys acknowledge good points when raised in friendly discussions? As all I ever get is BS spin or just ignored completely.

It's no fscking wonder Apple arguments on here nearly always end up in stalemate given that everyone is to damn proud to credit a good rebuttal.

</rant>

Edited 2012-05-15 12:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

damage the brand image


Really. So if i buy a Ford, customize it to my liking and then it doesn't work properly that hurts Ford brand image? That's the idea here? Only in the IT industry could such amazingly stupid reasoning exist.
What I do with something after it is purchased is *my goddamn business*, no-one else's, and if I f--k up that's my problem. This works in every other industry, there's no rational reason for it not to work in IT.

Edited 2012-05-16 00:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

There is, but it doesn't seem you're very interested to know why so I won't bother to explain.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'd be interesting to hear what the reason is.
If you modify the device you void your warranty, nothing else needs to happen. It doesn't tarnish anyone's brand or some such nonsense. Please note that I don't count what moronic managers *think* will happen as a rational reason.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

If you modify your car or phone and make a complete mess of it, that's no problem (well, it is for you personally of course).

If you allow people, most of which aren't technical savvy, to install whatever they want on a class of devices that's currently targeted by cyber criminals an increasing number of users will experience problems and/or become victims. It would destroy the image of the device, in this case the iPhone, of being "safe" and "secure", despite if it really is.

When something sticks it can stick for a long time. Like the MessagePad's handwriting recognition which was bad in the first version and pretty good in the last one. Yet, when the MessagePad is mentioned bad handwriting recognition isn't far away from the discussion.

Windows is still associated by many as something that crashes a lot, which it doesn't since Windows 2000.

Apple has build a positive image. The public doesn't even make a fuss of any missteps they make. Antenna gate didn't prevent the iPhone 4 from becoming the best sold phone at the time, OS X is still seen as secure and even Steve is viewed as a great person despite not being very nice a lot of times. Their future products will benefit from this public perception.

Even when a product isn't really that good or original, it will get more than the benefit of the doubt. A lot of great products/ideas have failed because they were brought to market by unknown companies or ones that didn't have a better name than their competitors.

A large number would pick an Apple iPhone over a Windows Phone just based on the familiarity and brand image of Apple. Most people don't look at specs, stats or reviews.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MOS6510,

"If you allow people, most of which aren't technical savvy, to install whatever they want on a class of devices that's currently targeted by cyber criminals an increasing number of users will experience problems and/or become victims. It would destroy the image of the device, in this case the iPhone, of being 'safe' and 'secure', despite if it really is."

That's an excuse apple may use to appease the masses, but it won't fly here. There's no technical reason apple can't make a secure platform for non-technical owners without forcefully jailing the owners who'd like control over apps they install. Regardless of what you say, prohibiting all owners from accessing their devices isn't about security, it's about control.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If you allow people, most of which aren't technical savvy, to install whatever they want on a class of devices that's currently targeted by cyber criminals an increasing number of users will experience problems and/or become victims. It would destroy the image of the device, in this case the iPhone, of being "safe" and "secure", despite if it really is.


Sorry, I still don't see why this magically applies to IT products and not other products. If I screw up customizing my car and it becomes unsafe it does not affect the image of the company that made the car yet if I customize my Apple product and screw up it reflects badly on Apple? Nonsense. Most people aren't car savvy and won't customize their car. They either don't do it at all or have someone competent do it for them. It's the same with phones. Most people wouldn't ever bother installing apps outside of the app store and if they did they'd be on their own.
IT (and Apple) products aren't special or significantly different from other products. If you customize them and screw up it's your fault.

Reply Score: 3

The modern Apple takes a dump on Woz
by kragil on Mon 14th May 2012 19:58 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

Modern Apple is a Jobs company, it is all about marketing and design. Engineering and openness are not important anymore. Macs are just PCs in nicer cases etc.

They don't give a rats ass about what Woz is saying.

Edited 2012-05-14 19:59 UTC

Reply Score: 4

mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Modern Apple is a Jobs company, it is all about marketing and design. Engineering and openness are not important anymore. Macs are just PCs in nicer cases etc.

They don't give a rats ass about what Woz is saying.


Yeah, Apple doesn't engineer anything. All their computers, iPhones and iPads create themselves.

Those unibody Macs just fell from heaven. Those A5X processors just appeared on the ground like manna!

Reply Score: 0

siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

When Apple, and Next for that matter, manufactured their own hardware, they couldn't compete with other companies. They just didn't have the economies of scale.

Jobs learned that the hard way. What differentiates Apple now is Design and Software and the (relatively) seamless integration of value added services (namely iTunes - which for all it's flaws is still better than the competition). Apple has ZERO marketing presence where I am and it's products' usage has mushroomed in the last 10 years.

It's an unfortunate fact that what we as geeks want, and what makes a company (with profit seeking shareholders) profitable are not often compatible.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And anyway, he benefited from their financial success...

Reply Score: 2

Darwin CD
by fithisux on Tue 15th May 2012 09:04 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

They could release a darwin CD of their open source software for developers with permission to install it on a PC with various hackintosh methods. People could provide Xorg, drivers and userland. Something like PureDarwin. or they could help them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Darwin CD
by Laurence on Tue 15th May 2012 11:37 UTC in reply to "Darwin CD"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

They could release a darwin CD of their open source software for developers with permission to install it on a PC with various hackintosh methods. People could provide Xorg, drivers and userland. Something like PureDarwin. or they could help them.

I've not followed PureDarwin, but what's wrong with Apples current source distribution method: http://opensource.apple.com/ ?

Personally I'd rather have it online than on a CD. Or have I missed your point?

Reply Score: 2

Dumb Apple.
by jefro on Tue 15th May 2012 16:40 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

They already burned the companies that for a short time were allowed to create open mac hardware. When they found out that other companies could create devices way less expensive they pulled the rug on them Power Computing. Who'd trust them again?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dumb Apple.
by steve_s on Wed 16th May 2012 19:44 UTC in reply to "Dumb Apple."
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

Ironically, your choice of Power Computing as an example of Apple burning folks is a poor one.

Apple bought key assets of Power Computing for $100m of Apple stock and $10m cash back in September '97, buying back their cloning license in the process. In January 1998 when Power Computing finally shut down, those shares were distributed pro-rata amongst Power Computing's shareholders.

Apple's share price back in September '97 was about $5 per share. Come January '98 they were worth slightly less, but by January '99 they were at about $11, January '00 about $28. (It wasn't all up - you have to go to the end of 2004 to go higher than that.) For those that stuck it out, their shares are now worth 100x what they were.

Reply Score: 2