Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th May 2012 12:43 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Two weeks ago, Steve Wozniak made a public call for Apple to open its platforms for those who wish to tinker, tweak and innovate with their internals. EFF supports Wozniak's position: while Apple's products have many virtues, they are marred by an ugly set of restrictions on what users and programmers can do with them. This is most especially true of iOS, though other Apple products sometimes suffer in the same way. In this article we will delve into the kinds of restrictions that Apple, phone companies, and Microsoft have been imposing on mobile computers; the excuses these companies make when they impose these restrictions; the dangers this is creating for open innovation; why Apple in particular should lead the way in fixing this mess. We also propose a bill of rights that need to be secured for people who are purchasing smartphones and other pocket computers."
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 29th May 2012 16:09 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Apple: "I can’t hear you over me making all this money"

Reply Score: 13

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 29th May 2012 16:18 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I'm tired of hearing people, in ignorance, whine about how these companies are hindering innovation. If anything they do the opposite by compelling people to do things differently. Let's look at some facts:

- Free & open platforms already exist.
- There's nothing stopping anyone from developing new free & open platforms.
- Companies have the right to legally protect their investment and interests.

To the people who cause such a big fuss over closed-source software, instead of crying about it all the time why don't you use that time to develop an alternative that you can give to anyone who wants it? Instead of constantly pointing your finger at how these companies don't do what you want them to, just go do it yourself. If you were so innovative to begin with you would be doing that already.

Let me try to put it in terms people will better understand.. Instead of sitting on the couch crying about how nobody will change the channel for you or bring you the remote, get up off your ass and change the damn channel yourself or 'stfu'.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 29th May 2012 16:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let me try to put it in terms people will better understand.. Instead of sitting on the couch crying about how nobody will change the channel for you or bring you the remote, get up off your ass and change the damn channel yourself or 'stfu'.


I would say the EFF deserves a bit more respect from random internet commenters.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 29th May 2012 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Let me try to put it in terms people will better understand.. Instead of sitting on the couch crying about how nobody will change the channel for you or bring you the remote, get up off your ass and change the damn channel yourself or 'stfu'.

I would say the EFF deserves a bit more respect from random internet commenters.

I respect your opinion, and I disagree with it completely. The EFF doesn't "deserve" respect from anyone. They do however have the chance to earn that respect on a case-by-case basis. I admire some of what they've done but that doesn't automagically mean I should or do respect everything.

Btw, my opinions are no more or less valid than yours or any other `random internet commenters`.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Kochise on Tue 29th May 2012 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Hmmm, for openess there's always openmoko or the pandaboard. Needs an industrial wide accepted platform ? Just apply what Apple have done for their products : make products usable for non-geeks, eager to pay and not to hack for free.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by phoudoin on Wed 30th May 2012 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Problem is that it's 2012: what was unknown except by geeks in 2000 is main stream now. And you don't need anymore to have a computer DS to know how to jailbreak your last iDevice.

What you need is an Internet access and be able to read english.

And this is changing both the balance of the closed-platform mantra "it's better for you that way" and cast more and more the spotlight on "it's better for *us* that way".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Tue 29th May 2012 16:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


Let me try to put it in terms people will better understand.. Instead of sitting on the couch crying about how nobody will change the channel for you or bring you the remote, get up off your ass and change the damn channel yourself or 'stfu'.


That's not how these organizations work. They have to complain about something, because that's what they do. They save people that are in no need to be saved and don't want to be saved.

LAUNCELOT: We were in the nick of time, you were in great peril.
GALAHAD: I don't think I was.
LAUNCELOT: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril.
GALAHAD: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
LAUNCELOT: No, it's too perilous.
GALAHAD: Look, I'm a knight, I'm supposed to get as much peril as I can.
LAUNCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on!
GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril?
LAUNCELOT: No, it's unhealthy.
GALAHAD: Bet you're gay!
LAUNCELOT: No, I'm not.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TADS on Tue 29th May 2012 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
TADS Member since:
2010-11-01

If I didn't know any better I'd say companies hire people to troll forums. And I should know better than to take the bait and feed you guys, but since on this count your position is not only idiotic, but downright dangerous, I'll have to chime in.

That's not how these organizations work. They have to complain about something, because that's what they do.


Since you're so fond of quotes, let me give you another one:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


If you're somewhat narrow minded the problem of locked down devices might not seem like a big deal. The company's making money, you probably have a few shares and a piece of the action, people get to use shiny devices and all's well, right?

Well, why don't we talk again in say, 50 years time when we have an entire generation which was raised on computing devices only aimed at consuming content and engaging in social networking. When we need the next generation of engineers to do the low level grunt work that's mostly invisible to someone like you. I'm talking about an entire work force which grew in the fertile soil of tinkering and pushing the limits of what devices they had at the age when they were most curious. What certain companies are doing right now in our mobile device era, is nothing short of fostering a very dangerous culture change away from open architectures, towards totally locked down ones.

So yes, let's all ignore the crybabies that are speaking out for openness, since you don't perceive yourself as needing open systems. (hint: open architectures and access to content and polished interfaces and hardware aren't mutually exclusive)

Regarding the EFF's credentials, that you and another poster are calling into question: do you like shopping on Amazon and countless other sites? Well, you have organizations like the EFF to thank for it. You see, while several people were busy squashing every attempt to implement strong, open cryptographic systems, others were fighting tooth and nail to preserve your digital freedom to have privacy online. But hey, I'm sure Amazon and the other online retailers would eventually figure out a way of performing secure transactions without strong crypto. Highly trained carrier pigeons perhaps.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Tue 29th May 2012 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


If you're somewhat narrow minded the problem of locked down devices might not seem like a big deal. The company's making money, you probably have a few shares and a piece of the action, people get to use shiny devices and all's well, right?


I am well aware of the situation and the implications, I just don't believe the EFF or any other armchair rebels really care, which makes them perhaps even more dangerous than the people who don't want to be saved by them.

In context of your Jews quote, don't forget a number of people and countries have been "liberated" during the course of history.

There are closed AND open systems. Their advantages and disadvantages should be clear now. People can make their own choice and they should be allowed to make wrong choices, that's part of being human and free. One should be able to opt to give away some of that freedom if it reaps another benefit.

Forcing people to make certain choices and taking away options is more wrong that allowing people to make choices you consider wrong.

A lot of harm has been done the last few thousand years by people who knew what was best for others.

If you are convinced your choice is the best one: convince others, but don't force them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by tupp on Tue 29th May 2012 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Forcing people to make certain choices and taking away options is more wrong that allowing people to make choices you consider wrong.

Oh, the irony.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by phoehne on Tue 29th May 2012 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

The EFF takes a lot of positions on various issues. I generally support the EFF and have sent them money. I don't agree with every position.

Part of living in a free market economy is that the maker of a good or provider of a service can deliver that good or service as they see fit. Unless there is an actual harm (for example, poisoning people or abusing their market position) the law generally doesn't intervene. Even though the EFF may make a point I agree with, that over time some of these companies may be better off with more open platforms, fundamentally it's the responsibility of their management and board as to whether or not they sink or swim. Sometimes being open is the best thing you can do and sometimes it isn't. Either way, it's that organization's choice.

I think lot of people would like something like the iPad hardware was an open platform for other types of development. A number of tablets have good specs and would be fantastic platforms for Linux (in terms of memory and CPU) but for various reasons are closed. We don't have to buy them. There's one maker of Linux based tablets (although the specs aren't outstanding). If you want to vote in a way that Apple, Samsung or Microsoft will understand, vote with your pocketbook.

If you want to get other people to vote with their pocketbooks you have to provide a compelling alternative. Either it has to be better (which is hard because Apple makes a very polished product) or it has to be cheaper (with Amazon selling theirs at break even, that's tough) or it has to do something that's important to consumers. Given the use of these devices to watch video, and the requirements by content producers to lock up the delivery of content, and the fact that it's impossible to have a pure open source product that protects that content, it makes a compelling use case hard.

Right now the sweet spot for open source platforms is on developer desktops and servers. I'm cool with that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Tue 29th May 2012 17:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"To the people who cause such a big fuss over closed-source software, instead of crying about it all the time why don't you use that time to develop an alternative that you can give to anyone who wants it? Instead of constantly pointing your finger at how these companies don't do what you want them to, just go do it yourself. If you were so innovative to begin with you would be doing that already."

You try to insult open technology promoters as being non-innovative, but in fact many of us are innovative and that's a fundamental reason for keeping technology open: we don't want corporations to have all the control. People who are trying to stop the proliferation of closed devices do it because of how it destroys our capacity to innovate, distribute and sell our creations without getting permission to do so first. The new platforms are being designed to tax our income and control our work. There's nothing innovative about that, it's pure and simple greed.

Now maybe you feel they're entitled to impose locks on consumer devices to control the market if they can, never mind the damage it may cause to competition and the free (as in freedom) software market. But you'd have to be an idiot to not recognise or to deny that locked platforms will harm independent developers as well as consumers who loose access to competing marketplaces.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 29th May 2012 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

ilovebeer,

"To the people who cause such a big fuss over closed-source software, instead of crying about it all the time why don't you use that time to develop an alternative that you can give to anyone who wants it? Instead of constantly pointing your finger at how these companies don't do what you want them to, just go do it yourself. If you were so innovative to begin with you would be doing that already."

You try to insult open technology promoters as being non-innovative, but in fact many of us are innovative and that's a fundamental reason for keeping technology open: we don't want corporations to have all the control.

It seems you didn't pay attention. I was clearly talking about people who whine whine whine but don't participate in being innovative. IE: People who are all talk and no walk.

People who are trying to stop the proliferation of closed devices do it because of how it destroys our capacity to innovate, distribute and sell our creations without getting permission to do so first. The new platforms are being designed to tax our income and control our work. There's nothing innovative about that, it's pure and simple greed.

Of course there's greed. There always has been and always will be greed in humanity. But that fact does not stop 'you' from developing completely open platforms and software. Instead 'your' time appears better spent complaining rather than doing. (* Please pay attention to the use of the ' ' .)

Now maybe you feel they're entitled to impose locks on consumer devices to control the market if they can, never mind the damage it may cause to competition and the free (as in freedom) software market. But you'd have to be an idiot to not recognise or to deny that locked platforms will harm independent developers as well as consumers who loose access to competing marketplaces.

It's not a matter of what I "feel", it's a matter of what the law provides them. These companies have the right to protect THEIR products and THEIR interests, within the law. If you don't like it, do your part in changing the law.

You'd have to be an idiot to not understand that the only "independent developers" who are harmed by locked platforms are the people stupid enough to depend on them.

Edited 2012-05-29 18:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Wed 30th May 2012 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

"It seems you didn't pay attention. I was clearly talking about people who whine whine whine but don't participate in being innovative. IE: People who are all talk and no walk."

Well that's not what you initially said, but ok.

"But that fact does not stop 'you' from developing completely open platforms and software. Instead 'your' time appears better spent complaining rather than doing."

That's view is completely ignorant of what's going on. Software developers write software, hence our title. Most of us don't build or sell hardware. Very few of us have the means to do so. We write software for users and consumers to use on their hardware. If we cannot reach users any longer because more and more of them are no longer at liberty to install our software, then innovation will become constricted and stagnant. You'd have to be an idiot not to see it. What is your justification in thinking that device lockdowns will hurt only non-innovative software developers as opposed to all software developers?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 31st May 2012 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"But that fact does not stop 'you' from developing completely open platforms and software. Instead 'your' time appears better spent complaining rather than doing."

That's view is completely ignorant of what's going on. Software developers write software, hence our title. Most of us don't build or sell hardware. Very few of us have the means to do so. We write software for users and consumers to use on their hardware. If we cannot reach users any longer because more and more of them are no longer at liberty to install our software, then innovation will become constricted and stagnant.

That only applies to people who *choose* to develop on closed systems, and aren't in compliance the requirements. You want to play the game but don't want to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules you either petition change, find a different game to play, or you deal with it. You can't help people who refuse to acknowledge the truth, ....that they have options.

If you actually want to do something but don't have the means, then you do what countless other people have done. You find others to work with who share your views and are committed, and you find investment. Do what it takes to take the lead and become an example to follow.

You'd have to be an idiot not to see it. What is your justification in thinking that device lockdowns will hurt only non-innovative software developers as opposed to all software developers?

Why are you asking me to justify something I never said?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Thu 31st May 2012 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"You can't help people who refuse to acknowledge the truth, ....that they have options."

And you cant deny locked hardware is designed to prevent consumers from exercising options and removing their liberty to use their hardware as they see fit. The whole reason for locked hardware to exist is to eliminate options for consumers and remove the threat of competing software markets & products.


"Why are you asking me to justify something I never said?"

Your first post certainly suggested that innovative developers amongst us shouldn't have a problem with locked devices, though god knows why. It's pretty clear all independent software developers are going to be negatively impacted.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 31st May 2012 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"You can't help people who refuse to acknowledge the truth, ....that they have options."

And you cant deny locked hardware is designed to prevent consumers from exercising options and removing their liberty to use their hardware as they see fit. The whole reason for locked hardware to exist is to eliminate options for consumers and remove the threat of competing software markets & products.

That is one point of view, but it is not the only one and it is not fact.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how a company making locked down hardware somehow prevents you from purchasing hardware that isn't locked down. If you buy a locked down system, you did so willingly. Nobody forced you. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that somehow the existence of locked hardware, by some magical force, disallows people to purchase any of the alternatives.

"Why are you asking me to justify something I never said?"

Your first post certainly suggested that innovative developers amongst us shouldn't have a problem with locked devices, though god knows why. It's pretty clear all independent software developers are going to be negatively impacted.

It's also clear that those conditions are exactly what inspire people to innovate. Some people will do nothing but sit and whine indefinitely. Others will actually do something about it because they understand shaking their fist and mumbling won't accomplish anything.

You are neither granted nor owed any right to develop for any system you wish. You can be mad at the business models employed by Microsoft, Apple, and others all you like but the truth is they have no obligation to you. You want absolute freedom but fail to understand you have no right to it in this regard.

Like I've said before... To some people talking the talk is acceptable, but walking the walk is out of the question.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by phoudoin on Wed 30th May 2012 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

These companies have the right to protect THEIR products and THEIR interests, within the law. If you don't like it, do your part in changing the law.


True. And these days, people have learn that whining and using whatever media to relay it is more effective to influence the consumer behavior than waiting than the so-called citizen's representative politicians wake-up and change the law to match new reality.

See, it's not called whining anymore, but lobbying.
A perfectly legal citizen's right.
Welcome to 21th century.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by TechGeek on Tue 29th May 2012 20:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

And I hate all the people out their that are too stupid to realize that they are harming themselves. There isn't much of an argument you can make that closed proprietary devices are better for the industry or anyone besides the OEM. You should also realize that knowledge is a cycle. If our children grow up in a closed off world, how will they ever know better?

Case in point: There are several lighthouses on the east coast of the US that are particularly old. They were built with a special formula of concrete. The cement is especially resistant to salt water. Today, we have no idea what that formula was. Its been lost over time.

How many generations will it take before the average citizen is incapable of thinking innovatively?

Edited 2012-05-29 20:42 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by ssokolow on Tue 29th May 2012 23:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I'm tired of hearing people, in ignorance, whine about how these companies are hindering innovation. If anything they do the opposite by compelling people to do things differently. Let's look at some facts:

- Free & open platforms already exist.
- There's nothing stopping anyone from developing new free & open platforms.
- Companies have the right to legally protect their investment and interests.

To the people who cause such a big fuss over closed-source software, instead of crying about it all the time why don't you use that time to develop an alternative that you can give to anyone who wants it? Instead of constantly pointing your finger at how these companies don't do what you want them to, just go do it yourself. If you were so innovative to begin with you would be doing that already.

Let me try to put it in terms people will better understand.. Instead of sitting on the couch crying about how nobody will change the channel for you or bring you the remote, get up off your ass and change the damn channel yourself or 'stfu'.


And the people who end up getting these locked-down devices second-hand or as gifts? The ones who can't afford or don't know about the existence of the open alternatives? The independent developers whose ability to complete is contingent on the capricious approval of Apple's App Store censors? What about them?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 31st May 2012 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

And the people who end up getting these locked-down devices second-hand or as gifts?

What about them?

The ones who can't afford or don't know about the existence of the open alternatives?

Is it "my" problem "you" can't afford something else? I would say that "you" are responsible for you own ability to afford what you want, not anyone else. If "you" can't afford it, make a plan so eventually "you" can. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, wouldn't you agree?

Regarding people who don't know about the existence of open alternatives, perhaps they should do something about their lack of knowledge. There's nothing stopping those people from looking into it themselves. Not every little thing needs to be spoon-fed to every single person. As far as I'm concerned, there's an expectation that "you" make at least `some` effort yourself -- at least ask questions. Don't just sit there with your thumb up your rear end.

The independent developers whose ability to complete is contingent on the capricious approval of Apple's App Store censors? What about them?

I assume you meant "compete", not "complete". If you willing choose, and it IS willingly 100% of the time, to compete on a closed-platform then you already know what you're getting yourself into. If you don't like it, pedal your software on other platforms and environments more suitable to your wants.

For the record, I'm not suggesting parts of the system aren't broken. I believe the opposite in fact. But, the system is absolutely not as closed and oppressive as propaganda wants you to believe. The real problem is motivation. People are motivated enough to complain but not enough to take action or even spearhead the change. Very few people anyways.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by phoudoin on Wed 30th May 2012 07:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

I'm tired of hearing people, in ignorance, whine about how these companies are hindering innovation.


Hello, it's 2012 here : it's not whining but lobbying.
And it's as legal as protecting your investment by the best IP laws money can buy.
Get over it.

Reply Score: 5