“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.
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.
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?
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.
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
speaking of USB:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec7/index.html
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
#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.
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.
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
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.
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.
RDF is strong with you, young padawan…
Well, MS does get royalties out of Android, the ~dominating player…
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.
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.
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.
All mega-corporations should be doing this, not just Apple.
Edited 2012-05-15 01:08 UTC
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm..they really have to be install-able on the same device as you’re using the binary package on? That’s very odd.
“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.”
“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.
“Sorry, your warranty is no longer valid.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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
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”.
“Supercalculators” – thank you for that term, I shall use that
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I assure you I’m not making this up:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jailbreak+criminalise
I’m not saying they should remove the app store. I’m saying it shouldn’t be mandatory. They are two completely different points.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
Okay, but what’s in it for Apple?
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.
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?
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.
If we were talking about Microsoft people would cry foul. But because it’s a cool company making desirable products then it’s OK?
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.
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.
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.
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
I am not defending Apple. It’s a fact they make a lot of money with their way of going about their business. You may like this or feel oppressed, but what I am wondering is why they should change anything if it is working so well?
An iOS device works fine, it’s simple ‘n’ easy to use. You don’t need to jailbreak it to use hundreds of thousands of apps. My iPhone isn’t jailbroken, because I have never found the need or desire for it. I’d rather have a stable device running the latest iOS version.
If I want to experiment and do strange things with my phone I would have bought an Android.
Sure if given the choice I would like to be able to install an app outside of the app store, but I have never had the urge to do so. I prefer an app store, because I have used other devices in the past which had me searching websites to find free stuff, that turned out not to be free or not working at all (Palm, PocketPC).
Fair enough. Maybe my Linux ideologies are creeping through after all lol
I’m sympathetic towards your creeping feelings, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that I’m trying to look at from Apple’s point of view. They won’t create a better world for everyone if it looses money for them. And that’s not just Apple, that almost every company.
Change is also risk. As long as they are doing well they’ll continue to do it their way.
And Linux is cool.
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
There is, but it doesn’t seem you’re very interested to know why so I won’t bother to explain.
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.
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.
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.
Of course it’s about control, Apple has always been about that.
But it’s not control to enslave humanity or to annoy customers, it’s to guarantee an experience. Sure, it’s an Apple dictated one, but you have a choice if you like it or not. If you don’t buy something else. A cheap PC running Linux can make a great system.
And I can understand people not liking it, certainly not the more adventurous users. I’m up for an adventure, but not regarding my phone or main computer. These things need to work as I don’t have the luxury to spend hours fixing them and when I was younger I have been in a number of situation where I messed up my boot sector and spend hours fixing stuff.
iOS is pretty simple and it only has one way of installing software. This makes it easy for the masses. What may seem simple to you and me isn’t for a lot of people. When I ask someone over the phone to type a slash or even press the Windows start button people start getting confused.
Just the thought of an app being in one app store and not in an other will confuse a lot of people a lot and they’ll probably blame their iPhone and/or Apple. Hell, some would probably return their phone thinking it’s broken.
MOS6510,
“But it’s not control to enslave humanity or to annoy customers, it’s to guarantee an experience.”
It’s to eliminate competition. Apple bans applications that are neither a security risk nor pose a bad experience because they reduce apple’s own control and give owners a choice.
“And I can understand people not liking it, certainly not the more adventurous users. I’m up for an adventure, but not regarding my phone or main computer. These things need to work as I don’t have the luxury to spend hours fixing them and when I was younger I have been in a number of situation where I messed up my boot sector and spend hours fixing stuff.”
Do you want me to take that seriously? That if apple gave you a choice, you’d have to spend hours fixing problems with your boot loader?
This is what bothers me with your logic: you act like the apple app store and choice are somehow exclusive. Why would users like you, when given a choice in the matter, automatically have to get a worse experience than today? They wouldn’t, how your speaking makes no sense. Given a choice, you’d continue to use apple’s store, end of story. There’s no need to deny anyone else the choice.
Edited 2012-05-16 17:47 UTC
Well, they can go out and choose from a very large number of alternatives. A couple even look like iOS devices.
No, it was an example of what can happen if you are allowed freedom and are of the adventurous kind. I could give other examples, like drivers and spending time to get your colors and resolution back. Or trying to get your printer/scanner to work. Or the WiFi card.
I have never had to do a clean reinstall of OS X or had to restore my <any other Apple device>. I do have those experiences with Windows and Linux. And so do other people, because they call me to fix it. Apple users don’t call me. That’s not to say Apple stuff never has any problems, but they do have a lot less problems.
I am not denying anyone a choice and *I* wouldn’t mind alternative browsers or programming languages in to the app store. But I do understand why Apple prefers strict control, because they want to control the entire “experience”. This is apparently working and selling a lot of stuff, so it’s hard to blame them for it even though you don’t agree with it.
I personally didn’t agree with the temporary Dropbox ban, or the ban of the DOS emulator, the ban of the C64 emulator with BASIC backdoor, taking VLC out of the store. If you give me a list with banned stuff I can probably name more things I don’t agree with.
You seem to think I support Apple’s every move, which I don’t, but I do understand most of their moves from their standpoint. So I understand why they want one app store, because having two complicates matters. You’d have two catalogues of apps, two different accounts. A lot of people don’t even know what version of Windows they are using, imaging them calling support and getting asked in which app store they have a problem. Now I have one account which I can use on my iPhone, iPad and iMac.
MOS6510,
Apple could have given users the same idivinity experience they have now in their istore AND give them a CHOICE to select alternatives IF THEY WANT IT. How does apple giving me a choice hurt your experience in any way?
“You seem to think I support Apple’s every move, which I don’t, but I do understand most of their moves from their standpoint.”
That’s fine, but then you backtrack when you say that consumer restrictions are done to benefit consumers rather than to admit it’s apple being selfish and doing what’s best for them instead of the customer.
I agree, it would be nice if they would haven given that choice. But they haven’t and don’t blame Apple, blame Steve.
Steve Jobs was a control freak and obsessed with perfection, no way he would let a mere mortal mess with his creations. Maybe Apple will loosen up after a while, but I doubt it in the short term, certainly as long as they are doing so well. Once their way stops working for them they may change direction.
But I do think restrictions benefit the average customer. They might not even notice they are restricted.
At work our Windows PCs are restricted. Users can’t save files on the coal hard disk. But laptop users can, because they might not be connected to our file server. Those users are warned not to store (important) stuff on their local hard disk. And you can guess what happened, one guy did and he lost it all. Well, I got it back and earned a bottle of wine. But it did take some of my time.
If there is a way to mess things up people will find a way. I have a saying that dumb people can do things smart people can’t understand.
The less you can fiddle with a device the less chance you can mess it up. It’s up to you and me if we find that acceptable or not and can make a choice when we want to buy a phone or anything else.
Don’t forget people choose themselves to buy Apple stuff. So Apple doesn’t restrict users, users restrict themselves. And for a lot there is nothing wrong with that. An iPhone enables you to do a lot, more than it prevents you to do stuff.
And I was wrong, there are programming languages on iOS devices. I have Python and C64 BASIC installed now. I guess the restriction is downloading executable code.
MOS6510,
You make it out as though everyone would brick their devices if apple allowed competing software.
http://www.osnews.com/thread?518431
Yet in this post you claimed to have never once needed to do an OS restore even on unrestricted apple devices, so it’s doubtful that some users opting to install software from competing stores would be as severe as you make it out to be. And in any case apple could put such functionality behind a big scary warning screen if it wanted to – as long as it doesn’t actively prevent customer choice.
“…So Apple doesn’t restrict users, users restrict themselves. And for a lot there is nothing wrong with that….”
It’s wonderful that you’re blaming the user for corporate policy. We should just blame employees for bad bosses, or blame the victim of domestic abuse for assault, etc. You can blame whoever you want but it still doesn’t make it justified.
Do you go to a horror movie and then complain it’s scary?
Nobody forces you to buy an Apple product and most people who do are happy with it. You make it appear they are forced in to Apple’s clutches and then are abused. Reality is that Apple is on top of user satisfaction surveys. Those few that aren’t can easily switch to WP, Android, BlackBerry or something else.
I also have a WP phone. It can do less than my “restrictive” iPhone, purely because it lacks certain apps.
Earlier today I installed Minecraft on someone’s Android, some Galaxy S type. This was a real hassle, because it refused to connect to the strangely named Play Store via 3G and refused to do anything on WiFi. A reboot and repeated retry button pressing finaly made it download. It was very slow, but once it hit 33% is suddenly seemed to abort… but the game was installed and worked.
MOS6510,
“Do you go to a horror movie and then complain it’s scary?”
People go to a horror movie BECAUSE it’s scary. (…Duh?)
“Nobody forces you to buy an Apple product and most people who do are happy with it. You make it appear they are forced in to Apple’s clutches and then are abused.”
You really missed the point. I’ll rephrase it using your words: Nobody “forces” employees to work for a bad boss, and nobody “forces” domestic victims to say with a violent spouse, so why do they exist? Do you know why? The answer is because life choices are more complex than a single dimension.
People will compromise on negative dimensions if they think they can get something better out of other dimensions. Hypothetically I might choose an apple over an android because I don’t want google to track me, but it’s not valid for you to count my apple purchase as a vote in favor of walled gardens. It might just mean that I detest the walled garden less than I detest widespread tracking. If neither android nor IOS are ideal to me, I’ll have to compromise on something. As consumers we’re forced to do this all the time, but the less competition we have to choose from, the worse our compromises will become. A gasoline station in a competitive market will adjust it’s prices with surrounding gas stations such that even brand loyal customers who never shop around will benefit from the competition. And that’s why apple’s anti-competitive behavior is so harmful to everyone. The lack of choice in software providers deprives consumers of fair competition.
No matter which way you want to spin it, the lack of choice in restricted devices is always going to be bad for consumers.
Edited 2012-05-18 03:14 UTC
It’s just that these Apple “restrictions” don’t seem to bother most people and it even seems it mostly bothers non-iOS users. By far most customers are quite happy with their iPhone or iPad.
People complain about battery life, cell phone reception, data speed. I don’t ever hear them complain about any “restrictions”. It’s the geeks and the non-iOS users that keep going on about it. Sure there are some jail breakers, but most people don’t do that and so no need for it.
In a way Android and WP phones feel more restricted, because they lack apps iOS does have. The average customer doesn’t care about custom ROMs or alternative ways of installing software. They want something that works, is easy to operate and has the apps they want/need.
The majority of users can stick to the defaults, it simply doesn’t contradict what I’ve been saying. If customers weren’t forced to use the apple market through device lockdowns, only then would we discover the software market share apple deserves by merit. It’s really disingenuous for you to suggest that customers who don’t have a choice wouldn’t benefit if a choice were permitted.
Some/many may, some/many may not. Apple chose this approach and I’m at a sushi bar surrounded by iPhones. Samsung went for Android and they sell a lot.
If you don’t like one approach, chose another.
Are you willing to overlook anti-competitive practices on account of having a large share of the market? Well, at least it’s good you don’t work at the DOJ.
Can you just admit that anti-competitive behavior is bad for open commerce? Or is your mind already racing to come up with more excuses to make it untrue?
If you don’t want to admit that anti-competitive behavior is bad for the industry, well that’s either dishonest or ignorant, but that’s what you get when you cross into fanboy territory.
Edited 2012-05-19 04:45 UTC
I guess that’s the end of any reasonable discussion.
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.
Screw them up all you like, but don’t expect Apple to help you.
And IT products are very different to other things. Fiddling and messing about with them involves, mostly, nothing more than Google, a keyboard and a mouse. You can do it inside your house from your chair. It’s often easy and cheap. And when things go wrong you can often restore a backup or the original firmware.
I can’t think of any other category of products that people would, in large numbers, want to fiddle with. Not many people tune their fridge or extend the capacity of their couch.
Uh yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying.
And since they can easily be restored to pristine condition the problem with having people fiddle with them is exactly what?
Actually, a lot of people customize many things in their daily lives.
It’s the need/reason for people to have to restore is what you should try to avoid, because it gives your product the image of being so crap you need to restore it every now and then. Just like it gave the MessagePad the image of being dyslectic, even when that was fixed.
When someone says “I needed to do a clean install of Windows and reinstall all my programs and data which took me all weekend” everybody accepts this as “normal”, because it’s Windows. When a program crashes on OS X people respond surprised, because non-Apple users think this never happens.
Microsoft doesn’t need a positive Windows image, because it will sell anyway. Apple does need a positive image, because that is their main selling point.
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
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!
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.
And anyway, he benefited from their financial success…
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?
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?
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.