Apple to start behaving like Microsoft?!

[givemesugarr]

i was surfing around on my favourite blogs and found out that apple has issued a request to remove the visibility of the ipodhash project from bluewiki pages calling it as a violation of the famigerate dmca.
on the sam odio personal blog page there's a reference about what happened.
here's the link:

http://sam.bluwiki.com/blog/2008/11/support-free-speech-find-author-of.php

now, i really don't want to believe that something like this happened just because someone wanted to be able to use his ipod on linux without having to use that piece of crap of itunes running on wine (since there isn't any official version available for linux).
this really seems like a very bad act from apple...
fortunatelly the eff has decided to pick up the part of this project and to defend it from the charges apple's lawyers brought out.
i really hope that this ends out in no consequences for the ipodhash project.
i'd like to know what users think about this question.

[Thetargos]

That is indeed worrysome.

[Sacha]

Apple has always acted like Microsoft, if not worse.
They practice extreme lock-in:

Locked in carriers (AT&T)
Proprietary connectors (so they can up the price)
Don't let you run their software on 'non-mac' machines (but it is same hardware as PC)
Don't let you remove battery (so they can charge you for it)
Choose what software is available to you (AppStore)
Don't allow third party applications to compete (on iPhone AppStore)
Make machines like iMac desktop and mac laptop that are difficult to open thus unable to upgrade (new: aluminimum block) without buying new machine
Force you to pay for firmware updates and wireless drivers as well as point updates
Closed source except the open source code they decided to fork (steal?). Then they don't allow people to patch/fix it anyway. I say steal because the original project is not given credit and then development for the original opensource project that anyone could develop for is abandoned.


Edit: Somehow whenever they come up with one of these 'great' new ideas to lock people in, the fanboys pretend it is a feature though. Can't remove battery? Oh it's to save space! No 3G? Oh it's to increase battery life! Choosing software? Oh it's to protect you! Proprietary connectors? Oh the standard connectors don't have enough features! Aluminimum block? Oh it's more solid and not as cheap as the scratch-easy-plastic they used to give us! Pay for firmware updates? Oh they are really big updates and worth it!

Now you've come across an issue that is hard to answer. Don't allow third-party applications to complete? Oh, hmmm. Maybe they are worse than Microsoft?

Ya think!

[deanjo]

lol,

Force you to pay for firmware updates and wireless drivers as well as point updates

Blame the Sarbanes-Oxley act, not apple for that one. It explicitly forbids "giving away an unadvertised new feature of an already sold product without enduring some onerous accounting measures"




Closed source except the open source code they decided to fork (steal?). Then they don't allow people to patch/fix it anyway. I say steal because the original project is not given credit and then development for the original opensource project that anyone could develop for is abandoned.

All credit and code are freely available from download from developers.apple.com.

[Sacha]

lol,
Blame the Sarbanes-Oxley act, not apple for that one. It explicitly forbids "giving away an unadvertised new feature of an already sold product without enduring some onerous accounting measures"

Then I guess a lot of companies including Microsoft are in a whole world of trouble for those free feature packs. How this applies to wireless drivers I will never know.


All credit and code are freely available from download from developers.apple.com.
Stop trying to avoid what I said.
What I actually said was that they do not allow people to freely develop or patch their code. They have complete control over the source code. I never said it wasn't open source. Furthermore, they take development away from the original project, forcing it to be abandoned. So, while you can still view the source (as I said), it is no longer actively developed by the community. It takes a direction in Apple's sole interest.

[deanjo]

Then I guess a lot of companies including Microsoft are in a whole world of trouble for those free feature packs. How this applies to wireless drivers I will never know.

It wasn't drivers, it was firmware. Apple does not charge for updates nor drivers. None of the features made available from the firmware updates were advertised in the product. Had Apple advertised the machines with 802.11 N capabilty when they came out it would have been OK. Because of Sarbanes Oxley, this is not possible. Seriously, do you think Apple made millions off a $2 upgrade? That all went straight to the accountants. CR reps were authorized at the time had people complained about the 2 dollar fee to give away ipods and other items as an appeasement. Now I don't know how you do your math but the cost on giving away an iPod is a heck of alot more then a $2 firmware. There are only a few thing that CR/Tech reps are not allowed to give away and those are iPhones, iTunes store items, and Applecares. Not because they can't afford too, legally they can't.


Stop trying to avoid what I said.
What I actually said was that they do not allow people to freely develop or patch their code. They have complete control over the source code. I never said it wasn't open source. Furthermore, they take development away from the original project, forcing it to be abandoned. So, while you can still view the source (as I said), it is no longer actively developed by the community. It takes a direction in Apple's sole interest.They do no such thing, if someone wants to grab darwin for example they can do whatever the hell they want to with it. In the past there has been projects that utilized darwin but due to lack of interest it dies. If you want to fork the darwin source for example, by all means go ahead. If you want to fork cups, go ahead and do that as well. They do not take away from development what so ever.

[Thetargos]

Regarding CUPS I can say that Apple actually saved the project. True, not all the drivers are available to anyone, but still the system has proven to be the now defacto standard for Unix Printing, LPR(ng) is still around, and probably will be for a while still, however CUPS is the way to go in regards to printing in modern Unix systems.

[Sacha]

Funny watching deanjo try to apologise for Apple's firmware update. Not because they are evil but because they legally can't? It had less features than my free upgrade to Windows Mobile 6.1. Why not make it a $0.01 upgrade? No, they actually made it cost $20 (not $2 as you state). And yes, that means they made millions of dollars (unlike what you said).
Free iPods? Where do I send my written complaint to? Seriously, lol.

Once again, not reading what I said: they fork the source code. The project now moves in Apple's direction instead of the community direction. That is, it now benefits a company instead of the people.

Find me a happy KHTML developer. These guys send patches for WebKit but Apple won't accept them so they still continue with KHTML (which is receiving no support now). Thanks Apple.

Stop apologising for them.

CUPS? Come on please. They didn't fork CUPS. They purchased the copyright and trademark in 2007 (last year). "Our intention is to protect the value of these trademarks and ensure that any derivative product meets the same high-quality standards as the original." In other words, if we don't like your product, it violates our trademark. Lock in? Hello! This is the exact same thing they are doing (and you are complaining about) with AppStore!

As Apple are now the copyright holder and have hired the main developer of the project (obviously, he knows the most about it), they will take CUPS in their direction and their direction only. He (Michael Sweet) nows answers (and codes) to them. This is good for us how? It's not.

You say Apple 'saved' CUPS. CUPS was fine in 2007. Not sure what date you're talking about. They haven't done much to it yet.

Edit: If you really want to debate with me, maybe read the comments from knowledgable people in this (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1342258&from=rss) article.

Apple's history with opensource is troublesome.

Apple has never been portrayed as a good corporate citizen when it comes to GPL projects. The GPL code will become the red-headed step child of whatever Apple wants to do with it. For example, integrating colorsync or letting the gui die from benign neglect as Apple adds code that breaks the gui.

I'd like to hear from some people who work on Konqueror how much Apple is contributing. Based on my limited experience with Apple, I'd estimate they throw useless code over the wall surrounding Cupertino HQ every once in a while. I seem to recall they changed the license on some of their previously Free code a while ago too.

They are Free to do both, but I think their actions in these situations show they are just as hostile to Free/Open computer systems as Microsoft.

It uses GCC, but they hate it, or better yet, they hate that they have to use a product under the GPL. Steve Jobs tried to get special rights from the FSF to use GCC in NextStep, and the FSF said no, never. So, NeXT used GCC - the runtime part of Objective-C was proprietary though - and had to share the Objective-C support. I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.

|I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.
Indeed, Apple is active in the LLVM [llvm.org] project, a non-copyleft optimizing compiler backend. Currently, to make any real-world use of it, you have to use GCC as the frontend, but Apple is working on that problem, too [osnews.com].

No, you're the only one who got the point and someone needs to mod you up. This is quite wrong:

|Apple has not put themselves into a position of power over the FLOSS community with this move, as a GPL3 fork could be started at the drop of a hat, from whatever the last compatible release was.
Apple is in a position of power because they now own the CUPS copyright. They are only distributing it under GPL2/LGPL2, and it is not, and has never been available under that license "or any later version," so we can't make a GPL3 fork. The only entity that can get it into GPL3 (or any other license) is the copyright holder.

In the short term this is fine, as GPL2 is a good license. But Apple reserves the right to stop licensing it under the GPL. You could fork the project, but your forks would always have to be GPL2 forks (again, this is not exactly a disaster). But Apple can also make their own internal company modifications specifically for OS X, yet not release the changes to the community. They are no longer obliged to release the OS X version's changes because it will presumably be covered by the Apple EULA instead of the GPL. The only legal escape is to wait until the copyright expires in 70 years or so, then take the expired version's public domain code as your own and license it under the GPL3 or whatever. Get back to me in 70 years if you decide to try that. I'll beam over and help you update it.

[deanjo]

Funny watching deanjo try to apologise for Apple's firmware update.

Once again, not reading what I said: they fork the source code. The project now moves in Apple's direction instead of the community direction. That is, it now benefits a company instead of the people.

Find me a happy KHTML developer. These guys send patches for WebKit but Apple won't accept them so they still continue with KHTML (which is receiving no support now). Thanks Apple.

Stop apologising for them.

CUPS? Come on please. They didn't fork CUPS. They purchased the copyright and trademark in 2007 (last year). "Our intention is to protect the value of these trademarks and ensure that any derivative product meets the same high-quality standards as the original." In other words, if we don't like your product, it violates our trademark. Lock in? Hello! This is the exact same thing they are doing (and you are complaining about) with AppStore!

As Apple are now the copyright holder and have hired the main developer of the project (obviously, he knows the most about it), they will take CUPS in their direction and their direction only. He (Michael Sweet) nows answers (and codes) to them. This is good for us how? It's not.

You say Apple 'saved' CUPS. CUPS was fine in 2007. Not sure what date you're talking about. They haven't done much to it yet.

Edit: If you really want to debate with me, maybe read the comments from knowledgable people in this (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1342258&from=rss) article.

I'm not apologizing for any such thing.

Are you COMPLETELY missing the one of the biggest benefits of opensource? No project in any project has to accept patches or code from anyone they don't please when it's being used for their product. If you don't like that you fork and due what you see fit. Patches get rejected every day on many foss projects. Hell just subscribe to any of the Xorg or Kernel mailing lists if you want to see it in mass. To quote Dave Airlie from xorg reguarding patches "also can people stop voting, this was never going to be a democratic process." Opensource projects follow the direction of whomever is leading the project. If you have any other notion that they do not then your just deluding yourself.

The fact that you say apple doesn't accept patches is also entirely wrong eg: http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/Creating%20and%20Submitting%20Layout%20Tests%20and %20Patches.

[kraftman]

One thing is clear - Apple hates Linux and Open Source (GPL way of course). Many people hate apples too ;d

[Zhick]

While Sascha maybe exaggerates a bit, I still agree that apple is and always has been at least as bad as microsoft. God forbid they'd have a monopoly like microsoft has, things would be way worse for us. They've always tried to lock up their products as much as they could... and did everyone already forget they practially invented drm for music?
A friend of mine used to be an extreme apple-zealot (I think he still owns eight iPods (used to be more) and of course both iPhones and an iMac) but even he has started to realize that apple is not as good as they pretend to be.

But damn, the new MacBook looks sexy with it's all-aluminium-body..

[Thetargos]

Regarding my CUPS comment, the fact that Apple took the project also meant that some hardware manufactureres have started to deliver printer drivers specifically made to work with CUPS wich means they work on OS X as well as Linux...

I share the opinion that Apple is actually a bit worse than Microsoft (more tyrannic) and that does indeed restrict their users much more than Microsoft does (MS has actually learned a few tricks from Jobs, it would seem, though).

I like their products, I despise their lock-ins and thus I refuse to buy them. Also Apple is in reality a hardware company, not so much a software company (though the software that drives and enable their hardware is regarded by most people as "sexy"), and hence lock their software to their hardware exclusively (and pretty much the other way around as well)

[Sacha]

I wasn't exaggerating it's just that if you read djeano's comments you'd think I said something that I didn't. I didn't say Apple doesn't accept patches at all. They aren't accepting good patches from developers of the original project. Regardless of whether they fit their direction or not. Then they won't send many patches back to the original project (yes I know they send some but it's mostly dribble). Read comments from the KHTML developers and see how they complain about the patches being useless and not working.
This effectively crushes/destroys the original project.

The project then goes 100% in Apple's direction. You say you can fork it (fork the forked project, lol). Yes, that's true. Though, the original project that had much support was abandoned, so what's the chance of a new fork surviving without support?

Example:
If I buy the rights to compiz, buy some of the lead developers and then make a version with OSX features (ties in to OSX), using OSX font-rendering and heaps of other OSX junk but never port these back to Linux -- what are you going to do? Did I 'save' compiz? No, I killed it.
This is what Apple is doing.
Though you argue that because it is now a part of a more dominant OS (in terms of marketshare), the project gets more coverage. Unfortunately, the coverage is only directly at OSX.

[deanjo]

I wasn't exaggerating it's just that if you read djeano's comments you'd think I said something that I didn't. I didn't say Apple doesn't accept patches at all. They aren't accepting good patches from developers of the original project. Regardless of whether they fit their direction or not. Then they won't send many patches back to the original project (yes I know they send some but it's mostly dribble). Read comments from the KHTML developers and see how they complain about the patches being useless and not working.
This effectively crushes/destroys the original project.

The project then goes 100% in Apple's direction. You say you can fork it (fork the forked project, lol). Yes, that's true. Though, the original project that had much support was abandoned, so what's the chance of a new fork surviving without support?

Example:
If I buy the rights to compiz, buy some of the lead developers and then make a version with OSX features (ties in to OSX), using OSX font-rendering and heaps of other OSX junk but never port these back to Linux -- what are you going to do? Did I 'save' compiz? No, I killed it.
This is what Apple is doing.
Though you argue that because it is now a part of a more dominant OS (in terms of marketshare), the project gets more coverage. Unfortunately, the coverage is only directly at OSX.

So apple is responsible for maintaining the original? lol, seriously is it apple's responsibility to incorporate the patches into the original product? I don't think so. The fact is that khtml was left with little development for a long time, Apple then forks it and now khtml has to play catch up. In fact I remember khtml devs telling Apple to go screw themselves when Apple suggested changes before even starting webkit. khtml devs then painted themselves into a corner and now they have to find a way out.

[Sacha]

I'd tell them to go screw themselves too. You should read about what they did.

[deanjo]

I'd tell them to go screw themselves too. You should read about what they did.

Don't have to read on it, I know exactly what happened on BOTH sides of the story.

[superppl]

But damn, the new MacBook looks sexy with it's all-aluminium-body..
Lets write to Asus. Tell them to make their new awesome-possum shiny laptops out of titanium, and to use bulletproof materials on the screen.
Now that would look sexy!

[Sacha]

Lets write to Asus. Tell them to make their new awesome-possum shiny laptops out of titanium, and to use bulletproof materials on the screen.
Now that would look sexy!

Also remind them to have a curved edge so it is comfortable as well. Those aluminium block Macbooks have steep edges that are no good to rest on.

[energyman]

Apple is even worse than MS, viciously attacking bloggers and news sites posting 'leaked' news.

[Sacha]

With Apple's latest MacBook and MacBook Pro, a new port is found. It is a 'mini-Display Port'. Display Port is already smaller than the plastic connector, so why do we need a smaller port? Display Port is a recognised standard whereas only Apple uses this new 'mini-Display Port'.
The difference between Mini-Display Port and the standard Display Port?
It only supports up to 2560x1600 whereas the DisplayPort supports up to 4096x2160!
It doesn't support HDMI!
It doesn't support audio!
It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
No improvement in 3mm difference.

So why does Apple use this port and only this port in their new MacBook's and MacBook Pro's forcing people to use their mDP? The adapters. To buy an adapter for mDP off the only company who sells them, Apple, will cost $30 for a miniDisplayPort to DVI and $99 for the dual link adapter.

Quote from Apple's website:
Connect via Mini DisplayPort.

The LED Cinema Display attaches to your new MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air using the new industry-standard Mini DisplayPort connector. Other display connectors have you lining up pins or fumbling with screws. But the Mini DisplayPort connector is easy in, easy out.
Oh really? Industry-standard? Only Apple uses them and only Apple's latest MacBooks have them. The port was never sent to SETA and there is no alliance with any other company. There is no definition that could be used to call this a 'industry-standard.'
Other display connections... lining up pins and fumbling with screws? What about the standard DisplayPort? Isn't it exactly the same but with more features and an industry recognised standard?

This is an outright lie on their company website. It can't even be disputed.

Quote from a former Apple user:
I realize that I'm showing myself to be a geezer by remembering this, but Apple did this crap a long time ago and I REALLY hated it then. Even more reason to stay away from their hardware now.

When Apple first came out with color Mac's in 1987 they used a D-sub/DA-15 connector for their video, instead of the then standard VGA connector. Apple's monitors were horribly expensive at the time, and a market of adapters quickly sprung up. I was doing desktop support at the time, and was plagued by this until finally moving into the back-office arena. It was a real huge pain in the ass. Not only that, but they changed the standard when the Quadra 700 came out, doing a sync-on-green or some such that caused a whole new type of adapter to come out.

So, 21 years later, they are still up to the same old crap. Customers suffer, IT curses them for being non-standard, and Apple wonders why they only have 8.9% of the market....They should have just stuck with DisplayPort. While annoying in its infancy, it is at least a recognized industry standard that is more likely to be adopted and cause less headache later on.

P.S.: Before one of you Apple Fanboys flames me for being a soulless spawn of Gates, realize that I first started using a Mac in February of 1984, have personally owned five. I just got sick and tired of the proprietary crap, especially after the Mac clone debacle, and switched to Windows/Intel-standard hardware where I have more of a choice and control over the system I use.

[energyman]

Apple always used their own connectors forcing people to buy expensive apple crap or even more expensive adaptors. One of the many reasons why nobody should buy stuff from the white plastic factory.

[Thetargos]

Has it ever occurred to you that Apple doesn't want a bigger market share? Is like if you suddenly saw Ferrari selling family economy cars... Is NEVER going to happen. That is actually part of what makes Apple, Apple. They portray themselves as the Rolls Royce of the personal computing industry. They're luxury items even at their most basic configurations. Kind of Audi if you will (the A3 is nothing but a Volkswagen Golf in steroids), their basic models are fairly standard, but unique in some ways... That's what Apple is, has always been, and why shot down the clones. They're aspiration items, everybody likes their stuff and everybody feels cool just to use the stuff... As stupid as that is, it has worked out pretty well for them, as for other "brands" in many other areas (clothing, shoes, cars, why personal computers would have to be different?).

[Sacha]

That's fine but the problem is they aren't luxury items. There's nothing special about their products except the luxury pricetag. Generally their products lack features whilst a real luxury item excels in features.

What you are talking about is actually companies like AlienWare. AlienWare sold unique designs, exceptional features and powerful hardware with bleeding-edge technologies. Check out a real luxury computer (http://www.alienware.com/products/area-51-x58-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-A51-X58&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT).

Apple, on the other hand, uses average consumer hardware and markets their products towards every day consumers. They compete against Dell. They market their product as being elite (by being expensive) but they still want poor people to buy it (and they do).

You're kidding yourself if you think they aren't going for marketshare.

Edit: You're also going off-topic and side-tracking the point of this topic. Apple behaving worse than Microsoft. Is that agreement then?

Regardless of whether they are after marketshare or not, that does not give an excuse to create a port that is worse than an existing standard port and force their users to use it with the option of paying money so they can actually use it.

Unless, by your meaning of they aren't after marketshare, you mean: they are trying to get people not to buy their products at all.

[Thetargos]

Yes, then again, there's nothing luxury in a Versace shirt (cutton fabric? Loop of the loom t-shirts also have that!!)... You know what I mean, is marketing something as special items based solely on manufacturing and, well marketing. Don't tell me that Apple shoots for the Average Joe Six Pack type of client... They don't... But indeed that is another whole matter.

Bottom line is that YES Apple is worse than Microsoft simply because they target a very specific profile of user, or should I say profiles of users? The result is the same, they exercise strong-arm tactics on resellers and even clients due to these profiles. And in doing this, yes, they're much worse than Microsoft, tighter, less flexible, etc, etc.

Like I've said before, I like their products purely by aesthetics, I despise Apple as a company.

Edit

Oh, and by the way, Alienware are only awfully powerful computers, with some interesting designs, but THIS (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/10/bling-gold-plat.html) is truly a Luxury computer, have you seen an Alienware like this? I certainly have not. I almost forgot, you can order yours here (http://www.computer-choppers.com/)

Edit 2

See any non Apple product with as much "bling"?... Some interesting designs, certainly, but nothing as "fancy".

[Sacha]

Yes, then again, there's nothing luxury in a Versace shirt (cutton fabric? Loop of the loom t-shirts also have that!!
I guess they have luxury marketing like Versace. Apple's designs are nothing special though. Gold-plating something doesn't make a good design, heck - it's just plating. Must I remind you that Apple did not gold-plate that machine, it's a different company. So yes, non-Apple. Most of Apple's products are no more appealing than my blank white wall. If I stuck an Apple logo on my wall and took a picture, you could mistake it for the back of a MacBook or maybe an iPod zoomed in.

Edit: Oh yeah and they actually do market and sell to Joe-Six Pack. I have seen more Joe-Six Packs with iPhones than anyone else. What about you? I'm pretty sure that's their market. The iPhone is the #1 selling phone in the US market afterall.

Besides, this is off-topic.