Is Apple worse for open source software than Microsoft?

[Xyber]

Apple doesn't include Adobe Flash on the iPhone. I am so sick of hearing this, it's because Flash is a dog on ARM processors! What phone can run Flash currently? None! And I'm not talking about that Flash Lite crap.

Apple's restrictive policies on the App store are in the interest of security, compatibility and ease of use. So far it's been a huge success, by far the best platform to develop for commercially.

+1

 

[icyrus]

Please just grow up. As long as you keep doing this so can I icyrus. You started the personal references so Im just mirroring you.

Pathetic. I expected better.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Are you aware of the reasons Microsoft came under scrutiny in the first place? And, by the way, Microsoft still has a monopoly in the desktop market.

Dominant market share != monopoly. Since they're a monopoly, I assume that there is no other choice in the desktop market?

 

[w1z4rd]

Pathetic. I expected better.

Pathetic. I did not expect this from you. We ganna continue with this? Its lame. (Im just echoing you, its pathetic so I completely agree with you)

 

[Rinkhals]

Business is there for money, giving shyte to people for free makes no business sense.

So microsoft apple and whoever else we can think to blame are there to make money not help people create free stuff. I know it is hard to believe companies want to make money but that is life.

It's astonishing that someone with almost 38,000 posts on this forum can believe this.

After all, if you are using the Internet to the extent that your post count implies, you should be very well aware of the amount of free information, software and other products that proliferate the web, and if it make no business sense as you say, surely the Internet would, after over ten years in the mainstream, comprise solely proprietary and pay-per-view products.

The fact that it doesn't sort of exposes your premise for the BS it is.

However, the point of the article is not to poke holes in Apple's business model, but merely to emphasize the danger that model poses to our own rights as Internet users.

The shrill baying of the pack of Apple users in support of their favorite platform in no way lessons the prospect that the rest of us face in being locked out of using content which should be available for all of us, simply because we don't have the requisite hardware.

Personally, I like Apple, as a product, but that in no way blinds me to the fact that their Authoritarian approach to how people may use their hardware infringes on our rights as consumers.

As an aside, why is it that we South Africans are so compliant in the face of our freedoms being eroded? Surely, it being some 16 years since we were continually expected to comply with an authoritarian regime, the instinct to do so without question would have faded by now.

 

[icyrus]

Dominant market share != monopoly. Since they're a monopoly, I assume that there is no other choice in the desktop market?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

However, the point of the article is not to poke holes in Apple's business model, but merely to emphasize the danger that model poses to our own rights as Internet users.

Exactly what danger is Apple posing to internet users?

The shrill baying of the pack of Apple users in support of their favorite platform in no way lessons the prospect that the rest of us face in being locked out of using content which should be available for all of us, simply because we don't have the requisite hardware.

Could you elaborate further? What is Apple locking you out of and how?

 

[Rinkhals]

Certainly.

Their propriety formats and their ban on reverse engineering to prevent those formats being used/viewed on other platforms is quite clearly intended to lock out users who do not have the Apple hardware.

I'm sure that you say "tough ****, buy a Mac", but the whole point is that it goes against the general spirit of the World Wide Web.

 

[VertigoZA]

The author of this article clearly states, "Of course users could simply stop using Apple's products and developers could stop developing for the iPhone and iPad." ...so clearly the concept is understood, one wonders then why the article is written with such a negative slant. It really is that simple. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I like it, it's suits my lifestyle. I don't feel I'm sacrificing anything, in fact I'm gaining piece of mind. I'm very happy to pay for that, and I sincerely hope Apple doesn't pay attention to articles like this. If it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle, then chose one of the other more open platforms. Nobody is forcing you to by into this ecosystem.

As I've said a few times; Apple is simply doing something different.. it's not evil. It's different.

...is this really so difficult to accept?

Come to think of it, perhaps the author doesn't get it. Bizarre.

 

[eltherza]

Exactly what danger is Apple posing to internet users?

Patents.

Lets bring it out into the open, the reason apple have such lead and strong position is that because, by law, no-one is allowed to research into anything they've done.

Unlocking the phone by moving your finger across the screen? Patent. Sorry, no unlocking like allowed by anyone else.
How the menu [or any object] bounces back after hitting the end. Patent. No special effects of anyone else.
Multitouch. Patent [still wondering how andriod phones got around this]
And the list goes on and on and on.

This is what the article should have focused on; patents. All apples ideas are good ones, but no-one is allowed to do the same. Sure, you have a right protect your ideas but it "kills innovation". I'm strongly against patents. Fair enough to protect 'ideas', but limit it to 2 years forcing you to continue innovating rather than just strangle holding the industry for something stupid like 50 years. And apple has alot of patents.

But, the same also applies to the competition. It's rumoured that HTC is going for plam - not for the assest, company, name - but mainly for the [very old] patents in hope to sue apple.

This is why apple is king. Really, what's changed on an iphone in the past 3 [or 4] years? Nothing at all - just upped the speced and added some extra functions. Innovation? Sure, like 5 years ago. Heck, look at the ipad. Absolutely no innovation there at all.

 

[icyrus]

Certainly.

Their propriety formats and their ban on reverse engineering to prevent those formats being used/viewed on other platforms is quite clearly intended to lock out users who do not have the Apple hardware.

I'm sure that you say "tough ****, buy a Mac", but the whole point is that it goes against the general spirit of the World Wide Web.

Which formats are these exactly?

Patents.

Like you said, this is not an Apple only problem.

I am opposed to patents but unfortunately we are stuck with them.

 

[Rinkhals]

The author of this article clearly states, "Of course users could simply stop using Apple's products and developers could stop developing for the iPhone and iPad." ...so clearly the concept is understood, one wonders then why the article is written with such a negative slant. It really is that simple. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I like it, it's suits my lifestyle. I don't feel I'm sacrificing anything, in fact I'm gaining piece of mind. I'm very happy to pay for that, and I sincerely hope Apple doesn't pay attention to articles like this. If it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle, then chose one of the other more open platforms. Nobody is forcing you to by into this ecosystem.

As I've said a few times; Apple is simply doing something different.. it's not evil. It's different.

...is this really so difficult to accept?

Come to think of it, perhaps the author doesn't get it. Bizarre.

Yes, but they are.

Yeah, ok, it's no big deal, at the moment, nobody is currently going to decide against buying another platform on the basis of what is currently available.

But a few years down the line, who knows?

The point is not about whether you should be able to use Apple product if you want; of course you should.

I don't dispute that Apple is a better product.

What I object to, and what the Author of the Article gets, but apparently you don't, is that, by placing strict controls on what you can and can't do with the hardware that you've bought and which should be owned by you to do what you like with , Apple is trying to make sure that content cannot be viewed or used on any other platform.

 

[eltherza]

Then chose one of the other more open platforms. Nobody is forcing you to by into this ecosystem.

Yip, which is why andriod market is such an important thing. So long as you have a choice there's nothing wrong with apple's system [except the stupid patents]

As I've said a few times; Apple is simply doing something different.. it's not evil. It's different.

Ironically, Apple is doing exactly what it was "fighting against" in the 80s. The famous advert (1984) show apple breaking the mind controlling corporates with choice. Today, apple users seem to be the most mind controlled and hooked into "the system" as you can be. Throw in the way they are trying to stop competition and the fact once you depend on the app store you can't really break out of it [how can you live without your apps!?!?!? No.1 reason not to leave iphone... loss of apps!] and it seems apple is now that monster on the screen...

 

[Rinkhals]

Which formats are these exactly?

You're the Mac user; you tell me.

As I said in another post, it's no big deal now, but a few years down the line, who knows?

 

[VertigoZA]

This is what the article should have focused on; patents. All apples ideas are good ones, but no-one is allowed to do the same. Sure, you have a right protect your ideas but it "kills innovation". I'm strongly against patents. Fair enough to protect 'ideas', but limit it to 2 years forcing you to continue innovating rather than just strangle holding the industry for something stupid like 50 years. And apple has alot of patents.

While your intentions are good, I think missing something here. Patents are a necessary evil. They cannot be done away with. Besides, even a limited 2 year patent would "Kill innovation" as you put it, 2 years in the tech sector is a life time, it may as well be 50 years. You simply can't escape the fact that R&D Dollars need to be protected. Patents are the only way to do that.

Honestly, what kill's innovation, is a lack of creativity and good old fashioned out-the-box thinking.

 

[icyrus]

You're the Mac user; you tell me.

As I said in another post, it's no big deal now, but a few years down the line, who knows?

Either you have something in mind or you don't. I certainly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[VertigoZA]

Yes, but they are.

Yeah, ok, it's no big deal, at the moment, nobody is currently going to decide against buying another platform on the basis of what is currently available.

But a few years down the line, who knows?

The point is not about whether you should be able to use Apple product if you want; of course you should.

I don't dispute that Apple is a better product.

What I object to, and what the Author of the Article gets, but apparently you don't, is that, by placing strict controls on what you can and can't do with the hardware that you've bought and which should be owned by you to do what you like with , Apple is trying to make sure that content cannot be viewed or used on any other platform.

Ummm... then don't buy the product. Am I missing something. When Apple physically forces you, on Pain of Death, with a gun to your head, to hand over your money to buy their product.. then yes, you will have point. You'll have a leg to stand on. Right now, you don't.

 

[icyrus]

Patents are a necessary evil.

Some things should not be patentable (if anything really should be is a whole other discussion) and software is definitely one of those.

 

[Rinkhals]

Either you have something in mind or you don't. I certainly have no idea what you are talking about.

Because you don't want to see it.

From the Original Article.

Because Apple doesn't actually provide software to manage its iPhones and iPods on the Linux platform, community developers have been doing exactly this: reverse engineering the iPod and iPhone OSes to make compatible applications for Linux. Without these the devices would be unusable on anything other than Apple-approved platforms.

 

[eltherza]

While your intentions are good, I think missing something here. Patents are a necessary evil. They cannot be done away with. Besides, even a limited 2 year patent would "Kill innovation" as you put it, 2 years in the tech sector is a life time, it may as well be 50 years. You simply can't escape the fact that R&D Dollars need to be protected. Patents are the only way to do that.

Honestly, what kill's innovation, is a lack of creativity and good old fashioned out-the-box thinking.

You're right, 2 years is a very long time, businesses are getting quicker and quicker. I'd say no protection on that at all, but then people would not invest time to research. Perhaps 1 year before the competition can profit from it [so the can start developments and research as soon as it's 'public' but held back for a bit]

I agree with "good old fashioned out-the-box thinking" on innovation, but when you are shacked by patents, you cant get very far out the box. For example, you want to create a new touch screen OS for a phone. Step one... you need a touch screen and thats patent by someone... you cant even begin to innovate because you're already limited on that and who knows what else is patent out there.

 

[icyrus]

Because you don't want to see it.

From the Original Article.

I still don't see what formats you were talking about?

Your complaint seems to be that Apple doesn't support iTunes on Linux? That is hardly endangering the freedoms of internet users.