I've not looked into the details of Steve Job's letter on DRM and the eventual droping of DRM from iTunes but this quote, "John Sullivan said, "Our Defective by Design campaign has a successful history of targeting Apple over its DRM policies. We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores, and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music." seems like they are over stating their impact on the issue.
I wonder if anyone at the FSF realizes how unprofessional their iPad -> iBad conversion and other similar slogans sound. It makes it hard to take them seriously.
As a FSF member, I can tell you that their entire (print!) newsletter has the tone of a DPRK press release. Interestingly, the last actual piece that I read by RMS was considerably more reasonable -- it concerned the licensing of Javascript AJAX code running on your local machine.
This is really frustrating. I'm more-or-less idealogically aligned with the FSF, but feel like they've been doing more harm than good for a bit, especially as far as how these ideals are perceived goes.
I think they need a nice healthy dose of pragmatism, but I can't think of an effective way for them to get it.
This problem is common to groups of people aligned with more fringe or extreme ideals, and it's really annoying to deal with.
I agree. I mean, I totally support what the FSF stands for, but specifically calling out certain products make me want to say "So don't buy one then!" I think all too often we complain about the ethics of companies, but don't actually care enough to change our lifestyle so as not to support them.
Organizing the protest, Free Software Foundation (FSF) operations manager John Sullivan said, "Our Defective by Design campaign has a successful history of targeting Apple over its DRM policies. We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores, and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music..."
Yeah, I'm sure that's why they dropped DRM from the iTunes store.
This sounds incredibly snarky, but I always feel conflicted on this sort of thing. I like free software a lot and identify philosophically with the movement, but I also like high-quality software that actually works and is designed for real people.
A better question would be whether Apple's increasingly laughable control freakery puts any potential buyers off. I know it does because I am such a potential buyer.
Doesn't put me off one bit, and I'd imagine that the number of people who'd (A) actually understand the issues you're complaining about and (B) actually agree with you enough to stop buying from Apple is nowhere near enough to make a dent in any product they release.
(I'll probably still wait for the second-generation version, though, just like I did with the iPhone)
Not all people are equally important in this context. I influence buying decisions of quite a number of people as the go-to computer person and as an entrepreneur. I am a developer making platform decisions for mobile apps.
As a business owner I'm not going to let an all powerful middleman get in between me and my customers. And as a freedom loving person, I'm not going to let anyone censor my dictionary.
I influence buying decisions of quite a number of people as the go-to computer person and as an entrepreneur.
Let's turn your statements on their heads and see what falls out:
So what you're saying is that having a middleman make your technology decisions for you is a bad thing, and that you'll use your position as a middleman who makes technology decisions for others to try to prevent Apple from doing that?
I am not the all powerful middleman for anyone as most people are simply not stupid enough to sign away their rights in that fashion. I just give advice.
But you're right that I'm acting in my own interest. I'm not making a moral case here. Nobody is forced to buy from Apple, so Apple is free to do whatever nonsense they want.
What I'm saying is simply that it is not in my interest to do business with Apple if they take away the most basic freedoms from me. Neither as a user nor as a consumer, and least of all as a hacker who likes to tinker with stuff.
I don't think it does. I am a potential buyer, and I could care less about the "openness" of the product.
I actually see it as a good thing more than bad however. With a PC, every time I run a new program, or get an upgrade, buy a new device, etc, I never know what to expect. With Apple, there's no question. It almost feels "safe".
I don't feel safe with Apple. They deleted all my music from my iPod without asking just because I inserted it into the wrong Mac. I guess Apple fans will be able to explain to me how this is really an ease of use feature.
I'll never give up my MBP, but I think the issues you're speaking of have more to do with the OS (cough Windows) then they do with the openness of the PC itself.
As the Android's apps market clearly shows open not necessarily means better, it might just mean messier :)
Yes, open is more 'powerful' and yes, it allows 'more things' to be done, and yes it doesn't piss developers off, but for an average user that just wants to do everyday things Apple's approach might be just better overall user experience.
iPod is not the mp3 player with the most features, its the most polished experience. same for iphone and for almost any of their products.
so .. I'm not at all sure there would be more buyers if it was open then it will be now with its closed nature.
I'm not so sure they know what they are doing. Do they know how far their business has crossed over into the realm of the fashion industry? The fashion industry has different rules. For instance, one of the more dangerous things for a luxury brand is "The Average User". Kicking independently minded people in the face might just turn out to be a bad move.
Somewhere in the depths of their evil corporate headquarters, Apple has a spreadsheet with 3 cells. One is labeled "People who buy devices if they are really easy to use". Another is labeled "People who don't buy devices unless they can replace all of its software". And the third cell is labelled "The greater of cell 1 and cell 2".
This contradition between ease of use and keeping particular basic freedoms is a complete red herring. I don't see how it makes the iPhone easier to use if Apple censors dictionaries.
Exactly that's why we should concentrate efforts on building up free alternatives. It's not that music discs, printed books and movie theater tickets were free before the advent of the PC. I believe the most important breaktrough for freedom (in regards to IT) is the personal cloud (or the houshold/street cloud).
The FSF has their own ideology they want you to follow -- Apple, specifically Steve Jobs, has an ideology he wants you to follow. As a consumer I don't see an OSS iPad alternative that has the same features & quality so my choice is pretty easy. If the FSF, and others, want to promote OSS/DRM free devices they need to step it up and offer real quality alternatives.
Yeah, there are currently a ton of great ebook apps like Kindle and other ones for viewing documents like PDFs, and I'm sure an iPad optimised version is coming soon from the majority of them. I don't think we need to worry about iBooks DRM. The only real problem is the software/app issue in my opinion, but jailbreaking somewhat solves that for people tech-savvy enough to do it.
Stanza is great, there is also GoodReader for PDF's, Wattpad, Amazon's Kindle app and the Barnes and Noble reader among others. Some of them have their own DRM, but there is definitely still choice.
Since the iPad can use existing iPhone apps, and other e-readers and dedicated eBook apps abound in the App Store, there will definitely be ways to buy books from other sources, or load unrestricted RTFs/PDFs/etc. I wouldn't put it past Apple to specifically block them, but I don't think they will.
I don't know why anyone expects they will be allowed to do that. Music is a form of digital IP that had already descended into lawlessness by the time the iPod came along. Movies (because until recently they were too big to download) and eBooks (because until recently there was no convenient way to read them) can still be "controlled" (controlled meaning continue to generate significant revenue for incumbents). Between Kindle and iPad, in 5 years most normal people will have a benchmark in their head that an ebook is "supposed" to cost ~$10 and they will be ok with it. Letting anyone load eBooks onto the iPad risks putting the publishing industry where the music industry is now.
The major difference is that there are many books that people will want to read that are in the public domain. Also, as far as I know, their book-reading competitors (Kindle, Nook) allow un-encumbered ebooks.
All media in the iTunes store (with the one exception of music) is DRM: well, I'd say music is one giant exception, since that's what 90% of its users buy from that store.
All applications must be signed by Apple, an unprecedented level of control for a general purpose computer: that's the point, it's not meant to be a general purpose computer, it's meant to be a device that lets you browse the web, read books and watch movies.
Apple has zero restrictions about open source code running on iPhone - the poster is incorrect. Also, music sharing is entirely possible, just don't expect it to be supported as part of the first-party pipeline... the dev license itself doesn't prevent you (unless your purpose is to illegally share).
"Remotely disable your apps and media" — did that happen to anyone?
Users who downloaded applications which Apple later pulled from the store (e.g, NetShare) specifically reported that the app continued to work on their phone. If Apple does have the ability to remotely disable applications and/or media, they have made a point (so far) of not exercising it.
Let's not forget that Apple is revolutionizing the world. Even if their products are bad for consumers in that they restrict with DRM, have higher costs, use proprietary technology, etc... they are sparking a huge huge change in the world of technology. Android is a great example of this.
This is the good ol' military industrial complex but in a consumer electronics sense. Companies are competing and innovating, and we have to thank Apple for much of that. In the end we are the people who will benefit, with lower cost devies and better software. Even the carriers are attacking each other now on prices for the best 3G network (VZW & ATT).
Even though I don't own any Apple products, I'm still glad they are around for this reason. More competition in the marketplace is good for me, the consumer, which should go without saying.
However, I'm not sure Android is a good example of your point. I think Android had been in the works for many years before the iphone was released (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Hist...). In fact, Apple multi-touch patents are holding it back at the moment.
