I'm really with Stewart on this one. Both in that I love Apple products and that I think Apple is becoming "The Man" they used to rail against. Can you be a dominant player and not be "The Man"? Well, I think Google is making a good go of it.
For what it's worth I'm going to Google I/O this year and not WWDC. Market be damned, my philosophy compels me to seek out open. And nowadays Google is out-opening Apple.
Googles business model requires openes I really don't think it's fair to compare the two. Apple sell products, google sell advertising. Apple is dependent only on their own ecosystem, google on the entire Internet.
I would be much more worried about the data that google collects about you than apple. And let's not forget that google is not more open than you don't know exactly how their search algorithms work and have no saying on the premises used to rank you.
I think Google is in a much more big brother relationship with it's users than Apple is. Apple restricts it's HW and what can run on it, but it does not keep track of it's Users.
IMO, Apple is really much more Disneyland where everything is expensive, looks nice, and is under their control. Also working as a vendor at Disneyland really sucks and involves a lot of rules which can change at any time. But, Disneyland only has the power to kick you out not hand out details of your private life.
PS: I used to develop for Mac OS 8 and while it sucked for a completely different set of reasons it still sucked. I don't think Apple really understands how important developers are because they tend be the first mover and don't have to work to get them.
Apple might not keep track of its users (at least that's what we think) but they do keep track of my credit card. Why can't you just enter your credit card information when you buy something from the iTunes store instead of saving it permanently?
Also, now that Apple is getting into advertisement I think is just a matter of time for them to start tracking us like crazy.
You mean except for the part where Google can effectively de-list any business from the Internet (by evicting them from the Internet's primary navigation mechanism, and the only navigation tool most non-technical users know to use) on any pretext whatsoever?
This is very valid, and just as bad if not worse than the app store. I've been at a company where a large part of our revenue came from people finding our site (legit ecommerce) via google.
We got purged from the index twice without any warning or explanation. We petitioned and manage to get back in both times after a couple of weeks, but with no explanation of why we got banned.
We weren't doing any black-hat seo crap either. It was completely on the up and up.
Google is much more "Big Brother" then Apple. WHY?
Because if you don't use Apple products, Apple doesn't care. They don't track you and they don't store your information.
Google however is a different case. Even if I don't intend to use Google's products, I don't search from their site, and I am not a customer of any of their products, they STILL track me through javascript files linked to or embedded by other websites I do visit.
I can choose not to be tracked by Apple, but unless I take extreme measures, like blocking google domains in my HOSTS file, which I do, I can still be tracked by them -- against my explicit consent, which is exactly what Big Brother did.
javascript cdn tracks you huh?
Are you on LSD or something.
what is next google seceret agreement with firefox to track ssl certificate usage??
ppl like you arent worth to be on this forum.
Really you are arguing agaist google because of tracking by Google analytics and AdSense???
Are you nuts??
Both programs are installed on the sites by explicit request of the website owners. If you should have problem with then that should be with the website owners "redtube" and not Google.
Also if you can prove that the TOS (Terms of Services) and Privacy Policy of the website you are visiting are violated by the Analytics or AdSense. Then you can petition in court as violation of policy.
However if you still visit the same website which have set the privacy policy and Tos compliant with AdSense and Analytics, and are crying about google watching you then i offer you a simle solution.
Dont visit those websites!
If you find lot like minded people then the traffic will automatically vanish.
I'm trying to figure out when Apple wasn't "The Man". Even when they were slugging it out with M$ and IBM in the 80s, they weren't small potatoes. And frequently engaged in scorched earth business practices.
Hmm, I think Jon took a few too many creative liberties here for the sake of entertainment.
1. According to Gizmodo the door was broken in because the journalist wasn't at home. He was having dinner in a restaurant, arrived later when the search was already in progress. The authorities acted respectfully with his belongings, etc. There is a huge difference between ringing the bell a few times and breaking the door when nobody answers and driving a truck through the front door at 60MPH, just because you can. Jon suggests the latter approach was taken.
2. He said that Apple claimed the prototype wasn't theirs, and that they didn't want it back. Comedy Central completely made this up! Apple definitely wanted the device back the moment it got lost.
3. Stop hammering on the "THEY BROKE THE DOOR!" bit. It's completely standard police practice, and it's not the Wrath Of Jobs.
That said, it goes without saying that Apple isn't the little guy anymore, and calling out Apple for its Big Brother tendencies is completely fair.
The matter was not something that needed to be attended to at 9:45 pm on a Friday night. They could have done it during business hours. Actually, they did not even need to visit the premises. They could have used a subpoena.
If you're investigating a possible crime, you don't say "Hey, at your convenience could you get us your computers for us to look at?" You get a warrant and take the computers as soon as possible.
You can argue whether or not the warrant should have been issued, but once it was, the rest of the raid seemed pretty standard.
Not really. People get arrested for old oustanding warrants all the time, search warrant backlogs are pretty common. In fact, in general it is a good idea to back off a bit. It creates a false sense of security in the suspect, allowing better effectiveness when warrants are served, due to suprise. I know there is a "but they will destroy the evidence" protest, but in most cases, by the time a warrant is available the evidence will either be long gone, or completely overlooked (the stupid factor), this is one of those cases, he had plenty of time to wipe relevant drives between the announcement of a police investigation and the warrant serving.
The use of a raid force on a person who is not known to be violent and/or uncooperative is just excessive.
Which means what, exactly? That the steering committee forced a judge to sign a search warrant without first presenting probable cause? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not what steering committees do.
Does it mean that no one on the steering committee should be allowed report a crime and avail themselves of the services of the force?
To not play fast and loose with the facts, the warrant was signed at 7pm and Jason Chen reported getting home around 9:45pm, but the search was well underway at that point.
Well he was a journalist which should have gave him rights against stuff like this (protect sources etc). They took ALL his computers, not just stuff related to the stolen iPhone, again breaking the law that is meant to protect sources.
And if I recall when the story first broke, Apple did not admit it was their prototype until the pictures and story came out.
IANAL. Nor do I know all about journalists' rights v. police procedures, but I am puzzled at all the press and online discussion about "protecting sources":
Seems to me that journalists should be able to protect sources of * information * - which is different than protecting sources of * stolen property† *
___________________
†or "stolen-ish" - whatever Calif calls found property that is supposed to lead to legitimate attempts to return it to rightful owner.
The problem is, by serving a warrant and confiscating all his computers and related devices, they've bypassed his ability to protect sources not just in this case, but in all other cases, as well. That's the rationale for making the legal path subpoenas rather than search warrants with journalists.
[Chief Deputy District Attorney] Wagstaffe said Chen’s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether Chen is indeed protected by the shield law. -- http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/04/26/da...
But guy had already returned the phone - so for what purpose was the search in any case - and why not just call him in - it's not like he posted his own face on his own blog or anything? Apple could be perceived as going too far to protect an average design here.
Well that's sort of the part that John (and many other journalists, comedic or not) glossed over: the whole theft of property thing. It's not about recovering the phone, because this isn't Apple's civil suit. This is a criminal investigation. And while Apple may have been instrumental to getting it started so promptly, it's really out of their hands at this point.
I think that many journalists are sort of waltzing around the edge of this story because at least a few of them understand that there could be some serious repercussions on how shield laws are interpreted in America.
It's a very complex issue that doesn't really lend itself well to a comedy treatment. You have a very shady scenario with an Apple engineer that Gizmodo claims must have “left the phone there” (but is that true? probably we'll never know). You have a shady scenario with the finder who somehow knew or was simply a shitty enough person not to return a lost phone to the bar (that's what I'd do, and what I hope any decent human would do). You've got the embarrassing situation of Denton's gleeful love of checkbook journalism. And now you've got potential criminal activity. It's a total shit show of Silicon Valley fail, no matter what angle you look at it from.
Daily Show just chose the funniest angle to view it from, but definitely not the most accurate or comprehensive. That's fine; outside of political satire they really don't have any assumed duty or responsibility to their viewership.
I am trying to figure out the criminal aspect of this as (to me) it makes no sense to search the guy who returned the product but it possibly could make sense to investigate the guy that "found" it. (In his story the phone was in a silicon case so you could not see the design). If I return someones' wallet the police don't bust down my door, so what (apart from the "Apple") is different here?
I suspect you'd be embroiled in a civil suit if you purchased someone else's wallet from a 3rd party and then posted in an international news publication about its contents.
That doesn't sound like criminal activity to you?
As for why they busted down Chen's door, specifically? No idea. I'm pretty sure that was not Apple's idea. If it was, we have bigger problems than how to interpret CA theft and shield laws.
on point 2, Gizmodo said that the person who found the phone attempted to contact Apple by calling their support and the response he got from them was basically they didn't know what he was talking about and it wasn't their phone.
That's because he called tech support, who had no idea what he was talking about and probably figured he was some retarded user. He didn't try calling anyone specifically via the corporate switchboard (like e.g. Grey Powell, the person who lost the phone, whose name and Facebook profile he got off the phone before it was wiped).
He didn't actually make an honest attempt, just a show of one.
This actually saddens me on Jon Stewart's part. I'm a huge fan of his with his ability to report the more truthful side of politics. This lessens his credibility to me since his facts are misrepresented or missing. He completely ignores the "finder's" role in this and his not-so-secret desire to make money on his discovery, and fails to address the moral obligation on Jason Chen's part as a professional journalist, all for the purposes of making Apple look like the only bad guy here. Ergo, all for the purposes of making a "funnier" bit for the purposes of entertainment.
Additionally, his jab at Gray Powell joking that he was using the iphone to pick up chicks takes the cake. Completely false and misleading! I think Jon Stewart needs to take a look in the mirror on this one.
This is the problem with Jon Stewart's platform. People take it too seriously. Stewart has explicitly said that taking him seriously is a misstep - don't. He is going to say some poignant, legit stuff, but if you take it as a comprehensive take on the news, you're doing him a disservice.
True. Good point. I suppose my main disappointment is in the fact that he has generally had a good track record of distilling complicated things down to common sense "no-duhs". But he's failed at this in this case, to me at least.
You are aware that Jon Stewart is a comedian, with a comedy show on a channel devoted to comedy right? The only place the news and facts come in is when they are the basis for a joke.
In the interest of humor, some details drop out and some are glossed over.
This story resonates because of all the other ways Apple now resembles what they used to rebel against. The stormtroopers thing is just a very visual metaphor.
What a turnaround! Just a few days ago everyone was highly sympathetic towards Apple losing one of their most valued secrets (not really all that much though) and boycotting Gizmodo and everything. Now with even Jon Stewart mocking them, calling them Big Brother and asking them to look in the mirror, this has turned into a major PR disaster for Apple. IMO, if they don't respond quickly and positively, this could turn out to be the point where they start losing the coolness/"with it" factor.
> Just a few days ago everyone was highly sympathetic towards Apple
And just a few days before that everyone was angry about 3.3.1. :)
This video still seemed pretty benign. However, I wonder if this is that start of shift in how people view Apple. They've had other criticisms, for sure, but this is one of the first times they're publicly called out as being oppressive.
Some of us (programmers) are still upset over 3.3.1. We don't have the platform that the Daily Show has, but Apple will never receive another dollar from me. My brand new Studio XPS 16 is wonderful (the 1080p RGB LED screen is slick) and I'm glad I bought it instead of a MacBook Pro. Apple is free to screw over developers, and developers are free to vote with our wallets.
I'm more upset over the HTC lawsuit (though aspects of 3.3.1 and the Gizmodo thing aren't helping). Apple is dishing chilling effects all over the place.
Right now I've switched software, not sure when I'll be getting new hardware, but it most certainly won't be an Apple product -- for the first time since 2003.
I realize they don't care about people like me and our perception of them, but that's not the point for me.
Apple is the "A-list celebrity" of the tech/gadget industry. People both mock celebrities for minor faux pas and openly weep for their bad fortune.. so it goes with Apple.
>this has turned into a major PR disaster for Apple
I think it's a major PR victory for Apple. Jon Stewart just told everybody that he loves Apple products, likes new iPhone, wants one and that Apple broke some doors. Now everybody knows that they have to get new iPhone this summer. This controversy spiked public interest and this media coverage would not be achievable for them even if they pay godzillion dollars.
It's definitely a more mainstream audience but The Daily Show, popular by cable TV standards, only gets about ~1 million viewers per episode or 10% the number of people who bought an iPhone in Q2 2010, or about 1% of the people who own an iPhone/Touch since its launch. So I guess my point is we're still talking about a very small audience.
Would you be able to walk into a Apple store again and buy something there knowing that this was a company that ordered the goons to break down the doors of some guy's house? Face all those cheery Apple employees and Geniuses and not silently think if they supported the actions of their company?
In classic Jon Stewart fashion, he reemed Apple...major points for "minority report" and telling them to knock down AT&T's door...that's what they SHOULD be doing!
I don't believe he's giving an opinion about Apple's actions, rather the accuracy of calling them "Big Brother" in light of the fact that other companies maintain a lot more information about their users than Apple does.
I think what they were trying to say is that Apple isn't necessarily acting like "big brother", and that there are other companies that are potentially more dangerous to you personally. Apple is acting more big brother-ish to their developers than their users...
That being said, I'm not sure that the police raiding Chen's home had anything to do with Apple... that's a big leap to make.
Shame, I can't see this video from UK. 'Not available in your country'. Still don't understand the reasoning behind regional limits on online video - esp as it airs on TV.
I think it may have to do with advertising targeting different regions. If they're advertising something you can't buy in your country, then what is the advertiser paying for?
Am I the only person who thought that whole sketch was an ad that Apple probably paid for? Stewart never said anything bad about the products, and in fact every 20 seconds said something about how awesome they were. Plus he had an iPad on screen for a good two minutes.
I can't understand why Apple would pay Jon Stewart to misrepresent the truth against their favour. He had an iPad on screen for a good two minutes, while insinuating to the audience that Apple's goons broke into Chen's house and stole their computers after Chen gave back a phone that they originally said wasn't theirs.
In reality, Apple asked the DA to investigate what they believed to be theft of property, in response to which the police executed a search warrant on Chen's computers.
That wouldn't surprise me to find out. I've seen a lot of shows that use Mac laptops (e.g. How I Met Your Mother), but the logo is always covered. I guess the laptops look nice, but they don't want to give free advertising to Apple.
This is strictly my opinion speaking, but the Macbook looks like the "default" laptop. Much like how the "default" video game controller was the old school NES controller (but probably has since been replaced with the ps2/3 dualshock).
This is great. Apple isn't the company I fell in love with. Can anyone say that this still represents the Apple we know today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USn5t5nQWU8
Doors and locks are deeply ingrained symbols of privacy and access. The police busting down his door is, as Stewart notes, behavior we expect for /meth labs/, not bloggers.
And to play devil's advocate on /this/ side of the debate, paying for property of dubious ownership is considered a crime unto itself, and for pretty good reason.
Journalists aren't so heavily protected by shield laws that they can break crimes willy-nilly in pursuit of a story. Or any regular old story. It's one thing to break open Watergate - it's another entirely to buy a phone from a guy that they know doesn't have legal ownership of it, all for the sake of one-upping everybody else for the /review of a commercial product/.
It's arguably pretty bad precedent to just let it be. While Apple's, and the police's, actions have been comically overblown, /so was Gizmodo's/. If /nothing/ else, they really ought to be eating crow for engaging in sleazy checkbook journalism.
The movie scene I was referencing describes the situation exactly. Someone does something mildly bad and technically illegal, and a crowd forms that wants to kill for the sake of killing.
He gave back the phone. Give him a month probation or whatever, but don't take everything he owns.
Microsoft was supposed to be the evil one. But you guys are busting down doors in Palo Alto while Commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes! What the fuck is going on?! It's all mixed up!
At least Apple doesn't charge you $80 to change your desktop background on a netbook. But otherwise, I agree.
Apple is hurting the field -- locking down hardware, mandating woefully outdated legacy programming languages, and specifically crippling their hardware and software. Microsoft, on the other hand, is not nearly so bad. At least they are trying to push F# on the world, which I see as a good thing.
2. The cheapest Laptop Apple sells costs $999. The iPad costs $499. Where as the most popular netbook on amazon.com costs $362 (Asus EeePC 1005PE). This is certainly more than the $80 difference Microsoft charge.
Windows 7 Starter does not have the ability to change the desktop background. You have to upgrade to "Windows 7 Home Super Awesome OMG" or whatever to get that.
For what it's worth I'm going to Google I/O this year and not WWDC. Market be damned, my philosophy compels me to seek out open. And nowadays Google is out-opening Apple.