Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?
No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer. I don't install proprietary software on any of my computers, because of security. If the software I install isn't open then it could do anything without out my knowledge, including restrict me through DRM.
Just because Linux is "cool"?
Linux is not "cool." To anyone who has used the Lisp machines, all modern operating systems look the basically the same. They are all crappy UNIX derivatives.
The difference is Linux is open, which is necessary prerequisite for security, which is precisely why most foreign governments use it, they don't want to open up their vital computer systems to sabotage.
Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model.
If Apple just sold physical hardware that would be fine. But that just isn't the case. The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
The proprietary software that Apple sells not only is a security threat, the malicious features they have are well known:
> No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer
But for using any of their services they are infamous for tracking you everywhere they can, scanning your emails and for analyzing ALL data they can get on you and they are one of the companies that are very high up on the radar of privacy advocates all over the world. It is absolutely ridiculous that you are making Google up to be some sort of shining example of doing good and doing the right thing(tm) given all their history so far. Given all Apple and Google is doing, they are just the same. They are companies trying to make money.
If you don't like proprietary software and/or are not allowed to use it at work then just don't use Apple or Microsoft or others that fit that description. Case closed. But that doesn't counter the fact that Apple has both open and proprietary components and products. Just like Google has lots of proprietary stuff. Just like the overwhelming majority of software and software+hardware companies providing all that wonderfully defective still highly overpriced serious business software we laugh about every day.
And when you are using any of Google's services that you like so much, you ARE using proprietary software that is not even running on your own system and you have absolutely NO idea and NO control over where your data will end up at and just because the servers are running on Linux does not help that fact in the slightest. Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same? In both cases these are proprietary components and services running on free or open source platforms.
> which is precisely why most foreign governments use it
Yea, I am from Europe, we had a whole bunch of "Open Source now!" movements and those stories sure were popular in newspapers and I have been to the very gov authorities and magistrates doing those projects. Yes it was a good move but let me tell you, you are faaaaar from having replaced the usual evil in the majority of their systems. Plus a hell of a lot of their gov IT is still either proprietary and/or in-house developments and totally closed source. Just because they are using Linux on a few servers as OS or have a few Linux desktops doesn't change anything there.
And if this is your whole point, then WHY are you using google services? If security and control over what happens was really so paramount to you, you should not even remotely use any google products or any "cloud" or other online services.
Therefore I don't see your point.
> The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
No. Google's core products and services are just as proprietary and closed source and you have absolutely no control over what happens with all your data that you feed google directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly; see their end user agreements. This is a non-argument you keep coming back to. I have said it at least three times now: just because their proprietary systems are running on a GNU/Linux system doesn't give you the same benefits you see in using Linux.
And you still haven't clarified what is "superior" for you. From a customer's point? From YOUR own personal point? Or from commercial success which is the actual ONLY goal of a business model?
> The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique
This is again completely irrelevant as the music is DRM free now. And still I have all those countless other options of buying music available to me... so it is even more irrelevant that they don't let someone else develop (reverse engineer and violate license agreements) an interface that exploited(!!) their iTunes store and provided you with something you should not have been allowed to have back in 2005. I see this as much less Apple's fault and much more the fault of the RIAA and MPAA who did not want to let go of all their control and were very suspicious of this new way of distributing their music.
But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now. What is your point? Whether you like it or not, Apple were the first ones to actually provide a viable and legal solution for customers to comfortably buy music online. Most end users very obviously don't care that they have to use iTunes for that. And the ones who do have a multitude of alternatives available.
You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.
Google up to be some sort of shining example of doing good and doing the right thing(tm) given all their history so far. Given all Apple and Google is doing, they are just the same. They are companies trying to make money.
To be honest, there are things I dislike about all corporations, but at least Google's main goal is deliver intelligent services like search and machine translation rather then dominate my computer with DRM, which fits into their "do no evil" motto. You can't expect them to be completely perfect in a capitalist society, though.
You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.
No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.
You should also understand that gaining complete access to all external information and services, including those provided by Google, is a much more long-term goal, and it would require some sort of post-capitalist economic system.
But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now.
Getting the tyrants at Apple to get rid of their oppressive restrictions in iTunes was a good first victory, but they still profit heavily from proprietary software and DRM. Defective by design commented on this here:
Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same?
It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD, because that lets them make modifications without releasing them!
Although there use of some open source products and their elimination of DRM from iTunes are good things, it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.
You are a pretty big fool, believing Apple is to blame for pricing in the iTunes Store. The content providers set the prices, not Apple. They just distribute and take a small share.
And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.
You are a pretty big fool, believing Apple is to blame for pricing in the iTunes Store. The content providers set the prices, not Apple.
I didn't say Apple personally set the prices, I just stated that Apple's business model is dependent upon blockbuster hits. Google's business model, on the other hand, is dependent upon advertisements.
And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.
I am not sure of your particular case, however, Apple is a prominent user of DRM which they use to restrict and control millions of people's computers:
Now I see what you mean, but I wouldn't say your source is reliable. I can see where your opinion comes from, but you should consider more sources.
Most of those points are either incorrect or don't take into account what the goal of all companies on this planet is. Making money.
Ideology is good for yourself but won't feed you or buy you a house. A middle ground is the way to go.
And Apples middle ground is quality products with proprietary software. You can't control the quality of your products, when opening it up to the competition (Palm Pre).
As some said before Google does this too. You won't get their search engine code, nor will Apple give you iOS.
Yet google will not give you any code to their actual core services.
> Google FTW. I rest my case.
Yea, this is what this whole "discussion" has been about... go figure, you were right from the beginning until now!!! Congratulations, you haven't learned a thing. You are either mentally 14 years old or just a troll. GTFO.
> but at least Google's main goal is deliver intelligent services like search and machine translation
And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software and they are forerunners in quite a few markets they created on their own. See, that marketing-babble works even for Microsoft and Oracle too.
Google's goal is to get as much diverse data from you as possible and legal. Stop cutting a multi-billion dollar multi-national mega-corp all that slack all the time - especially considering how much flak they were and are getting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
And on top of that they were pretty much the only search engine for the web for a long time, so much so that "google" has become synonymous with internet for the average user. At least now there is a bit of competition from wolfram and microsoft and DDG is trying real hard. But google is clearly dominating this market and also the online ads business. Apple can only dream of coming close to this amount of market penetration.
> No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.
Because control of your computer includes control over your data. And you were saying you can allegedly NOT use any proprietary systems because of your work but then it is ok to use completely proprietary services way out of your control? Well look at that, actually it is just your own personal preferences which makes more sense since if you were really legally required, you couldn't use google or any other cloud services.
> Getting the tyrants at Apple
Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally... this is complete, utter bullshit. There are lots of alternatives and on top of that, all this DRM and control for the music was a requirement from the RIAA. They did not understand this new way of selling music online and wanted as much control as possible. And since Apple made that compromise, they were the first ones to provide a legal and usable way of selling music online. And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM. Do you really think Apple cares about controlling whether you distribute your music to 2 or 5 end systems? Then you are even more naive than I have thought.
> It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD
Waaaaaait a minute, back up. Drop the fundamentalist brain-wash bullshit-talk. BSD has always been released under the BSD license and there are many, many, MANY implementations and re-uses of their code, both open and closed, private, educational and commercial and not a single one has been "stolen".
It is perfectly legal and encouraged to use the code any way you want and why should Apple go with other sources that ultimately force them to do things hardly any company does with profitable products? Anyone who ever contributed to BSD licensed software is aware of this and it has worked perfectly fine for decades. Nothing was stolen here. It is perfectly alright for a company to choose whichever software and license agreement they see fit. And there is hardly any commercial software released under the "viral" FSF licenses. And Apple has released a lot of components from their OS, again under a BSD style license. Nothing to see here.
> it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.
See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this. if you don't like their product because it is not as open as you like then don't buy it. And if you don't like the price on a Lexus or Ferrari then don't buy one. Nothing to see here.
You have clearly made up your mind and are not interested in a discussion. You much rather poo-fling the one or two (out-dated) bits you can get a hold of. And it has got nothing to do with how the overwhelming majority of successful software and hardware companies work. Some are very open, some are completely closed. Luckily there are a lot of alternatives for everything. But your zealot-hatred for Apple is just hilarious considering how 5 to 10 years ago hardly ANYONE knew Apple let alone used any of their products and back in those dark ages there was nothing but Microsoft for the average end user. Apple has come a long way on their own and they have single-handedly created markets that did NOT exist before - like legally buying music and tv shows online. Like the iPad and like the iPhone. Yes there were those ridiculous windows ce "smartphones" before but Apple created the market for the modern smartphone and the oh-so-beloved "apps". And google was all too happy to follow, seeing the opportunity for more data and ads.
Any data I feed my mac, I can always export and take with me to any other platform... there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.
Your demeanor is really cute and very much like the blind fanboys in the huge Linux vs. Windows flamewars back in the day... the 90s called, they want their zealots back.
And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software? You show me a single instance where you actually looked at all that free software kernel code and helped make sure there wasn't anything fishy going on. Or are you just talking big about free software without ever having contributed hm?
This is pointless here since you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.
> And on top of that they were pretty much the only search engine for the web for a long time, so much so that "google" has become synonymous with internet for the average user.
There are a variety of industries which can be classified as natural monopolies [1], examples of this include public utilities like water services, electricity, and telecommunications. It is too expensive for a competitor to arise in these industries, so it is most efficient to have a central distributor. I believe that utility computing is another example of this, which justifies Google's status. You also mentioned "all the flak they are getting," could you provide specifics?
> Because control of your computer includes control over your data.
I have complete control over my data, because I use entirely open systems based upon Linux, and in order to communicate my data over the internet I host my own personal server. At the same time, I am glad to have access to intelligent services provided by google, such as search and machine translation. These are helpful services, they don't hinder me in anyway.
On the other hand, if I choose to use Apple software, such as their iOS, I am entirely dependent upon Apple's every whim, and I am providing Apple with the opportunity to delete any of personal data. Similarily, if I host all of my personal data on external servers out of my control, like the ones controlled by Facebook, I will be just as disempowered. On the other hand, accepting assistance from intelligent services such as Google search is not a cause of any problems.
> And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software
Sure they create "sexy" products, but they present their sexy exterior to hide that they are doing evil things like restricting users with DRM. It would be totally ridiculous to have a motto like "do no evil."
> Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally...
Apple does exert significant control over its subject computers through DRM [2], restrictive licensing [3], etc. I wouldn't necessarily say they enforce these restrictions "brutally." My use of the term tyranny to describe to describe Apple is partially inspired by the article On the Still-Undefeated Tyranny of Apple [4].
> There are lots of alternatives and on top of that
Could you show me what alternatives you are referring to? Are any of them free software? Do you think iTunes is acceptable just because there are some "alternatives" that are accepted well others, such as PyMusique, are unfairly shut down?
> And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM.
Apple still uses DRM extensively today [2], even after they opened up their music player.
> Nothing was stolen here.
Which is why, if you look back I put a question mark after the term steal. I recognize that it is questionable what you might even qualify as stealing. The fact is Apple has a long history of taking other innovations from external sources (Xerox PARC, BSD, etc) and then being the ones to successfully market them. The real talent Apple has is for marketing and profiteering, not innovating.
> you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.
Hang on there, I just a poor man, I can't force my ideas on anyone. The only thing I am advocating for here is to provide people with the freedom from being forced into things by big corporations like Apple and Microsoft.
You can get freedom from corporate forces by using free software operating systems, using Linux distributions such as Ubuntu or Android distributions such as Replicant.
> And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software?
Yes, I have contributed to free software projects (e.g JSAN) but not as much as I would like to unfortunately, but I am still young, so I think still have time to do more. Check out my accounts on launchpad, github, etc.
> See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this.
Plenty of people care about these, especially people and governments outside the U.S that don't want to be dependent upon American companies. [5] [6]
> there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.
You blame me of being a "fandroid" for my support of Google's AI projects. Yet you a clearly a huge fan of Apple yourself considering that you claimed that their products are "sexy" and that they contain "absolutely no DRM." Now who is the one being ignorant?
You are constantly making completely false claims and you are wrongly using words and terms. Utility computing and grid computing has got nothing to do with google's search engine.
Internet search is in absolutely no way even remotely a "natural monopoly". I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.
> so it is most efficient to have a central distributor
So in case of Google it is a "good" monopoly because it will save costs???? Are you out of your mind? I don't pay for a google search like I pay for my kWh and google does not provide any public infrastructure. They feed off the internet and feed off on my data and make money that way. They are a company, not a utility.
> You also mentioned "all the flak they are getting," could you provide specifics?
There is no DRM on my iMac or in my iTunes songs. I can export my photos, videos, contacts, my emails, my documents and everything else I have on my PCs and take it with me at any point. I am in control of everything that is going on on my PC here and I can also install lots of other OSs if I want that.
> evil things like restricting users with DRM
Well, you really must be smarter than everyone else because with a good 100 million iPhones sold, you would think MOST customers would have quickly dumped them as soon as they hit all those horrible road blocks you are seeing... but no, iphones keep selling and a lot of people enjoy using them. So they must have gotten something right for just that target audience.
You need to learn to accept that obviously apple does not care about some bean-foil deflector beanie defender of all developers who sees them as the worst kind of Naziscum. So needless to say, they won't be making any products for you whether you like it or not. There is nothing more to this discussion than that.
> Could you show me what alternatives you are referring to
You need to plug the RIAA with your DRM hatred because they are (were) making those terms.
> PyMusique
Someone illegally reverse engineered a tool to hack around the RIAA-dictated DRM protection and you are wondering that apple plugged (had to plug) that hole? Go hate on the RIAA for that you. There is absolutely no justification that any company is required to open their services up to any third-party clients if they do not want it or as in this case aren't able to allow it. Do not bring this irrelevant argument up again. Ever.
> Apple still uses DRM extensively today
I have no drm on my imac or macbook pro.
> with the freedom from being forced into things by big corporations like Apple and Microsoft.
You are wrong. You are completely, utterly wrong. Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything. If you don't like it, don't use it. You don't get it huh? You must really think you are so much smarter than everyone around you because you obviously believe you are in a position to question all those millions worldwide who decided to buy an apple product.
Back before apple could sell a single home-PC, there was pretty much only x86 and microsoft for pretty much all PCs. To this day GNU/Linux has obviously utterly failed to make it to the average user's desktop at large so people were stuck with Windows. At least apple could grab a few of those percents and bring a little bit of competition to that huge market. Look at the numbers:
Apple is looking at 10% share (less than 20% for mobiles), the rest is pretty much exclusively M$... Linux is at less than 3% total where they always were. This is no tyranny, this is not forcing nobody to use apple. You make it look like they own 99% of everything. Completely ridiculous and wrong.
If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
> You blame me of being a "fandroid"
I blame you for mindlessly repeating retarded, false propaganda and for not seeing things for what they are. Apple has small market shares in everything they do. And I blame you for continuously thinking you know better than all those people who consciously decided to switch to Apple products and find that they like it.
> Yet you a clearly a huge fan of Apple
I am pretty much fluent on all windows, unix, linux and mac system as well as more exotic ones like Be. I really do not care much what I am using as long as it works reliably and comfortably enough. I have seen M$ go from horrible DOS to WinDOS to Vista and 7 and I have seen Atari and Commodore and I have seen Linux and BSD go from flipping every single kernel switch before compiling it myself to dragonfly and ubuntu and whatnot... and I have seen apple from their first little black and white interface to their very first "sexy" products to their switch to Intel and I have seen the iPod help them rise in popularity, then the popular macs and finally the iPhone and iPad. Trust me, I been around the block and I belong to no single camp. I "hate" companies like Microsoft, SAP and Oracle - real actual major players and true monopolists that make atrociously bad software. Not comparatively little fish like Apple.
Back in the day apple used to be so far ahead of x86 PCs it was ridiculous. Now they are Intels just the same. I am no apple fanboy, I like some of their stuff and they have made my life easier. But the one thing where I give Apple real credit is that they were the only ones to successfully bring actual competition to the PC market, even at just 10%. They were the only ones to date to give M$ a run for their money and make M$ finally look retarded, old and horrible. And they have CREATED the modern smartphone and tablet market, things that did not exist before. Finally all those average PC users have a real choice available and there is at least SOME competition which can only benefit all of us. So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$ and on google and thank the wolfram alphas and DDGs and also Apple in this world because they were the only ones who could stand up against a real monopoly.
And you know why Linux on the desktop failed to deliver this much needed competition? Because open source and free software is sadly full of ADHD attention whores and people who think they know it oh-so-much-better than the users and they will go to great length shitting on anyone who is just a little bit more successful than they are - which is exactly how I see you. All that choice and possibilities are great for us geeks, so is OS and FSF, but the average user doesn't care about gnome vs kde vs xfce and they don't care about compiling kernels or being able to browse the code. (Even you haven't!!!) They actually have a life that is NOT the computer and they just want to send an email and talk to their family at home, send them pictures and read something interesting online... and that is what apple has obviously delivered, otherwise they wouldn't have the success they currently have.
So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.
Over 25 years ago, in the mid 1980s, Apple introduced the Macintosh and Microsoft introduced Windows. Taken together, Apple/Microsoft came to dominate the entire computing industry and they have largely maintained that status up to the present day.
Well they may have switched around in cycles between one another, to the point that it may have seemed that "there was nothing but M$ for most computer users" taken together they still had complete control. The phrase "if you don't like it, don't use it" didn't make any sense, because there were simply were no free alternatives for people to turn to.
Selecting between Apple/M$ is not a worthwhile choice, since they both use exactly the same bad practices. They both profit off of closed and restrictive platforms, and they are both against software freedom.
It is only in the last three years that people begun to be granted some freedom from the tyrannies of Apple and Microsoft. This started in 2004, when Ubuntu was released, and then it continued when in 2008 Android was released. In the last three years these two systems have matured to the point that now finally users have the choice of living free of Apple/M$.
The transition to these free alternatives was partially fueled by the need to save money admist our financial crisis, but that alone hasn't really displaced the dominance of these entrenched tyrannies because as you personally mentioned, Linux may still only be 3% of all web client operating systems. This is why it is necessary to have people like me who continue to fight against Apple and Microsoft and develop free alternatives.
Google has been one of our greatest allies in this battle. Google is a major proponent of open platforms, because Google needs platforms like the web that are open to searching. Google has further assisted our cause through their active development of Chromium and Android. Furthermore, Google provides many unmatched intelligent services such as search, machine translation, and intelligent prediction to everyone free of charge, not unlike a public service.
> google does not provide any public infrastructure
The fire department doesn't provide any public infrastructure either. It provides a public service. This is not unlike how our good friends at Google provide public services such as search and machine translation.
> I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.
Sure you could, and nobody would hear about it unless you further invested millions of dollars into it to acquire resources.
> So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$
I hate M$ just about as much as Apple, however, I tend to think of them together because taken as a group they inflicted untold evils on the computing industry for nearly 25 years.
> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
What makes you think that we are not still amidst such a dark age? Microsoft and Apple together still dominate most general purpose computers. As I explained above, I am not at all thankful of Apple's attempts to compete with Microsoft because they offer nothing I consider to be better.
> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
Actually, as of Q3 2011, Apple is the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization, and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit. Apple simply is not a "little fish" anymore. In fact, Apple/Microsoft have tyrannically controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years.
> Not comparatively little fish like Apple.
What do you mean by "little fish"? Apple is a huge company and arguably the main opponent of computing freedom in the world today.
> Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything.
As I explained above, Apple/Microsoft have controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years. Computers have become an unavoidable part of life in developed countries, so people basically are forced to deal with them one way or another. Free alternatives have only recently begun to emerge, but they are still not widely available.
> So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.
Thankfully, I don't take success in capitalism into account in my comparasions. I could care less about how successful Apple has been in capitalist societies, I want free, secure, and intelligent technologies. Apple and Microsoft aren't even beginning to work towards that goal and at least Google is.
No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer. I don't install proprietary software on any of my computers, because of security. If the software I install isn't open then it could do anything without out my knowledge, including restrict me through DRM.
Just because Linux is "cool"?
Linux is not "cool." To anyone who has used the Lisp machines, all modern operating systems look the basically the same. They are all crappy UNIX derivatives.
The difference is Linux is open, which is necessary prerequisite for security, which is precisely why most foreign governments use it, they don't want to open up their vital computer systems to sabotage.
Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model.
If Apple just sold physical hardware that would be fine. But that just isn't the case. The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
The proprietary software that Apple sells not only is a security threat, the malicious features they have are well known:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies.
The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/22/content_2728356...