Apple seems to be getting eviler by the day. It's the same kind of attitude they're taking with Palm and the Pre—threatening legal action to scare people away from doing things they really ought to have a right to do. I guess that's what happens when you're at the top of a market.
All of this news of Apple becoming the next evil corporation really pushes me away from buying a Macbook for college in the fall. However, it makes a Product (red) Dell with Ubuntu look even better...
Look, don't buy a computer based on what you think of the company. If you're serious about getting stuff done with your computer, get the best damn computer you can, regardless of company reputation, regardless of what other people think about it.
If you think that you can live with Ubuntu, with all its problems, then get Ubuntu - but get it because it's cheaper, because it's more tinkerable. Don't get it because of Apple's dickery. Of course Apple is a dick. They insist on having complete control over your user experience. As an Apple user, I will attest that I love it. Some people get a kick out of supermodding their computer. My cofounder loves Linux for that very reason. I like Apple because they do everything for me without thinking.
I think this case is over-the-top, but I don't necessarily disagree with Apple's reasoning. If I made a product that had a built-in application system designed to my specifications, I'm not sure if I wouldn't be pissed off at the people who wanted to get around that either. Jail time seems a bit over-the-top, but if it's in Apple's contract that by buying their product you agree not to mess with it, and I'm fairly certain that's been the deal since the iPhone came out, then you might not like that, but if you don't like it, you don't buy the thing with intent to break the law. You get a different phone, one that lets you modify and tinker with things. If you get caught, then you'd better have known that there was a chance of it happening from day one. It's risktaking: always has been, always will be.
People get into a bunch of arguments about evil and not-evil. It's not about evil. It's about intent. Apple's intent has always been to control every aspect of their product. They insist on controlling hardware - so you can't get OS X on another company's computer. They insist on controlling software - so you can't free up your iPhone. Some people disagree with that, but it's their prerogative as a company, and it's let Apple consistently create the best products in their respective markets with little debate. If that's evil, then I guess I'm evil, because I think they have the right and I wish more companies were that restrictive.
So think about that when you get your computer. Don't worry about all this bullshit arguing either way. Think about the computer itself.
1. Illegal in common use refers to a felony or at least an infraction. Breaking terms of a contract is none of that, therefore "but if it's in Apple's contract that by buying their product you agree not to mess with it ... you don't buy the thing with intent to break the law" is an incorrect frame to describe what happes. The correct frame if "violating the terms of a contract".
2. Breaking the terms of contract does not always lead to problems and is not always wrong - some contracts are unenforcable because they contradict a law, and some are plain morally wrong. Just because something is written down and signed by a person does not make it the law and the truth.
3. Just because someone is pissed does not mean other people lose their rights.
As I said: I won't argue that Apple's move is pretty extreme. I'm not going to get mad at Apple for it, because I understand their reasoning, but I won't support them on it, either.
Either way, I wouldn't avoid their products because of that reasoning alone.
Some people disagree with that, but it's their prerogative as a company, and it's let Apple consistently create the best products in their respective markets with little debate. If that's evil, then I guess I'm evil, because I think they have the right and I wish more companies were that restrictive.
So think about that when you get your computer. Don't worry about all this bullshit arguing either way. Think about the computer itself.
It's interesting that you're willing to afford companies more freedoms and prerogatives than individuals. If this guy doesn't want to buy a computer because he disagrees with the way the company that makes it does business, that's his prerogative just as much as it's Apple's to attempt to control their products after they're outside of Apple controlled warehouses.
I fail to see how someone jailbreaking their phone keeps Apple from providing the closed off Steve Jobs' sanctioned user interface and experience to people who _don't_ jailbreak their phones.
If this guy doesn't want to buy a computer because he disagrees with the way the company that makes it does business, that's his prerogative just as much as it's Apple's to attempt to control their products after they're outside of Apple controlled warehouses.
If this guy ignores my advice, I won't stop from using his product. I'm allowed to state my opinion.
Similarly, if you think Apple's doing an evil thing, that's fine. I'd see where you're coming from. I happen to think they're not doing enough evil for me to worry about. That's all a matter of opinion. My stated opinion here was: buy a product for the sake of the product. That's all it is: my opinion.
Look, don't buy a computer based on what you think of the company. If you're serious about getting stuff done with your computer, get the best damn computer you can, regardless of company reputation
If MacBooks were made from the blood of infants... I don't get why you think this comment makes ethical sense in general. Maybe in this particular case, but not in general.
If MacBooks were made from the blood of infants, considering how rational Apple is with their design process, I'd like there to be a thorough logic for why infant blood is necessary, and why it achieves the best results. Then, if the product truly is the best on the market, I'll buy it, public be damned. When I'm buying a product, all I care about is how good it is. That's my entire thought process.
I understand that's not the theory every hacker here holds, but it's mine, and I'll stand by it.
If you're serious about getting stuff done with your computer, get
the best damn computer you can, regardless of company reputation,
regardless of what other people think about it.
I'm not sure how this is an argument in favor of Apple. OS X is
missing many modern OS features, like automatic updates for all your
software and programmable window management (a la Xmonad). If you are
just going to use emacs, Firefox, and xterm, using OS X is going to
waste a lot of your time compared to a slightly-tweaked Linux install.
(With that in mind, if you use GNOME or KDE, you are also going to
have your time wasted, although at least everything updates itself in
the background, and it's no worse than OS X or Windows.)
Of course Apple is a dick. They insist on having complete control
over your user experience.
Including sending you to prison if you don't do what they tell you.
I don't think you quite understand -- if you don't follow their rules,
you lose your job, your house, your freedom, and your way of life.
(This is not really Apple's fault, since they didn't make the law, but
the fact that they are interested in "taking advantage" of laws like
this show that they are truly evil. Nobody has threatened me with
jail over modifying my OpenMoko phone.)
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that Macs are just Dell
machines in a pretty case. Intel makes reference designs, and
everyone uses those. Macs are truly pretty, but that's all -- they
are not particularly functional. In my group of friends, there is
about a 50/50 split between Apple laptops and Thinkpads. Among these
people, there is not one broken Thinkpad, but there are three broken
Macs. All the problems are keyboard-related, so they have to carry around
an external keyboard until they have $1500 to buy a new computer.
Apple won't fix them.
Incidentally, I have watched someone accidentally spill a bottle of
water onto his Thinkpad, and the thing still works fine. The water
drains through the little drainage holes that go through the laptop,
and it's easy to disassemble everything so it can dry out properly.
Not so with a Mac -- I hope you like external keyboards.
So anyway -- you are not really depriving yourself of anything if you
go for a Linux box. The software you'll run on it is the same as
anything else. The hardware is identical to what you get in a Mac.
The price is probably the same. In fact, I think you'll find that the
increased customizability will make the Linux box a better deal.
I'm not sure how this is an argument in favor of Apple. OS X is missing many modern OS features, like automatic updates for all your software and programmable window management (a la Xmonad).
Most of my software does automatically update. I'm not entirely certain what programmable window management is, to be honest, so it doesn't seem entirely necessary.
I don't think you quite understand -- if you don't follow their rules, you lose your job, your house, your freedom, and your way of life.
As I said in my other response post: I'm not standing by Apple. I'm saying that I won't go out of my way to vilify them for this. I believe really firmly in an artist's right to control their creation, and I think that Apple's work qualifies. Jailbreaking is also removing a lot of profit from the app store developers. I think that's a damn shame. People are pirating the App Store applications.
Jail time is pretty severe. But I won't criticize Apple for going after people who're refusing to play by their rules, because in all honesty, if I was in their position I don't know if I wouldn't be just as harsh.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that Macs are just Dell machines in a pretty case. Intel makes reference designs, and everyone uses those. Macs are truly pretty, but that's all -- they are not particularly functional. In my group of friends, there is about a 50/50 split between Apple laptops and Thinkpads. Among these people, there is not one broken Thinkpad, but there are three broken Macs. All the problems are keyboard-related, so they have to carry around an external keyboard until they have $1500 to buy a new computer. Apple won't fix them.
It's an old adage that design isn't how something looks, it's how it works. Macbooks have far more elegant functionality. This is much contested, so let's not have yet another debate about this, but the computers' designs are leagues apart. I'm also a bit biased because the Apple Store has fixed my messed-up keyboard, and because I've spilled OFTEN on my Mac with no problem.
This is a debate that has a lot of different perspectives. In my college, three Dell computers have died on my floor alone. No Macs have. There's a different story in every group.
So anyway -- you are not really depriving yourself of anything if you go for a Linux box. The software you'll run on it is the same as anything else. The hardware is identical to what you get in a Mac. The price is probably the same. In fact, I think you'll find that the increased customizability will make the Linux box a better deal.
I know this'll provoke another rant, so I apologize in advance, but again and again: if that's how you look at computers, yes. Linux will be better. I don't look at it that way: I look at built-in experience. I think that customization is a waste of time. My computer uses the graphite theme and a black background, no custom icons, and half the software I use is default Mac software. Out of the box, Mac offers more. That's my perspective, and the two of us have bitched back and forth about this enough that having this damn argument just doesn't seem worth the time.
You think customization is a waste of time? Ok, you want to get stuff done, thats reasonable. How about those of us who think that its the killer feater? I've been disassembling and tinkering with things since i was 4 years old. List of things i've broken while messing with them as a child: a turntable, 3 tape players, most of my toys. My favorite toy was duck tape and wires, because at 6 i still haven't learned to solder and that was the way i connected batteries to motors, lights switches(all taken from broken toys).
This is the type of person i am, so are a lot of HN users. Computers are like crack for us. Here is a machine that can do everything i imagine, no force can get me away from my pc, it is my playground. I've broken my Linux install countless times(before i started using linux, i did the same with Windows) i mess with everything, hell, im addicted to this.
Why does apple think we are some sort of barbarians with no taste? I get the feeling that they feel that if they give people more control, they will somehow shit all over their egos or something.
I mean, i don't want to shit on anybodies ego, but i want to play with stuff. I'm sure the other Steve understands.
Why does apple think we are some sort of barbarians with no taste?
To be fair, most people just want a computer that loads Google and writes Word documents. Apple serves that market fine, perhaps even better than Windows does.
But if you are a programmer, OS X and Windows are not good choices unless you are writing OS X or Windows apps (or you've watched too many Ruby on Rails screencasts).
Bullshit. Apple's got emacs and vim, if you're a hardcore coder. Better yet, Apple has some incredible development tools. I use Coda, because I work mostly with PHP, and let me tell you that if you haven't tried Coda before you're missing out. It is a sheer joy to use.
Every programmer is different. Stop making these arbitrary little boxes and assuming that how you work is the best and only way.
We Mac users GET this. We don't get anal and piss the rest of you off by assuming that our way is the only way. PLEASE return the favor, because I HATE that these fucking arguments happen every fucking day and that there's really no need, and that it's wasting all our time. I'm fed up. Hacker News is much better than this.
Yes, some think that their blub is perfection. It makes me a little sad, actually.
> I HATE that these fucking arguments happen every fucking day and that there's really no need, and that it's wasting all our time.
You don't actually have to reply to every reply you get, you know. If you think you stated your views in the first thread, there is no need to rehash them. I ignore replies all the time, for this reason. (Or simply because I have something else to do. It's a social news site. Who cares?)
Look, I'm not in the best of moods and so I really don't want to get into an extended argument - use searchYC with my name + Apple if you really care about my arguments - so excuse me for being a little bit snappy in this response.
If you don't buy Apple's computers, they don't care about you. Apple has slowly been adding the features that they want in their computer, and they've assumed that lots of people want the same. That's the implicit agreement that you make when you buy a Mac: you're getting the computer Apple wants you to have. If you don't want that computer, don't buy Apple and stop arguing about whether or not Apple computers are good.
I get that you want to tinker. My cofounder uses Linux. I really, honestly do not have a problem with Linux. Seriously. I completely understand why you would want to use it. You have a completely different mindset than I have.
I'm a typical "Apple guy" so please listen to me when I say that this is my perspective, and that I say what I do to illustrate the other site. We're both right, I've said as much, and it's pissing me off that when I say "I think customization is a waste of time, I know you disagree, I'm not saying it's an argument," people come in and argue with me! Like, PLEASE excuse me for being irritated but Jesus CHRIST. We are different people! That's okay! We can still love each other and admire each other's works! I'm not assuming the two of us work the same way, and it pisses the FUCK out of me when you reply with the assumptions that:
A) I don't know what kinds of tinker-obsessed users Hacker News users are,
B) I haven't argued this once every five days because as MUCH as I like saying every time that "I understand your position, this isn't an argument," somebody comes in and feels the need to argue,
and C) I haven't been a Linux user myself for extended periods of time, and therefore understand perfectly where you're coming from.
I hold the belief that people who are really affected by aesthetic use Macs. Every last person who feels the drive that I do, the obsessive need to have every little anal detail right, uses a Mac. It's why it's so prevalent in Hollywood: designers love the Mac because it feels good. That's the right way to put it. Feels good. It's not the marketing, I assure you: there is something to how the Mac handles that delights me, that gives me joy. People who don't use Macs seem to think that when I say this I'm lying. I assure you that I'm not.
> It's an old adage that design isn't how something looks, it's how it works. Macbooks have far more elegant functionality.
How? When I want to plug a USB device into my Thinkpad, I put the USB device near a USB port and apply pressure to the device. When performing this operation with a Mac, the sequence of events is the same. (I could go on, but won't.)
There is just no difference.
> I don't look at it that way: I look at built-in experience. I think that customization is a waste of time.
No offense, but I think your mind will be changed after you are out of college and need to do $MAXIMAL_TASKS in $MINIMAL_TIME. A day spent customizing something pays for itself very quickly in increased productivity. If you have plenty of free time, you might not care, but if you have more to do than there are hours in a day, you will want to save as much time as possible.
I don't have time for the computer to tell me what to do. (But I do have time to write HN comments... hmm...)
Okaydoke: we'll go from the external stuff ONLY. There's the MagSafe power connector, which I love. There's the built-in iSight that's so pervasive any app writer can build in a camera, which is really neat. There's the fact that the computer suspends as soon as you close the case, wakes as soon as you open it. There's the smoothness of the CD drive. The Unibody case in the new Macbooks, the beautiful little divet you use to wake the computer up, and the function buttons that handle iTunes controls, ejecting. The light-up keys. Stop saying there's no difference.
No offense, but I think your mind will be changed after you are out of college and need to do $MAXIMAL_TASKS in $MINIMAL_TIME. A day spent customizing something pays for itself very quickly in increased productivity. If you have plenty of free time, you might not care, but if you have more to do than there are hours in a day, you will want to save as much time as possible.
Which is why it's a good thing that Mac is full-fledged Unix, so that I can customize every aspect using terminal, I can skin the entire thing, I can modify every little aspect of it to work exactly how I want, and I can go to emacs and do everything I need, right?
The Mac is customizable. I can do anything I want to with it. The fact that I don't is because I don't want to. There's a very healthy Mac-modding community out there.
In this case, the headline is grossly misleading, as it implies Apple has moved for a change, and done something "evil". The truth is that they have only objected to arguments by the EFF that jailbreaking ought to be granted an exception to the DMCA. The fact is that jailbreaking (which involves bypassing protections of a copyrighted work) is already subject to fines and jail time under the DMCA.
Apple wants to retain status quo (which is "may or may not be illegal under DMCA but not decided by court") whereas EFF wants an explicit temporary DMCA exemption.
It's simple: Don't buy an iphone, buy some other phone that does not require jailbreaking and let them stew. If enough people do it then they'll get the message and change their game.
No. They are just using the anti-circumvention rule from the DMCA. Jail-breaking an iPhone is no more illegal than ripping a DVD. Jail time comes into play if you break copyright fro profit.
I think for some of those things, it is legal to do yourself, but not legal to provide a program which does it -- so basically nobody will know enough to do it.
Bad example. It's very easy to install (and write) software on Windows Mobile phones. Up until a few years ago (with the advent of OpenMoko and Android), Windows Mobile was the most open mobile phone platform.
I should have been more clear. My point was intended to be more general than just mobile apps.
Both MS and Apple have business strategies and practices that strive for lock-in and monopolization, which is their prerogative, but it clearly deprives their users of many freedoms to use their hardware/software.
Apple makes it look and feel more comfortable, but it's fundamentally the same philosophy. Differences between the two originate from Apple primarily selling hardware and MS software.
