[kwlug-disc] peoples' thoughts on apple, adobe and flash?
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Fri Apr 30 23:24:05 EDT 2010
Oh, Andrew, you've fallen into that all too common trap - Apple isn't
selling 'hardware' it's selling a 'solution'! It's not just selling a
device, it's selling the complete environment surrounding it - and
once they have your money, you can never leave!
Bad, bad, Andrew!
I was going to say, this is the way it always has and always will be -
the software is not distinct from the hardware, they are not just
selling devices / hardware.
Then I thought ... well ... isn't Android breaking this model? 'Open
software', closed hardware. Will, and how, will that ripple out?
Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) wrote, On 04/30/2010 10:23 PM:
> On Friday 30 April 2010 09:36:03 pm Raul Suarez wrote:
>> Oops. I think that you'll have to take the kool-aid antidote
> Heh. I'm actually about as far from an Apple fanboy as you can get. I just
> know good design when I see it.
>> Before the device is sold, he has all the right to decide what goes on the
>> device. To offer that seamless initial experience.
>> After the device is sold, it is no longer HIS. If the user decides to add a
>> crappy app with a crappy interface it's his problem.
> I disagree, but only in the sense that Apple has every right to dictate what
> they want to sell through the App Store. They can dictate whatever terms they
> want. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
> Where I very strongly and steadfastly agree with you, however, is that the
> little device tucked away in my back pocket is *MINE*. Where I agree with you
> is in that if I don't want to play in his walled garden, I shouldn't be
> prevented from building my own. I don't even want a pointy-clicky interface to
> select my walled garden, I just don't want to be locked out from creating my
> If I want to put write an app and use it on the device, I should be able to do
> so without mucking about with bootloader exploits and playing the endless cat-
> and-mouse game that we currently are involved in. If I want to put Android on
> it, I should have that ability, through technically straightforward means. If
> I want to write my own OS and throw it on there, I feel that the specifications
> and schematics and datasheets should be mine for the reading. If I want to
> take it to the US or to Romania and use a native SIM, I should have that
> ... Oops, that's a different rant. :-)
> Anyway -- my point was that Apple has the right to design the device any way
> they want. They can dictate APIs or user interfaces or screwy proprietary
> connector formats... anything they want.
> The second, however, that I give Apple my money and take their product, That
> baby's mine to use however I want. If I don't want the App Store, I shouldn't
> have to use it. If I want to develop my own apps for it, I should have that
> right. It's mine, and Apple does not have a right to profit from me.
> In fact, I bet if the specifications were open and I had a technically
> straightforward way of putting my own crap on it that Apple would still have a
> wildly popular device. The vast majority of people aren't me. They want the
> App Store. They want a easy to use and "safe" device. Enabling me to put my
> own stuff on it won't impact them in any way shape or form.
> The problem with this utopia of course lies in the lawyers and the endless
> customer support hassle it would create. If there were a nice way that Apple
> could bow out of their support obligations if non-Apple-signed software were
> installed, this problem would vanish. If I discover a software bug and it
> still exists when I factory-restore and install ONLY App Store apps, I have a
> case for support. But if I have any unsigned/untrusted code on the device,
> they have zero responsibility to support me, much like tainted mode in the
> Linux kernel.
> I'm sure that a lot of this whole locking down, outside of revenue stream
> protection, is nightmare avoidance. I believe, though, that revenue stream
> protection is the major driving factor.
> Now there's also the argument that open schematics and so on would make knock-
> offs easier to make. Perhaps somewhat, but there are already devices of similar
> function (and much poorer quality, both hardware and software) which are
> around even without the schematics and documentation. The second the iPad came
> out, there were identical twin knockoffs (save for the USB ports instead of
> Apple dock connector.) available. A TPM layer in the processor would be a good
> thing to prevent their software from running on clone hardware. (I like TPM
> when it's used properly and not to screw the end-user.)
> Personally think IP law should have teeth, and have teeth strong enough for
> international enforcement so that a company like Apple COULD feel free to
> design whatever they liked without fear of knockoff hardware running their
> software. What I disagree with is in the way IP law is currently written and
> enforced. I think that Fair Use (Fair Dealings in Canada) should trump IP law,
> and noncommercial use of technology (and media) should be as protected as free
> speech and the right to practice religion without persecution.
> ... That, however, is an entirely other rant, again. :-)
>> I really have an issue with people say "he can do whatever he wants with
>> HIS device".
> Perhaps let me elaborate a little then: Apple's right to enforce their walled
> garden is not in question; it's their garden! However the idea that they have
> a right to prevent me from using my own software on my own device is
> fundamentally wrong. I should be able to choose to play in Apple's playground
> with the device they designed, but I shouldn't be restricted to it. It is,
> after all, MY device. I paid for it. I own it.
> Nobody sends lawyers out if I buy an iPhone and use it to level a table, it
> only seems to be a problem when I want to use it in a way that threatens their
> perceived right to a profit.
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org