Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by leot 5366 days ago
The point was that RMS is wrong when he asserts[1] that Apple and Jobs have hurt the development of free software.

[1] RMS: "we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing"

2 comments

My understanding is that Apple restricts the applications that it "allows" to run on users' iOS devices to the point that programming language interpreters were effectively banned until about a year ago, now they're merely severely restricted. Users of iOS devices are effectively prevented from running GPL apps because of the restrictions Apple is putting on other peoples' code on users' devices.

It's not just against the development of Stallman's brand of Free Software.

It's an attack on all software developers.

  > It's an attack on all software developers.
I am a software developer and I don't think I am under any attack. Heck they gave me one more platform to develop for. And there is lots of open source code written for it already.
Just curious: Have you actually developed an app for that platform?

Did you submit it to the review process?

Was it approved or rejected?

Stockholm syndrome.
Jobs popularized the walled garden.
Jobs also brought DRM-free internet music stores to the masses.
Please dude. iTunes was very late to the game. eMusic? Most early music stores had no DRM.

Jobs leveraged the popularity of the iPod with iTunes (which, by the way, is not allowed to talk to any other program under normal circumstances) to make Apple a ton of money. As was the case with iPhone, Apple was big enough to force the hand of the industry-controlling posse into accepting things on its own terms. While they eventually rolled out DRM free, this should be a basic expectation and does not qualify Apple for bonus points. For years they sold exclusively DRM'd content while there were others attempting to make it on DRM-free platforms.

And by the way, afaik (not an iTunes user), television and movie content is still provided exclusively in DRM'd formats.

> Most early music stores had no DRM.

Yeah, but they also had no music. Apple used their near monopoly of online music to force the majors into selling DRM free music online. That deserves praise.

Amazon MP3 beat them to that.

"Launched in public beta on September 25, 2007,[1] in January 2008 it became the first music store to sell music without digital rights management (DRM) from the four major music labels (EMI, Universal, Warner Music, and Sony BMG), as well as many independents.[1][2][3][4]"

"On January 6, 2009, Apple announced that DRM had been removed from 80% of the entire music catalog in the U.S."

The labels gave DRM-free music to Amazon first in an attempt to lessen iTunes dominance. Apple was publicly rabble-rousing for DRM-free music before that.
I don't know if I really agree that a large company using its influence to strong-arm "partners" into accepting terms favorable to itself is really that praiseworthy. We are fortunate that in this case Apple's incentives aligned with those of its users -- DRM is a huge PITA for the company that runs the DRM infrastructure as well as a problem for the company's users.
After Amazon.
That's very US-centric of you.
US-centric? They're both US companies.
The iTunes Store is available in many countries around the world. The Amazon Music store isn't.