[kahawe]

I don't know why Apple has gotten THAT much flak for allegedly being totally closed and locking you down worse than Microsoft did back in the dark ages etc. Yes, they have certain core products which are their own and they don't open them up and the locking down of their iPhones, well, it could be a blessing and a curse. I will only say that from the perspective of a regular customer, the quality control done on apps is probably not such a bad thing but yes, for app developers it probably just sucks. And the music you buy online on iTunes now comes pretty much without any DRM in high quality AAC.

But they are not ONLY "evil" because at the same time, Apple did contribute to open standards and there is a lot of Open Source available. It is, however, still a business so for me, it seems they are playing it smart and do "open" where it also benefits them and their customers and do "closed/locked down" where it is critical for their own success or in accordance with their product philosophy or the reality distortion field.

[jhuni]

The problem is that Apple's business model is based upon selling artificially scarce content (music, applications, etc) over closed and restrictive platforms. A couple of open products isn't going to change their fundamental business model.

The argument that "Apple is just a business" doesn't hold weight for me either because there are clearly superior business models out their like Google's which is based upon free software (linux) and intelligent cloud services (search).

[ralfd]

No, look at the quarter results of Apple. Their revenue is selling hardware stuff. Digital content is relatively a small amount. I also find "artificially scarce" a very biased description. The App Store has an unbelievable positive impact on the developer ecosystem. And if books/gamecartridges/printed newspaper are replaced by digital stuff we shouldn't deride payment for that. Look at ebooks or Amazon kindle. These are good things. The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.

About Googles "superior business model": Ultimately it is just advertising. The product which is sold is you. I don't want to sound polemic, I have tons of respect for Google. But this is a strong realization most never make. Because of that I avoid to being to dependent on their services (maybe I will move my email from gmail to icloud).

EDIT:

Oh, never mind. I just read your other reply to kawahe. You clearly are enlightened and are not bound by the chains of tyranny. I am out of this discussion.

[jhuni]

The App Store has an unbelievable positive impact on the developer ecosystem.

Paul Graham (the creator of this site) commented on the App Store himself, and his words were not entirely of ignorant praise like yours are:

http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.

Although this is besides the point, it is pretty easy to envision a moneyless post-scarcity society where such songs, novels, reports, and other forms of content are delivered to everyone free of charge:

http://adciv.org/

[kahawe]

> Paul Graham (the creator of this site) commented on the App Store himself, and his words were not entirely of ignorant praise like yours are

And you will find just as many people who love the app store oh and 18,000,000,000+ downloads and counting should nicely prove those 2 year old prophecies wrong.

[jhuni]

The fact is Apple's reputation has been permanently tarnished in the face of developers, including PG. Even today, Apple uses very restrictive license agreements in the appstore. Here is a full explanation of their licensing restrictions from 2010, feel free to provide more up to date information:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progr...

[sbuk]

Resorting to ad verecundiam doesn't prove or disprove your point either way. It's just an opinion.

[kahawe]

hahaha I don't know which developers you are talking about, just look at the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)#Milestones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppleAppStoreStatistics.pn...

And just because PG said something doesn't dispute the overwhelming success of the app store and the itunes store. There were just as allegedly "legendary" and allegedly "influential" (seriously, what influence and importance does PG really have outside of the smug cloud of valley startups? None to zero) people who said there will be a maximum of 5 to 6 computers around the world and the internet is completely useless. So, again, this does not an argument or a point make. The numbers prove it wrong. Just because someone says it has no relevance. Useless ad verecundiam right here.

If anything, Apple was incredibly smart about how and where they put the shackles on so most customers will happily accept the platform as it is. Ultimately, most people just care about the fact that it works and Apple continues to deliver on that front.

[Duff]

I think of Apple as akin to a warehouse club like Costco or Sam's.

These "clubs" sell a high margin membership, and you get to buy low-margin toilet paper 50 rolls at a time.

Likewise, Apple sells digital media, which is a relatively low-margin business. But by doing so, they get you to buy high-margin hardware and services.

[dereg]

I'm tired of the term "artificial scarcity". First, do you understand what scarcity means? The supply of content is unlimited. Putting a price on content is not creating "scarcity". Consumers make content purchasing decisions based on the scarcity of their own resources. Second, what is non-artificial scarcity? All scarcity is artificial.

[throwawayday]

I think the term is being used to note that the price is artificially high - supply is virtually limitless once the first copy of the song is created, so the price should approach zero.

[jhuni]

What term would prefer? Corrupt pricing?

[kahawe]

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. I do not see anything "scarce" here at all. And I can play music in pretty much all popular formats I got from elsewhere on iTunes and iPod just fine. And now the music from the iTunes store is not DRM locked-down anymore either.

And you are comparing apples and oranges with Google here. Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model. And what benefit do I as a customer directly gain from google using Linux as a foundation? As long as their servers work, I am pretty much unaffected by the platform. Apple is using BSD as a foundation in OS X, so? And there are open source components available. Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?

What makes google a "clearly superior business model"? Just because Linux is "cool"? Last time I checked, Apple is doing pretty well and has been consistently so over the last years so I doubt their business model needs to be replaced.

I am glad Apple is getting more popular because finally there is some real actual competition in the consumer sector. And for each of their products, there are just as excellent alternatives available so I am not being forced or locked down on anything. I can take my contacts, pictures, videos and music with me, it is pretty much all available or exportable in(to) standardized formats.

[jhuni]

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:

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...

[kahawe]

> 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.

[jhuni]

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:

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/itunes-drm-free

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.

[myspy]

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.

[kahawe]

> 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.