"Apple is selling directly to consumers, who aren't the best guardians of their own self-interest. The open PC model works for knowledgeable users who know what they are doing and how to protect themselves, but not so for 15-year-old fashionistas and techno-phobic geriatrics," Kahney said. "A measure of lockdown is exactly why Apple is successful - it hides complexity while ensuring a certain level of reliability and stability. The vast majority of Apple's customers are utterly unconcerned - they could give two hoots that they can't hack their devices."
Isn't that special. The nice people at Apple are making sure that dumb kids and senile old people, and all the rest of us don't hurt ourselves, because we're too stupid to make our own decisions. Last time I was in Home Depot I saw high-powered welding machines, bandsaws, nailguns, great big heavy pieces of lumber, bottles of sulfuric acid and muriatic acid, pesticides, and many other scary dangerous products that anyone could buy. That's right, anyone could walk in off the street and purchase literal truckloads of lethal implements and chemicals. It's a good thing none of the titans of tech own the hardware stores.
Linux Today reader Jimmy the Geek notes:
"Once something has been sold to you, you own it 100%. You are allowed totake it apart, eat it, shoot it, burn it, use it as a flower planter, and because we live in a free country you can communicate anything you find out about that item with anyone you care to do so.
"Anyone that attempts to stop you from free expression and attempts to steal ownership of what you purchased is the one in the wrong.
"It amazes me the assault on ownership that everything seems to be facing in my lifetime. "
"> Once something has been sold to you, you own it 100%." Hence the thrust to strengthen and empower the concept of Intellectual Property. That's because IP is *NEVER* sold to the end user - it's only ever licensed. The public, the Law, and the courts are most familiar with IP in the form of patents and copyrights, and in those locations there is clear precedent for the idea of licensing and restrictions upon sale. For books and music it has always been "do not copy" with the doctrine of first sale governing the ownership, use, and transfer of the physical medium. Patents have always had the strongest protection, but were generally removed from the customer and applied more to manufacturing.
"I would suggest that software is the camel that got its nose into the tent, and has blown up to cause our current problems. Software became the first end-user "product" that was readily - and bitwise-perfect - divorced from its physical medium, and therefore the first product where licensing directly to the end user became important...
"The enlargement of the role of IP is an attempt to circumvent this trend, by "enhancing" the post-sale profit. They draw on established concepts of patents and copyrights, because those are already well respected in the courts AND the Constitution. But they're taking them into odd realms, like using the DMCA to lock-in replacement ink purchases.
"They're extending IP into new realms, and IMHO erosion of doctrine of first sale isn't just a side-effect, it's under direct attack."
Well said, and I agree. It's hard to view these sorts of tactics as anything other than contempt for customers, and a shortsighted disregard for the impact on the law, and the kind of society we live in. In other words, who cares about the mess, who cares about the collateral damage, they got theirs and that's good enough. Just like strip-mining and clear-cutting forests, except the damage is not so readily apparent. Especially when people keep happily paying for the privilege of being abused.]]>
Here are three examples to illustrate. I could write a book, as no doubt you could too.
I managed to work my way up the food chain, which all by itself required heroic exertions, and finally got some vice president of something or other, who grudgingly and with no graciousness at all admitted that since they could not deliver service, I shouldn't have to pay for it. Imagine that, not paying for nothing, and the silly man actually expected me to be grateful.
She has her own domain name and uses a good independent hosting service for her Web site and email, both POP and SMTP. She's had these for years and they are reliable and give great service. Monday morning she comes into the office, and cannot send email, but only receive. Her email client settings are fine, the same as they have always been. Her mail client (Outlook) is giving a numeric error code that means "I cannot find the SMTP server." So I run all the usual tests to see if it's a server problem-- check Webmail, telnet into her SMTP server, check DNS. All A-OK.
So I get hold of her office tech and he checks the firewall, anti-virus, and whatever else might be blocking port 25. All check out. I can see you are ahead of me-- yes, sometime during the weekend Comcast blocked port 25. Didn't tell anyone, just did it.
My friend is not much of a computer geek, but she has a great baloney detector, and when she gets on the phone with Comcast she knows they're feeding her a line. She gets this tech who first tries to tell her she is wrong and everything is fine. She persists. Finally, after much evasion on his part and much insistence on hers, he allows as to how maybe yeah, Comcast is now blocking port 25 and she needs to use their SMTP server. He also insists she must use their POP server. She's pretty sure that's wrong, and tries to tell him she doesn't use Comcast email and never has. He doesn't listen. He walks her through configuring Outlook to use Comcast's SMTP and POP servers. Now she can send mail but not receive it.
The Comcast tech doesn't care, as far as he is concerned his job is done. (This is the condensed version, there were several calls and much time wasted on dork-wrangling.) So she calls me, and in half a minute she has the correct POP server settings and can send and receive email.
Here is more recent example of how nothing has changed, and crappy customer service is industry standard practice. A friend who lives out here in the sticks has an account with US Cellular. They have this EasyEdge feature for backups and updates. Naturally there is no easy way to sync with her own computer, no, these EasyEdge services are hosted by US Cellular. She cannot use EasyEdge because it locks up her phone, hard, and she has to remove the battery to reset it and get it working again.
She has called US Cellular a half-dozen times, and even returned the phone to their repair center. It came back untouched and unchanged. Apparently it is a software problem, who knows, but if it is they are not going to fix it. Just like the "repair" center did nothing. She wants a different phone, but they're telling her no, not until her contract expires in 18 months. They have not heard the last from my friend; they are going to give her a new phone that does not lock up. No matter how much they think she should just suck it up, buttercup.
Not only that, but is there anyone who can claim bragging rights to good security, and protecting customer's data from intrusions? Anyone?
I cringe every time I see the word "consumer", because that describes a passive, compliant person who takes whatever the vendors want to dish out. I think "customer" is preferable. Wikipedia defines customer in a cool way:
"The word derives from "custom," meaning "habit"; a customer was someone who frequented a particular shop, who made it a habit to purchase goods of the sort the shop sold there rather than elsewhere, and with whom the shopkeeper had to maintain a relationship to keep his or her "custom," meaning expected purchases in the future."Customers are wooed; consumers are dumped on. They can keep their clouds, their contracts and EULAs and restrictions and evasions of responsibility; I'm not buying any of it until they earn my custom.]]>
The third piece is the Web itself, and the ease of sharing information. Many of us went online to get contact information for newspapers and TV and radio news all over the Northwest, and alert them to this story. It was fast and easy, because all we had to do was link back to the Blue Mountain Eagle stories for a quick reference. It's an uphill battle getting big-city folks interested in backwater doings, but the story is spreading nicely, and we may even get some news crews coming to town. Which is wonderful, because "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
The open source connection is indirect, but essential---Facebook is built on open source technologies, and the Internet itself is one of the biggest open source success stories of all: open software, and open standards and protocols.
There are several key points to ponder here: one, FOSS itself is not quite enough, but execution matters a great deal. Anyone can learn to put up and maintain some kind of Web site or forum, but Facebook has succeeded in becoming a central meeting point, so we are able to organize and stay on top of new developments in record time. Two, the free of cost benefit of FOSS has made a huge difference. If we had to pay to use Facebook, if Internet access were more expensive, if there were any other financial barriers, we would not have been able to get together as quickly, and would have to devote time and resources to fund-raising just for communications and organizing. Three, the fundamental principle of one Internet, unfettered and without roadblocks (I know, there are fetters and roadblocks in lots of places) means we don't have to hassle with getting into multiple networks.
Four, the most important point of all: unfettered, swift communications. Some people around here think the only Amendment to the US Constitution that counts is the Second. But the importance of the First Amendment is much, much higher. Guns won't keep these thugs out. Organizing, standing together, and getting accurate information will. Take a look at history; job one of any tyrant is to control the press.
Once again I give my heartfelt thanks to all the great Linux and FOSS people who made all this possible. It's making a big difference to my little community.]]>
"If you weren't making things 100 years ago, you'd be dead. Your home, your food, your clothes and even your toys were all made by you or someone you knew. Somewhere along the way, humans seem to have forgotten that we were makers, and instead became consumers."Now, when some people build, sew and bake they are making a conscious choice to return to our maker roots. This movement is MakerCulture. Today, makers challenge the mainstream and make instead of buy."
I love that. I don't want to be a conduit in a passive, closed loop, with money going out and consumable content coming in. How boring and pointless.
O'Reilly Media's MakeZine is all about do-it-yourself projects of every kind, like making your own snow guns, a mad-scientist coffee machine, cigar box guitar, rockets, and all kinds of things.
That is how I define fun toys. Not sitting down in front of a super-high tech TV to "consume content." ]]>
"Hate Flash? Love Vimeo? Today's your lucky day, because Vimeo has introduced a new HTML5 video player, making almost all of its videos available in H.264. For those not familiar with H.264, a quick recap: this is one of the formats vying to become the new standard for HTML's video tag."
What journalists are missing out on is that H.264 is a patented codec, and that the patent holders expect to collect royalties. The last H.264 patents expire in 2028. Mr. Blizzard draws some apt parallels with GIF and MP3, and the problems caused when patented, royalty-burdened technologies collide with a supposedly open and unencumbered Web. This is a must-read for anyone wanting more good information and less not-well-informed cheerleading on these issues.
Linux Weekly News has an excellent discussion on this. ]]>
"To order the bootable DVD, send $20, plus $6 for shipping, to WashingtonCD, PO Box 351531, Los Angeles, CA 90035, or online at www.washingtoncd.net."
But! That's not all! At www.washingtoncd.net you find this:
"Ubuntu -- Linux Operating SystemPlus $6 for shipping. Isn't that special!
Price: $20.00
Retail: $39.00
You Save: $19.00
This item is in stock "
A quick visit to Ubuntu.com, and I found Buying Ubuntu on CD and DVD. This links to authorized distributors all over the planet, and their pricing is rather different than WashingtonCD. For example, at On-disk.com CDs and DVDs are under $5.00US, and couple bucks for shipping. (WashingtonCD is not an authorized distributor.) Canonical will ship you a CD edition for free. Really free, not free + money.
Don't wait, folks, get your unauthorized no-cost Windows killer for only $20 + $6 shipping now!]]>
"To order the bootable DVD, send $20, plus $6 for shipping, to WashingtonCD, PO Box 351531, Los Angeles, CA 90035, or online at www.washingtoncd.net."
But! That's not all! At www.washingtoncd.net you find this:
"Ubuntu -- Linux Operating System
Price: $20.00
Retail: $39.00
You Save: $19.00
This item is in stock "
]]>
I don't believe it is exaggerating to say that Linux/FOSS is all that stands between technology tyranny, corporate tyranny, and the hope of something better. Who else is keeping up the pressure for openness and accountability in the tech industry? Plus access to public data, open document formats and industry standards, an open Internet, openness in government... it is true that my memory isn't what it used to be, but I do not recall Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, or any of the other billionaire tech celebs emitting so much as a single word of concern for any of these, or performing any meaningful deeds. The forces massing against our personal freedoms are larger and stronger than ever, and all these fine masters of the universe can think about is yet more ways to fatten their fortunes.
Before anyone mentions "But they give lotsa stuff and things to charity!" please keep in mind that taking with one hand while giving with the other isn't charity, it's image polish. Success doesn't require exploitation, though that seems to be a minority viewpoint these days.
Maybe LT readers get enough of this elsewhere; I hope that is the case. Because I get real tired of the hordes of noobs who enter FOSS with attitudes of entitlement, and who make loud demands and complaints. I'm still not over the KDE4 debacle- what a shameful hyperbolic whine-fest. Is this the future of Linux, perfect free shiny toys for the spoiled? Increasing numbers of demanding, ungrateful users who think they are owed everything, and who give back nothing, not even courtesy?
Couple that with increased corporate control of Linux, and where does that leave us? It doesn't look much different than proprietary-land. Maybe I underestimate the power of FOSS to keep the suits honest. Maybe I'm wasting a perfectly good bout of pessimism. I very much hope so. ]]>
As the years went by, hardware advanced rapidly. Power went up, prices came down. But software was always a bit ahead, so we spent a fair bit of time waiting for something to happen even on the latest and greatest machines.
Fast-forward to now, and a quick specs comparison: My newest PC has 4 gigabytes RAM, dual-core CPU, terabytes of hard drive storage, good PCIe graphics card, and onboard everything. It should handle all tasks with ease. And yet, I still experience that familiar click-and-wait syndrome.
This happens the most Web-surfing. It's still the world-wide-wait. Click, wait. Click, wait. You know why Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest of those fun sites that bosses hate are so successful? Because people have to fill all that waiting time somehow. They're just sitting there, waiting on their computers. It's not enough time to do something productive, but it is enough time to Tweet.
I swear there are only six Web developers in the whole world, and four of them are mental cases. They write terrible, unnecessarily script-heavy pages that kick multi-core CPUs into the red zone, and have hundreds of elements per page. Pages take forever to load, and they hammer your system so hard you can't do anything else while you're waiting. Then all the rest of the Web devs in the world copy and paste from the Terrible Four. Why not the Good Two? Because humans are perverse. I laugh, I mock Google DNS because they bill it as a way to speed up Web surfing. My dear Google brainiacs, DNS lookups are the least of our problems. They won't do a thing to fix boggy Web pages or overloaded ad servers.
I think it's funny how some vendors persist in marketing netbooks as mere Web application interfaces. Sorry, but a lower-powered netbook is going to get creamed trying to run obese Web applications. Lotsa luck with that!
Some local applications are almost as bad. Click to open, wait...what the heck is the big deal about just opening the darned thing? Are they trying to hypnotize us with the little spinning cursor? Which brings me to my #1 wish on any computing platform and any application: I want a Stop Right Now button. Boom, just stop what you're doing. For so many apps, interrupting anything is like trying to get a word in on an annoying self-centered blabbermouth, the kind that never shut up, and you have to grab and shake them to get their attention.
While I enjoy mocking Microsoft's Jabba-ware, Linux is an offender as well. Too many Linux devs are all jazzed about GUIs and flashy junk, and ignoring or even trying to do away with the CLI. Dear ones, when your GUIs are as fast and efficient as the CLI, then I will quit crabbing at you. Where ever did you get the idea that I want to waste my life wading through poorly-organized menus, and waiting for lardy slow-ware to actually do something when I click, when I can accomplish the same task in one second on the command line?
So there is my computing wish for the new decade: I want something to happen when I click.]]>
"Psystar wasn't selling pirated copies of Apple's operating system, they were simply installing legitimately purchased copies of the operating system on machines not made by Apple. The only thing prohibiting this is the EULA for the operating system, not copyright law, so how does this this by any stretch of the imagination make them "hardcore copyright infringers"? At most it puts them in violation of the EULA, a contract, not copyright law."Since it is not a violation of copyright to install the operating system on other hardware besides Apple's, the DMCA does not apply. The DMCA only applies to circumventing copy protection, not circumventing installation protection (and installation is specifically covered as an exception to copyright protection according to U.S. copyright law, so for legal purposes it does not constitute copying).
"Did Psystar violate the EULA on OS X? Perhaps they did. A better question might be, "Is that part of the EULA legal?" It stomps all over the normal fair use rights of consumers. In any event, this is not a copyright case and shouldn't be regarded as one. Money behind you makes all sorts of things possible though."
Will not stop Mac clones
"If Apple thinks it has scored a major victory here it is mistaken. While Psystar was appallingly brazen by actually marketing and selling Apple clones, the hacker community has been developing methods and hacks for installing Apple's venerable OSX onto ordinary Intel/AMD based hardware for years. The underground community behind these so called "Hackintosh" machines is large and growing. While I understand Apple's position in maintaining total control over the hardware and software, I can't imagine how allowing even unsupported installation of OSX onto generic PCs would hurt Apple. In fact, in my view it would be a win-win situation for all concerned. Perhaps if OSX and its huge commercial software library were available as a viable alternative to Microsoft Windows, we'd actually get some real innovation out of Redmond."
Can't have it both ways
"I could accept EITHER that they were the copyright holders, or that the contents were false and defamatory. I can't accept BOTH as being true. So the company is lying about at least something, even if we can't tell what. Unless there's a much more subtle explanation (e.g., it was put together as a joke inside the company), which I might believe if they explained it. Possibly."OTOH, news reports usually distort things. So perhaps we're being presented with a distorted image? (This, however, sounds like the kind of things that get reported straight, because they're boring, and thus not worth any extra work.) It sounds much more like legal intimidation and the court abusing the weaker party than anything else."
This case also vividly highlight the perils of Internet publishing-- there are many links in the chain outside of any individual's control (domain name registrar, hosting provider, Internet service provider, telcos), and all it takes to shut down a site is to break any one of these links. ]]>