iPad is iBad for freedom

http://www.fsf.org/news/ibad_launch

that Apple's DRM controls everything you put on your machine. Open Source software? Out! Commercial websites that rely on Flash? Out! Etc etc


... All applications must be signed by Apple if they are to run, an unprecedented level of control for a general purpose computer. On top of this, Apple can push updates to the device over its wireless connection, letting them add or remove capabilities at any time ...
iPad Shredded for DRM Restrictions
10:07 am, January 28th, 2010, Nicole Martinelli
http://www.cultofmac.com/ipad-shredded-for-drm-restrictions/28267

how the app interacts with the OS.

I think they are in league with Google to push HTML5 over flash. Flash puts great demands on the CPU, HTML5 not so much. Battery life could have something to do with the rejection of Flash. Not having to deal with Adobe is another plus of no Flash.

Apple had to jump through a lot of hoops to get contracts with the music and movie industry. I'm sure the publishing industry has it's own rights protections.

Go Google iNav, and tell me it isn't better than Apple's boring rounded squares. Go Google the Cydia "Categories" app, and tell me that isn't better than eight or nine pages of unsorted icons. Go Google Winterboard, and tell me you can do anything close to that with anything from the App Store. Go Google SBSettings, Cydia, Rock, Backgrounder, Real Battery, NES4iPhone, Genesis4iPhone, PSX4iPhone, Terminal, vlc4iPhone, ScummVM, Categories, Winterboard, OpenSSH, Fontswap, and every other useful app on Cydia and Rock, and tell me that there aren't "holy fucking SHIT that's useful, WHY isn't it on the App Store" piles of free content available on just those two "stores" Apple would never approve for their App Store♦.

I DARE you to even try to offer any comparable to any of what I listed from Apple App Store. You can't, because those useful things aren't there.

First off, most people who claim to be so adamant for "open source" content is lamenting that the iPad's Safari won't do Adobe Flash, and by extension MS's Silverlight. Both are proprietary softwares, that Apple has more than valid technical reasons for not supporting. Both are memory hogs. And they're denying these two PROPRIETARY pieces in favor of HTML5, and open source format.

Second, about the consumer lock in double standard. Nobody has a complaint about Sony or Nintendo having control over the distribution or approval of content available on their game hardware. Open source videogaming is why Atari is no longer a company, but a name under Hasbro. With such stringent approvals for quality, Nintendo approves less than 1000 games over the life of any of it's systems. Sony is more liberal with their Playstations in that regard, but the only way to put out a Playstation game is to go through Sony, where they manufacture, and distribute the games.

With over 140,000 apps available to the iPhone, and the vast majority of them utterly useless, and some even glitchy, it doesn't seem to me that Apple's approval process for apps is stringent compared to the other two companies, aside from the truly offensive, such as Baby Shaker (See Nintendo approve that). Apple doesn't set price points on anything. Tom Tom's app is $100. Star Wars Light Saber is free. They may take a cut of the sale, but it's their store, the costs of maintaining it fall on Apple, and it's their hardware, which they spent money designing, manufacturing, and marketing. The "open source" fan spent nothing to develop and make successful of Apple's devices, but still think they have a right to dictate terms to a hardware maker that did.

The single app store distribution channel is just a window so the thousands of app makers can show off and sell their wares in one easy to find space. Would it be more profitable for them if the consumer had to go to 20,000 separate websites to be able to download each maker's apps? I don't think so.

It's really about controlling the content. With Flash, the user could run run free games and apps. Just like Sony, Apple controls the content by deliberately crippling their devices.

It's ironic that Apple has turned into Big Brother:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/01/29/tinkerers-sunset

When DVD Jon was arrested after breaking the CSS encryption algorithm, he was charged with “unauthorized computer trespassing.” That led his lawyers to ask the obvious question, “On whose computer did he trespass?” The prosecutor’s answer: “his own.”

Why do I think there's more to this than just a "freedom fighter" argument.

Apple just wants the ability to control content. Wasn't it last year they nixed the South Park iPhone ap?

Considering I'm not a fan of the show, I'll have to defer to you on that. Does Apple really "WANT the ability to control content", or are they just protecting their product from damage from a memory hog piece of software?

and when I do it certainly doesn't take down the operating system with it.

It's certainly Apple's choice to not implement flash as it's the consumer's choice whether or not they will buy a computer that doesn't. I'm no fan of Adobe and Gnash is getting better.

Yeah, I think it's obvious that Apple wants to manage content. The South Park ad was just one of many examples. (Nine Inch Nails is another.) The other problem (it's a two edged sword) with controlling content is that you now become responsible for endorsing said content. Apple allowed 'Baby Shaker' and was forced to delete it when people complained. In the free world, people might have downloaded it, become disgusted and deleted it, all without blaming Apple.

It's a personal computer. I bought it. I own it. I'm a big boy. I should be allowed to do what I want with it and I take responsibility for what I put on it.

But I did not see a computer. I saw a multi-media consumption tool that does a few computing things. As far as computers are concerned, the Mac is more open than it ever has been in it's history, especially since they went with common hardware. If you have trouble with the iPad, then you have trouble with the iPad, but to lump it in with computers is just plain silly. It's made by a computer company and everything it does so far can also be done on a computer, but it really isn't a PC.

My question to you about SP or NIN, is why did they deny it? I just downloaded the Kevin Smith app, so don't tell me it's about vulgarity. If KS is allowed to have his Granny Panties/Ass to Mouth/blow jobs for hitchhikers jokes, then a talking turd isn't going to offend Apple. If you don't know why, then you're jumping to conclusions without having all the information.

I see no reason why they shouldn't have control over the iPad's content. Like a Playstation, it isn't a computer. It's Apple's product. They designed it, they made it, and they invested millions over the years to bring it to the public. Why should any yahoo with coding experience just piggyback off of them without helping to pay for the technology? I know, I know. The open source community sees a world free moving wares to enlighten the human race so we can all live in a virtual yurt. It's more a belief of technological anarchy, and nobody should charge a thing for anything they do, and for those consuming free software, it's open season on malware, viruses, glitches and millions of software choices that don't do what they're supposed to do. Your "I'm a big boy...take responsibility" line is the same argument Libertarians use when they want to get rid of the FDA. I'm a big boy. It's my responsibility I was lied to and ate tainted meat. If this is what your talking about "managing content", then why is this bad?

You sound like somebody who's never converted a porno to mpeg4 and has it stored in iTunes to be downloaded to this thing. Just because Apple doesn't have it in the app store, doesn't mean you can't have it.

You are wanting Apple to be Ubuntu. It isn't, it never will be, and it's a 3rd option for computer/electronics business. Ubuntu/or a Linux competitor for those who wish to live in the open source community and take their chances with questionably corrupting software. Windows for the average person or business, open platform with millions of pay and free choices, half will corrupt the system, and a smattering of reliable proprietary software available when needed. At the other end is Apple, with a relatively closed system and quality controls of software to ensure that it does what it says and does not crash the system. Each of these 3 business models works for the respective communities. If Apple tried to be Ubuntu, or even Microsoft, then they wouldn't have lasted all these years with only 20 to 7-9% of the market. Their business model works for 9% of us out there.

And speaking of knowing why a decision is made...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/technology/01flash.html

Apple has argued that the Flash technology is too slow and unduly taxes laptops and netbooks. The company also has concerns over Flash’s vulnerability to viruses and other malware, as well as the way Flash-based content can voraciously consume battery life.

Adobe, unsurprisingly, disagrees — and has its own theory about why Apple remains hostile to Flash. Adrian Ludwig, group manager for the Flash platform product at Adobe, said he believed Apple’s opposition was a way for the company to control its iTunes system. “I think it’s pretty clear that Apple wants to regain control of the content consumers see online and the content Apple offers for their devices,” Mr. Ludwig said.

But concerns over the lack of Flash in the iPad and iPhone may be short-lived. Many online video sites have been experimenting with a new video format, called HTML5. Unlike Flash, which is a downloaded piece of software that can interact with a computer’s operating system, HTML5 works directly in a Web browser. And although this new video format does not work in all browsers, it will allow iPhone and iPad users to enjoy more Web-based video content.

If you think it's Apple's choice, then we agree. If you won't buy an apple product, that's fine with me as well. But it begs the question... why start a thread about it if you don't care so much?

Because of the implications with respect to free open source software. You know, the name of this group. The future of digital rights, privacy, giving too much power over information to corporations, 'Don't Be Evil' (which Jobs thinks is a crap motto anyway), all that stuff. My question in return, if you're in favor of locked down systems, then why bother reading this group?


Why do they need a reason? Talking turd bad, shaking a baby good. It's arbitrary, subjective and opinionated. If you want to know, they said that the NiN ap had 'objectionable content,' specifically the song, 'Downward Spiral.' The South Park ap was rejected twice for being 'potentially offensive.' See, this is what happens when you make yourself the arbiter of what's acceptable content and what's not. And guess what? What's offensive to one individual might be hilarious to the next. It's not for me to decide. What's with all the group think?

Adam Pash over at Lifehacker does a pretty good job of http://lifehacker.com/5458690/the-problem-with-the-apple-ipad">responding to these points so instead of duplicating the effort:


What's dangerous about the iPad is that it's much closer to a "real" computer than the iPhone is. If you dock it with the keyboard accessory, it really is just a sort of low-powered franken-laptop. And yet this is a computer over which you have absolutely no control. And the question is: If we all continue to buy Apple's locked-down products hand-over-fist (Jobs went so far as to talk about Apple as a mobile device company yesterday), what reason does Apple have not to keep moving forward with that model—a model that, to many, is defective by design.

Apple's saying to consumers: "Trade in choice for a guarantee that this will work exactly as we designed it to, and you'll never be upset with a computer again." Unfortunately there's no reason to believe the trade is necessary. At the very best, it seems like Apple's extreme and obsessive control over what you're allowed to run on the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch is maybe delaying the point at which your software demands outpace the hardware, but even that is debatable. With the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch, you're trading choice and control in exchange for unsubstantiated promises.

I was going to post Ludwig's comments but you beat me to it. In short, Jobs is playing Big Brother.

The iPad, much like the iPhone, is completely locked down. The user has no control over what she installs on the hardware, short of accepting exactly what Apple has approved for it. From past experience, we know what happens when a completely legitimate application—from a huge company that's actually partnered with Apple—doesn't gel with Apple's business plan. They reject it, and you can't use it. And what recourse does the power user have?

Jailbreaking! And certainly the iPad will see plenty of hacking, but only because Apple requires you to hack the device if you actually want control over it yourself. Apple's gotten into the habit of acting like you're renting hardware. They've become the all-powerful, over-restrictive, ambivalent IT person in the sky, restricting what users can and can't install on their hardware.

http://lifehacker.com/5458690/the-problem-with-the-apple-ipad

Touchdown obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Even the iPod Touch is completely locked down- nothing that I wanted (except Katamari and Civilization) was on the app store when I first got it. The app store is, for my purposes, kinda neat, but incredibly restrictive. I had to jailbreak the thing just to install a new desktop theme, for example (and oh my yes, iNav looks incredible, but uses quite a bit of memory).

Here's what I have on my iPod Touch that stock users can't ever get on the App Store:

Winterboard: vast array of desktop themes, from simple icons to complete themes to total conversions, as in the image below
Terminal Application: issue functional Unix commands at a prompt (may allow installs via apt; haven't tried installing apt yet)
Real Battery: reports the battery life as detected by the hardware, not estimated based on time used, like the stock battery icon
MAME for the iDevice: runs old cabinet-style arcade games with the proper ROM (must install ROMs via SSH)
OpenSSH: opens a connection from your PC to the remote host- in this case, the iDevice- to add and remove files and create directories
PSXEMU for the iDevice: runs Sony Playstation games that have been ripped to a file (I'm playing Final Fantasy 6)
Sega Genesis Emulator for the iDevice: same as the previous two, Sonic on your iPod = WIN
Fractulator: calculator that handles fractions
Backgrounder: run *any* app in the background, not just the music/video players, etc.
iPod Dock: multiple forms of system control, including a task manager and a memory flush function, among others
Categories: put your icons into folders
Respring: restart the springboard (the desktop) to make changes to icons/themes
VLC: the media player for the PC, now on the iDevice
iBlank: Creates blank icons necessary for proper positioning of iNav theme large icons, as in the image below

I'm sure I missed a couple.

Here's a skin for that iNav theme, by the way (it looks a whole whole lot better than Apple's boring icons):



See why some people ar so pissed off over this? That's a really nice desktop theme...

You can't even change the look of the desktop on a stock iDevice. That's about as locked down as a PC can get. Oh, and Touchdown, before you go spouting that absolutely ridiculous claim that it's not a PC, my Touch has the terminal app installed, so yes in fact I can issue Unix commands to a command line. The app is rudimentary and the supported commands are few, but it is a command line and I can move, copy, and delete files (and I'm trying to find a iPod Touch version of vi so I can read raw text). Oh, yes, I can also SSH into the damn thing and add and delete content that way, too. It's how I add video files for the vlc player. The fact is, the iDevice is only really useful if you jailbreak it. Then it becomes a computer. As sold by Apple, the things are toys at best. Jailbroken, they all just rock.

We should be able to do all these neat things regardless of what Apple has to say about it. Oh, by the way: the iDevice can too play previously saved flash video files.... if you jailbreak the iDevice and then install the vlc player. As it turns out, even the iDevice version of VLC Player supports flash. I know this is true; I just added a .flv file to my iPod Touch and it played. Not well, mind you, but I did get a video stream and I did get streaming audio. It was a bit choppy, but the fact that the capability is there at all makes me think a whole, whole lot less of Apple for locking it up.

Because one of your buddies x-posted your thread in the Macintosh group's iPad thread, which I see now was an obvious bait. We'll have to tell our moderator about him. I was never in this forum until two days ago.

We're not going to agree on the rest. Lifehacker sounds paranoid about what Apple "could do"... sounds like teabaggers screaming about what Obama "might do". Adding inflammatory modifiers like "Obsessive" and "Extreme" does not make him more knowledgeable about Apple's motives than the average journalist, nor does it make his argument more coherent. "Lock Down"??? Right.:eyes:

I was thinking about buying a iPad; I wasn't going to buy one without doing background research; pokerfan's post was helpful to me; and I posted links to it because I thought others might find it helpful, too

I own multiple macs, and I find much to like about them; but from time to time, apple's weird decisions also drive me up the effn wall -- for example, their bizarre nonstandard connectors stink, and I'm not at all happy with the apple mice I have. Some apple software licensing restrictions similarly irritate me: it would be very convenient for me if standard virtualization software allowed me to run virtual OS X machines, but apple's dinky restrictions means there's essentially only one indisputably legal way to do so -- and it involves shelling out $500 for an OS X server license

I, of course, cannot complain if anyone else chooses to buy one, but I won't be buying an iPad. Despite the accusations made in various threads on this subject, my decision not to buy an iPad has nothing to do with my attitudes towards copyright: I am not opposed to creative workers copyrighting their creative work or reaping the financial rewards from their labor: I simply see no reason to shell out big bucks for a machine that seems to be so stringently controlled by the manufacturer that its primary use is to download content for pay from the manufacturer's store

I don't think anyone has a legitimate right to question why one starts a thread in this forum discussing the implications of corporate decisions on OpenSource.

What Apple and Microsoft, et al, do with their own products very often impacts the FOSS world, either directly, e.g. trying to enforce a copyright or patent on some conceptual framework that no one with a brain should have been allowed to be copyrighted or patented, or indirectly, e.g. through entrenching a mindset that encourages individuals to think restrictions such as these are okay. I don't care what happens to the Apple product or the Windows machine except to the extent that what happens in the larger community affects me and the FOSS community.

I would buy your argument.

If the App Store were an option, and not "the only way", I would buy your argument.

My Ipod Touch is jailbroken. It is 1000% more useful now. I can add custom themes (REALLY, Apple? Rounded squares was the *best* you could do?), including some that put everything Apple's interface design team did to shame. I can manually turn on or off SSH (oh, yeah, that's another thing, OpenSSH isn't on the App Store, either), bluetooth, and wifi capability with a swipe and a touch, I can open a BSD terminal (making it an actual computer instead of a useful toy), and about a dozen or so other things that simply aren't available on the App Store.

Don't let anyone tell you the iDevice "can't play Flash files". It can. You need to jailbreak and install the VLC player. Yes, that VLC player. It's for the iDevice, too.

Oh, and nobody has to go to websites to download any of this. They're all available on Cydia and Rock, which you have to jailbreak to use, and which you get when you jailbreak (at least, when you do it using Blackra1n). Oh, and those are stores, too- as in, commercial apps are available on those systems for purchase, with new repositories coming online all the time. That's how I got NES4iPhone. Now I can play all my NES ROMs on my iPod Touch. People fall over when I show them the original Zelda running on my ipod. Then they want me to jailbreak theirs, too.

You've quite clearly never used a jailbroken device; the usefulness of it negates any argument against. They're golden compared to the stock iDevice offering; you just have to be willing to piss of Steve Jobs.

I can bear his being pissed off with immense fortitude.