8 ms·

If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the

by pg 17y ago

If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.

CoryMathews 17y ago
Apple has been evil since the first ipod when you had to use itunes to load music. They have locked people in with no cheap way out. Pure evil IMO.
- mishmash 17y ago
  Pretty sure DRM started out as an industry idea. Regardless, it all pretty much had to happen the way it did. At the time, none of the major studios would have considered releasing DRM-free music. The had to be shown that it would work first.
  - spanktheuser 17y ago
    Maybe DRM is an idea that comes from anyone who creates content and wants to get paid for it. Yeah, most of the DRM implementations out there are a PITA, but what choice do content creators have anyway? I recently read that 90% of the installed base of World of Goo was pirated. How would you feel if someone stole 90% of your web startup's source code? Oh, you say you lock your source repository that down with tight security at the network and server level? How is that conceptually different from DRM, exactly? I realize that the implementation is very different, of course, but that's not my point. Besides, I don't expect DRM implementations to be so painful in the future. DRM on PCs sucks because it attempts to close the barn door after the livestock has escaped. If you want to see a device where content control was built in from the ground up, consider the xBox, which is basically a special purpose PC that with tightly controlled installation rights and distribution of content. So the DRM can be relatively unobtrusive. Or look at Steam, which has gotten quite a bit better than it was a few years ago. And they've been experimenting heavily with bringing down the price point for games, now that every paying user doesn't have to subsidize 10 thieves.
- raganwald 17y ago
  Aiding and abetting totalitarian regimes by censoring search results and turning over email correspondence is evil. Making shiny toys that don't do exactly what you want is not evil. Let's stop using "evil" as a synonym for "reprehensible."
  - pg 17y ago
    Historically the word "evil" has had a pretty broad meaning. Among tech companies the word has a new and fairly specific sense that follows from Paul Buchheit's slogan "Don't be evil." That's the sense I was using. It has a pretty low bar. It means, roughly, winning by taking advantage of people instead of by doing good work.
    - glhaynes 17y ago
      Maybe Apple succeeds most when they take advantage of people and do good work. :)
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        Which makes them better loved than Microsoft, which for long stretches got away with taking advantage of people and doing mostly mediocre work.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    Artificially limiting the capabilities of the hardware (people pay for) with the interest of keeping control, can't possibly be in the same league as "shiny toys that don't do exactly what you want". People also lose the perspective of scaling the current trends set by Apple and others to everything ... what would happen if all the documents within your computer would be DRMed? What would happen if all personal PCs had software only approved by a central authority? SciFi? They are already releasing a bigger iPhone who's functionality overlaps that of tablets / small laptops. Also, before search engines that are censoring the results in China ... we had nothing comparable. You're also free to implement your own search-engine and index all the web-pages Google does ... but try creating a phone that connects to the iTunes store and that can run iPhone apps ;)
- stcredzero 17y ago
  My definition of Evil includes coercion. Apple doesn't coerce you into using iTunes. They market an iPod to you, which you buy voluntarily. It's only after that you have to use iTunes. And even then, you don't really have to, since there are alternatives for software. If you can opt-out and just not pay for it, then it isn't evil. It still might be "shitty practice" but you can still vote with your feet.
- daniel123123 17y ago
  Sheesh, honestly this is far afield but why do people keep lumping not having a feature in with evil? Aren't most of you people software developers? Do you sell software to people? Regular humans who can blow out your profit with a single helpline call? Choosing to not support a scenario is about as far from evil as you could possibly get. Do you seriously look at all of the things that itunes doesn't do, all of the things that it does poorly or all of its bugs and think "apple is evil"? Isn't it clear that they, despite having some great talent, are resource-constrained like everyone else? Have you ever used a bug database? Tracked a bug count? Tested? Shipped a product? OK, I'm trying not to be insulting or personal here but let's be clear: not supporting file system access aka supporting only the sync model INDISPUITABLY saved engineering resources. That feature you want is not free. If you can't see that then we're done because the only response would be insulting.
Roridge 17y ago
It's all about control.. I often wonder if Apple have become the man in the screen, instead of the woman with the hammer.
- jrockway 17y ago
  This has been the case since they implemented PT_DENY_ATTACH. Revolutionaries that throw hammers at screens do not artificially limit their operating system.
  - whalesalad 17y ago
    For those of us nubs who don't know what PT_DENY_ATTACH is, I did a little bit of research and have come to this conclusion: It's a flag that prevents a debugger from attaching itself to the process, aka preventing gdb from attaching to iTunes.
    - s3graham 17y ago
      I believe more importantly when people got all huffy about it was disallowing dtrace to attach.
- jmatt 17y ago
  For those you who weren't around in 1984... Or didn't pay attention in high school english or decades old super bowl ads. Apple's commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 And the obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)
davidw 17y ago
Apple has always been about very firm control. I don't think it's necessarily "evil", but it's not a world I want to live in, either.
- nitrogen 17y ago
  Firm control over one's product and patent lawsuits against one's competitors are very different things. Firm control is annoying, frustrating, and maybe borderline evil (in the tech sense of the word as pg defined it), but suing competitors' manufacturers for treble and punitive damages is definitely evil. It would take a revelation of truly bad behavior on HTC's part for me to think otherwise.
aswanson 17y ago
The only person who had a chance of successfully doing that was Woz circa 1976. But I'd even bet against him. [EDIT: Better grammar]
ewjordan 17y ago
It's a real shame, too - it's so easy to hate Microsoft when it gets hostile and starts abusing its position, because their software generally makes you want to scream. Apple, on the other hand, puts out stuff that is a genuine pleasure to use, but controls it in increasingly infuriating ways. What's a geek to do? On the other hand, I wouldn't be too quick to avoid iPad startups; even if it feels "wrong", your reasons for expecting the iPad to transform the computing landscape are as valid as they ever were, and there are good businesses to be built in that space. I'd let the RFS stand, and not feel too bad about it. Business is business, we do what we can in the markets that we're able...Microsoft has sucked pretty hard for a long time, but I would never dream of blaming someone for basing a startup on the Windows platform, and I think people that ignored it over the past decade were probably making a mistake. What I would do is be on the lookout (maybe even draft an RFS) for startups that offer a better vision for the future than Apple, assuming there are any people out there with ideas about how to get a foothold and subvert their control freakishness. Bolstering products that compete with the iPhone and iPad could be a start; if must-have software starts showing up on Android, it would really help. As much as we might want to blame Jobs for this, I fear that once he's not holding the reins, the company will only start acting worse, as they'll have lost a lot of the vision that drives their actual innovations. And that's when the serious consumer-hostile bullshit is likely to start in earnest...
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  if must-have software starts showing up on Android, it would really help. You mean like Google Voice and Google Maps Navigation? Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have helped much.
  - dannyr 17y ago
    "You mean like Google Voice and Google Maps Navigation? Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have helped much." Android is a few years behind IPhone but is gaining traction. I seriously do not feel like Android needs much help. All it needs is just time and have Apple continue to try to put tight controls on its ecosystem.
tvon 17y ago
I get your meaning, but all the same I think calling a tech company "evil" falls under Godwin's Law, at least in spirit. If only Google had chosen "don't be a dick" instead, the world would be a less confusing place...
ecq 17y ago
sorry pg but I have to disagree with you. Apple have patents, and they want to protect them. There is nothing "evil" with that. These are all legitimate patents that Apple worked long and hard on and spent millions to develop. If you're the CEO of a major public corporation and you owned those patents you'd do the same thing.
projectileboy 17y ago
Serious question: What would that person say? How could Jobs be nudged out of his reality-distortion field enough to realize the ways in which he's damaging their long-term credibility with their developer community? Alternately, is their something we're not seeing? Is there possibly some beautiful universe that gets created when Apple controls the entire ecosystem?
hacking_hamster 17y ago
PG, I am working on a startup in a controversial field. I'm excited about figuring out how to solve the problem that is inherent in the field. I believe our solution will bring great value to the industry but sadly, it might be exploited - albeit legally - by unscrupulous parties and still bring us revenue. It is this last part that I'm conflicted about. I truly believe in many of the hacker principles (that are also common to many users in this forum) but feel really sad and lousy that my system might violate the principles I believe in. So I ask the following question not with a trollish sentiment but with genuine interest in how you deal with similar conflicts: You seem upset by Apple's latest antic and I am guessing that it violates some of your core principles. Would you take a stand and withdraw your RFS to show your disapproval of their tactics and risk future profits from YC's involvement in iPad startups?
- pg 17y ago
  I thought about it, but withdrawing an existing RFS is a more drastic step. I'm not trying to start some kind of boycott; I'm just personally not very pleased with this move.
codebaobab 17y ago
I must confess that I was very surprised to hear that Apple initiated a lawsuit against HTC and I am wondering if there is some backstory that we don't know. I am not going to try and argue that Apple is some kind of altruistic, saintly company. But Apple's recent history lead me to believe that they viewed patents as defensive, not offensive weapons. Yes, they sued Nokia, but only after Nokia sued them first. So questions that come to my mind include: Why HTC? Why now? Why hasn't Apple sued Palm? (Surely the Pre infringes on something!) And is there any significance to the fact that the suit was filed with the ITC? If Apple really is going to go on the patent offensive, I will be very disappointed.
- zecg 17y ago
  Because now people are buying a lot of HTC's (Android-powered, I'd wager) phones. Duh.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  It's easier to slap an injunction on a company shipping boxes full of patent-violating product.
- cheald 17y ago
  The short answer is that Android-based phones like the Nexus One and Desire are a far bigger threat to Apple's stranglehold on the NA smartphone market than anything else to date. This isn't about "protecting their inventions", it's about throwing up roadblocks to their biggest potential competitor.
starkfist 17y ago
To play devil's advocate: Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them? If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think this legal action was evil? If the iPhone OS was "open source" and there were other means of selling apps other than the app store, would people still think this legal action was evil? If Google (the "underdog" (?)) owned these patents through the purchase of Android and was suing Apple, would people think Google was evil? Or would it be a David vs. Goliath story? (goliath vs. goliath?) If I make BLOOPT.com which does the same thing as loopt.com, is it evil for Sam Altman to sue me, when he gets his patent?
- ajross 17y ago
  All patent suits are evil. If all software patents were enforced, no new software could be written without licensing thousands or tens of thousands of patents from hundreds of holders. And no free software could be written at all. So the answers to all your your questions is "yes". Except the last, which is kinda dumb. "BLOOPT" would no doubt be a trademark violation, you can't patent a name. But yeah, if Loopt filed a patent suit against someone simply for competing with them, then it would be evil too.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    All patent suits are evil. From what you are saying, it only follows that most patent suits are legal. I am sure one would eventually find the odd legit patent suit after a rigorous enough search. (Analogous to real avail among spam.)
DaVinMan 17y ago
They're a for-profit company. They'll act completely out of self-interest under all circumstances. Do you really trust any for-profit company? Think about it.
jwhitlark 17y ago
It is safer to be feared than loved, if one must choose, but above all else, one must avoid being hated. (Paraphrasing Machiavelli) It's interesting to me that a few year ago I'd have been scared to compete (in any way) with apple for fear of being beaten by a better product. Today the picture is much muddier, but the feeling of revulsion is new...
lambda 17y ago
I've realized this for a while; ever since I looked at the terms of service for the iPhone SDK, which forbid pretty much any innovation on things like RFS #5 (you are not allowed to write compilers or interpreters which run on the iPhone, which pretty much precludes any development tools that aren't web apps). I think it's about time for me to get an Android phone. The platform isn't as polished, but you can actually get root on your damn phone and some of it is free software (about like Mac OS X, actually; a free kernel, some libraries, and utilities, with some applications on top that are closed).

by pg 17y ago

CoryMathews 17y ago

Apple has been evil since the first ipod when you had to use itunes to load music. They have locked people in with no cheap way out. Pure evil IMO.

mishmash 17y ago
Pretty sure DRM started out as an industry idea. Regardless, it all pretty much had to happen the way it did. At the time, none of the major studios would have considered releasing DRM-free music. The had to be shown that it would work first.
- spanktheuser 17y ago
  Maybe DRM is an idea that comes from anyone who creates content and wants to get paid for it. Yeah, most of the DRM implementations out there are a PITA, but what choice do content creators have anyway? I recently read that 90% of the installed base of World of Goo was pirated. How would you feel if someone stole 90% of your web startup's source code? Oh, you say you lock your source repository that down with tight security at the network and server level? How is that conceptually different from DRM, exactly? I realize that the implementation is very different, of course, but that's not my point. Besides, I don't expect DRM implementations to be so painful in the future. DRM on PCs sucks because it attempts to close the barn door after the livestock has escaped. If you want to see a device where content control was built in from the ground up, consider the xBox, which is basically a special purpose PC that with tightly controlled installation rights and distribution of content. So the DRM can be relatively unobtrusive. Or look at Steam, which has gotten quite a bit better than it was a few years ago. And they've been experimenting heavily with bringing down the price point for games, now that every paying user doesn't have to subsidize 10 thieves.
raganwald 17y ago
Aiding and abetting totalitarian regimes by censoring search results and turning over email correspondence is evil. Making shiny toys that don't do exactly what you want is not evil. Let's stop using "evil" as a synonym for "reprehensible."
- pg 17y ago
  Historically the word "evil" has had a pretty broad meaning. Among tech companies the word has a new and fairly specific sense that follows from Paul Buchheit's slogan "Don't be evil." That's the sense I was using. It has a pretty low bar. It means, roughly, winning by taking advantage of people instead of by doing good work.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    Maybe Apple succeeds most when they take advantage of people and do good work. :)
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      Which makes them better loved than Microsoft, which for long stretches got away with taking advantage of people and doing mostly mediocre work.
- bad_user 17y ago
  Artificially limiting the capabilities of the hardware (people pay for) with the interest of keeping control, can't possibly be in the same league as "shiny toys that don't do exactly what you want". People also lose the perspective of scaling the current trends set by Apple and others to everything ... what would happen if all the documents within your computer would be DRMed? What would happen if all personal PCs had software only approved by a central authority? SciFi? They are already releasing a bigger iPhone who's functionality overlaps that of tablets / small laptops. Also, before search engines that are censoring the results in China ... we had nothing comparable. You're also free to implement your own search-engine and index all the web-pages Google does ... but try creating a phone that connects to the iTunes store and that can run iPhone apps ;)
stcredzero 17y ago
My definition of Evil includes coercion. Apple doesn't coerce you into using iTunes. They market an iPod to you, which you buy voluntarily. It's only after that you have to use iTunes. And even then, you don't really have to, since there are alternatives for software. If you can opt-out and just not pay for it, then it isn't evil. It still might be "shitty practice" but you can still vote with your feet.
daniel123123 17y ago
Sheesh, honestly this is far afield but why do people keep lumping not having a feature in with evil? Aren't most of you people software developers? Do you sell software to people? Regular humans who can blow out your profit with a single helpline call? Choosing to not support a scenario is about as far from evil as you could possibly get. Do you seriously look at all of the things that itunes doesn't do, all of the things that it does poorly or all of its bugs and think "apple is evil"? Isn't it clear that they, despite having some great talent, are resource-constrained like everyone else? Have you ever used a bug database? Tracked a bug count? Tested? Shipped a product? OK, I'm trying not to be insulting or personal here but let's be clear: not supporting file system access aka supporting only the sync model INDISPUITABLY saved engineering resources. That feature you want is not free. If you can't see that then we're done because the only response would be insulting.

Roridge 17y ago

It's all about control.. I often wonder if Apple have become the man in the screen, instead of the woman with the hammer.

jrockway 17y ago
This has been the case since they implemented PT_DENY_ATTACH. Revolutionaries that throw hammers at screens do not artificially limit their operating system.
- whalesalad 17y ago
  For those of us nubs who don't know what PT_DENY_ATTACH is, I did a little bit of research and have come to this conclusion: It's a flag that prevents a debugger from attaching itself to the process, aka preventing gdb from attaching to iTunes.
  - s3graham 17y ago
    I believe more importantly when people got all huffy about it was disallowing dtrace to attach.
jmatt 17y ago
For those you who weren't around in 1984... Or didn't pay attention in high school english or decades old super bowl ads. Apple's commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 And the obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)

davidw 17y ago

Apple has always been about very firm control. I don't think it's necessarily "evil", but it's not a world I want to live in, either.

nitrogen 17y ago
Firm control over one's product and patent lawsuits against one's competitors are very different things. Firm control is annoying, frustrating, and maybe borderline evil (in the tech sense of the word as pg defined it), but suing competitors' manufacturers for treble and punitive damages is definitely evil. It would take a revelation of truly bad behavior on HTC's part for me to think otherwise.

aswanson 17y ago

The only person who had a chance of successfully doing that was Woz circa 1976. But I'd even bet against him. [EDIT: Better grammar]

ewjordan 17y ago

It's a real shame, too - it's so easy to hate Microsoft when it gets hostile and starts abusing its position, because their software generally makes you want to scream. Apple, on the other hand, puts out stuff that is a genuine pleasure to use, but controls it in increasingly infuriating ways. What's a geek to do? On the other hand, I wouldn't be too quick to avoid iPad startups; even if it feels "wrong", your reasons for expecting the iPad to transform the computing landscape are as valid as they ever were, and there are good businesses to be built in that space. I'd let the RFS stand, and not feel too bad about it. Business is business, we do what we can in the markets that we're able...Microsoft has sucked pretty hard for a long time, but I would never dream of blaming someone for basing a startup on the Windows platform, and I think people that ignored it over the past decade were probably making a mistake. What I would do is be on the lookout (maybe even draft an RFS) for startups that offer a better vision for the future than Apple, assuming there are any people out there with ideas about how to get a foothold and subvert their control freakishness. Bolstering products that compete with the iPhone and iPad could be a start; if must-have software starts showing up on Android, it would really help. As much as we might want to blame Jobs for this, I fear that once he's not holding the reins, the company will only start acting worse, as they'll have lost a lot of the vision that drives their actual innovations. And that's when the serious consumer-hostile bullshit is likely to start in earnest...

stanleydrew 17y ago
if must-have software starts showing up on Android, it would really help. You mean like Google Voice and Google Maps Navigation? Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have helped much.
- dannyr 17y ago
  "You mean like Google Voice and Google Maps Navigation? Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have helped much." Android is a few years behind IPhone but is gaining traction. I seriously do not feel like Android needs much help. All it needs is just time and have Apple continue to try to put tight controls on its ecosystem.

tvon 17y ago

I get your meaning, but all the same I think calling a tech company "evil" falls under Godwin's Law, at least in spirit. If only Google had chosen "don't be a dick" instead, the world would be a less confusing place...

ecq 17y ago

sorry pg but I have to disagree with you. Apple have patents, and they want to protect them. There is nothing "evil" with that. These are all legitimate patents that Apple worked long and hard on and spent millions to develop. If you're the CEO of a major public corporation and you owned those patents you'd do the same thing.

projectileboy 17y ago

Serious question: What would that person say? How could Jobs be nudged out of his reality-distortion field enough to realize the ways in which he's damaging their long-term credibility with their developer community? Alternately, is their something we're not seeing? Is there possibly some beautiful universe that gets created when Apple controls the entire ecosystem?

hacking_hamster 17y ago

PG, I am working on a startup in a controversial field. I'm excited about figuring out how to solve the problem that is inherent in the field. I believe our solution will bring great value to the industry but sadly, it might be exploited - albeit legally - by unscrupulous parties and still bring us revenue. It is this last part that I'm conflicted about. I truly believe in many of the hacker principles (that are also common to many users in this forum) but feel really sad and lousy that my system might violate the principles I believe in. So I ask the following question not with a trollish sentiment but with genuine interest in how you deal with similar conflicts: You seem upset by Apple's latest antic and I am guessing that it violates some of your core principles. Would you take a stand and withdraw your RFS to show your disapproval of their tactics and risk future profits from YC's involvement in iPad startups?

pg 17y ago
I thought about it, but withdrawing an existing RFS is a more drastic step. I'm not trying to start some kind of boycott; I'm just personally not very pleased with this move.

codebaobab 17y ago

I must confess that I was very surprised to hear that Apple initiated a lawsuit against HTC and I am wondering if there is some backstory that we don't know. I am not going to try and argue that Apple is some kind of altruistic, saintly company. But Apple's recent history lead me to believe that they viewed patents as defensive, not offensive weapons. Yes, they sued Nokia, but only after Nokia sued them first. So questions that come to my mind include: Why HTC? Why now? Why hasn't Apple sued Palm? (Surely the Pre infringes on something!) And is there any significance to the fact that the suit was filed with the ITC? If Apple really is going to go on the patent offensive, I will be very disappointed.

zecg 17y ago
Because now people are buying a lot of HTC's (Android-powered, I'd wager) phones. Duh.
joezydeco 17y ago
It's easier to slap an injunction on a company shipping boxes full of patent-violating product.
cheald 17y ago
The short answer is that Android-based phones like the Nexus One and Desire are a far bigger threat to Apple's stranglehold on the NA smartphone market than anything else to date. This isn't about "protecting their inventions", it's about throwing up roadblocks to their biggest potential competitor.

starkfist 17y ago

To play devil's advocate: Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them? If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think this legal action was evil? If the iPhone OS was "open source" and there were other means of selling apps other than the app store, would people still think this legal action was evil? If Google (the "underdog" (?)) owned these patents through the purchase of Android and was suing Apple, would people think Google was evil? Or would it be a David vs. Goliath story? (goliath vs. goliath?) If I make BLOOPT.com which does the same thing as loopt.com, is it evil for Sam Altman to sue me, when he gets his patent?

ajross 17y ago
All patent suits are evil. If all software patents were enforced, no new software could be written without licensing thousands or tens of thousands of patents from hundreds of holders. And no free software could be written at all. So the answers to all your your questions is "yes". Except the last, which is kinda dumb. "BLOOPT" would no doubt be a trademark violation, you can't patent a name. But yeah, if Loopt filed a patent suit against someone simply for competing with them, then it would be evil too.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  All patent suits are evil. From what you are saying, it only follows that most patent suits are legal. I am sure one would eventually find the odd legit patent suit after a rigorous enough search. (Analogous to real avail among spam.)

DaVinMan 17y ago

They're a for-profit company. They'll act completely out of self-interest under all circumstances. Do you really trust any for-profit company? Think about it.

jwhitlark 17y ago

It is safer to be feared than loved, if one must choose, but above all else, one must avoid being hated. (Paraphrasing Machiavelli) It's interesting to me that a few year ago I'd have been scared to compete (in any way) with apple for fear of being beaten by a better product. Today the picture is much muddier, but the feeling of revulsion is new...

lambda 17y ago

I've realized this for a while; ever since I looked at the terms of service for the iPhone SDK, which forbid pretty much any innovation on things like RFS #5 (you are not allowed to write compilers or interpreters which run on the iPhone, which pretty much precludes any development tools that aren't web apps). I think it's about time for me to get an Android phone. The platform isn't as polished, but you can actually get root on your damn phone and some of it is free software (about like Mac OS X, actually; a free kernel, some libraries, and utilities, with some applications on top that are closed).