3 ms·

Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it. But it strikes me as an unnatural state of affairs. This idea that I can make a computational device, th

Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it. But it strikes me as an unnatural state of affairs. This idea that I can make a computational device, then own the right for you to put material on that device, is technically correct -- if you think of the iPad as some huge proprietary version of a CD player. But if you think of it an extension of your brain -- as a prosthesis which helps you share commonly understood experiences in common formats, which it is -- then Apple is basically saying it has control over what you think. That it deserves a cut for any experience you have. Certainly it's still more of a player than a mind-extension device, but this line will get more and more blurry. It's already making many uncomfortable. My belief is that some sort of change in law is required to clear up this confusion. An iPad is not a record player.

kingkilr 16y ago
The way you're describing this extension of the brain reminds me a lot of Andy Clark's onion model for th extended mind.
tybris 16y ago
> Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it. Right, because corporations never do anything illegal in any country. Microsoft has been fined hundreds of millions for including a browser with their OS (not even restricting other browsers). Something Apple and every other OS manufacturer does as well. The problem is, neither Microsoft, nor Apple cares about fines of that scale.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  My point was that I have no wish to argue what the current status of the law is, not that corporations do no evil. I am not a lawyer.
- brudgers 16y ago
  One does not need to go all the way to Redmond to find illegal activity, one can find it in Cupertino as well, e.g. Apple back dating stock options.
nika 16y ago
Apple doesn't "own the right to put material on that device", as apple provides many mechanisms to put material on the device outside of apple's control. Here's some of them: 1. iTunes file sync lets you put arbitrary files in there. I put many pdfs that I bought from pragmatic programmers in iBooks. Apple doesn't get a cut. iTunes also lets you sync any file type with any app that can read it (And apple lets free reader apps of all types in the store, it just has a restriction on operating a store via the app.) 2. Apple has provided a mechanism and gone into great lenghts to educate developers on how to build web apps that live and run form the device. These applications can have local storage, have an icon just like all the other apps, and can be connected to the net or run independant of the net. You could write a porn app that lives on the device and, unless apple heard about your website, apple would never know.. and they can't stop you either. Now consider this: The Amazon Kindle operates as if amazon owns the right to control what material you put on it, right? Apple is not allowed to sell kindle books. Kindle books are an arbitrary proprietary format...while Apples' bookstore uses the open standard epub mechanism.
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  Kindles allow arbitrary files and have a Webkit browser. I don't see how Amazon is worse than Apple here. Frankly, it is annoying for people to act like Apple is somehow doing people favors by allowing people to use the web and put their own files on their own device.
- bcaulf 16y ago
  I agree that it was obnoxious for Amazon to choose the mobi format instead of epub, but in practice it's not a big deal. I use the open source Calibre program. Among other things it will translate among mobi, epub, pdf and a bunch of other formats. There is really no effort involved. You just hit OK when it asks whether to convert the book before transferring it. You can also email an epub to Amazon and it will come back immediately in Kindle format and this method also works well. There is no charge for wifi but there is a charge for cellular delivery. I think the Kindle is admirably compatible with third party publishers or self published material, much more than Apple's locked down and toll collected ecosystem.

kingkilr 16y ago

The way you're describing this extension of the brain reminds me a lot of Andy Clark's onion model for th extended mind.

tybris 16y ago

> Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it. Right, because corporations never do anything illegal in any country. Microsoft has been fined hundreds of millions for including a browser with their OS (not even restricting other browsers). Something Apple and every other OS manufacturer does as well. The problem is, neither Microsoft, nor Apple cares about fines of that scale.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
My point was that I have no wish to argue what the current status of the law is, not that corporations do no evil. I am not a lawyer.
brudgers 16y ago
One does not need to go all the way to Redmond to find illegal activity, one can find it in Cupertino as well, e.g. Apple back dating stock options.

nika 16y ago

Apple doesn't "own the right to put material on that device", as apple provides many mechanisms to put material on the device outside of apple's control. Here's some of them: 1. iTunes file sync lets you put arbitrary files in there. I put many pdfs that I bought from pragmatic programmers in iBooks. Apple doesn't get a cut. iTunes also lets you sync any file type with any app that can read it (And apple lets free reader apps of all types in the store, it just has a restriction on operating a store via the app.) 2. Apple has provided a mechanism and gone into great lenghts to educate developers on how to build web apps that live and run form the device. These applications can have local storage, have an icon just like all the other apps, and can be connected to the net or run independant of the net. You could write a porn app that lives on the device and, unless apple heard about your website, apple would never know.. and they can't stop you either. Now consider this: The Amazon Kindle operates as if amazon owns the right to control what material you put on it, right? Apple is not allowed to sell kindle books. Kindle books are an arbitrary proprietary format...while Apples' bookstore uses the open standard epub mechanism.

Kylekramer 16y ago
Kindles allow arbitrary files and have a Webkit browser. I don't see how Amazon is worse than Apple here. Frankly, it is annoying for people to act like Apple is somehow doing people favors by allowing people to use the web and put their own files on their own device.
bcaulf 16y ago
I agree that it was obnoxious for Amazon to choose the mobi format instead of epub, but in practice it's not a big deal. I use the open source Calibre program. Among other things it will translate among mobi, epub, pdf and a bunch of other formats. There is really no effort involved. You just hit OK when it asks whether to convert the book before transferring it. You can also email an epub to Amazon and it will come back immediately in Kindle format and this method also works well. There is no charge for wifi but there is a charge for cellular delivery. I think the Kindle is admirably compatible with third party publishers or self published material, much more than Apple's locked down and toll collected ecosystem.