15 ms·

Goodbye, Apple

116 points by mrlebowski 17y ago

tdavis 17y ago
I'm a big fan of Apple, but this is ridiculous. Going to such extreme lengths in the name of what boils down to decreasing their customer base seems rather silly. God forbid someone use Linux and pay Apple for iPods.
- crux 17y ago
  This decision is exactly the same as dozens of decisions they've made in the past, all decried as patently ridiculous and self-destructive. Apple likes to sell self-contained systems, in order to make sure that everything works really well. In the iPod's case, they have an interest in being sure that iPods are only used with iTunes, because then they can ensure that it works well -- and so people won't complain about how lousy iPods are when they use it with other people's potentially lousy software. That's unfortunate for Linux users, because it's clearly not worth it to Apple to build a version of iTunes for GNU/Linux. But, you know, the iPod also doesn't play ogg files. So what are Linux users doing buying them in the first place?
  - ars 17y ago
    I run linux, and I don't have a single ogg file for my music. Your argument about self contained would be good, except that it's not a case of apple not supporting other things, it's apple deliberately blocking them.
    - crux 17y ago
      I don't want to start any flamewars, but the assumption that the market leader can engage in a kind of mutualism and 'not support' a given device or OS while still leaving them open to interoperability displays the sort of cavalier attitude towards user experience that hobbles Apple's competitors. How many hacks that muck around in Apple's UX space do you think it would take for Apple to just sort of turn a blind eye to, before users starting accidentally wiping their iTunes libraries or bricking their iPhones? And how many proponents of said hacks do you think would argue that's an acceptable state of affairs?
      - jules 17y ago
        Do you want your TV manufacturer to build a steel cage around your TV because they're afraid that users will complain if they mess up their own TV. That would be ridiculous.
        mechanical_fish 17y ago
        Do you want your TV manufacturer to build a steel cage around your TV because they're afraid that users will complain if they mess up their own TV. Bad metaphor. Suppose I lived in a world where, if my TV malfunctioned, it could break my phone and my web browser, send random emails to my relatives, riffle through my address book, and delete all the music I've bought over the last five years. Oh, and there are international criminal gangs who employ networks of botnets to attack my TV every fifteen seconds. In that world, I'd see a real use case for the steel-cage-equipped TV.
      - ars 17y ago
        Why should apple care? If someone mucks with their phone that's their own problem. Apple should simply ignore it: don't support it, and don't block it.
      - nailer 17y ago
        More people have bricked iPhones because of Apple's own actions (iPhone activation DRM) than any interoperability attempts.
  - jules 17y ago
    Of course not. They're just making sure that you're using their software & brand. This also makes it harder to the music off your ipod, and into someone else's ipod. I'm surprised that Kroes hasn't jumped on this yet.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Apple would probably have to go to extreme lengths to guarantee interoperability. Breaking gtkpod is, even in this blog post, described as a side effect. I can't imagine Apple cares about gtkpod enough to purposefully break it.
- TJensen 17y ago
  The tech specs of the iPod never said it supported Linux. When you bought an iPod and decided you wanted to sync it with your Linux box, you stepped outside of the support box. That is not Apple's fault, that is your fault. (I should note, by "you" I mean "Linux fan who bought an iPod", not "you, tdavis" :). I didn't even consider an Apple product when I was running Linux because I knew it would be too much of a pain.)
crux 17y ago
Synopsis: Apple has never supported or particularly wanted third-party software or hardware to be able to interface with their systems. In the running skirmish that is trying to get said devices to work with said systems, Apple has once again made a change that breaks the jiggered compatibility. This guy doesn't use an Apple system, so he's not gonna buy another iPod. Well, that, plus a lot more drama and dramatic linebreaks.
- Tichy 17y ago
  I must admit I am a bit shocked by this, too. I just assumed the iPod would continue to work on Linux, as it worked pretty well so far.
- ars 17y ago
  That's a rather bad synopsis. Here's a better one: In a misguided attempt to lock people in, apple is blocking linux users, (and anyone else) from accessing their data on an iPod. Don't support 3rd party software? Fine. Actively block them? Not so fine.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    I don't see where "actively block them" comes in. Changing the database format of your product is something you'd want the latitude to do. The fact that it breaks unsupported third party software is hardly something Apple would go out of their way to do.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Let's not be disingenuous; doing that concedes the point that breaking Pre's unlicensed, unauthorized iTunes connector was wrong. Apple is clearly going to keep breaking the Pre, and they're doing it on purpose.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        Yes, but iPhone syncing has the potential to transfer email account information, including passwords, making it a security hole for untrusted devices to be able to do it. In either case, while breaking Pre interoperability was likely intentional (and we've discussed this to death in other threads), Apple doesn't give a shit about gtkpod.
TomOfTTB 17y ago
I continue to be amazed at how people are willing to give Apple a pass on cutting off the Pre. Paticularly this guy who says he can "understand" Apple cutting off the Pre but then balks at Apple cutting off his music software. Monopolistic greed is understandable when it doesn't affect me seems to be the attitude (On that note I'm pretty sure Apple makes way more off iTunes than it does off the hardware at this point) As a customer who is paying for this music I should be able to sync it with whatever I want. I don't expect Apple to support the Pre but I think it's reprehensible to actively try to cut it off. (For the record I'm an iPhone 3GS owner who doesn't even like the Pre. I just don't want to be forced to use Apple products for the rest of my life just to keep my music)
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  Meanwhile, I am amazed that people are giving Palm a pass for the tactics they're using. They way they re-enabled iTunes sync is by changing their USB id to be the same as Apple's. If they wanted the Pre to sync to iTunes data, they should have written their own app that reads the user's XML file. It wouldn't have been that much work.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    They way they re-enabled iTunes sync is by changing their USB id to be the same as Apple's. What about this do you find objectionable? Do you deplore reverse engineering too?
    - allenbrunson 17y ago
      It's treading where they are obviously unwanted. That's not a good way to do business or instill faith. About ten years ago, Be wanted to have BeOS be an alternative OS you could run on Macs. Be did in fact get the first version running okay. But Apple was in the midst of one of its big hardware changes, so Be needed tech docs for the motherboard to do a really good job of it. Apple never supplied that information. BeOS advocates at the time said: just go ahead and reverse engineer it. That's what the Linux people did. The powers that be at Be said: nope, we don't play that way. If Apple doesn't want us on their computers, then we're not going there. Be subsequently refocused on standard PC hardware.
arantius 17y ago
I got a Nokia N810 recently. With a hefty SD card it plays media very adequately for my needs -- and it does a whole lot more too! My iPod is starting to gather dust.
thenduks 17y ago
Wow, I don't get all of this. I use Ubuntu and have an iPod touch, it doesn't sync at all, total brick. But, obviously, I have a windows partition (or, sometimes, virtual machine) which I use to test in IE or play games, etc... So I just use iTunes there. Do people really add music to their libraries every day or something? I sync mine probably once a month, but I can see myself not being upset even if I had to do it once a week. Let's put things like this in perspective, shall we?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- asjo 17y ago
  My perspective is: I do not have Windows on any of my computers (yes, that was, of course, my choice.) So your solution doesn't work. My solution is to not upgrade the OS on my generation 1 iPod Touch and use gtkpod. Not very sustainable in the long run, but almost acceptable.
  - thenduks 17y ago
    Hey I'm no fan of Windows, but I really don't see what's so wrong with having a 2-3GB virtual machine around on an external hard drive or something so you can sync your iPod. Perhaps if you're that against Windows on some sort of fundamental level then the iPod is not an appropriate product for you? Or maybe it's time to get a Mac mini for a media center or something and it's problem solved from another angle.
- royalpineapple 17y ago
  yes, many people who enjoy podcasts are forced to sync their iPods as often as daily.
  - thenduks 17y ago
    Then a virtual machine would be the obvious choice.
gabrielroth 17y ago
Apple has evidently made a decision to prevent iPods from working without iTunes, and to prevent iTunes from working with non-iPod audio players. We must assume that Apple's executives have weighed the pros and cons of this decision, and have decided that the pros (maintaining a reputation for a seamless experience) outweigh the cons (losing some sales to Linux owners, Palm owners, etc.). That's an ordinary business decision. "You'd think they would want to sell more iPods, not block a certain percentage of their market out," says mdeslaur in this post. Maybe the Apple executives have made the wrong decision for their company's bottom line, and maybe mdeslaur, and many of the commenters here, would have made a better decision that would have increased Apple's profits. But given that (a) they have access to a lot of data that you don't have, and (b) they're executives at Apple and you're not, I wouldn't bet on it.
- sofal 17y ago
  Good point. There is a difference between saying "Apple made a bad business move here" and "Apple crossed the line in my opinion and I will not buy from them in the future."
mrlebowski 17y ago
For a company that started off with the motive of making the cheapest and most usable computers, and that believed in sharing its design [from iWoz: the APPLE-1 architecture was made public], Apple has come a long way. They are successful, yes. Their products are good, yes. But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products [an iPhone 3gS with contract can cost you ~1000$ in the long run], which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] and are closely guarded. Apple, you make great products, but I am never gonna buy them, cuz then you'll want me to buy music just from you, use only your software, and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] !
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products Their profitability demonstrates that this is false. People (lots of people) can and do afford their products. which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] To be able to dictate a minimum standard of user experience and to keep you tied into their ~$250/second profit supply. you'll want me to buy music just from you Want you to, yes, but you don't have to - iTunes has offered to import your CDs for ages, and you can put other music files into its library with click-and-drag simplicity. use only your software No - if they did there would be no iPhone app-store. It doesn't make sense - they want you to buy a Mac, so they want a compelling ecosystem of high quality programs of all kinds - from Omnigroup and Circus Ponies to FireFox and the gnu Utils. and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] Which take employees time and effort to develop - why should they be free?
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    @jodrellblank, I guess mrlebowski made those points(expensive, not work with anything else etc) not to claim they are intrinsically bad (which point you seem to be addressing) but as a contrast to how Apple used to work when it was founded. In other words, Apple's present behavior may be justifiable(like you say) and a change from how it used to work in the past (mrlebowski's point).
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] ! I'm pretty sure it's been established at this point that the fees for iPod Touch software updates are due to Apple (after various scandals, including one in which they were involved) being extremely paranoid about accounting practices.
chaostheory 17y ago
I don't understand what the big deal is. If you don't like Apple's policies regarding their products there's a simple solution: buy something else. It's not like Apple has changed overnight. Just like Nintendo, Apple has been doing this for decades; this isn't some new shocker like the Kindle. In this day and age I have no idea why someone who primarily uses Linux would even bother using an iPod when there are good alternatives to Apple's "circle of one" products.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jpierce420 17y ago
Good lord look at all the CRAPPLE fanboys out tonight!! I simply LOVED this blogpost, as it has confirmed what I've been saying for months. I'm also very glad to see some Apple-Opposers here as well, finally. The Apple-Fanboyism here has gotten a little out of hand. Anyways, Apple is freaking ridiculous. First, they cut Google Latitude. Next, they break Pre, and Palm has Pre synching with iTunes again in less than a day (I freakin' love Palm! haha). Apple needs to start counting their days. Phones are on the market that rival the iPhone, and their platforms are far more open and seamless than trying 200 times over months and months trying to get an app submitted to the Crap Store. Developers have increased the iPhone's functionality by ten fold, only to be rejected or cut from the 3.0 OS upgrade, for either 'using undocumented APIs' or some other bullshit, which directly translates into 'We're threatened by you because you've made a better version of x software for our phone than we ever dreamed possible, and we made the damn thing!'. There were 4 camera apps for the iPhone that got cut during 3.0 upgrade, which made the iPhone camera do more things than Crapple could even fathom. There was night vision, better quality video, all sorts of cool, revolutionary new features, which would have directly related to higher iPhone sales for Apple. These new camera features alone were enough reason to some users to break down and buy an iPhone. But oh no no, the most closed-minded company in the IT world couldn't handle it. Somebody else managed to make a better camera app than their standard camera app, and that just wasn't going to happen. They saw these apps as competing with their own. Developers have to literally jump through hoops to get an app submitted to the Crap Store, which is the ONLY way to get an app on the iPhone outside of the Enterprise License, with which you have to have over 500 employees to qualify for, and I don't think they've given any of those licenses out anyways. You can't load an app onto the iPhone if it isn't digitally signed by almighty apple itself. I'm sorry, but if I spend that kind of money on a smartphone or anything else, that thing is MINE, and I should be able to do what the hell I want to with it. I'm not renting it, I'm not leasing it, and I'm not trading the damn thing back in. I bought it, I own it, I should be able to put whatever app I want to on it. They could easily protect themselves by voiding the warranty/support if a user loaded a non-Apple supported app onto the phone, but noooo, they just won't let you do it at all. I can write an app right now, on my PC, and load it onto my Motorola Windows Mobile phone..as I could with virtually any other platform besides the iPhone. The iPhone got popular because it had more features than any other phone on the market did, but now that has changed. There are phones that do every single thing that the iPhone does, and most cases even better. These phones have wide open platforms, and are a joy to develop for. Apple, developers aren't going to waste the extra effort for forever. The day these newer phones crush the iPhone in sales (which won't be long, don't worry :P) the Crap Store will be empty. Personally, I can't wait. I won't lie, Apple does make some decent products (IMO, the iPod and iPhone only). The way they have them blocked in, however, will be the reason for their downfall, which mark my words, is coming. They just can't believe someone can do something better than them with the platform they built. Yes, Apple does have a monopoly - over the Crap Store. By them making the Crap Store the only possible way to load apps onto the iPhone, and with them being the sole judge of what apps get in or not, they have monopolized the hell out of the CRAP Store. Yes, I know, they own it..but how in the hell is it supposed to be a fair market for iPhone developers, when they have to compete with a company that can not only refuse their apps, but let their apps through, let the apps build up a huge userbase, and then pull the plug on them for bullshit reasons? Who in their right fucking mind would invest the time/money into developing an iPhone app? The only reason people do currently is because of the iPhone's popularity. That's it. Not because the like the device, or Apple, its because the iPhone is popular. As soon as this even threatens to change, developers will be bailing out of the Crap Store faster than the citizens of New Orleans during Katrina. If Apple took care of its developers, encouraged innovation, and opened up a bit, developers would stick with the iPhone platform through thick and thin. But that's never going to happen. The iPod is a damn good device. It's what brought Apple back onto the map, and it was revolutionary. I had one once upon a time, and I loved the thing. Its really sad that they have to ruin a great product because of how closed-minded they are. I should be able to use my iPod on whatever OS I want, and with whatever software I want. I bought this device, I own it. Apple might as well be a rental store the way they treat their customers. Crapple is a company of snobby control freaks, who will soon enough be leaving the game with a black eye. That will be a happy day for me.
st3fan 17y ago
Goodbye, Linux Hacker.

116 points by mrlebowski 17y ago

I'm a big fan of Apple, but this is ridiculous. Going to such extreme lengths in the name of what boils down to decreasing their customer base seems rather silly. God forbid someone use Linux and pay Apple for iPods.

crux 17y ago
This decision is exactly the same as dozens of decisions they've made in the past, all decried as patently ridiculous and self-destructive. Apple likes to sell self-contained systems, in order to make sure that everything works really well. In the iPod's case, they have an interest in being sure that iPods are only used with iTunes, because then they can ensure that it works well -- and so people won't complain about how lousy iPods are when they use it with other people's potentially lousy software. That's unfortunate for Linux users, because it's clearly not worth it to Apple to build a version of iTunes for GNU/Linux. But, you know, the iPod also doesn't play ogg files. So what are Linux users doing buying them in the first place?
- ars 17y ago
  I run linux, and I don't have a single ogg file for my music. Your argument about self contained would be good, except that it's not a case of apple not supporting other things, it's apple deliberately blocking them.
  - crux 17y ago
    I don't want to start any flamewars, but the assumption that the market leader can engage in a kind of mutualism and 'not support' a given device or OS while still leaving them open to interoperability displays the sort of cavalier attitude towards user experience that hobbles Apple's competitors. How many hacks that muck around in Apple's UX space do you think it would take for Apple to just sort of turn a blind eye to, before users starting accidentally wiping their iTunes libraries or bricking their iPhones? And how many proponents of said hacks do you think would argue that's an acceptable state of affairs?
    - jules 17y ago
      Do you want your TV manufacturer to build a steel cage around your TV because they're afraid that users will complain if they mess up their own TV. That would be ridiculous.
      - mechanical_fish 17y ago
        Do you want your TV manufacturer to build a steel cage around your TV because they're afraid that users will complain if they mess up their own TV. Bad metaphor. Suppose I lived in a world where, if my TV malfunctioned, it could break my phone and my web browser, send random emails to my relatives, riffle through my address book, and delete all the music I've bought over the last five years. Oh, and there are international criminal gangs who employ networks of botnets to attack my TV every fifteen seconds. In that world, I'd see a real use case for the steel-cage-equipped TV.
    - ars 17y ago
      Why should apple care? If someone mucks with their phone that's their own problem. Apple should simply ignore it: don't support it, and don't block it.
    - nailer 17y ago
      More people have bricked iPhones because of Apple's own actions (iPhone activation DRM) than any interoperability attempts.
- jules 17y ago
  Of course not. They're just making sure that you're using their software & brand. This also makes it harder to the music off your ipod, and into someone else's ipod. I'm surprised that Kroes hasn't jumped on this yet.
philwelch 17y ago
Apple would probably have to go to extreme lengths to guarantee interoperability. Breaking gtkpod is, even in this blog post, described as a side effect. I can't imagine Apple cares about gtkpod enough to purposefully break it.
TJensen 17y ago
The tech specs of the iPod never said it supported Linux. When you bought an iPod and decided you wanted to sync it with your Linux box, you stepped outside of the support box. That is not Apple's fault, that is your fault. (I should note, by "you" I mean "Linux fan who bought an iPod", not "you, tdavis" :). I didn't even consider an Apple product when I was running Linux because I knew it would be too much of a pain.)

crux 17y ago

Synopsis: Apple has never supported or particularly wanted third-party software or hardware to be able to interface with their systems. In the running skirmish that is trying to get said devices to work with said systems, Apple has once again made a change that breaks the jiggered compatibility. This guy doesn't use an Apple system, so he's not gonna buy another iPod. Well, that, plus a lot more drama and dramatic linebreaks.

Tichy 17y ago
I must admit I am a bit shocked by this, too. I just assumed the iPod would continue to work on Linux, as it worked pretty well so far.
ars 17y ago
That's a rather bad synopsis. Here's a better one: In a misguided attempt to lock people in, apple is blocking linux users, (and anyone else) from accessing their data on an iPod. Don't support 3rd party software? Fine. Actively block them? Not so fine.
- philwelch 17y ago
  I don't see where "actively block them" comes in. Changing the database format of your product is something you'd want the latitude to do. The fact that it breaks unsupported third party software is hardly something Apple would go out of their way to do.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Let's not be disingenuous; doing that concedes the point that breaking Pre's unlicensed, unauthorized iTunes connector was wrong. Apple is clearly going to keep breaking the Pre, and they're doing it on purpose.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      Yes, but iPhone syncing has the potential to transfer email account information, including passwords, making it a security hole for untrusted devices to be able to do it. In either case, while breaking Pre interoperability was likely intentional (and we've discussed this to death in other threads), Apple doesn't give a shit about gtkpod.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

I continue to be amazed at how people are willing to give Apple a pass on cutting off the Pre. Paticularly this guy who says he can "understand" Apple cutting off the Pre but then balks at Apple cutting off his music software. Monopolistic greed is understandable when it doesn't affect me seems to be the attitude (On that note I'm pretty sure Apple makes way more off iTunes than it does off the hardware at this point) As a customer who is paying for this music I should be able to sync it with whatever I want. I don't expect Apple to support the Pre but I think it's reprehensible to actively try to cut it off. (For the record I'm an iPhone 3GS owner who doesn't even like the Pre. I just don't want to be forced to use Apple products for the rest of my life just to keep my music)

allenbrunson 17y ago
Meanwhile, I am amazed that people are giving Palm a pass for the tactics they're using. They way they re-enabled iTunes sync is by changing their USB id to be the same as Apple's. If they wanted the Pre to sync to iTunes data, they should have written their own app that reads the user's XML file. It wouldn't have been that much work.
- joeyo 17y ago
  They way they re-enabled iTunes sync is by changing their USB id to be the same as Apple's. What about this do you find objectionable? Do you deplore reverse engineering too?
  - allenbrunson 17y ago
    It's treading where they are obviously unwanted. That's not a good way to do business or instill faith. About ten years ago, Be wanted to have BeOS be an alternative OS you could run on Macs. Be did in fact get the first version running okay. But Apple was in the midst of one of its big hardware changes, so Be needed tech docs for the motherboard to do a really good job of it. Apple never supplied that information. BeOS advocates at the time said: just go ahead and reverse engineer it. That's what the Linux people did. The powers that be at Be said: nope, we don't play that way. If Apple doesn't want us on their computers, then we're not going there. Be subsequently refocused on standard PC hardware.

arantius 17y ago

I got a Nokia N810 recently. With a hefty SD card it plays media very adequately for my needs -- and it does a whole lot more too! My iPod is starting to gather dust.

thenduks 17y ago

Wow, I don't get all of this. I use Ubuntu and have an iPod touch, it doesn't sync at all, total brick. But, obviously, I have a windows partition (or, sometimes, virtual machine) which I use to test in IE or play games, etc... So I just use iTunes there. Do people really add music to their libraries every day or something? I sync mine probably once a month, but I can see myself not being upset even if I had to do it once a week. Let's put things like this in perspective, shall we?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
asjo 17y ago
My perspective is: I do not have Windows on any of my computers (yes, that was, of course, my choice.) So your solution doesn't work. My solution is to not upgrade the OS on my generation 1 iPod Touch and use gtkpod. Not very sustainable in the long run, but almost acceptable.
- thenduks 17y ago
  Hey I'm no fan of Windows, but I really don't see what's so wrong with having a 2-3GB virtual machine around on an external hard drive or something so you can sync your iPod. Perhaps if you're that against Windows on some sort of fundamental level then the iPod is not an appropriate product for you? Or maybe it's time to get a Mac mini for a media center or something and it's problem solved from another angle.
royalpineapple 17y ago
yes, many people who enjoy podcasts are forced to sync their iPods as often as daily.
- thenduks 17y ago
  Then a virtual machine would be the obvious choice.

gabrielroth 17y ago

Apple has evidently made a decision to prevent iPods from working without iTunes, and to prevent iTunes from working with non-iPod audio players. We must assume that Apple's executives have weighed the pros and cons of this decision, and have decided that the pros (maintaining a reputation for a seamless experience) outweigh the cons (losing some sales to Linux owners, Palm owners, etc.). That's an ordinary business decision. "You'd think they would want to sell more iPods, not block a certain percentage of their market out," says mdeslaur in this post. Maybe the Apple executives have made the wrong decision for their company's bottom line, and maybe mdeslaur, and many of the commenters here, would have made a better decision that would have increased Apple's profits. But given that (a) they have access to a lot of data that you don't have, and (b) they're executives at Apple and you're not, I wouldn't bet on it.

sofal 17y ago
Good point. There is a difference between saying "Apple made a bad business move here" and "Apple crossed the line in my opinion and I will not buy from them in the future."

mrlebowski 17y ago

For a company that started off with the motive of making the cheapest and most usable computers, and that believed in sharing its design [from iWoz: the APPLE-1 architecture was made public], Apple has come a long way. They are successful, yes. Their products are good, yes. But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products [an iPhone 3gS with contract can cost you ~1000$ in the long run], which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] and are closely guarded. Apple, you make great products, but I am never gonna buy them, cuz then you'll want me to buy music just from you, use only your software, and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] !

jodrellblank 17y ago
But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products Their profitability demonstrates that this is false. People (lots of people) can and do afford their products. which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] To be able to dictate a minimum standard of user experience and to keep you tied into their ~$250/second profit supply. you'll want me to buy music just from you Want you to, yes, but you don't have to - iTunes has offered to import your CDs for ages, and you can put other music files into its library with click-and-drag simplicity. use only your software No - if they did there would be no iPhone app-store. It doesn't make sense - they want you to buy a Mac, so they want a compelling ecosystem of high quality programs of all kinds - from Omnigroup and Circus Ponies to FireFox and the gnu Utils. and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] Which take employees time and effort to develop - why should they be free?
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  @jodrellblank, I guess mrlebowski made those points(expensive, not work with anything else etc) not to claim they are intrinsically bad (which point you seem to be addressing) but as a contrast to how Apple used to work when it was founded. In other words, Apple's present behavior may be justifiable(like you say) and a change from how it used to work in the past (mrlebowski's point).
ubernostrum 17y ago
pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] ! I'm pretty sure it's been established at this point that the fees for iPod Touch software updates are due to Apple (after various scandals, including one in which they were involved) being extremely paranoid about accounting practices.

chaostheory 17y ago

I don't understand what the big deal is. If you don't like Apple's policies regarding their products there's a simple solution: buy something else. It's not like Apple has changed overnight. Just like Nintendo, Apple has been doing this for decades; this isn't some new shocker like the Kindle. In this day and age I have no idea why someone who primarily uses Linux would even bother using an iPod when there are good alternatives to Apple's "circle of one" products.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

jpierce420 17y ago

Good lord look at all the CRAPPLE fanboys out tonight!! I simply LOVED this blogpost, as it has confirmed what I've been saying for months. I'm also very glad to see some Apple-Opposers here as well, finally. The Apple-Fanboyism here has gotten a little out of hand. Anyways, Apple is freaking ridiculous. First, they cut Google Latitude. Next, they break Pre, and Palm has Pre synching with iTunes again in less than a day (I freakin' love Palm! haha). Apple needs to start counting their days. Phones are on the market that rival the iPhone, and their platforms are far more open and seamless than trying 200 times over months and months trying to get an app submitted to the Crap Store. Developers have increased the iPhone's functionality by ten fold, only to be rejected or cut from the 3.0 OS upgrade, for either 'using undocumented APIs' or some other bullshit, which directly translates into 'We're threatened by you because you've made a better version of x software for our phone than we ever dreamed possible, and we made the damn thing!'. There were 4 camera apps for the iPhone that got cut during 3.0 upgrade, which made the iPhone camera do more things than Crapple could even fathom. There was night vision, better quality video, all sorts of cool, revolutionary new features, which would have directly related to higher iPhone sales for Apple. These new camera features alone were enough reason to some users to break down and buy an iPhone. But oh no no, the most closed-minded company in the IT world couldn't handle it. Somebody else managed to make a better camera app than their standard camera app, and that just wasn't going to happen. They saw these apps as competing with their own. Developers have to literally jump through hoops to get an app submitted to the Crap Store, which is the ONLY way to get an app on the iPhone outside of the Enterprise License, with which you have to have over 500 employees to qualify for, and I don't think they've given any of those licenses out anyways. You can't load an app onto the iPhone if it isn't digitally signed by almighty apple itself. I'm sorry, but if I spend that kind of money on a smartphone or anything else, that thing is MINE, and I should be able to do what the hell I want to with it. I'm not renting it, I'm not leasing it, and I'm not trading the damn thing back in. I bought it, I own it, I should be able to put whatever app I want to on it. They could easily protect themselves by voiding the warranty/support if a user loaded a non-Apple supported app onto the phone, but noooo, they just won't let you do it at all. I can write an app right now, on my PC, and load it onto my Motorola Windows Mobile phone..as I could with virtually any other platform besides the iPhone. The iPhone got popular because it had more features than any other phone on the market did, but now that has changed. There are phones that do every single thing that the iPhone does, and most cases even better. These phones have wide open platforms, and are a joy to develop for. Apple, developers aren't going to waste the extra effort for forever. The day these newer phones crush the iPhone in sales (which won't be long, don't worry :P) the Crap Store will be empty. Personally, I can't wait. I won't lie, Apple does make some decent products (IMO, the iPod and iPhone only). The way they have them blocked in, however, will be the reason for their downfall, which mark my words, is coming. They just can't believe someone can do something better than them with the platform they built. Yes, Apple does have a monopoly - over the Crap Store. By them making the Crap Store the only possible way to load apps onto the iPhone, and with them being the sole judge of what apps get in or not, they have monopolized the hell out of the CRAP Store. Yes, I know, they own it..but how in the hell is it supposed to be a fair market for iPhone developers, when they have to compete with a company that can not only refuse their apps, but let their apps through, let the apps build up a huge userbase, and then pull the plug on them for bullshit reasons? Who in their right fucking mind would invest the time/money into developing an iPhone app? The only reason people do currently is because of the iPhone's popularity. That's it. Not because the like the device, or Apple, its because the iPhone is popular. As soon as this even threatens to change, developers will be bailing out of the Crap Store faster than the citizens of New Orleans during Katrina. If Apple took care of its developers, encouraged innovation, and opened up a bit, developers would stick with the iPhone platform through thick and thin. But that's never going to happen. The iPod is a damn good device. It's what brought Apple back onto the map, and it was revolutionary. I had one once upon a time, and I loved the thing. Its really sad that they have to ruin a great product because of how closed-minded they are. I should be able to use my iPod on whatever OS I want, and with whatever software I want. I bought this device, I own it. Apple might as well be a rental store the way they treat their customers. Crapple is a company of snobby control freaks, who will soon enough be leaving the game with a black eye. That will be a happy day for me.

st3fan 17y ago

Goodbye, Linux Hacker.