4 ms·

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 sill

by 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.)

by tdavis 17y ago

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.)