Why Apple is evil: Lying to their customers about the future of their products

Posted on

Today, we’ll have a more historical look at Apple’s evil actions.

In 1977, Apple released the Apple ][, the refinement of Steve Wozniak’s engineering into a more complete computer. This machine and its wide family of descendants were extremely popular for many uses, and were used in many schools across the US.

Prior to the 1980s, computers in the hobbyist market, what Apple knew, tended to last for a couple years on the market, and then were pushed out by the latest and greatest. Backwards compatibility wasn’t understood. So, Apple figured that by 1980, they would be dead in the water if they stuck with the Apple ][, hence a project to create both a short-term and a long-term successor, aimed at the business market.

These machines were the Apple /// and Lisa, both colossal failures in the marketplace, for different reasons. However, Apple decided to actively neglect the Apple ][ while developing the Apple /// – despite the Apple ][ Plus racking up massive profits for them, and funding all of the projects meant to kill it.

That’s not what’s evil, that’s just them not knowing better.

The Mac was eventually the ultimate successor to the Apple II line, although it had to push the wildly popular Apple II out of the way first. So, again, Apple started neglecting the Apple II, not giving it upgrades or promotion that it deserved.

Here’s where it got evil. Apple, knowing they were trying to kill the Apple II, started releasing the Apple II Guide. This was a series of guides listing all sorts of information about the Apple II, with statements that Apple had no plans to cancel the Apple II, to reassure customers. Problem is, they did that in the 1992 edition, right before cancelling all Apple II projects (and knowing they were going to do it.)

Way to abandon your loyal customers, Apple.

I’ll admit that I wasn’t around for this, but I’ve read a lot about it. If I’ve gotten some of my facts wrong, please comment, and I’ll correct it.

No specific source for today.

Why Apple is evil: They’re less secure than Microsoft products

Posted on

There’s not much to report here, other than security expert Marc Maiffret claiming that Apple appears to have a lax attitude towards security, and sticking with security through obscurity to avoid malware.

Sure, there’s not much malware for OS X now, but Apple’s lax attitude towards security (including leaving major Java vulnerabilities unpatched for six months) means that there’s not much security there if anyone does ever target OS X.

Like at Pwn2Own, where every year of the contest, Apple products got pwned – and from 2008 on, they were the first to fall.

Source: LA Times Blogs

Why Apple is evil: Political cartoons aren’t allowed, they might offend someone

Posted on

Never mind that you can get to this sort of thing on Safari… apparently political cartoons aren’t allowed on the iPhone.

Ridiculing public figures being defamatory? What ever happened to parody? Also, being public figures, IIRC, the level for whether the speech is defamatory is higher.

Now, one thing I’ll say… this would be a non-issue, of Apple deciding they don’t want to distribute it, if Apple allowed external software. But, Apple has control over what runs on the iPhone completely.

Yes, they are reversing their decision on this app, but only because of the public backlash. This is actually a good sign – public backlash against their actions, such as this series of blog entries, makes them respond. But, they’re obviously willing to do something if they think they can get away with it.

Source: Slashdot

Big Media wants to put spyware on your computer. Do something about it.

Posted on

The RIAA, MPAA, and other organizations want to install spyware to monitor your files, and use federal law enforcement agencies (PDF) to protect their revenue stream.

They don’t add value, they add cost, to benefit themselves, at the detriment of the artists that make the music, movies, and TV shows that you like. Problem is, people are beginning to realize this, and they don’t want to give up their dying business model – it works quite well for them. So, they’re buying laws to force people to keep paying them.

Sure, these laws won’t pass, they’re insane, but a watered down version, that looks sane in comparison, but is still quite insane, will likely be voted on, and passed. The politicians are in Big Media’s pockets.

So, what to do?

The answer is to take Big Media down.

Most people aren’t aware of what Big Media is doing, and I believe that if they were enlightened, they would at least reduce their content consumption, if not directly fight Big Media altogether.

The best way to make them aware? Get right out in front of them. Sure, the news media won’t pay attention, they’re part of Big Media as well. But, that’s not what will get people’s attention, anyway.

Big Media can’t stop people from picketing concerts and movie releases, as long as a place to do it without being on the concert venue or the movie theater’s property is available. So, picket. Organized protests around the nation. Get a group of people together, get a protest permit if it’s needed (PLEASE look up your local laws before doing this,) and picket, whenever a major concert occurs, or whenever there’s a movie release. Come up with catchy slogans that get the point across that Big Media wants to keep things locked up forever, they want to scan what’s on your computer to make sure that it’s all paid for (multiple times, in some cases,) they want to destroy fair use, and they want to sue you. Come up with a website with a short, easy to remember URL, to point people to.

Promote independent media – in fact, an interesting idea for a protest would be to have local independent performers perform at the protest, as an alternative concert. Pay them well, though. Entertain the people you’re trying to get this message out to, and they might just be more receptive.

If you think this is a good idea, reply to this. If you think this is a bad idea, reply to this. If you want to get started, definitely reply to this.

Technology is going backwards

Posted on

You might be confused by the title. After all, every few months, computers get faster and faster, and get more features.

So why am I saying that technology is going backwards?

Well, I should be more clear. It’s display technology that’s going backwards.

Let’s start with what you can get right now, brand new.

Right now, the highest resolution computer monitor that money can buy is an impressive 3840×2160. It’s a 56″ display, made by several manufacturers, although they’re all using the same panel, Chimei Innolux’s V562D1. It uses SMVA technology, which is a fine technology, and provides good viewing angles and color accuracy, although not the best (which is IPS.) That said, the cheapest I’ve seen them is in the $40,000 area, and 56″ is, quite frankly, huge. Continue reading “Technology is going backwards”

Why Apple is evil: Requiring specific programming languages to develop for iPhone

Posted on

Today’s “Why Apple is evil” entry deals with something that’s not quite news, but I wanted to cover it.

Apple is requiring that applications originally be developed in Objective-C, C++, C, or JavaScript (executed by Safari’s JS engine.)

This is intentionally used as a way to prevent certain companies from making tools for the iPhone platform.

Despite what you might think about Adobe (honestly, my opinion is that they’re the vile scum of the Internet, and Flash is worse than IE6, because at least there’s alternatives to IE6,) this is still rather troubling – the market should push Adobe out with superior solutions, not anticompetitive actions, especially when those anti-competitive actions have collateral damage, and severely negatively affect developers. Apple is now mandating the development process, not just what the program does.

Of course, in classic Apple fashion, they’re doing things horribly inconsistently – other development frameworks that clearly violate the agreement are being explicitly allowed, showing just how anticompetitive this is.

Waging a personal war is one thing. Waging a personal war using your developers and users as pawns is another.

Source: many, but I decided to post about this today because of The Register

Why Apple is evil: Banning apps for being potentially able to display objectionable content

Posted on

I’m going to start a regular series, hopefully daily, inspired by this article on OSnews.

My goal is to, every day, post a piece of bad PR, ideally sourced externally, about Apple. I intend to post other things on this blog as well – this will be in addition to my normal infrequent posting.

Let’s start this out with an app rejection. (A lot of these will be app rejections.)

Apple has rejected an app, “You Are Hot,” for containing objectionable content. Problem is, at the time of review, it didn’t contain any content. It allowed users to submit content, and that content was moderated to make sure it WASN’T objectionable.

So, by that logic, Apple should ban Safari from the iPhone. After all, it might potentially show a breast. And, by their logic, you wouldn’t even be able to slap WebSense in front of the internet connection to prevent that breast from showing – if it can show user-generated content, it’s objectionable, apparently.

Isn’t this what parental controls are for, if you’re using the walled garden app model?

Source: App Rejections

My ideas for open source licensing

Posted on

There’s been plenty of debate over open source licenses. The GPL forces freedom (and therefore isn’t freedom at all,) the BSD license arguably doesn’t provide “enough” freedom… so how about a compromise?

Start with a GPL-like license. Specifically make it GPL compatible, so that forks of the code can be made under the GPL, if the fork’s author so desires. However, only the fork’s author’s modifications will be GPLed, the rest of the code will be under this original license.

With this idea, the GPL-like license would have a “timebomb” in it. The length of the timebomb isn’t important, but IMO, it should be 5 years at the very maximum. (Then again, I think copyright should be at 5 years at the very maximum, as well as patents.)

Upon the timebomb triggering, code released 5 years (or whatever the length was) before the timebomb was set reverts to a BSD-like license. If someone is distributing code that they began using under the terms of the GPL-like license, they still need to abide by the GPL-like license (as that’s what they agreed to when they began distributing it,) but any derivative works originally released after the code they used expired could be completely under the BSD-like license, and anyone using the code from them would be under the BSD-like license.

That way, the GPL types get to force “freedom” for a limited time, before a certain piece of code reverts to actually being free. On the flip side, the BSD types get to allow true freedom (which includes allowing non-freedom) afterwards.

Thoughts? Questions?

What Apple used to stand for, and what they stand for today

Posted on

What they used to stand for: Clever hacks, exploration, creativity, making stuff, freedom, designed to benefit the hacker and the user

What they stand for today: Consumerism, restriction, walled gardens, control, designed to benefit the content producer

Best symbolism of the former? The Apple II. The lid isn’t even screwed down, just pops right off. BASIC, and in some versions (depending on available space,) an assembler and disassembler in ROM. Manuals with schematics and source code.

Best symbolism of the latter? The iPad. Sealed tight, Apple doesn’t even swap the battery, they replace the entire unit. Programming is only if you pay to play, and even then, your code has to be approved by Apple. Allegedly, DRM baked straight into the CPU, so Apple can in theory control every single piece of code that you run on it.

Which would you prefer?

Random rambling on user interfaces – part 1

Posted on

In my last entry, I linked to a music video of Every OS Sucks by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.

It’s really true, every OS does suck – both under the hood and at the user interface level.

I don’t feel qualified enough to comment extensively on the internals of various OSes, as I’m no programmer, but as a user, I (and any other computer user) work with UIs every single day, and I feel qualified to comment on that. I’ve used various graphical UIs in day-to-day use, primarily Windows (almost every version from 3.1 to 7, and I even used 1.01 daily for fun at one time,) but also Mac OS System 7.1 and X 10.5, IIGS System 6.0.1, KDE 3, GNOME 2, RISC OS 4 and 6, and CDE 1.5. I’ve also supported users of varying skill levels on Windows XP. I, however, am not a UI researcher.

This will likely be a multi-part series, hence “part 1.” I’ll be commenting on my opinions of what’s bad and good in a wide range of UIs. I might be able to tie this all together in something resembling a description of a good UI, I might not. If none of this makes sense, or if I’m flat-out wrong about something, please let me know in the comments.

So, let’s get the first thing out of the way: what is a good UI? A good UI is one that makes it as easy as possible to complete your computing tasks. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why is it so hard to make a good UI, then? Several reasons. Continue reading “Random rambling on user interfaces – part 1”