You must have read that sentence too fast. I never said it was a "crime and a travesty", I said it is a travesty that they have made it a crime. See the Psystar case for reference if you need an example. There are others as well ala Apple's reaction to the OSX86 project.
Well, first off Apple has not made anything a crime. The law was written and Apple is adhering and using it. I have no sympathy at all for Psystar because they essentially want to sell their hardware on the back of Apple’s hard work with the OS. In fact, I find them a rather skeevy parasite TBH. In what universe should they be able to sell their hardware and make a profit off Apple’s hard work? The OS rules are clear – it’s for use on Apple’s hardware only. I don’t take away from anyone that would not purchase Apple because of their licenses, but equally, I don’t have any sympathy for folks that want to unjustly take advantage of another entity either.
And I have put some stock in the power of markets before, it's true. Apple and Microsoft can do whatever they want, doesn't mean I have to buy their software. My mission is not to tell Apple and Microsoft how to behave in an ethical way, it is to inform people about the current unethical practices that go on with software licensing, like the concept you enumerate below about lack of ownership. You may have written the software, but if I install it on my machine then *this particular iteration of 1s and 0s* belongs to me, and I ought to be able to do what I want with it - that includes upgrading and installing patches OR NOT[/b], as well as installing it on whatever I want to install it on. I believe in the concept of ownership. I'm not leasing Apple's software from them when I buy it, and if I am, then they should tell me so up front (on the front of the box, even) so I know not to even bother.
Here is the crux of where we disagree – first, I don’t see “unethical” as the appropriate word here. This is business we’re talking about, not the secrets of life. I don’t see their (arguably overly rigid) rules as being unethical at all, I see them as being a mechanism that they think they require to hang on to as much market share as possible. The purchasing power of the masses will denote whether their gamit is a good one.
Second, I do not believe in the concept of ownership for software, just as I do not believe in the concept of ownership for media. When I purchase a book, I cannot duplicate it or resell, republish or ANYTHING without written consent. Software falls into the same rule book. I have no problem with this at all. I can take that book and read it as many times as I want, I can even resell it … but here’s the rub: I am reselling both the media (pages, binding, cover, printing of words) and the content (the essence of the words, not the printed word itself) together. I cannot make copies of the pages and resell them, I am REQUIRED BY LAW to resell that book as a whole and unaltered entity. The analogy is actually quite perfect for Apple. I can resell my machine, take it anywhere you name it. But I do not have the right to “part it out” and sell it as I want to. The hardware and software must go together.
I think this is well within the notion of intellectual property rights laws.
At times I think their iTunes store rules border and completely absurd
That border was crossed a long time ago. DRM, in any form, is absurd. By definition.
Wasn’t talking about DRM for tunes I was referencing the rules placed on resellers for iPhone apps. Kludgy and weird rules. But, it’s their store, their phone hardware. They’ll succeed or not.
they look utterly disorganized, cliquish and petty. But it's their store. It's not a crime that they behave this way - the market will have a Darwinian, Come To Jesus moment with them at some point.
Most likely not. Markets only work if you're not the only player in them. iTunes is too intertwined with the iPod.
The purchase of content goes WAY beyond iTunes IMO … and they have a tenuous and probably fleeting grip in the grand scheme of things. They’ll adapt and adjust to consumer will or they’ll fail.
Certainly not. You've often espoused the argument that Apple computers are good for grannies or whatever. I'm merely saying that I cannot help the fact that I automatically class people who would willfully remain ignorant of something - like how to use a computer - as less deserving of my respect. I have taught myself not to act on those thoughts, but it's hard not to think them. Also for clarification, it is not those who wish to learn and are merely not at the same skill level as I am that I am talking about here. It is people who don't know or care to be informed - so they buy a Mac (or a computer with Windows). I'm also not interested in defending the thoughts and feelings represented in the previous paragraph, I'm just being brutally honest about the way I view the world. I know it's not helpful in evoking feelings of compassion for my fellow man - feelings which I already do feel in spades, in spite of any arrogant attitudes on my part.
Ah. May I simply suggest that the erosive qualities of life and the challenges that lie ahead for you and your sweetie will assist with some of those perceptions. I understand them only too well I’m afraid, only too well. And life assisted me in understanding that respect was due others regardless of my understanding their actions or motivations. Or at least I’d arrogantly like to believe that I finally understand …
Finally, a response to your first post:
First off, you're right that I must clearly be more comfortable than you that Steveo is not receiving my keystrokes every night. But that is also because I know there are a lot of people (like me) using Little Snitch and watch every network interaction that they do not explicitly approve of with a jealous eye. I have a reasonably high level of paranoia and it is satisfied by my own, and other people's data. I also feel pretty damn secure that if there was even the hint that data was moving out of my Mac uninvited there'd be a shitload of devs and super users that would both take Apple to task and dump the machine like a hot potato.
But more importantly, I find your position at odds with itself. If all software should be open and reviewable to handle the more paranoid of us, then irrespective of the fact that your software was written in a proprietary language, it should be reviewable so that we know you're not using the proprietary language for ill purpose. Regardless of the syntax or structure of the language used, according to your outline, I should be able to review it or outsource reading it so that I can be assured that you are not a bonehead (I know you're not, that's not the point).
My point is that you felt, for any number of reasons, that releasing the code was either non-important, or important to you, or for WHATEVER reason, that's how it went. I am completely in support of this. It's your stuff, it's your right to do what you want. When I "buy" your software, I really am not buying it - I am leasing it. I don't get resale rights. Software is very different than hardware ... you know this. Even open source software STILL comes with a license. It's not "mine." I can do what I want to it personally, but not redistribute.
See, I am 100% in favor of companies reserving the right to show you ANYTHING about their software. Buy it, use it, that's it. I am also 100% in favor of you NOT purchasing something because you find the laws/usage rights/closed sourceness of an app to be beyond your comfort level. But I am not in favor of enforcing that either of you (company or consumer) are required to do anything more specific ... like, "all software should be open sourced." Or, "you must purchase software that is not open sourced."
The reality (from my perspective) is that there will always be software that probably should be locked down tight ... because the notion was a stroke of brilliance yet is easy to copy ergo, pirates could suck all the air away from your stroke of brilliance and take away what should be yours. Equally, there's plenty room for what you describe: the notion is so difficult, so complicated and huge that no one is going to steal it, and it benefits greatly from being in the public realm. I find there to be excellent reasons on both sides of the coin - which is why I'd fight 100% for the protection of open source rights and non-ownership, just as I'd fight 100% for the notion of 100% copyrighted and locked down warez.
Call me a progressive capitalist