That's because you don't see the internals of what iSoftware does to your PC. The article states: "Microsoft uses software with backward names like Windows Genuine Advantage to inspect the contents of users' hard drives. The licensing agreement users are required to accept before using Windows warns that Microsoft claims the right to do this without warning." So how in the world is this any different than Apple constantly scanning my hard drive with iTunesHelper.exe and QTTask.exe? These little nasties clandestinely reconfigure themselves to load on startup after being explicitly turned off through msconfig (unknown tool to the average user). They send similar information to Apple all the time. And what about Apple restricting the movement of iTunes files that you purchased?? Offering a price hike imposed on users to buy your way out of this ridiculous restriction hardly makes it noble.
@ exes on Windows, fair enough - I have no knowledge of them. Only iTunesHelper runs in OSX and it is easily stopped from starting, should you choose to. AFAIK, neither iTunes or QTTask pass anything to Apple that is specific to you. Neither has been identified as adware or spyware.
@ price: who said anything about noble? But what are you asking for exactly? You're saying that the 29c bump they had to impose so that you could go DRM free was Apple's idea? (Well, perhaps it was - because they could not the their content providers to give them DRM free stuff... so the negotiation point was to pull it through the noses of users). There is a payoff/buyout/cost of business when you want content. That's the price for getting content that is without DRM, through the iTunes channel. If you don't like it, purchase through Amazon. Or Napster. Or any number of other services. There is no requirement for you to submit yourself to Apple's (iyv) onerous restrictions.
"Viable list of substitute Macs anyone?" The question is for you. Of course other computers exist, along with other electronic devices. It's a gray area that requires monitoring and constant reevaluation. Apple does in fact have some elements of a monopoly and therefore should have some level of monopolistic behavior checks wouldn't you agree?
No, I reject that Apple has any kind of monopoly. Until 3 years ago(ish) the primary argument was (not yours, general threads), "Why would you want to purchase something from such a bit-player? they should just fold up the tents and go home." They have a powerful hold on the market because they are such good marketers and their products are great. But that does not make a monopoly. You are free to purchase any number of computers, phones, OSs, software, TV add-ons, you name it from any number of vendors. You have *zero* restriction that says you must purchase Apple. The only monopoly is on cool: if you want to have THAT STUFF, you need to purchase it from Apple. But (according to unfanbois) every single bit of Apple's capabilities are overpriced and can be had better faster cheaper elsewhere. That's why you shouldn't purchase an Apple. Well, I submit that you can't have it both ways. It's either shite that is all hoopla, a bit player and does not dominate or monopolize the industry, or it's fantastically great - so much so that it cannot be competed with, yet is a bit player and does not dominate or monopolize the industry.
I'd really like to hear how you'd define Apple as, "one of the worst."
When I worked at Motion Works and built a video and sound editor using Microsoft Video to mimic the features of their already released Mac version using Quicktime I developed a new perspective of how Apple tries to dominate standards. Granted it's an anecdotal example and mainly relates to their ferocious history of trying to Quicktime the world. But as horrible as MS Video was, Microsoft actually was behaving more openly than Apple was. Just the annual fee to be privileged to develop to the internals of the Mac was disgusting enough. But I think we've even discussed this and I remember you agreed about the Quicktime thang.
Apple really got it when they moved to a BSD base. Their systems were all proprietary, language was horrible and it did cost to get a license to develop. Now, since they were beyond a bit player, and it was clear that their closed-ness was only damaging them, not me, and the net affect was simply ridicule. The market took care of this for us and them. The majority of all that was ground out over the last 5-8 years. There is no fee to develop for Apple. All of their code, their IDE and trap kits and documentation are available for the simple cost of your email address. You don't even need to purchase a compiler, because under the hood of their X-Code IDE it's using GCC.
1'st place for blame is the content providers, of course. 2'nd place is the people who buy into it (MS/Apple) funding it's existence.
Fair enough, although in light of the fact that someone's going to make money from it, they probably saw a path to working their way in first, then doing whatever they could later. It certainly seemed to me, over the course of the last 4 years, that Apple has been trying to move this direction (no DRM) for a long time and has been stonewalled. Now: if they did not get into the market until after that was sorted, they'd be way behind. Or even more to the point, if they couldn't get enough PowZoom to crank on the arms of the suppliers, perhaps it'd never happen. This is all crystal ball shit though, for both you and I since we were not in the board rooms.
But second, and much more importantly, why should all software be free?
I have no idea, but if I personally thought
all software should be free I'd state my case
But foundational software such as the OS and ubiquitous business software that's essentially required to compete (like Office) most definitely should have free options available. Charge for whatever you want - especially helpful,
elective software - but don't handcuff the public with a purchase "requirement"
But why? Why MUST it be free? clearly, people have the option of Open Office. They have the option of Linux. They have the option of MySQL, Apache and PHP. They DO NOT NEED APPLE. Yet the argument is that Apple or MS must be made to be free as well. Here then, to the core of my argument: I have been a nix guy for a long time and am reasonably good. Almost all my servers are varieties of nix. Yet I choose to spend big dollars on Mac stuff. Why? Because the differential is worth the money! I have the option to do everything I could possibly want to do in *nix (and I have, not just could) ... so why does Apple need to release everything for free? The deal to me is that *nix blows as a desktop system compared to the Mac. It may not to you or VS. Fair enough, that's the beauty of all this. But I am willing to pay money to promote a company that creates what I consider to be industrial art. Others feel the same about Windows. Nuts tells me that Win7 is just going to be killer. That took a lot of time, money, engineering etc etc etc to create. Does MS not deserve money for that? I may not like the product, but I totally get why they need to charge for the thing.
I believe you've mistaken mine since I agree about doctors, though I realize it's just my own limited experience. The point is the comparison to MS/Apple, specifically the assertion that they are doing what they see is best, unless you mean as it relates to maximizing profitability. Everything else is a pile of meringue. Microsoft and Apple "doing their best" on security without profit as their primary motivator?? Am I missing something here?? Regardless that we disagree about them (or just Apple) doing their best the vast majority of the time, in a closed and profit maximized system it's impossible to not jeopardize the security of users since there's nothing but the steady heroin drip of updates to help you. Then there's the people about to get Snow Leoparded and will be forced to buy new software and hardware from Apple or fade into supportless obscurity. Microsoft is just as ambivalent in this regard.
Oh I absolutely agree - it is all about profitability. The point here is that if something is deemed insecure, and people can't do their banking on it, it will be spanked hard in the market (as we've seen with Windows) and profitability goes down. The (rather bombastic) statement in the 7 sins is that there is a crime of ommission or a concerted effort to avoid deploying security measures. I asserted simply that A) I think it's too hard for them to do it right and B) they'll not do it if it does not affect them. So it IS important to raise the roof when something's amiss, but it's a bit overblown. And I do believe that there are good people at MS that are trying to do the right thing. I SERIOUSLY doubt that if an engineer came up and said, "Wow - we've got a serious hole here, it's really nasty." They'd shut him down and bury it. They may not tell the world while they try to buy some time to get around it, but I really, really doubt that the Redmonders are that insidious.
I mean, we could argue that the very creating of Windows created a threatening environment for users because it enabled internet banking. But at that point we need to talk about the developers of asphalt and the scourge called "roads" which facilitate the most dangerous things in the US today.
LOL - Support = $
@dogmatic extremity; point taken and I'll eat the zealot alert cookie. I'm part of the free software overpush problem, not the solution
When you've got your zealot hat on it's nobel and you're in the right place. I have no argument with the essence of the cause and in fact find it nothing but excellent for the future of software in general. And it needs folks like you to be advocating it, or it will go nowhere.
Thank goodness we're on the same side of the aisle re. healthcare
