
The “walled garden” becomes a prison for reality - octopus
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3331?
======
billybob
One comment I found interesting:

"And I didn’t check the source [of OpenBSD] for trojans or backdoors. Do I
trust Theo DeRaadt that much? Not particularly, though I have nothing against
him. Do I trust “the community”? No. Mostly I just didn’t care at all."

I agree that in practice 1) it's not practical for anybody to audit an entire
OS for security and 2) you don't know everyone in the community.

However, I think it's reasonable to feel safer using software that's audited
and trusted by brilliant libertarian nutjobs than software that isn't. And if
you truly DID need to know that a product didn't contain back doors, and it
was worth enough money to you, you could hire people to audit it and stick to
the specific version that you'd audited.

Most people don't care about this stuff. But I like knowing that some people
do; that push come to shove, when your government becomes a tyranny, there ARE
tools that are beyond their reach. And in many parts of the world, tyranny is
not theoretical.

------
cageface
Hard to say if just filing a patent on this is a sign of any sinister intent
but I do agree with his earlier argument that Apple has placed its bets on the
big content cartels and the iPad is a delivery device for the products of
such. You could argue that iTunes has made self-publishing easier than before
but if you actually shop in the iTunes store all you're ever going to see is
Justin Bieber and American Idol and other major label garbage unless you
already know what you're looking for. Don't forget that Steve is on the board
of Disney.

Maybe it's slightly less user-friendly but a less centralized net is healthier
and more interesting in the long run.

 _Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety._

\- Benjamin Franklin

~~~
technoslut
Isn't it a bit much to say that Apple has sided against the consumer? They
certainly didn't do that with publishers when they wouldn't give up subscriber
data and they didn't show it with their constant battles with the music
industry and NBC.

Regarding music discovery on iTunes, it has always been the case that if you
want good music you're going to have to look for it. Popular music has always
been the easiest to find, be it on iTunes or your local record store. My main
concern is that iOS forces you to buy music only from iTunes.

As for the patent, Apple patents anything. It doesn't mean it'll ever see the
light of day. Some other ridiculous Apple patents:

Apple patent application reveals ad-supported OS, desktop Armageddon
[http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-
application-...](http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-
reveals-ad-supported-os-armageddon/)

Timely Apple Patent Introduces iMac-Like Docking Station
[http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-
apple/2008/01/timely-a...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-
apple/2008/01/timely-apple-patent-introduces-imac-like-docking-station.html)

Apple patent shifts controls to rear of iPod [http://www.slashgear.com/apple-
patent-shifts-controls-to-rea...](http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-
shifts-controls-to-rear-of-ipod-105191/)

~~~
billybob
Whether they'll do it isn't the point. If a patent is, by its nature, meant to
restrict user and citizen freedom, why have it?

If your neighbor collects guns, that may be no cause for alarm; hunting is a
legitimate activity. But if your neighbor stockpiles napalm, his saying "I
wouldn't use it" isn't very reassuring. _It has no purpose but to burn you to
death._

The only charitable reading I can see of this patent is that Apple patented it
to keep its evil competitors from using this. But that's highly dubious. If
that's what they wanted to do, they could have openly said so and immediately
donated the patent to the EFF or someone like that.

~~~
roc
Apple has a lot of legitimate IP business. They have in-house IP counsel. They
retain outside IP counsel. It's inevitable that this group and process has
grown into a bureaucratic fiefdom that exists to secure patents and trademarks
for their own purposes, regardless of their applicability to Apple's business
or plans.

That they pursued such a patent and retained it is evidence of little more
than the existence of a report somewhere that conflates the quantity of
patents to the effectiveness of the group.

I mean, what's really easier to believe? That a corporate group is following
the trajectory of every studied social construct of man [1]. Or that the only
consumer-focused computer maker is conspiring to shaft their paying customers
in deference to a (comparatively tiny) industry they've long treated with
borderline-contempt?

[1] becoming focused on its own interests at the expense of those it was
created to further

------
api
I'm starting to really dislike Apple for a number of reasons, but I can't
switch.

No, not can't, but it would be tough.

Why? Because nobody else cares about design or user experience. Apple is the
only company on Earth that can design a user interface, and their products are
the only well designed (read: minimal... in industrial design, minimal is a
synonym for good) products IMHO.

Everything else is covered by marketing-idiot-driven pimples like the
"ThinkVantage" button on ThinkPads, etc., and both Windows and Linux UIs are
horrible.

Edit: to clarify, what I'm really pointing out is that Apple has a near-
monopoly, and like any near-monopoly they are starting to leverage it in
disturbing ways.

Their near-monopoly is on good industrial and UI design.

~~~
lukifer
I've been an enthusiastic Apple user since around 1993, and I have tremendous
respect for their engineering and design. But IMHO, they've long since passed
the threshold for antitrust investigation. If I had my druthers, every device
manufacturer (including game consoles) would be federally mandated to offer
some way of sideloading software. Hell, at least let people run their own code
on it without having to buy a developer certificate!

As it stands, Apple has all the same incentives to behave badly as Microsoft
did in the 90s, if not more so.

~~~
jonhohle
But what do they have a monopoly on (isn't a monopoly required for antitrust
investigations in the US)? Good taste? Surely that's free for anyone.

~~~
halostatue
Monopolies aren't required for antitrust, but monopolies are watched more
carefully for antitrust violations. Antitrust is more about anticompetitive
behaviour than market monopolisation.

------
atacrawl
Until Apple releases hardware/software that turns this patent into a reality,
I'll leave the aluminum foil in my pantry.

~~~
cageface
What sense does this make as a defensive patent?

~~~
rmc
The optimist could say that this prevents any mobile phone device having this
feature, and hence Apple can defend the common man against opression.

~~~
cageface
That much trust in the altruism of any major corporation goes beyond anything
that could reasonably be called optimism. Is there any precedent in Apple's
patent history for this courageous leap of faith?

~~~
rmc
When it suits their interests it has been a boon to the general public. Their
refusal to 'licence' their DRM system used on iPods/iTunes, and their refusal
to allow another DRM system (as well as their own) on iPods meant that if you
weren't Apple and wanted to sell music, and didn't want to cut of 75% of your
customers (those with iPods), you _had_ to sell it in un-DRMed MP3s.
Admitidly, the only reason Apple did this was to support the sale of iPods,
but still.

~~~
cageface
So, not altruism.

------
billswift
Interesting. I submitted this 3 days ago. Isn't the software supposed to catch
duplicates that recent? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2662662>

ADDED: Thanks, it just occurred to me to check the URL and I noticed that.

~~~
Luyt
It was reposted with an extra question mark in the URL, that way the duplicate
detection was bypassed:

    
    
      http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3331?

------
brudgers
Restrictive licensing terms for software on the iPad &c. do not indict all
non-open source software. Apple's hardware based approach to limiting device
function is in many important ways less conducive to misuse than one based on
geolocation or device ID (not to suggest that it is a good thing) because it
does not rely on receiving and processing information about specific
individuals.

My wild ass speculation is that Apple's research in this area may be a result
of the popularity of their devices within the US military for whom the
capability to affect function at a distance would have meaningful tactical
application and for whom it would make sense to fund the underlying research -
it is difficult to see a significant revenue stream for Apple from the
commercial market given the many alternatives to Apple's products for illicit
recording of performances.

------
Tichy
Since buildings and items can also be copyrighted, would it be a stretch to
add recognition software to the photo app, so that you can't take a snapshot
in front of a copyrighted building or teapot anymore?

Personally I'd say, let's blow up all the copyrighted buildings and things
(and erase copyrighted videos, books and music). Since I am not allowed to
process their existence in any meaningful way, I'd rather they don't exist at
all.

~~~
codingthebeach
Or a widely-available portable shunting device that broadcasts the "no video
recording" code within a certain range. Attach a unique ID to each device.
Create a bureaucracy to handle the registration and geolocation of such
devices. Schools, libraries, govt offices, would all be equipped with them.
Make possession of a jailbroken recording device in these areas a felony, of
course. And equip the police with mobile versions so they can create a "cone
of silence" around incidents and arrests, putting a stop to those pesky police
brutality vids that keep popping up on YouTube.

------
samlevine
Most consumers don't care about negative liberty, they care about positive
liberty.

You want people to have more freedom? Build a better phone than an iPhone with
a more convenient platform to get software and media with better support,
better stores to buy them in, etc.

------
omouse
so the "extremist" Richard Stallman was right all along?

------
ChrisLTD
Luckily Apple is patenting this technology, so folks with other makes of
camera phones wont have these restrictions.

------
napierzaza
I haven't jail broken in a while because I don't have a need for tethering. If
I go on a trip where I need it I will JB. And if Apple ever does this I will
JB it too. If they somehow prevent JB'ing I will switch to another device.

~~~
bad_user
The danger with this mentality is that you are still their customer, making
them more powerful, giving them more control.

And when you'll switch to that other device, it may be too late to do that, as
you won't be able to find a suitable device in a world where (a) Apple has a
monopoly on such devices or (b) everybody else mimics them, yielding similar
control over you.

Vote with your wallet, buy Android phones with unlocked bootloaders.

------
scythe
>Demand Android in your phones

Is it just me or is this not a sufficient demand? If we are to live in a truly
open world, we need software which is truly Free, not something which is
developed on top of open-source.

Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X. It is confusing to see
people count adoption of Chrome as a victory for the open-source community
when frankly it seems like anything but.

~~~
bad_user

        we need software which is truly Free
    

What is " _Free_ "?

According to the FSF definition, Chromium is as Free as it gets, with Chrome
being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs
(which Google moved to eliminate with WebM).

Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat.

    
    
        Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X
    

That's bollocks and you're either trying to spread FUD or you don't know what
you're talking about.

If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code
of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top
of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have
(and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a
legal manner on top of non-Apple computers.

~~~
scythe
>Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary
codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM).

It does not matter: would Stallman use Chrome? Chromium, like Darwin, is
indeed as Free as it gets.

>Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat.

RHEL is fully Free, and can be recompiled at leisure, cf. Scientific Linux and
Oracle Linux. It is not quite analogous.

>If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code
of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top
of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have
(and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a
legal manner on top of non-Apple computers.

Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X?

~~~
bad_user

        RHEL is fully Free
    

No it's not, the brand Red Hat is protected by trademarks and there's a
license involved if you want to use software branded as Red Hat, a license for
which you have to pay for. You also cannot redistribute RHEL, having many
restrictions one would expect from proprietary software.

Also, only Red Hat, the company, gets to make releases of RHEL and only that
company gets to decide what to include in that release. RHEL is commercial
software and it makes no guarantees on whether you'll end up using only free
software or not (unless you're paying close attention), although the process
itself for the RHEL snapshot is fairly transparent and you can inspect what
goes in and out of such a release.

What sets Red Hat apart from others in regards to open-source is their
handling of in-house developments - they are one of the biggest contributors
to Linux and they are giving back both through up-stream and through Fedora,
not to mention they aren't very upset about CentOS.

Chrome to RHEL and Fedora to Chromium couldn't be more analogous, although I
have to agree, Google doesn't play very well with upstream (but that's not a
political issue, Google engineers are just stubborn).

    
    
        Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X?
    

Indeed, who said you were?

