

Jon Stewart assails Apple for becoming "Big Brother" - anderzole
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/60621

======
siculars
I'm really with Stewart on this one. Both in that I love Apple products and
that I think Apple is becoming "The Man" they used to rail against. Can you be
a dominant player and not be "The Man"? Well, I think Google is making a good
go of it.

For what it's worth I'm going to Google I/O this year and not WWDC. Market be
damned, my philosophy compels me to seek out open. And nowadays Google is out-
opening Apple.

~~~
ThomPete
Googles business model requires openes I really don't think it's fair to
compare the two. Apple sell products, google sell advertising. Apple is
dependent only on their own ecosystem, google on the entire Internet.

I would be much more worried about the data that google collects about you
than apple. And let's not forget that google is not more open than you don't
know exactly how their search algorithms work and have no saying on the
premises used to rank you.

~~~
Retric
I think Google is in a much more big brother relationship with it's users than
Apple is. Apple restricts it's HW and what can run on it, but it does not keep
track of it's Users.

IMO, Apple is really much more Disneyland where everything is expensive, looks
nice, and is under their control. Also working as a vendor at Disneyland
really sucks and involves a lot of rules which can change at any time. But,
Disneyland only has the power to kick you out not hand out details of your
private life.

PS: I used to develop for Mac OS 8 and while it sucked for a completely
different set of reasons it still sucked. I don't think Apple really
understands how important developers are because they tend be the first mover
and don't have to work to get them.

~~~
eavc
But iAds changes this. Google only cares about your info to better target you.
Now Apple has an ad platform and will want to do the same.

~~~
jshen
"Google only cares about your info to better target you"

so far

------
gizmo
Hmm, I think Jon took a few too many creative liberties here for the sake of
entertainment.

1\. According to Gizmodo the door was broken in because the journalist wasn't
at home. He was having dinner in a restaurant, arrived later when the search
was already in progress. The authorities acted respectfully with his
belongings, etc. There is a huge difference between ringing the bell a few
times and breaking the door when nobody answers and driving a truck through
the front door at 60MPH, just because you can. Jon suggests the latter
approach was taken.

2\. He said that Apple claimed the prototype wasn't theirs, and that they
didn't want it back. Comedy Central completely made this up! Apple definitely
wanted the device back the moment it got lost.

3\. Stop hammering on the "THEY BROKE THE DOOR!" bit. It's completely standard
police practice, and it's not the Wrath Of Jobs.

That said, it goes without saying that Apple isn't the little guy anymore, and
calling out Apple for its Big Brother tendencies is completely fair.

~~~
rayval
The matter was not something that needed to be attended to at 9:45 pm on a
Friday night. They could have done it during business hours. Actually, they
did not even need to visit the premises. They could have used a subpoena.

~~~
mbreese
_They could have used a subpoena_

If you're investigating a possible crime, you don't say "Hey, at your
convenience could you get us your computers for us to look at?" You get a
warrant and take the computers as soon as possible.

You can argue whether or not the warrant should have been issued, but once it
was, the rest of the raid seemed pretty standard.

~~~
sophacles
Not really. People get arrested for old oustanding warrants all the time,
search warrant backlogs are pretty common. In fact, in general it is a good
idea to back off a bit. It creates a false sense of security in the suspect,
allowing better effectiveness when warrants are served, due to suprise. I know
there is a "but they will destroy the evidence" protest, but in most cases, by
the time a warrant is available the evidence will either be long gone, or
completely overlooked (the stupid factor), this is one of those cases, he had
plenty of time to wipe relevant drives between the announcement of a police
investigation and the warrant serving.

The use of a raid force on a person who is not known to be violent and/or
uncooperative is just excessive.

------
hkuo
This actually saddens me on Jon Stewart's part. I'm a huge fan of his with his
ability to report the more truthful side of politics. This lessens his
credibility to me since his facts are misrepresented or missing. He completely
ignores the "finder's" role in this and his not-so-secret desire to make money
on his discovery, and fails to address the moral obligation on Jason Chen's
part as a professional journalist, all for the purposes of making Apple look
like the only bad guy here. Ergo, all for the purposes of making a "funnier"
bit for the purposes of entertainment.

Additionally, his jab at Gray Powell joking that he was using the iphone to
pick up chicks takes the cake. Completely false and misleading! I think Jon
Stewart needs to take a look in the mirror on this one.

~~~
rosshudgens
This is the problem with Jon Stewart's platform. People take it too seriously.
Stewart has explicitly said that taking him seriously is a misstep - don't. He
is going to say some poignant, legit stuff, but if you take it as a
comprehensive take on the news, you're doing him a disservice.

~~~
hkuo
True. Good point. I suppose my main disappointment is in the fact that he has
generally had a good track record of distilling complicated things down to
common sense "no-duhs". But he's failed at this in this case, to me at least.

------
ahk
What a turnaround! Just a few days ago everyone was highly sympathetic towards
Apple losing one of their most valued secrets (not really all that much
though) and boycotting Gizmodo and everything. Now with even Jon Stewart
mocking them, calling them Big Brother and asking them to look in the mirror,
this has turned into a major PR disaster for Apple. IMO, if they don't respond
quickly and positively, this could turn out to be the point where they start
losing the coolness/"with it" factor.

~~~
sgman
Judging from their past actions, I don't think they really care about the PR
effect of this.

~~~
jkincaid
I disagree. They don't care if a bunch of Apple fanboys or tech bloggers get
upset about something, because the general public usually won't notice.

Daily Show gets watched by a more mainstream audience, and I suspect it's a
demographic that plays a big part in making Apple's products popular.

~~~
jsz0
It's definitely a more mainstream audience but The Daily Show, popular by
cable TV standards, only gets about ~1 million viewers per episode or 10% the
number of people who bought an iPhone in Q2 2010, or about 1% of the people
who own an iPhone/Touch since its launch. So I guess my point is we're still
talking about a very small audience.

------
snewe
Direct link:

<http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes>

~~~
slantyyz
For Canadians, that link won't work, but this one will:
[http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Displayblog.aspx?bpid=a346dad...](http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Displayblog.aspx?bpid=a346dad3-3f45-4a69-8273-d18ac1fdab7e)

------
pkaler
There are a couple errors in Jon Stewart's reporting. We don't know if the
phone was lost or stolen.

If it was stolen then Gizmodo has broken the law.

If the phone was lost and Gizmodo did not attempt to return the phone then
Gizmodo has broken the law.

It appears that Apple reported the lost/stolen phone to the DA. We don't know
when. It may have been before or after the story broke.

Frankly, this whole story is overblown. It should strictly be a legal matter
but it has turned into a TMZ/Valleywag story.

~~~
cookiecaper
Are there laws against attempting to return the lost after you've taken
photographs of it? They did return it, they just took some pictures first.

~~~
Locke1689
There are laws against knowingly buying stolen property or property known to
belong to someone else.

------
mrscotchboy
In classic Jon Stewart fashion, he reemed Apple...major points for "minority
report" and telling them to knock down AT&T's door...that's what they SHOULD
be doing!

~~~
RodgerTheGreat
"Reamed"?

~~~
mtinkerhess
Are you correcting the spelling or asking for a definition? Urban Dictionary
has definitions for both spellings.

------
thought_alarm
Apple control the police? And the courts?

~~~
xenthral
control is such a nasty term. Steer, like a kindly ship captain.

------
jimmyjim
Video seems to have been removed. Here's at least one direct link:
[http://www.cultofmac.com/jon-stewart-rips-apple-for-
iphonega...](http://www.cultofmac.com/jon-stewart-rips-apple-for-
iphonegate/40710)

~~~
noilly
straight from horse's mouth

<http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes>

starts in earnest around ~2:00; probably region locked

------
wtn
AT&T, Google, and Facebook know 100X more about me than Apple.

~~~
cookiecaper
How is this relevant to the video? He didn't claim that Apple had any personal
information on its users.

It sounds like you're bringing up an unrelated point to deflect attention from
Apple's actions. That is not appropriate!

~~~
BRadmin
I don't believe he's giving an opinion about Apple's actions, rather the
accuracy of calling them "Big Brother" in light of the fact that other
companies maintain a lot more information about their users than Apple does.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
The Big Brother analogy isn't about how much _information_ you collect, it's
about how much _control_ you assert.

~~~
stcredzero
Actually, ubiquitous surveillance was a big part of the Big Brother apparatus
in 1984.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Of course, but the surveillance was mandatory and its purpose was to control
the public by identifying, suppressing and silencing nonconformists.

------
paulgb
Canada link to video: [http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-
jon-ste...](http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-
stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---
april-28-2010/#clip294011)

------
monkeygrinder
Shame, I can't see this video from UK. 'Not available in your country'. Still
don't understand the reasoning behind regional limits on online video - esp as
it airs on TV.

~~~
cmang
I think it may have to do with advertising targeting different regions. If
they're advertising something you can't buy in your country, then what is the
advertiser paying for?

~~~
monkeygrinder
Still, they can change the ad - based on your IP address. No, it's up to the
content owners. Luckily i've found a workaround:
[http://www.labnol.org/internet/video/youtube-blocked-
video-n...](http://www.labnol.org/internet/video/youtube-blocked-video-not-
available-in-your-country/2680/)

~~~
cmang
Sure, but that assumes they have ads or ad providers for your region. What if
they don't? Then who pays for it?

Just a guess, really.

------
schmidp
While the facts don't work out, am I the only one who enjoyed the clip?

I think it's hilarious and I he pretty much gets the fear/thoughts of many
Apple fans/developers/users.

------
wan23
Am I the only person who thought that whole sketch was an ad that Apple
probably paid for? Stewart never said anything bad about the products, and in
fact every 20 seconds said something about how awesome they were. Plus he had
an iPad on screen for a good two minutes.

~~~
mdg
To my knowledge[1], Apple never pays for product placement.

[1] read something online somewhere once.

~~~
danudey
That wouldn't surprise me to find out. I've seen a lot of shows that use Mac
laptops (e.g. How I Met Your Mother), but the logo is always covered. I guess
the laptops look nice, but they don't want to give free advertising to Apple.

~~~
mdg
This is strictly my opinion speaking, but the Macbook looks like the "default"
laptop. Much like how the "default" video game controller was the old school
NES controller (but probably has since been replaced with the ps2/3
dualshock).

------
xenthral
Awesome, they recorded the gizmodo website shot (2:17) with firefox :)

------
ronaldj
This is great. Apple isn't the company I fell in love with. Can anyone say
that this still represents the Apple we know today:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USn5t5nQWU8>

~~~
andreyf
_You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the
only thing you can't do is ignore them._

Sounds like the Apple I know and love allright :)

~~~
nir
Yeah, also fits Wal Mart, Microsoft, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs...

------
GHFigs
Why do so many people seem to fixate on the door?

~~~
JCThoughtscream
Doors and locks are deeply ingrained symbols of privacy and access. The police
busting down his door is, as Stewart notes, behavior we expect for /meth
labs/, not bloggers.

~~~
jrockway
Yeah, but he paid for a stolen phone!!! BURN HIM! HE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!

~~~
JCThoughtscream
And to play devil's advocate on /this/ side of the debate, paying for property
of dubious ownership is considered a crime unto itself, and for pretty good
reason.

Journalists aren't so heavily protected by shield laws that they can break
crimes willy-nilly in pursuit of a story. Or any regular old story. It's one
thing to break open Watergate - it's another entirely to buy a phone from a
guy that they know doesn't have legal ownership of it, all for the sake of
one-upping everybody else for the /review of a commercial product/.

It's arguably pretty bad precedent to just let it be. While Apple's, and the
police's, actions have been comically overblown, /so was Gizmodo's/. If
/nothing/ else, they really ought to be eating crow for engaging in sleazy
checkbook journalism.

~~~
jrockway
The movie scene I was referencing describes the situation exactly. Someone
does something mildly bad and technically illegal, and a crowd forms that
wants to kill for the sake of killing.

He gave back the phone. Give him a month probation or whatever, but don't take
everything he owns.

------
adolph
The word according to Jon: it can't be a criminal act if you blog about it
afterward.

------
hailfawebbe
Daily Show really dropped the ball on this one.

Got the facts all wrong and didn't even mention how sleazy Gizmodo was in this
ordeal.

For shame.

<http://bolcroatia.com/>

------
jrockway
_Microsoft was supposed to be the evil one. But you guys are busting down
doors in Palo Alto while Commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes!
What the fuck is going on?! It's all mixed up!_

At least Apple doesn't charge you $80 to change your desktop background on a
netbook. But otherwise, I agree.

Apple is hurting the field -- locking down hardware, mandating woefully
outdated legacy programming languages, and specifically crippling their
hardware and software. Microsoft, on the other hand, is not nearly so bad. At
least they are trying to push F# on the world, which I see as a good thing.

~~~
omaranto
What do you mean by the $80 to change the background bit? (I'm not
disagreeing, I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.)

~~~
jrockway
Windows 7 Starter does not have the ability to change the desktop background.
You have to upgrade to "Windows 7 Home Super Awesome OMG" or whatever to get
that.

