Jon Stewart assails Apple for becoming "Big Brother"
networkworld.com
networkworld.com
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.
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.
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.
so far
We got purged from the index twice without any warning or explanation. We petitioned and manage to get back in both times after a couple of weeks, but with no explanation of why we got banned.
We weren't doing any black-hat seo crap either. It was completely on the up and up.
Because if you don't use Apple products, Apple doesn't care. They don't track you and they don't store your information.
Google however is a different case. Even if I don't intend to use Google's products, I don't search from their site, and I am not a customer of any of their products, they STILL track me through javascript files linked to or embedded by other websites I do visit.
I can choose not to be tracked by Apple, but unless I take extreme measures, like blocking google domains in my HOSTS file, which I do, I can still be tracked by them -- against my explicit consent, which is exactly what Big Brother did.
They even watch us on Redtube.
Both programs are installed on the sites by explicit request of the website owners. If you should have problem with then that should be with the website owners "redtube" and not Google.
Also if you can prove that the TOS (Terms of Services) and Privacy Policy of the website you are visiting are violated by the Analytics or AdSense. Then you can petition in court as violation of policy. However if you still visit the same website which have set the privacy policy and Tos compliant with AdSense and Analytics, and are crying about google watching you then i offer you a simle solution.
Dont visit those websites! If you find lot like minded people then the traffic will automatically vanish.
Till then keep your mouth shut.
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.
Does it mean that no one on the steering committee should be allowed report a crime and avail themselves of the services of the force?
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.
The use of a raid force on a person who is not known to be violent and/or uncooperative is just excessive.
And if I recall when the story first broke, Apple did not admit it was their prototype until the pictures and story came out.
IANAL. Nor do I know all about journalists' rights v. police procedures, but I am puzzled at all the press and online discussion about "protecting sources":
Seems to me that journalists should be able to protect sources of * information * - which is different than protecting sources of * stolen property† *
___________________
†or "stolen-ish" - whatever Calif calls found property that is supposed to lead to legitimate attempts to return it to rightful owner.
I think that many journalists are sort of waltzing around the edge of this story because at least a few of them understand that there could be some serious repercussions on how shield laws are interpreted in America.
It's a very complex issue that doesn't really lend itself well to a comedy treatment. You have a very shady scenario with an Apple engineer that Gizmodo claims must have “left the phone there” (but is that true? probably we'll never know). You have a shady scenario with the finder who somehow knew or was simply a shitty enough person not to return a lost phone to the bar (that's what I'd do, and what I hope any decent human would do). You've got the embarrassing situation of Denton's gleeful love of checkbook journalism. And now you've got potential criminal activity. It's a total shit show of Silicon Valley fail, no matter what angle you look at it from.
Daily Show just chose the funniest angle to view it from, but definitely not the most accurate or comprehensive. That's fine; outside of political satire they really don't have any assumed duty or responsibility to their viewership.
That doesn't sound like criminal activity to you?
As for why they busted down Chen's door, specifically? No idea. I'm pretty sure that was not Apple's idea. If it was, we have bigger problems than how to interpret CA theft and shield laws.
He didn't actually make an honest attempt, just a show of one.
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.
This story resonates because of all the other ways Apple now resembles what they used to rebel against. The stormtroopers thing is just a very visual metaphor.
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.
Would you be able to walk into a Apple store again and buy something there knowing that this was a company that ordered the goons to break down the doors of some guy's house? Face all those cheery Apple employees and Geniuses and not silently think if they supported the actions of their company?
Apple is the "A-list celebrity" of the tech/gadget industry. People both mock celebrities for minor faux pas and openly weep for their bad fortune.. so it goes with Apple.
And just a few days before that everyone was angry about 3.3.1. :)
This video still seemed pretty benign. However, I wonder if this is that start of shift in how people view Apple. They've had other criticisms, for sure, but this is one of the first times they're publicly called out as being oppressive.
Right now I've switched software, not sure when I'll be getting new hardware, but it most certainly won't be an Apple product -- for the first time since 2003.
I realize they don't care about people like me and our perception of them, but that's not the point for me.
@sheep: Please leave Hacker News.
I think it's a major PR victory for Apple. Jon Stewart just told everybody that he loves Apple products, likes new iPhone, wants one and that Apple broke some doors. Now everybody knows that they have to get new iPhone this summer. This controversy spiked public interest and this media coverage would not be achievable for them even if they pay godzillion dollars.
That's a big deal considering the nature of Apple's customer base.
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.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes
starts in earnest around ~2:00; probably region locked
It sounds like you're bringing up an unrelated point to deflect attention from Apple's actions. That is not appropriate!
That being said, I'm not sure that the police raiding Chen's home had anything to do with Apple... that's a big leap to make.
Just a guess, really.
I think it's hilarious and I he pretty much gets the fear/thoughts of many Apple fans/developers/users.
[1] read something online somewhere once.
In reality, Apple asked the DA to investigate what they believed to be theft of property, in response to which the police executed a search warrant on Chen's computers.
Sounds like the Apple I know and love allright :)
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.
He gave back the phone. Give him a month probation or whatever, but don't take everything he owns.
Got the facts all wrong and didn't even mention how sleazy Gizmodo was in this ordeal.
For shame.
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.
2. The cheapest Laptop Apple sells costs $999. The iPad costs $499. Where as the most popular netbook on amazon.com costs $362 (Asus EeePC 1005PE). This is certainly more than the $80 difference Microsoft charge.
On the other hand, they do charge you $99 an year for the privilege of putting code you wrote on a device you own.
According to this page it is $99 a year to be able to distribute Xbox Live Community games: