Apple is number one danger to Internet freedom, says Columbia professor | Hacker News Reader

Apple is number one danger to Internet freedom, says Columbia professor

blogs.computerworld.com

27 pointsrcfox7 comments

Seriously? He seems to be saying that since Steve likes to control the user experience on his products, and since Steve is dictatorial, then Apple is the biggest threat to the free internet.

Without offering any substantial example. For example, Apple doesn't allow porn apps. But its browsers don't block you from visiting porn sites. (I haven't actually tested this assertion, of course).

Apple's iOS browsers don't run flash. But they do run Javascript, which allows you to make a wide variety of interactive applications that run on an IOS device without paying 30% of your revenue to Apple or being screened for content.

I don't know why he thinks Apple is a bigger threat to Net Neutrality than the carriers, who have an avowed and demonstrated opposition to Net neutrality. Or Facebook, which is the world's biggest walled garden.

All in all, super-light on argument and long on emotion. Not quite flag-worthy, but certainly not the most insightful thing you'll read all day.

Apple only controls their own domain. They influence things outside of their own ecosystem, but they don't have any dictatorial power when it comes to the networks they use. They have been good for competition on the Internet in terms of browsers and breaking the dominance of Flash to give HTML5/Canvas a fighting chance.

Apple strictly wants to control their own little sandboxes. Jobs is avowed of open standards, since this means that no one company can dominate the playing field.

For example, Adobe was forged in the print world, where it's commonplace for a single corporation to control a proprietary standard used industry-wide. See Pantone. When they picked up Flash, it was this ideology that led them to believe that people on the web would just deal with it; accepting the fact that a single corporation would control the media standards.

The W3C, on the other hand give a lot more leeway to the most flexible and attractive player. For now that is Apple, at least in the minds of average consumers. Other than using Apple's language, and their crummy drm'd videos, there's not that much locking in people. In fact, the best lock-in on the iPad is HTML5, which isn't that well supported on any other tablet on the market. (Tab, withstanding.)

Apple may be a threat, but I'd say the telecoms are much worse. Apple can only cripple their own products; Verizon and AT&T can cripple everything.

You mean in the US. The internet is bigger than the US, and right now Apple is introducing the telco-tied and crippling systems previously only seen in the US worldwide.

Gee. Thanks Apple.

Perhaps if people in mass stopped using web browsers for their content and relied strictly on mobile apps. Already this is happening via the iPad, iTouch, iPhone - and now Apple is gearing for the desktop via OSX 10.7 app store. I know many developers that are building mobile apps only, and have given up development for web browsers.

If people stopped using web browsers and funneled everything through a mobile app store, which Apple controls, then yes we are giving up freedom for convenience. I would say this is the next logical step in the evolution of information, and Apple appears to be ahead of the game.

I'm curious to hear HN comments on the matter. Speak up!

The article didnt really cite anything specific so i'll just give my opinion on what i think they're talking about.

Flash (obviously): While i disagree with the principal of specifically excluding a technology out of your products that use the web, i do think the web will be better off without flash.

Porn: Steve said he wants the iOS devices to be porn free. I disagree that just because its objectionable to some people doesnt mean you should exclude it and yes i realise you can go to a porn site using safari but i'm mainly talking about the app store.

The App Store: Apple specifically excludes apps that it doesnt like and while i understand that this can be quality control (although i wouldnt call the fart apps "quality") it is also censorship.

While i realise that because Apple is a company it can do what the hell it wants to its own products i would like to see a more open and free company philosophy.

Then again, just because i think like that, doesnt mean others do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com