The evil genius | Hacker News Reader

The evil genius

blog.14islands.com

33 pointshjortureh28 comments

> They lock us into buying music and videos from iTunes when using iPods, iPhones and iPads.

Um. You do have a choice here, you know. Ranging from choosing products from slightly-less-evil vendors to pulling a Stallman and refusing to even run Firefox or touch a computer whose chip designs aren't open source.

I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but I feel that by making it seem like people are almost forced to buy Apple products, you're undermining your own argument.

As a simple anecdotal example, I don't own a single Apple product, without even trying all too hard, and I'm perfectly happy.

It's also simply not true. I have an iPhone and listen to music on it all the time. I haven't purchased any music from iTunes, ever. I refuse to buy music with DRM so I don't. I'd rather subscribe to a service like Rdio instead or get music from the artist via some other means and import it in to my collection.

It's worth to note though, that music bought on iTunes Music store doesn't contain DRM anymore. It used to, but now it's all DRM-free.

I'm not convinced. Apple's patents haven't stopped me from being creative. No one has asked me not to design using rounded corners. How about you? I bet not.

When you buy Apple you're not just buying hardware or software. You're buying into a ecosystem and that ecosystem works really well! Now if Apple's ecosystem doesn't suit your needs then you're still free to not use it or jailbreak your iStuff.

I keep hearing this stuff and I just don't see where we lost freedom. You don't have to buy music and videos on iTunes to put it into your iStuff. Jailbreaking, though frowned upon, is completely legal now and no one will hassle you for it. Cell phome contracts? Well that's not new or specific to Apple and though it's a bummer I'm happy for it because I don't have $500 for a phone and this "freedom" everyone keeps yammering about isn't worth the extra $300 to me.

There's no loss of freedom going on here. Everything is the same as it ever was in a new form and context. Everyone loves to root for the underdog and tear down the establishment. I doubt most of us have ever really been truly stifled by patents and if we have I'm willing to bet that while you're the little guy you'll rail against them and if/when you "make it" you'll be hoarding and defending them like it's going out of style.

I'm sure most people won't like what I've said. I'm a pragmatist. Idealism is great and I get the sentiment but in the end we're just not living in the world as it "should be", we live in the world as it is.

You can't call the ability to jailbreak "free to do so", any more than a prison cell is "free to escape out of". Sure jailbreaks exist, but not for all devices, and not without significant efforts by non-apple personnel (and significant effort from apple personnel to stop said 'freedom').

You're factually and practically correct but the problem here is that you seem to be operating under the assumption that your preferences are shared by everyone else or should be shared by everyone else and that's where I think you're wrong. Apple has made a decision to operate in a locked-down way so they can control the experience. And as much as people want to say its some evil plan to make a bajillion dollars the simpler and more plausible answer is because being in control of the experience actually makes the platform better for its users and the monopoly is just aside effect of that.

People buy iDevices because they work well for them, not because they lack the freedom to choose something else and certainly not because of lock-in as many would have us believe. Yeah, it takes effort to jailbreak your device but so what? It's not meant to be jail broken. Your prison analogy is not a good one at all. It's more like the freedom to work on your car. It's like a person who really likes Volkswagen Jettas and buys one but wants a spoiler, racing stripes, and a V8 engine. Volkswagen isn't going to promote you doing that nor will they help you but you're still free to do it if you want to put in the effort. And if not, then choose another car.

Apple does things a certain way and there are pros and cons to it. Google and others do things differently and they have their pros and cons. But in the end no one has taken your freedom away. You may want an iDevice with the benefits of Android "freedom" (freedom is in quotes because in this context it's subjective) but if you got that then it would no longer be an Apple product because you've taken away the very thing that makes Apple's iStuff, iStuff.

All of these arguments just smack of "I think I know what's best for everyone"-ism and "I'm entitled to XYZ and I don't get it then that means I have no freedom"-ism. Right now youve got the freedom to choose between Android, Windows Phone, and iOS (I know there are others but let's not be pedantic about it). You're free to choose any one of them or none of them. If you want to mishmash features of all three then you'll have to do that itself because no one is obligated to create a piece of technology that exactly suits your every desire. You pick what suits you best and one thing you are entitled to do is complain about it. But if the market as a whole doesn't agree then you probably won't get it.

What I'm really saying is that you can criticize and complain and lobby for the things that you want all day long and that's fine but don't exaggerate and start saying you've lost your freedom because you haven't. This is the real world where the only way to even be able to obtain a thing that does most of what you want is for the company making it to be able to profit off of it and that means trade offs and decisions that you may not agree with but are nonetheless best for a certain demographic for which the thing is made for.

There are multiple points you make here, some I agree with some I don't.

> Apple's patents haven't stopped me from being creative. No one has asked me not to design using rounded corners. How about you? I bet not.

Patents have stopped people from being creative. I don't think it's a matter of stopping you or me, but a more general perspetive. I'm no specialist in patents, nor is it a topic that I like talking about, but imho a critical issue is with their generality: rounded corners, mouse clicks, page turns seem like very very wide ideas.

> When you buy Apple you're not just buying hardware or software. You're buying into a ecosystem and that ecosystem works really well! Now if Apple's ecosystem doesn't suit your needs then you're still free to not use it or jailbreak your iStuff.

I do buy Apple products because they fit my needs and their current limitations are not over the threshold I feel comfortable with. Now. But ideally I'd prefer to buy into an ecosystem that is not closed. I'd like to know that in the future when a shift occurs I'll be able to get my things and move to what fits the needs I have at that time.

A related question is: should I complain or not about it if I already chose to buy into it? Me belief is that by expressing ourselves and not being complacent with the status quo we are able to influence things.

  I'm sure most people won't like what I've said. I'm a pragmatist. Idealism is great and I get the sentiment but in the end we're just not living in the world as it "should be", we live in the world as it is.

That's a very depressing way of looking at things. :(

Cheer up. It's only depressing for idealists.

Absolutely! It's not to say that things can never change for the better, it's just to say that we just can't have everything we want and if we do get everything we want it'll most likely come at the expense of someone else not getting something they want. That's the pragmatism I'm talking about in this context.

I'm no idealist but I have to admit that their naive, pie in the sky notions are what makes the world a better place. They never work out, but they do take us a bit of they way there. Repeat enough times and you end up with something real special.

> Now if Apple's ecosystem doesn't suit your needs then you're still free to not use it or jailbreak your iStuff.

Oh good, I hadn't realized that a proper jailbreak for iOS 6 on the 4S was out yet. Can you point me to the URL for it?

↑ Apple fanboy logic

Great argument. This whole "fanboy" retort is total BS. That's my logic and my preference for or against Apple has nothing to do with it. Calling someone a fanboy is not an argument and no one can take you seriously once you say it. That's a conversation stopper. You can't prove or disprove it and all intelligent discourse goes out the window once it's been said. You could have used any number of arguments to try to persuade me the other way or prove me wrong but instead you used the conversional equivalent of "oh yeah, well you're a homo".

↑Ad hominem logic

Really? This is no better. How about pedantic logic? Or avoiding making a real argument logic? Or cheap way to get up votes logic? Piling on logic? Uncomstructive comment logic? Pedantic logic?

If you want to disagree then do it. What you're doing here is trying to marginalize me instead of actually making an argument.

This used to be a place where we could share our opinions and have constructive conversations and debates. Now you just get downvoted if you don't support the hive mind's opinion and what used to be called an unconstructive comment is applauded (exceptions are made, however, in cases where where the herd disagrees).

Edit: Remember what I said about all intelligent discourse going out the window once the "fanboy" retort has been put out there? Well, here's the proof.

life←{ ↑1 ⍵∨.^3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵ }

↑ Game of life

systematically taking this freedom away, by taking ownership of common design patterns - The "ownership" part is what's important, as Western Civilizations have put private property before just about any other consideration.

I'm coming to believe that "intellectual property" is about unringing the Internet bell, stuffing the genie of everybody publishing, and everybody reading back into the bottle of gatekeeper-enabled censorship.

I think that software patents have worsened to the point that there's really only two ways to solve the problem: eliminate software patents altogether (thus introducing enormous competition and innovation in the marketplace) or be damn explicit about what is protectable and what isn't. Open source has thrived these past few years because of the reuse and improvement of the technology, whereas software patents often bar off any competitors or innovators from improving on the technology. And in Apple's case here, I think it's just plain crazy to try to patent some of these "aesthetic" elements of common design (rounded corners, etc.)

Apple is just strapping up for the mobile patent wars which have already begun.

It's an arms race, and it's irrational to place the blame on just one of the actors. To stop the arms race will take mutual action on the part of three or four different companies, or outside intervention. The former is likely to happen eventually, and let's hope that the latter happens sooner rather than later in the form of patent reform.

Thankfully these patent wars are being settled in a court of law. The system is over complicated and has a lot of loop holes (i.e. look at Oracles often unfactual descriptions of common programming terms in Oracle vs Google) but I think in the end it will eventually balance out where no one has won much more than others, even with Apples big wins over Samsung.

The USPTO is starting to address the problem (albeit slowly) and there should be many more decisive rulings in the next decade.

Are these patents really evil, or just positioning for an endgame where everyone settles financially based on their portfolio?

I guess I'd have to ask what difference that makes? Everyone settling financially is akin to making a patent clearinghouse cartel type of thing, where only really big companies get to play. The end result? A less than free market in practice, but not in name, mercantilist policies about who gets to innovate, and controlled innovation. Do we look back on the 75 years of Bell System with anything other than mild contempt? No? Well, that's the sort of thing a "financial settlement" will lead us to.

This is an important problem. It's fundamentally a problem with the way patents are granted, and the way they are used, and the way they are understood. let's address these in turn:

First, you shouldn't be able to patent round corners. That's silly.

Second, you should be able to patent things and then sue people for using your patent if you are not using your patent in any way shape or form. An unused idea should be free for the taking.

Third, there's a great deal of ignorance about what patents are, how to get them, and how to use them. Behind this veil of ignorance, bad things happen.

Unfortunately, this state of affairs means that companies like Apple can and indeed must violate the spirit of the law symmetrically with it's competitors, to protect themselves until the system is fixed.

There is no doubt it's a bad scene, but it's not entirely Apple's fault. If they exercise restraint with these patents, using them purely defensively and then with great perspicuity, then I don't see how they could do any different.

Let us all direct our feelings toward reforming the patent system perhaps by joining an organization like "Defend Innovation"[1], the EFF's group pushing for patent reform.

[1] https://defendinnovation.org/

Useful idiots call for reform. The patent system is intrinsically evil and must be abolished.

I see. And what do you call a person who calls names and makes absolute statements without any support or reasoning?

Is it your view that one may not express one's view without substantiating it? Because that is the premise implied by your remark, and -- guess what? -- it's an absolute statement you've failed to provide any support or reasoning for, which would make you a hypocrite. So perhaps you should clarify.

Actually, that's more of a statement of worldview, of what I find beautiful. It is axiomatic, and you are free to disagree with it if you like, but if you do, you and I can't (and shouldn't) be friends.

So, your assertions are unquestioned axioms, mine need substantiation. Yeah, we couldn't be friends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com