Why you should not buy Apple computer products | Hacker News Reader

Why you should not buy Apple computer products

stallman.org

49 pointsS4M75 comments

RMS is a smart man, but I can never seem to take him seriously. He has the tact of a sixteen year old who's looking to start a flame war. Between his iThings, his Micro$ofts, iBads, and "quotes" all over, I half expect him to end his statements in lol. The cause that he's fighting for is good, but the way he fights just doesn't attract anyone to his side.

I actually asked him why he uses those terms. He says it's because he refuses to use their marketing terms and he gets to poke fun at the companies as well.

iBad is still obviously using the "marketing term" iPad. If he wanted to not use those terms, he could write "Apple's tablet device" or something to that effect.

How about "weBad" as a way of bolstering the self confidence?

> I half expect him to end his statements in lol.

There have been a lot of changes to language on the Internet in Stallman's time. Stuff that was cool just a year ago marks you as an undesirable now. "Micro$oft" used to be perfectly socially acceptable on USENET. I wonder who they paid to get that changed?

"Micro$oft" used to be perfectly socially acceptable on USENET. I wonder who they paid to get that changed?

The level of discourse was raised, MS didn't pay anyone.

> The level of discourse was raised

Uh, I would beg to differ. It's stayed about the same, but there's more a lot more hate motivating everything. Back in 1989, there was still such a thing as civil discourse. Now disingenuously veiled hate speech is the norm, with the noise being louder the more important the issue is to society.

If discourse is the lifeblood of our body politic, our body politic is an undead zombie.

Sorry. It's just depressing out there.

(It used to be that Micro$oft was just a joke. It wasn't until well after HN that it somehow became "offensive.")

yes, it was just a joke (depending on your definition of "joke"). but it was never funny. people who still say that are obviously stuck in the past -- in terms of their maturity, argumentative skills, critical thinking abilities, senses of humor, and general cultural awareness.

people who say "Micro$oft" are idiots. the existence of people who are humorless and lame enough to say it in the year 2013 -- that's what's offensive. it's not that people give a shit about microsoft or whatever

> people who say "Micro$oft" are idiots. the existence of people who are humorless and lame enough to say it in the year 2013 -- that's what's offensive. it's not that people give a shit about microsoft or whatever

This sentence contradicts itself through its sheer uninspired humorlessness.

Only the above sentence was never meant to be humorous to begin with.

Then again, you find "Micro$oft" funny, so what do you know?

Whenever I see anyone uses "M$" or "crApple" in a discussion, I stopped listening to that person.

Reply: M$ and crApple. Have a nice day!

Using "Micro$oft" is like having a popped collar -- it is exceptionally useful tool for identifying yourself as an out of touch douche-bag.

Really? I find opinions like this useful proof of people who tend to value signaling over substance. (Because, you know, it's more effort to actually deal with substance.)

>"Micro$oft" used to be perfectly socially acceptable on USENET. I wonder who they paid to get that changed?

Microsoft was not that threatening anymore, people moved on, and you can only keep the same BS juvenile joke for so long.

M$ == "oh, Microsoft cares about money. A company of all things! How funny".

The idea that they paid someone (who, the ...USENET owner?) to have M$ not be that acceptable on USENET is beyond ludicrous.

Not to mention it's BS. People still use M$ and Micro$oft all the time, even in USENET (well, they don't use USENET that much, that's true). It's just that people that are 16-22 yo OSS "fans" rooting for the "Linux conquest of the desktop" are less abundant now.

This isn't new writing, and the title should really have "(2012)" in it.

I think that Stallman is always interesting to listen to. So is ESR.

But he says: "Apple left a security hole in iTunes unfixed for 3 years after being informed about the problem. During that time, governments used that security hole to invade people's computers."

This is really take out of context rather than concrete proof. The original article is pretty vague even.

Government collusion is really immaterial to this just being bad.

what "just being bad"?

Stallman's rant or the lack of patching a hole for 3 years by Apple?

The lack of patching a hole for 3 years by Apple.

Of course, he uses the Lemote Yeelong. Who knows what sort of atrocities went into the production of that thing?

Because X might do something bad, it doesn't matter if Y actually does something bad.

Do you apply this logic to all aspects of your life, or just Apple?

Well, comparing Lemote - a state-sponsored company in one of the most corrupt business environments on Earth and who likely enjoys almost no regulation whatsoever, vs. Apple whose manufacturing partnerships with Foxconn, Pegatron, and the like are probably the most scrutinized out of all the electronics manufacturers in China, which factory would you rather work for?

Yes, this line of logical reasoning absolves Apple of everything.

No surprise. Android isn't Gnu compliant either so according to the FSF we should be using nothing.

I think we can "officially" use triquel or parabola linux on lemote PCs...and that's about it.

Stone, chisels, maybe horsehair brushes.

The FSF obviously suggest to use Replicant (http://replicant.us/).

Otherwise, Cyanogenmod without the proprietary Google Apps is a less bad alternative (http://fsfe.org/campaigns/android/liberate.en.html)

Why bring a caricature here? RMS and FSF tell us what is bad and less bad from the point of view of software freedom, which they and other think is important. RMS said explicitly that Android was less bad than iOS, which is obvious, while still not being perfect according to freedom of software, which is obvious too.

Nobody said you can't buy an iPhone, but what you can't reasonably do is value highly software freedom and at the same time prefer iOS over Android.

"Apple lures people into the business of developing apps with visions of the great wealth that a few of them get"

I wonder if developing FOSS software is proven best in this area... (for individuals, not just companies)

or to rephrase, If your application a valuable is a labor saving or time saving advancement, what is the best model to make sure you can benefit the most from that?

How do you effectively distribute that advancement so that it "rises the tide"? Is a price a valid indicator of value? No, we see these days that free services are much more quickly adopted. Most people judge value by practicality and word of mouth.

If you start extracting value from that service by charging for it, aren't you effectively negating the benefit to society?

Imagine you invented a murder App. (lets call it iMurder) This app replaced the need to murder people, through a complex spanning tree alogirthm that combines social network data and communication and travel restriction protocols (commonly known as SAML) and a fully immersive augmented reality overlay. (compatible with Google Glass)

How much do you charge for this app?

You change the metric of succes. If I wanna the most spread, do it for free. But he is saying about $$$, not reach. So the question remain.

You didn't properly grok my comment

what is the best model to make sure you can benefit the most from that?

So, how much are you going to charge for iMurder?

To clarify, do you think you'll make more money in your life giving it away for free or selling it?

If i'm following you, are you saying that the profit could come with ads?

>You change the metric of succes. If I wanna the most spread, do it for free.

Not sure. Linux is free but has less spread than Windows (on the desktop at least).

In the same vain GIMP is free, but more people use Photoshop.

And Ardour is free but has an very small number of users, even compared to $1000 DAWs.

So it can vary.

My badly (un)explained point is that you benefit from free software indirectly, through cheaper software built on top that you later buy or use, or in my extreme example, not being killed because the guy who killed you couldn't run your iMurder app, so you can no longer make money.

So what smartphone should I use then?

Buy a non-Nexus and non-Motorola Android phone, install CyanogenMod or AOKP, and (optionally) install a non-Play Store app store. (This is all fairly quick and simple to do with recent-ish major Samsung phones, at the very least.)

Or wait until an Ubuntu phone comes out.

(EDIT: For clarification, I am NOT saying any of this would be RMS-friendly, just a bit more open and less privacy-invasive than the norm right now.)

With a Nexus banded phone you can build your own Rom from source if you wanted.

Very true. I excluded them purely because Nexus is a Google brand, and buying a Nexus device would be supporting them to an extent.

RMS says the Ubuntu dash is made of spyware, so that's not quite kosher either.

It's removable FOSS spyware, at the very least.

Wouldn't the phone have to ship with CyanogenMod/AOKP? Liberating a device after the purchase still rewards the wrong company.

And Samsung?

http://developer.samsung.com/android/technical-docs/DRM-in-A...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20010533-1.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57559174/samsung-chip-pl...

I'm not saying it's an ideal solution, but are there any better solutions smartphone-wise right now?

And yes, Samsung. Because if we're going to pick off every phone manufacturer for every misdeed they've done, there won't be any left to actually buy a phone from.

> Because if we're going to pick off every phone manufacturer for every misdeed they've done, there won't be any left to actually buy a phone from

Which illustrates why it's typically not practical to live your life like Stallman does.

Not buying a phone at all would be the RMS-compliant option.

"I refuse to have a cell phone because they are tracking and surveillance devices." -- http://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html

To throw just any one name into the discussion - what about Asus? I haven't heard anything bad about them since they've twittered that booth babe picture.

The only way I can make the phones of my loved ones ring with a video call is by using FaceTime.

Now what?

You convince your loved ones to switch to something else. If they won't, then you must realize that, deep in your heart, you love freedom more than you love your loved ones, and must switch to non-video calls or other methods of communication.

Hahahaha. Those of us that live in the Real World send our regards.

Mmm. sips tea

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the jailbreak-detection system mentioned here[1] was removed as of iOS 5.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/02/ibooks-to-jailbreakers-...

No: was definitely present on iOS 5. In fact, this plagued people during the first week after the 5.0.1 jailbreak release[1] and was later defeated by planetbeing as part of "crazeles"[2].

[1] http://www.redmondpie.com/fix-ibooks-on-ios-5.0.1-iphone-ipa...

[2] http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Crazeles

Oh! I take that back, thank you.

What a waste. People don't know how to use a jailbreak detection system. One doesn't "plague" people with the information. Doing this actually destroys the value of it. One should never restrict features and functionality based on this.

"Ebooks with DRM ... due to intentional sabotage by Apple".

Nope. It's up to the publisher. For example, all of the Orson Scott Card books on the iBookstore advertise that they are DRM-free in the description.

Apple is attacking free software with their mobile patents? Strange, I've only heard of the Android lawsuits.

Is there an actually-open OS that Apple is pursuing legal action against?

There is no "actually-open" OS that runs on handsets. The military use is obvious.

I use what I like. I currently like the iPhone.

That is certainly the default position.

I use an iPhone as well, because I like it, and I could make that same statement, but it would be with significant self-deprecation, and the "currently" would be loaded with subtext.

I'm curious about what you think Stallman's purpose is here? Assuming you're as unapologetic as taking your statement at face value would imply.

>I'm curious about what you think Stallman's purpose is here?

I'm assuming he's taking a principled stand based on what he believes to be injustices carried out by Apple, and trying to convince others to do the same. Good for him.

Having some suspicions of what Stallman's wider goals are, I wouldn't assume that these "injustices" are the reason for his objection in isolation. I see from a quick stalk (sorry, I wanted to see if there was some common ground to build on) that just the other day, you wrote a comment about Google Reader that seemed to suggest (my interpretation; by all means object if this is mischaracterized) that controlling your own tools is a more far-sighted and responsible choice than locking yourself into a proprietary system out of your control.

Sorry to pick on you (and thank you for responding), but I really am genuinely curious if others who are aware of RMS and still make the choices that you and I have, are really on the same page as far as understanding his overarching philosophy.

No problem on reading other things I've written.

If I want to use today's hardware, software, and services - I'm probably going to come across products from Apple and Amazon (think EC2) and I'm probably going to do business, in some capacity, with a company that uses expensive accountants to minimize their tax bill.

I get his basic philosophy on free and open software. Great, great things have obviously come from companies and individuals that have embraced that model. But I also don't blame one company for the way things are on much broader issues like trade, labor, taxes or DRM.

Like I said - good for him, for taking a stand.

No mention about paying 2x for the branding? What's up with that?

Does anybody listen to Stallman anymore? Boy crying wolf.

I make a living on iOS and I still hadn't heard all of these before. Nothing wrong with keeping track of a company's missteps.

The problem is that he then destroys all credibility by things like calling the iPad "iBad" ... :(

Apple lost all credibility with me for the reasons listed in the article. Given the motivations of each, which one would you trust more?

Apple.

At least they are in it for the money (and some proud in their products), not some ideology.

I'm sorry to be the one to pull on the yarn and unravel your sweater, but the belief that the pursuit of wealth is in some way meritorious or beneficial is in itself an ideology.

So either you mean that you like your ideology of "the invisible hand" more than Stallman's ideology of "freedom," or you have fallen into the trap of thinking that "ideology" is a word that only applies to the other guy's beliefs.

You are truly a patient man.

>I'm sorry to be the one to pull on the yarn and unravel your sweater, but the belief that the pursuit of wealth is in some way meritorious or beneficial is in itself an ideology.

And I'm sorry to surprise you, but I also believe that. I'm not a liberal or in favor of the "free market" at all.

But, see, while the belief that the "pursuit of wealth is in some way meritorious or beneficial" is an ideology, mere pursuit of wealth is not an ideology.

With all this said, I can clarify my original comment.

My reasoning is, entities with one narrow and well understood goal (money) are easier to reason and deal with than entities dealing on ideology.

>My reasoning is, entities with one narrow and well understood goal (money) are easier to reason and deal with than entities dealing on ideology.

How do you reach such a conclusion? Because you said so?

>How do you reach such a conclusion? Because you said so?

No, by examining history (well, those facts available to me), and making some mental work of drawing connections and forming ideas.

Why not provide a counter-argument (or even just an alternative proposition) instead of insulting me with the "because you said so" thing?

For me it's obvious --to the point of making explaining it inane-- that a company dealing with money is easier to reason about and deal with than people deep in ideology.

A quick definition of ideology is that of a belief system not particularly moved by facts. This is what makes it frightening.

Sure, corporations have committed huge crimes for money -- but at least you know what they are after and how they will go about it.

With ideology? Not so much. There are hundreds of millions of victims of ideology all around the world. From the victims of Stalinism to the Holocaust, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Manson family etc.

Whereas economy/money is the domain of greed, ideology is the domain of whatever. It can raise the more crazy and multi-faceted monsters.

>Why not provide a counter-argument (or even just an alternative proposition) instead of insulting me with the "because you said so" thing?

The irony of this statement is lost on you. Suck my dick.

The rest of your post is so god damn pointless I can't even read it. My brain rejects it outright.

There is no logical reason that this should be an either/or decision.

I said more. Yes, you will probably trust one a little bit more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com