Two weeks ago, Steve Wozniak made a public call for Apple to open its platforms for those who wish to tinker, tweak and innovate with their internals.
EFF supports Wozniak's position: while Apple's products have many virtues, they are marred by an ugly set of restrictions on what users and programmers can do with them. This is most especially true of iOS, though other Apple products sometimes suffer in the same way. In this article we will delve into the kinds of restrictions that Apple, phone companies, and Microsoft have been imposing on mobile computers; the excuses these companies make when they impose these restrictions; the dangers this is creating for open innovation; why Apple in particular should lead the way in fixing this mess. We also propose a bill of rights that need to be secured for people who are purchasing smartphones and other pocket computers.
Apple's recent products, especially their mobile iOS devices, are like beautiful crystal prisons, with a wide range of restrictions imposed by the OS, the hardware, and Apple's contracts with carriers as well as contracts with developers. Only users who can hack or "jailbreak" their devices can escape these limitations.
Marred?
Follow my analogy for a moment. "No car is perfect if everybody can't be a mechanic." Get me? Or let's go to the example of nature.
Everyone should be permitted to run free through the forest. In fact, this is the state of nature. And in this unregulated free state of nature if during your sprint you catch your foot in a gopher hole and snap your tibia, you will basically become wolf bait. You can't sue the gopher. You can't take your broken leg back to your parents and demand a refund. You also can't sue the property owner because there is no property owner. You are in a state of nature.
But if you want the risk mitigation of running through a forest that is owned by somebody who takes responsibility for your idiot mistakes, then you must accept the possibibility, and in this modern world the probability, that there will be posted signs that tell you not to run off the paved path and denies you any legal recourse should you step into a gopher hole. (Remember it was the 'freedom' to run in a forest which brought you here in the first place - you thought the treadmill at Bally's was too artificial.) But you want to run with the risks, ignore the signs and sue the makers anyway. Why? Because you want your freedom. So jailbreakers are like joggers who hate people on bikes. And Apple's IOS is like a tollroad with a nice fence on it, and the joggers don't want to be treated like people on bikes, or God forbid people in passenger cars. They want to cut the switchbacks. But they don't want to run in their *own* forest because it takes too much time to grow the trees, and you like the trees in Mr. Steve Jobs' forest even though you think they can stand some improvement. But most importantly, you want an army of joggers to follow your path.
When is the last time you actually read the terms and conditions on a piece of software you purchased, or borrowed, or appropriated? What do you really care? You don't. You just think you're entitled to run. It's what God gave you legs for.
This is a case of people in the open source community, if you can call it that monolithically, being shameless. It's not enough that they have a functional rival in Android. But they cannot stand the idea that something functionally equivalent cannot be subject to their criticism and meddling.
I suppose this would all be a no brainer with regard to fault if the legacy of Mr. Jobs had an absent landlord who didn't go poking around in other forests and claiming ownership of the shape of the trees. But that's what happens when too many people are greedy; it doesn't pay not to be greedy.
Still, I maintain the perspective of a little bit of age and a fair bit of sophistication, and my wisdom tells me that there is greed all around. After all, what is the point of fooling around with IOS and the iPhone in the first place? It's the same point as being interested in getting exclusive interviews with [Kim Kardashian] <= {Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears, Courtney Love, Nancy Kerrigan}. IOS is a hot bitch. But really should you have a dog in that fight? Dear Capitalist, Turing's Rule is still in effect. Signed Scientist. What you really want to be is the guy who did the "Duh" improvement over the legacy of Apple. Three years ago it was adding 'cut' and 'paste', and didn't that little glitch keep you awake nights? Two years ago it was background processing. Oh you poor unrecognized geniuses.
We have entered a new era of hateration, which is to say, the counter on the same cycle of human impatience and jealousy has been incremented and given a new typeface.
All any of us need is an audience. It's hard to gain one if all you want is applause and its hard to convert one once it is gained. In the end, I think there is a lot of disingenuous friending going around. But that's how markets work. Unfortunately, we also know that interest groups with lawyers work hard too, which is why people who grow forests have to post signs.
Meanwhile, where there's no money, no youth and no particular public agenda, things are a bit more peaceful.
Recent Comments