Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows
Home > Type > News > Apple is evil, part 227

Apple is evil, part 227

Oct. 31, 2008 Paul Thurrott | Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

This one kind of speaks for itself:

Opera Mini for iPhone sits on sidelines due to App Store rules

A professionally-developed alternative to Apple's Safari web browser for iPhone already exists in Opera Software's labs; Apple's guidelines for App Store submissions, however, are allegedly keeping it from seeing the light of day.

Opera chief Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner recently [said that] Opera Mini, one of the company's mobile web browsers for smartphones, has already been ported to the iPhone but can't be released as Apple's rules for the App Store preclude software that replicate the core functionality of the iPhone or iPod touch.

Ridiculous.

Do you think we give away a little bit of our soul every time we use an Apple product?

Discuss this Article 71

LC21
on Oct 31, 2008
Yeah. I fired up my MacBook this morning to get some work done, already I'm feeling spiritually impoverished and less virtuous than yesterday. PT must feel the same way, having iPod Touches, a MacBook, an iPhone. You find Apple evil? Fine. Throw your Apple gear away, and quit whining. Case closed.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
Part 228: BlueHoo which demoed their product during the Microsoft Windows Azure launch has had to put a note and link on their page to get users to lobby Apple to let them do a BlueHoo client for the iPhone. They already have clients for pretty much every phone platform out there that has Bluetooth.
shark47
on Oct 31, 2008
The Opera guy is no saint either. Constantly whining does not increase your user base. Sorry!
shark47
on Oct 31, 2008
That was no defense of Apple. BTW. The problem is the iFanatics among the tech media who will never dare to criticize the company. Hey, but Apple is not a "convicted monopolist", right?
Waethorn
on Oct 31, 2008
"Do you think we give away a little bit of our soul every time we use an Apple product?" I don't have that problem. :P
Lindy
on Oct 31, 2008
"I guess it's Apple's play ground so they get to police the gate. Personally, I don't agree with this practice, which is why I don't use an iPhone. Imagine the fuss if Microsoft did this with Windows Mobile" First let me say I agree that Apple SHOULD allow it. That said Apple makes the device and the OS, compared to Microsoft just making the WinMO OS, and many vendors make the hardware, and even more sell the hardware.
Waethorn
on Oct 31, 2008
Um, Opera Mini? I thought Opera Mini was the Java-based version for standard cellphones. Why wouldn't they make a native version of Opera Mobile???
murdocdv
on Oct 31, 2008
Opera knew before they even got started that their browser was going to get rejected, the SDK terms specifically prohibit implementing your own Javascript interpreter, which is obviously a pre-condition to doing your own browser. As a consumer of course you want the option to choose whatever browser you wish. As an engineer, I can appreciate the delicate balancing act Apple has here between letting apps on the phone and preserving the user experience and battery life. As for BlueHoo, I don't see anything on their site which says anything about the iPhone right now, but they do have something in their twitter stream. There is simply no way for an app to run in the background OR have access to the Bluetooth stack at all right now in the SDK, and BlueHoo needs BT, and probably wants background processing. I have had some ideas that would require both, it's just not doable right now. No special persecution of BlueHoo going on.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
murdocdv No special persecution is a pretty low bar to defend. BlueHoo works on Palm, HTC, Motorola, Windows Mobile, Nokia and Blackberry but can't run on Apple's product. It's certianly technically "doable" right now if Apple would let them. After all, Apple's own apps have access to the bluetooth stack and Apple's own apps can run in the background. That Apple didn't cripple their SDK specifically with BlueHoo in mind isn't exactly glowing praise.
daveinla
on Oct 31, 2008
I agree Apple has very Dictatorial behavior when it comes to the software that runs on its platform. But hey it's Apple and you know that right ? That's the price to pay to have a superior integration, uniformity and superiority of experience between installed apps and increased security, as obviously the browser is one of the main hacking door on such a device. If you accept this little downside, that brings huge upside, you live with it and enjoy it. The best way to show Apple people dislike that practice is to encourage jail breaking so that they know that some people like what they do but want some more degree of freedom. I jail broke my iphone since day one and the expanded abilities are great. But the average user (98% of them) just cares about usability and security hence Apple's success on the computer and mobile phone business.
mikeaspatrick
on Oct 31, 2008
**the apple is evil and it must be punished*** However... isn't this just the same as the time Microsoft said that anyone is free to use the ribbon, so long as they don't build office software that uses it?
daveinla
on Oct 31, 2008
Oh and if you buy Apple gear to run MS soft on it, you don't need to whine.
Ocean
on Oct 31, 2008
Howabout some nuance Paul? There are multiple reasons...good and bad...that the browser could have been rejected.
WebGuy3000
on Oct 31, 2008
Evil? Honestly? No. Genocide is evil. Child pornography is evil. Racial hatred s evil. This sort of crap is heavy-handed, self-serving, controlling, certainly. But evil? Get a grip. To quote the immortal Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
murdocdv
on Oct 31, 2008
@mike Understanding and explaning the facts != defense or praise. Since the iPhone SDK launched, 3rd-party apps have not had access to the bluetooth stack or to run in the background. BlueHoo is not the first and they certainly aren't going to be the last developer to want this. Developers closer to Apple than BlueHoo have been protesting the situation since SDK launch. It's old news, and has nothing to do with BlueHoo. They are the rules for 3rd-party apps Apple has in place right now. Of course either are "technically doable", the hardware is there, and obviously Apple's apps run in the background. Apple reasons aren't hard to deduce (battery life, runaway background apps, device slowdown, security vulnerabilities listening on network ports) , some of them may be good, others not so much. The best feedback to change the situation is sales. I don't think Apple is losing many iPhone sales right now because those two checkboxes aren't hit for 3rd-party developers.
mikeaspatrick
on Oct 31, 2008
Oops, probably should have said ***the apple is evil and it must be punished*** ;o) nah! just kidding, it's not really evil, it's just a controlling multi-national that, like every other controlling multi-national, wants to fill its bank account with money that could be put to far better use feeding the starving populations of the world. It's not one little bit evil really.
Dude1313
on Oct 31, 2008
WebGuy3000 said: This sort of crap is heavy-handed, self-serving, controlling, certainly. But evil? Get a grip. To quote the immortal Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." +1
shark47
on Oct 31, 2008
WebGuy, He is using the word in the same context that "your people" use it when they say, "Microsoft is evil". So, stop trying to turn this around by mentioning evils like genocide and child pornography. You guys created the rules. Live with it now.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
mikeaspatrick Actually, not even equivalent. Microsoft isn't saying you can't build a Word Processor for Windows because they make one. In fact, Microsoft now even gives you the detailed specs to make a compatible word processor if you want to compete with Word. Microsoft is not saying you can't build a word processor with an advanced UI framework. They're just saying they won't give you rights to the advanced UI framework they developed as a freebie if you are going to clone a few specific apps. The equivalent would be if Apple's restrictions were "you are free to create your own competitor for iTunes on the iPhone if you want but we won't give you a free license for our iTunes UI if you do". That's a LOT different from "you are prohibited from producing anything for iPhone that we think competes with anything we make now or might want to make in the future"
Ribatu
on Oct 31, 2008
Not evil at all. Microsoft prohibits incorporating the Ribbon UI on any competing products. From the MS Ribbon license: "The license excludes products or components that perform primarily as software for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, email, contacts and databases, and that are created or marketed as a replacement for any or all of them." It all depends on how you look at it.
shark47
on Oct 31, 2008
This is typical of the company and its iClowns. They want everything to be on their terms. They're so used to getting everything served on a silver platter to them by the fawning media that they're not used to the concept of a level playing field. Paul's not the first person to use the word "evil" to describe a tech company. He's probably the first to use it to describe Apple, maybe.
mikeaspatrick
on Oct 31, 2008
@ mikegalos Couldn't agree more really. It would be like Microsoft saying you can't install another web browser in Windows which would cause a right stink. The thing is that because this is a phone, not a PC, the rules are all different so Apple can get away with it. @ webguy Cheers fella :o) and to the people who were talking genocide, turn your PC off and go switch on your TV. If you want to know what evil really is, it's all over the news as we speak. It's years since I've been flamed (it's rather fun really) but when was the last time you actually spoke up against evil people?
WebGuy3000
on Oct 31, 2008
@shark47 Nope. You've got the wrong guy. I've never called Microsoft evil (never criticized Microsoft here, as far as I can recall). I am not by any stretch an Apple "fanatic," and I have certainly not created any rules. "Your people," indeed. I am, however, annoyed by hyperbole and hysteria, whatever the source. If my you inferred from my post a blind defense of Apple, I apologize. That was not my intent. I just find it a little out of perspective when people throw around words like "evil" in the context of a fricking cell phone OS.
mikeaspatrick
on Oct 31, 2008
Does anybody know if Opera have complained about this and who would they complain to?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
Now that's a thought. If we set the bar for "Evil" at genocide, that would explain how Google can still use "Don't be Evil" as a corporate motto while doing privacy violations, complying with censorship agreements and turning people over to the Chinese government. They have't committed genocide so they haven't been "evil". Now I understand... (Insert an emoticon for cynical half-smile)
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
mikeaspatrick It isn't that it's a phone that makes the rules different. It's that Apple hasn't been ruled in court to have monopoly power over that market - yet. The rules change at that point and things that were acceptable suddenly switch over to a tighter set of rules that Apple would find in total conflict with their corporate culture which is likely a big reason they've worked so hard to get the Psystar OpenPC monopoly case out of the courts and into arbitration.
mikeaspatrick
on Oct 31, 2008
@ mikegalos ROTFL - Haven't you just hit the nail on the head! Top marks.
Waethorn
on Oct 31, 2008
"Google can still use "Don't be Evil" as a corporate motto while doing privacy violations, complying with censorship agreements and turning people over to the Chinese government" Don't rate censorship and government policy in the same league as privacy violations. In essense, you are criticizing them for violating privacy in one instance, while attacking them for not doing it in others.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
Wae, Actually I'm criticising them for violating privacy in both cases. One's a case where they're using the user's private data for their own benefit, the other is a case where they're giving the users private data to a 3rd party (for example, the Chinese government) As for the censorship compliance, I'm not sure how you see blocking search results that return listings or info that a government doesn't want their people to see in exchange for being able to do business in that country as a privacy issue.
shark47
on Oct 31, 2008
Webguy, You're right that it's silly. Again, Paul's not the first person to use this in connection with a tech company. That's the reason I got the impression that you were being hypocritical when you criticized Paul. I apologize if that wasn't the case. Anyway, does anyone remember the ridiculous "Bill Gates is the anti-Christ" email thread that was used as an attempt to convince people that Microsoft was indeed evil?
DRWAM
on Oct 31, 2008
Evil is too harsh a word, besides, the reasons have not been revealed, only speculated. But the rejection of apps has been truely stupid since some apps that have been approved and sold, definitely repeat some iPhone functions. So then why were the others disallowed? I only knw of one that went against ATT policy/contract. An example is SaiSuke, a calendar that syncs with your Google calender, but definitely duplicates and competes with the Apple app. This erractic approval must be tamed to be fair. I think that evil is the wrong word, but pretty unfair and/or stupid nails it. BTW, Documents to Go is coming to the iPhone soon. Mike, did you have that half glass of wine for me?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
DRWAM No. I haven't been keeping up with my wine consumption (but I've been making it up with my whine production) So, I understand you got a $400 Vista laptop...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
As for "Evil" vs "Evil": I'm perfectly happy to use anybody's level of behavior definition for evil. My objection (and I suspect Paul's when he criticizes the "iCabal") is when there are different sets of rules for different companies.
DRWAM
on Oct 31, 2008
Correction Mike, it was a $400 Vista SP1 laptop, running fine, runnning real fine. Also, I did read that Windows 7 should run fine on them as well as netbooks. That's incredible IMO. Of course, that's a post for another thread.
SPiotr
on Oct 31, 2008
@mikegalos What has this situation got to do with monopoly? Nothing! Come back to me when iPhone has Windows market share style numbers. "....set of rules that Apple would find in total conflict with their corporate culture which is likely a big reason they've worked so hard to get the Psystar OpenPC monopoly case out of the courts and into arbitration." Rubbish. I thought you always dealt in facts... not biased opinion. The judge sent both parties, Apple and Psystar, to ADR. You have absolutely no evidence that Apple "worked so hard" to do anything of the kind. Waiting to hear about the time you spent restructuring the legal process at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. PS. It's a copyright infringement case. Not a monopoly case.
Waethorn
on Oct 31, 2008
"I'm not sure how you see blocking search results that return listings or info that a government doesn't want their people to see in exchange for being able to do business in that country as a privacy issue." There are certain issues that that government wants to be kept private (meaning: not public). It's also law not to bring up the subject or protest it. If a company wants to do business in that country, they have to abide by the local laws. Didn't your momma tell you not to judge people on your own moral values? ;)
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
SPiotr What does it have to do with monopoly? Um, perhaps you missed Psystar's countersuit charging Apple with abusing their monopoly power?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
Wae Google has every right to choose to: A) Offer their product in China by giving the Chinese government the terms that government requests and living with terms they (and many of their users) find objectionable B) Give up the revenue source by refusing to do business where it means accepting terms they find objectionable If they choose A, their are consequences to that choice that include being seen as either giving defacto endorsement to those policies in exchange for increased profits If they choose B, the consequence may be decreased revenue The silly part is that some people think maximizing profit excuses all other actions. (Hardly a new idea, the current US President's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was convicted of violating the "Trading with the Enemy Act" during World War II for continuing to finance the German government after the outbreak of war and I suspect he'd have justified it under the same "we are only concerned with maximize profit" rationale.
SPiotr
on Oct 31, 2008
@mikegalos "Um, perhaps you missed Psystar's countersuit charging Apple with abusing their monopoly power?" That is Psystar's defence. Apple brought the case to court and it is about copyright infringement. Any response to the rest of my post? Didn't think so. Why bother with facts when innuendo is so much more fun.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
SPiotr Well, the courts ruled that Psystar's antitrust case against Apple had merit. As for answering the rest of the post, why? It was based on your faulty assumption that I was talking about Apple suing Psystar when I was talking about Psystar suing Apple for violations of antitrust laws which is on point despite you personally deciding that it shouldn't be discussed.
Waethorn
on Oct 31, 2008
@Mike: So Google is greedy. Greed is a sin. Hence, EVIL!
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
Wae Nope. Greedy is greedy. Giving personal data over to a foreign government to assist in the prosecution of people accessing government blocked websites, on the other hand, is pretty much more than that. And greedy isn't a justification. It's a choice. When you help throw people into jail to make a buck it really isn't considred OK just because you made money doing it.
SPiotr
on Oct 31, 2008
@mikegalos "As for answering the rest of the post, why?" Why? You know perfectly well why. Because you have tried to respond to my "PS" only and ignored the rest of my original post. This appears to be your modus operandi. When you can't counter a point, you find something else to talk about. "which is likely a big reason they've (Apple) worked so hard to get the Psystar OpenPC monopoly case out of the courts and into arbitration." Biased opinion. No facts. Both parties ordered by a judge to attempt arbitration.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
SPiotr Seeing how I already responded, asking again's just redundant on your part and my replying again would be so on mine.
DRWAM
on Oct 31, 2008
Happy Halloween gang. I wish my $400 Vista SP1 laptop could hand out candy.
robertsjoe
on Oct 31, 2008
"Do you think we give away a little bit of our soul every time we use an Apple product?" That is such a dumb thing to say. Just another Microsoft fanboy/zealot.
robertsjoe
on Oct 31, 2008
"Apple is evil, part 227" Part 227 is about right. Check out this Factoid: http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5821/supersiteformicrosoftfatu1.png It's funny, because it accurately true.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
Apparently, Mac users tell people they have style but Windows users have soul!
SPiotr
on Oct 31, 2008
@mikegalos Yes. You have responded to what you want to. However you have failed (twice now) to explain how you equate a judge ORDERING arbitration with Apple working "so hard" to keep the case out of court. Mike, I don't expect you to be a legal expert or know all the details of an individual case. I just get a little tired of the presentation of opinion as fact.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 31, 2008
SPiotr, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a lawsuit alleging abuse of monopoly powers that the courts ruled had sufficient merit to proceed justified your response of: "What has this situation got to do with monopoly? Nothing!" Come back to us when you get that one figured out.

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use
Apr. 18, 2013
Article

What I Use: On the Road 20

Every so often, I publish an updated version of my “What I Use” document, which details the technology products and services I actually use day-to-day. Since I’m currently on my third business trip in five weeks, this is perhaps an ideal time to discuss the technology products I rely on when I travel and a few related points....More
Mar. 6, 2013
Article

What I Use: March 2013 33

Lots of changes since November, including a new PC-based home server running Windows 8, several new smart phones, new PCs and tablets, new cloud backup, Office 365 Home Premium and a nice doubling of my Internet speeds courtesy of Verizon FIOS....More
WinSuperSite.com
Related Penton Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc