People need to read 1984 and Brave New World again (along with a history of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century).
A state does not need to be all-powerful in order to be oppressive. They simply need to convince enough people to act as spies and censors on their behalf so as to intimidate or throttle dissent.
Knowing Yahoo's history as I do (as a former customer) I am quite willing to chalk this one up to incompetence, coupled with a good dose of political bias. Don't expect the Yahoo's to fess up to either. Their efforts to reinforce the illusion that they have done no wrong, and can do no wrong only adds to my contempt for the company. Eventually everyone will figure out that their ability to deliver falls far short of their promises. My only regret is that the primary beneficiary of Yahoo's demise will likely be Microsoft.
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
More antitrust coverage on Gawker/Valleywag, wow. Okay, I'm not complaining -- I love this stuff -- but for this post I must request: If you're going to do an antitrust analysis, then do an antitrust analysis. It would be a necessary piece on an interesting topic, and a win for Gawker.
Also, is Andy Kessler (A Wall Street Journal op-ed, written by a Silicon Valley hedge fund manager) back to managing money? Because my understanding was that he's been out of that game for almost ten years now.
oh, c'mon, stop being naive & blinded by your hate for Apple - they're just another giant corporation with another giant corporate CEO. and so btw is AT&T. both giant corporations have a ton to lose if people start using other technologies, so seriously, in these overly-corrupt, greedsoaked & violent times, you thought, what? that the giant corporations were gonna act cool...
@gnipgnop: This is acknowledged very openly in the post. Ryan Tate is actually asking for the flip side of your request - stop acting like Apple is some sort of wonderful, gleaming symbol of Silicon Valley perfection.
And as a neutral outsider on the topic, I have to say it's a bit startling how many Apple devotees there are.
I don't know if you're one of them, but I think your comment seems a bit reactionary - where's the hate? Apple has behaved badly. This is pointing that out. There are many people out there who don't like to admit Apple behaves badly, and thus it needs to be said, and clearly.
@NoelleBlue: believe me i'm no apologist for any corporation, I'm just not gullable.
i suppose i should have said "blinded by his fashionable outrage" - just what you get when you call someone "evil" - puts a bias to it, you know, hate because Ryan's is a rant against a man: "Apple is uniquely molded to the whims of a single man..." & not to shock you, sweetie, but bigger picture - this has very little to do with one man, that's the play.
and Noelle, this isn't a new story - been soaking the trades for like a month, pointed out by everyone from techcrunch to gigaom to mashable, it's definitely "out there." so i guess i'm just saying that if ryan wants to take down some corporate douchebags, tell us something we don't know.
@gnipgnop: Hmmm, I disagree with you, darling, I don't think this has anything to do with gullibility. The bigger picture has been shown again and again you're ignoring the reality that it is Apple.
If you read the trades then you should know that Steve Jobs and his vision and priorities are massively important to his company and the decisions it makes. That's just the way it is, and has been confirmed. New facts have come out, this addresses them. *Shrug* You're trying to discredit the post on several fronts, but I'm not seeing a central point.
What about Skype being operational and useful on a new version of the iPod Touch to be unveiled soon? That way Apple pries itself away from AT&T and revolutionizes mobile communications by making VoIP something everyone can use.
Either that or Steve Jobs is just obsessed with control.
Duh. Neither Apple (Jobs) nor AT&T wanted Google Voice approved. But if AT&T took responsibility, there could be legal issues. So, Apple says, "we made the decision independently."
@iplaudius: Yeah. I lean toward a scenario somewhere between this one and the idea of Apple doing it under an implicit (not explicit) threat of litigation by AT&T under terms of their contract. Thus AT&T has plausible deniability even though it ultimately has at least some degree of responsibility.
The thing I find fascinating in strings like this is how adept a lot of people are at putting themselves in the shoes of the CEOs involved and understanding their interests. Congratulations. But you know what, you don't actually run any of these companies, so who gives a fuck? Better to argue your own interests as a user, no?
The bigger issue here is, why should any device be locked to a specific service provider rather than you take the service THAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR to whatever device you feel like? These exclusive contracts should be flat-out banned by the FCC.
And before any CEO-for-a-day bitches that this would be unfair gub'mint intrusion in the "free market," the correct, non-bullshit answer is, no, an FCC ban would make for a FREER market, with more competition on both service and hardware. The current behavior of the companies that provide those products, not the regulatory framework, is what's anti-free market in the setup we have. You need rules to have capitalism, assholes.
Google is an OS competitor in the handheld market now. Being that this is the situation, I don't see why Apple should be under any obligation to let Google sell its wares (which, simply by being Google products, are likely to increase the profile of Android, and therefore Android-based handsets) on the iphone app store.
How many apps are being developed for the iphone by Microsoft? Not many. And that's because they have their own handheld OS to market, and they don't really gain any profile by legitimating the Apple product by creating new functionality for it. Google, on the other hand, is a fledgling competitor in the handheld OS market. They have a lot of profile to gain by selling Google iphone apps, getting users addicted to them, and then saying "Hey, it works well on the iphone, but it fully integrated and works much better over here on the Android handsets." Exactly why Apple should have to let them do this, under threat of being deemed "evil," eludes me.
Apple's informal motto "Don't be Microsoft" is now officially tossed out in Jobs' final death throes. You want to understand the man, the myth? See what he does now that his legendary life is nearly over.
C'mon, you all know he's probably got at max a cancerous decade left of stealing himself some new ice-filled-bathtub organs. Does he go out and donate his fortune as a last goodwill gesture like Gates? Nope. Still parking in the handicapped spot. Without a license plate. Still playing God like a fuckface.
Lighten up "Steve". Go do hookers and blow like anyone else who is dying would do. I hear it's legal in Mexico now.
@RunningLowOnPills: It's hard to disagree with any one particular point there. Except for maybe playing God. The guy's company built a portable music player and some computers that have an okay interface. Not really godlike. Maybe crazy genie, but not godlike.
@TruPhan: that's not correct. Apple is totally built on a cult around Steves. All the secrecy, the fans flocking to MacWorld of WWDC like pilgrims going to see the Pope, etc. It's all about Steves The Creator. Nevermind the people who actually make it a happen.
@frederic: So Steve Jobs has never unveiled anything of value to the public? People just continue to eat up Apple products because there's so much good will stored up for Steve Jobs? That seems somewhat implausible. I think that, of the millions of people who own ipods and iphones and macbooks, only a relatively small percentage actually have a clue who Steve Jobs is (such that they could be trapped inside his "cult" of personality), aside from possibly having heard or read his name in passing.
"Self defeating"?! They're making buttloads of money AND a phone tens of millions greatly enjoy using. The Pre is dying on the vine, the G1 is a steaming pile (and can't be upgraded past Cupcake), and WinMo is such a clusterfu¢k that it makes the Zune look well-conceived. So, I don't see anything "disgraceful" about Apple's decisions, self-serving and lucrative? Yes, but disgraceful? No.
To be fair, it's in Apple's contract with AT&T. So they didn't do this just for the fun of it.
"There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission."
Oh, glad that you admit there's no need to chalk it up to "political favoritism", whatever the hell that means.
It's a hideous image, graphical violence done to Obama's face, simultaneously scarring and disfiguring him in Photoshop and making a mocking commentary on his race by putting him in Joker whiteface.
What does this have to do with his politics? Tell me. This image has been brandished at Town Halls with the word "Socialist" underneath it. Please explain that to me. Because it makes no fucking sense. The Joker is a socialist?
Boo hoo for you. Flickr deleted links to a godawful, degrading, yes racist picture some 20 year old Palestinian with no social skills spent 5 hours, defacing Obama's image. What's your problem with this? You can't get enough of this brilliant satire? It's artistic expression to you? It's a really cool picture to you?
Satire ought to have a point. Obama is the Joker? I seriously don't get it- no one does. It makes no sense, is not funny, and ultimately is some kid degrading Obama's face in a dehumanizing way. That right wing sites adopted as some sort of wit. That you're now defending.
Oh, is that censorship?
Tell us what's so fucking great about this nasty piece of work. One damned redeeming point about it.
@Baroness: I'd usually say that something like this should stay up to avoid the chilling effect of censorship, but it’s so hateful that it deserves the treatment it got.
If it were a piece of graf on the street, it would have been tagged over in hours.
@Baroness: Nothing's great about it. It's vile and hateful. It should still be allowed to anyone who wants a copy, if for no other reason than that we'll know who they are. The first amendment protects the Klan, Stormfront.com, Fred Phelps and Benny Hinn the same way it protects Robert Mapplethorpe and Karen Finley. There's no reasonable way this image can be considered incitement to violence or child pornography, so it falls under the same protections. Is that a wonderful thing? Actually, I think it is.
08/27/09
A state does not need to be all-powerful in order to be oppressive. They simply need to convince enough people to act as spies and censors on their behalf so as to intimidate or throttle dissent.
Knowing Yahoo's history as I do (as a former customer) I am quite willing to chalk this one up to incompetence, coupled with a good dose of political bias. Don't expect the Yahoo's to fess up to either. Their efforts to reinforce the illusion that they have done no wrong, and can do no wrong only adds to my contempt for the company. Eventually everyone will figure out that their ability to deliver falls far short of their promises. My only regret is that the primary beneficiary of Yahoo's demise will likely be Microsoft.
08/27/09
-J.S. Mill
Ryan, thanks for following up on this story.
08/22/09
Also, is Andy Kessler (A Wall Street Journal op-ed, written by a Silicon Valley hedge fund manager) back to managing money? Because my understanding was that he's been out of that game for almost ten years now.
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
you must be fun to play at poker...
08/22/09
And as a neutral outsider on the topic, I have to say it's a bit startling how many Apple devotees there are.
I don't know if you're one of them, but I think your comment seems a bit reactionary - where's the hate? Apple has behaved badly. This is pointing that out. There are many people out there who don't like to admit Apple behaves badly, and thus it needs to be said, and clearly.
08/22/09
i suppose i should have said "blinded by his fashionable outrage" - just what you get when you call someone "evil" - puts a bias to it, you know, hate because Ryan's is a rant against a man: "Apple is uniquely molded to the whims of a single man..." & not to shock you, sweetie, but bigger picture - this has very little to do with one man, that's the play.
and Noelle, this isn't a new story - been soaking the trades for like a month, pointed out by everyone from techcrunch to gigaom to mashable, it's definitely "out there." so i guess i'm just saying that if ryan wants to take down some corporate douchebags, tell us something we don't know.
08/23/09
If you read the trades then you should know that Steve Jobs and his vision and priorities are massively important to his company and the decisions it makes. That's just the way it is, and has been confirmed. New facts have come out, this addresses them. *Shrug* You're trying to discredit the post on several fronts, but I'm not seeing a central point.
08/22/09
Either that or Steve Jobs is just obsessed with control.
08/21/09
08/22/09
The thing I find fascinating in strings like this is how adept a lot of people are at putting themselves in the shoes of the CEOs involved and understanding their interests. Congratulations. But you know what, you don't actually run any of these companies, so who gives a fuck? Better to argue your own interests as a user, no?
The bigger issue here is, why should any device be locked to a specific service provider rather than you take the service THAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR to whatever device you feel like? These exclusive contracts should be flat-out banned by the FCC.
And before any CEO-for-a-day bitches that this would be unfair gub'mint intrusion in the "free market," the correct, non-bullshit answer is, no, an FCC ban would make for a FREER market, with more competition on both service and hardware. The current behavior of the companies that provide those products, not the regulatory framework, is what's anti-free market in the setup we have. You need rules to have capitalism, assholes.
08/21/09
How many apps are being developed for the iphone by Microsoft? Not many. And that's because they have their own handheld OS to market, and they don't really gain any profile by legitimating the Apple product by creating new functionality for it. Google, on the other hand, is a fledgling competitor in the handheld OS market. They have a lot of profile to gain by selling Google iphone apps, getting users addicted to them, and then saying "Hey, it works well on the iphone, but it fully integrated and works much better over here on the Android handsets." Exactly why Apple should have to let them do this, under threat of being deemed "evil," eludes me.
08/21/09
C'mon, you all know he's probably got at max a cancerous decade left of stealing himself some new ice-filled-bathtub organs. Does he go out and donate his fortune as a last goodwill gesture like Gates? Nope. Still parking in the handicapped spot. Without a license plate. Still playing God like a fuckface.
Lighten up "Steve". Go do hookers and blow like anyone else who is dying would do. I hear it's legal in Mexico now.
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
"There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission."
08/21/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Was that convincing? Would it help if I stood in front of a billowing American flag?
08/19/09
It's a hideous image, graphical violence done to Obama's face, simultaneously scarring and disfiguring him in Photoshop and making a mocking commentary on his race by putting him in Joker whiteface.
What does this have to do with his politics? Tell me. This image has been brandished at Town Halls with the word "Socialist" underneath it. Please explain that to me. Because it makes no fucking sense. The Joker is a socialist?
Boo hoo for you. Flickr deleted links to a godawful, degrading, yes racist picture some 20 year old Palestinian with no social skills spent 5 hours, defacing Obama's image. What's your problem with this? You can't get enough of this brilliant satire? It's artistic expression to you? It's a really cool picture to you?
Satire ought to have a point. Obama is the Joker? I seriously don't get it- no one does. It makes no sense, is not funny, and ultimately is some kid degrading Obama's face in a dehumanizing way. That right wing sites adopted as some sort of wit. That you're now defending.
Oh, is that censorship?
Tell us what's so fucking great about this nasty piece of work. One damned redeeming point about it.
08/19/09
If it were a piece of graf on the street, it would have been tagged over in hours.
08/20/09