[LINK] Steve Jobs: Great unwashed don't need PCs

[Ivan Trundle]

On 03/06/2010, at 8:54 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:

> The single 
> most useful - by which I mean personally profitable - piece of software 
> I use is an open-source geo system called Grass-GIS. There is utterly 
> zero hope of replacing it with, say, Google Earth - what I do needs 
> vastly more than the "look, shiny" that GE offers.
> 
> If Apple chooses not to offer this 'stuff', I can't install it any other 
> way without violating some license; at least, that's how I understand 
> the iPad model.

Correct: but 'violating a licence' is hardly likely to be a deal-breaker for many - regardless of the absolute ease and simplicity of jailbreaking the device.

But the crux of the matter is Apple not choosing to offer your app (or choosing to). If the app is within the guidelines provided by Apple, and you use the APIs in a manner which won't break the software, then it will be available in the app store: less than 5% of total apps submitted to the appstore are rejected, and according to the figures, most of these get in on second tries.

I don't see why there is an issue here: if Apple offers a device which won't run the software that you want to use, don't buy it. There are alternatives in the market now, and no doubt more will arrive in the future.

> A couple of other items in the iPad license.

Which one are you reading from? Here's the real deal:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdf

> 
> 1. Apple claims to itself the right to use location data about 
> individual iPads. Sure, "this cannot identify you" is the promise, but 
> we've all seen plenty of ways to glean identifiable data from fragments 
> that are supposed to be obfuscated.

Not just Apple. It goes further than this: the terms of the iPad licence allow 'Apple and its partners and licensees' to collect, maintain, process and use your data including realtime geographic location. To whit:

"By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees' transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning off the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non location- based functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services."

It is quite obvious when using the OS that Location Services wants to store information, and you have the choice in every app to deny this option.

It's also up to the user to determine if they wish to trust the statement that 'location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you...'.

> 2. The license can only terminated in one direction - by Apple. The user 
> is not granted any rights of termination within the license itself. This 
> is objectionable; although it may not survive serious legal challenge, 
> the intent seems to be that even if you hand back the iPad, you're still 
> bound by the license.

I cannot see anywhere in the clause, 'Permitted Licence Uses and Restrictions' that alludes to this: I suspect you're reading the 'Termination' clause out of context. The section headed 'Transfers' allows the transfer of the licence (a one-time permanent transfer' which is reasonable to me. The implication is that this transfer terminates the licence, in fairly plain English, even for a legal document such as the license.

> 3. The license also binds the user specifically to US law - that is, you 
> must not use the iPad in any way that contravenes American law. I don't 
> know enough US law to know whether I might do something that might one 
> day contravene some law that the US passes. Nor, I suspect, do any of us.

This was in existence ever since Apple began selling computers: there is nothing new here: and it's not generally American law, it's *Californian* law - if it applies - since this is where the device's parent company is based. And in most cases, it's not even Californian law.

The license states in numerous paragraphs that 'some jurisdictions' have different laws that apply. There are about 50 or so references in the license that refer to exceptions and such clauses.

"(e) You agree to use the iPad Software and the Services (as defined in Section 5 below) in compliance with all applicable laws, including local laws of the country or region in which you reside or in which you download or use the iPad Software and Services."

However, this statement offers even more information:

"If you are a customer who is a consumer (someone who uses the iPad Software outside of your trade, business or profession), you may have legal rights in your country of residence which would prohibit the following limitations from applying to you, and where prohibited they will not apply to you. To find out more about rights, you should contact a local consumer advice organization."

...and for UK citizens, who have more stringent controls in place:

"If you are a consumer based in the United Kingdom, this License will be governed by the laws of the jurisdiction of your residence. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, the remainder of this License shall continue in full force and effect."

So it's up to the Australian government to mandate anything here, not Apple.

> The control freak-ism goes far beyond a couple of maybe-harmless quirks 
> of Steve Jobs' mindset.

A provocative statement which might have been better expressed to mask an obvious prejudice. You're clearly concerned that Steve Jobs' view does not match yours.

If it restricts your choices, buy something else. I cannot see the element of control being anything other than a benefit, rather than a limitation. It's about time that computers weren't simply open-ended boxes of trouble.

>> Apple is not 'blocking access to [whatever]', it is merely exercising its right to choose what to sell.
>> 
> And preventing the user from having a "right to buy" anything Apple 
> decides not to offer. "Choosing not to sell" is a different matter from 
> "preventing anyone from buying".

If the Apple appstore model fails, you will be proved right, Richard. It's a walled garden. Some might say it is a reincarnation of the 'AOL model' and doomed to fail, but it's proved to be a goldmine for many, and has not hampered sales of either the hardware or the software in any way to date. By any measure, it has been a spectacular success.

iT