FSF's "Defective By Design" Targets Apple Genius Bars 838
mjasay writes "At OSCON this year, MySQL's Brian Aker made this bold statement: 'Microsoft is irrelevant ... We're more worried about Apple.' The Free Software Foundation appears to have caught the hint, and has turned its attention to all-things-Apple with a 'denial of service' attack on the Apple Genius Bars. The idea is to completely book all Genius Bars and then ask the 'geniuses,' over and over again, a few questions about Apple's proprietary ways (while, apparently, real customers with support issues are left to flounder). Lost in this anti-Apple fervor, however, is the Free Software Foundation's complete and conscious failure to protect the web. Richard Stallman has long felt that software that doesn't sit on his desktop doesn't affect his freedom, but isn't the opposite true? Why is the FSF focused on Apple when the bigger concern should be Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, and other web players, a point made by Tim O'Reilly recently at OSCON?" Defective by Design is just one of many FSF projects, remember; it hardly seems fair to say that the FSF has been ignoring the implications of software as a service.
For the Nth time... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple does NOT [gornall.net] (repeat that, NOT [gornall.net]) prevent people from developing open-source applications. The FSF's rant was just that, an uninformed screed directed at a company that doesn't play ball with the FSF's politics.
Proof: Read the first link. I downloaded some source from the 'net, I compiled it, I modified it and compiled it again, then I installed it on my phone and it works just fine.
I had an email exchange with the author of the FSF's rant, and pointed out his errors. I think he and I still disagree, but to not even acknowledge the possibility that FOSS s/w is just fine and peachy on the iphone is intellectually dishonest. Not that that will stop the crazies from apple-hating... [sigh]
Simon
Re:DOS attacks? What on earth? (Score:2, Informative)
Missed out on the Civil Rights movement, did we?
Didn't study Ghandi and Indian independence in school?
Never heard of Vietnam-era anti-war protests?
A few responses (Score:3, Informative)
It's absolutely right that people should be polite, and we emphasized that in the handout and instructions we wrote for this. Being a jerk to someone just showing up to work after a late night at the bar doesn't help anyone. And many of the Geniuses are probably at least sympathetic to us, and they probably think the Genius name is pretty funny too -- everyone has to make a living.
Our goal is to communicate a message to Apple, and we use the communications channels that Apple has provided in order to do this. It's interesting that people criticize making life difficult for the employees when we are doing something that disagrees with Apple, but not of the pro-Apple crowd. What about the 500 people waiting outside to get in when the new store opened? I bet that "made life difficult" for the employees too. Besides, isn't a day full of conversations about DRM going to be a pretty easy day for the Geniuses? They don't have to debug anything, or deal with people who are furious about not knowing how to use their computer, or about some legitimate data loss :).
Organizations and companies are set up to deflect and channel criticism. If we don't use the tools we have -- our voices, our dollars, and our ability to organize with others -- nothing will ever get changed. Organizing a concerted effort to deliver a direct message in a respectful but firm way seems like something consumers are supposed to do when they don't like what a big company is doing. I'm honestly interested to hear all the alternative suggestions out there for communicating this message to Apple. We can't just send letters to generic customer service addresses and wait quietly. We can't just stop buying Apple products but not say why. I think we're past that point -- Apple said they agreed with us a year and a half ago and yet now they are pushing more DRM than ever.
As for taking time away from Apple customers who need tech support, that is indeed regrettable but it's also inevitable. Time is a zero-sum game and Apple only has so much of it. Any customer going to the store takes time away from another. The 500 people waiting outside the store stopped me from getting in to have the conversation I wanted to have too. The question is, who is responsible for this? If Apple stuck to what they said they were going to do about DRM, or if they spent a little more money on their support services and some executives took a slight pay cut, this wouldn't be an issue. Pointing the finger at people using the option as provided to ask salient questions about the way Apple technology functions of Apple employees tasked with answering these questions is not the right answer.
So, yes -- we hope and expect that everyone will be polite, but firm. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to other customers but in consolation I can offer the statement that if we succeed, there will be far fewer agonizing and annoying DRM-induced computer catastrophes for all of us to deal with.
Re:doesn't it "just work"? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the Geniuses aren't customer service, they're tech support (usually high-level tech support at that, with loads of certifications of every piece of hardware Apple has made in the past 10 years). Granted, they *do* deal with customer service issues but they will put those off to customer service specialists over the phone if it takes longer than a few minutes to resolve because that isn't their area of extensive training.
I only offer this correction because (probably like most people) I assumed anyone physically working in a retail space would be pretty low-level, with the occasional fluke of someone overqualified. I was pretty surprised to find out just how much training and technical experience the typical Apple Genius has.
Re:For the Nth time... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Nothing in the procedure I outline in the links requires a jail-broken phone. Everything there is an approved method of installing software onto the phones as recommended by Apple.
Simon.
Some misinformation (Score:3, Informative)
First, there is this statement that Richard Stallmen is "not interested" in freedom for users of remote web services. The truth is much simpler. For a long time, there was valid concern that the ability to effectively utilize existing law to sustain such a license was perhaps weaker than the use of copyleft in more direct and traditional linking and code reuse scenarios. However, this did not stop the FSF (and Richard) from producing and endorsing the GNU Affero General Public License, which does try to address this very issue:
http://www.techspot.com/news/27937-Free-Software-Foundation-releases-GPL-for-web-services.html
The broader question of the FSF this addresses is the use of direct action. Sometimes direct action campaigns can be ugly to some. I happen to personally believe strongly in direct action activism. Often direct action campaigns are NECESSARY because conditions offer no other alternative, whether we speak about what used to be political freedom in this "thing" called America, or we speak about traditional technical and social freedoms, all of which are under fundamental assault.
Is this particular campaign a form of direct activism? If so, is it an effective one? These to me are the more important questions to consider.
Re:A few responses (Score:2, Informative)
The FSF used to stand for the high ideals of freedom (that's freedom for everyone, John, not just for those politically-aligned with yourself).
Absolutely. And that's why we make an issue out of this -- DRM prevents everyone from exercising their freedom. I can understand disagreeing about the tactics but let's be clear here that the goal is not politically any different from the usual -- Apple, on the iPhone and other platforms, is actively working against free software.
Here's a suggestion, John, let those of you who oppose Apple's policies stop buying Apple products, and don't "keep quiet about it", shout it from the rooftops, declare it on your websites, start (non e-) mail campaigns, whichever method you like. I suspect you've been doing all that, and no-one who hears your message cares about it - that's the cold hard truth of the matter.
You're right that we've been doing that. The result has been a steadily growing campaign, and a general shift away from DRM in many parts of the industry -- the parts of the industry where people have objected most strongly. Obviously there have been a lot of factors for that, but certainly people speaking up together in public is an important one. But there are a few powerful holdouts, like Apple.
alternatively: The suffering of other people is a useful tool that I can use to try and get my message some more metaphorical airtime. As used by tinpot dictators throughout history.
Well, that's not what I said. Every time you speak to someone at a company you are potentially taking time away from someone else who wants to speak to them. If Apple only had one service rep, would you blame us for taking up his or her time? Just because Apple doesn't provide enough infrastructure to handle the feedback their business model creates does not mean that we should not use the channels that they do provide. Your logic seems paralyzing and strangely deferential to a company that makes poor choices. Hold the company responsible for the consequences of those choices, not the people who object to them.
Re:A few responses (Score:2, Informative)
Actually it's not. We aren't threatening anyone. We are using existing channels offered by Apple to communicate with them in regard to issues about their products. That's not anything like threatening someone with violence.
Street protests block the streets and irritate people. Are they always wrong? Your logic would say yes. In fact, your logic would suggest that I should never complain to a company about anything because I might be taking away from someone else's opportunity to get technical support.
The dictator logic here is Apple's logic. "I'm sorry. I don't want to restrict your freedom, but since other people might abuse their freedom, I have no choice."
Re:Mean-spirited? (Score:2, Informative)
The summary says that "the idea is to completely book all Genius Bars" whereas it seems to me from the article they are intending to book only one session with each genius, ask some thought-provoking questions about the locked-down state of the iPhone, and then leave.
Re:Mean-spirited? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:doesn't it "just work"? (Score:3, Informative)
There's training and certification from Apple (run by third parties) that Apple Authorized Service Providers go through before they can work on hardware. Apple Geniuses and higher-level tech support people are generally certified.
I actually just checked their site since I was curious, and it looks like they've conglomerated all their certification into one big "Apple Hardware" certification now -- I remember it used to be broken down by hardware category.
http://training.apple.com/certification/acmt [apple.com]
Re:Mean-spirited? (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the part of the article you conveniently left out is relevant:
We want as many people as possible to book slots this Friday and Saturday. Why not book more than one? Having lots of slots booked will get Apple's attention and ensure that the Geniuses have done their homework.
That's their emphasis, not mine. How'd you miss that quote if you got the other one?
They might as well chain themselves together in front of Apple Stores to block access, except that wouldn't be as annoying.
To Matt Asay (Score:3, Informative)
Going from GPLv2 to what we know now as AGPLv3 would remove the right for GPL developers to have private modifications.
Remember, GPLv3 was always an update to GPLv2 -- adding AGPL-style elements would have caused far less projects to switch to GPLv3, which was the larger goal, due to Tivoisation and other fixes in the updated license.
As I understand it, AGPLv2 was written by Eben for Affero -- a company headed by Henri Poole, who is on the FSF board. While incompatible with GPLv2, there was always a plan to migrate AGPL provisions to a GPL compatible license. Which is what happened.
The fact that the FSF sought feedback from the community on the issue shows humility, in my opinion.
For Small Values of "Long" (Score:5, Informative)
Er, you might want to check that. Darwin hasn't been open source in a long time.
Yeah, not since OS X version 10.5.4 ...
Oh wait, that's the current version.
The source, PPC and Intel (gasp! that's unpossible!) for Darwin can be found at Apple - Darwin - Releases [apple.com]
Perhaps you just need a bit more practice with this new "Google" thing. I'm sure you would have found it on your next search.
SteveM
Re:Mean-spirited? (Score:3, Informative)
No one has a legitimate need to drive a Hummer unless they are serving in Iraq. People who try to rationalize their SUV purchase should have bought a pickup.