I like free software. I don’t like when people make it a death wish.
I didn’t see this post on the Free Software Foundation blog until this morning. Quite simply, they have started giving false statements and half-truths about Apple and the App Store, in order to promote free and open source software. Quoting their five reasons to not get an iPhone:
- iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can’t be on everyone’s phones.
- iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.
- iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.
- iPhone won’t play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora.
- iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don’t spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software — like the FreeRunner.
- iPhone does not block free software. Developers pay a one-time $99 fee for hosting, testing, and unlimited developer support. They can offer their software free of charge from then on. Plus, for $299 (again, one-time fee), you can sign up for the Enterprise program and bypass the App Store completely. And, that includes the cost of the SDK and IDE to make the app, which are free. How many robust Java IDEs do what Xcode does, at no cost? Apple simply charges for the IDE when you make an app, not before you make it.
- Apple has led the industry with iTunes Plus to remove DRM whenever possible. Apple was the first music store to offer DRM decryption whenever a music label agreed to offer DRM-free music, at no charge to the consumer. And, iTunes is the only DRM platform that gives you an opt-out, by burning your music to an Audio CD (which can then be re-ripped back in as an MP3, AAC, or any other format).
- iPhone has industry-standard location controls, in the Settings application. One touch can disable anyone’s access to your location. And, you are prompted when giving location data to third-parties. Basically, what the FSF said above on location data being exposed is completely incorrect.
- iPhone will play other formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora with a free desktop converter. Both formats would require extensive support, and are not widely used outside of the Linux community. Apple has added WAV and WMA support to iTunes in response to consumer demand.
- While iPhone certainly is not the only option, the makers of the Neo FreeRunner clearly state that the device is aimed at Linux developers, and not the typical consumer. It lacks EDGE and UMTS data, and as such has one of the slowest mobile data connections in America.
Summing it up, the references to location data being exposed are 100% false, and appear to be pre-release speculation written as fact. Calling the App Store one-time fee a tax is a misrepresentation. And, their alternative device is not even targeted for consumers, according to FreeRunner’s parent company.
The Free Software Foundation appears to be taking pot shots at Apple to try and pick up media coverage. It has backfired, as it just makes the FSF appear shameful at best. Next time, save us the half-truths, and give consumers the whole picture. Yes, I would love it if Apple would offer an easier way to run any application on the device… but the best way the FSF can make that happen, is to provide the most accurate depiction possible.
WRT to your first comment: Yes, using the FSF’s definitions (and therefore interpreting their comments as they were intended to mean), Apple blocks the use of free software. “Free” here does not mean “gratis”, it means open, modifiable, and redistributable. Apple requires developers pay a tax and hand over control of their software to Apple who make the final decision as to whether it can be run on an iPhone. That is not free software.
Your second comment is not a reply to the associated FSF comment. Whether Apple prefers DRM to not exist for music downloads or not is irrelevant: the fact is Apple endorses DRM, providing it as an option for music downloads and treating it as a must-have and a feature for video downloads. They were the first major online content store to provide an end-to-end DRM “solution”, and the iPhone continues in that tradition.
The third comment is clearly bogus, there’s no reason for the FSF to single out Apple on this, especially as it’s impossible to implement a cellular network without some concept of location. Of all the comments you criticize, this is probably the only one that can be fairly shot down as silly. But, ironically, you shoot and you miss: you claim that it doesn’t do this. It does. You can’t implement a W-CDMA based UMTS network without location information. The data is there, it’s available to your cellular provider.
The fourth comment again is given a reply that’s entirely illegitimate. Sure, you can convert music to a patent-encumbered form to play on your iPhone, but you cease to be using patent-free music and software as soon as you do so (you cannot do this transcoding under Ubuntu without installing non-free software), and you lose quality in the process. Essentially you’re saying “Sure it’s possible to use patent free music files on your device, just convert them to patent encumbered files”. What. The. Hell?
The fifth comment can be argued any way, but needless to say there are better phones out there than iPhone, and the FSF is right to draw people’s attention to them.
Five for five you’re wrong, sometimes because you’ve misunderstood what the FSF has actually said, but in some cases you’ve worded a reply that implies the FSF is right as something claiming it’s wrong. The FSF is technically right on four of the five counts (even if one is impossible to remedy and not Apple’s fault), with the last one being largely subjective.
You can argue that the FSF is technically right on four out of five counts. But you can’t then say that “five for five I’m wrong”. I have them dead to rights on at least one point, and I have four other lies of omission on the table.
I find it curious that you call me out for pointing out problems with point three, agree with me that they’re valid, and then say I’m wrong five out of five times.
Finally, the FSF is being misleading, I never said they were lying (but for the lie of omission). The FSF should be doing its due diligence to inform consumers (since that is their goal).
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with FSF tearing into iPhone’s walled garden. As I said in the article, I just think they must do it based on valid, fully-informed information. Anything else is simply disingenuous to the nature of free, open sourced software.
Now, on the technical nitpicking about location data. LBS data is emitted on every cell phone for E911 purposes. However, it is not exposed to third-parties (which FSF argues that the iPhone does… and it doesn’t), unless you explicitly give approval. If you still feel that’s not sufficient information, fee free to research JSR 179, which should give you more insight into the carrier-phone-app interconnection, it’s really no different on iPhone.
In fact, iPhone OS 2.0 is even more ardent about not exposing location data to third-parties than a typical phone. It won’t even supply Apple and its second-parties with LBS data without your explicit approval. Give it a go in Apple Maps and you’ll see for yourself!