Steve Jobs really is a prudish control freak, isn’t he? Not satisfied with deciding what apps may be used on the devices he sells, he now wants to exercise control over what people text.
Today the US Patent and Trademark Office approved a patent Apple filed in 2008, which, get this, prevents users from sending or receiving “objectionable” text messages.
So if in future you buy an iPhone, you won’t be able to send saucy messages to your beloved as any non-approved-by-Jobs words will be deleted. Naturally, the excuse is that it’s to protect the children…
FFS! Kids will find a workaround. And, frankly, once the manufacturer of a product has taken the money, it belongs to the purchaser, so if they want to use it for purposes that the seller doesn’t approve of, tough, it’s none of his business. So Steve Jobs doesn’t like porn or saucy texts. No one is forcing him to indulge in either. If his customers do, it’s nothing to do with him. Of course, no one is forcing me to buy an iPhone and I won’t. This kind of arrant control freakery being one reason.
The logical solution to the problem of children sending saucy texts – if you really, really think it is something to worry about – is to have a downloadable app that parents can choose to install. That is, absolute user choice. Those who have no such need for the facility don’t have to have it on the machine at all.
I think you’re getting a bit worked up over nothing. Them having a patent on this doesn’t mean it’s going to be implemented in their phones. Far from it – the purpose of the software patenting process is purely to have an arsenal of patents with which to fend off some other corporation who comes after you for doing something blatently obvious that they have previously patented. Mind you, it wouldn’t surprise me if Apple did take it upon themselves to dictate what words their customers can and can’t use. But anyone who buys iCrap deserves everything they get.
What you should be getting worked up about is that it was possible to get the patent on such a trivial thing in the first place. Software patents are a scourge on humanity, a stifle on innovation (the exact opposite of the originally intended purpose of patents) and nothing more than a meal ticket for lawyers and patent trolls. They should be abolished immediately and retrospectively.
Oh, good god! Is this the point at which the Apple brand finally jumps the shark?
Not that I’m giving up my iPhone, mind you!
(Assuming this software is used, having read Ciarans comment) All it is to me is another reason not to buy an iphone or similar.
I use a simple PAYG phone that is completely unregistered and it does the job for me.
I would be quite happy for the iphone to become the phone of choice for under sixteens. Suits me.
Good points here. We see the squabbling over patents on a fairly regular basis.
My objection here is with Jobs thinking any of this is his business, the sheer control freakery that he exhibits – along with the hubris.
I will never buy any of his products. Not that any of them are of any use to me anyway 😉
I’ll decide once I’ve seen how the software works first.
The only ‘censorship’ I have noticed from Apple was the removal of ‘5000’ porn apps earlier this year and doesn’t bother me overly. I can’t think of any other ‘sheer control freakery‘ from Jobs… Will you share?
“My objection here is with Jobs thinking any of this is his business, the sheer control freakery that he exhibits – along with the hubris.”
Yeah, because Steve Jobs runs Apple *entirely* single-handed, right down to designing the phones, the OS, the tools, the applications, software, etc. And apparently, in his copious free time, he draws up legal contracts, writes up research he worked on during his R&D hours on Monday evening, and then puts on his patent lawyer’s hat and converts some of them into patents for filing on Thursday morning, between shooting some adverts for the iPod and travelling to China to give Foxconn yet another bollocking for their rather liberal approach to employee relations.
Jesus Horatio Forgharty Christ, but it’s staggering how even people who consider themselves intelligent insist on attributing the activities of entire global corporations to a single figurehead! “Steve Jobs is a control freak”? Seriously? Have you *seen* what Google are up to? Have you read *any* textbook on design? (Here’s a hint: you cannot *get* good design from committees!)
ALL corporations with an R&D department *have* to go through this patenting nonsense. It’s not a choice, any more than a trademark owner can avoid taking people to court for flouting their trademark. As Ciaran points out: Software patents are an idiotic concept. Their sole purpose is to keep lawyers in gravy. *No* successful business wants to do this: it’s a business *cost* for any half-decent engineering or design firm. They make no money out of it, and have to pay vast sums to armies of pet lawyers.
Microsoft, IBM, Google, British Telecom, AT&T—you name it, they’re all stuck with this system foisted on them by an ignorant government, supported by an even more ignorant population. If you insist on dumbing down your population, you’ll get dumb politicians, who will make even more stupid decisions, all in your name.
Apple’s only mistake has been succeeding where their rivals have failed so spectacularly. If this is a sin, if this is a big problem for you, you have two options: (1) change the laws of the land to suit your preferences—good luck with that; or, (2), relocate to a country whose existing socio-cultural frameworks are a better fit your own ideals.
I recently took the second option. It worked like a charm: I’ve never been happier. I don’t even have a rant-laden blog!
FCUK!
Best regards
Sure. The first example became obvious when the iPhone was initially released. Apple decided that they would choose the carrier, not the consumer. Verizon in the USA and O2 in the UK. It is not the place of the hardware provider to dictate to the end user what carrier they will use. That this has been subsequently relaxed doesn’t alter that original control freakery.
If you are unfortunate enough to buy an iPad, Apple has decided that you cannot access websites with Flash enabled. Sure, Flash is a pain in the arse, but while web developers continue to use it, end users should have the ability to choose. It is not the place of the hardware manufacturer to make that choice. Apple has taken its spat with Adobe out on its customers.
Then there was the decision not to repair machines if the user is a smoker. So, Jobs and Co think it is within their remit to decide whether the consumers who buy their product may smoke or not – the excuse being the risible “second hand smoke” cockwaffle.
Finally, there is this story. My issue is not about patents – that’s a whole different discussion. No, it is simpler than that. It is the mindset of someone who thinks that such a patent is worth pursuing in the first place, that they should decide what words people may use in their texts. In a sane world, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because no one would be applying for this patent, because the idea of censoring other peoples’ words simply wouldn’t occur to anyone.
We do not live in a sane world, and Apple is a nasty control freakish organisation. As such, I’ll not buy their products. Besides, if I want a tablet I’ll use the one I’m typing this on. Toshiba don’t limit what I do and if I want to I can ditch the whole operating system in favour of, say, Linux. Toshiba don’t limit what web sites I view and I choose the browser and have installed Flashblocker, so I choose whether to view Flash enabled sites, not Toshiba. Oh, yeah, when I had cause to have some warranty work done, Toshiba didn’t send it back because Mrs L smokes.
Since when? Not all handsets are available to all providers. I can remember seeing versions of Nokia and Sony Ericsson handsets that were only available through specific providers. But you didn’t bother to rant about that did you? But I suspect that the restriction was a commercial benefit to O2 as much as Apple.
You have a choice buy an iPad that doesn’t play it or not. It is their operating system that they have written to run their software. I expect that the iPad doesn’t run any Windows programs either. Going to rant about that ‘restriction’ as well?
I read the terms and conditions when I bought a Mac mini and I am not aware of any restrictions listed about not repairing if the owner is a smoker, can you show me where this is written? However I am aware of the damage smoke particulates can do to the circuitry in a computer and I can see why they might choose not to repair damage the smoker had done under warranty. But that would make a piss poor rant for you wouldn’t it?
The difference between Apple and most other computer and phone manufacturers is that they make the hardware and write the software. This indeed gives them the opportunity to control how it works. But the benefit has to be be to the consumer, if people were really concerned about how Apple run they can vote with their wallets. Clearly there is a benefit behind the closed system to the consumer as Apple appear to be making very good money and people are buying their products in greater numbers.
Since the invention of the SIM card.
Ah, the old “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. Just because I haven’t mentioned restrictive practices by others doesn’t mean that I can be assumed to approve of their behaviour.
However, you are making a faulty comparison. The carriers make certain handsets available and subsidise them via the contract. They cannot possibly make very piece of hardware available. What they can do and do do is make their contracts and PAYG services available in SIM only format. Equally, the hardware manufacturers sell their products without a subsidy, SIM free and unlocked. Given this, it lets Nokia et al off the hook frankly. Besides, your question was what control freakery had Apple indulged in, not Nokia. Next time, I’ll remember to put on my telepathy hat, so as to fully understand your question.
The word you are looking for here is “cartel”.
And I am exercising it.
Irrelevant. We are not talking about running Windows, we are talking about rendering web pages. As such, my rant is entirely justified.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/apple-to-smokers-butt-out-or-void-your-warranty/5312
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsId=3207065
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/353512/apple-refuses-to-repair-smokers-macs
These stories appear to apply to the USA, not the UK, so you may well not have such a restriction in your terms and conditions.
They are not claiming damage to the circuitry, they are claiming second hand smoke is a threat to the health of their technicians, which is risible bollocks. They are engaging in the denormalisation process.
That alone is a good enough reason to steer clear.
Not all carriers offer all handsets. Exactly the reason you gave to demonstrate why Apple are ‘control freaks’.
That O2 and Apple chose to enter into a ‘cartel’ for a couple of years is just as irrelevant. Anyone with a tiny amount of technical ability could use an iPhone handset on any carrier. And now there is no restriction at all unless you rent your handset from the carriers – as they lock them while Apple actually sell the phone ‘unlocked’!
Flash is an Adobe product that is a ‘closed’ system. Apple have chosen to not include support for it in iOS3 and 4 which do support open web applications. Also it apparently doesn’t work with touch devices so could cause a problem with iPhones and iPads. Not really so irrelevant is it?
In that country they may well be. I can remember going into a hotel in California, probably more than 20 years ago, and there was a sign at the entrance saying something along the lines of ‘This building contains hazardous chemicals’. At reception I asked what these were. Apparently it was the bar.
I doubt it is the case here. But if you want to ‘steer clear’ then I’m not going to try to stop you. But I may well point out when you make risible comments about yet another thing of which you have no experience (or did you try an iPad off road too…..?)
And I explained clearly and in plain English why this is not comparable. I’m not going to waste effort repeating myself. I also mentioned that the cartel no longer applies, so do not need to be reminded. It does not alter the original point, which was a valid answer to your question.
I have also explained this. While web designers use Flash, a browser that does not support it is punishing the end user. This is control freakery.
Ah, yes, the patronising “you don’t understand” argument. Please try to stop wheeling it out, it is tiresome and loses you the argument. If you were paying attention, this discussion was about behaviour and I have more than enough experience to comment.
Not funny. Not clever. Childish.
So ‘Steve Jobs is a control freak’ because Apple chose not to offer their handset to every provider at the outset – just like pretty much every other phone manufacturer?
You’ve not even bothered to consider another reason Apple might ‘restrict’ the market for phones – supply issues. It was hard enough for Apple to satisfy demand with the provider they did sign, let alone with 3 more. The iPhone3 was such an astonishingly popular product despite ramping up the production the iPhone4 sold out within hours of release earlier this year and the Apple store website has only just removed the ‘3 week shipping’ warning. But no, the reason is that ‘Steve Jobs is a control freak’.
I disagree. Adobe are no more ‘control freaks’ by not releasing the source to the Flash code. Providers are not ‘control freaks’ by locking phones to their networks. Business protects its assets. And that is no more than Apple are by approving other software (apps) to run on iOS3 and 4.
Most businesses choose to protect their assets – but you are free to choose any alternatives, there certainly are plenty. Symbian, RIM’s BlackBerry OS, Microsoft’s Windows Phone OS, Palm WebOS, Google’s Android, Samsung’s Bada and Nokia’s Maemo. Some of them might just be restricted in what they let you run too…. Or do you want to blame Steve Jobs for that too?
What loses you any credibility is your astonishing bigotry towards an individual and blaming them for some commercial decisions that the company they head runs. Steve Jobs may well be a control freak, but so what? Your going off the deep end about a news item without considering if they are even correct. What was the patent titled? (I’ll save you a moments Google – ‘Text-based communication control for personal communication device’) – nothing to do with ‘saucy messages’ (yet) is it?
Read the abstract about it yet? “Systems, devices, and methods are provided for enabling a user to control the content of text-based messages sent to or received from an administered device. In some embodiments, a message will be blocked (incoming or outgoing) if the message includes forbidden content. In other embodiments, the objectionable content is removed from the message prior to transmission or as part of the receiving process. The content of such a message is controlled by filtering the message based on defined criteria. The criteria may be defined according to a parental control application. These techniques also may be used, in accordance with instructional embodiments, to require the administered devices to include certain text in messages. These embodiments might, for example, require that a certain number of Spanish words per day be included in e-mails for a child learning Spanish. ”
This is what you think really makes ‘Steve Jobs a prudish control freak’? You are the one that might have issues.
While your claim to have ridden a Quasar once ‘off the road’ is still laughable.
Never much liked the apple way of doing things, or “apple snobs” who seem to take a distinct pleasure in informing all and sundry that they have a “mac” every time computers are mentioned. Most odd.
Having said that, some of the stuff they have come out with have been really neat gadgets and I’m not so twisted as to deny that.
Until the i-pad that is. A lap top without a lid? Genius!
A few months back by boss suggested that my colleague and I replace our pencils and clipboards with these things for doing surveys on building sites “cos they have a drawing “app” where you just have to use your finger and and and “.
I picked up my clip board, took him out of the office to the top of the stairs, chucked the clipboard down the stairs, followed it at a more genteel pace, picked it up and started to write on it. It still worked!
Haven’t heard any more of this apple nonsense from the boss since.
Fantastic!
🙂
LR,
“The first example became obvious when the iPhone was initially released. Apple decided that they would choose the carrier, not the consumer. Verizon in the USA and O2 in the UK. It is not the place of the hardware provider to dictate to the end user what carrier they will use. That this has been subsequently relaxed doesn’t alter that original control freakery.”
Yes, because allowing the carrier to decide what phone you could have and what software was on that phone was an infinitely better position, eh?
Well, if that model works for you, by all means go Android or something.
“If you are unfortunate enough to buy an iPad, Apple has decided that you cannot access websites with Flash enabled. Sure, Flash is a pain in the arse, but while web developers continue to use it, end users should have the ability to choose. It is not the place of the hardware manufacturer to make that choice. Apple has taken its spat with Adobe out on its customers.”
Um… Have you seen Flash running on a mobile device? No?
Here, have a go.
Do you like that?
Yes, there’s a spat between Adobe and Apple, mainly over Flash but also over the fact that Adobe—having bought up all of the competition—makes bloated crapware that, in many cases, we poor schmucks in the design industry have no option but to use.
However, the main reason that Flash was not on the iPhone was quite simple: Flash couldn’t run on such low-spech devices. Flash mobile for Android has only just come out, and the link above shows just how wonderful it is.
And—get this—Adobe says that the only reason that Flash runs like a pile of crap is because the videos are not mobile Flash optimised. (In other words, you should recompile all videos and store one for ‘net use and one for ‘phone use. Great.)
“… is to have a downloadable app that parents can choose to install.”
And a parent controlled system is precisely what the patent describes: they even quote the relevant passage in the article that you linked to. FFS.
DK
He and Zuckerberg make a good pair.
DK, I have already explained to Voyager why this comparison doesn’t work. The consumer has always (since pretty much the beginning) had the choice of hardware that is locked in with proprietary software or buying a SIM without a handset and purchasing a handset without a SIM. Therefore, the consumer has choice. This is a choice Apple and O2/Verizon deliberately denied the consumer on the launch of the iPhone. If Apple had sold some of the handsets SIM free, then I wouldn’t have had a problem. I might even have bought one.
As far as Adobe is concerned, we pretty much agree about their behaviour. Frankly all web pages are a waste of time on a small screen device. However, the iPad is a different matter. it is not sold as a low end small screen machine. I would expect it, therefore, to display web pages properly – even those produced by developers that insist on using Flash. Adobe claim that Flash will work on the Apple platform. Therefore the obvious and decent thing to do is let the consumer decide.
So you are ignoring my comment about Apple possibly ‘locking-in’ with an single provider initially to prevent demand related hardware supply problems? I’d add that since they were new to the phone business I suspect they imagined that it would be easier for them to deal with any issues (with the hardware and software) if their device was ‘locked’ to a single provider.
But, no. You’d rather imagine that it is because ‘Steve Jobs really is a prudish control freak‘ rather than a planned commercial decision.
You can buy one now.
The consumer can decide. The fact that the iPad doesn’t play flash content is hardly a secret.
The Old Independent Argument forum used to have software to remove objectionable words. Dick Cheney was censored. But if you did this to a naughty word, _naughty, it was fine! Jobs is being a bit silly about this.
Indeed. The whole idea is absurd at best. The mindset behind wanting to censor others is nasty control freakery, irrespective of what the final product might look like or what the patent actually allows for. It is the desire to censor in the first place that is so wrong.