Alphecca

Don't sugar coat it Jeff, just say what you really think.

:-)

Jeff,
I'm not sure I really understand your anger here. Apple is trying to protect it's intellectual property and/or copyrighted material ahead of release. As someone in the tech industry I deal with NDA's all the time (and honor them). What am I missing? I like your site, but a full on rant isn't your style. At least you could enumerate your objections whatever they might be.

Rob

1) Crunchnotes only linked to a YouTube video page that had a video on it giving a sneak peak at OS 10.5. Using Apple's logic, I should be held accountable for linking to Chrunchnote's post.

2) The YouTube video (did you watch it?) showed almost nothing other than you can have a bunch of programs running. I wasn't even impressed with it. But... This is almost the exact same thing Apple is showing in their own video on their public website. This has nothing to do with Apple giving itself permission to show it. Once Apple makes it public (on their site) the details are out there. What the hell are they trying to protect?

3) If Apple had a problem they should have gone after YouTube. I notice the video is still there.

4) No big programming secrets were revealed in the video. All you see (rather briefly at that) is a computer screen with windows being moved around.

4) Apple has few users left in the computer world. They should be happy and grateful to create some buzz and have what few customers they still have being excited.

5) Re: #4, that's why movie studios and book publishers and auto makers spend so much time with "sneak previews" and movie trailers and advanced copies of books -- even to bloggers now.

6) Alienating Apple fans is fucking poison. I don't know of a single other company that has spent so much time trying to sue and intimidate it's enthusiasts. I don't know of a single business school that would recommend that as a sound business model.

7) Buzz is good. Trying to crush buzz is STUPID.

Is that enough reasons for you?

By the way, you can find all the links in Crunchnotes' post. I refuse to give Apple any good free publicity ever again forever more, etc.

Jeff--Looks like they are not the apple of your eye! At least you don't have strong feelings about it. Jack.

While I agree that we need to get rid of the DMCA and pretty much IP in general, I find your reaction against Apple to be unwarranted. I think other companies, such as Microsoft, have done quite a lot more to hamper free speech and the development of software.

Jeff, Is there any evidence this is at Apple's request? We all know of Apple's litigious tendencies, but they have their own legal staff. This smells to me like a lawyer acting on Apple's behalf, without their involvement or approval. - Steve

Jeff,

As others have said, you really need to stop holding it in. If you're upset about something then just come right out and say it. You'll feel much better afterwards.

Oh, I also recommend some 'range therapy' this weekend, assuming the weather cooperates.

Jeff,

Please note the DMCA verbage at the end of the letter;

"I hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that your activities are not authorized by Apple, that the information in this notification is accurate, and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Apple in this regard."

This guy is acting on Apple's behalf, not at their behest. I think it's unwarranted to blame Apple for anything at this point. -Steve

Behalf or behest, same to me. Since when do lawyers treat huge corporations as charity cases? The firm isn't doing this pro bono, Apple must be paying them to chase after bloggers.

Woo hoo! Screen shots of Mac OS doing something linux has been doing for years. But then Mac OS is just BSD (unix) anyway. Thppppt!

Jeff, My take on this is that he's a single practioner (he is - look him up) looking for easy money. Apple need not be involved at all - he is acting in "good faith" to protect Apple's copyright. This behavior is (well, can be) absolutely pro-bono, and what's more, any money he wins doesn't go to Apple. I realize the average person doesn't know this kind of activity goes on, but it is perfectly legal, and very pervasive this day and age. In any event, he would, I think, be the first person to successfully sue anyone for _linking_ to protected content (read chillingeffects.org for more background on this), strengthening my belief Apple had nothing to do with this - they know better. Furthermore, they've released essentially the same material elsewhere on the web. -Steve

Funny you should post this. In an 'other-worldly' chat last night I posted something like the following:

Apple=Fascist
Windows=Corporate
Linux=Anarchy

Apple is well known for hunting down and killing anyone that even looks sideways at their stuff. That is why there are no clones, unlike IBM PC's. Anyone that tried to clone them was stopped faster than a hare hit with a 12 gauge slug. And there was less of them left too.

This is probably why lefties like them so much: They are the most authoritarian, greedy, bunch of assholes in the computer indistry, and yes, I am including SCO in that.

For all MicroSofts faults, they just behave like a business corporation. A bit ruthless occasionally, but no worse than the majority.

This is all one reason why I am playing with Linux right now. It is at about the stage of development Windows was with WinNT3.51, maybe Win98.

For now, stick with MS, keep an eye on Linux, unless you are a bit of a techie, in which case it might be fun to play with. It is free after all.

Jeff,

The lawyers are putting a thumbtack on the map; Mike at TechCrunch isn't the ultimate target, it is whomever violated their NDA by posting the video in the first place. It has to do with a little thing known as breach of contract. (And no, the legal beagles don't seem to have a good grasp on blog behavior.) You might want to hold off on slagging Apple; they might not even know that the lawyers were loosed on Mike. Yet.

tomWright,

"hunting down and killing"? Get a grip, man.

There used to be Apple clones. Apple came up with the idea, and worked with several companies to get the program rolling.

It was a dismal failure. Not that the clones didn't work, or that they didn't sell, the problem was that the cloners, rather than go after market segments that Apple didn't address, jumped in and cannibalized Apples market.

That, and the clone contracts were written so well that Apple was, in effect, paying the cloners to do it; the pricing structure didn't come close to meeting Apple's costs. And that's why it was eventually stopped, after Apple finally got some adult supervision.

The PC clone market developed not because anyone thought it was a good thing, but because MicroSoft benefitted from selling to as many customers as possible, coupled with the fact that IBM completely lost control of their own intellectual property when Phoenix clean-roomed the IBM BIOS and gave Compaq their chance to jump into the market.

I've got an Apple clone machine collecting dust. In it's time it was faster and cheaper than the equivalent Apple machine. That's why Steve Jobs #1 duty was to shut them down when he came back in 1996. The cloners made better hardware cheaper than Apple did. That's when I gave up on Apple. I was an Apple programmer from 1984 to 1996. Jobs killed it for me. As a software guy, I want big market share. Jobs didn't. Screw him.

Apple still can't figure out that in today's computing environment, you can't be vertically integrated. Even IBM has figured that out. Sun hasn't and look at how their market is getting eaten from above and below.

Apple is fighting a losing battle.

It looks like Apple's lawyers made a mistake and sent the letter to a web site linking to the video instead of hosting the video. This is not hard to do, given that many sites use off-site servers to host high bandwidth items such as videos. A simple reply to Apple's lawyers will probably get point them toward YouTube and away from Crunchnotes.

The fact that Apple itself has posted similar photos and videos on its own website is irrelevant: Apple holds the copyright and can (and should) go after infringers. Seeing this information on Apple's site is much different (from a marketing and business standpoint) than seeing it on YouTube.

Back before the IBM PC was marketed, Apple was selling the Apple II. Quite a few tried to clone it and Apple stopped them as fast as they could.

They did try licenseing others to make them, but the license restrictions were so tough and the fee per box so high, the 2 or three that tried it gave up, losing money on each box.

IBM essentially marketed PC's based on others architechture, and could not easily stop clones. When they made the mistake of letting MS keep DOS, MS just dod the sensible thing and offered it to all buyers. The rest is history.

If Apple had instead worked with cloners at the start, or at least left them alone, Apple would likely be ahead of MS/WIntel with an Apple IBMotorola box. And Jobs would be richer than Gates now.

Lots of companies have made this mistake. Sony did it with both the Betamax and MemoryStick. VHS and USB and SD, all more open formats, with better marketing and cost behind them, have won instead.

Technological superiority does not win unless it is also economically superior. Else, we would all be driving Ferraris and BMW's, instead of Chevys and Fords, and using Crays instead of PC's.