FSF Rattles Tivo Saber At Apple 571
Ohreally_factor takes us back to Friday when both the iPhone and the GPLv3 were released. "This article at Tectonic suggests that Apple's iPhone might run afoul of the GPL. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work — it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Might there really be GPLed code in the iPhone? It's well known that OS X built on BSD, which of course uses the BSD license. Webkit is based on KHTML which uses the LGPL."
How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Run afoul?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I.E. The iPhone becomes a programmable platform.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Harmful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Run afoul?" (Score:2, Insightful)
"Sensationalism" is correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, that surprises me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a very childish thing to do, and very unlike the FSF in my opinion.
Scooter Libby was in the news this week, too. Maybe they should claim he might have violated the GPL, too. Double helping of bandwagon jumping?
Show me the FSF quote.. (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD zealot strikes again?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:1, Insightful)
What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with? It's just trading one set of shackles for another. That's all fine and dandy if the RMS shackles don't bother you, but somehow it's still evil and despicable when the {Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.} shackles don't bother you. Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?
"Free" software is great. It's awesome for everyone it works for, and there's some great products. But it certainly isn't the solution for everyone, particularly for companies who want to share with the community but don't want to give up the farm. The LGPL isn't great about that, and v3 just makes things worse. If I invite you over for wine and cheese, I didn't sign up to have you clear out my whole wine cellar and order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on my dime, you know?
To put it another way... (Score:4, Insightful)
If and when KHTML moves to (L)GPLv3, Apple will just have to start a GPLv2 fork of it.
So, any future contributions by Apple will go to the GPLv2 fork... and if Apple deletes any "...or later..." clause from "their" fork, the GPLv3 version won't even be able to cross-port their changes.
Yes, a proud day for the GPLv3.
GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that does not apply to earlier versions of the license.
That is why Tivo can still operate.
I won't bother to argue whether or not the clause is good, or if Tivo is evil, rather I would refer you to the huge lkml.org flamefest from the past two weeks. However, I should clarify this is clearly FUD. Even if the iPhone has GPL or LGPL'ed content, and there is no evidence to suggest that, it wouldn't be a violation, unless it was GPL v3 content, and Apple decided to lock people out.
Re:To put it another way... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't submit patches to BSD licensed projects, then whine because my code is used in a way that I don't like. I just don't send any patches in the first place.
It should be noted that the purpose of the GPL isn't world dominance, so the fact that there are people who disagree with the ideas isn't a big loss.
*Users'* freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
As often said, (L)GPL is about protecting the freedom of the *USERS*.
GPL serves to basically grant to USERS freedom to do whatever they want with code, as long as they pass along the same freedom, shall they decide to distribute the code (ie.: they have to transmit the code and the same freedom to the next in line).
Yes, it does restrict professional developpers', manufacturers' and other corporates' freedom. But the GPL was always centered around the user.
The problem that the FSF is trying to bring attention to is that with iPhone those users' freedoms aren't preserved. There is code covered by GPL or LGPL version 2 or previous inside the iPhone. One well known exemple is WebKit/KHTML.
You bought the iPhone, and you own it, it's yours. You got the software running on the iPhone, and you can get the source code for (L)GPLed elements from the web.
BUT you can't do whatever you want to do with it : you can't recompile it and put a new version.
Let's say that KHTML gets some upgrade making it better support newer standarts (strong standart support has always been KHTML/Webkit's selling argument). Or let's say GCC or some other compiler project (be it closed or open source) release a newer compiler version which compiles much faster code, and produce faster software.
The "do-whatever-you-want" freedom to tinker should allow you to rebuild the webkit component in the iPhone (and having either a better or a faster one, according to the previous scenarios).
*BUT* you can't actually upload the newly produced firmware, because the iPhone is DRMed to the bone with Trusted Computing chips, and as such does only run signed and crypted code. The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.
The only hope for you is to wait and hope that Apple will release a newer firmware with an upgraded WebKit and/or recompiled faster. And hope that Apple won't act like other phone manufacturer ("Sorry this new feature [which btw is only a matter of software support] is only supported in our newer Phone model. Buy it now and enjoy support for newer web-stantard or whatever else").
Once again tivoization occurs.
The speculation of the article ask an open question about what is the long term impact of GPLv3 on this kind of behaviour.
This is an interesting thing to ask oneself. It brings lot of questions about the future :
- Will companies start to think of strategies to let the user tinker the GPL parts (special signing keys for the GPL modules can be ordered from the manufacturer that allow to use modified GPL code in the firmware, while everything else is still restricted) ?
- Will manufacturer start forking project (Apple's forks staying GPLv2, while opensource projects slowly make transition toward GPLv3) ? And which manufacturer will be able to sustain their own fork, or will most of that forking will lead to poorly maintained projects ?
- Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?
- And will Apple try to bribe the FSF by offer free iPhone, please ?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is. Fortunately.
Context is everything, and unfortunately, TFA doesn't provide a great deal, but most likely Brown was responding to statements like this from Steve Jobs;
The role of the FSF is to promote freedom of software and computing platforms. Systems like the iPhone which are closed to their owners as a matter of policy rather than technology are the antithesis of what the FSF stands for.
The comment from Peter Brown calling the iPhone crippled is accurate in the context of the FSF's mandate, and is an appropriate stance for the FSF to adopt. There's a better article here http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/iphone [fsf.org] that summarises their attitude.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is spreading the FUD here, the FSF isn't making an accusation: "it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software" isn't an accusation, neither is "What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone?".
Re:To put it another way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*Users'* freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is this not in breach of section 6 of the LGPL 2.1? [gnu.org]
Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:1, Insightful)
What a prat.
Re:Harmful (Score:4, Insightful)
It isnt about GPLv3 violation. (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA only illustrate that, by using DRM and Trusted Computing, Apple has taken away the freedom to tinker that the GPL was supposed to bring for peace of code like WebKit and such. The user can recompile it, but can't upload the firmware back, because it isn't signed and the trusted computing module will refuse it. It's once again Tivoization and restricting end users' freedom.
TFA only ask an open question, about what will be the future impact of GPLv3 on manufacturers.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're allowed to do far more with free software, then you're allowed to do with Apple's software. Redistribute it under the terms you received it for instance.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
See, was that so hard? You can buy your openMoko or whatever and be happy, and someone who has a different set of priorities than you do can buy the iPhone and be happy. Why does that bother some people? My personal opinion is that some FSF zealots see their cause as a religion and they cannot rest until they convert the "unbelievers" by whatever means necessary.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the words "to what extent" imply that there is _some_ extent to begin with. The mere fact that they make these statements imply that they think their words have any significance at all.
My thought is that this is just the zealot RMS who can't stand people using other open licenses than GPL and just wants to start a pissing-match. I'm assuming the BSD supporters won't be impressed.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm talking about the FOSS zealotry that refuses to accept that anything outside the GPL as being a valid approach to doing software. That includes proprietary licenses, the BSD license, and Creative Commons. It continues to the asinine "libre" descriptor--no such thing. True libre code wouldn't come with a license at all. It would be released upon the world for whatever purpose anyone wanted it.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
*shrug* noone's ever said it was free of restrictions. Something completely free of restrictions doesn't require a license, as it's in the public domain.
It's far more free than Apple's proprietary offerings however - you are free to use the software however you like.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me explain it as clearly as I can: Going by the standard of the GPL, your freedom does not include the freedom to take mine away.
You can still think that the GPL is evil and removes freedom, but don't be afraid to change your mind about something. It's not healthy to remain too static in one's world view.
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with the device running on open source software and everything to do with the user-friendliness of the software. Many of the open source advocates take it way too far in my opinion. Open source can be a great development model but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is wether the software does its job properly or not.
It isn't your business (Score:3, Insightful)
> Apple has taken away the freedom to tinker that the GPL was
> supposed to bring for peace of code like WebKit and such.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the iPhone belongs to Apple, not to you, and it is none of your business under what terms they decide to sell it. If you dislike the terms, don't buy it. Let the rest of us make our own decision.
Go ahead, FSF... (Score:2, Insightful)
Irony... yeah. All in the name of "protection", I bet. Go BSD.
Jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
> play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.
Whoa there! FSF makes an accusation and you swallow it without question? There is no proof that there is any GPL software in the iPhone and until such proof becomes available, how are you any better than RIAA or SCO in assuming otherwise?
> Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more
> corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?
More likely they will simply continue making and using proprietary code. That's what I would do. Aside from really large projects like the Linux kernel, it is not that much more difficult to rewrite than it is to reuse. That's what salaried programmers are for and lots and lots of unpaid overtime. If they bark, we can always outsource to India.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
If indeed RMS is a blowhard jackass, what does that say about a company which chooses to use code originally licensed under the GPL which said jackass created, in order to spread software freedom? Why don't companies that wish to sell 'locked-down' or 'dumbed-down' inferior products write code from scratch? Why go to hippies and jackasses?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a problem for Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
One can argue about where that balance is struck (eg the ongoing GPL v2 - GPL v3 arguments in the Linux kernel world), but claiming there is no balnce is obviously garbage.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:1, Insightful)
You never had the freedom to run arbitrary software on a terminal device that forms part of a mobile phone provider's network. NOT YOURS. No-one is taking any rights away.
On the other hand, if the legal traps in the GPL give you the right to run your own software then
- Apple lose the right to market a turnkey solution in preference to an open hardware platform.
- Network providers lose the right to test all the software that will interact with their network.
It is this loss of rights that gives the lie to the concept of "free as in freedom". Every new right you give out reduces someone else's freedom. Users are the supposed beneficiary; the reality is that many users benefit from "free as in beer" software, but practically none are feeling the love from Stallman's politically loaded "free as in freedom". Many users would like their suppliers to stay in business and keep providing updates; many employees want to keep their jobs and those who understand the economy don't want a revenue generating sector wiped out via a legal loophole (the ability to create viral licenses).
The "freedom" that Stallman and his ilk babble on about really is a thinly disguised platform for socialism. It casts users as proletariat and anyone who sells anything in the role of oppresive industrialist. It preys on victim self-identity among those who over-estimate their value to society and who fear the motivation of competition. It imposes rule after rule after rule and its mob of enforcers display a truly disturbing brand of mindless zealotry in coming after those who innocently indulge in free association within a free market in a free world but (and perhaps without even knowning) once downloaded some software that described itself as "Free".
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Empowering the end user doesn't make the software "free." It does precisely as you claim: it takes power away from one group and transfers it to someone else. If in every political thread on Slashdot, the groupthink mods up comments that government restrictions aren't "freedom" because they artificially change the balance of power (you know, the usual Libertarian railing against Democrats)...then how is this freedom, when it does exactly the same thing?
Either guaranteeing freedom for all through artificial controls IS freedom (price controls, income redistribution, gun control, RMS), in which case political popular opinion here is completely wrong, or artificial mechanisms AREN't freedom, in which case "free" software isn't free at all. You can't have both.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the artificial constraints, anywhere. But I don't walk around claiming that I'm free (as in libre, like the GPL is claimed). I accept that it's a compromise, and not a flawless one. Should be the same with the GPL, but it is worshipped and anyone who doesn't believe in its divine perfection is burned at the stake. That's not right, and it's certainly not free. RMS zealots are completely intolerant of everything else. It's insane.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then let them release their own phone and stop slinging mud at people and making accusations with no supporting evidence.
This is a pathetic move from the FSF and it should be condemned by everyone here. I don't recall ever seeing them make an accusation based on such flimsy evidence for a violation as "they use GPL software in other products." If apple wants to release a phone that is proprietary that is well within their rights. If you want to champion open solutions then go out and make one and beat them at their own game. Thats how its supposed to work.
This would be like all the linux coders in the world hanging it up and turning into PR machines simply accusing MS and apple of violating the GPL and hoping the go away rather than trying to produce a platform to provide an alternative.
Oh Scary... (Score:3, Insightful)
The rules say that the source has to be made available including any changes. There is nothing to stop me say modifying a 1.x kernel and making the changes available. It might not be advantageous but I can do it. I don't have to use the latest revision. This is typical scare mongering of that hippy, sandal sporting, rose tinted spectacle wearing, head in the cloud, idiot, RMS.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They probably play on word interpretation (Score:1, Insightful)
However, you cannot RE-produce the binary on the phone. Which is what the license requires.
AFAIK, TIVO has not been in court, since the copyright owner (Linus in their case) doesn't care. So they can get away with claiming that it doesn't cover the keys (even though they are necessary to REproduce the executable). A judge may still disagree.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Software released under the GPL is still owned by private entities or individuals, and works fine under capitalism.
As for freedom, you have to realise that "freedom" is not an absolute - it's like saying you don't have true freedom because you aren't free to hit other people. Most people in a society accept that freedom does not include the right to take away other people's freedom. As a result, whether or not public domain is more free than GPL is a matter of opinion. What is clear is that both are more free than closed-source code.
consumer reply (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumers / potential iPhone-buyers however just say things "I would like to own an iPod that can also make calls" and simply buy one.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
You could say the same thing to Apple; if you don't agree with what free software "stands for", then DON'T USE IT IN YOUR PRODUCTS!
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is perfectly fine to criticize anyone for anything you disagree with. It is free speech. You might notice something all the groups you listed have in common, however. Microsoft has multiple monopolies and has been convicted of abusing them. The RIAA is a cartel and has been convicted of price fixing and several other abuses of that cartel. AT&T is a government subsidized company with geographical monopolies in many areas, often enforced by local law and is also a convicted monopoly abuser.
Apple is borderline close to having monopoly influence for portable digital music players, but has never been convicted any such action. When and if Apple is declared a monopoly, then looking into how their monopoly is being leveraged makes sense. The verdict is still out on if they have any monopoly influence to abuse.
There are a lot of factors that make it impractical to do your job without a computer that runs Windows. Moving to a different city to get provider other than AT&T is impractical. The RIAA as assured that only their music is available in many stores and only their music is played on the radio in most locations. They've created a situation where performers have to sign with them to have a reasonable chance of reaching an audience.
So what is stopping you from buying a Blackberry? What is stopping you from buying a MP3 player from someone else? What artificial barriers are you worried are undermining the free market as is happening with all the other companies you listed?
I disagree. There is a move towards more specialized computers (game console, smart phone, voip box, pvr, etc.). That is normal. Generally things diverge then consolidate then diverge then consolidate in a cyclical fashion. Trying to stop people from creating new things, whether more specialized or more flexible will undermine the free market and slow innovation significantly.
I agree we need to either equally subsidize all network providers or force the existing ones to behave neutrally, but that has nothing to do with the devices that run on the network or trying to dictate what they do.
Re:Harmful (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, just saying that implies it does and gplv2 has no provision to stop drm. And who are these people "saving?" Apple customers are more tech savvy than PC buyers and probably know what they are getting into. iTunes proves that DRM is not "crippling" but acceptable to the public and is the defacto way to get legal downloads. The problem here are the fsf snobs who are implying apple as a company is running a scam against oss and its own "ignorant" customers.
If anything, this is a huge disinventive for any company in the future to deal with any oss software. The rabid fanboys who think they know better than everyone will simply denounce you and cause bad publicity, sometimes without proof.
Another reason I will never send money to the fsf.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, could someone please provide details of what software we are talking about?
Was it GCC? It is my understanding that it is being used as specified in the terms of the GPL... AND NOT INCLUDED ON THE IPHONE.
Was it KHTML? I though LGPL allowed such use.
Are there any GPLv3 code on the device? I thought GPL3 and iPhone was released on the same day, and I doubt any anti-tivo clauses are in any of the software included on the iPhone.
Now the main question: How does RMS being a blowhard jackass affect the price of tea in China? Ahem... I meant to say "How does RMS being a blowhard jackass affect the quality of the software covered under the GPL? Sure some believe he is a jackass. So what? Other than his actions seem to provide cannon fodder to those who are against the GPL, what harm has he done? If he wants to publicly attack users (and supporters) of the GPL and create his own version of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about whether it is safe to issue or use GPL software then who are we to question his reasoning. It's not like as a community we don't want to be viewed as bipolar nutjobs... Of course it doesn't help that there are some who would fall on their sword to worship the ground that RMS walks on.
News-flash: RMS is human. He has flaws like everyone else. Now I ask, "Is he the emperor with no clothes, or the white elephant in the room?" I just can't decide which metaphor to use. I'm not saying he is a bad guy, it's just that as he becomes embolden with his notoriety, he begins to push the envelope on what I and others consider acceptable terms to license software or more importantly an acceptable organization to publicly support.
The problem I have is the FSF is apparently spreading accusations that Apple may have violated the terms of the GPL. It would be different if the FSF was specific and began negotiations, instead of poisoning the well with media reports obviously designed to take advantage of the iPhone release. Maybe someone is more of an attention whore than a jackass, or is it a jackass for being an attention whore?
I would not call the iPhone an inferior product, nor would I call Tivo one either.
Incidentally, Linus (you know the one who started Linux) has no problems with the way Tivo uses Linux. In fact, the anti-tivo clause was the main thing that gave Linus the most heartburn about GPL3. The irony being that it was the popularity of Linux that propels the adoption of the GPL and not RMS or the FSF. RMS knows this and is the motive behind the Gnu/Linux naming issue. Was it a naming issue, or a clever grass roots marketing campaign??? Who cares. The point being that it's the products that drive the adoption of the GPL and if RMS wants to become the cautionary tale of why you should reconsider using some other license than the GPL, who am I to question him?
Re:Harmful (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is not an FSF project and Linux's authors are well known to view the FSF with hostility. And Apple does not use Linux in any of its products. Your comment is totally off-topic.
No one outside the geek community knows or cares about these distinctions. People see the FSF doing something stupid and they associate it with open source as a whole.
What kind of statement? How did the FSF threaten legal action by describing the iPhone as what it is?
"Describing the iPhone as what it is?" They made an accusation without no evidence. What about "It will be interesting to see the extent to which you've been beating your wife" - is that a fair statement?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is a schoolyard "freer" if a bully is allowed to beat up whomever they wish?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
That pretty much sums up the maturity level of Free Software zealots.
I wasn't debating the merits of their argument that the iPhone may or may not use GPL code, I was merely stating that just because someone uses somehting that isn't as "open" as Stallman would like doesn't mean they are a dumb slave....Grow up dude, seriously.
Working against the interests of the owner?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that a device not "under my (presumably *direct*) control" is therefore necessarily "working against me" is a laughable twist of pseudo-logic. As a statement it's only usefulness is as a means to detect the underlying paranoia (and perhaps a tinge of churlishness), from those that mouth such beliefs. I don't like "Tivoisation" either but it's hardly a serious threat to the free and open source software movement and I learned many years ago that you can't really control what other people are going to do with stuff you give them for free.
Couldn't the FSF think of something, I don't know... positive to say?
For instance, the last time I checked, Apple was one of the main supporters and developers behind the open source WebKit, as well as open Internet standards in general. Or how about the belief many people have that the iPhone is likely to be absolutely pivotal in terms of promoting open source, and open standards based internet development?
Instead, we get petty nay-saying and mud-slinging, and from the FSF executive no less. How mature.
Re:How isn't this FUD? {-- Uhh, because it's not! (Score:2, Insightful)
I just Googled [google.com] for the quote from Peter Brown - not the *complete* quote, but enough to key for it - and found 4, count 'em, ***4*** links. 3 were blog listings referring back to /., then /. The original seems to originate from TFA...
Thus, they, as in the FSF, certainly isn't *spreading* "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"...
FURTHERMORE, if one bothers to read (and comprehend) the quote, it's a generalization: there is (L)GPL code on the iPhone. Wouldn't we all be curious "how much"...
Is there, or is there not any that GPLv3 covers? NO! (Well, DUH!)
Is there any that v2 would force Apple to "unlockdown" their new baby? NO!
The point is not that Apple/iPhone is infringing, but that if the code in question were under GPLv3 (not v2, and not the LGPL), then, at least the portions/code covered by said license, would be disallowed from being "locked down" by Apple.
The point is users deserve - and some of us actually WANT - un-crippled gear. For our own reasons. It's OUR gear. (The company gave up rights to it upon sale; we're not licensing, nor leasing it.)
The point of the F'n Art is NOT that Apple IS infringing, but in a perfect world they WOULD be, and so wouldn't do so - either from removing the thumb screws from their devices, and/or using non-GPL code. (Please don't belaborly argue "There's no GPL'd code!" It's a non-issue. It's quite beside the point.)
To decry Mr. Brown's comment is to take him out of context and to change/insert words where there aren't any.
YES, the FSF wants a world where TiVo's AREN'T locked down. Nor iPhones. Nor any other device that has a general purpose, programmable CPU.
I want to live in that world, too.
THAT is the point of the GPLv3. Of the article discussing the relative theme of the iPhone and GPLv3 being released at the same time. Context. Relevance. Topicalness.
I really don't understand statements/attitudes like this one. WE are the users of GPL'd software, NOT APPLE ! They happen to be a company that wants to save some time, (more easily) ensure higher quality software, get some publicity/good-karma, etc., by utilizing - even if only a base - OSS. That they still believe that "propriety software" is where it's at, that's why they use mostly BSD licensed parts. The (L)GPL'd parts were used... due to greater maturity? Greater flexibility? Whatever the reason(s), surely Apple had it/them!
;], they're definitely a status symbol. Apple will always hold the trademark for the logo, name, etc. THOSE are the crown jewels, not the underlying software. W
(Regarding Apple still holding on to the proprietary software model: I'd counter that people buy an iPod/iPhone due to the entire package. Being that they're affordable to middle-class++ people, but the bulk, certainly of the "cooler models", are relatively expensive [but OH-so cheap for what they are!