Saying Goodbye to Apple
[Sorry if this post is boring for some of you! But well, it isn't boring to me!]
It is no secret that I am a pretty big fan of the things that Apple makes. I got my first Apple laptop on January 15th in 2005. Five short years ago *sniff*. I loved that laptop like nothing else. It was small and portable, it was beautiful, and the operating system worked great. I now recommend to everyone, get an Apple computer. They just work. And they work very well.
It was with that in mind that last week I installed Linux on my laptop, making a full commitment to different operating system.
A couple of people I have told about this switch have asked me what exactly it means to install a new operating system. Basically, to most people, when you get a computer you have two choices. Windows vs. Apple. This choice is about the operating system. Talking about stability vs. ease of use vs. programs available vs. what you can do vs. what you like about your computer, is most likely talking about the operating system.
The operating system basically, for all intents and purposes, is the computer.
So, when I say I switched operating systems, I mean to say that I have completely changed the most fundamental part of how I use my computer. I spend 12-plus hours a day on my computer. Needless to say, this is a Big Deal.
The "big-deal-ness" is compounded by how big a fan I am of the things Apple makes. I think Apple makes the best laptops you can buy. I think Apple makes the best phone you can buy. I think Apple makes the best MP3 player you can buy. I think Apple makes the most user-friendly operating system you can use. Basically, Apple is like no other company in the world in terms of making absolutely top-notch products.
So, what am I replacing Apple's operating system with? Linux, of course!
Which, I realize is a term that means not much to non-techy people and techy people alike. For you non-techy people, Linux is a third possible operating system (Windows and Max OS X being the first two). For you techy people, I am actually switching to Ubuntu, a variant of Linux.
Generally speaking, Linux is an open source operating system that no one "owns" (in the sense that Microsoft owns Windows and Apple owns Mac OS X). This means that you can kind of think of Linux as being owned "by the people". Anyone can have a say in what happens with Linux, just start programming on it. Or if you want, you can make a copy of it, claim it as yours, and not let anyone else have a say with what happens. The possibilities are endless!
But here is the million dollar question: Why am I switching?
Two reasons:
- Basically, to use an over-used buzzword, Linux is more "open" than both Windows and Mac OS X.
- Apple has been making decisions lately that I philosophically disagree with.
About a month ago Apple announced its latest and greatest product, called the iPad. While the iPad looks awesome, it continues the model set up by the iPhone, where if you want to write an application for the device you have to get Apple's approval first. I don't like this model. I'll even go so far as to say I hate this model. I don't think this model is in the best interest of the consumers of Apple's devices. With the iPhone, it was at least excusable, because you could argue that Apple had to lock the system down tight because they were operating on AT&T's phone network. But with the iPad, while there is a 3G option, it doesn't feel as excusable. Maybe it still is. But the main point is, that if the future of Apple's products are devices like this, where you have to ask Apple's permission to install something on your computer, well, that's bullshit.
I've already voiced my opinions about the iPad at length on Peter's website, but this comment in particular summarizes my opinions about the issue:
But the more Apple locks up (even if it is design perfection) the more I am going to push against it. I don't like patents. I don't like secrets. I don't like rules. I believe in a very communistic approach to development: I will never keep the things I develop all to myself. If anyone wants it, I would be happy to give it to them. I feel this way because it is precisely the projects that do this that make it fun for me to use my computer. PHP, MySQL, CouchDB, Sqlite, Apache, Vim, Node, V8, Ruby, Python, Inkscape, JQuery. I use computers a lot because I like to program and design. I don't use computers a lot for any other reason. If I didn't program/design I would only use computers as a communication tool. And judging by how much I do that, it wouldn't be a lot.
So, openness and freedom are the single most important part of what make computers enjoyable for me. Period.
Then last week it was announced that Apple was suing another cellphone maker called HTC for patent infringement. And well, that just pissed me off.
I love math. That's why it was one of my majors in college. In math you take a set of assumptions and constraints and then see what other rules, shortcuts, algorithms, systems you can develop from those rules. It is that simple, yet from that you get things like Calculus. Now, I don't think many people out there would argue that you should be able to patent Math. Imagine if someone had a patent on Calculus.
Well, computer science is no different than math. Computer science is in fact just applied math. Just math with a different set of assumptions and constraints. So, it seems completely illogical that software patents are legal.
I'm sure economists might argue that patents are valuable from a market point of view, and that a lot of research and development wouldn't happen without the promise of exclusivity. While that might be true, that doesn't make them right. (And I am in no way saying software patents are similar to slavery) but it can probably be argued that slavery is better for a certain market (namely better for the slave holders) but that doesn't make it right.
I see software patents as a great wrong. And something that currently and actively makes the world a worse place.
[As a quick aside, I'm not completely sure what this means for my opinions on patents in general, but I am pretty sure that I think the whole patent system should be abolished. You shouldn't be able to own ideas.]
I was discussing with Peter how I was angry with Apple when he said the following (I hope it is okay that I am quoting you Peter!):
unfortunately for us, we don't live in a land where unicorns' tears make everyone happy and everyone only wants to make the world a better place. apple is a company, a huge one, just like Microsoft and google. and their goal is not our goal; their goal is to make more money, using their innovation to do it. I just wish they didn't have to hurt others' innovation to do it too.
I agree with Peter that I wish Apple wasn't doing this. But when I read that, I realized I could no longer support Apple. I can no longer support an entity that is willing to sacrifice what I see as moral obligations in the pursuit of making more money.
I acknowledge though, that Apple is a company. And it needs to make money or it wouldn't exist. But my money is a way of voting. And when I spend my money on Apple products I am saying that I endorse what they are doing. When I use their operating system, I am telling the world and my friends that this company is worth choosing.
I have decided to put my vote elsewhere.* So, I am switching operating systems. I know I will be faced with a tough choice in the future when I need a new laptop or computer. I'll have to find a company that is the least "evil" I guess.
The operating system I chose (the Ubuntu variant of Linux) was named after a South African philosophy called "Ubuntu". To quote from Desmond Tutu:
One of the sayings in our country is Ubuntu - the essence of being human. Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can't be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality - Ubuntu - you are known for your generosity.
We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole world. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.
An operating system with that as its guiding philosophy? That I can get behind.
*As to what I think other people should do is another issue. I don't think Linux is at the stage where non-computer people can use it enjoyably. So, most people are faced with a choice between Windows and Mac OS X. In that case both choices are "evil" and I would choose Mac OS X. Google is coming out with an operating system this year called "Chrome OS" which will be completely open sourced. Maybe use that. Though, I am not sure how well it is going to work without an internet connection, since it is highly based on their Chrome internet browser.
14 March 2010 09:00pm UTC • 471 views • 12 comments
Tagged with Apple, computers, operatingsystems, philosophy, patents, linux, ubuntu
★ ★ ★ ★
Add a comment!
You must be a member to do that! Become a member or login!
Subscribe to the feeds:
12 comments
Swabie Scabbie
15 March 2010 05:58pm UTC
Hooray! I agree with everything you say here except one thing: I think Ubuntu is ready for a broader audience. I installed it on my siblings' computers (neither of whom had any experience with linux, manually installing drivers or using the terminal) and neither one of them have encountered insurmountable problems. In fact, I installed Ubuntu on Sandy's computer because she couldn't use Windows on her computer any more (we never figured out what the root of the problem was, but she couldn't even log in). I've been using linux for 4 years now, and while it was a bit buggy and restricted when I started using it (which, I think, was mostly due to a few companies keeping their proprietary drivers from the linux community), I haven't encountered any hitches or bugs in the last year.
Boatswain The Fool
16 March 2010 06:27am UTC
I love Linux for a lot of reasons. Here are a few:
a) I'm not a very original person. It turns out that every idea I have someone else has had first, and because Linux is open source, this usually means that someone else has already implemented it in a way that generally satisfies me, so I can happily download/install it, and that's it. (Note: though Windows isn't open source, it's got this quality to an extent as well.) Plus, if I'm not happy, since most things implemented on Linux are also open source, I can hack away at the source code myself. (I haven't done this much, but I have done it occasionally.)
b) I'm bad at using a mouse. I hate that stupid thing. It's awkward and slow. Linux is built on top of the shell, where I can do almost anything by typing. And, because so many people spend so much time typing on Linux, they're streamlined the whole process. So, I can do a lot of stuff now without typing all that much.
c) It makes me happy. There's just something so pleasant about telling people that I use Linux, because it makes me feel open-source-y. It just feels good to be a Linux user. When I used Windows, I would get so angry when I saw the Windows logo on startup. Now, I love watching the Ubuntu logo. I get so excited when a new version comes out that I'm willing to live through a 12-hour download/installation because everyone's trying to download it at the same time.
d) I'm used to it. I never really got the hang of the Windows Registry, and the Mac OS X libraries still baffle me sometimes, when stupid stuff doesn't work (the C compiler has some bizarre deficiencies). Linux, generally, makes sense to me. I've started to think in terms of it, and whenever I'm on another operating system, I get frustrated and angry and start stomping around.
e) It fits my brain. Windows feels like a giant mammoth that begrudgingly lets you interact with it in various predefined ways. Mac OS X feels like a magic lamp that grants you amazing wishes, but you can't get at its inner workings. Linux feels like a bunch of small blocks that you can move around and shape however you like. I love that. In Windows, you need some big product to launch Firefox on someone else's computer, while in Linux, you just add a small option to an existing tool. A 200-line program in another programming language can be typed in a couple of minutes on the Linux shell by piecing together different commands. Linux is like that game, Sokoban. You can do anything; you just have to move the boxes in the right order. And, that fits the way I think.
h) It doesn't die or slow down very often. I go weeks, sometimes months, without restarting my desktop. Even when you've agreed to put Windows on your computer, it does everything it can to turn your computer off. This is partly because Windows has memory leaks (at least as of XP) and partly because every program on Windows is so big. Windows wants all of your computer's resources. Word wants all of your computer's resources. Norton wants all of your computer's resources. Linux doesn't want all of your computer's resources. It doesn't want very many at all. Neither do most of its applications (except OpenOffice.org...). So, my computer is almost always basically swimming in extra resources. (I think that Mac OS X is also pretty low on resource usage, but I'm not sure.)
g) Sometimes, late at night, I want to cuddle with a penguin. I never want to cuddle with a snow leopard... or a rainbonic window.
Peon Peetie
17 March 2010 06:49am UTC
I've been contemplating a response to this since I first read the post a few days back. My drafts have evolved slowly, from first shouting Blasphemy! All corporations are evil, not just Apple! to then yelling What about the other evil corporations you are supporting?! to then somewhat speaking Well aren't you kind of overreacting? to finally, what I've written below.
I've always believed, as you said above, that money is not just a currency, something that can be exchanged for goods and services, but is also a vote. Spending your money is absolutely directly supporting the recipient. I stopped eating meat over ten years ago primarily because I did not want to support the meat industry. I hope I never need to buy a car, and if I do it'll be Japanese, because I don't want to support the American Auto industry (and German cars are too heavy). I spend extra time and money taking buses or trains because I want to cast my vote for public transportation and against personal (automotive) transportation, when I could take a taxi or my own car to save time (though arguably not money) and convenience.
However, what you wrote above struck me initially as a bad reason to cast your vote against Apple. I scoured the internet for articles that could better word my response, or examples of so-called "open" companies you do support that are just as guilty. Surely Mozilla has made decisions that result in a dampened user experience to better rake in their millions from Google due to the little search box, right? There must be some variant of Linux that has nasty patent cases open right now, trying to squish the little guy, right?!
Put simply, I found nothing too bad about Mozilla (though I was amazed at the kind of money that goes into Mozilla, mostly from Google). I definitely found nothing about Linux variants. I found endless piles of stuff about Google, but I don't think anyone would argue at this point that Google is "open" for any reason other than that they figured out how to market an "open" world better than anyone else.
[Sidenote: I did find an article comparing Apple to Microsoft to Google by Kontra on counternotions.com. The point, essentially, was that since Tim Bray left Sun for Google (which has gotten an unreasonably large amount of press, possibly because of the aforelinked article), a lot of people have been arguing about how evil Apple has become, but that anyone who thinks Google is open is either naive, uninformed, or just someone who tends to hate Apple (think saulemander). I find it to be an interesting article because it points out that what Google is doing now is merely a current-times reflection of what Microsoft did years ago with the one-OS-many-hardware-manufacturers model. It has nothing to do with Ubuntu or Linux or Mac OS X, but was very close to what I was looking for in that it demonstrates that "open" is not always antonymous with "evil".]
Finally, what I concluded in my mental debate was that your argument is in many ways sound. My initial reaction that you were nuts was merely a knee-jerk because I am so fond of my Apple products (and NOT because I'm an Apple "fanboy", in case you're reading this, saulemander). I still think you may be overreacting a bit, but that's only because the points you made above -- which I agree with -- are not as important to me as they are to you. Apple suing HTC is going to hurt the tech community's innovation. And ultimately, what value I put on it has nothing to do with the way that you cast your vote.
So, in conclusion, we in the Apple community will miss you, and I wish you a wondrous journey into Ubuntu Land!
Swabie Scabbie
17 March 2010 10:00pm UTC
I love the comments above. Peon Peetie's is a great explanation for being a vegetarian and biker/buser/pedestrian that's much more articulate than what I come up with when explaining myself.
I looked at the article on apple/google/microsoft posted above because google is currently my overlord (I already use gmail for everything and I'm slowly moving all my personal documents to google docs), and I'm planning to place myself even more securely in its palm by purchasing a Nexus One in a month. Either the article had a lot of logical holes or I'm not knowledgeable enough about google to connect the dots. I get that its "open" efforts contribute to google's bottom line in the end, but its situation currently seems very different from Microsoft's.
One of my big problems with Microsoft is that it often seems to focus on shutting down competition over improving its user experience. Explorer came preinstalled with Windows (and, as far as I know, is still difficult to completely replace) and no alternative was offered. Explorer had no advantages over Netscape, but it was pushed on users. Every google product I can think of was provided to me as an option, not a forced choice. Google products don't come bundled; I can use gmail without using google docs. I'm guessing I could even use yahoo as my default search engine on an android phone.
Basically, I see google's self-serving open source efforts as a defensive strategy, while Microsoft's "open" efforts were offensive. As google continues to grow, it's going to become increasingly tempting for competitors to band together and shut them out of certain markets. Google seems to be striving for open networks and operating systems to maintain their access, not to restrict that of other companies.
I think pretty much everyone else who visits this site reads more tech news than I do though, so I'm interested in arguments and evidence to the contrary that you've come across.
Dread Pirate Benjamin
18 March 2010 04:15am UTC
I've been seeing a lot of this similar sort of argument recently about Google and how its reputation as being "open" is undeserved. I frankly don't buy it much. Yes, it is frustrating that they don't release everything they make to the world. Specifically, for me, it would be great if I could run my own copy of Gmail so I felt more confident about backups and the like. So we have a company that releases a lot of its projects as open source and also when it does things it builds on open protocols and open technologies, but it doesn't completely give away its whole business model, so people say it isn't being open?
Furthermore, when Google does try and get into new markets (like with Chrome or Android or Buzz) it does so in an open way that works with existing technologies and even embraces them. Microsoft usually comes out with its own proprietary version of a product when it does something like this (IE, Silverlite, VML, XBox).
I don't know, I feel like it is sour grapes. People are jealous of all the positive attention Google gets. But just because Google isn't completely open doesn't mean it isn't ahead of its competition.
Though, I am a Google Fanboy, just like I am (was?) an Apple Fanboy, so maybe that is clouding my judgement.
Peon Peetie
18 March 2010 08:17am UTC
I love google! I'm not criticizing! I was more trying to say that google is in many ways just as much a big evil corporation as apple. maybe open was the wrong word. but for the record I really do love google.
Peon Peetie
18 March 2010 08:19am UTC
(and thanks, swabie! (or is it scabbie?))
Swabie Scabbie
18 March 2010 05:29pm UTC
Seeing as I am used to responding to Blake, Brian and Larry normally, I'll be happy to go by either Swabie or Scabbie. And thanks for clarifying (both of you)!
Peon Peetie
19 March 2010 02:53am UTC
Out of curiosity, pirate, what browser did you use back when you were running OS X? I remember ages ago you used Camino, and then switched to Safari for a bit; as I recall, your most recent was Chrome?
The reason I ask is because of Mozilla's unwillingness to support h.264 video in Firefox, choosing instead to use Ogg Theora. Their reasoning for this is sound: Ogg Theora is open and patent-free, while h.264 is patented and requires licensing fees. Mozilla has always supported openness, and this is a perfect example of how their standing by it.
Gruber recently linked to an argument by Brian Crescimanno. Gruber summarizes:
"It’s not as though Mozilla has never before supported proprietary formats (e.g. GIF). But Crescimanno’s best point is that Mozilla’s support for Ogg Theora is doomed because it’s technically inferior to H.264"
The article at one point even compares this decision to the success of Linux as a desktop OS, implying that it's simply not as good as the current alternatives [note: he does say that the lack of success of Linux as a desktop OS is based primarily on people's values, and how "there just aren’t that many people who share the same moral imperative as the Free Software Foundation; most of them just want it to work." I know clearly that you are one of the people who share the same moral imperative as the FSF].
I'm not trying to find some example to prove your hypocrisy, just curious as to how you feel about Mozilla essentially going against what are soon becoming standards in an attempt to be open, and also to see if this decision (or others) affect your browser choice as well as your OS.
[Further note: Just because, for example, PDF is the "standard" in businesses does not make it standard to me. I want everyone to go with h.264 simply because my iPhone will play it, and because I really don't care. GIF files are the same. Just doesn't matter much to me that they're patented.]
Dread Pirate Benjamin
23 March 2010 06:13pm UTC
Well, I am currently using Chrome. I've been following the whole debate about video patents quite closely. And I have to tell you, the whole thing just pisses me off.
I want the world to choose Ogg, but without dedicated processors for decoding Ogg it isn't going to happen.
I want Firefox to stick to its guns, but agree with Omer and Gruber that this is going to hurt Firefox's users.
I disagree that Linux is not successful on the Desktop because it isn't as good. And maybe I am taking this personally, but Linux has a different set of values than Gruber, or Apple. Is Linux "better" for a "grandmother"? Probably not. Is Linux "better" for "programmers"? I'd argue, yes. Is Linux "better" for "the world"? Once again, I'd argue, yes. "Better" is a term that is not objective. Linux isn't successful on the Desktop because it has made a set of design choices that don't necessarily gear it towards the lowest common denominator.
Now, as to what is "better", H264 or Ogg, well, I've seen arguments on both sides, but I think it mostly comes down to that most people agree that H264 can be compressed to smaller sizes. For a website like YouTube which deals with absolutely mammoth amounts of video size is important. However, I have read comparisons where people found Ogg to be comparable. So, once again we are back to the difference being dedicated hardware chips exist for H264 but not for Ogg.
I use Chrome, which is a browser that supports both H264 and Ogg. I don't use Firefox because I hate the interface. Both Chromium (upon which Chrome is based) and Firefox are open source.
Should I be using Firefox because of the choice it is making regarding video? Well, if I want Firefox to continue to make a choice that will potentially lose it some users then I need to use Firefox. Like has been mentioned above, I need to give them my "vote".
Which I will look into. I don't really have performance complaints about Firefox. I mean it isn't as snappy as Chrome, but what I like most about Chrome is the minimalist approach it has taken. I simply don't like all the screen real estate that Firefox takes up.
As to H264 being a "standard" well, it isn't one, and won't be one. The HTML spec which I am using as my definition of "standard" has specifically side-stepped the issue of video codecs so as not to alienate anyone. So there will be no codec "standard" for web video.
However, it does seem like H264 will become the "de facto" standard in light of there not being a real one. But when Internet Explorer had 90% market share, wouldn't you argue that its javascript APIs were the "de facto" standard? Should Mozilla have abandoned its principles then and adopted whatever IE was doing? Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right.
I'll go so far to say that maybe I think Firefox should switch. I don't want them to. I want Ogg to become more prevalent. But I think at this point Mozilla's stance is just hurting its users.
I do think people are going to regret this decision to back H264 so much. One thing Gruber has failed to mention in all his articles regarding this issue was that the licensing group behind H264 had originally schedule to start requiring distributors of H264 content to pay licensing fees this year but then changed their mind at the last minute. I see no reason why they won't switch in the future. If they aren't planning on switching then they need to release H264 to the world so that it is free for all to use. But the fact that they aren't releasing it means they want the option available to them. Meaning they are considering requiring licensing fees an option. My feeling is that they changed their plans so that as HTML video is starting to take off H264 can really get a strong footing. Then once H264 is the de facto standard and would require a lot of people a lot of money to switch they will start requiring licensing fees again. But we'll have to wait half a decade to see if that happens.
Anyway, for the time being I am using an open source browser that accepts both of the conflicting codecs as options. And I do feel guilty about not using Firefox. I'm still conflicted about whether or not I am going to switch but I am considering it.
Dread Pirate Benjamin
8 April 2010 01:14am UTC
Ugh. I want an iPad.
Peon Peetie
9 April 2010 10:52am UTC
then get one! don't even think of it as an open or closed system. just think of it as a big awesome super cool device that can do anything. or, if you want, wait until july to play with mine (if i let you!) to see if you think it's worth it.
i'll tell you though. i CANNOT WAIT until my iPad arrives sometime next month. really. i check my calendar every few hours to see when it's may.