Obama = Apple, Mccain = Micro$oft

[Tasaio]

Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

Obama strongly supports keeping Internet access free of content discrimination by the corporations that supply it to individuals, even linking the idea to freedom of speech.

. . .

McCain opposes net neutrality, saying, “When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.”

And what's that about Steve Ballmer as Secretary of State?!

THE HORROR!!!

[Still Growing]

I can see how dichotomies can be drawn however intellectually this is complete garbage.

Don't believe the commercials, don't believe the hype, Apple is no different than Microsoft when it comes to their quest for profits and domination.

Creating parallels from a consumer product to national politics simply shows that you have to dumb down concepts for the sheep to understand....

[Dave Kaminski]

Wow I didn't realize how perverse Microsoft was.

That article is fairly revealing... that's complete BS imo. Another point for capitalism I guess.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I can see how dichotomies can be drawn however intellectually this is complete garbage.

Don't believe the commercials, don't believe the hype, Apple is no different than Microsoft when it comes to their quest for profits and domination.

Creating parallels from a consumer product to national politics simply shows that you have to dumb down concepts for the sheep to understand....

Did you see the lobbying efforts, though? Microsoft wants to dumb EVERYONE down by disallowing or deeply impeding the progress of Open Source platforms. That's horrible.

That's like Tonya Harding stuff. Well, the competition couldn't skate, so I win!!!

Linux is 4x worse than HIV according to Bill Gates' investments

[Brutha]

Did you see the lobbying efforts, though? Microsoft wants to dumb EVERYONE down by disallowing or deeply impeding the progress of Open Source platforms. That's horrible.

The problem is that Apple is unfortunatly also a company that wants to make money.
Apple is also big on DRM.

The iphone is an very closed product. Apple could have done a lot to allow the open source community to program on the iphone from the start, but they didn't.

If Apple could do something against Linux that wouldn't collide with their marketing they would probably also take action.

If you read sentences like:

Apple and IBM have both successfully used open source software in their commercial products.

You should keep in mind that Microsoft also successfully used open source in their software.

It's fair to bash Microsoft, but don't forget that Apple is also a company that wants to make money and Apple also makes it's money by bundeling products together, by supporting DRM (remember the defect by design stickers for the iPod?) and by closed markets like iPhone software.

[Dave Kaminski]

OK, but Apple is strategically closing markets using marketing - that's fair game, IMO, because they're convincing people that their products all together are a solution.

To pay off governments not to support the growth of something that will have a chance of allowing that country to prosper, though, is oppression.

[Brutha]

OK, but Apple is strategically closing markets using marketing - that's fair game, IMO, because they're convincing people that their products all together are a solution.

Actually that the thing that got microsoft the 500 million Euro fine in Europe.

To pay off governments not to support the growth of something that will have a chance of allowing that country to prosper, though, is oppression.

I don't know exactly how Apple does their lobbying but I can imagine that they do it like most companies. They are interested in their own profit.
Microsoft might sometimes a bit more aggressive (especially because they don't have an reputation to lose), but I don't think that there is a fundamental difference here.
Apple and Microsoft are both closed code companies.

[elmox]

The issue of net neutrality is more than a little silly. The government has no right to force buisinesses to provide services they don't want to. If you don't want limited internet, don't buy it. I would never buy regulated internet, but I support the right to provide what you want to provide.

Apple isn't all that great either imo.

Your comparison is accurate though. Obama is overlyhyped, just like apple and net neutrality.

[WageMage]

Originally Posted by elmox

The issue of net neutrality is more than a little silly. The government has no right to force buisinesses to provide services they don't want to. If you don't want limited internet, don't buy it. I would never buy regulated internet, but I support the right to provide what you want to provide.

Apple isn't all that great either imo.

Your comparison is accurate though. Obama is overlyhyped, just like apple and net neutrality.

First off, I would compare Obama more to... BSD (on which Apple's OSX is based), or Linux, but... moving right along.

Net neutrality is not, IMHO, overhyped for three main reasons:

1. Most consummers would not get a chance to buy "non-neutral" internet, this would be a carrier-grade, no-opt-out type of thing. Pretty soon, the very notion of a non-"neutral" internet would be inconcievalbe... much like the Orwelian newspeak - if devoid of the concepts and words for revolution, a people will never revolt.
2. Said "neutrality" is a form of censorship by any other name - the ability to prioritize content is the first step on a pretty slippery slope towards censorship.
3. A consummer pays for global access, not for "access to content which our corporate masters get a percentage of".

So... ok, they're pretty idealistic and somewhat paranoid points of view, but I believe them to be quite important - this is about a free (as in speech, not beer) internet, freedom of information, of learning, of dissenting, of pissing people, governments and corporations off. This is... the future of mankind.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox, but the t-shirt with the Penguin & Anarchy logo stay on