Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Samuel_Michon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Samuel_Michon

This is not news. Stallman and the FSF are against all things Apple and have been ‘critical’ of the company for ages.

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone...

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple

http://stallman.org/apple.html

http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with-warni...

View on HN

I see the statement as not a re-iteration of FSF's take on Apple but rather re-establishing the meaning of free software and its importance to people while the tide is high.

I think this is the problem exemplified, especially the last one -- that was plain embarrassing. The FSF just cannot tactfully spread their (quite wise and forward-thinking) message. To any average Joe, the guy outside the Apple Store protesting the iPad is no different from the local drunk schizophrenic who lives on the alley corner yelling "REPENT, SINNERS!" until he passes out again.

Their concept of professionalism is flawed -- actually, a more apt predicate adjective would be "completely nonexistent." Just look at their website. 2003 wants its two-tone website design back.

To me there's nothing unprofessional about their web design. It's stark and clear, just like their message.

I love FSF and RMS and I'm glad they exist, but they really do have terribly disturbing design and PR. Geeks like to pretend that isn't important, but to the average Joe it matters.

The FSF often comes across as timecube guy.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

That's all very nice in theory, but if I am not a domain expert in a subject and the book's cover is made of clip-art and Comic Sans, human nature will lead me to trust it less.

Humans are not rational animals, no matter how much we'd like it otherwise. Rather than shouting down the tide, it's wise to invest in a little design/marketing - even if it rankles.

As a book designer, I can tell you that the jacket design in large part decides whether a book will sell or not.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/07/the-decl...

Stallman, et. al are also against anyone making any money from building software. He's said as much, that he thinks software engineers should work as waiters rather than work on anything which isn't entirely free.

So, naturally he's against Apple which happens to make a lot of money from building software.

What are you even talking about??

"Stallman, et. al are also against anyone making any money from building software"

This is utter non-sense. I think you are confusing "free as in freedom" with "free as in free beer". Stallman openly says free software can be commercially developed and supported. Just that the users should have certain freedoms to use it. The developers can sell copies of their free software if they choose to.

In a NYC talk, Stallman readily said that software developers should absolutely never work for any company developing closed source software (ie. the vast majority of software companies) and should instead work as waiters, developing free software in their free time.

[1]: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5844

You apparently think that "commercial" and "making money from software" must, must mean "proprietary" and "closed source" software.

RMS and the FSF disagree strongly with this and see no inherent conflict between the two. Either you didn't know and were honestly ignorant, or you were deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

I know they disagree with this, but the fact remains that it's very challenging to make money off open source software. Few companies are able to sustain such a business model, particularly if the target market is consumers with no interest in retaining consulting services.

Now you've changed the subject from "Stallman, et. al are also against anyone making any money from building software" to "[...] it's very challenging to make money off open source software", which is a separate point entirely.

A case could be made that Apple and FSF are on the same page there. Apple’s revenues from software sales pale in comparison to its total revenue.

Apple makes software in order to sell more hardware, that’s why they make so little software for other platforms. Apple either gives its software away or it sells it for way less than similar products by competitors.

Today, Apple announced it will start giving its iLife and iWork apps away for free with all new iOS devices.

Currently, Apple sells its OS X upgrades for $20 and it’s not unthinkable that they will start it giving it away, as they already do with iOS upgrades.

Other examples are Apple’s Pro apps. It would acquire those apps from other companies and then discontinue the versions for other platforms while slashing the prices for OS X.

> A case could be made that Apple and FSF are on the same page there.

Not really. Apple is very big into free software, but only free as in beer.

As you note, they build that software (and give it away effectively for free) in order to sell more hardware. The second they make it free as in speech every competitor can pick it up and put it on commodity hardware, destroying a major strength of Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com