Never before has such a highly-visible platform denied software developers the right to provide their software to the platform’s users. Windows and Mac OS do not prevent users from running the software of their choice, though they may warn the user that the software is not trusted. Ultimately, the choice remains in the user’s hands, unlike it is with the App Store, where the choice remains mostly in Apple’s hands. With the iPhone, iPod, and iPad, users are not even permitted to obtain software from sources outside the App Store. Running applications of the user’s choice is called jailbreaking and is effectively illegal in countries with anti-circumvention laws (like the US DMCA’s Section 103) because running such applications requires the user to disable Apple’s (weak) restriction mechanisms.
The best way for governments to legislate against the anti-competitive practices of Apple and other monopolistic gatekeepers is to remove the defective legislation that allowed it in the first place. Only when circumvention is permitted, allowing users to install the applications on their choice and not just the ones Apple says they can, will true competition be possible. I’ve encouraged Canada to do so and I hope other governments will follow suit.
Today Apple CEO Steve Jobs posted Thoughts on Flash, explaining why Apple will not allow Adobe Flash Player on iPhones, iPods and iPads. In the post, Jobs makes the following assertion:
Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true.
So according to Jobs, Apple is open and Flash is closed. But according to a WSJ interview with Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen, Flash is the open one:
I find it amusing, honestly. Flash is an open specification.
So who is really open?
Continue reading ‘Apple, Adobe, and “open”’
In North America, getting a decent Internet connection usually means comparing the two options (for 78% of Americans – see main article), which tend to be DSL from the local telco or cable Internet from the cable company. Providing an Internet connection over telephone lines or cable is a hack, as both were built to transmit specific types of information in analog form: point-to-point voice and broadcast video, respectively. The physical layout of the wires also reflects the use case: a star topology in the case of telephone, for communicating directly with the telco, and a ring topology in the case of cable, used to reduce the amount of wire, since all nodes were receiving the same information. Neither of these is ideal for an Internet connection, as the speed of DSL drops the further you are from the telco building and the bandwidth available to cable subscribers is necessarily shared with your neighbors. Other options exist, but are similarly limited. Broadband over power lines is not widely deployed and satellite broadband has high latency and degrades in adverse weather conditions.
Fiber-to-the-home is gradually replacing these other methods of providing consumer Internet connections. However, not all fiber services are created equal. Here are the main areas where fiber deployments differ (from each other and from cable/DSL), some that you would expect and some you might not:
Continue reading ‘Realizing the potential of fiber-to-the-home’
This post will document my new computer, which I assembled last weekend, as well as my experiences with Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 3 on it so far. I hope that this will be useful for others that want to build a system like mine and for those that want to learn a bit about the latest version of Ubuntu.
Continue reading ‘My new Core i5 and Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha’
I finally got around to installing GCC on my Nokia N900 today (using Maemo 5). I found it more challenging than I expected so I figured it would be nice to share how I did it.
Continue reading ‘How to install GCC on the Nokia N900′
The arrival of the following two posts on the same day is just too ironic for me not to write about:
More and more it seems that APIs which have existed for decades on all POSIX systems (which includes all popular OSes except Windows) are being re-implemented as web standards. This is an interesting trend, which I think is being fueled by a confluence of factors:
Continue reading ‘Are web standards the new OS APIs?’
I made a submission for Canada’s copyright consultation yesterday, which is reproduced below. If you haven’t made a submission yet, you still have time; the government has extended the deadline until tomorrow night. Their website includes full details on how to send in a submission. Without further ado, here is my submission:
Continue reading ‘My copyright consultation submission’
Images on the web have been a solved problem for many years. Web designers know they can insert a JPEG, PNG, or GIF file with
<img> and it will work in virtually all browsers. Video, on the other hand, is much more difficult to provide. There are a range of formats and none are universally supported across browsers. Inserting video should be as easy as inserting an image: just make sure the video is in the right format and use
<video> to place it. While we’re not there yet, such a reality could be closer than you think.
Continue reading ‘Seamless web video within reach’
The DMCA §1201 hearings for 2009 took place at the beginning of May. These hearings will guide the anti-circumvention exemption rulemaking that happens every three years. It is important that people in the US are aware of these because the exemptions influence whether you can legally watch DVDs with free software, whether you can make fair use of online videos, and whether you can unlock or jailbreak your cell phone (see also the TPMs section of my recent talk). It is important for people outside the US as well because of the major influence US policy has on the laws introduced in other countries, especially close trading partners like Canada.
The transcripts for the first two of these hearings are now available. Though having a text format is nice, I find it very difficult to read. That’s why I created this HTML version for the first transcript:
DMCA Section 1201 Hearing – May 1, 2009
Highlights include the §1201(11)(A) discussion on fair use of DVD content for remixing and the §1201(5)(A) discussion on iPhone jailbreaking.
This version uses
<blockquote>, and microformats to add meaning to the transcript. Along with a style sheet from Stephen Paul Weber, this version of the transcript is much easier to read. And in HTML form, it’s much easier to add a custom style sheet to fit your own viewing preferences. All changes to the transcript, including the style sheet, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license and are Copyright © 2009 Stephen Paul Weber or Denver Gingerich.
I hope this version makes the hearing transcripts more accessible for people. It didn’t take too long to translate the first hearing transcript into HTML so if there is interest, I will translate the others as they become available. The conversion was done largely programmatically so there may be errors. I’ve made an effort to ensure that the quotes match up with the speakers, but it’s possible that some quotes don’t match. Please use the original transcript as the definitive source.
On May 8, Adobe submitted a takedown notice to SourceForge.net requesting that the rtmpdump project be removed from their site. SourceForge.net removed the project this past week. For more details, see the original Slashdot post, an updated Slashdot post, and a new post from Linuxcentre.
The problem: RTMPE
Reading deeper into the takedown notice, we see that Adobe believes rtmpdump “can be used to download copyrighted works” and lists some pages on Channel 4 as examples. The takedown notice also states that Adobe “is the developer of technological protection measures that protect content from unauthorized copying and distribution”. This suggests rtmpdump was targeted because it circumvents technological protection measures. A post on the XBMC forum confirms that Channel 4 uses RTMPE, an encrypted version of RTMP, used to transmit video with Flash. The post also links to a Replay Media Catcher page discussing how Adobe forced them to remove RTMPE support. Though the takedown notice doesn’t state it explicitly, we can be fairly sure from these points that Adobe is targeting rtmpdump because it allows you to download content transmitted using RTMPE.
Implications: Flash cannot be an open standard
The major implication of this takedown notice is that Adobe has definitively told us that a fully-compliant free software Flash player is illegal. This is because RTMPE is part of Flash, circumventing RTMPE is illegal (in the US at least), and Adobe will never give a key to a free software project since they cannot hide the key. As a result, Flash cannot truly be a standard even if we ignore the codec patent problems.
Adobe’s takedown of rtmpdump reminds us that Adobe does not fully support open standards. As a result, web designers and anyone else who cares about an open web should steer clear of Adobe technologies, in particular Flash. Adobe was given the choice of supporting open standards or appeasing big media and they chose big media. Make no mistake, Adobe is an enemy of the open web.