The double standard on Apple's behavior
Summary: Considering the fact that Microsoft has received a MASSIVE beating on ZDNet and just about every other technology publication and that there has been virtually no coverage on Apple's behavior, there is absolutely nothing left for me to say on Microsoft WGA and that it's only right that someone makes a single blog entry covering Apple. I also haven't done a very good job of "sucking up to Microsoft" since I've criticized Microsoft plenty in the past not to mention the fact that listing all of these negative stories probably doesn't go over very well with Microsoft PR. So either I'm telling the truth that I treat Microsoft like everyone else or I'm the world's most incompetent shill ever.
When I dared criticize Apple's own version of the WGA fiasco yesterday, I was swamped with criticism that I was picking on poor old Apple. Some like Dave.Leigh defended Apple's actions as "normal" while others like mvora writes:
Contrary to your claims to "call out companies" when they do wrong, you don't have a single blog entry about Microsoft's intrusive WGA program.
Considering the fact that Microsoft has received a MASSIVE beating on ZDNet and just about every other technology publication and that there has been virtually no coverage on Apple's behavior, there is absolutely nothing left for me to say on Microsoft WGA and it's only right that someone makes a single blog entry covering Apple. A quick search on "Microsoft WGA" on news.zdnet.com came up with the following results for news stories and blogs:
ZDNet news items on Microsoft WGA fiasco:
- Microsoft faces second WGA lawsuit July 5, 2006
- Putting privacy first at Microsoft June 28, 2006
- Microsoft: Here's how to halt WGA alerts June 27, 2006
- Microsoft to publish its privacy rules June 23, 2006
- Fighting Microsoft's piracy check June 20, 2006
- Microsoft draws fire for stealth test program June 13, 2006
- Microsoft to ease up on piracy check-ins June 9, 2006
- Microsoft's antipiracy tool phones home daily June 7, 2006
- Counting the cost of counterfeiting May 22, 2006
- Microsoft piracy check comes calling April 24, 2006
ZDNet blog items on Microsoft WGA fiasco:
- Second lawsuit over WGA and Microsoft pulling WGA Suzi Turner - July 6, 2006
- WGA 'spyware' lawsuits against Microsoft probably meritless David Berlind - July 5, 2006
- No WGA "kill switch," says Microsoft Ed Bott - June 30, 2006
- User suing Microsoft over WGA notification, calling it spyware Suzi Turner - June 28, 2006
- Microsoft backs off on WGA "phone home" - sort of Marc Orchant - June 28, 2006
- With WGA, is Microsoft forcing Windows users to install and test pre-release software? David Berlind - June 9, 2006
- Microsoft's not-so-generous Windows deal Ed Bott - July 7, 2006
- MS: 20% of WGA failures not caused by pirated keys Ed Bott - July 3, 2006
- IE7 gets closer to its official debut Ed Bott - June 29, 2006
- The WGA fiasco continues Ed Bott - June 28, 2006
- Is Microsoft about to release a Windows "kill switch"? Ed Bott - June 27, 2006
- How to disable WGA notification Suzi Turner - June 21, 2006
- Microsoft presses the Stupid button Ed Bott - June 12, 2006
- Does Microsoft's new WGA disclosure fall short? David Berlind - June 9, 2006
- MS anti-piracy tools phone home, raising consent, disclosure and security questions David Berlind - June 8, 2006
- Hackers working hard to circumvent Microsoft's anti-piracy tech David Berlind - June 1, 2006
- MS Office to use Genuine Validation Marc Orchant - April 25, 2006
- Licensing double standards John Carroll - July 29, 2005
- WGA side-effect aims at Linux Dana Blankenhorn - February 23, 2005
Now this certainly doesn't look like Apple is being unfairly picked because of a single blog posting criticizing their strange and unauthorized every-8-hour phone-home behavior. Of course I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't deserve to be criticized, just that we need to hold all companies equally accountable when they do something dumb or bad.
Still, reader barsteward is still unsatisfied and is accusing me of being "too scared to do a MS bashing" and that I'm sucking up to Microsoft for a job. Well I can say with certainty that I am enjoying my role here at TechRepublic and ZDNet and that I am not looking for alternative employment. I also haven't done a very good job of "sucking up to Microsoft" since I've criticized Microsoft plenty in the past not to mention the fact that listing all of these negative stories probably doesn't go over very well with Microsoft PR. So either I'm telling the truth that I treat Microsoft like everyone else or I'm the world's most incompetent shill ever. Here are a few examples of my criticism on Microsoft:
- Zero-day Word Exploit still needs patch - workaround weak
- Microsoft DEP kills Microsoft LiveMeeting
- Why can't Microsoft just patch everything?
- Has Linux patching surpassed Mac and Windows?
So barsteward, are you going to suggest that these four blog entries are bought and paid for by Microsoft? Perhaps you think they would look good on a resume that I can submit to Microsoft?
Something that I have noticed is that whenever I do criticize Microsoft, I don't get an army of apologists bashing me that I'm wrong in doing so and why Microsoft doesn't deserve the criticism. I certainly don't have people demanding that I make an obligatory bashing of Microsoft's competitors to put Microsoft's bashing in the right context otherwise known as "spin control". So long as Apple's users insist on apologizing and rationalizing Apple's mistakes rather than hold them accountable, Apple will continue to behave in this manner.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Finally, something you're an expert on
The problem isn't who you criticize, the problem is how you do it, your unscientific methods, your pre-determined conclusions, your biasing of data to favor those conclusions.
You can criticize MS all you want in separate articles, but when you make claims that are not supported by your supposed evidence, you should expect to get heat for them. If you want us to be fair, we'll judge each individual article on its own merits. If today you write crap, it doesn't become any less crap just because yesterday you wrote something accurate.
re: Finally, something you're an expert on
but he completely slates everyone else.
This Apple phone home "issue" is not even closely related to the WGA con-trick.
Apple WGA or "MGA" in this case is worse
You are a joke, George
All Apple does is check to see if there are updated widgets. No
info, personal or otherwise, is sent to Apple. It has nothing to
do with licenses or whether your OS is legal. It is the equivalent
of Firefox or any other app checking for updates.
Somehow, that is worse than a program that pretends to be a
critical update, and then sends personal info to Microsoft. It
checks your license and then nags you if it believes you aren't
legal.
How can you objectively claim these are even close? Oh, that's
right, you're not objective. You writing that other people have
double standards is very amusing. Please, explain to me how
checking for updates, which many, many programs do, is
anything like Microsoft installing a program that sends info to
Microsoft on a daily basis.
Oh, and I said in my first post that Apple should have made this
voluntary, I didn't apologize for their actions or call them
normal. They made a mistake, and they owe their customers an
apology and a fix. But putting it in the league of WGA is
ridiculous and disingenuous.
Back up your info.
George is right about being objective and treating both sides fairly. He does bash all sides fairly when he understands. Some times he doesn't quite understand how things work and is off base a little. But then again, he is dead on.
OpenOffice.org is an example. Where it is slower starting out opening a single document, when it works with more documents, spreadsheets, and presentations, it begins to show its teeth as it begins to consume less resources. So, for our avid multitaskers, OOo may be the way to go.
Granted, I understand George's angle though. Where he has been writing about several Real World IT areas, I have be enduring several Real World IT areas. First impressions can be very deceiving. Sometimes to have to dig for weeks to find the right solution. I have had my chops busted several times about researching a little too far into an area, but I know for a fact that when I do, I know a solution will suffice and not just be a "looks good enough" solution.
As far as George is concerned, handle him with soft hands and hard facts with links to back up your information. He will listen, but if you just make some baseless claim and blast him for it, you won't get anywhere. I am learning this the hard way, but perhaps this will be what gets me far in politics.
Read the blog, all it does is GET
instead of just his spin, the author states that the app gets info
from 2 websites, and sends nothing to Apple.
George is the one who made the baseless claim when he compared
a software update check with WGA, then made an even more
ridiculous statement when he stated Apple was worse, based solely
the frequency of checking.
You are a joke, George
app checking for updates...<<
Are you sure about that? Every Linux distro I
have used which has an update function requires
activation by the user. In other words, I update
ion my schedule, not the distros. Unless, that
is, I write a cron script to update in the
background. The only checking that is done is to
verify the proper updates for the version you
have on your machine. I should point out that
the update path loaded with the distribution is
not the only one available to you. As with
almost all things Linux, there is more than one
way to skin a cat and more than one cat to be
skinned. Your analogy is very bad.
Not sure what your point is
for updates, which makes it similar to when an application such
as Firefox checks for updates. WGA has a completely different
function, it sends information about your system to MS.
As has been pointed out by others, Firefox (on Macs and
Windows, I don't know about Linux) does NOT ask permission
before checking for updates. This is true of other applications
as well. As I stated, Apple should not do this, people should
have the choice.
George has tried to pretend Apple's check for updates is
functionally similar to WGA, which is garbage.
Don't know why you're bringing Linux's update process into it,
it's irrelevent.
RE: Not sure what your point is
(on Macs and Windows, I don't know about Linux)
does NOT ask permission before checking for
updates...<<
Sorry about that. The point I was trying to make
is that your statement >>... It is the equivalent
of Firefox or any other app checking for
updates....<< seems to me to be a little off.
Firefox, as most open source related products, is
pretty darn configurable. It can automatically
check for updates, and I think it is set that way
by default. Unlike WGA(as it will be, not
necessarily as it is now)and Apple is that you
have the choice: do you want it to automatically
check for updates or not. Firefox, as well as
most open source related products, does not wish
to nor is it in the case of firefox sitting in
judgment as to whether you are 'entitled' to
updates. There is total transparency with
Firefox and the user is in total control. Not so
with Apple or WGA. I hope that is a little
clearer.
Every 2 weeks is only a recent change,
Unfortunately there are a few others in this forum who cannot read, comprehend or compare.
Hehe, your ignorance is showing
Are you actually suggesting that a GET does not give Apple the IP address of the requester? How do you figure Apple's servers know who to respond to? Oh, that's right, because every GET sends an IP address!! Oops, I guess this little "trick" does give Apple all the information they need to personally identify you.
[i]hadware serial numbers[/i]
And no one has yet been able to show that the hard drive's serial number can in any way be traced back to a computer. Considering that the serial number changes every time the hard drive is formatted, it simply can't be used to identify anyone. The IP address is all you really need. The IP address is what Apple collects.
[i]Linux systems dial home as well to check for security updates so why not blog that as well and say its similar to WGA.[/i]
Um, only if you ask it to. Linux distros don't "sneak" in updates that automatically start phoning "home" (whatever that is for a linux distro) every 8 hours. Can't you get it through your head? It isn't the fact that WGA or OSX phone home that is so reprehensible. You are right, [b]lot's[/b] of applications do it. It is the fact that both Appe and Microsoft [b]lied[/b] (through omission) about the fact that this was happening. While I won't agree with anyone who says that Apple is [b]worse[/b] than MS for this, anyone who says it is acceptible (while condeming WGA) is an Apple apologist and is holding a double standard. No blog is necessary about Linux phoning home because no Linux distro (to my knowledge) has ever done this without the express consent of the user. When (if) it happens, I would expect to see a blog about it then.
[i]Unfortunately there are a few others in this forum who cannot read, comprehend or compare.[/i]
This I can agree with 100%. Pity for you that you are one of them. :(
re: Hehe, your ignorance is showing
mmmm Serial numbers change with formatting - new one on me.
If Apple was actually making the effort to collect specific info from your PC then they are in the same situation as MS - but they are not. I guess you are in the MS apologists camp. PS.. I dont use Apple.
My Linux suggestion in this context was sarcasm - sorry it wasn't obvious to you. I know a blog isn't necessary about Linux in this instance as the Open Source community is open and up front with what they do unlike MS and Apple.
Yes, your ignorance is DEFINITELY showing
And you know this how? No, you [b]believe[/b] that Apple doesn't record it. I believe they do. Care to prove me wrong?
[i]Serial numbers change with formatting - new one on me.[/i]
Then I've just taught you something. Don't feel too bad, I only found this out a couple days ago. :)
[url=http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/hard_disk_serialno.asp]Hard drive serial number info[/url]
[i]One method programmers have used since the DOS era was to bind their software to the Hard Drive Volume Serial Number. This is not a good choice, as later we all find out that [b]every time we format the same hard drive, a new Volume Serial Number is generated[/b].[/i]
Proof enough for you?
[i]the Open Source community is open and up front with what they do unlike MS and Apple.[/i]
This we can agree on and in fact, was all I was ever trying to say. I very specifically said that Apple was no worse than MS. I just believe, unlike most of the apologists here, that they are no better either. Sounds like you believe the same too.
I am suggesting that I don't have a static IP address
Are you actually suggesting that all the people in the world with DSL or Cable modems have static IP address.
No, I did not think you were suggesting that were you.
Links please!
No and if you are suggesting I ever said that, you had better provide links to back it up.
Now, do you believe that ISPs are incapable of storing cable modem (or account name for dialup)/IP address combinations based on date/time? Given a date/time and an IP address, any ISP will be able to provide the name and address of the person tied to the account. If you don't believe this is possible, I suggest you are being naive. If you do believe this is possible, the type of IP address you have is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
Links? I was replying to you post.
Specifically from your post:
<i>Are you actually suggesting that a GET does not give Apple the IP address of the requester? How do you figure Apple's servers know who to respond to? Oh, that's right, because every GET sends an IP address!! Oops, I guess this little "trick" does give Apple all the information they need to personally identify you.</i>
Let me summarize my understanding of what you wrote:
Apple can identify people / machines specifically by the IP Address in the GET request.
If I misunderstood what you wrote then feel free to claim victory in this little debate and don?t bother responding to rest of my comment.
Still reading? Okay lets see if you can agree with this then. Most IP address to computers in peoples homes are allocated via Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. Very few home users have Static IP address as that costs more money.
So what information can Apple get from that IP address? Well no more that this. At the moment in time the GET request arrived a computer with an Apple OS was using that specific IP address. Should that user hang up that very same IP address could be given to machine running Windows or Linux or even and pay close attention here a different machine in a different home running the Apple OS. Now exactly how is Apple going to personally identify the first user of the IP address from the second user when they are both using the same IP address?
I know your answer lies in your response to my first post
<i>Now, do you believe that ISPs are incapable of storing cable modem (or account name for dialup)/IP address combinations based on date/time? Given a date/time and an IP address, any ISP will be able to provide the name and address of the person tied to the account. If you don't believe this is possible, I suggest you are being naive. If you do believe this is possible, the type of IP address you have is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.<i>
Again let me summarize my understanding of what you wrote:
Apple can personally identify a user based on the IP address in the GET request (from your initial post) because Apple asks the ISP to provide the information (from your second post on this topic) What is not said but explicitly implied is the ISPs are giving Apple this information so that Apple can get information about a specific user to add their database.
My reply: OUR community would love for you to post any information you have about ISPs in the free world that provide customer details to other parties without warrant.
And finally the discussion at hand is ?can Apple personally identify a person from the IP address in the GET request?. I pointed out that you asserted that Apple could. If the owner of an Apple computer configures that computer with a static IP address then apple could assume that when ever it sees that address it is one single specific computer, but then there is no simple way to tell if IP address is static or dynamic just by looking at the address is there.
Sorry about the formatting screw up.
No one ever said it was identical. You lose this one man.
P.S. Ive read alot of crap on some blogs, but yours really pushes the limits. Your clearly biased and are ready to ignore and twist any truth you do not like. Leave us alone if you are going to be like this.
Spy vs. Spy
An interesting (and I guessed unasked) question is why does Apple expect the dash-apps will significantly change over an eight hour period. Perhaps, they are also taking a survey of Dashboard usage and are internally reassessing the product. That's just me guessing and 3 times a day would still seem excessive even if that was so.
From my point of view, WGA's false positives and invocation of nag dialogs make it worse, but maybe three versus one time a day is the critical difference, as suggested by Mr. Ou in a sibiling post, and I'm just too dense to understand why three times, once a day, or every two weeks makes any difference on the spying.
And, to explore the mystery of why Mr. Ou's anti-Apple comments gets more reaction than his anti-Microsoft articles. Here are some possbile reasons: 1) Apple pays its astroturfers better, 2) Microsoft, with its larger market-share, has to respond to more negative comments and is stretched thin, 3) Apple customers are aggressive over-caffeinated boors who, counter-intuitively, prefer a better looking machine (the devil uses BSD). In my case, these Zdnet by-liners who keep saying Apple should be more like Microsoft, (Apple needs to implement .net, Apple needs to embrace Windows, Apple's security is a product of it's low marketshare and Apple needs more marketshare, Apple needs a security czar just like Microsoft, and, Mr. Ou's helpful suggestion I saw yesterday, Apple needs to slow down the updates!), bring out the postin' side of me.
Something is wrong with your head
So! Get a life little boy! Turns out your dead wrong on your assessment of this whole thing. Did you even read it? Or did your anger blind you.