My brother and I have been watching the DVD release of the HBO
miniseries John
Adams, and it's got me thinking. It paints a very vivid
picture of the American Revolution, some of it slightly fictionalized
or altered for the purpose of the story, but on the whole a much more
truthful telling than has ever been told before.
Part of the story that stood out to me was the political beliefs of
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and
Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and Franklin stood on the left, Hamilton
on the right, and Adams and Washington held the middle ground. It
strikes me as strange that we remember George Washington as a great
general and president (he's on two pieces of currency), but we hardly
remember John Adams (his face and name aren't among those immortalized
on currency).
Nonetheless, both were of the same view, so I suppose the only
difference was in reputation (Washington led us to victory; Adams was
an early British supporter turned patriot - not exactly a great public
image in the late 1700s). Their view was that of balance, of unity:
keeping the people in check through the law, and keeping the law in
check by the people.
The seemingly endless struggle we face today in many different areas
is that of restraint versus freedom - or, as it stands now, absolutism
versus anarchy. Should we be able to do what we want, when we want to,
in whatever way we want, or should we be held accountable for our
actions by laws and regulations?
Absolutism vs. Anarchy at Apple
This question has been asked countless times about Apple.
- "What gives Apple the right to censor questionable content?"
- "So, Apple can steal technology from other people, but we can't use
Mac OS X on any computer we want?"
- "Ha! Somebody finally defeated Apple's oppressive secrecy!" [the
iPhone 4 leak]
Apple is currently embroiled in lawsuits, "violated" because of the
iPhone 4 leak, under intense pressure to open the App Store to whatever
developers see fit to create, and, on top of this, it has to keep
operating, keep updating its products, and keep paying its
employees.
Reminds me of tar-and-feathering.
With technology playing as big a role as government in our lives (if
not bigger), we have become not only citizens of our native land or
adopted country - we are now citizens under companies, brand names,
organizations, and causes. We purchase the right to use what they have
to offer (similar to taxation), and they in turn have to listen to our
demands, both direct or indirect (statistics = representation). Just
like in government, sometimes we don't get everything we want - and
neither do they.
Apple Right and Wrong
Corporate justice is a hard thing to determine, but I view Apple's
current situation this way:
Controlling the App Store
Does Apple have the right to censor the App Store? Most
emphatically. The App Store is not free speech or the right to worship
- it's a privilege, like the privilege of driving on a paved road or
having public street lamps. Apple's "censorship" of apps in no way
affects our core liberties. Too often we take "Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness" to mean the right to own electronics and use them
for any and every purpose, and the right to make ourselves feel good by
having more features than anybody else.
OS X on Macs Only
Does Apple have the right to determine which computers we install
Mac OS X on? This is more difficult to reason through. However, my gut
judgment tells me yes. In my eyes, the Macintosh hardware line is like
a state government, sovereign in its own right, but subject to the
federal government.
If Mac OS X were available for every computer, Apple would not be
able to ensure its higher-than-average quality, just like if there was
no state government, there would be no way to adapt to socioeconomic
and political conditions on a regionalized basis.
Think of it this way: If OS X were available for every
computer, we would be at the mercy of every OEM there is. With
OS X under Apple's control, only Apple is accountable to us as to
its design, and we're accountable to them as to its implementation.
Patent Issues
Should Apple steal from other companies? No! Apple should be made to
pay a reasonable amount for whatever it takes from other companies. The
important words are "reasonable amount" - just as Apple shouldn't
steal, other companies shouldn't defraud Apple.
George Lucas was in a similar situation during the production of
Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi - whenever LucasArts went to
buy anything for Star Wars, be it a prop or a stage light, sellers
would charge them extra, because they knew Star Wars was going to be
very successful financially.
Just compensation is the key.
Secrecy
Does Apple have a right to its secrecy? Only if we let them have it.
If people are concerned that what Apple does in secret is harmful, they
have the right to boycott Apple products or to bring the matter up in
court. Obviously, that's not happening, so Apple keeping its new
products secret until the appointed time is apparently cuasing no harm.
How much fun would Christmas be if you knew exactly what you were
getting several months beforehand?
Our Role
We're only accountable to Apple as long as it is accountable to us.
In other words, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy its
products.
If everybody thought like that and acted on it, I guarantee you
there would be change. 
Austin Leeds is a Mac and iPad user - and a college student in Iowa.
