Steve Wozniak gives jailbreaking the thumbs up, wishes iTunes supported Android(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
Steve Wozniak gives jailbreaking the thumbs up, wishes iTunes supported Android
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/10/02/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-supports-jailbreak-community-wishes-itunes-worked-android/
15 comments
The headline is not all about Wozniak,it's also a nice direction for iTunes from an Android user perspective.I'd like to listen my music from iTunes account without buying again from Google Music.
Since music tracks from iTunes are DRM free, they can be played in any Android devices.
For now iTunes and the distribution deals Apple have are a competitive advantage that Apple wouldn't be willing to give up by integrating tightly with Android.
But in a few years time when Google have similar deals in place and any advantage is marginal (if that), it might happen. While Apple aren't really in the business of selling music (obviously they do but it's a relatively small part of their revenue mix next to hardware sales) there is an opportunity there.
That said over time as these deals become more common, the music business is going to be commoditised which will squeeze profit margins. It may be that those lower margins mean that even with access to a significantly larger potential market Apple aren't interested - they've never really been a high volume, low margin business.
But in a few years time when Google have similar deals in place and any advantage is marginal (if that), it might happen. While Apple aren't really in the business of selling music (obviously they do but it's a relatively small part of their revenue mix next to hardware sales) there is an opportunity there.
That said over time as these deals become more common, the music business is going to be commoditised which will squeeze profit margins. It may be that those lower margins mean that even with access to a significantly larger potential market Apple aren't interested - they've never really been a high volume, low margin business.
I would argue that it has not been done before because Apple needed to give the ipod the competitive advantage. I think that its hard to say what would happen if iTunes now opened up to android devices too. Would the Music Play store sales decrease and Apples music sales increase? Would there be more music Apple sales with both iOS and Android but less iPods sold?
As I said it is hard to say what would happen and by how much.
As I said it is hard to say what would happen and by how much.
The first two words in the headline are "Steve Wozniak."
True.But not 'Apple Co-founder' like in link's headline.He's just a hacker nerd who shares his opinion.
"I'm not clear why we regard it as news when he does."
Go read the front page right now. Do it. Half the items on there are just stuff that people want to talk about. Notch's new office (oooooohhh!). Yet another Apple/Samsung article (woah!). The 256th python tutorial (wheee!)... Maybe just get over it, hmmm?
Go read the front page right now. Do it. Half the items on there are just stuff that people want to talk about. Notch's new office (oooooohhh!). Yet another Apple/Samsung article (woah!). The 256th python tutorial (wheee!)... Maybe just get over it, hmmm?
The itunes thing is actually pretty interesting. There may be the same case as there was before for an exception.
I have a work mac, work pc, home mac, kobo, ipod & android. Sounds like a lot when I list it out. I'm not really a gadget person and some of those are pretty old. I use them all though and every one or two years I expect to add or replace a "device". Apple will be considered and sometimes chosen.
That's not unusual. Most Apple customers are not monogamous. Realistically, Apple have never been the company with so many options you never need to go anywhere else. They have been the company that's reluctantly good at bringing devices together and connecting them with a marketplace.
They don't like harmonizing elements they don't control. They would prefer the world divided nicely into Apple people and non Apple people. That's not realistic.
To improve Apple users' experience they need to support foreign devices. Mac users use android and many avoid itunes altogether (they need to think in terms of 'files' anyway). Ipod users use android and their ipod never has the podcasts they've been listening to. iPad users can't read the book they are halfway through on sony reader.
They wanted ipod users to just plug them into a mac, but that wasn't realistic so they released itunes for windows. I think its time for another compromise.
I have a work mac, work pc, home mac, kobo, ipod & android. Sounds like a lot when I list it out. I'm not really a gadget person and some of those are pretty old. I use them all though and every one or two years I expect to add or replace a "device". Apple will be considered and sometimes chosen.
That's not unusual. Most Apple customers are not monogamous. Realistically, Apple have never been the company with so many options you never need to go anywhere else. They have been the company that's reluctantly good at bringing devices together and connecting them with a marketplace.
They don't like harmonizing elements they don't control. They would prefer the world divided nicely into Apple people and non Apple people. That's not realistic.
To improve Apple users' experience they need to support foreign devices. Mac users use android and many avoid itunes altogether (they need to think in terms of 'files' anyway). Ipod users use android and their ipod never has the podcasts they've been listening to. iPad users can't read the book they are halfway through on sony reader.
They wanted ipod users to just plug them into a mac, but that wasn't realistic so they released itunes for windows. I think its time for another compromise.
It's interesting that Microsoft has multiple apps on Android (11) and iOS (23), Google has 22 apps on iOS and even 1 app on Windows Phone, while Apple has 0 on any platform except iOS.
It's typical. Windows always seemed to have a pragmatic, simple decision making process. They're strategic too, but not dogmatic. They never tried to win with windows, for example, by not making office for mac. If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped.
Google has the thousand flowers mentality.
Apple doesn't like to develop anything that admits the existence of intelligent life outside of Apple. In fairness, they are a "do few things well" company. They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money. There isn't a whole lot of money to be made selling apps on Android or windows mobile.
But yeah, itunes/ipod for android would be a no brainer for any other company. Just like kindle, for ipad. At Apple it requires divine revelation.
Google has the thousand flowers mentality.
Apple doesn't like to develop anything that admits the existence of intelligent life outside of Apple. In fairness, they are a "do few things well" company. They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money. There isn't a whole lot of money to be made selling apps on Android or windows mobile.
But yeah, itunes/ipod for android would be a no brainer for any other company. Just like kindle, for ipad. At Apple it requires divine revelation.
Nothing is stopping anyone from writing an iTunes syncing client though. Apple has an approved method for syncing playlists and songs (though not the DRMed videos). DoubleTwist has been doing it for years. Palm got screwed over because they weren't using the approved method, and were trying to pose as an iPod. So it might not be developed directly by Apple, but they do support it.
> " They never tried to win with windows, for example, by not making office for mac."
Wow! Ok, I'm guessing you're of an age where you were probably very young at the time, but exactly this happened. Microsoft, for years, threatened to cancel office for the mac (office only exists because of the mac- word and excel started in the mac before windows existed.)
Apple used their control over office to drive Apple nearly to bankruptcy in the 1990s. It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate, and that produced a massive settlement where Microsoft paid Apple many billions of dollars over 5 years, both companies entered a broad patent cross licensing agreement (Which is still in effect, and which is why microsoft doesnt' ship something like android which is an iOS ripoff- but was forced to do something original with Windows Phone.)
And of course, part of that agreement was that Microsoft would continue to ship office for the mac.
> "If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped."
Not how microsoft works at all, and I know this because I worked there. Anything that is seen as a threat to the windows monopoly is killed, immediately.
Office for Microsoft's own tablets was mortally wounded because it was seen as a threat to the desktop windows empire.... which is part of the reason the tablet market was in terminal shape until the iPad came out.
> They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money.
Apple makes a great deal of software that it is unable to directly monetize-- iOS and Mac OS X are good examples. While Apple charges $20 for OS X, that's ancillary.... Apple also makes a great deal of software- from games like Texas Holdem Poker (which they made to help jumpstart the App Store to Final Cut Pro X which was made to make the Mac relevant for that class of creatives back in the day) almost all of Apple's software efforts are to support the platform. Hell they even make a database and Office apps so the mac can never be without good solutions in these areas.... and then they sell them for cheap.
Wow! Ok, I'm guessing you're of an age where you were probably very young at the time, but exactly this happened. Microsoft, for years, threatened to cancel office for the mac (office only exists because of the mac- word and excel started in the mac before windows existed.)
Apple used their control over office to drive Apple nearly to bankruptcy in the 1990s. It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate, and that produced a massive settlement where Microsoft paid Apple many billions of dollars over 5 years, both companies entered a broad patent cross licensing agreement (Which is still in effect, and which is why microsoft doesnt' ship something like android which is an iOS ripoff- but was forced to do something original with Windows Phone.)
And of course, part of that agreement was that Microsoft would continue to ship office for the mac.
> "If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped."
Not how microsoft works at all, and I know this because I worked there. Anything that is seen as a threat to the windows monopoly is killed, immediately.
Office for Microsoft's own tablets was mortally wounded because it was seen as a threat to the desktop windows empire.... which is part of the reason the tablet market was in terminal shape until the iPad came out.
> They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money.
Apple makes a great deal of software that it is unable to directly monetize-- iOS and Mac OS X are good examples. While Apple charges $20 for OS X, that's ancillary.... Apple also makes a great deal of software- from games like Texas Holdem Poker (which they made to help jumpstart the App Store to Final Cut Pro X which was made to make the Mac relevant for that class of creatives back in the day) almost all of Apple's software efforts are to support the platform. Hell they even make a database and Office apps so the mac can never be without good solutions in these areas.... and then they sell them for cheap.
>It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate.
Do you have any source for this or are you just making it up? Microsoft agreeing to continue making Office for mac was the settlement of a bogus patent lawsuit where Apple sued Microsoft for having a GUI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
Do you have any source for this or are you just making it up? Microsoft agreeing to continue making Office for mac was the settlement of a bogus patent lawsuit where Apple sued Microsoft for having a GUI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
I think we're just looking at it from a different altitude.
That's not really surprising - Microsoft sells software, Google sells internet services and Apple sells hardware. Obviously the first two benefit from being on competing platforms, Apple doesn't.
Does anyone really care what Woz says these days? Really?
I know he accomplished some cool stuff 30-odd years ago, but why is his opinion still relevant? What technology is he actually working on now?
He just seems to be a reliable semi-controversial rent-a-quote for busy journalists. He's not even that insightful.
I realise this will cost me karma, but whatevs.
I know he accomplished some cool stuff 30-odd years ago, but why is his opinion still relevant? What technology is he actually working on now?
He just seems to be a reliable semi-controversial rent-a-quote for busy journalists. He's not even that insightful.
I realise this will cost me karma, but whatevs.
> Does anyone really care what Woz says these days? Really?
It's not so much that Woz is a source of wisdom and insight, it's more that there are few gurus and "experts" in computer science (generally a good thing) willing to offer opinions.
Woz is in the position of being able to take philosophical positions that people won't be likely to argue with, because of his long incumbency in the field of computer technology.
But that's an explanation, not an excuse. In fields that depend on scientific reasoning, there's no justification for accepting the opinions of experts based solely on their position. As Richard Feynman famously said, "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion."
It's not so much that Woz is a source of wisdom and insight, it's more that there are few gurus and "experts" in computer science (generally a good thing) willing to offer opinions.
Woz is in the position of being able to take philosophical positions that people won't be likely to argue with, because of his long incumbency in the field of computer technology.
But that's an explanation, not an excuse. In fields that depend on scientific reasoning, there's no justification for accepting the opinions of experts based solely on their position. As Richard Feynman famously said, "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion."
You know what? If he wrote a 3 page blog post saying "why it would be good business for Apple if iTunes supported Android" (or whatever) I'd be more interested. But all we get are soundbites.
I say this as a big fan of Apple, my Apple II+ and all that Woz created so brilliantly when he was there...
I think that your criticism above is the heart of the matter. If Woz had deep thoughts he were relating that informed in a meaningful way, great.
Instead, he tends to spew out populist geek one-liners without any supporting rationale.
What's disappointing is the way that the tech culture picks it up as an appeal to authority or noteworthy opinion.
I think that your criticism above is the heart of the matter. If Woz had deep thoughts he were relating that informed in a meaningful way, great.
Instead, he tends to spew out populist geek one-liners without any supporting rationale.
What's disappointing is the way that the tech culture picks it up as an appeal to authority or noteworthy opinion.
He doesn't really care about business. From memory he was originally very cautious about monetising the original apple. His perspective isn't "why this would be good business for apple", it's "why this would be cool for me".
You have a valid point.
But with that said, I think Woz is a very cool individual that's fun to listen. Does the radical / polar position toward the Apple cult make him that? Perhaps. However his work, albeit 30 years old, is still an inspiration, and his public persona isn't entirely focused on bashing the modern Apple methodology.
I don't know what he's working on now, if anything in concrete, but he's obviously not sitting on his hands :)
But with that said, I think Woz is a very cool individual that's fun to listen. Does the radical / polar position toward the Apple cult make him that? Perhaps. However his work, albeit 30 years old, is still an inspiration, and his public persona isn't entirely focused on bashing the modern Apple methodology.
I don't know what he's working on now, if anything in concrete, but he's obviously not sitting on his hands :)
I did read this (slightly harsh) article about his work as "Chief Scientist" for Fusion IO:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/what_does_steve_wozn...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/what_does_steve_wozn...
First time when I submitted this article the title was :"Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak gives jailbreaking...",like the original link title.I rewrite it because somehow I agree with you.But Wozniak will always remain the Apple's cofounder and his oppinon will metter for some people.
it's just me, but when someone accomplished way more than most by todays standards, when there was barely a market, he likely knows a few things, as well as recognizing patterns and cycles that time had afforded him.
Why the vitriol? Why should we care what you think? (Seriously...why?)
Roughly half the items that appear on this feed are not news, you know.
(There's an interview with Brian Kernighan on the front page right now. Are you going to complain about that one too? Should we post complaints about every single story that we don't like, that receive a little bit of attention?)
Roughly half the items that appear on this feed are not news, you know.
(There's an interview with Brian Kernighan on the front page right now. Are you going to complain about that one too? Should we post complaints about every single story that we don't like, that receive a little bit of attention?)
I am a giant asshole.
I'll be honest, I'm so, so glad iTunes doesn't support anything but the iPod/iOS lines as it's already a headache of overdone and unneeded functionality.
Quote! "It’s better to think constructively about what can be done with our mobile platforms to improve our lives more, rather than trying to throw darts and insults". And this is why Woz is still relevant. He understands that it's not about the iPhone or the Galaxy S3 or which ever device you have, but about what it does for you. They've all been drastically transformative in day to day life for a huge amount of the population of the Western world. Tech blogs and geek circles spend that much time sniping at each other that we seem to forget how quickly things have progressed. They're all great devices.
Quote! "It’s better to think constructively about what can be done with our mobile platforms to improve our lives more, rather than trying to throw darts and insults". And this is why Woz is still relevant. He understands that it's not about the iPhone or the Galaxy S3 or which ever device you have, but about what it does for you. They've all been drastically transformative in day to day life for a huge amount of the population of the Western world. Tech blogs and geek circles spend that much time sniping at each other that we seem to forget how quickly things have progressed. They're all great devices.
Woz might have been influential back in the day, but let's face it: he also had zero business sense. If it was up to Woz, they would have given away the computer he had built for free, and he would still be a lowly and unknown engineer working for HP. Jobs was the one who figured out how to monetize Woz's hard work. That's why Apple was founded and led by Jobs.
I'm actually saddened that after 30 years of working for Apple, Woz still hasn't learned that coddling your competitors and giving up your competitive advantages are bad for business.
edit: gotta love the ninja downvotes. Must have touched a nerve. :)
I'm actually saddened that after 30 years of working for Apple, Woz still hasn't learned that coddling your competitors and giving up your competitive advantages are bad for business.
edit: gotta love the ninja downvotes. Must have touched a nerve. :)
Yeah, despite the fact that without Woz, Jobs would have never taken the home computer business by storm, and probably would have ended his great entrepreneurial vision with at most yet another unremarkable 70's DIY kit, after struggling aimlessly at Atari... This is becoming snobnews.
I don't think my post downplayed Woz's contributions. No one has any doubt that Woz is a very bright individual. What I'm saying is that being smart about engineering does not necessarily translate over to being smart about business. And that's certainly true about Woz. Like most geeks, he's an idealist: he talks about what he wishes the world to be like without thinking about or understanding what that would mean for the company that employs him.
The parent comment didn't downplay any of that.
But honestly, Woz quotes at this point are basically "Preacher Delivers Sermon to Choir, Film at 11". The only people who bother to listen to him are people who already agree with with he's going to say, so whose understanding is being broadened by this? And how are these kinds of stories going to accomplish anything in the wider world beyond HN?
But honestly, Woz quotes at this point are basically "Preacher Delivers Sermon to Choir, Film at 11". The only people who bother to listen to him are people who already agree with with he's going to say, so whose understanding is being broadened by this? And how are these kinds of stories going to accomplish anything in the wider world beyond HN?
[deleted](1)
iTunes supporting Android would be great for Apple. Unfortunately, it would also be good for Google, so it's never going to happen.
It would be great partially because the existing sync solutions for Android are all a little bit wonky. I don't think it would necessarily be great for Apple, though - I'm considering purchasing an iPod to listen to music on to get that better integration, and releasing iTunes for Android would commoditize the listening device - exactly what a shiny hardware manufacturer does not want.
"It would be great partially because the existing sync solutions for Android are all a little bit wonky."
Eh? Winamp, DoubleTwist, Spotify, and even Windows Media Player all sync flawlessly, and Google Play Music and Android Cloud Player work great, too.
Eh? Winamp, DoubleTwist, Spotify, and even Windows Media Player all sync flawlessly, and Google Play Music and Android Cloud Player work great, too.
Winamp was OK but crashed a little too often for me to be able to rely on it. DoubleTwist is, hands down, the worst music software I have installed on my laptop in recent memory (I can expand on this if you want, but my overall summary is: terrible). I hadn't tried WMP or Android Cloud Player, and at the time Google Music wasn't available to me. Spotify I haven't tried yet because until today, I couldn't even get it to see my phone despite my laptop and phone being on the same wireless network, as per the instructions. It has finally shown up though so I will give that a go.
Funny, one of the biggest reasons I moved to android was precisely to escape itunes
iTunes supporting Android would be great for all Android users. iTunes is a great market with excellent apps which are not ported for Android.Unfortunately,like you said,Google will never allow this.
I was thinking more for a music point of view. How many users could Apple win over into the ecosystem just by letting you sync your iTunes library with your Android phone? I'm thinking a lot.
I don't know. Can I buy music from iTunes without installing some bullshit beachhead on my computer for Apple to push QuickSlime and Slowfari onto me?
Amazon MP3 works flawlessly. Who needs iTunes?
Amazon MP3 works flawlessly. Who needs iTunes?
I'm sure that, to Apple, the more relevant question is: How many iOS device users would they lose by letting you sync iTunes library with your Android phone?
I'd guess a lot, but even if that's wrong, it takes hundreds of incremental music sales to offset the loss of just one iPhone sale.
I'd guess a lot, but even if that's wrong, it takes hundreds of incremental music sales to offset the loss of just one iPhone sale.
With Rdio and Spotify both working well on Android I don't see much need for iTunes.
Google Music is also pretty good, at least when it comes the storing existing music library (I'm outside of the US so I cannot buy music there).
This is entirely anecdotal, but I think a lot of people underestimate how important iTunes is to the success of the ipod/iphone/ipad.
Speaking for myself, one of the main reasons I chose an iphone+ipad over android is because I love watching indie films, and iTunes is great for this. Their content library includes so much stuff that just isn't available anywhere else. Being able to instantly start watching a high quality version of a relatively obscure indie film can currently only be done on an apple platform (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
I would love it if iTunes was available on other platforms, but I can't see it happening. I don't understand why no one else has been able to secure these content deals that Apple seems to exclusively hold.
Speaking for myself, one of the main reasons I chose an iphone+ipad over android is because I love watching indie films, and iTunes is great for this. Their content library includes so much stuff that just isn't available anywhere else. Being able to instantly start watching a high quality version of a relatively obscure indie film can currently only be done on an apple platform (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
I would love it if iTunes was available on other platforms, but I can't see it happening. I don't understand why no one else has been able to secure these content deals that Apple seems to exclusively hold.
I think Apple was able to secure these content deals because of their massive userbase.
It is nice to read that Steve Wosniak supports the idea of iTunes on Android but to be honest, it does not make any sense for Apple.
The battle of mobiles is not about the hardware and the OS, at least, not only, but about the ecosystem around it. Google would not like its Play ecosystem to be on Apple's device, it is important for them that people buy their platform to get access to it (however, nobody would like to do that nowadays as the Play ecosystem is quite small). Now if you think about iTunes...
The battle of mobiles is not about the hardware and the OS, at least, not only, but about the ecosystem around it. Google would not like its Play ecosystem to be on Apple's device, it is important for them that people buy their platform to get access to it (however, nobody would like to do that nowadays as the Play ecosystem is quite small). Now if you think about iTunes...
> It is nice to read that Steve Wosniak supports the idea of iTunes on Android but to be honest, it does not make any sense for Apple.
As Apple's smartphone market share continues to erode, it will make more and more sense for Apple to try and capture some of the media purchase revenue from Android users by providing an iTunes app.
As Apple's smartphone market share continues to erode, it will make more and more sense for Apple to try and capture some of the media purchase revenue from Android users by providing an iTunes app.
Market share is irrelevant to apple. Market share can be bought if you throw enough money at it (See Microsoft's and Nokia's attempts).
As the only people making money from mobile is Samsung and Apple I doubt apple care about market share stats.
The iTunes eco system is there to sell hardware not to make apple tons of money.
As the only people making money from mobile is Samsung and Apple I doubt apple care about market share stats.
The iTunes eco system is there to sell hardware not to make apple tons of money.
As opposed to Amazon philosophy which is to sell hardware to allow people to access their ecosystem, which is their main source of money.
Agree but for now that is not the case, they still have a strong market out there and the recent iPhone 5 release is a good confirmation.
He loves iTunes? Odd.
He probably loves itunes for what it accomplished. Remember the music industry before itunes? The way in which it made a lot of things possible and easier?
And the whole app store mechanism? Whether it is itunes or android's or whatever's?
That's what he loves it for. (And I'm assuming you're wondering why he loves a product that is so ugly/slow/complicated/whatever; I suspect that's not Steve Wozniak's point).
And the whole app store mechanism? Whether it is itunes or android's or whatever's?
That's what he loves it for. (And I'm assuming you're wondering why he loves a product that is so ugly/slow/complicated/whatever; I suspect that's not Steve Wozniak's point).
wozniak is open to new perspectives( http://gizmodo.com/5926598/the-amazing-contents-of-steve-woz... ),but always will support Apple
[deleted]
[deleted]
Woz hasn't worked for Apple since the early 1980s. He got in a minor plane crash, got freaked out because he could have died and was "wasting his life in business" or something like that. Stopped working for Apple and started putting on the "US Festival!" which was not a financial success. So he stopped. He's been pursuing essentially charitable causes, for the most part, since.
He did invent the universal remote (but it got copied by everybody right away.)
He's a nice and well meaning guy and was a consumate engineer. But he was never the product guy.
On the Apple II he liked to try and get as much functionality out of as few parts as a challenge-- a technical challenge. It was Jobs who knew this would let them have a competitive advantage (or cared about it, anyway.)
He was critical to the early years of Apple. Jobs was not nearly as good of an engineer (but unlike what many people seem to think, Jobs was an engineer.)
but it was Jobs who understood how to make products really great, and why you needed to, and who made Apple the company it is today.
It was Jobs who cared about design as much as engineering.
He did invent the universal remote (but it got copied by everybody right away.)
He's a nice and well meaning guy and was a consumate engineer. But he was never the product guy.
On the Apple II he liked to try and get as much functionality out of as few parts as a challenge-- a technical challenge. It was Jobs who knew this would let them have a competitive advantage (or cared about it, anyway.)
He was critical to the early years of Apple. Jobs was not nearly as good of an engineer (but unlike what many people seem to think, Jobs was an engineer.)
but it was Jobs who understood how to make products really great, and why you needed to, and who made Apple the company it is today.
It was Jobs who cared about design as much as engineering.
I can't thank you enough for this post. It really bothers me that Woz always manages to get so much attention for his seemingly anti-Apple opinions for this very reason. He's a great guy, but he hasn't been involved at Cupertino for a majority of Apple's existence now.
Woz always takes very predictably pro-hacker positions; I'm not clear why we regard it as news when he does.