Slashdot Mirror

I haven't used the Trakdot, but it looks interesting. Not so much an anti-theft device, more like a LoJack for your luggage. Just announced at CES. Has a subscription fee, so it might not be worth it for a one-time thing.

99% of buyers just want to steal games, nothing else. Yes, yes, dangerous precedent an' all that but in this case i agree with the courts!

That seems doubtful. If this truly is the easiest way to carry multiple games around without having to carry around physical copies of each one, then it seems likely that legitimate use is not only significant, but is probably in the majority.

And this, folks is one of the big reasons why iPhone and iPod Touch are tearing so badly into Nintendo's portable gaming sales. The more you tIghten your grip, Nintendo, the more users will slip through your fingers.

Thus, not a real power issue... that's just the excuse some people make.

I won't disagree that Apple uses a heavy, and many times unfair, hand in management of their apps, but when the 3.0 firmware came out and things like Push notifications and Apple-built multitasking apps came to the fore, a lot of people started seeing substantial battery drainage. Add to this the introduction of 3G and the battery life plummets.

I'm certainly not suggesting this is the only reason, but I think it has a lot more to do with the current lack of multitasking than any conspiracy by all of the upper level execs at Apple.

Thanks - and by the way, I admitted my ignorance, the clueless tag was not required.

So, to smarten up over here, I went over to Apple and started to apply as an iPhone developer. However, as I could not in honesty list my company as being part of all that, and not being an out and out liar, I couldn't complete the free developer application. Neither did I want to invent one to go to all that trouble and end up with an NDA problem.

So, I can't access the free SDK nor its terms and conditions that way. However, the ever-friendly Google led me to a MacNN article that led me to http://developer.apple.com/iphone/terms/registered_iphone_developer.pdf - the REGISTERED IPHONE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT.

Now, I've RTFA (A for agreement) - and either I'm just more clueless than ever or you are.

By the way, the IDA was modified very recently and the NDA was relaxed - http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/10/01/apple.drops.iphone.nda/

Nowhere does the agreement state that you can't develop apps that compete with Apple's apps.

Nowhere does it state that your apps may only be distributed via the Apple Store.

Now, I freely acknowledge that having product at the Apple Store for the iPhone is highly beneficial, but restricting the Store is not anti-competitive. And it's not clear to me that the only vector for app distritribution for an iPhone is the Apple Store. But restraining one's place of business to not distribute competing products is simply not an anti-competitive practice.

Unless you consider the Ford Motor Company anti-competitive because Ford doesn't sell Chevies.

Now, it was time to put up or shut up and I've put up, AC, so it's your turn - kindly point us all at a reference where we can objectively judge these "anti-competitive rules in their SDK license agreements" that everyone seems to just know all about.

And for the other ACs who want to jack off calling me a fanboi - I'm not an iPhone fan and I don't own one. Get a life.

- angry over confusion
- angry over video card
- angry over southpark
- angry over upgrades
- angry over waiting in line

http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/03/20/unlimited.itunes.a.myth/

Personally I feel this would be a great thing for business and the consumer, but the artists may see plenty of drawbacks especially after getting used to 7 years of the current business model.

Fragile is one thing the iPhone is not. In fact, it survived falling from a moving car at freeway speeds only to be run over by a semi. Other than a lot of cosmetic damage, it still works in every way.

What were you planning on doing with an iPhone?

And as for bulk, well unless you take your cell phones the way Zoolander does, the iPhone does pretty well in that regard too. From what I can tell, the only smart phone that is thinner is the Moto Q, and that is only *0.1 mm* thinner.

But you must be right that the only reason people buy an iPhone is to show it off to other people. Thanks for pointing out our vanity.

Yet, it was Apple that refused to cooperate with Sony/BMG, who wanted to impose DRM on music files ripped from CDs to prevent copies from being made.

Apple took risk here. It refused to play ball, meaning that consumers who had bought the Dave Matthews' Band or Foo Fighters albums last year couldn't load them onto iTunes without a stupid workaround. Sony blamed Apple, saying that it was up to them to "flip the switch." The bands posted statements on their web sites telling people to complain to Apple. Still, Apple didn't back down.

http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/05/08/04/cds.not.wo rking.with.ipod/

Then, after the Sony rookit debacle, it was Sony that was beaten into submission.

So, although I agree that Apple uses FairPlay to create a lock-in effect, they have often stood up to the record industry as well. If they had played along with Sony, the practice might have become commonplace.

The consoles will have some catchup to do - in 2005 Apple sold about 4.5 million macintosh computers.

That's just 2005, in 2004 it was something like 3-4 million - and they've been selling PPC computers for a lot longer than two years.

Between the PS3 and the 360 there probably will be ten million chips going out next year, I'm just saying Apples contribution is not as insignificant as you make it sound. And even though Macs are moving to Intel next year they'll still be selling Quad G5's for some time.

Indeed. My original post was supposed to be a joke about this kind of lunacy, but I don't think it came out quite right.

Apple said anyone who felt the issue was big enough would repair or replace the Nano at no charge ...

what else do these jerkoffs want?

According to http://www.ipodnn.com/news/05/10/21/ipod.nano.laws uit/ they are also:
..demanding that customers get their money back as well as a share of the company's profits on the music player's sales.

So I guess just a repaired/replaced Nano is just not good enough.

The lawsuit seemed somewhat legitimate until I read this little gem at ipodnn.com http://www.ipodnn.com/news/05/10/21/ipod.nano.laws uit/