Slashdot Mirror

I would be surprised, too, if they chose Python. Lightroom is already 40% Lua.

You don't mind Apple taking this information (and passing it on to a Utah-based company called Omniture, Inc.) without asking your permission. Others, however, do. Hey, a lot of guys probably wouldn't mind an attractive woman appearing out of nowhere to give them a blowjob (without asking permission) - but that's not good enough to presume it's okay for all guys.

Apple should require the user to explicitly opt-in, that's all. "Do you mind having information about your music passed on to some unknown Utah market research company, when there's absolutely no benefit for you in you doing so?"

One of the original articles (not my blog) about this shows it making a link to 2o7.net. That's what I was referring to. I agree that a lot of what happened yesterday was overreaction, but at the same time, I think companies need to make sure they're being open about what they're collecting. Yesterday, we didn't know anything, and some people raised the alarm that this was happening. It got a lot of attention and some people flipped out instead of just getting Apple to comment. Unfortunately, unless there's a big overreaction, most companies will ignore you (see Sony). How does the average end user contact someone at Apple in the know (not just a support-droid with a flowchart of scripted answers) to get a straight answer?

The packets are being sent to a third party. This has been reported from the beginning. Omniture is not noted in the iTunes EULA the way, say, Gracenote CDDB is. Even if Apple isn't saving the information, what do we know about Omniture? We have no policy from them on this issue. Their business is collecting statistical information. They're a marketing firm.

For that matter, why does the data need to go to a third party at all? How are they related to the iTMS?

This may well be innocuous. We don't know what Apple does with the information, I think is the point. The article doesn't offer proof that the data is retained by Apple, but without an insider at Apple, or other such mechanism, how do we know? The answer is, we don't. You suggest what it could be, in apparent defense of Apple, but you don't know, either. It could be a lot more is taken and retained.

Forgive me for suggesting this, or if I'm incorrect, but I get the impression that you wouldn't sound quite so sedate if the situation involved a different company, like, say, Microsoft (and you needn't point out any examples of MS doing likewise).

And you ask what use will Apple have for the information? I don't know. I still don't like it. I take my privacy pretty seriously, and will voluntarily give it up, but only when I choose. In other words, I have to know it first. I know Amazon'll be tracking my purchases, since they need to for other reasons, and am willing to abide by that. If I don't want them knowing what I buy, I don't shop there. That being said, Amazon doesn't know when or how many times I watch Lost In Translation, or how often I might use an adult toy with my girlfriend. And while I don't know whether Amazon specifically discloses the fact that they use purchases to make recommendations, it is pretty common knowledge. From what I've read, Apple apparently does not disclose this, or what use it will make of the information.

Now, me, I don't use iTunes. I'm satisfied with various other players (e.g. Winamp) for the moment. When I get an iPod, maybe I'll use iTunes, but we'll see.

I agree that it's easy to disable, which is props for Apple. To me, that doesn't make up for the fact that it's there, undisclosed, in the first place, opened by default.

Here are more responses.

From Omniture, Apple, iTunes, and Privacy on since1968.com: I've installed Little Snitch and can confirm this behavior: if you launch iTunes on a Mac with the new MiniStore open (and it's open by default), iTunes attempts to contact 207.net, otherwise known as Omniture. See the screenshot above. And why on earth does a third party need to bury its IP address behind a string that looks like an intranet (local) address?

Call it market-ware (as if we need another tech term) if you like. On the one hand, Apple's trying to tailor content to its iTunes users and that is supposed to be a good thing. On the other hand, they are in league with marketers and are pulling this off in a slightly underhanded fashion. What does Apple have to hide?

I found the following links since submitting the story:

Here
and
Here

"Take note of Mono now and start writing Mono WinForms apps. When the Mono people get smart-client technology working, you will see a surge in linux based departmental applications."

I disagree that MONO is the ONLY solution to that problem. Try typing this into Google, and you'll see that things like FLEX, and the equivalent is were business is headed, for Internet, and Intranets. The difference between MS technologies and FLEX, is that FLEX is here, and MS is somewere down the road. Plus they aren't the only two with "solutions". So while things are still fresh, let's not propagate the Monopoly into another application space.

This,
or this,
or this

The standards argument being made

check out the demo

In Dutch, sorry
http://www.macromedia.com/resources/business/ric h_ internet_apps/">What RIA is

"Most office computer users are bean-counters, secretaries, powerpoint-using middle managers, etc. These people do NOT need 3D graphics, 4G of RAM, or 3 GHz CPUs."

I disagree very much. with that assesment.

Lucian is most definitely the entertaining candidate on the ballot.