Slashdot Mirror
Will OSX Build In Torrenting?
Cjattwood writes "Mac OS rumors has an article describing a possible implementation of a Bittorrent client into Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard", including a unique sharing reward system where the user can share bandwidth and get rewards, such as credit in the iTunes store."
You upload a little and you get infinite download credit for whatever movie you want. Sometimes even before it's out in the stores!
Beep beep.
imagine getting credit for itunes music for torrenting itunes music... what fun.
for a minute there, i lost myself...
just curious, I can't imagine that they would let you offer the pirated music and movies and then get itunes credit for it...
When will we see codename "Kitty"
or OS X "Domestic Cat"
or even OS X "OMGmewmewmew"
Credit for torrenting? Why would Apple give away iTunes music just for people to run torrents? Well, maybe because those torrents will serve up iTunes movies. Dedicated bandwidth has been the greatest obstacle to getting a full iTunes HD movie store (well, that and the movie companies' agreement, but if the tech is there and economical, the content will follow).
I can see Apple doing this for movies since they're so large size-wise. I wouldn't mind using half of my upstream to earn credit at the store. Good way to defray the cost of my internet bill - and since I'm on a comercial account my ISP doesnt say anything about me using a lot of bandwidth.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I don't think that the legitamate uses of BitTorrent come close to equaling the bandwidth wasted on downloading pr0n, music and the latest blockbuster movies. So why would Apple build this into thier OS? Will it help legitimize BitTorrent? I doubt it. It would be interesting to see them distribute updates via bittorrent though.
I just type my sig in the reply form...
Help us take our hosting cost and we'll help you negate that bill you pay for 30 tasty megabytes of fiber... Yesss...
Personally, this is the best implementation of the BitTorrent technology yet.
$eeding.
> I don't care how many good uses there are, Bit Torrent will always be labeled as a piracy tool.
... it's just a goddamn protocol. WoW uses it for updates, and it's catching on elsewhere. They just won't call it BitTorrent, and it might not even be perfectly compatible. Just call it an "exchange-interlocked pareto-efficiency protocol" or something.
The name, sure. Otherwise
Man, every time RFID or the BT protocol comes up, slashdot gets its collective panties in a wad.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
2. Legal downloads of Linux/BSD CD's.
Somehow I have never seen this as Job's first priority on the list of things to make easy in OS X.
Beep beep.
This sounds like a great thing, since it would make BitTorrent more available for non-techie users and add another vote to the legitimacy of BT.
However, if there's a crediting system, does that mean that Apple is watching your BT usage? If I'm not mistaken, Apple has some interest as a content producer and may not like what they see BT being used for. Is this going to be yet another organization watching what people transfer and ratting them out to the RIAA/MPAA/CIA, or will they be Not Evil (tm) and keep their noses out of people's business?
Beyond that, it's an interesting concept, but one that could seriously botch up torrenting as it is. Bittorrent works so well (with both legal and shady source material) because every user gets the combined benefit of getting what they want, and helping thers who want the same thing to get it. At the very most, a big ratio gets you get bragging rights on some tracker site. My inner folk-song-singing hippie cringes at what result throwing monetary things like iTunes credit into the mix would have.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Except Apple is the one that dictates what it is you'll be sharing. You're simply donating some disk space on your computer and bandwidth. The traffic will also occur on non-standard bit torrent ports so admins can tell the difference between the Apple feature and standard bit torrent traffic.
When a company like Apple implements legal P2P file sharing we'll have many more non-techies being able to make the distinction between P2P and illegal sharing. It will be more difficult to legiferate against P2P systems after this, hopefully.
:)
BTW, what will they call this flavour of "peer to peer"? "apple to apple"?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
If we can share the software updates between macs, it would be a good thing. With 3 macs in my house, why should I have to download the updates 3 times? I should be able to get a copy from the mac on my local net that downloaded it first. I just hope they allow the torrent client to have a throttle on it.
Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
You mean, like the Internet?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Just call it an "exchange-interlocked pareto-efficiency protocol" or something.
From the company that brought you the AirPort(TM)? I think not. Maybe "iGetFiles"?
why? forty-two.
People said the same thing about CD burners.
I don't know if P2P built into the OS makes any sense, but certainly it makes sense to build it into iTunes (the application). Some people have claimed that Apple's margin on iTunes content is razor thin. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I certainly know that bandwidth -- when you want the best possible access to your customers, no matter where they are -- doesn't come cheap.
So adding P2P to iTunes could be one area where Apple could improve their margins. I guess the credit system would be a way to secure that people actually kept on sharing their files after they were downloaded/bought from iTunes (the store).
It's an interesting idea (if it's true).
Or at least, that's what the rest of the industry keeps trying to tell MS. So if it's Apple doing it, it's okay?
This is getting to be a bad cycle, but at least they're using a well established service instead of trying to get a lot of people to establish their service for them. Hmmm.
And so what does **AA think about this? Apple -> it must be A Good Thing(TM)
But when MS announces that Vista will have the same feature? Evil(TM)
2^3 * 31 * 647
Why? Well, Apple are trying to get in the movie business, and the only efficient scalable way to distribute huge files is, frankly, P2P, and giving people incentives such as free credit is cheaper than providing the bandwidth themselves. It also partially legitimises P2P, which is considered a "bad thing". About time more companies caught onto it
"So large size-wise"?
I am producing this comment out of uncertainty, but I think that downloading iTunes songs via torrent would be impossible because, unless I am mistaken, every DRMed song is different because the protection scheme is bound to the iTunes account. Am I right?
perception is reality
OS X: Pussy
What do you consider a "non-standard bit torrent port?" Most modern clients, the first time you run them, open a config dialog that asks you what port you want to use... I'd think that this makes all 65536 ports pretty "standard" for bit torrent.
More likely, any apple torrents would be signed somehow, making it easy to identify Apple torrent packets. Of course, with the upcoming balkanization of the internet, this might not be a good idea.
The other thing is that this feature probably won't implement carte-blanche torrenting... expect it to work on intranets and with the Apple iTMS feature length movie torrents (requiring your iTMS key and the iTMS central key in order to use it). This way, they could sell full length films on iTMS, and offload the bandwidth requirements onto the internet as a whole (while making the content unplayable if you don't have a key).
But it probably won't happen. Not anytime soon at least.
The name "torrent" would scare off the few IT managers willing to play with Apple: they wouldn't dare put anything that even suggests P2P on a company system (their VP may not know what a torrent is, but he's heard the name and thinks it's bad.)
If Apple distributes this and then some sleazy congressman manages to make it illegal, they'll have a big media (if not legal) problem and have to disable high profile system services.
If Apple distributes this, it will poison their relationship with the gangsters who control ITMS content (whether it has any bearing on song sharing or not.)
What possible use is it? Apple owns Akamai. Their updates download faster than just about anyone's. If they use a torrent system it _will_ be slower (end user upload speed), not faster, and someone will sooner or later figure out how to upload trojans in place of updates and really wreck their day.
If Apple wants to hurt themselves, it would be easier and cheaper to just start donating computers to Al Quaeda.
Dude, you just shelled out a few thousand dollars for his computer. You can install AmigaOS for all he's gonna care. That's why Apple didn't do registration for Panther or Tiger on PPC, because the real money was in the computer you bought in the first place.
"...including a unique sharing reward system where the user can share bandwidth and get rewards, such as credit in the iTunes store."
If Apple is really this desperate for bandwidth, could this be a sign that we'll finally see higher-bitrate content on iTunes?
No thanks!
It's not really bittorent if wealthy California companies dictate the content, is it?
I suspect to credit people for uploading content for them, Apple would set up their own official BitTorrent tracker(s), which would also probably enforce some sort of DRM (possibly in the same vein as those trackers that require you to log in before they will connect you to other peers.)
Mac OS Rumors has a long history of being the most uninformed, random Mac rumor site in existence. Its predictions are rarely accurate, and when they are, they have generally been mentioned on another site first.
This is a fairly typical MOSR pipe dream.
Apple does not need my unreliable, low-speed bandwidth. They deliver 100+ MB software updates to thousands of users without blinking. Given that most of their iTMS downloads (music, movies, whatever) are from Windows users, they would see little gain by offering software update credits to Mac users. In fact, for their paltry savings on the cost of bandwidth, they would have an administrative nightmare to face.
I file this one under bullshit.
FTA: Rewards would include[...]free airtime minutes for Apple's forthcoming "iPhone" and the like.
Free airtime? Last I heard, they were just going to be making the phone, not becoming a carrier. Motorola doesn't include the minutes, Verizon does.
Based on some rough math estimated for the proposal, the team pushing this concept believes they could cut Apple's bandwidth costs by hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per year.
TFA makes it seem like the project is rather far along. Too far for them to still be working on 'rough math'. Also, millions of dollars per year? I know that Apple sends out a lot of content, but still, that's a lot of bandwidth.
[T]he system would also save terabytes of Internet backbone bandwidth that is now used for Software Updates, QuickTime Movie Trailers, and iTunes Store downloads among other things.
Internet backbone bandiwdth, yes. But again, terabytes?
Another thing: How would the client computer report to Apple that the data of X size was received intact?
AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Trying to get X windows in OS X configured correctly. Whoops, misread the title.
Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
I know I speak for most of us when I ask you, Sir, what are these "panties" things you speak of?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
I live in halls of residence at the University of Manchester. As I work on the support team, I know that all P2P applications, inc. torrents, are blocked by the network packetteer. So if this feature does get put in, we'll get all sorts of complaints from users...
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
How is it that OSX gets the pass on this? I M$ built it into Windows Vista (and if it worked) you'd scream foul over anticompetitive bullying.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't imagine they'd actually allow something like this to get released in a field well-known for significant patent filings. Sounds to me like they're setting themselves up to lose hundreds of millions in law suits in a couple of years.
Windows has BITS
Doesn't anyone else think that ISP's won't like this, and will view this as being a violation of the terms of agreement for most "home-use" type plans that prohibit running a server? It's stretching, but they're not going to like Apple benefiting from otherwise unused bandwidth that they provide.
FTA:
...the system would also save terabytes of Internet backbone bandwidth that is now used for Software Updates, QuickTime Movie Trailers, and iTunes Store downloads among other things.
Uploads would use a unique port from other types of BitTorrent traffic so that network administrators can see it as separate and handle it accordingly.
If ISPs recognize Apple's "iTunes BT port" as empirically a no-pirating-zone and remove any packet filtering, then I predict it'll be a prime target for "illegal networks" to use thus effectively making this whole "unique port" deal a flop from the first turn at the track. Because, after all, you can't just run any protocol you want on any port number, especially when the server and client have a mutual understanding (which is all your standard ports are)...
Taking "handle it accordingly" another way, I can forsee that to mean "we [the ISP] want a dime on every 100 MB you send because of increased network load." Nevermind this bit:
So if it does nothing for packet filtering and is just begging for ISPs to charge users then exactly what good is using a "unique port" gonna do? My prediction: not a damn thing!
:wq
My download is capped now at 250KB/s. That was the slowest I could download as far as I can remember. Is it our bandwidth to share? Is it our to use? If we upload even 20KB/s will other ISPs start capping everyone.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
he mean knickers.
http://www.peerimpact.com/ They've been doing this for over a year now.
The day MOSR becomes a credible source on /. is when not only toasters fly but water flows uphill.
"You win, because you weren't using all your hard drive and bandwidth anyway (and presumably it gives your data precedence). Apple wins because they no longer have to pay as much to distribute iTunes data and software updates."
Who do you think ends up paying for the bandwidth?
Your ISP doesn't expect everyone to fully saturate their given bandwidth. If they did, they would probably charge more. Do you think Google would offer as much space for Gmail if they thought everyone would use all that is given to them?
So what happens when this gets off the ground and everyone starts using all available bandwidth?
Oh wait. We're talking just Mac users here...
Nevermind.
Or should we scream that you're being a generalist and drama-queen?
Take a deep breath already.
Oh, that's thrilling.
[/SARCASM]
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Anyone wanna take bets on how fast the RIAA is going to start yelling? If this rumor becomes true of course.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
Would the person who moded the parent post please learn the difference between troll and flamebait.
The folks at Azureus could partner with the folks at Apple/iTunes to create a really great combination torrent/itunes client. The Azureus team would be able to offer an incredible insight into the torrent distribution technologies and the expertise to have a truly OS transparent iTunes client.
I know, it'll never happen, but I can dream can't I?
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
I would do it in a heart beat. As it is, my computer stays on all day. If I could build iTunes credit towards all that idle time, I would go for it. Too bad the service will never be used on the Windows Platform. Guess its time to buy a Mac Mini with the media center enhancements and just let it sit there and earn me...auctually my wife...some iTunes credit. She loves that damn store.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Id rather not share my bandwidth with anyone. Its mine, i paid for it.
As the threat of 'metererd service' looms over the horizon, this might be a great idea anyway.
Yes i know you can just choose not to use it, but it becomes a useless feature.. wasted effort..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Probably because with this technology their systems and infrastructure will be exploited by commercial entities.
Not meaning to troll, or flame; but if this is the case it seems like a legitamate concern of ISPs.
He's just making up crap. The site is only right by accident. Why the hell does /. link to that?
MOSR isn't exactly an accurate source of Mac Gossip. Neither do they quote where they get legit stuff from.
:-)
This beleive-it-or-not is legit this time! MOSR is probably aluding to this patent Peer-to-peer sharing in iChat.
Not that a patent means that it will be in iChat ever, let alone built into Leopard.
It's a way for Apple to expand their ability to deliver content without having to drastically upgrade their own network infrastructure. You get a little iTunes store credit for being part of the delivery system.
.Mac free again... or some subset of .Mac free in exchange for this. The iDisk might be more useful if it was some sort of torrent... 100 MB in exchange for XX MB stored on your own computer, etc, etc.
They should just make
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
I don't really know what else needs to be said. If the guy who runs MacOS rumors told me the sky is blue, I'd check. What's sad is he used to be reliable. Now he's just a washed up has-been who fabricates stories to drive traffic to his site. He's as reliable as Hussein's old minister of information, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
this is Apple's way of giving the finger to tiered networking.
This may be a little OT, but I'd like to see Apple offer advertisements for download on the iTMS in exchange for store credit. They could make them interactive or something if they want to make sure you watch them. I don't mind commercials, I just mind that they interrupt whatever I'm trying to watch. I'd gladly sit and watch/interact with commercials for 20-30 min if it got me $2-3 to spend on commercial-free TV shows like Lost or The Colbert Report. There's a strange bit of psychology that makes me despise spending $2 out of my pocket for an episode of Lost but be fine with watching 20 minutes of commercials for it, even though my time is worth more than that.
FYI- his name is Steve Jobs, not Steve Job. I'm sure you know that, but clearly you don't understand how apostrophes work. When doing a possessive of a word already ending in s, you put the apostrophe after the s. So you'd say "Jobs' first priority". Some people say you should add an additional s, as in "Jobs's first priority", but we all know that's just silly.
how long do you think it will be before comcast...etc throttle / block this traffic? or start charging you per mb easily costing more than any credit the apple store might give?
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
This is just the perfect story for me to plug my latest research, a couple of crypto protocols to help ensure P2P users behave honestly when uploading and storage rewards of some kind are involved, and there exists the incentive to cheat. Hope someone puts them to good use.
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
Apple call up a few of the really big ISPs, and arrange to co-locate a couple of servers, with unlimited bandwidth to that ISPs customers. Should be brilliantly cost effective, and save both parties money.
Don't get me wrong, BitTorrent is a great way of getting files around, but not for something as big or well funded as Apple...
that website is totally unreliable.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I mean, bittorent has illegal music downloads on it, right? So why on earth would apple want to promote that, considering the iTunes store?! Unless they took the bittorent protocol and modified it into something of their own, and then filtered any music sharing on it, they would be working against themselves. I think this "rumor" must have been started by the author of the article.
This is not a sig. This is a llama-duck. Quack.
This is yet another reason that unlimited broadband will soon disappear. Now Apple is planning to exploit DSL accounts to max out the traffic for their own benefit. I would imagine, looking at the costs of bandwidth, they'll use about $5 of bandwidth and credit the subscriber around a nickel to the itunes music store. IT's a total win for apple as they now won't have to increase infostructure and can ride on all the ISPs infostructure instead and their credit is a mere 1% (guessing) of what their cost to deliver it themselves would be. ... the beginning of the end of unlimited broadband.. it happened to dialup, and broadband is right around the corner because of exploitations of the service just like this.
Even tho in theory I'm 'not using it', almost any upstream useage totally hoses my total bandwidth.
So my 'sharing' greatly effects me. So ill pass.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Podcasts should be automatically fetched by torrent. This may require yet another extension to RSS for podcasting, but the benefit for creators of all size and bandwidth budget would be totally worth it.
So, based on what I've seen Apple do with things like WebKit, is that they'll have an implementation nicely packaged into a library and one killerexample App which uses it.
Start Running Better Polls
With lots of ISPs restricting the ports that BitTorrent clients generally work on to preserve bandwidth often on the premise that bittorrent is used for illegal file swapping. So with the option of using your 40 Gigs a months bandwidth to get yourself a substantial volume of music/whatever, it would be an attractive offer. But I can see that with a legitimate use of such huge amounts of bandwidth being used, is this going to point out the naughty tactics that Broadband ISP sell services that their network couldn't sustain given higher usage.
These are the same high-speed access ISPs who would want to charge Apple for "preferred speed" for providing content to consumers on their network. ISPs like BellSouth or SBC.
But with BitTorrent distribution it doesn't matter much if traffic originating from apple.com is slowed on the network, because the bulk of the actual file data is coming from hundreds of other servers, some of which probably from within the ISP's own netblock. Apple's Web page might load a bit more slowly but their heavy content (iTMS) would still download fast. Apple would be free to thumb their nose at the ISP's "preferred speed" extortion attempts.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Can't believe MOSR got a story posted to Slashdot. Note to eds: MOSR = full of shit.
Some of the noisiest network traffic is caused by BitTorrent. It's responsible for so many false alarms that organizations tend to ban it completely.
I'm sure ISPs will hate this and/or forbid it... so I must support it.
When NeXT came out every box shipped with ZILLA installed. It was the forerunner of modern screen-saver grid computers. You donated unused cycles to the Zilla organization and they did intersting stuff. In particular they allegedly did much of the four-color map theorem proof on Zilla and some of the early movie CGI work was done on Zilla. Another example of how far ahead NeXT was at the time. (another groovy thing on NeXT was it's early use of Mime and markup formatting for e-mail, something we take for granted now. e.g. all the NeXT e-mail clients had built in voice recording. Neither mac, windows, linux or sun had that at the time. And these days it's not even built in.) The neat thing apple brings to the table here is not the technology to do grid computing like this, but to do micropayments. This has been worked out via the apple stores and even better for them is if they can do barter (itunes) rather than cash. Someday they could do much more than torrent. Maybe they will lease xgrid to say airline companies to do scheduling. You get paid too!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Is that like a cross between legislate and refrigerate?
It's /Library/Packages
How about first fixing the FTP client in finder to allow UPLOADING? currently, OS X only supports uploading from the command line, a drastic oversight, yeah?
Actually, you add 's to singular nouns, even if they end in s. See, for example,
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1
The rule for adding an apostrophe after the s applies for plural possessives. In this case, "Jobs" happens to be singular, so Jobs's is the correct form; "Jobs' " would be correct for, say, Fred Job and Sally Job taken together.
The torrent protocol desparately needs to remain agile for at least a while longer. Completion of the removal of all need for centralized servers needs to get in, strong encryption needs to become standard, and Tor-like, but ad-hoc and fully scalable privacy protection must get thrown in. Then lots of smarts should be added to build a distribution network that minimizes trunk load and uses your machine intelligently to distribute more than just what you're wanting to have... this would actually need to go in for the Tor-like privacy protection anyway. These things can't happen if someone like Apple gets into the game.
Doing that would be an insult to the many developers of FTP clients for the Mac.
If the command line is too much hastle (as it is for many) then download a free client such as Cyberduck.
Why must Apple supply everything?
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
And they were right.
"Just call it an 'exchange-interlocked pareto-efficiency protocol....'"
If you don't mind my asking, how does this make any sense.
A pareto-efficiency is a point where the rate tradeoff between alternate goods is equal between the two trading parties. It is based on the basic optimality condition of calculus-- e.g. two tangent lines have the same slope at the point of tangency, meaning that the rates of substitution between the two party's alternatives, what economists define the two lines to represent, are equal.
How does this encourage this type of optimality? I really want to know what you are thinking.
On the surface, this is another mechanism through which trade can be facilitated; but if it isn't utilized or if the mechanism itself is a disutility, then how does it fulfill the optimality condition? You seem to assume that any mechanism that encourages trade is a good thing; if you review your micro, you'll find this isn't so-- colonialism encouraged trade, but at gun point and to the detriment of those colonized, hell, they're still paying for it.
So, I reiterate my question, why call it this?
KDE apps can dynamically link to KHTML / Konq components, and GNOME apps can do the same with the GNOME HTML component.
Interesting idea for limiting infrastructure costs for content delivery. Alleviate the the bandwidth and server burden on the supplier end and leverage the good things in a technology deemed evil by the very content providers (i.e., the RIAA, and MPAA) you are serving. Nice little bit of irony there.
But when you can make your whole house wired with 1Gbps ethernet in 2006 for half the cost what it cost your home to be wired with 100Mbps ethernet in 2000, isn't it reasonable to expect that ISPs aren't paying the same peering fees they used to?
Isn't it reasonable to expect that the interconnections are faster, and can handle more? Isn't there a near zero cost of adding more users, as long as the pipe isn't oversubscribed?
I think a lot of it is that business models for ISPs are based around a much longer cycle than technology will permit them to have. Anytime a disruptive technology comes along, must we have a debate about how the old, no longer valid assumptions still hold true?
Distributed content replication is one of the key features of the Internet, which is why the MPAA/RIAA hate it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
If you consider asking a pointed question to be flame bait, then I suppose I'm guilty.
//c, a Mac SE, and own an eMac G4. I'm not anti-Apple. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming from my Apple machines to that damn Mitsubishi built "Leading Edge" clone (the first one, not the Tandy 1000 clone they made later). Today, I have several Linux boxes -- and prefer them for server work hands down, but for workstation work, XP does what I need it to do.
The truth is, if Microsoft enters a niche currently served by freeware/shareware/open source, the assumption is that it is the evil empire out to squash all the little perfect peace-loving Linux and OSX people.
Frankly, I just want to see the same scrutiny applied universally.
Look for a second at Apple. The only reason they're not Microsoft is that they didn't do it well enough 20 years ago. The failed, they didn't "take the high road". Apple is pushed DRM down our throats more successfully than Microsoft. They also found a way to make downloading music workable for the record companies and for most of the customer base (at least for now). Apple's proprietary hardware and planned obsolecense has made upgrading their equipment nearly impossible for decades.
Hell, I had a ][+, a IIe, and a
If Apple builds a BT client into the OS and declares it "Part of the Operating System" because it uses that to obtain its patches, how is that different from Microsoft doing it with IE?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
...protective. They just saw it from a hardware perspective. How many people do you know (I know many) who got stuck with dead-end apple gear when they decided to go another way. They got left with hardware you couldn't upgrade. How much has iTunes pushed to be proprietary to iPods? Apple is just as anticompetitive as microsoft, they're just not as good at it and don't have the market leverage they could have had they been as good at it. They bet the hardware was more important than the software and LOST in the 80's. Its great that they're back, but give me a break, these are corporations not people. They have no soul, for good or evil.
If Apple builds a BT client into the OS and declares it "Part of the Operating System" because it uses that to obtain its patches, how is that different from Microsoft doing it with IE?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
I'm responding as if TFA is accurate. Probably that is a mistake right away.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Mod parent up please and grandparent down.
Its one thing to be a grammar nazi, but it is MUCH MUCH worse if you are a grammar nazi and don't know grammar yourself.
One more semi-interesting thing about the apostrophe rules. They are the only english grammar rule I know of that has only one exception. (its / it's)
it's/its is not an exception. All the pronouns have their own possessive versions:
;)
he- his
she - her
it - its
they - their
you - your
I - my
This should be one of the first things people learn, yet most people can't even spell "your" correctly.
I think your confusion is because you're trying to add apostrophes to words that already have possessive forms.
When you see an apostrophe after a pronoun, it's probably "the apostrophe of omission" (I don't think it's called that, but you know what I mean — where an apostrophe is used to indicate that some letters are missing.) For example,
"he's" means "he is" (thus, "he's Dick" means "He is Dick", not "his Dick"
"she's" means "she is"
"it's" means "it is" (thus, "it's left" means "it is left", not "its left", etc.)
"they're" means "they are"
"you're" means "you are"
Unfortunately, its, your, and their sound similar to it's, you're and they're, but the least we can do to avoid the confusion is to write them properly.
The "rules" are actually very simple really, it's just that many people don't want to pay even a little bit of attention to how they write.
I don't care much for artificial grammar rules (not ending sentences with a preposition? WTF? What does Latin grammar have to do with English? "This is the kind of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put!", etc), but a lot of confusion can be avoided if everyone uses language correctly.
There is no reason for Apple to supply everything, but complete support for FTP in the finder would be an obvious extension of the finder's basic function: managing files. Why should the user have to use a different program and user interface to manage files depending what underlying protocol is being used? The finder should transparently handle FTP and SFTP, just the same as it handles Samba, Appleshare, NFS, WebDAV and local files (regardless of file system). User interface consistency is a good thing, even if it "insults" some developers. I suspect that many of those developers were promtped to write their ftp clients by this glaring deficiency in the finder. If Apple had done it right in the first place, these developers could have devoted their efforts to something more productive than re-inventing the ftp client.
Yep. I can't see the cable companies and ISPs being happy about their networks being lit up for something they don't make a profit on. All the clients on the networks suddenly becoming servers is not in their business plan, I think.
Mac OS Rumors is, as usual, very, very high.
How about the name: Shared Technological Exchange Advancement Layer
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
No they're not!
Your point doesn't negate mine. Just because Apple is proprietary and protective does not mean they have acted in an anticompetitive way, unless you happen to mean uncompetitive. Apple's behavior has hurt itself.
The reason Microsoft is in a class of it's own is that it is so dominant that it can choose behavior that would punish a lesser company, but get away with it because it is a de facto monopoly. An anticompetitive action from Apple might be if they, tomorrow, decided that all iPods would only support AAC and not MP3 and iTunes would automatically convert all user MP3s into AAC.
If Apple builds a BT client into the OS, how is it different than Microsoft doing it with IE?
Let us look at past behavior then: Safari vs IE.
Safari is an application that uses WebKit. As such WebKit is integrated into the OS, while the web browser is not. You are free to remove Safari, replace it with FireFox, or replace it with OmniWeb, which is another web browser based on WebKit. Apple also uses WebKit in Dashboard, Help, and probably Mail.
You cannot do so with IE; if Microsoft had developed mshtml.dll and then turned IE into an app, rather than an integrated part of the OS, then users would be free to delete IE.
So projecting with BT; Apple would release a library called NetGrid and on top of that build SoftwareUpdate. On top of that, for example, Opera or OmniWeb may use NetGrid as well. Adding NetGrid to the OS is a smart act, one not of bundling but of integration. Perhaps they would then integrate NetGrid into iTunes, iChat, Backup, and also continue to expose the library for other developers to use.
Microsoft, in comparison, would include msbt.dll into XP and add it to Automatic Update and Windows Media Player as well, and then threaten HP to rescind their OS license if they bundle their machines with iTunes, which uses NetGrid, a competing media distribution network library.
See the difference? Microsoft has in the past threatened their licensees in order to squash the competition. Apple has done nothing of the sort in their integration of WebKit, CoreAudio, CoreData, CoreGraphics, etc.
GPL Deconstructed
Spare upstream bandwidth isn't mine to "donate". The cable company actually resells it. The choices are they will block apple's "service" or be forced to raise my rate to provide more continous upstream bandwidth.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I reckon if Apple do this, it'll be a variation on BitTorrent (rather than a more generall torrent engine) specifically for making iTunes purchased downloads faster.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
So Apple is rewarding people who share music illegally...with more free music?
1. They are not talking illegal downloads, more software updates, and *speculated* itunes content. 2. It's not an upload for credit, it's a permission to use you as a node for credit. 3. MS has already bought groove networks and ray ozzie helped build p2p into vista - go look it up - Apple just following suit.
S.J., if you're out there listening, don't settle for less.
Never-mind that you can truncate the last two parts down to MS, you wouldn't advertise it truncated that way. Let people think it's a nod that way or not - conspiracies run rampant, regardless.
Maybe it's a spinoff to thumb one at the other Apple. Why not?
Two statements with one stone, but under the radar - uh, so to speak.
-- Sosumi Again Please
Microsoft used their Windows OS monopoly to threaten Compaq to withdraw support for the competing Netscape Navigator when Microsoft wanted IE to win the browser wars.
Apple does not use their OS or their iPod to threaten anyone with anything if they install, integrate, or develop alternative BT clients and technologies because Apple isn't trying to win the P2P wars.
Do you see the difference yet?
Microsoft uses their monopoly in an abusive way. Apple does not.
GPL Deconstructed
I hate being in a position to defend microsoft, because I find them just as terrible in these practices as everyone else. I just don't see Apple in some kind of squeaky clean white hat in comparison. Apple has sued people where possible to protect what they consider their models, practices, or hardware business. Apple resellers have very strict rules about what can and can't be discounted from retail. Hell, its against license to make compatible hardware to run their OS if you wanted to.
Microsoft was WRONG to use its leverage to control its resellers. So would Apple be.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
If Apple builds a BT client into the OS and declares it "Part of the Operating System" because it uses that to obtain its patches, how is that different from Microsoft doing it with IE?
MS wields monopoly power. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market to gain in another. Thus bundling anything with Windows when a market exists for that product is illegal. This is because bundling does an end run around the benefits of the free market. Why should MS make a better or cheaper product when they can get everyone to use it even if it isn't better?
Apple does not have a monopoly on desktop OS's or computers. They have nothing to leverage. They are approaching having a monopoly on portable digital music players. If they were to bundle their bittorrent client with iPods and make all iPods require the bittorrent client then maybe you'd have a similar situation.
Apple right now can bundle or tie any products they want because they don't have a monopoly. If they bundle a bittorrent client with their OS, who cares? That doesn't force the market to use either their OS or the bittorrent client. If it sucks people will use a different one.
MS can bundle anything it wants, so long as it is not with their monopoly desktop OS. They can refuse to sell their mice without a copy of IE. They can bundle IE with Xboxes. They can bundle IE with anything but Windows. Bundling is not a problem unless it is with a monopolized product.
I don't see the problem then. Microsoft is under extensive scrutiny as a result of past behavior. Apple is not. Apple can integrate P2P functionality into their OS without issue because they have not done anything egregious enough to warrant extensive observation. Microsoft cannot integrate P2P functionality without at least a cursory review of whether they can/will use it to damage the market.
Case in point, they didn't "punish" HP for bundling iTunes or integrating iTunes into Media Center nor selling iPods as iPod+HP.
What is YOUR problem here? That Microsoft is being held to a different standard? You realize that if Microsoft were a person, they would currently be either under probation or parole, and as such would have review boards, parole officers, and live under higher scrutiny than Apple or most other people.
GPL Deconstructed
Well the fact is that many (maybe even most) Mac users have little or NO use for ftp at all, and I'm pretty sure Apple knows this as it is their business to know it. Those who do have a use already know how to deal with it and already use the CLI, or a venerable old client such as Fetch. Offering a Finder version would be practically pointless, except for the lazy. That said if they did offer one I would use it, but since they don't I'm perfect happy use Transmit, which is WAY more than a finder would be.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
That's interesting, I didn't know that.