Apple, Google, AT&T Respond To the FCC Over Google Voice

"Over" Google Voice? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 05:56 · Score: 5, Funny

If they're all communicating via Google Voice, then the app clearly works, so this whole issue is moot. Right?

Re:"Over" Google Voice? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 10:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

It should be up to the individual whether they would like to alter their calling experience. If they download the app and want to use it, clearly they don't mind that their iphone experience has been altered! Let them have the app!
Re:"Over" Google Voice? by rgviza · 2009-08-24 02:24 · Score: 1

It up to the individual. Jailbreak it and you can install what you want including GV.
It's kind of absurd to say that iPhone owners don't have a choice... Cydia gives you that choice.

--
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.

the point by Brian+Gordon · 2009-08-23 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience

Isn't that the whole point of iphone apps?

Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple does have a "distinctive experience" but at a huge cost, like a Lexus or Acura or Chrysler vehicle. Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3. Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.
You see:
Some of us are trying to save money. We care about using aps like Google Voice which help save some cash, and Apple's blocking of this money-saving feature really pi - [bkspc] [bkspc] [bkspc] - annoys me.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Okay, fanboys, stop modding reasonable comments like the above as flamebait ... your bias is showing. Matter of fact, his reasoning is some of the same that I used in deciding to buy an Android phone over an iPhone, as slick as Apple's product happens to be. Personally, I don't care about Apple's endless pursuit of the perfect UI. I just wanted a powerful smartphone that would do what I (yes, I, the customer) want it to do, without having my options limited by a company I don't particularly trust. Fortunately, Apple's not a monopoly and I was perfectly free to choose something else, so I don't really care. It is interesting, though, that it appears that AT&T was not, in fact, trying to suppress an application/service that might cost it money as many first assumed. Not that I believe anything any corporate mouthpiece has to say, just on principle.

In the end, I suspect that iPhone users will get access to Google Voice: Apple's just taking a little too much heat on this one, and GV is just too cool. Sorry, fanboys, Apple does not have a monopoly on being way-cool. Alternatively, of course, AT&T could offer something functionally identical to Google Voice ... theoretically it would be much easier for them to do it, given that they own so much of the network in this country. If Google achieves nothing else by this, they'll have raised the bar on what millions of people expect from their telephone company. That's a damned good thing: those bloodsuckers have been holding us back for a long, long time.

The irony there being that the old AT&T was originally broken up, in part, because they weren't offering consumers enough new products and services. It took a Google to come along and start shaking things up, and not for the first time I might add.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:the point by bsDaemon · 2009-08-23 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

But the updates between 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 where more like going between Win2k, XP and Vista rather than service packs. Major changes, not just accumulated security updates, were introduced between each, as is my understanding. I haven't had a Mac in a right while, so I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's one of the major arguments. The 10.3.x, 10.4x, and 10.5.x updates were free but didn't introduce major new features.
Re:the point by bsDaemon · 2009-08-23 07:05 · Score: 1

really pi - [bkspc] [bkspc] [bkspc] - annoys me.

Also, the joke is "really pi^H^H^Hannoys me."
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 07:49 · Score: 1

>>>But the updates between 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 where more like going between Win2k, XP and Vista rather than service packs.
Except the updates were more frequent than that. What Apples does is the equivalent to Microsoft charging users ~$100 each year to keep using their Windows OS, and my pockets are not so deep that I can afford to keep giving ANY company that kind of tribute.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by Discordantus · 2009-08-23 07:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3

That is hardly true. Upgrades once a year? 10.3 had a 1.5 year lifespan, 10.4 lasted almost 2.5 years, and 10.5 is nearing it's 2 year mark as well. Plus, the soon-to-come upgrade to 10.6 is only 29 bucks. Also, Windows service packs are minor updates, mostly for bugfixes and consolidated security patches; Apple doesn't charge for these minor updates either. All the OS X point upgrades (10.3, 10.4, 10.5) were *major* upgrades, packed with new features.

Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.
In other words, over the last seven years, Windows has not released any new features. And you're ignoring Vista, which you apparently were not forced to upgrade to; Interestingly, you weren't forced to upgrade to 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5, either. You always have the option not to buy; if you don't think the feature set of a particular release is big enough, wait for the next one, and you get double the features for the same price.
Re:the point by Me!+Me!+42 · 2009-08-23 07:56 · Score: 1

Right on, "bsDaemon,"
Also "Comador64 love" glosses over the fact that XP-SP(1-3) simply made XP usable (or safer to use) so they damn well better be free! Also the time period was "raather lonng" for just a "service pack."

And on another front: I am always amazed at the incredibly huge number of whiners out there -- as if any of it mattered? Lots of phones out there to choose from. Apple has no lock on the market. Just buy what you want and be done with it. Do these folks actually believe everyone else really cares what they think one way or the other? No, everyone else is buying what they want.
As I see it, people deserve to have what they want -- Windows, RIM, Android, Apple, whatever (and yes, it's a doulble edged sword -- You dumb shits deserve what you choose!) Oddly some people aren't happy unless everyone else is as happy (or pissed off) as they are about their own choices.

--
-- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
Re:the point by TheGreenNuke · 2009-08-23 08:05 · Score: 1

If you look at the version numbers going from Win2K to XP is like going from 10.3 to 10.4 or 10.4 to 10.5 as the MS version number went from 5.0 to 5.1. Vista however made the leap from 5.1 to 6.0. That would be like Apple's next OS jumping to 11.0 from the current 10.6.
Also Major Changes is something that needs to be defined. XP SP1 introduced USB 2.0 support, support for SATA Hard Drives larger than 137GB, and the "Set program access and defaults" utility. Depending on what you call major, these may fit the bill. These are things that can improve performance. Major changes in OS 10.6 are mostly cosmetic from what I can tell. Such as default gamma changed from 1.8 to 2.2, Expose displaying all open windows, and contextual menus on the dock having more options and a new look. Sure it was released as 64-bit, but so are most other current OS's, including the 8 year old XP. Yea it updates QT, which anyone can download for free. With that said, I feel the Microsoft SP's are more useful than the OSX upgrades. I can change cosmetic stuff through free third party software. Hell, MS even offers certain things that were included in Vista for download in XP (see Powershell)
So i'm not seeing what the major changes are from 10.x to 10.x+1 that required an extra $100, and thus have to agree with the GP.
Re:the point by wtmoose · 2009-08-23 08:24 · Score: 1

This argument doesn't make sense because the upgrades are optional and cost does not accumulate. In other words, if you don't think the upgrade is worth ~$100, you can skip one or more cycles and still pay ~$100 when you do decide to upgrade.
Re:the point by vux984 · 2009-08-23 08:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
This is patently absurd on multiple levels. The time period's don't line up, and the Windows sequence you illustrated is nonsense.
First, you are mixing two separate windows lines. NT4 came out in 96, it its absurd that people would have "upgraded" from Windows 98 to NT, and because of their separate functions few if anyone upgraded from NT to 98 either. Perhaps you meant ME? But that's irrelevant, practically nobody upgraded from 98 to ME, nor had any reason to. ME was only released because 2000 wasn't ready for the home market. So at best people went from 98 to ME or 2000 but not through both. But most went straight from 98 to XP, and only got ME new if it was on a PC released in that window between ME and XP.
Realistically, from 95 to XP you upgraded twice: Either you went from NT4-2K-XP or 95-98-XP. Because the average lifespan of a PC is 3-4 years, most people NEVER paid to upgrade at all, and just got the new version on their new PC.
Second, the reality is that ALL the above windows happened before OSX10.2 was even released. To take Windows back to 95 you HAVE to go back to 95 with MacOS. That means in addition to 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, you have to count: System 7. MacOS8, MacOS8.5, MacOS9, OSX 10.0 & OSX 10.1. That's 10 versions of the Apple OS in the same time frame as Microsoft had 3. Now, the same hardware cycle applies to OSX to Mac's as PCs, and indeed there is simply no way to run OSX10.5 on a PC that ran System 7. But still, that's enough releases to essentially require you to upgrade your OS every year that you don't replace your Mac. Granted you can skip the odd release, but Apple is a lot more demanding about having current software. Windows 2000 is just now falling off the wagon for being supported by new software... how much new software will run on OS9? Or even 3 versions later 10.2?
Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
However, that ride is over, as Vista was a paid upgrade, as is Windows 7, so the comparisons start balancing out again. And who knows when Windows 8(or whatever they'll call it) will be out, or whether we'll get another 5+ years of good support and free service packs. We might see that again, we might not, but I think we all expect 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.X(?) to keep coming out like clockwork.
So you CAN make a good argument against comodore64_love, but yours was not a good argument.
Re:the point by atrocious+cowpat · 2009-08-23 09:05 · Score: 1

Major changes in OS 10.6 are mostly cosmetic from what I can tell.
Well, maybe you want to take a closer look at what's actually new in OS X 10.6 -- I'd say it's a lot more than just a cosmetic change.

I'm not going to go into the details of every major OS X revision, but you should note that the upgrade price for 10.6 from 10.5 is not the usual $ 100, but only $ 29. Apple basically says that 10.6 is what 10.5 could have been, had they had more time. 10.6 has massive changes under the hood (see above), but actually very little "cosmetics" or obvious new features (e.g. TimeMachine or Spotlight in previous revisions).

They're doing something very simillar to what Microsoft appears to be doing with the transition from Vista to 7, but unlike Microsoft they're not charging the users full price for a major system overhaul (this time ;) ).

--
sig? Oh, that sig...
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 09:10 · Score: 1

There's a certain irony that you corrected me over something as trivial as using [bkspc] instead of ^H
and yet you don't even know how to use the HTML (quote) (/quote) modifiers properly. ;-)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 09:18 · Score: 1

I'm using a Windows OS that I bought in 2002 (XP). Upgrade costs == free.
If I tried to do the same with my initial 2002 Mac OS (10.1), I would crash and burn since nothing likes to run on it. Therefore I needed to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5 at a cost of ~$400.
The facts speak for themselves. Free $400

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 09:30 · Score: 1

>>>I am always amazed at the incredibly huge number of whiners out there -- as if any of it mattered?
Yeah well I get tired of the Apple zealots trying to sell me on why Apple is better. I've been using Macs since 1991 and they are fine machines, but that's all they are - machines. I don't need the technological equivalent of Hari Krishnas knocking on my door.
When I was young I went through that phase of thinking I HAD to get everyone to use MY computer
- but I've outgrown that nonsense. It's just a computer not a messiah.
To quote a not-wise but sometimes insightful man: "Get a life!" - William Shatner
Macs are expensive to operate. They cost a lot to purchase (at least $700) and a lot of maintain (annual OS upgrades). The forced tieins to Apple-made peripherals also increase ownership costs. You may disagree with that opinion, but it IS my opinion, and I'm not changing it just because you resort to gradeschool insults like "idiot" or "troll".

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 09:37 · Score: 1

>>>Interestingly, you weren't forced to upgrade to 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5, either.
Actually, you are. Try running Firefox or Safari on 10.2 or 10.3. You can't. Apple forces its users to upgrade by obsoleting OSes that are barely 4 years old, whereas Wintel users can still use XP without any problem (in fact you could still use 98 in many cases).

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by Macrat · 2009-08-23 09:46 · Score: 1

A Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3.
You're a little confused. Apple didn't charge you for 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.2, 10.3.3, 10.3.4, 10.3.5, 10.3.6, 10.3.7, 10.3.8 & 10.3.9. (aka service packs)
You bought 10.4 just as you bought XP. And you bought 10.5 just as you bought Vista.
Re:the point by node+3 · 2009-08-23 09:55 · Score: 1

Apple does have a "distinctive experience" but at a huge cost, like a Lexus or Acura or Chrysler vehicle. Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3. Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.
Only a MS fanboy can complain about a company that constantly makes huge improvements to their software.

Some of us are trying to save money. We care about using aps like Google Voice which help save some cash, and Apple's blocking of this money-saving feature really pi - [bkspc] [bkspc] [bkspc] - annoys me.
And most of us can afford the average of $75/year to keep up to date with all versions of OS X since 10.0. And some of us are willing to spend that extra $75... Wait, extra? XP, Vista and now 7 all retail for over $200. To have purchased every copy of OS X as it was released would run $674. Windows Premium would run over $800.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, some of us are trying to save money. We care about using systems like OS X which help save some cash...
Re:the point by beelsebob · 2009-08-23 10:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

So to sum up your post.
Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products like Windows XP, while apple has Mac OS X 10.4. Internet Explorer 6, while firefox has 2.0 out, and apple has safari 3 out, etc.
Conclusion:
You can pay a bit more to apple, and have reasonably cutting edge, high quality stuff.
You can pay a bit less to microsoft, and have a bit out dated stuff that mostly works very well, but sometimes is an utter cotastrophe (ME and IE 6, I'm looking at you).
You can pay nothing to linux authors, and have something out of date that sometimes works incredibly well, and sometimes works incredibly badly.
Take your pick, and stop bitching.
Re:the point by beelsebob · 2009-08-23 10:10 · Score: 1

1) Except that you're not required to upgrade
2) You're complaining about apple developing their OS faster than MS... Wut?
3) The updates have actually been roughly 18-24 months apart in recent history.
Re:the point by node+3 · 2009-08-23 10:15 · Score: 1

Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
A free ride atop a glacier. The only reason the "upgrades" (i.e., service packs, i.e., bug fixes, the occasional device support (such as WPA), and, as far as user-visible improvements go, the Security Center) were free is that they weren't part of a sufficiently upgraded system.
Apple doesn't charge for their bug fixes either. What they do, however, is make large improvements more quickly than MS, and charge for those (*much* less, actually, than MS charges for their OS's). In fact, MS's quickest OS upgrade this century has been from Vista to 7, and even that is longer than Apple's longest, which has been Leopard to Snow Leopard.
What's more, if I were a PC user, I'd much rather see MS improve Windows at a rate similar to Apple, and for them to lower their prices to those similar to Apple's, and for them to remove this "Home Basic/Home Premium/Professional/Ultimate" crap and just give everyone the "Ultimate" edition, like Apple.
I find it a bit odd that PC users are complaining that Apple improves their system too quickly. Maybe OS upgrades on Windows are significantly more problematic than on Macs? Is it the fear of something new? I just don't get how it's somehow bad that Apple keeps improving OS X.
Re:the point by mini+me · 2009-08-23 10:21 · Score: 1

iPhone apps run in a strict sandbox. They have no way to alter core experiences any more than a web app can.
Re:the point by indiechild · 2009-08-23 10:23 · Score: 1

It is very strange, isn't it? The unashamed Apple bashing continues in true Slashdot style.
Re:the point by indiechild · 2009-08-23 10:27 · Score: 1

You don't have to pay for a new OS X when you get a new Mac either. That's hardly a revelation.
Re:the point by TheGreenNuke · 2009-08-23 10:34 · Score: 1

64-bit, great, I've used 64-bit XP, Vista, and Win7, and often wonder why 32-bit versions are not being uniformly phased out. QuickTime, wow, I can download that for free on a non-Mac. Exchange support, that a Microsoft OS will no doubt support since they come from the same company. OpenCl, not as familiar with, but is it not analogous to CUDA? Either way seems more like a GPU feature than OS feature.
Either way, if you're going to argue that these are major changes, which I can see and understand your point despite my above criticism, why not increment the version number to 11.0?
Re:the point by vux984 · 2009-08-23 10:36 · Score: 2, Informative

So to sum up your post.
Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products...
Except that Microsoft did release several free service packs, so the OS wasn't really nearly as stale as the release dates might imply.
And while Apple does release paid updates often, they often drag their feet as bad as Microsoft. Java updates for example tend to seriously lag. Hardware support for cutting edge hardware also tends to lag badly (video cards for example). And so on.
Re:the point by vux984 · 2009-08-23 10:38 · Score: 1

You don't have to pay for a new OS X when you get a new Mac either. That's hardly a revelation.
Yeah. I covered that. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.
Re:the point by TheGreenNuke · 2009-08-23 10:43 · Score: 1

Except when your Mac is too old (mid 2006ish or older) and the processor does not support the 64-bit architecture required for the latest version. Then you have to go buy a whole new system, which of course will run you in the $1000+ range.
Re:the point by naetuir · 2009-08-23 10:47 · Score: 1

This is a point I get so tired of.
What if you're not looking for an experience, but instead, a functional system that can run whatever app you put on it (or develop for it), without question?
The OS of any device has exactly one goal: Get out of my way and let me do what I want. That's it. Eye candy is certainly nice, but when the OS (of whatever device is in question) actually stops me from doing what I want it to do (provided an app has already been developed), that's a big BIG problem. One that I don't understand why more iPhone users aren't flapping their gap more, about. I love the iPhone OS. It's pretty. But any proprietary/controlled/gimped device is basically worthless to me (and plenty of others, as Android has shown). I own the device, I get to choose what I want to put on it. End of story. It's just iPhone users trying to console themselves by claiming that the iPhone is an "experience" when in fact they are being manipulated. Just like Kindle users are, with Amazon. It's no different, and just as insidious a way to control users as any other corp has ever put out.
Not to mention, someone had to come along eventually and start innovating telephones. Lord knows the Telco's weren't going to. :P

--
Use what works.
Re:the point by vux984 · 2009-08-23 10:49 · Score: 1

Context is important. The VERY next thing I said was "However, that ride is over,..." with respect to the 'free ride'. That pretty much undermines your entire argument.
Apple doesn't charge for their bug fixes either.
So if you have OSX10.2, and want the latest bug fixes, you can download a patch for them? No. I don't think so.
(*much* less, actually, than MS charges for their OS's)
Let's see your math on that. The average Windows update costs what? $150-250? OSX is $130 2x-3x as often?
I find it a bit odd that PC users are complaining that Apple improves their system too quickly.
The real complaint is that they discountinue supporting their system too quickly. The issue is once apple releases a new version support for the old one drops off VERY quickly. Lots of new Software won't run on the older version because many apple dev's (including Apple - e.g. ilife, itunes...) only support the latest release. And patches for previous version stop coming out much faster.
They aren't complaining that the OS is improved faster. Its that they have to upgrade more often. If it were more of a choice, there'd be no complaint. But these days even running 10.4 excludes you from a lot of stuff.
Re:the point by mini+me · 2009-08-23 11:35 · Score: 1

Apple OS updates are officially every 18 months, but they have a history of not even meeting that timeframe. Where are you getting this annual OS upgrade idea?
Re:the point by EastCoastSurfer · 2009-08-23 11:47 · Score: 1

Either way, if you're going to argue that these are major changes, which I can see and understand your point despite my above criticism, why not increment the version number to 11.0?
You're kidding right? Does the number that Apple (or any other software company for that matter) puts as the version mean anything at all? Anyways, the reason that Apple will not change from OS X anytime soon is that they have invested a lot of money in the brand name "Mac OS X." They don't want to lose that investment. Think back to when Intel released the first Pentium (i586). Later they had a Pentium 2 (i686), then a Pentium 3 and a Pentium 4. It was simply a brand thing that Intel had built and didn't want to throw away simply because they released a new and improved product.
Re:the point by EastCoastSurfer · 2009-08-23 11:52 · Score: 1

Try running Firefox or Safari on 10.2 or 10.3.
How is it Apple's fault that 3rd party developers don't want to do the work to support the older OSes?
Re:the point by RedK · 2009-08-23 11:53 · Score: 1

and yet you don't even know how to use the HTML (quote) (/quote) modifiers properly. ;-)
And there's irony in flaming someone on how he doesn't even know how to use HTML properly, when you yourself don't. Next time, use entities to escape the tags and display them properly instead of using parantheses : <quote> = <quote>.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:the point by TheGreenNuke · 2009-08-23 12:03 · Score: 1

You contradict yourself. You ask what a version number matters and then go into detail about how a version number matters, due to the amount of money they have pumped into advertisements. And you realize that the X in OS X is the version number right? Intel eventually ditched the Pentium+number scheme, in fact the latest don't even have an "86" number scheme. Eventually Apple will have to dump the OS X moniker or be left with the perception of stagnation and not keeping up with the pace of technological growth surrounding them. So yes, version numbers matter, and Apple should move on from version X (read:10).
Re:the point by markkezner · 2009-08-23 12:09 · Score: 1

You can pay nothing to linux authors, and have something out of date that sometimes works incredibly well, and sometimes works incredibly badly.
As a side note, the amount a Linux distro is up-to-date depends on whether you have a Rolling Release distro or not.

If you want to live on the bleeding edge of new updates, install a rolling release distro like Arch, Debian unstable, Fedora rawhide. If you prefer your software to be more tested, go with something like Ubuntu, Redhat, or Debian stable.

--
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
Re:the point by vux984 · 2009-08-23 12:18 · Score: 1

Yes, that's right, Microsoft released 3 XP service packs, in the same time as apple released 3 major OS updates, and 28 service packs.
We could go round in circles all day. Most OSX "service packs" weren't much more than a particularly big "patch Tuesday", or contained what would be an optional windows update or 3rd party download. But its just semantics, and arguing over what's a service vs a patch vs an os update is like arguing over version number schemes or name conventions: pointless.
But I like how you pick the time frame to support your argument. Start the clock running the day after XP and stop it before Vista. That creates some serious distortion, don't you think? It lets you ignore Vista, SP1/2, and Windows 7 which played an awful lot of catch up with OSX, and even leap frogged it in areas, and a time frame where OSX has been relatively still.
Over the long haul, neither OS has been particularly stagnant. Which is what I originally said.
Re:the point by TheRaven64 · 2009-08-23 12:46 · Score: 1

Anything that repeats the tired old 'Apple forces you to spend $100/year for OS X updates' line is a troll. Last time I bothered to work out the cost of buying each OS X release on its release date, it worked out to under $50/year and, given the fact that Apple continues to release security and bug fixes for older ones, it's just nonsense.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:the point by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 13:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is very strange, isn't it? The unashamed Apple bashing continues in true Slashdot style.
Not really. A lot of us (myself included) don't like Apple very much. Others (myself included) don't really like Microsoft very much. Regardless, when Microsoft is being correctly slammed for yet another gaffe, you don't see legions of Windows users rising up to defend them. So ... is Apple is being bashed unfairly? No, not really. See, Apple needs to ride on its merits (and sink on its failures) just as much as Microsoft or any other company does. The difference here is that pretty much nobody spends an incredible amount of effort defending Microsoft from its numerous detractors and point-blank denying their many screwups.

Put it this way: Microsoft is a fucked up company in many ways. Nobody with half a brain would argue otherwise. Realistically though, so is Apple is its own inimitable way. Can't hardly be anything else, this being America and given the way publicly-held corporations are required to behave under U.S. law. The fact that Apple's fanbase is so irrational on the subject is more an indication of defects in their character and/or critical thinking skills than those who are doing the bashing.

Matter of fact, if Apple's user base wasn't so goddamn hypocritical about the whole thing, us non-Apple people wouldn't give Apple a damn. But this eternal state of denial just gets old after a while. Too many Apple users are like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

King Arthur: Your bloody arm's off!

Black Knight: No it's not.

Truth is, they keep the flames alive because they just won't admit when Apple is wrong.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:the point by node+3 · 2009-08-23 13:47 · Score: 1

Regardless, when Microsoft is being correctly slammed for yet another gaffe, you don't see legions of Windows users rising up to defend them.
Are you kidding? Slashdot has actually changed a lot in this regard over the past 3 years or so.
MS has always had its apologists on Slashdot, but now you'll find them being modded up quite a bit. This strikes me as a bit of astroturfing (which MS has engaged in many times in the past).

So ... is Apple is being bashed unfairly? No, not really.
People are faulting Apple for releasing new versions of OS X faster than MS releases new versions of Windows, and complaining about price even though Windows costs significantly more than OS X.
How is that fair?

Matter of fact, if Apple's user base wasn't so goddamn hypocritical about the whole thing, us non-Apple people wouldn't give Apple a damn. But this eternal state of denial just gets old after a while.
There are idiot Mac users. There are also idiot Windows (and Linux) users. Nothing new here.
For example: Windows users who blame the user for getting spyware. Windows users who complain that Apple updates OS X too often. Windows users who always say, "if *MS* did it, we'd all be up in arms!", and so on.

Too many Apple users are like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
And too many Windows users are like the peasants from the same film crying, "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
Re:the point by EastCoastSurfer · 2009-08-23 14:02 · Score: 1

Where is my contradiction? The version number reported by the OS does not matter. The fact they they happened to use version X to build and market a trademark out of was just happenstance. The could have called it Mac OS Rainbows and it would be the same OS as before (and the underlying version still would not matter).
Intel originally moved to Pentium because they could not get a trademark for the x86 numbers scheme. They also realized that putting a name with some memorable quality would differentiate them from the competition. Because of that, the Pentium (that really only meant 586) hung around for many years. Core doesn't even have anything to do with the underlying processor version.
Re:the point by mgblst · 2009-08-23 14:47 · Score: 1

Really, and how much will be upgrade from Vista to Windows 7 be?
Or are you confused, because they only look like point releases if you go by version numbers. Would you be happy to pay if it was calles 11.0?? Or maybe Mac OS Ultimate?
Re:the point by mgblst · 2009-08-23 14:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a huge back lash against Apple evidenced on this page, so much rubbish being talked, and modded up to 5. The Microsoft bloggers are earning there free laptops today.
Apple isn't perfect, but a lot of the smack talk being spoken here isn't the problem.
Apple release a new version of there OS every year, the next one will cost $29 to upgrade. You don't have to, just as you don't need to move from XP to Vista, as many of us haven't.
So you have your phone that you want, congrats. Who gives a fuck. Nobody here says that the iphone is for everybody.
Re:the point by mgblst · 2009-08-23 14:52 · Score: 1

I know, good point. How dare they move on into 64-bit world. We should stick with 32-bit for about 10 years more, just so you can get a new laptop. Brilliant.
Re:the point by mgblst · 2009-08-23 14:54 · Score: 1

Well, you didn't upgrade XP because there hasn't been a upgrade for it yet. Don't count Vista. (BTW, how much does Vista Ultimate cost these days).
Therefore, why upgrade Mac OS? Why would you just not buy the 10.5 outright?
On top of all that, Mac OS has way more stuff in it than Xp/Vista.
I hate defending Mac, but the bullshit you and your friends is bringing up is just ridiculous.
Re:the point by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 15:18 · Score: 1

And too many Windows users are like the peasants from the same film crying, "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
No, not at all. Windows users have been beaten down so flat over the past couple decades that most of them don't even care anymore. I'll give Apple fanboys that much credit: at least they care. Now if they can learn to honestly evaluate their pet computer company's behavior, I might find myself actually impressed. But I don't see it happening soon.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:the point by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 15:21 · Score: 1

Apple isn't perfect
Truer words were never spoken. You have my congratulations, sir.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:the point by ToasterMonkey · 2009-08-23 17:08 · Score: 1

Macs are expensive to operate. They cost a lot to purchase (at least $700) and a lot of maintain (annual OS upgrades). The forced tieins to Apple-made peripherals also increase ownership costs. You may disagree with that opinion,.
They've been released every _two_ years since 2003.
Fuck your opinion, name a forced Mac "tie in".

Yeah well I get tired of the Apple zealots trying to sell me on why Apple is better
Trolls attract
Re:the point by prockcore · 2009-08-23 17:32 · Score: 1

Plus, the soon-to-come upgrade to 10.6 is only 29 bucks
I thought that it was because it's basically a "get rid of PPC legacy" upgrade.
Re:the point by MidnightBrewer · 2009-08-23 17:35 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but you're not comparing updates to updates. 10.5.1 through 10.5.8 have been free updates, as have all such system updates have been. These are more appropriate equivalents to service pack updates than full OS releases. Apple's OS upgrades are no more expensive than Microsoft's OS upgrade pricing.

--
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Re:the point by VGPowerlord · 2009-08-23 17:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products like Windows XP, while apple has Mac OS X 10.4. Internet Explorer 6, while firefox has 2.0 out, and apple has safari 3 out, etc.
That list of web browsers is, to put it nicely, wrong.
Browser release dates:
Internet Explorer 7: 2006 October 18 (Windows)
Firefox 2.0: 2006 October 24 (multi-platform), 2007 October 18 (OS X 10.5)
Safari 3: 2007 October 26 (OS X), 2008 March 18 (Windows)
Yes, that's right, the first Safari 3 "stable" release was a full YEAR after Firefox 2 was released, even on the Mac. Oh, and IE7 was out before Firefox 2 by just over a week.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:the point by VGPowerlord · 2009-08-23 18:19 · Score: 1

Let's see your math on that. The average Windows update costs what? $150-250? OSX is $130 2x-3x as often?
Yes, let's.
Purchasing every version of OS X at full retail, from 10.0 to 10.6, costs $674. Purchasing every version of Windows costs at least $450, and that assumes buying the Home version, either OEM or upgrade not retail. Buying retail, or buying Home Premium or Professional, you exceed the total cost of every Windows upgrade. If you purchase Ultimate retail (which is what you get with OS X), you exceed $1,000!
And *that's* using your misrepresentation of what I said. I said that OS X is cheaper than Windows. OS X is $129 full retail. Even Windows Home Basic costs more than that. You have to go all the way down to Windows Home Basic OEM before the price drops below the price of OS X.
Why would you be buying the non-upgrade version of Windows in the first place? If you buy a computer in the store, it's certainly going to come with Windows on it. If you build your own computer, you should be buying the System Builders (AKA OEM) version of Windows, as that's the intended market for it.
The upgrade price for Windows 7 Home Premium actually is cheaper than OSX, as it's only $119.99.
The ONLY difference between buying a full retail copy versus an upgrade copy is that the upgrade copy invalidates your old key.
"Purchasing every version of OS X at full retail, from 10.0 to 10.6" is also a strawman, as 10.0 and 10.6 won't run on the same computer: 10.0-10.3 are Power PC only. 10.6 is Intel only.

The real complaint is that they discountinue supporting their system too quickly. The issue is once apple releases a new version support for the old one drops off VERY quickly. Lots of new Software won't run on the older version because many apple dev's (including Apple - e.g. ilife, itunes...) only support the latest release. And patches for previous version stop coming out much faster.
Apple released a security update for Tiger as recently as this month.
Windows Live Movie Maker doesn't run on XP. DirectX 10 isn't supported on XP. This is just the previous version of Windows. If you're going to complain that Apple drops support for some programs and technologies from the prior version, you've got to fault MS for the same.
Yup, and it's going to burn Microsoft. Very few development studios are building DirectX 10 (or 11)-only products because of this.
Everyone else continues making software that will run on Windows XP.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:the point by beelsebob · 2009-08-23 19:48 · Score: 1

How long did it take for linux to get a compositing window manager? No, not as long as windows, but a long time after OS X.
How long did it take for linux to actually be usable as a GUI OS... A long time.
How long has X11 needed made into X12 for... Far too long.
How long has it taken to get a decent vector image editor on linux... Well, Inkscape is getting there, but it's still not great.
How long has it taken to get CMYK support in GIMP... Far too long...
I'm not sure I can name any GNU/linux project or piece of application software out there that's currently leading the field. Can you?
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:00 · Score: 1

>>>3: If you ignore the fact that it's already a bullshit comparison because you are just pointing out that it costs money to upgrade your OS and doesn't cost money to not do so
>>>
FALSE. My Mac originally came with 10.1. It is impossible to continue using that OS, even if I wanted to. Contrast that with the Wintel OS which not only supports the dominant OS of that period (XP) but also as far back as Win98. Apple forces users to upgrade, or else face a broken machine that will no longer work properly.
Therefore Apple is more expensive, simply because a user is forced to upgrade.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:05 · Score: 1

Your sarcasm ignores the fact that you cannot run any OS older than 4 years on a Macintosh, thus forcing a user to do an expensive upgrade. The older OSes (10.2) no longer run programs like Firefox or Safari.
Contrast that with the Windows OS where you can still run Firefox and other programs on an 11-year-old OS (Win98), therefore no need to waste money on an upgrade.
Apple is a luxury brand.
Wintel is better for budget-conscious consumers.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:07 · Score: 1

Apple is a luxury brand for people with $$$ to waste (because you can't use any OS older than 4 years).
Wintel is lower cost for the budget-conscious consumer (can still use 11-year-old OSes like Win98).

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:09 · Score: 1

>>>Why would you just not buy the 10.5 outright?
???. It didn't exist in 2002. That's why my Mac came with 10.1. Duh.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:14 · Score: 1

know how to use HTML properly, when you yourself don't.

Uh... yes I know how to use HTML. As I just demonstrated.
Aside -
When did the bots invade slashdot? If I wanted corrections on my typos, I'd have turned-on the spellchecker rather than being corrected by these automated AI things disguising themselves as persons.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:17 · Score: 1

I never said it was Apple's fault.
I merely said owning a Mac is more expensive to operate, since you can't run any OS older then five years, because it won't run any current browsers/programs. Just like owning an Acura, Lexus, or Chrysler is more expensive. If that's what you like, fine, but I prefer to stay-away from expensive luxury brands.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:20 · Score: 1

>>>You're a little confused.
No you are. A Mac with an OS older than about four years is basically worthless. It won't run any of the current browsers/programs, therefore forcing the user to make an expensive OS upgrade. In contrast a Wintel machine with an 11-year-old OS (Win98) still works just fine.
The Mac is the expensive luxury brand for folks with $$$ to waste.
The Wintel machine is for budget-conscious consumers. Like me.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:24 · Score: 1

Mac is a luxury brand, because it won't run any OS older than about four years, due to lack of support, therefore forcing the user to expend $$$.
Wintel machines are for budget-conscious consumers, allowing them to still use an 11-year-old OS (Win98) or an 8-year-old OS (XP), without difficulty. That saves money.
Get it?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:the point by Macrat · 2009-08-23 21:05 · Score: 2, Informative

No you are. A Mac with an OS older than about four years is basically worthless. It won't run any of the current browsers/programs, therefore forcing the user to make an expensive OS upgrade.
You're still very confused.
Four year old Mac OS would be 10.4 (Tiger) released April 2005.
10.4 is still fully supported by the latest release of Firefox as well as Apple's Safari browser.
My PPC laptop is running 10.4 and all of the apps run just fine as application developers haven't stopped supporting 10.4.
Re:the point by walshy007 · 2009-08-23 21:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I find it a bit odd that PC users are complaining that Apple improves their system too quickly.
As a linux user I find this statement odd, as a heavy CLI user I still find their system nearly unusable in it's default state, I mean hell you guys only got wget in 10.5
On brief examination of snow leopard though, I can't see any improvements that I wouldn't call minor. gui refinements? nice but superfluous. 64-bit addressing space? welcome to 2003 or so for linux, and 2005 or so for windows.Cups updated? looks more like a service pack than something major to me.
Nothing at all wrong with that, but to say that each os x version is an uber upgrade with lots of features is a bit of a stretch
Re:the point by beelsebob · 2009-08-24 00:27 · Score: 1

Well, I gave evidence that linux historically is rather slow to get features. I also gave some examples of things that are currently rather behind.
I never claimed I had a right to gain the features, I claimed that linux is usually rather out-of-date. This is true, whether I can rightfully expect the developers to work faster or not.
Re:the point by Sandbags · 2009-08-24 01:22 · Score: 1

OMFG? You really think the 10.4 to 10.5 upgrade was on par with a SERVICE PACK??
First off, 10.3 and 10.4 continue to be patched, and rollup patches are available as well. You can CHOOSE to upgrade or not upgrade, and paying $129 got you from 10.1 all the way to 10.5 one time if you didn't want the new applications and features that came with each release. most people only bought every other upgrade...
second, 10.5 added MANY impressive noew core features, new GUI enhancements, an entire new backup system, over 150 major new features and applications, and over 1000 "enhancements and bug fixes."
Each OS revision also improved speed, and few of them required more RAM, none required new CPU or other major hardware changes (until 10.6, but if you're not on an intel yet, you're using 5+ year old kit, and should no longer expect a nondsruptive upgrade). Even still, 10.5 will continue to receive new patches and new a-pplication enhancements through Apple Update for years yet...
10.6 being $29 is a major enhancement, but lacks the array of new core features. It's still a major improvement, and over 1,000 REWRITTEN apps, and nearly doubles the speed across the board of the OS, replaces the kernel with a full 64 bit system, gives the OS multithread centralization for optimal processor use (and saving devs the headache of doing it on an app by app basis), and still throws in several completley new tools.
XP patches have NEVER come to more than a rollup of bug fixes, throw in a new version IE and WMP which most people already got for free, but not microsoft FORCES you to take and refuses to give you new additional security fixes if you don't take it, and some minor graphic enhancements, and an occasional backport of something the new OS got. on rare occasions, they've also "added in" features with a service pack, but in MOST cases, those were features already PROMISED to have been included in the pre-release of the OS, so you;re "getting for free"what you SHOULD have had all along...
Also, you pay $129 for any new Mac OS, (now $29 for "incremental improvements" like 10.6). With Vista Ultimate (the closest comperable version from microsoft) that upgrade to Vista is 3 times the cost of going from 10.3 to 10.6, a 7.5 year OS lifespan (assuming 10.7 comes out sometime around spring 2012, which would be on par with Apple's lifecycle). Upgrading again to Windows 7 from Vista is ANOTHER $220... You had a hard enough time upgrading to Vista without replacing hardware or missing access to key features and performance, good lick going to 7 if you're still on XP, likely it's cheaper to just buy a whole new system than upgrade your existing one to keep the same performance tier. 10.6 has a HIGHER performance tier than 10.3, and only requires a small ($30) bump in ram for most systems.
For an XP user, lets say you got a fairly powerful new kit, though not a core 2 duo as those were not yet available, but still something capable of video editing and some gaming, with a 20" screen, and having slots for upgrades, something about a $1200 desktop package in Spring 2006. At the same time, you got a 20" Core Duo Intel iMac (Apple beat Widows to the punch with this chips's availability, thanks to a contract with intel for exclusivity) running 10.4 for the same $1200. Fastforward 3.5 years. Your iMac has needed NO RAM upgrade to run 10.6, and only cost you $158 (or less) to get there. Your PC rig, with a slower CPU, would not only require 4 times the RAM of it's base XP config, as well as a GPU replacement and possibly even a HDD replacement to be capable of maintaining the same performance tier it had when new just 3.5 years ago if you upgraded it to Windows 7. Even if you SKIPPED Vista, your OS upgrade is $220, plus RAM (if your board could actually HANDLE 4GB, which oh, I'm sorry, it's not a Core2, so it can only take 3GB, SO sorry!) and a vid card that supports directx 10 also not available in 2006, and you damed well better have a 200GB plus HDD which, or, again sorry, was not available in

--
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Re:the point by Achromatic1978 · 2009-08-24 02:49 · Score: 1

And most of us can afford the average of $75/year to keep up to date with all versions of OS X since 10.0. And some of us are willing to spend that extra $75... Wait, extra? XP, Vista and now 7 all retail for over $200. To have purchased every copy of OS X as it was released would run $674. Windows Premium would run over $800.
I love how you are aware of the fact that OS X is an "upgrade", but then insist on using the full retail cost of Windows, rather than significantly discounted upgrade editions.
According to Amazon, that math would be, XP, $199. Vista Upgrade to Home Premium, $86. Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade: $118.
Total cost? $403. NOT your claim of "over $800". Not a single of those instances was "over $200", and I find it pretty hard to believe you are totally unaware that Windows offers upgrades, so I'd have to conclude you were being deceptive.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, some of us are trying to save money. We care about using systems like OS X which help save some cash...
Except that to have every version of OS X would cost you 2/3 more than to have every version of Windows over the same time, so I'm not really seeing your logic. And, btw, I feel compelled to note that I'm writing this in Firefox on my Mac...
Re:the point by LanMan04 · 2009-08-24 04:45 · Score: 1

Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
You're comparing a "free ride" around the parking lot to a "free ride" to somewhere useful.
What new features has XP implemented since it came out? NEW features, not fixed ones that used to be broken. NEW. Because there are NEW features with every 10.x release on Macs.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:the point by vux984 · 2009-08-24 06:12 · Score: 1

What new features has XP implemented since it came out?
Its implemented lots of new features after release.
You don't see it because it was a service pack instead of an apple release media extravaganza.
There is also a big diffence in how all the stuff Microsoft released over the XP lifespan, I mean:
Microsoft could have taken things like Microsoft SharedView, IE7, Virtual PC, Photo Gallery, Virtual Desktop Manager, Power Calculator, ClearType, Windows Script Host, SyncTool, Image Resizer, .NET3, DirectX9c, Windows Search, USB2, WPA, Firewall, and packaged it all up and released it.
Instead they were variously distributed as free downloads off the web (sharedview, virtualpc...), as free power toys (image resizer, cleartype...), and bundled into service packs (USB2, WPA, Firewall, ...).
NEW features, not fixed ones that used to be broken. NEW. Because there are NEW features with every 10.x release on Macs.
AS you can see above, there were lots of new things released for XP. And you are overstating things with OSX:
This is the list of BIG NEW FEATURES for say, 10.3:
1 Finder - Updated with a brushed-metal interface, a new real-time search engine, customizable Sidebar, secure deletion, File labels and Zip support built in. Finder logo changed.
2 Fast User Switching - Allows a user to remain logged in while another user logs in
3 Exposé - Helps the user manage windows by showing them all as thumbnails
4 TextEdit - TextEdit now is also compatible with Microsoft Word (.doc) documents.
5 Xcode developer tools - Faster compile times with gcc 3.3.
6 Preview - Increased speed with PDF rendering
7 QuickTime - Now supports the Pixlet high definition video codec
#1 ooo brushed metal ui. a search function! (xp has that) customizable sidebar (xp has that), secure deletion (new feature!), file labels (new feature!), zip support (xp has that), logo changed!!!
#2 Expose(new feature!)
#3 fast user switching (xp has that)
#4 textedit can read .doc files (wowee!!) so can wordpad.
#5 xcode dev tools faster -- this is the number 5 reason to be excited to buy 10.3? We're really scraping the barrel here.
#6 preview faster -- yawn
#7 quicktime - cross platform (ie XP has that), and could be installed in previous versions of osx too -- yawn.
So, $129 for expose, file labels, secure deletion, and zip support??
Oh but there's more... it came with new applications too...
FileVault - on the fly encryption - XP has that.
ichat av - msn messenger does a/v too. yawn
x11 built in - ooo so you don't have to manually install it like you used to!
safari - about time, but safari 1.0 makes IE6 look good.
But that's not all, there's still more:
Fax support built in -- xp has that
So... OSX10.3 -- much ado about Expose and a whole bunch of catch up with XP? Jobs' reality distortion field works wonders doesn't it.
Granted TimeMachine is cool, and Automator, and Spotlight, and there have been other features over the years too. But really as of today, only TimeMachine is really unmatched on windows. (although there are 3rd party options as there always are.)
Re:the point by RedK · 2009-08-24 09:06 · Score: 1

4 parentheses isn't a typo, it's you not knowing about entities, hence a big part of HTML.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:the point by godefroi · 2009-08-25 02:15 · Score: 1

For example: Windows users who blame the user for getting spyware. Windows users who complain that Apple updates OS X too often. Windows users who always say, "if *MS* did it, we'd all be up in arms!", and so on.
Wait, what? You're saying it's my operating system's job to understand the purpose and intent of all the software that I run (explicitly or implicitly)? I don't think even MacOS does that.

--
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)

Reverse engineering by jlintern · 2009-08-23 05:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Apple says they haven't actually rejected the app, they're just continuing to "study it," and that it may "alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging, and voicemail."

So Apple is holding Google's app in limbo until they have time to reverse engineer the functionality and release it as native functionality of the iPhone?

Re:Reverse engineering by ottothecow · 2009-08-23 06:08 · Score: 1

So Apple is holding Google's app in limbo until they have time to reverse engineer the functionality and release it as native functionality of the iPhone?
That's ok with me...I tried an add-on app on my S60 phone (though admittedly not one developed by google) and the google voice stuff was like jumping through hoops when you wanted to use it. I would love it to be native functionality

--
Bottles.
Re:Reverse engineering by speedtux · 2009-08-23 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
Re:Reverse engineering by speedtux · 2009-08-23 07:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
No, but the FCC and FTC may require them to, regardless of contract.
They don't have to reverse engineer it, they can just keep it in limbo forever if they want, it's safer that way.
If Apple can't compete with Google apps on their own hardware and platform, they have already lost.
Re:Reverse engineering by ThrowAwaySociety · 2009-08-23 08:57 · Score: 1

What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
Apple has an official, no-additional-cost MobileMe client for Windows. MobileMe works as effectively for Windows+Outlook+IE8 as it does on a Mac. (Which is not particularly well.)
Re:Reverse engineering by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 09:25 · Score: 1

I would love it to be native functionality
Yes, this is a classic example of why native applications are often superior to Web applications in certain areas. On my G1, using Google's integrated app, it really is seamless. I optionally have the choice to make my calls using GV, or not, which is pretty cool, on a call-by-call basis if I want. It's integrated right into the base dialer. It takes an extra two seconds or so to dial (presumably because it's calling Google's intermediate number first) and then the call goes through.

If you're on T-Mobile, you can get free calling by setting your own number and the GV outgoing number in your MyFaves, and then making a couple of adjustments to your Google Voice settings. Works very well. I'm on the minimum 300 minute plan, and frankly I rarely get close to that anyway. Actually, since I've been regularly using Google Voice I've found my cell phone voice usage going down, not up. Anyway, it is nice to know that I'll never go over and get screwed on extra minutes (or, like one of my Sprint using friends, be unable to use my phone until the minutes roll over.)

I really enjoy the way Google Voice lets me determine how my calls get routed based upon incoming Caller ID. Truly, it's the kind of thing the phone companies should have offered years ago, but couldn't be bothered to do. The voice transcription service is still a bit weak (speaker-independent voice recognition is non-trivial) but I'm sure that will improve over time. As of right now, the service is extremely useful, and I hope it comes out of the invitation-only stage soon as a lot of people could really benefit from it.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Reverse engineering by Quothz · 2009-08-23 09:47 · Score: 1

Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
Yeah they are. It took me a while to find the SDK terms, on Wikileaks, but they must approve an app or withhold approval; they can't keep it in limbo. Since there's no time frame, however, they have wiggle room, but in a dispute a court would decide what's reasonable or not. The TOS, incidentally, are ridiculously evil. For example, Apple gives themselves the explicit right to use your code to develop an app to compete with you.
Fortunately, the SDK terms are probably only binding to Apple, since they disallow showing them to a lawyer before agreeing to them! There's a lot of terms that are clearly unenforceable, too, such as the one that says the language of the contract will be construed against you, not them, in a dispute, or the one that says you aren't allowed to take disputes to court. We really need to prod the ABA into punishing lawyers who write terms in bad faith - it seems lately that every corporation's lawyers are writing not contracts, but blue-sky dreams of what they wish contract law was like.
Re:Reverse engineering by ottothecow · 2009-08-23 11:44 · Score: 1

Not to take this too far off topic but would you mind answering a question or two about how GV works on a G1?
When you want to make a call with your GV number, is it instant? Does it start ringing as fast as normal or is there a weird pause (the S60 program basically had to send a request to GV and then wait for GV to call back the phone which led to long pauses in automatic mode or having to answer the call in the normal mode).
How well does it work without data access? The features on the S60 app required data which is ok (although I am on pay per use data so I try to keep it down) but it seemed to delay or prevent action if I didnt have a good 3g connection even for things like making a call.
Also the my faves thing is one of the first thoughts I had about GV although it is also about the *only* thing that a carrier could actually get mad about...all the other features of GV still use regular minutes (cheap international is already available via calling card type services you can have stored in your address book) or standard data...it will be interesting to see what T-Mobile does about this (especially since they are the only network that even has a real GV app)

--
Bottles.
Re:Reverse engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 12:16 · Score: 1, Funny

>> Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)

And that's why they are the asshole here, and not AT&T. And you, the fanboi licking that asshole.
Re:Reverse engineering by mysidia · 2009-08-23 12:20 · Score: 1

The SDK agreement pertains to only development of applications using the SDK, and getting them signed for testing purposes, not actually getting apps accepted into the app store. Apple has other agreements that pertain to the app store.
You should check the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement
Yeah they are. It took me a while to find the SDK terms, on Wikileaks, but they must approve an app or withhold approval; they can't keep it in limbo.
No. Apple reserves the right to approve or withhold approval and digital signing. Digital signing is required just for testing an app. If they don't grant this approval, you can't even test the app, let-alone submit it to the app store for approval there.
Even if they utilize their right to grant approval for signing under the terms of the SDK, this does not give the app approval to be listed in the app store.
These terms don't mean they have to issue a rejection notice. They can withhold approval indefinitely, with always having the right to approve later.
Re:Reverse engineering by Quothz · 2009-08-23 15:39 · Score: 1

These terms don't mean they have to issue a rejection notice. They can withhold approval indefinitely, with always having the right to approve later.
Huh. I guess the distinction between the signing and the listing was lost on me. However, I can't agree with that statement. Regardless of the terms they set, I'm reasonably sure that by selling you development software, they've entered an implied contract (Merchantability? I don't recall the various implied contracts offhand and don't have time to check.) which obligates them to provide services which render the sale meaningful.
Re:Reverse engineering by mysidia · 2009-08-23 16:54 · Score: 1

They don't sell the SDK, it's free.
Now being able to get your app signed for testing and loaded on your own hardware, requires you had joined the iPhone Developer program; $99/year membership fee for standard level (individuals only), or $299/year for enterprise level (corporations).
iPhone Developer program has its own agreement, whose exact contents are secret, but warranties of all types are disclaimed. Merchantability is explicitly disclaimed, you have to agree to that before you pay the fee to become a member of the iPhone developer program. Moreover, even if your app is rejected or held in limbo, you are still provided other services by the program, and can attempt to submit another app in the future which may be accepted.
iPhone Developer Program includes things like access to pre-release iPhone software, access to Apple developer support, a digital signature for signing your app with, the ability (tools and codes) to load software onto your registered iPhone for testing.
Acceptance of the application you develop into the app store is not a service offered by the program that is included with the fee. (Although they may not currently require additional fees to submit or additional fees when approved, they could start imposing that additional fee any time they so wished)
Re:Reverse engineering by Quothz · 2009-08-23 17:59 · Score: 1

They don't sell the SDK, it's free.
Huh. That's a clever trick; I wonder if they'll get away with it. In a lot of states you can't waive implied warranties, tho'. I've no clue whether any of 'em apply to a club membership, anyway: I'm obviously not a lawyer. But I do think, regardless of merchantability, there may be a plain implied contract in the process which obligates 'em to exercise a certain amount of diligence in handling submissions.
Re:Reverse engineering by mysidia · 2009-08-23 18:30 · Score: 1

A developer would have a hard time arguing that there's an implicit contract, because of the fact that there's an explicit contract...
Re:Reverse engineering by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:50 · Score: 1

>>>... Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to [monopolize the market and take away user choice].
There. More accurate. Apple's kinda like Comcast (who is working to lock-up online TV behind subscriber walls).

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Summary of this dupe:

Apple is the bad guy who is preventing iPhone owners from using the hottest cellphone app, Google Voice. They flat out admitted it in the FCC response. Much gnashing of teeth and hair pulling from the "Apple can do no wrong. Teh iPhone is teh best thing EVER!!! crowd".

AT&T has nothing to do with Apple's PR disaster.

Lots of screaming and crying from Apple loonies and all sorts of kooky theories trying to make Apple out to not be the culprit "Apple is lying to cover AT&T to the FCC!!!"

Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.

Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.
As a G1 owner who happily uses GV on a daily basis, I have to say you're dead on about that "not caring" part.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by Mr.+Freeman · 2009-08-23 06:56 · Score: 4, Funny

In fact, they don't care so much that they're making slashdot posts about it!

--
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 07:33 · Score: 2, Funny

In fact, they don't care so much that they're making slashdot posts about it!
Well, this is Slashdot. I don't have to care to post on something, especially in a forum where anything remotely anti-Apple generates so many entertaining responses.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by ottothecow · 2009-08-23 07:49 · Score: 1

Where is my native S60 app?
Come on google, throw me a bone here

--
Bottles.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by walshy007 · 2009-08-23 14:25 · Score: 1

Talkonaut, open source, does google voice, and runs native on s60 3rd edition.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by mgblst · 2009-08-23 14:45 · Score: 1

Feel free to pen a comment on all the issues that you really don't care about.
It is funny, these people who don't care about a particular issue, but really feel the need to let you know that, at every opportunity.
There are plenty of people who really didn't care, you know how you can tell them, they didn't click on the link, and they didn't submit a comment.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by ottothecow · 2009-08-23 17:33 · Score: 1

Well, it runs on S60 but as far as I can tell has absolutely nothing to do with google voice.
Being able to instant message or chat on Google Talk and make voip calls from my phone are all fine and dandy but are not the features offered by a Google Voice app

--
Bottles.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by edumacator · 2009-08-23 22:02 · Score: 1

I think someone has a case of the literals.
It might be possible for someone to be mildly amused by a story but not have a vested interest in the results. In this case, the poster is using a rhetorical device to indicate his happiness that he doesn't need to worry about this because his phone has the app.

--
An important change for education.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by walshy007 · 2009-08-23 22:25 · Score: 1

Ah my bad, it's that GrandCentral thing that was/is U.S. residents only and provides free pots calls within the country.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by Nyder · 2009-08-24 11:48 · Score: 1

Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.
As a G1 owner who happily uses GV on a daily basis, I have to say you're dead on about that "not caring" part.
Ya, i'm just following the story for the lulz.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-25 08:27 · Score: 1

Feel free to pen a comment on all the issues that you really don't care about.
It is funny, these people who don't care about a particular issue, but really feel the need to let you know that, at every opportunity.
There are plenty of people who really didn't care, you know how you can tell them, they didn't click on the link, and they didn't submit a comment.
I didn't bother to RTFA, if that helps. I just come here for some entertainment, a lighthearted effort attempting to deprogram those who abase themselves at the altar of All Things Apple(tm.) Granted, you have to catch them early before their attitudes have completely set in concrete. After that, they are One with the Jobs: getting them to understand that there is a world of technology beyond that offered by Apple is almost impossible at that point.

It's rather like poking a stick at an anthill. Fanboys come boiling out of their beautifully polished Apple-branded tunnels, all ready to attack the perceived threat. It's amazing how gnarly and irritable they get when their patented belief system is questioned.

One can almost pity their behavior, given that they've been thoroughly fleeced by the expert mental pickpockets of Apple's marketing department. But contrary to popular belief, however, petulance is not actually a virtue.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

FCC here we come by girlintraining · 2009-08-23 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Article summary: Apple points the finger at AT&T, AT&T points the finger at Apple. All the consumer gets is the finger.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:FCC here we come by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 06:53 · Score: 1

>>>Apple points the finger at AT&T, AT&T points the finger at Apple. All the consumer gets is the finger. All the consumer gets is the finger.
Addendum:
Consumer gets angry and starts ordering Apple and AT&T products and never pays for them. Consumer gets last laugh.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." by David+Gerard · 2009-08-23 06:07 · Score: 5, Funny

After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with anything Apple or AT&T might vaguely think about in the far future and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil(tm) as a corporate policy.

"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to Windows Mobile. Ha! Ha!"

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."

"Of course, we're still not evil," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. I mean, 'Bing.' Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk

Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2009-08-23 09:17 · Score: 1

At a party w/ a ton of Apple engineers, I overheard a sociopathic (There was other evidence.) Apple kernel dev trying to recruit this sweetheart Sun kernel dev:

"The best thing about Apple is that we're not Google. We totally do evil. DRM, software patents, whatever."
Of course there were a ton of other, very nice Apple devs also who were nothing like that guy.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 10:13 · Score: 3, Funny

It was only a matter of time until people started calling apple "evil". While they were less successful, they were tolerated, and not discussed much.
Once they became successful, and started profiting - by providing value to millions of people, that particular group of "anti-success" comes out. You know - the ones that take pleasure at the sight of failure while spiting at the successful achievers in life.
Apple, and companies like them, should be applauded for the incredible achievements they have made, and the value they provide to people.

--
Mine is Good
Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." by David+Gerard · 2009-08-23 10:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple, i.e. Steve Jobs, have always been psychotic control freaks. It's their strength and failure.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 13:27 · Score: 1

Apple, and companies like them, should be applauded for the incredible achievements they have made, and the value they provide to people.
Quit it. More excuses. Yes, Apple (and companies like them) should be applauded for their legitimate accomplishments, and should be called out when they negate much of their technical achievements by being corporate pricks.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." by carbona · 2009-08-23 14:49 · Score: 1

Score:4, Funny. Someone w/ mod points please get this to 5.

Dinosaurs by jeffasselin · 2009-08-23 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.

Cellular networks should, just like line-based internet access utilities, be simply network providers that sell access to their network from any standards-compliant device we want to use. Everything would just be another end-point of the Internet on a TCP/IP network, with different applications providing diverse needs: voice, video, pictures, text are nothing but data. Sell your consumers data transfer and connection capabilities and let us choose what we want to do with this access, instead of trying to profit from stupid things like SMS and infinitely complex plans: in the end, the cellular providers would benefit from this kind of system, as more uses would emerge out of the free-market system and would end up giving them more customers. Things would be simpler, access would be cheaper too. Everyone would win.

--
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.

Re:Dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

You mean, "US mobile carriers should act more like the ones they have in the rest of the world", right?
In the last 4 years, I've been to 16 different countries on 4 continents. In every one of them -- except one -- I've had reliable, reasonably-priced access within 30 seconds of turning my phone back on after landing or crossing the border. Even in a village in freaking *Cambodia* where most people didn't even have running water, for cryin' out loud.
Except one. The US.
I have a Swedish and an Australian SIM card. Each of which cost less than US$ 10 and included a bunch of minutes and free or nearly-free (international!) texting and cheap and easy-to-get refills. Both of which "just work" every place I've tried to use them.
Except one. The US... where they want 10 times that much just for the SIM and they can't even guarantee that it'll work in both Florida and New Jersey!
(If you're curious -- Yes, I was stupid enough to lay out $100 just so I could use my phone in the US for about 10 days. And No, it did not.)
Re:Dinosaurs by Jared555 · 2009-08-23 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately the best option is probably buying a $10-$20 tracfone (or other pay as you guy) specifically for the trip to the US.
It shouldn't be that way, of course, but typically at least then you aren't locked to specific towers, etc.
Re:Dinosaurs by speedtux · 2009-08-23 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.
In Europe, you can use any phone on any carrier. You can effectively stream audio, video, and whatever else you like and the carriers don't really care. You do get unlimited 3G flat rates for under $30/month.
The only major phone that doesn't work that way? You guessed it: Apple's iPhone.
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
Re:Dinosaurs by Renraku · 2009-08-23 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should the US cellular companies cater to people that like foreign technology? Foreign cell phones are cheaper, more numerous in options, have less features removed from the hardware via firmware, etc, etc.
The US cellular companies make their money based on contracts. When they can sell you a $50 phone for $200 without contract, or give it to you free with a two year contract, why should they change? They're extremely profitable right now. It's not in their best interests to change.

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Re:Dinosaurs by He+who+knows · 2009-08-23 08:58 · Score: 1

Guess you haven't been to the UK.
Re:Dinosaurs by schon · 2009-08-23 09:32 · Score: 2

Why should the US cellular companies cater to people that like foreign technology?

Exactly - they should keep offering technology from American companies like Samsung, LG, Sony/Ericsson, Nokia, Blackberry and HTC!
Re:Dinosaurs by Brobock · 2009-08-23 14:49 · Score: 1

I have a Swedish and an Australian SIM card. Each of which cost less than US$ 10 and included a bunch of minutes and free or nearly-free (international!) texting and cheap and easy-to-get refills. Both of which "just work" every place I've tried to use them.
Except one. The US... where they want 10 times that much just for the SIM and they can't even guarantee that it'll work in both Florida and New Jersey!
When I went to Sweden, I found the first news paper stand I could find, bought a SIM card for US$10 and got US$15 in credit. Yes, they gave me 5 dollars more in credit. And the best part, my pre-pay Swedish SIM card worked Internationally, I tested in Japan and the US. The refill process is simple as getting a code printed receipt from a number of places, you text the code and you get refill confirmation. All your minutes are valid for a year upon refilling, including your previous minutes, even with the cheapest refill amount. They even offer campaigns such as free internet days, 3000 international SMSes if you refill with $25, and etc.
US carriers such as T-Mobile, offer Prepay, but the damn SIM only works in the US, will not register internationally, require a purchase of the SIM at double what I paid in Europe without credit on it, and expires in mere months.
Re:Dinosaurs by quacking+duck · 2009-08-23 15:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want". But surely you must mean something else, because calling something "evil" just because "you don't like it" would be childish and petulant.
Introducing a business model that takes away existing freedoms (from a consumer perspective) is evil, in Google's self-defined sense. Whether I like it or not doesn't enter into the discussion. Don't Americans like freedoms?
I say this as a new iPhone owner (posting with it in fact) knowing full well not only what I was getting into, but also that things won't be improving in either Canada or the US anytime soon. I do hope the anti-consumer model doesn't get exported to the rest of the world.
Re:Dinosaurs by mgblst · 2009-08-23 15:08 · Score: 1

That is funny. We bought a brand new Motorola phone in the US for $40, which included $20 worth of minutes. I have never been able to do that anywhere else, in Sweden, Australia, UK, anywhere.
Re:Dinosaurs by speedtux · 2009-08-23 15:51 · Score: 1

By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want".
No, by "evil" I mean: economically inefficient, anti-competitive, anti-free-market, anti-consumer, and anti-innovation. In terms of attitudes, that translates into "hated by almost everybody".
Re:Dinosaurs by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 16:12 · Score: 1

Apple is a great company - efficient, competitive, and pro-consumer, and so many people like them, support them by buying their products.
The "anti-free-market" is a new one to me - that is exactly what the FTC is when every important business decision a company makes must be approved by the government before being "permitted".
Acting by "permission" is the OPPOSITE of being "free".

--
Mine is Good
Re:Dinosaurs by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 16:17 · Score: 1

Introducing a business model that takes away existing freedoms (from a consumer perspective) is evil
I would say there is no "perspective" required - freedom is freedom, and as long as Apple, Google, whomever do not force people to do things against there will - I do not see any abrogation of "freedom".
If people make bad decisions purchasing products based on some "bandwagon" effect, that is their fault. Their dollar was their vote.
I personally didn't jump on the hype, but stayed with my Blackberry which I'm very happy with...

--
Mine is Good
Re:Dinosaurs by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 17:00 · Score: 1

I've read that roaming rates are quite a bit more expensive than in the U.S., and that doesn't even include the VAT and other taxes that are used to subsidize the infrastructure.

--
Mine is Good
Re:Dinosaurs by Oscar_Wilde · 2009-08-23 18:09 · Score: 1

The only major phone that doesn't work that way? You guessed it: Apple's iPhone.
It's ridiculous, I agree, but it's quite possibly the telephone operators who are to blame.
They've been used to selling services that they know most customers will never actually use for years. A couple of phones come onto the market that actually make use of their internet connections and boom it's network meltdown.
Blaming Apple makes no sense, why would they care about how much data you use?
At least this is the problem here in Australia. On the plus side, the introduction of the iPhone means that mobile internet packages have become much better. Even Telstra, the government created monopoly, give you more than 2MB (not a typo) per month now.
Re:Dinosaurs by thecarpy · 2009-08-23 23:14 · Score: 1

I think the telco's are ripping everybody off ... with outrageous margins they manage to make quite substantial profit with "low" investment and that is the stock exchange's wet dream. They had a high investment curve when they started off because the infrastructure needed to be built and that was expensive ... this has changed today, though. The result is a quite dense cellular network operated by a select few, who think shares and short term profit all the way. In the country where I live, you buy a pay-as-you-go card of any operator, it says 20 euro on the card, not how long you can call with it, and it is valid for two weeks, iirc. When you go into a store and ask for advice on which provider to choose, the vendor says: "Which provider is used by most of your friends? Find out and come back". They all have the same price scheme with little (if any) variation, calling a subscriber of another network costs more. The local equivalent of the FCC has fined them incredible amounts because of price-fixing so the prices have gone up across the board - because we have to pay for the fines ... ;-) and things still have not changed, they all have the same opaque pricing system ... and you seriously think they are going to open the network to all kind of traffic?
Re:Dinosaurs by speedtux · 2009-08-24 03:33 · Score: 1

It's ridiculous, I agree, but it's quite possibly the telephone operators who are to blame.
Telephone operators have always wanted to do this; that's why we have laws that prevent them from doing it. Apple is to blame because they have created a new platform and a new means for telephone operators to circumvent the intent of the laws.
Telephone operators are like hungry lions--they eat their customers. Europeans know that, which is why they built cages for them. Apple stole the keys to those cages and is now busy locking their customers into those cages, to be eaten by the lions.
At least this is the problem here in Australia. On the plus side, the introduction of the iPhone means that mobile internet packages have become much better. Even Telstra, the government created monopoly, give you more than 2MB (not a typo) per month now.
Sounds like Australia is one of the places in the world that is as bad as the US. Yes, in the US and Australia, the iPhone may look OK. My point is that for many other places, it's a return to the bad old days and it's evil.
The US and Australia should fix their mobile markets and make them competitive, not export their monopolistic and inefficient markets to the rest of the world.

"Studying the issue" by Jewbird · 2009-08-23 06:11 · Score: 2

For six weeks. While being no closer to a "decision."

--
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods

Apple's "End User Experience"... by rmdyer · 2009-08-23 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me? If I install Google Voice, then that -IS- the end user experience I want! If Microsoft pulled that, they would get dinged for trying to push out the competition. Replace "Google Voice" with "IE" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows". This is exactly why the iPhone software environment is poison. Apple should not be allowed to decide what kind of "end user experience" I want on my hardware. Yes, if I purchased the hardware from Apple for the "hardware experience", then that means that I liked the "hardware experience" over other vendors, but that doesn't mean I like, or should be required to use their software! All "computing devices" should be "reconfigurable" using software, thats why software exists! Not to lock you into some Nazi form of "I know best what is for you" mentality. Open the devices up vendors!

Related: Buy the phone first, then choose your cell service vendor! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Enough with hardware-cell service vendor tie-up aggreements!

Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by rmdyer · 2009-08-23 06:38 · Score: 1

Error addendum.
Where the following line was stated:
'Replace "Google Voice" with "IE" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows".'
this should have read,
'Replace "Google Voice" with "Firefox" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows".'
Dyslexia because of thinking too fast.
Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 07:22 · Score: 1, Informative

How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me?
Simple - it's the one they tell you best suits you.
You didn't think Apple got to where it is by offering people choice did you?

If I install Google Voice, then that -IS- the end user experience I want!
Which is exactly why they don't offer it. If they allowed you to install what you want on the hardware you've purchased, it would stop being theirs, and start becoming yours - which is the *last* thing they want!
Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by Eil · 2009-08-23 09:00 · Score: 1

Apple should not be allowed to decide what kind of "end user experience" I want on my hardware.
Solution: Don't buy Apple hardware.
Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by notamedic · 2009-08-23 09:14 · Score: 2, Funny

And, additionally, don't become one of the people who log on to Slashdot and complain about a product they don't own.
Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 10:34 · Score: 1

How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me?
Apple is not concerned with you (nor should it be). Apple is concerned with delivering products that give lots of people value.
If you don't like it - don't use it.
Apple can no more determine what kind of experience you have, any more than McDonald's can determine what kind of food you eat.
Your dollar is your vote

--
Mine is Good
Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 13:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you don't like it - don't use it.If you don't like it - don't use it.
Absolutely correct. I didn't ... so I don't.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Apple's "End User Experience"... by hkmwbz · 2009-08-25 05:05 · Score: 1

How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me?
Well, you bought an Apple product, and they sell those with the promise of an "Apple user experience". It does make sense, if you think like Apple. Not that I think the argument should be considered valid, but that seems to be their attitude. "If you want just something thrown randomly together, get a Windows Mobile phone."

--
Clever signature text goes here.

syncing already possible by speedtux · 2009-08-23 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't quite understand what the big fuss is about with syncing. You can already sync iPhone contacts and calendars with Google accounts easily; see here for how to set that up.

Google Voice doesn't need to sync Google contacts; in fact, it shouldn't, because that would conflict with the synchronization that already exists.

Karlan Mitchell by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 06:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Someone is lying, this is why.

1. Apple has stated that they aren't sure how the Google voice application works, is it VoIP, telephone, ect, ect
2. AT&T's contract with apple explicitly states they must be contacted when a VoIP app is being approved.
3. Both parties claim to of had not contact with each other, a violation of AT&T ToS for Apple

I smell something funny......

btw. The application is not VoIP, its a telephone route, which would cut into AT&T's outrageous international rates
for phone calls (however have no affect on local call's price); I only state the above because Apple claimed it
could possibly be VoIP (even though its easy to find information on how it works, they are just buying time)
and we know apple should of immediately contacted AT&T if this was even a possibility.

Re:Karlan Mitchell by andre_pl · 2009-08-23 07:54 · Score: 1, Troll

3. Both parties claim to of had ...

and we know apple should of immediately ...
really?
seriously?
*sigh*
Re:Karlan Mitchell by karlanm · 2009-08-23 09:17 · Score: 1

So you can argue and say they wouldn't present the application to AT&T until they could prove it was VoIP, however the fact that they said, and I quote: "Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application." Means they are lying about what they know about the application. It takes a 20 yo, me, 5 minutes to research all the technologies involved/used but a multibillion dollar corporation can't do it in over a weeks time? PLEASE! Dirty lying bastards are just trying to buy time..... this just proves they are (1) retarded (2) more likely, lying
Re:Karlan Mitchell by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 10:37 · Score: 1

How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me?
That's the smell of Fascism: you know, government control over private industry with "token ownership" retained by individuals.
i.e. when bureaucrats determine which business decisions are allowed, or not.

--
Mine is Good
Re:Karlan Mitchell by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 10:38 · Score: 1

I smell something funny......
That's the smell of Fascism: you know, government control over private industry with "token ownership" retained by individuals.

--
Mine is Good
Re:Karlan Mitchell by AndreR · 2009-08-23 14:06 · Score: 1

Not really. No-one is claiming that the app was rejected due to its VoIP components.
Apple needs AT&T's permission to approve VoIP apps, but that's the final step of the process. Here, Apple claims that the Google Voice app doesn't meet its design guidelines / expected end user experience, so it wasn't approved (read: was rejected) before its VoIP component even being considered (and thus no need for contact between the two parties).
If Apple is indeed telling the truth, then if/once Google redesigns the application to fit Apple's requirements, Apple will inform AT&T of the existence of this voice app and ask for permission to publish.

curious situation: iphone more google than apple by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-08-23 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

From TFconsumeristA:

Multiple sources at Google tell us that in informal discussions with Apple over the last few months Apple expressed dismay at the number of core iPhone apps that are powered by Google. Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google. Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features.

Heh, that's a funny situation for Apple to be in. I guess Apple is no longer interested in just selling you the hardware and a good OS, they want to sell you a substantial number of the applications as well. I seem to recall Microsoft engaging some similar behavior awhile back, something about web browsers and being able to remove them.

I just got an ipod touch recently (it was free with rebate) and frankly, I find that Apple is unnecessarily confining the device. I've been using their laptops and desktops for years, with OS X, I've always thought that it was an incredible benefit to them to have it run on BSD, run MS Office, run Photoshop, run X11 so I can run GIMP and just about every other linux app out there, etc. etc. etc. With the phone, they confine you so much that if it weren't for the possibility to jailbreak it, I probably would have given it away to a family member.

The point is that, as a long time Apple user, I'm really starting to get a little bothered by their increasing amount of attempts to force me to use their stuff the way they want me to rather than the way I want to use it. That sort of behavior earned MS my distrust long, long ago.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Blowing smoke by KingSkippus · 2009-08-23 06:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

First, let me say that I do like Apple. I have a MacBook Pro (which I'm typing this post from right now), I have an iPhone and love it, but I don't consider myself a "fanboy."

Having said that, Apple's statement is full of shit. Here's the story in a nutshell, straight from Apple itself:

There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission.

How Apple can say with a straight face that AT&T is not a factor in their rejection-by-indefinite-"studying" of Google's VoIP app, and how anyone could actually believe it, is beyond me.

Apple is trying to Clinton its way out of getting in trouble by stating things that, while technically true according to literal interpretation, grossly misrepresent the state of *ahem* affairs. Did AT&T call up Apple and say, "Please kill the Google Voice app"? Probably not. They were proactive when they first constructed the contract so that they wouldn't have to.

It says right there in Apple's statement that they agreed not to allow VoIP apps on AT&T's network. Google Voice is a VoIP app. Apple knows that if they allow it through, AT&T will sue them. They don't need a consultation for that. AT&T, in true "screw everyone" fashion, put Apple in the position so that if just such a thing as this happens (as it was bound to happen), it will be Apple that will take the black eye for it, not AT&T.

Not that Apple is totally innocent, mind you. They foolishly got into bed with AT&T, and now, they are waking up the next morning and hopefully realizing what a nasty-ass bitch she really is. In order to get the iPhone on the market, they sold out their end users. If Apple has a brain cell among the people in charge of the company, and I really do think they do, then hopefully this whole mess makes it painfully obvious that it is not in Apple's long-term best interest to maintain an exclusive contract with AT&T, and that the sooner they can get out of it and sell iPhones that work with other providers, the better. It is the only way that they will be able to grow their marketshare.

Re:Blowing smoke by mgblst · 2009-08-23 16:03 · Score: 1

Seriouosly, I think you are full of shit.
GV duplicates a lot of the functionality of the iPhone, and does things slightly differently. There are two ways to make a call, two ways to read and send SMS. This will confused some people, maybe not the people who install GV, but that is an aside.
They have a point. These things are important to Apple, just because you can't understand that does not mean you can go on ignoring that fact.

That is not how Google Voice works by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 06:35 · Score: 3, Informative

To make a Google Voice call you need phone service.
1) You tell GV what number you wish to call (dest number) at from which phone you wish to make that call (source number)
2) GV calls you at your source phone number (ie your cell phone number)
3) GV calls the destination number
4) You are now in a 3-way conference call with the source number,the destination number, and GV central

GV isn't VoIP.
It is an interesting use of a 3-way calling service.

Your GV number isn't really "your" phone number. It is more like an agent or message service (like your Dr has) number. You actually can't make calls to/from the GV number. The GV number is only for forwarding (receive) & 3-way calling (send).

Re:That is not how Google Voice works by stephanruby · 2009-08-23 12:53 · Score: 1

GV isn't VoIP.
Google Voice isn't Voice-over-IP *for the most part*, but it does have some limited VoIP capabilities.
1. Google Voice allows you to make calls directly from your computer over Voice Over IP. I know this, because a friend of mine used this feature when his cell phone service got shut off because he was delinquent on his bill.
2. Google Voice allows you to check your voice mail over your computer. I think that would also qualify as a form Voice-Over-IP, since normally AT&T charges you twice for voice mail, it deducts the time it takes someone to leave you a message, and it deducts the time it takes you to check that same voice mail message (it obviously doesn't charge you per say for these things, but let's say if you're one of those people that goes over his/her minute allocations, then AT&T may lose some revenue because of Google Voice).
Now I do agree that the issue gets muddy pretty quickly, because technically when the VoIP features are used -- they're not technically used over the AT&T network (they're in fact directly used from the Google Voice number). But when you take into account that Google Voice has announced that it plans to support number portability eventually, that means you'll be able to route all your phone calls through Google Voice, and use Voice-over-IP as an alternative over your computer whenever you feel like it (or whenever you're low on minutes).

You actually can't make calls to/from the GV number.

Again, that's just incorrect. I don't know about receiving calls, but I do know for sure that you can make calls from Google Voice -- I saw my friend do it -- and I've also received calls directly from his google voice number (while he was on his computer-only, in fact the connection kept on going out because his computer was overloaded with too many programs running at the same time).
Re:That is not how Google Voice works by prockcore · 2009-08-23 19:13 · Score: 1

1. Google Voice allows you to make calls directly from your computer over Voice Over IP. I know this, because a friend of mine used this feature when his cell phone service got shut off because he was delinquent on his bill.

I have google voice, and this is not a feature provided. You can set up skype to work with your google number, but only if you pay for the skype number first.
Re:That is not how Google Voice works by stephanruby · 2009-08-23 22:10 · Score: 1

Apparently, you can use Gizmo5 (for free) with Google Voice to receive calls on gTalk (someone also suggested SIPGate), so it's possible -- just convoluted.

Re:babies by geekboy642 · 2009-08-23 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?

I invite you to study the concept of ownership. If I pay $600 for a piece of hardware, I have every right to do whatever I want with it. It's the whole point of buying hardware, honestly. If I wanted a restricted environment with no control, I'd rent my phone.
That said, AT&T should have the right to block my use of the network if they don't like what I'm doing on it, but at no point should Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.

--
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-08-23 06:44 · Score: 1

Oh and incidentally, I was just thinking about why I thought that jailbreaking was such a boon, and there's a couple of reasons. First, winterboard just rocks my socks. I love screwing around with themes, fonts and icons. Second, the ssh functionality. Ever since Google released fuse for the mac I've been hooked. I now use rsync and sshfs to backup everything on my desktop, to make certain folders on my laptop mirror my desktop, and seamlessly share files with my home linux cluster, PC, and laptop that run debian. I just started using leopard lately and haven't even gotten around to looking at time machine because rsync works so well --it an incredibly good file sharing solution, much easier than AFS, SFTP, samba or anything else I've tried. By installing openssh on the iphone, I can extend all that great functionality to the ipod touch and it's just wonderful.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Re:babies by Toonol · 2009-08-23 06:45 · Score: 1

i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?

There's only one person that has the right to install anything they want on the device.

The owner.

The reason google redacted it's complaint by ShooterNeo · 2009-08-23 06:49 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that the reason google redacted the text of it's complaint is because it's clearly going to get what it wants. Google has no need to badmouth them in public. AT&T and Apple colluding to prevent competition looks really bad. It would have been much smarter for AT&T or apple to introduce enough latency and jitter into the data link to effectively block VoIP apps via inherent technical limitations.

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-08-23 06:50 · Score: 1

er, make that linux cluster (at work), home linux PC and linux laptop. I don't really run a linux cluster at home.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by Reverberant · 2009-08-23 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heh, that's a funny situation for Apple to be in. I guess Apple is no longer interested in just selling you the hardware and a good OS, they want to sell you a substantial number of the applications as well.

I don't think it's about Apple wanting to see you a substantial number of apps, I think it's about Apple not wanting the core features of their phone to be based on the whims of a third party. It's kinda like the situation of Office on the Mac back in the 90's when MS threatened to kill Office which would have basically ended corporate use of Macs.

Re:The Steve Jobs method of living? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 06:54 · Score: 5, Funny

1) Be abusive generally.

2) Get cancer.

3) Lie about Google Voice.

4) Die?

5) Ascend to heaven in a fiery chariot.

6) Prophet!

Re:babies by PieSquared · 2009-08-23 06:54 · Score: 1

"WHy does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?"

Because they own it.

--
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?

TechCrunch reality distortion field by Egdiroh · 2009-08-23 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

TechCrunch claimed that apple's claims were untrue. They did this by ignoring the little bit were the purpose of google voice is to replace your existing phone service. So while they are correct that the google voice app does not rip out and replace these features, using google voice logically supplants them. If your phone identity is not your google identity and not your provider identity then the apple apps might as well be removed.

It's a completely bogus self serving argument. It's like arguing that it's not vehicular manslaughter because you struck a pedestrian, after all they could have not been in the way, so really they just used you as an agent of suicide.

Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.

whether or not, Apple's position has any validity is not is something that can and should be legitimately argued. But it should be argued at face value, not skirted around with logical fallacies.

Re:TechCrunch reality distortion field by forand · 2009-08-23 07:39 · Score: 3, Informative

I think you have misunderstood what Google Voice is. IT is NOT meant "to replace your existing phone service." As a matter of fact, you cannot use GV without an existing phone service. Furthermore, to use Google Voice to make a call it actually has to call you first then connect you to the person you where trying to call. Finally, why does Apple (or anyone other than myself) get a say in what I do with my existing phone service?

But yeah TechCrunch's article is full of it.
Re:TechCrunch reality distortion field by speedtux · 2009-08-23 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
Nobody is forcing users to install Google Voice. So, what you are saying is that if users have the choice, they will install Google Voice and not use Apple's services anymore.
So, you are basically saying that Apple's "competitive advantage" is in propping up an uncompetitive product (their services) with a good product (their phone hardware).
Just thought I'd put that into perspective for you.
Re:TechCrunch reality distortion field by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 15:10 · Score: 1

They did this by ignoring the little bit were the purpose of google voice is to replace your existing phone service.
Actually, not. Well, okay ... I have GV on a non-Apple phone, so I can't really comment on how Google Voice works on the iPhone, but it does not in any way replace my existing phone service. It can't, unless it were true VoIP and so far as I'm aware, it's not. It still has to dial out to an intermediate number, which then routes your call to the desired destination from there. Matter of fact, it integrates smoothly with the existing dialer app, and simply asks if you want to use Google voice for the call. If I click No, the phone works like it always did. So no matter how you look at it, AT&T is still getting their minutes out of Google Voice customers, which probably explains why they had no particular interest in disputing the addition of Google Voice to the App Store (or so they say.) Apple, on the other hand, doesn't like the fact that another program not controlled by Apple is performing a service to which Apple feels it has an exclusive right, to wit, dialing your phone.

Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
Yes, and therein lies the logical fallacy. If Apple's products were as unquestionably superior as they (and their more rabid fans) claim, they'd have no worries about users "replacing" the "core functionality" of the iPhone. The reality is that a. nobody is replacing any core functionality and b. Apple is very much afraid that their solution is not as superior as they would have everyone believe, and that users would switch to Google Voice in droves. The irony is that Google Voice just makes the iPhone that much more useful to existing users. On the other hand, it makes the phone potentially less appealing to those who haven't yet been brought into the fold.

Truly, if Apple really wanted to compete with Google in this area, rather than simply exhibit the usual corporate dick attitude, they would exhort their partner in crime (e.g., AT&T) to come up with something comparable, if not superior, to Google Voice and put that out as an iPhone exclusive. Let the customer make the choice.

Any way you slice it, Apple Computer, Inc. needs to get over itself.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:You have to assume Google is lying by Otterley · 2009-08-23 07:02 · Score: 4, Informative

The FCC redacted that part, not Google, presumably on behalf of Google because the Apple Developer Agreement makes your communications with Apple confidential (subject to law enforcement inquiries). The FCC *does* possess the redacted parts of Google's response.

Re:babies by Deanalator · 2009-08-23 07:14 · Score: 1

Look at the Compaq vs IBM lawsuit over the reverse engineering of ROM-BIOS. If IBM had their way, the same company would be providing all hardware, software, and Internet service for desktop computers. You would have choices, but marketing groups would have complete control, end to end, of what technologies any given person is allowed to run on their own computers.

We are now looking at the same situation for mobile phones. Before they have gotten away with it, saying third party software might lead to performance decreases, and a "non contiguous user experiences", which means you aren't using your phone the way apples marketing group thinks you should.

Fuck it, GV Mobile kicks ass, and is installable via Cydia. The final kick in the balls solution for google is to release software to install android onto an iphone. It's going to happen sooner or later anyway, so they might as well invest in it now, and just finish off this debate once and for all. If apple and ATT go to war with google now, my money is on google.

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-08-23 07:21 · Score: 1

It's kinda like the situation of Office on the Mac back in the 90's when MS threatened to kill Office which would have basically ended corporate use of Macs.

That's a very good point, along with what the AC said below about, "What if Google really is evil?" But why didn't Apple go out and say that then? Oh wait, they did:

The Google Voice application replaces Apple's Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple's Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub--replacing the iPhone's text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user's entire Contacts database is transferred to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

Well shit, no wonder Apple is pissed, Google's app comes in and boots out all their own applications! If it were my phone I was selling, I'd be pissed too. From Apple's account, it sounds more like Google's app is acting more like a virus or malware than an application. I had thought that Google's app was installed alongside the Apple one, but it seems that Google is acting a lot more viciously here.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Re:You have to assume Google is lying by mysidia · 2009-08-23 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The agreement with Apple requires confidentiality with regards to the app approval process.

iPhone developers are bound by contract with Apple not to make information available to the public about communications with Apple over the app review.

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by hansguckindieluft · 2009-08-23 07:34 · Score: 1

I guess Apple is no longer interested in just selling you the hardware and a good OS, they want to sell you a substantial number of the applications as well. I seem to recall Microsoft engaging some similar behavior awhile back, something about web browsers and being able to remove them.

It maybe sth. obvious that I overlook. But does anybody know why (or on what basis) cellphones are treated so differently from computers? or even macs from pcs? Microsoft can be sued for inclueding IE with windows. Is Apple not doing the same with safari?

And when it comes to cellphones with web functionality, afaik there is always a browser included as well, but I've never heard about a lawsuit against nokia for preinstalling their browser. now the cellphone OS and application market is different from that of pcs I guess because of non-existing standards?

On a more abstract level, given some piece of hardware (pc,cellphone, console, mac ...), and a task (e.g. browsing the web) that can be performed by combining the hardware's components (e.g. keyboard,cpu,ram,modem,...) at what point does the law(?) require equal opportunities for producers of software applications (browsers) that can perform this task.

Obviously the browser market on Iphones does not provide those equal opportunities...

Apple's published response looks like spin by mysidia · 2009-08-23 07:38 · Score: 1

They asked Apple what percentage of apps were rejected, and they didn't answer the question:

Question 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols.

Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.

and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted.

Free SMS, calls etc.? by Twinbee · 2009-08-23 08:00 · Score: 1

If Apple do allow Google Voice, will that effectively allow free SMS and mobile calls?

I've read polar conclusions in two different places, so I don't know what to think.

If SMS etc. through Google Voice is free, then the only charge will be for the internet access (which byte for byte, is presumably orders of magnitude cheaper than SMS).

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc

Re:babies by ls+-la · 2009-08-23 08:06 · Score: 1

... That said, AT&T should have the right to block my use of the network if they don't like what I'm doing on it...

I must disagree with you there. AT&T is/should be a neutral service provider. IPhone users pay $30 every month for *unlimited* data bandwidth. That ought to mean, although in practice providers never acknowledge and rarely accept it, that the user can use as much bandwidth as they need/want/can doing whatever they want whenever they want (and as such a neutral carrier, the provider need not even ensure that such activity is legal).

As a sidenote, does anyone know what this app does that isn't available through the regular Google voice service and safari anyway? I don't think bandwidth should come into this at all, should it?

Re:babies by speedtux · 2009-08-23 08:07 · Score: 1

i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?

Because the FCC, FTC, and DOJ regulate what Apple can do. And they do so for good reason.

get the government out of this. the government is inherently reactive and slow, technology is proactive. you've got other options

The facts are obviously different: European and Asian cellular phone markets are much more efficient, precisely because the government prevents companies like Microsoft and Apple from monopolizing the market.

Re:upgrade versus... by g0at · 2009-08-23 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I was still using the Mac OS that I had in 2002, it would essentially be unusable. QED the wintel OS is cheaper (no money spent in 7 years) versus the Mac OS, because I had spend money to keep my Mac working.

Since my time and productivity are worth money, the amount I have saved by using Mac OS X over Windows over that same period is orders of magnitude larger than the cost of Microsoft's OS.

-b

--
myselfmusic

I just don't buy it. by phillymjs · 2009-08-23 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google Voice stands to cost AT&T money. Apple won't lose a thing by offering it-- in fact, they stand to lose iPhone sales for rejecting it when apps for it are available on competing devices. In light of this, who is more likely to be the force behind the rejection?

As for the argument Apple is putting forward, that is just BS. If I put GV on my iPhone it's because I *want* it there.

And as for AT&T's argument, "Hey, look, we allow GV on other devices on our network!"-- No, it's not that they're allowed, it's that AT&T simply can't prevent them from being installed and used. Apple is the sole (official) gatekeeper to getting an app on the iPhone and under contract with AT&T, so it's clear they're doing AT&T's bidding here. I don't know why Apple is taking the lion's share of the blame by saying they're still evaluating it, but my guess would be some sort of quid pro quo with AT&T.

The whole thing stinks, and I hope the FCC realizes it and opens a can of whoop-ass.

~Philly

PS - Please learn WTF Google Voice does before commenting. It is NOT a VoIP application despite a dozen people saying or implying it is in their posts already.

Re:I just don't buy it. by tgibbs · 2009-08-23 12:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think Apple's thinking is a bit wrong-headed, but I believe that I understand the reasoning. I'd guess that it goes something like this. "The appeal of the iPhone rests upon the ease of use and integration of features like Visual Voice Mail, the Address Book, Mail, and the Phone application. Right now this is entirely under our control. What happens if everybody starts using Google's apps and bypassing ours? How will we add new features to enhance the Mail and Voice features of the iPhone? What if we add new features and they don't work with Google Voice? If Google Voice becomes very popular, and we add a new feature that doesn't work right with Google voice, people will complain about us, not Google. It is far better not to have a feature at all than to have one that doesn't work right? Are we going to end up having to go hat in hand to Google, who is competing with us in the cell phone arena, to make sure that whatever we do to enhance the iPhone user experience works with Google Voice?"
Re:I just don't buy it. by Thing+1 · 2009-08-23 14:07 · Score: 1

I don't know why Apple is taking the lion's share of the blame by saying they're still evaluating it, but my guess would be some sort of quid pro quo with AT&T.

Yeah, and the worst part? The FCC can't go crying to the CIA to get the wiretaps on those Apple/AT&T conversations...
Because the secret wiretap room is on AT&T property! AT&T could just delete those conversations from the CIA wiretap database.
I love good theatre.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:I just don't buy it. by dbcad7 · 2009-08-23 14:28 · Score: 1

Explain the loss to AT&T..
Hard isn't it ? .. You see, AT&T will still get their money for phone minutes you don't use.. Now you might have a larger minute plan, and decide to cut that down.. that's ok if it's just you.. but lets say you have 2 phones, would you chance it ? .. didn't think so.. Really the loss is negligible.. and actually is might benefit AT&T as people with multiple phones decide to make sure both have data plans but with less minute plans, but then again, you better make sure that 3G is everywhere you need it... I am not a corporate bean counter, but even I can see that.
So yes I beleive Apple's "PR"

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Re:I just don't buy it. by Dare+nMc · 2009-08-23 15:58 · Score: 1

Apple won't lose a thing by offering it-- in fact,

That would be true, if the Iphone was available in equal/cheaper plans than the other phones, or if apple didn't get a cut of the monthly fees. GV works (I assume) equally on any compatible phone, so if a user is using GV on the Iphone they can truly switch providers and phones without losing/transferring contacts, voice mail, etc. So if a Iphone user ever decides google voice is nicer than the Iphone equivalent apps, they have no incentive to stick to the iphone/ATT (or upgrade to another iphone) also they won't be pushing employers, etc to allow them access to ATT/iphone plans.
So sure, if the iphone is competitive, then apple doesn't need lock in. Otherwise Apple is justified in being worried about a app designed to prevent vender lockin.
Re:I just don't buy it. by phillymjs · 2009-08-23 16:18 · Score: 1

Explain the loss to AT&T. Hard, isn't it?
Not really. Google Voice allows you to send and receive text messages for free, and offers low rates on international calling. AT&T makes a great deal of money from text messaging and international calls.
Theoretically you could drop your text messaging plan and just use GV (you can disable the forwarding of text messages to your 'real' AT&T phone number and just access received messages through GV). The unlimited text message plan from AT&T is $20/mo. That's $240 per year if one person cancelled their text plan in favor of GV. Multiply that times the number of iPhone users on AT&T's network and that's the maximum amount of money they could lose in a year just from GV's text messaging features. Granted, not every person is going to do that, but we're talking about a US cellular provider here-- they ruthlessly milk every last dollar from their customers, so they clearly see GV as a huge threat.
I don't make international calls, but I'd bet they're pricey from companies that charge 15 cents to send a 160 character text message. People who make international calls frequently are probably falling over themselves to switch to GV.
~Philly
Re:I just don't buy it. by dbcad7 · 2009-08-23 18:39 · Score: 1

Well I hadn't thought about SMS.. and you have a point.. but again, if you think about it.. the half of the equation (people with a data plan that could use GV) are paying extra for text messaging for the other half (those without a data plan).. I could (and do) just as well send emails to those of my friends that have it... so the loss in messaging dollars is restricted to those with a data plan, who again also have a minute plan.. at the price point of $20 for unlimited messaging which is the same for non data phones with AT&T, it would be more cost effective for the SMS users to switch to data plans on their phones and have unlimited email and enjoy the web too.. At this point, GV savings become moot.. Really it all boils down GV giving you a break in communicating with people who only have SMS, and half those dollars are still retained, by whatever carrier they are on.
As to the international phone call savings, there are already many ways to save with phone cards.. perhaps convenience would eat into some of it.. don't know the impact, but again in all of this, I really don't think AT&T was sweating either one of these.

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Re:I just don't buy it. by phillymjs · 2009-08-24 00:18 · Score: 1

It's VoIP. Just not directly from the handset.
That's my point, it's not VoIP directly from the handset like Skype-- which is what the commenters I was bitching about seem to think it does and therefore why it was rejected.
Because it's not VoIP from the handset, AT&T has no grounds to reject it (or declare it be hobbled by using wi-fi only, like Skype) over "concern for their network." They're rejecting it over concern for their profits.
~Philly

Not the reason by drhamad · 2009-08-23 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, because VOIP, while a concern, according to these documents, was not the reason for the rejection (or postponement). Rather, mimicking of core iPhone functionality was.

--
-Daniel

Re:Not the reason by karlanm · 2009-08-23 09:05 · Score: 1

I wasn't saying this is why it was denied, I'm just saying there are lying when they say: "Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Appleâ(TM)s decision-making process in this matter." This is the hint....... Question 3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications? Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications. "There is a provision in Appleâ(TM)s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&Tâ(TM)s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&Tâ(TM)s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&Tâ(TM)s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&Tâ(TM)s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration. Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&Tâ(TM)s 3G network? Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&Tâ(TM)s 3G network." This is all speculation if you haven't guessed, but I feel something is going on. Considering the response is exactly the corporate BS you'd expect. Similar to "I'm sorry you feel that way" and "Im happy to assist in any way necessary to resolve this problem", but they don't care, and they don't want to resolve your problem.

No, you misunderstood the iPhone by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 09:18 · Score: 1

I think you have misunderstood what Google Voice is. IT is NOT meant "to replace your existing phone service."

It supplants Visual Voicemail with google voice mail.

It supplants contacts.

It supplants your phone number with a different one - the idea is you forget the number attached to your phone.

So yes, in fact, it does supplant your phone service substantially from the standpoint of the phone parts of the iPhone, and from AT&T's view (even though they were not involved it seems).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:No, you misunderstood the iPhone by RedK · 2009-08-23 10:18 · Score: 1

It doesn't supplant anything. Your original voice mail is still usuable and tied to your original number, which is also still usuable along with your original contacts. It offers phone consolidation of these features however if you want. All this is based on what you want to do and you can opt-in (notice not opt-out) of any of these features.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:No, you misunderstood the iPhone by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 15:13 · Score: 1

All this is based on what you want to do and you can opt-in (notice not opt-out) of any of these features.
Notice that everyone here that is defending Apple's position is doing so from the perspective that whatever is good for Apple must also be good for its customers.

That, of course, isn't necessarily true.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:No, you misunderstood the iPhone by The_Quinn · 2009-08-23 16:33 · Score: 1

Notice that everyone here that is defending Apple's position is doing so from the perspective that whatever is good for Apple must also be good for its customers.
This may come as a surprise to you, but Apple wants customers.
No offense, but I have to believe they understand the wants and needs of their customers better than you do.

--
Mine is Good

A prediction by Budenny · 2009-08-23 09:27 · Score: 1, Troll

You can go overnight from 'I have to have a Mac so I can manage my iTunes' to 'I can't have a Mac because it won't run Google Voice. That is, an exclusive feature becomes a feature exclusion, and you move from being cool and integrated to being feature deficient. Overnight.

That's also why 10.6 is substantially cheaper by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 09:29 · Score: 1

Major changes in OS 10.6 are mostly cosmetic from what I can tell.

To the user, there are small changes all over the system - but also really well done exchange integration, a totally new feature.

Under the hood there are very powerful new frameworks, like Grand Central for better performance on multi-core systems.

But you're right the core system to the user does not look much different... and that's why the user sees a smaller upgrade price as well, $29.

So i'm not seeing what the major changes are from 10.x to 10.x+1 that required an extra $100

In every one of those other releases, there were substantial features added along with UI updates and performance enhancements. Expose is an example, as is Spotlight.

As for the version number jump not being as great - that's because 10.0 was the leap from 9.x that already started from a better base. But that does not mean major features of value were not added atop later.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Dammit GV is not VOIP by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 09:34 · Score: 1

Google Voice is a VoIP app.

Wrong. It routes calls to your phone, using your normal service to make the connection.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Talk about bias! by Mr2001 · 2009-08-23 09:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then you buy an iPhone and you jailbreak it.

Since you did not do so, you have other reasons for not wanting an iPhone. But don't pretend they are technical because at the core they are not.

Perhaps they were legal -- Apple has claimed jailbreaking is against the law.

--
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.

Re:babies by Macrat · 2009-08-23 09:55 · Score: 1

I invite you to study the concept of ownership. If I pay $600 for a piece of hardware, I have every right to do whatever I want with it.Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.

Note that you only bought a right-to-use-license that came with the hardware.

Re:babies by thenextstevejobs · 2009-08-23 10:09 · Score: 1

Im not familiar with international cellular phone markets. Care to explain what makes them more preferable?

--
Long live the BSD license

Re:The Steve Jobs method of living? by nametaken · 2009-08-23 10:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Pssh... keep up. It's iProphet.

The Implied Duplicity of Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 10:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

Apple gets a big cut out of every phone it sells using AT&T. This "blocking of the application" is obviously an assist from Apple on behalf of AT&T. The implied financial incentives should be enough for the FCC to "read-into" the behavior of Apple to try and block these kinds of applications. The fact is Apple hasn't approved any VOIP applications. That is the real crime here. The monopolistic anti-competitive actions on the part of AT&T. I don't blame them for acting as such to preserve their company. The fact is they are selling an outdated technology and have been lucky enough to find a willing partner in Apple. That the entire arrangement was destined to fall flat on its face once serious competitors entered the game should have been obvious to everyone.

Re:Talk about bias! by MindCheese · 2009-08-23 10:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

your bias is showing. ...I just wanted a powerful smartphone that would do what I (yes, I, the customer) want it to do, without having my options limited by a company I don't particularly trust.

Then you buy an iPhone and you jailbreak it.

Right. Rather than buy a phone that will do what he needs out of the box with no extra tinkering, he should buy the one that requires him to go download some software from some l33t hax0r unofficial dev team in order for the phone to satisfy his requirements. And are you supposed to just trust that redsn0w, yellowsn0w, etc. are all created equal and don't install anything else on your phone while they're freeing you from Apple's tyranny?

I own an iPhone 3G. Will I upgrade to the 3GS? Not on your life. Though jailbreaking did make the device much more useful to me, my next upgrade will whatever Android phone happens to be on the market at the time. Apple is once again planning their own funeral with the closed ecosystem they've built around their products.

Re:Talk about bias! by node+3 · 2009-08-23 10:23 · Score: 1

Perhaps they were legal -- Apple has claimed jailbreaking is against the law.

Citation?

Apple has claimed that Psystar's selling of OS X on non-Apple hardware is illegal. I don't recall them claiming jailbreaking is illegal.

Apple is no stranger to C&D orders. Where are the C&D's for the jailbreaking sites?

Re:upgrade versus... by GCsoftware · 2009-08-23 10:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously? Another expense of what, 10-20 USD? Is your time is worth that little to you?

Re:babies by thenextstevejobs · 2009-08-23 10:44 · Score: 1

Where does the hardware 'end'? What about the operating system? Should every company that sells a device with storage be required to help you access it to do whatever with it you please? Do you want Apple to be required to let you have direct USB access to the drive? Should they also be required to use a volume format that you can read on any device you happen to want to use as a source?

As far as I can tell, Apple hasn't been too terrible to the mod/hobbyist community. You can download the files needed to jailbreak your iphone in minutes.

What'd you buy the phone for? How useful is it without Apple's software? Do you think Ford should be required legally to make it as simple as possible for you to remove the engine from their cars? Should the drink holders come out more easily so I could put in my own? Should the soles of my shoes be more readily replaceable? There are companies that market their products on the basis that these sorts of tasks are designed for in the product, and guess what, they tend to target a different audience, and often charge a premium for these design considerations.

I just dont think companies should be required to make their products customizable. That's too gray an area, and has too many consequences for design and implementation.

What about your cable box? Is it a great injustice to you that you can't easily develop applications to run on its hardware?

Let tech companies be free.

Apologies about the inflammatory subject line. This mandated GPL attitude is just obnoxious. You know what you're buying. The model is vertical and controlled so that the products' designers can design the products they wish to market.

Below another poster says that the death blow will be when Google creates a way to install Android on iPhone and believes that users would defect en-masse. I don't believe that, though. iPhone OS has merits and appeal as a mobile operating system that Android does not have.

Google is a competitor on the mobile platform. If they came out with a device that I found as usable and slick as an iPhone but was a little more open, then maybe they can outpace Apple and competitively encourage Apple to change their approach to software distribution. Taking the legal route just shows how lacking their products still are.

Apple's not a monopoly. iPhones are not the only phone. You don't like it, buy another phone. Personally I sampled my options and judged the iPhone to be a superior experience.

--
Long live the BSD license

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by Korgan · 2009-08-23 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

The GV app is still just an app. It doesn't replace any of the Apple apps. They're still there and still fully functional. What it does do is make them redundant.

Instead of giving people your cell number, you give them your Google number. At that point, all your voicemail is kept on the Google service, all your calls are routed through the Google service to whatever phone(s) you choose to have the calls go to. You are no longer tied to Apple's Visual Voicemail (which by most people's accounts hasn't worked properly in quite a while anyway) nor are you limited to AT&T's network anymore. The same applies to SMS and so on as well. Use your Google number instead of your iPhone number and you can get the messages on any/all your phones rather than just your iPhone.

The GV app also allows you to make calls out through Google's network. Your phone dials Google, then dials out from Google to where ever. With the apps on the various platforms, this is essentially transparent. You just use the dialer in the GV app instead of the Apple dialer. It doesn't sync your contacts to the Google servers as such. Like all apps on an iPhone, it has access to your contacts directly, so doesn't need to store them on the server. Not that it matters much given you can use Google Sync to do it, or even us iTunes itself.

Having said all that, the Apple phone apps are still all there and you can use those as well if you want. But if you do, CallerID will show your cell # instead of your Google number. If people call that number, you lose things like voicemail transcription features and so on.

I am basing this on the functionality in the applications on other platforms such as Android and Blackberry. I doubt the app for the iPhone would be any different in functionality, only in appearance.

But no, the app doesn't replace the Apple ones. It merely supersedes them and essentially makes them redundant.

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by thaylin · 2009-08-23 10:59 · Score: 1

Wrong, apple has approved aps that allow this same thing, harvsting your information.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Truth about OS upgrade costs by tgibbs · 2009-08-23 11:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3. Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.

Apple does release periodic "under the hood" upgrades analogous to Microsoft's Service Packs. They are free.
Apple occasionally releases major upgrades that include new software that adds major features or applications (e.g. Dashboard, Time Machine). These are typically priced at $129.

The next major release is somewhat unusual, as it includes major "under-the-hood" enhancements and some new features (full 64 bit OS, support for Microsoft Exchange) but (at least based on announcements) no major new programs. The announced price is $29.

Paid upgrades (list prices)
Mac
2001 Mac OS X 10.1 $129
2002 Mac OS X 10.2 $129 (Address Book, iChat)
2003 Mac OS X 10.3 $129 (Expose, Filevault)
2004 Mac OS X 10.4 $129 (Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator)
2007 Mac OS X 10.5 $129 (Time Machine, Spaces, Boot Camp)
2009 Mac OS X 10.6 $29

Total: $674

-----
Windows
2001 Windows XP Pro $299.99
2007 Windows Vista Business $299.99
2009 Windows 7 Pro $199.99

Total $699.97

Of course, one can shave costs off of either by skipping some upgrades. So I suppose that one could say that Microsoft saved users money by not making Vista so appealing that most customers saw a reason to upgrade.

Re:Truth about OS upgrade costs by VGPowerlord · 2009-08-23 14:08 · Score: 1

First, you seem to have used the wrong price for the upgrade from XP Pro to Vista Business. The MSRP is (and always has been) $199.99 on the upgrade copy.
Paid upgrades (list prices)
Mac
2001 Mac OS X 10.1 $129
2002 Mac OS X 10.2 $129 (Address Book, iChat)
2003 Mac OS X 10.3 $129 (Expose, Filevault)
2004 Mac OS X 10.4 $129 (Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator)
2007 Mac OS X 10.5 $129 (Time Machine, Spaces, Boot Camp)
2009 Mac OS X 10.6 $29
Total: $674
-----
Windows
2001 Windows XP Pro $299.99
2007 Windows Vista Business Upgrade $199.99
2009 Windows 7 Pro Upgrade $199.99
Total $599.97
Second, your list is misleading for two reasons
1. No computer that could run 10.1 can install 10.6. 10.6 is Intel only. Because of how long XP lasted, due to its service packs updating it to run on modern hardware, a Windows XP machine running Windows 7 is not a stretch.
2. You don't attach a price to Mac at the top, but you do to Windows XP Pro. If I buy a new machine from a major PC manufacturer, it's nearly 100% guaranteed to have a version of Windows on it.
This isn't even addressing Microsoft's propensity to hide features it doesn't think consumers would want, such as the Shadow Copy/Previous Versions function. I'm mentioning it here, because the versions of Windows you priced support it.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Truth about OS upgrade costs by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your numbers are wrong, because if you were truly like me - budget conscious - you would not have upgraded your XP at all. I want to thank you for sharing, because I think this very accurately demonstrates my point, better than of my previous messages did:
Paid upgrades (list prices)
Mac
2001 Mac OS X 10.1 $129
2002 Mac OS X 10.2 $129
2003 Mac OS X 10.3 $129
2004 Mac OS X 10.4 $129
2007 Mac OS X 10.5 $129
Total: $643
-----
Windows
2001 Windows XP Home $149.99 (still using this same OS)
TOTAL: $150

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Truth about OS upgrade costs by LanMan04 · 2009-08-24 04:47 · Score: 1

Each of those Mac OSes has a new feature set. XP is the same as it was in 2002 + a ton of bugfixes.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:Truth about OS upgrade costs by Confuzzled · 2009-08-24 18:54 · Score: 1

I buy every single upgrade of product A. I buy only one version of product B. OMG, product A is so much more expensive!!!

Re:upgrade versus... by tgibbs · 2009-08-23 11:10 · Score: 1

I've got a number of systems running OS X 10.3. It still works fine, at a total upgrade cost that is less than Windows XP. But the added features of successive Mac upgrades have generally been sufficiently appealing to be worth the upgrade cost to most users.

Re:upgrade versus... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 11:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Where I live (USA) these two words are interchangeable.

No, they're not. An update is a minor patch. An upgrade is a new product. You might use them interchangeably, but you'd be wrong.

I bought my current Wintel OS (XP) in 2002. I'm still using it after all these years.

And you skipped Vista and apparently plan on skipping Windows 7, too. Big deal.

If I was still using the Mac OS that I had in 2002, it would essentially be unusable.

But you just said you were being charged for "service packs"--clearly that's not the case, then, since so much has changed in the intermediate versions that software is no longer always compatible.

What you're really complaining about is stagnation on the Windows side--you didn't upgrade because the turd they shipped after four years didn't change anything.

If I was still using the Mac OS that I had in 2002, it would essentially be unusable

I'm fairly certain it would do all the things it did in 2002, and it would still run all the software that's on it, and it would continue to operate without demanding that you insert hundred-dollar bills into the CD slot.

I always look at the bottom line.

That's a funny way of putting it. Your arguments are contradictory, and your selection is inherently biased.

Since 2002, there have been three major new OSes from Apple, with a fourth on the way.

But look at a different timeline of paid upgrades offered by Microsoft: Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows 2000 (if you couldn't tolerate Me or 98 any longer), Windows XP. All of that took place in less than four years. Over the 7-year span of 1995 to 2001, Microsoft released five consumer operating systems, plus NT4 and Win2k, the latter of which was used in a number of homes. Each one was priced as a full upgrade.

The industry doesn't move in lockstep. New versions come when they come; you can upgrade or not. Your existing machines don't stop working. You may not being able to get the latest and greatest software titles if you don't upgrade, but that's your choice.

You just come off as whining. Nobody made you pay for any of the upgrades you did. In fact, you could have done just as well by upgrading to Tiger and waiting for Snow Leopard, skipping the rest without losing any major compatibility, and walked away paying scarcely more than the price of your Windows 7 upgrade.

Facts are pesky things. Comparing a timeline of delayed and cancelled products from Microsoft that "spared" you the need to cough up some cash with Apple's steady releases that you were apparently "forced" to purchase by some black-turtlenecked bandit with a handgun is outright absurd.

Re:babies by Korgan · 2009-08-23 11:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a work around, Google has said they are going to release an iPhone Safari specific version to run as a webapp on the iPhone. The different Google Voice apps (across all platforms) are just a significantly improved and platform-native GUI to the service.

OMG! by The+Cisco+Kid · 2009-08-23 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

[...] it may "alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface [...] Oh no! How terrible! But what if THATS WHAT THE USER WANTS?!

This is for you, fucking fanboi... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 12:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I hate the arguments that somehow Apple gives you better quality hardware for the higher prices, when the hardware is the same as any Windows computer.

I hate the arguments that Microsoft is evil for some reason, but when Apple does the same, it is perfectly fine (e.g. activation of Windows vs. activation of an iPhone, or how Intel had unique identifiers in their chips accessible by software, but when they do the same in the iPhone - not a problem).

I hate the arguments that Microsoft is evil when 10 year old hardware is not supported (such as when Vista was released), but when Apple cuts support for 3 year old printers in Leopard, it is the user's fault for not owning the latest hardware.

I hate the arguments that problems with 3rd party hardware drivers it is the fault of Microsoft, but when Apple has problems with 3rd party hardware drivers, it is the hardware manufacturer's fault.

I hate the arguments that Apple never has any problems, but when a problem appears (such as not being able to activate a phone for hours), the user is at fault for not knowing the proper way of using a Mac, just plain stupid, or hate.

I hate the arguments when Microsoft services go down for an hour or two (such as Zune last week), it is said Microsoft provides horrible service and it is a Engadget front page mockery of Microsoft. But when iTunes goes down (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/itunes-store-and-app-store-problems/) nothing is said, and it really is not a problem.

I hate the argument that before the iPhone, the number of applications available for a platform does not make a difference, it is the quality of the software. After the iPhone is released, all that matters is the number of applications available.

I hate the argument that somehow Apple hardware will last forever, but other computers last only a year or two (this argument is used in this very article). I am typing on a 5 year old Dell laptop, how long does an iPod last?

I hate the argument that somehow Microsoft limits user choice, when many people use non-Microsoft products. But when Apple limits choice (such as installing alternative browsers on an iPhone), it is in the user's best interest.

I hate the arguments that Microsoft keeps control over their products, but you need to jump through hoops just to develop for the iPhone.

I hate the arguments that Microsoft releases poor products that do not work and you need to wait for SP2 for it to be useful, is MobileMe working yet?

I hate the arguments that Microsoft does not deliver what was promised, Apple is just now delivering push notification - a year after it was promised.

I hate how some say everything was invented, created, designed, or innovated by Apple first, and everybody creates cheap knock-offs of Apple, when there is proof of it being done years before by other companies.

I hate the arguments that products such as Tablets, Netbooks, etc. are useless crap, but rumored products such as the Apple Tablet, or Netbook will be the savior of man.

I hate the argument that somehow opening a store, something that has existed for 1000s of years since somebody found they could trade a basket of vegetables for a chicken, is an Apple creation, and from now on no other company is permitted to open stores.

And, among the many others (but the last I will list), I hate the argument that somehow Apple is allowed to air commercials that lie about Microsoft and Apple's own products, but when Microsoft airs commercials that are true (a Windows computer is lower priced than an Apple computer), somehow Microsoft is evil and must stop now.

Re:This is for you, fucking fanboi... by Achromatic1978 · 2009-08-23 16:11 · Score: 1

This just might be the most insightful comment ever written by an A.C...
Re:This is for you, fucking fanboi... by Battlenun · 2009-08-24 04:02 · Score: 1

Nice post, with some valid comments/questions. My questions are: Are you just a Microsoft fanboi or do you REALLY just hate misrepresentation and duplicity in the business/advertising world (as do I)? Why post anon?
Re:This is for you, fucking fanboi... by Pechkin000 · 2009-08-24 10:09 · Score: 1

AMEN!
Re:This is for you, fucking fanboi... by Nyder · 2009-08-24 11:50 · Score: 1

tl;dr
seems like you have fanboi envy...

--
Be seeing you...

Re:Talk about bias! by Mr2001 · 2009-08-23 12:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Citation?

Apple has claimed that Psystar's selling of OS X on non-Apple hardware is illegal. I don't recall them claiming jailbreaking is illegal.

Here you go.

Jailbreaking an iPhone constitutes copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, says Apple in comments filed with the Copyright Office as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking. This marks the first formal public statement by Apple about its legal stance on iPhone jailbreaking.
[...]
Apple's copyright infringement claim starts with the observation that jailbroken iPhones depend on modified versions of Apple's bootloader and operating system software.
[...]
As for the DMCA violation, Apple casts its lot with the likes of laser printer makers and garage door opener companies who argue that the DMCA entitles them to block interoperability with anything that hasn't been approved in advance.

Apple's arguments here are probably bullshit, as the article notes. But I wouldn't fault anyone for skipping the iPhone because of this, when there are plenty of other phones that are designed to run arbitrary code and whose manufacturers won't call you a criminal for doing so.

--
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.

Cell Phone as an Open Platform as a PC/Mac by microbee · 2009-08-23 12:58 · Score: 1

The key point here is that cell phones are never considered an open platform. But with the market of smart phones grows, Apple is setting a bad precedent by its AppStore that the phone vendor can have total control over the device.

Think about PC or Mac. If any hardware vendor (Dell, Apple) or OS vendor (MS, Apple) or network service provider (Comcast) wanted to do that (controlling what applications can run), it'd be considered absurdly insane. But why are phones different? It should not, esepcially when cell phones are gaining power and becoming a generic computing platform.

Re:Talk about bias! by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 13:21 · Score: 1

Right. Rather than buy a phone that will do what he needs out of the box with no extra tinkering, he should buy the one that requires him to go download some software from some l33t hax0r unofficial dev team in order for the phone to satisfy his requirements.

But he didn't state that was the issue. He stated he COULD NOT do something, which you CAN DO.

I own an iPhone 3G. Will I upgrade to the 3GS? Not on your life. Though jailbreaking did make the device much more useful to me, my next upgrade will whatever Android phone happens to be on the market at the time.

I'm sure you have your reason and that's fine. Myself, I'm plenty happy with what I can do and like the 3Gs quite a bit (I skipped the 3G upgrade, always better to wait out alternate tech cycles I figure). In the meantime, I can do anything you can with the android phone only I have a lot more choices as to applications and frankly I prefer hardware committed to the virtual keyboard wholly instead of fudging.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 13:54 · Score: 1

People, Apple has approved over 60,000 applications. The issue is that Google us exteacting your entire contacts list from the iPhone to their application

No, that's not the issue. Go back and re-read the summary, and if you don't trust Google don't run Google Voice. Don't try to shift the topic of discussion onto Google: they're not the ones being investigated here.

Furthermore, I don't like the idea of a hardware vendor being a gatekeeper to what specific applications can even be executed on what is, after all, a portable computing platform. That really goes against the grain of the entire personal computer revolution, of which the smartphone is just the latest extension. Apple has, rather remarkably I believe, managed to convince (apparently, the majority of) its user base that by restricting what programs said users are allowed to run, they are actually freeing them. I suppose you could argue that they're trying to weed out defective applications, but even that doesn't really hold water given Apple's capricious and often wholly unjustified rejection of many apps. As a developer myself, I'd agree that Apple has a slick product with a cool development environment ... but I still picked a G1 because I didn't want Apple standing between me and my pocket computer.

This is all really funny coming from the company that put out that wonderful 1984 commercial all those years ago.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 13:55 · Score: 1

Do you really need an answer to the question "How do they make money?"? Have you ever BEEN on the internet before?

I'm guessing this may be his first time.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:babies by ScrewMaster · 2009-08-23 13:58 · Score: 1

That said, AT&T should have the right to block my use of the network if they don't like what I'm doing on it, but at no point should Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.

Should they? I'd say even that is very much open to debate. Phone companies have always been heavily regulated (less so since the breakup, and even less so since they got into the Internet business) and have never really had one hundred percent say in how their networks are used by the public. That's because it was recognized that they are, in fact, public carriers and that the right of the public to unobstructed communications was more important than a corporation's desire to increase profits by any means necessary.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:Talk about bias! by Mr2001 · 2009-08-23 14:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, sort of. This is a document where Apple is arguing about changes to the DMCA and is not a statement of policy.

That doesn't make any sense. Apple wasn't arguing that the DMCA should be changed to make jailbreaking illegal; they were claiming that jailbreaking is illegal under the DMCA and under plain old copyright law.

A "statement of policy" would be meaningless here anyway. Legality isn't defined by a private company's policies, it's defined by the legislature and the courts.

If this is their sole/primary objection, I fault them in the same way I fault anyone who makes a big deal out of some minor thing.

It's a "minor thing" that in order to run certain programs on your phone, you have to do something that -- according to the phone manufacturer -- is against the law?

Of course, even if Apple's interpretation of the law is correct, the chances of any individual getting sued for this is vanishingly small. But you could say the same about P2P piracy. I wouldn't fault anyone for downloading a song from Amazon instead of The Pirate Bay because of the legal risk either, even though the risk is negligible.

That's overstating things a bit much, though.

Not really: Android and Windows Mobile phones are readily available.

--
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.

Re:You have to assume Google is lying by Thing+1 · 2009-08-23 14:11 · Score: 1

iPhone developers are bound by contract with Apple not to make information available to the public about communications with Apple over the app review.

Why does it seem to me like this is a shroud of secrecy to protect wrong-doing, rather than something honest (etc)?

Is perhaps the case that Apple is giving different deals to different developers, and they don't want each other to know about it?

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Re:upgrade versus... by VGPowerlord · 2009-08-23 14:27 · Score: 1

If I was still using the Mac OS that I had in 2002, it would essentially be unusable.
But you just said you were being charged for "service packs"--clearly that's not the case, then, since so much has changed in the intermediate versions that software is no longer always compatible.
What you're really complaining about is stagnation on the Windows side--you didn't upgrade because the turd they shipped after four years didn't change anything.

Incidentally, try finding software for Windows that doesn't say it requires Windows XP SP1 or newer (or for newer software XP SP2 or newer).

Even Windows service packs change the OS internals enough so that old software won't run on it. For example, iTunes 32-bit for Windows requires "Windows XP Service Pack 2 or later, or 32-bit editions of Windows Vista."

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

Usable is not used by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 14:41 · Score: 1

It doesn't supplant anything. Your original voice mail is still usuable and tied to your original number, which is also still usuable along with your original contacts.

Yes they are still USABLE. The point is that after you get GV, they are not USED because they are all hidden behind the facade of the GV number. It's the whole reason you'd want to use it, after all. And that is the part Apple is not sure about because it does essentially make redundant a number of features of the phone.

I'm all for them accepting the app but I can see the internal logic as to why they are reluctant - even if I disagree with that logic.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Usable is not used by RedK · 2009-08-24 09:08 · Score: 1

Nope, wrong again, GV Mobile doesn't hide any of the original features. It doesn't hide the original phone app. Nothing is hidden. Nothing is supplanted. GV Mobile adds features completely separately.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM

Re:babies by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 14:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I invite you to study the concept of ownership. If I pay $600 for a piece of hardware, I have every right to do whatever I want with it.Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.

Note that you only bought a right-to-use-license that came with the hardware.

He bought the hardware. Yes, bought it. If he doesn't have the right to do with it as he pleases, then he does not truly own it. He can put the damn thing in a furnace and burn it to a crisp if he wanted to, and Apple would have no standing to say anything about it. Nor, frankly, would they care, since they already got his money. However, in that device is some copyrighted firmware that has some license restrictions attached. But we're not even talking about the phone here! We're talking about Apple's policies regarding software submitted to the App Store, and the reasons why they accept or reject specific applications. The phone itself is largely irrelevant to this discussion: it's just the place where the software runs. Whether or not it gets there is the question.

Would you so blithely accept this nonsense if it was your precious Macintosh that was the subject of Apple's iron-fisted control? Would you like it if Apple has the right to approve or disapprove what software you could run on your personal computer? I suspect you (and every other Mac owner on the planet) would rise up and slay Apple's management if they tried anything like that. Keep this in mind: the iPhone (and any other comparable smartphone) is not a phone. Not any more. They're computers, no more and no less, and telling people what they can or can not run on their own computers is a big no-no. In the corporate world, sure ... the company owns the phone, not you, and if they wish they have the right to tell you what you can do with it. It's even worse in Apple's case since, as I understand it, they require you to purchase the phone outright: it's not like the typical subsidized deal

Re:The Steve Jobs method of living? by irtza · 2009-08-23 15:01 · Score: 1

iProphet may currently be cooler than profit.net but both totally suck.

--
When all else fails, try.

Re:Talk about bias! by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 15:16 · Score: 1

Perhaps they were legal -- Apple has claimed jailbreaking is against the law.

Indeed, so is speeding. Everyone obeys that too...

Perhaps those were his reasons. If so then in the future he'd be well served listing those instead of made up ones. Frankly I have more faith in him than you do though and I'm sure his reasons were more technical.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:The Steve Jobs method of living? by pixelslinger · 2009-08-23 15:33 · Score: 1

iProfit?

Re:Talk about bias! by Mr2001 · 2009-08-23 15:37 · Score: 1

Indeed, so is speeding. Everyone obeys that too...

Of course they don't, just like people don't avoid jailbreaking just because Apple says it's illegal.

But you've accidentally found a grain of truth here: drivers do tend to prefer roads where the speed limits are higher, rather than speeding illegally on roads with lower limits. I would rather drive 60 MPH on the freeway, where it's legal, than on a side street where it isn't.

Frankly I have more faith in him than you do though and I'm sure his reasons were more technical.

Oh, really? So that's what you meant when you said "But don't pretend [your reasons] are technical because at the core they are not. There's nothing wrong with buying something based on emotion but it is wrong to claim cold hard technical fact when it is not so." ;)

--
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.

No forbidden apps by AT&T??? What about NetSha by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 15:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

Interesting that Apple doesn't say anything about... what was it "NetShare?" that they refused on behalf of AT&T... seems that they have removed any mention of tethering being a no no, now that they have included it into the last update.

Reno Them All by irving47 · 2009-08-23 15:58 · Score: 1

I love Mac OS X. I will probably to continue to upgrade my iPhone until Android has lots more apps and better phones.
I will continue to buy iMacs or Mac minis as my primary computer... HOWEVER, I hope that first the FCC and then the DOJ reams Apple a new one and then splits them up into at least 3 or 4 pieces.

--
I had a sucky sig.

Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl by MassacrE · 2009-08-23 16:02 · Score: 1

It's not your (or Apple's) phone. Once I've bought it, it's my phone, and if I want to change how it works, I can do that.

What is your point? What is stopping you from changing how it works today? Do you need a link to a jailbreaking site?

Re:You have to assume Google is lying by mysidia · 2009-08-23 16:16 · Score: 1

It's possible. In that case, by keeping the deals they make to different developers secret, they will have better negotiating power.

But this could also be more about Apple wanting control of what the media journalists, bloggers, and commenters on internet forums can say about Apple, their policies, and decisions. (E.g. the secrecy requirements may be "defensive" in nature, standard language they could use for all developer tools, possibly)

For example, if Google revealed certain information, it could result in the media publishing critical things about Apple.

Apple is very sensitive and aggressive in controlling their public image, and they are well known for their secrecy.

They are also well known for sending armies of lawyers at web sites or people revealing information they don't want puiblished, or that are excessively critical of them. Their tools include cease and decist letters, DMCA notices, threats to sue, and actual lawsuits....

Examples in recent years:

Apple Computer ordered to pay more than $750k in attorney fees and court costs in a case that pitted the electronics giant against a group of online journalists who posted information about an unreleased Apple product on the Web.
Apple Broke the law by lying about Steve Jobs' health
Apple product failure results in gagging order
Apple Lawyers set sights on new prey (after sending cease-and-decist letters to "Podcasting" websites over alleged dilution of the "iPod" mark)
Apple Lawyers bully bloggers over iPhone skins
Apple Lawyers Tried To Cover-Up Exploding iPod Stories,
Microsoft Cows To Apple Lawyers, Changes 'Laptop Hunters' Ad
Apple's lawyers shut down rumor site, 2 (Think Secret)
Apple lawyers nix box pix
Apple's lawyers attack everyone over iPhone icons - "Apple's lawyers also sent letters to journalists who simply reported on the fact that the skins were available."
Apple's lawyers threaten fake Steve jobs (Parody site)
Apple sued for threatening fan wiki - 2
Apple sues Victoria School - over the use of a logo that is shaped like an Apple. [...] students are now afraid to give their teachers apples now because of the fruitâ(TM)s striking resemblance to the company logo.
Apple Lawyers shutting down Iowa Bar's iPod Mondays
Apple Cease-and-Decists Stupidity Leak
A

Re:upgrade versus... by VGPowerlord · 2009-08-23 17:22 · Score: 1

I specifically chose an Apple product to point out that even Apple's Windows products wouldn't work on the original release of Windows XP.

iTunes just happened to be the first one I checked.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

It's a telephone by FranTaylor · 2009-08-23 18:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Didn't the FCC rule a long time ago that the telephone company cannot place restrictions on what a customer hooks up to the phone service?

Don't tell me it's not a telephone. It is sold as a telephone and it comes with telephone service. That makes it a telephone.

Re:Talk about bias! by SuperKendall · 2009-08-23 18:58 · Score: 1

drivers do tend to prefer roads where the speed limits are higher, rather than speeding illegally on roads with lower limits

You've made a false assumption. People tend to drive at a natural speed. So they seek roads where they can go faster, regardless of the limits - a side road during rush hour for example. Limits rarely enter into it.

I would rather drive 60 MPH on the freeway, where it's legal, than on a side street where it isn't.

I drive 60MPH on roads rated for 40MPH, when they are dual lane median divided roads. I take such routes because it is actually faster more consistently than the highway.

Oh, really? So that's what you meant when you said "But don't pretend [your reasons] are technical because at the core they are not.

Yep, pretty much. Not the technical reasons he gave anyway... But certainly closer to technical than "I'm afraid of breaking the law".

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:upgrade versus... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:45 · Score: 1

>>>No, they're not. An update is a minor patch. An upgrade is a new product. You might use them interchangeably, but you'd be wrong.

According to who? When were you elected English's policeman to define which words mean what? (And no a dictionary is not the ultimate authority - I don't recall anyone electing Mr.Webster as English's policeman either.) If I read aloud a passage from Chaucer: "This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle, And God it woot, that it is litel wonder; Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder," would you proclaim that I'm an idiot who doesn't use proper English?

POINT: Language is mutable and changeable. It's why if an Englishman asks you, "Would you like a fag?" you shouldn't punch him in the mouth, but instead say, "No thanks I do not smoke." English language is not as fixed as you believe it to be.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:upgrade versus... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:48 · Score: 1

>>>try finding software for Windows that doesn't say it requires Windows XP SP1

Firefox doesn't have that requirement. In fact it still runs on the ancient Windows98 - not officially of course, but it does work on my laptop. That's an 11-year-old OS. In contrast a Mac won't run Firefox on anything older than 4 years, which is why Macs are expensive - they have forced upgrades which cost mucho deneiro.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:upgrade versus... by commodore64_love · 2009-08-23 20:54 · Score: 1

I would agree with that statement, but my G4 Mac came with a single-button mouse which really slows me down. I get frustrated with the lack of right button context menus, and yes I could upgrade to a 2-button mouse, but that's yet another $expense$ incurred by the Lexus..... er, Apple luxury brand. :-)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:upgrade versus... by tcr · 2009-08-24 01:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Chaucer came up with woot?

Awesome!
:-)

--

Information wants to be beer.

Re:upgrade versus... by g0at · 2009-08-24 04:42 · Score: 1

I guess you're just trolling here. But come on. When you buy a box of MS Windows, are you expecting it to come with a mouse, and every other piece of hardware or accessory that you personally deem necessary?

I hated the one-button mouse too. But I thought we were talking about the OS.

If a one-button mouse included in the box with the computer presents too much of a barrier for you to accept using a superior OS, well, that's your prerogative I guess!

(This argument is like saying that roads are unusable, because pedestrians cross them once in awhile, thereby forcing the driver to make an unacceptably circuitous route on other roads. The sensible person would simply tolerate the 10 second delay for the pedestrian's departure, and then continue on.)

--
myselfmusic

Slashdot Mirror

Apple, Google, AT&T Respond To the FCC Over Google Voice

240 of 326 comments (clear)