Doing a story about "pondering" sounds like a MSN bullshit story. Even though it's more likely to happen, you might as well do a story title "moon may fall into Atlantic tomorrow."
Yes, that Apple involved 3rd parties in the dispute off the bat by cutting off access. It was a great disservice to people who rely on it and have nothing to do with the dispute.
Apple can do what they want to do. That's why I went to Android.
My problem is that Apple is causing problems with 3rd parties that have nothing to do with this dispute. I never commented on whether Dropbox was right or wrong. Apple could of sent an email message that said "This is a TOS violation, fix it." They cut off API users instead. That's the criticism.
I wouldn't care normally. What gets under my skin is cutting off people using Dropbox SDK that have nothing to do with this.
Trivial example: what about photographers using it to upload their work. What if they were working today. They had nothing to do with this. What about people using the SDK to work on files on an office app?
I can understand how it might happen if it's an escalating situation, but causing 3rd parties problem is not the first action to take.
Perhaps. But raising objections in the form of plausible counter theories is valid science.
This is exactly right. However the scientific method says that when the theory isn't backed up by measurements and the evidence that it is to be abandoned. The revolutions like Newton, Kepler, and Einstein all involved the discarding of other systems because they didn't fit the facts. When you're ideas are shown to be incorrect the proper scientific reaction is not to simply scream your ideas louder, and the same thing goes with facts. That's why there are so many of us that are upset right now... it seems that screaming incorrect "facts" louder is what automatically happens in every sphere of life right now. That's why some of us believe we are living in an irrational age.
Actually, that sounds like a part of the report that I can actually agree with, at least in theory.
I have problems with people who copy goods and then mass produce them for profit. That's a far cry from getting mad because some kid downloaded an mp3 file and used it to make an anime video.
Assuming that there is *no* change in the sales, then the worst outcome is that there is no harm and no foul... that's also neglecting the fact that they aren't paying for DRM technology any more.
Look for the other replies to this post for the better outcomes.
It's hard for people that can barely understand what the concept of DRM is... which is a massive majority, unfortunately, which is why the fight against only gets slow traction.
This is typical for me to use them all for ALL my Kindle reads, but I often read kindle in a combination of these:
- My Kindle touch reader. - Kindle app on my new Android Tablet - Kindle app on my Nexus S (especially if I get caught waiting somewhere without my reader) - Kindle cloud on my Work desktop (I use and support Linux for a living) - Kindle cloud on my laptop (also Linux) - Kindle app on my work Mac
This is what the digital revolution is about. I haven't hurt the author one iota and I am using the content in the way that fits my needs. Also, the Kindle "ecosystem" is great for purchased books (not so great, however, for content from other places which is a problem IMHO). There is no reason that all books should drop the DRM crap and even more accessible (include full Linux accessibility... HELLO AMAZON! wake up on this).
I don't fault anyone for making a living. Let me start there.
However, I am not sure that DRM protects a damn thing. Like it says here, the idea itself is flawed. It's also not inherently a technical idea, as the flow of technology is to allow open access to information and it goes against the grain of that. It's a technical idea borne by non-technical people.
DRM is there to protect that mythical money loss of piracy. The arguable point is that the vast majority of people that "pirate" would not or could not pay for your product anyway. You have the group of people who want to read the book buy can't afford it (typified by your college students who get de-DRMed books) and you have the technical group who won't pay for anything ever and are fine with going through hoops to get it for free. *Neither* group is a loss because you never get money from them *ever.* So I would argue you're enabling a whole new group of people to get and pay for the book at what is a very low or nonexistent monetary loss. I think this is good and sane business. DRM has shown is laughably bad at it's primary purpose and wonderfully good at preventing honest people from using property (or a license) that they legally purchased.
I am sure you're not programming a product that is technically broken, but I am also sure you know the idea behind it *is* broken.
I will gladly pay when it's easier to buy your book than it is to get a torrent.
Torrents are *not* easy to deal with, especially for someone with average computer skills. Then half the time you end up getting a Portuguese translation or something so badly formatted you can't read it.
Good quality product at a FAIR price is what the "free market" wants... and the free market is ALWAYS good, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Or it shows that they are willing to take from FOSS and not give anything back, which confirms some of the things we've said all along.
One of the two.
...but I am going to get one now.
Unacceptable... a bookseller doesn't have the right to assert opinion in this manor.
When it's finalized THEN post it.
Doing a story about "pondering" sounds like a MSN bullshit story. Even though it's more likely to happen, you might as well do a story title "moon may fall into Atlantic tomorrow."
Yes, that Apple involved 3rd parties in the dispute off the bat by cutting off access. It was a great disservice to people who rely on it and have nothing to do with the dispute.
Apple can do what they want to do. That's why I went to Android.
My problem is that Apple is causing problems with 3rd parties that have nothing to do with this dispute. I never commented on whether Dropbox was right or wrong. Apple could of sent an email message that said "This is a TOS violation, fix it." They cut off API users instead. That's the criticism.
i'm trying to abandon this thread, but I am confused as how calling Apple corporate bastards in this case makes me an Apple fanboi. I
I wouldn't care normally. What gets under my skin is cutting off people using Dropbox SDK that have nothing to do with this.
Trivial example: what about photographers using it to upload their work. What if they were working today. They had nothing to do with this. What about people using the SDK to work on files on an office app?
I can understand how it might happen if it's an escalating situation, but causing 3rd parties problem is not the first action to take.
It's a good possibility. Getting rid of cloud storage is very counter-intuitive at this point.
It's not even competing with an Apple service... not after June 30 anyway.
Apple is canning idisk. I just had to deal with a user flying off the handle about that yesterday.
This -1 isn't really worthy of reply, but I will do it anyway...
You obviously are setting up a strawman. The problem here isn't seeking profit, it's holding users for ransom.
I think we need an offshoot of the The Fuckwad Theory.
Enough Market Share + Enough Fawning Press Attention on Devices + Gobs of Cash = Corporate Fuckwad.
Seems to be true of Google to some extent, too.
Point missed.
Recap: Apple just used sledgehammer to solve problem that tweezers would of solved.
Conclusion: Apple just acted like a corporate bastard again and held up their user's legitimate business so they could get more cash.
Keep picking from that cherry tree, AC!
Perhaps. But raising objections in the form of plausible counter theories is valid science.
This is exactly right. However the scientific method says that when the theory isn't backed up by measurements and the evidence that it is to be abandoned. The revolutions like Newton, Kepler, and Einstein all involved the discarding of other systems because they didn't fit the facts. When you're ideas are shown to be incorrect the proper scientific reaction is not to simply scream your ideas louder, and the same thing goes with facts. That's why there are so many of us that are upset right now... it seems that screaming incorrect "facts" louder is what automatically happens in every sphere of life right now. That's why some of us believe we are living in an irrational age.
Actually, that sounds like a part of the report that I can actually agree with, at least in theory.
I have problems with people who copy goods and then mass produce them for profit. That's a far cry from getting mad because some kid downloaded an mp3 file and used it to make an anime video.
Assuming that there is *no* change in the sales, then the worst outcome is that there is no harm and no foul... that's also neglecting the fact that they aren't paying for DRM technology any more.
Look for the other replies to this post for the better outcomes.
It's there because most of the people in the suits are idiots. Period.
So you are saying that we should include the publishers in with the *AAs because they are playing the same BS game with creators.
I'd go along with that.
It's hard for people that can barely understand what the concept of DRM is... which is a massive majority, unfortunately, which is why the fight against only gets slow traction.
did you want to win the "i'm a formatting nazi" award today or something.
This is a problem, but enumeration isn't necessary.
that doesn't account for Kindle books that cost more than trade paperback.
it *is not* typical to use all those platforms. way to screw up a good point, genius.
This is typical for me to use them all for ALL my Kindle reads, but I often read kindle in a combination of these:
- My Kindle touch reader.
- Kindle app on my new Android Tablet
- Kindle app on my Nexus S (especially if I get caught waiting somewhere without my reader)
- Kindle cloud on my Work desktop (I use and support Linux for a living)
- Kindle cloud on my laptop (also Linux)
- Kindle app on my work Mac
This is what the digital revolution is about. I haven't hurt the author one iota and I am using the content in the way that fits my needs. Also, the Kindle "ecosystem" is great for purchased books (not so great, however, for content from other places which is a problem IMHO). There is no reason that all books should drop the DRM crap and even more accessible (include full Linux accessibility... HELLO AMAZON! wake up on this).
I don't fault anyone for making a living. Let me start there.
However, I am not sure that DRM protects a damn thing. Like it says here, the idea itself is flawed. It's also not inherently a technical idea, as the flow of technology is to allow open access to information and it goes against the grain of that. It's a technical idea borne by non-technical people.
DRM is there to protect that mythical money loss of piracy. The arguable point is that the vast majority of people that "pirate" would not or could not pay for your product anyway. You have the group of people who want to read the book buy can't afford it (typified by your college students who get de-DRMed books) and you have the technical group who won't pay for anything ever and are fine with going through hoops to get it for free. *Neither* group is a loss because you never get money from them *ever.* So I would argue you're enabling a whole new group of people to get and pay for the book at what is a very low or nonexistent monetary loss. I think this is good and sane business. DRM has shown is laughably bad at it's primary purpose and wonderfully good at preventing honest people from using property (or a license) that they legally purchased.
I am sure you're not programming a product that is technically broken, but I am also sure you know the idea behind it *is* broken.
I will gladly pay when it's easier to buy your book than it is to get a torrent.
Torrents are *not* easy to deal with, especially for someone with average computer skills. Then half the time you end up getting a Portuguese translation or something so badly formatted you can't read it.
Good quality product at a FAIR price is what the "free market" wants... and the free market is ALWAYS good, right?