It's not like they aren't going to figure out who lost their prototype iPhone, and since it's doubtful any of us know this guy, stating his name makes no difference.
Any company who doesn't understand the benefit of educating their employees will be left behind, due to having a constant stream of entry-level employees. Nobody wants to work for a penny-pinching jerk.
For those people who take the training and leave, that's just part of the overhead of running a company. You could be a jerk and require employees to pay for it up front, then reimburse them if they stay on for 90 days or so, but it's such a small amount of money in the big picture, only small companies would even notice the impact.
My company has actually understood the benefit of having employees who are up to date on their job skills. The little bit of money it costs to let employees do it at work is far cheaper than paying somebody to go to school, or hiring a new person.
Well then, now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for you well planned rebuttal. True, I did attribute much more psychoanalysis to your post than warranted, but when I read it in the context of the previous hour of "look at those Mac homos with their mochafrappachinos thinking they are better than everyone else" posts, I misunderstood your comment about the "love fest". I actually agree that the keynote addresses are creepy (they didn't used to be so creepy), but I didn't understand your post as addressing the keynote speeches the first time I read it. Well played.
Censors would be the ones working for the FCC. Companies might hire "censors" for self-policing, but that which they are policing are materials that the FCC have told them will get them fines. Not many people censor themselves (Wal-mart a notable exception) on their own...there's nothing to gain monetarily.
Some Kindle books are available for the iPad. "iCon" does not appear to be one of them.
So are we to presume the other Kindle books that are not available for the iPad have been banned by Apple? Or maybe they come from different publishers, not all of whom have reached distribution agreements with Apple yet?
I love these sort of posts...they say more about the insecurities of the author than they do the users of iStuff.
Just because I'm using my MacBook at the Starbucks inside of my local Borders bookstore doesn't mean I'm a pretentious, poetry readin'-frappmochachino-sippin' hipster. It means I'm a normal person who has a laptop, drinks coffee and likes books and can get all of this from one store that also has a free wireless connection. Guess what, I really don't care what people think about my MacBook when I'm using it in public, contrary to posts like yours that are all-to-frequently seen here on slashdot. By this logic, am I to assume that Dell laptop users are just embarrassed when they have to use their non iStuff in public?
It's my understanding that it is your device, and you are free to put anything you want on it. It's not Apple's job to make it EASY for you to do so, if they don't want to. You could always buy the SDK and make your own apps, or you could jailbreak your phone and put whatever you want on it.
I tire easily of people who can't figure out (worse yet, make the false claims it can't be done) the workarounds for iPod's not using iTunes and getting software on their iPhones that aren't from the app store, especially on a tech forum like this.
I learned from this site how to use an iPod without iTunes, how to play iTunes music with Apple DRM in Windows Media Center (instead of iTunes) and how to use the video camera function in my G2 iPhone. If you don't like that Apple doesn't make all this stuff easy for you to do out of the box, then you must not want Apple to stay in business much longer.
They don't have a monopoly over what gets sold on the iTunes store? They don't have a monopoly over iPads? iPhones?
That is the stupidest thing I've read on slashdot this month.
McDonalds now has a monopoly on Big Macs. Who would have ever thought that!? Microsoft has a monopoly on Win7 and Nike has a monopoly on Shox. Gatorade has a monopoly on "Grape"...oh wait, your argument breaks down there.
What an utterly confounding misunderstanding of the word "monopoly". Brand identity is not the same thing as monopoly.
"Luckily" you found a way to manage your device the you own the way that you want. Or you could have asked your wife for something that doesn't come out of the box wanting to use iTunes as its library management tool?
[offtopic] Reminds me of the Tea Party people who call Obama a "career politician" when just 18 months ago their mantra was he didn't have enough experience to be President. [/offtopic]
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
No, the US Government telling Wal-mart they can't carry Glen Beck's Arguing with Idiots book is censorship. Wal-mart not carrying Obama's The Audacity of Hope is just Wal-mart not taking on the cost of a slow mover. Wal-mart not carrying Fuck the Police is just Wal-mart pandering to their base.
But the US government is not allowed to censor whereas corporations have no such limitation. Therefore censorship as a "bad thing" only applies to governments who do so.
Censorship is a term reserved for governments. A private corporation saying they don't want their devices used to ridicule public figures is not "censorship".
Well I'm with you until the "popping pills" part. Unless this really happened, I highly doubt any organization would be THAT stupid.
Well, actually, once I was pulled over for nothing, then ticketed for no proof of insurance. When I was asked why I was pulled over, the cop said, "you don't have proof of insurance". Sigh.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like they aren't going to figure out who lost their prototype iPhone, and since it's doubtful any of us know this guy, stating his name makes no difference.
Shouldn't the title read "iPhone Looser"? This is slashdot after all!
and I still haven't won. I guess World of Warcraft is a legit art form.
Insightful? Really? How about just mean-spirited?
Any company who doesn't understand the benefit of educating their employees will be left behind, due to having a constant stream of entry-level employees. Nobody wants to work for a penny-pinching jerk.
For those people who take the training and leave, that's just part of the overhead of running a company. You could be a jerk and require employees to pay for it up front, then reimburse them if they stay on for 90 days or so, but it's such a small amount of money in the big picture, only small companies would even notice the impact.
My company has actually understood the benefit of having employees who are up to date on their job skills. The little bit of money it costs to let employees do it at work is far cheaper than paying somebody to go to school, or hiring a new person.
Touche.
Well then, now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for you well planned rebuttal. True, I did attribute much more psychoanalysis to your post than warranted, but when I read it in the context of the previous hour of "look at those Mac homos with their mochafrappachinos thinking they are better than everyone else" posts, I misunderstood your comment about the "love fest". I actually agree that the keynote addresses are creepy (they didn't used to be so creepy), but I didn't understand your post as addressing the keynote speeches the first time I read it. Well played.
Censors would be the ones working for the FCC. Companies might hire "censors" for self-policing, but that which they are policing are materials that the FCC have told them will get them fines. Not many people censor themselves (Wal-mart a notable exception) on their own...there's nothing to gain monetarily.
Some Kindle books are available for the iPad. "iCon" does not appear to be one of them.
So are we to presume the other Kindle books that are not available for the iPad have been banned by Apple? Or maybe they come from different publishers, not all of whom have reached distribution agreements with Apple yet?
The App store has a MSNBC app for political cartoons. How is that any different?
It's different because the summary doesn't actually know why Apple rejected the app.
I love these sort of posts...they say more about the insecurities of the author than they do the users of iStuff.
Just because I'm using my MacBook at the Starbucks inside of my local Borders bookstore doesn't mean I'm a pretentious, poetry readin'-frappmochachino-sippin' hipster. It means I'm a normal person who has a laptop, drinks coffee and likes books and can get all of this from one store that also has a free wireless connection. Guess what, I really don't care what people think about my MacBook when I'm using it in public, contrary to posts like yours that are all-to-frequently seen here on slashdot. By this logic, am I to assume that Dell laptop users are just embarrassed when they have to use their non iStuff in public?
It's my understanding that it is your device, and you are free to put anything you want on it. It's not Apple's job to make it EASY for you to do so, if they don't want to. You could always buy the SDK and make your own apps, or you could jailbreak your phone and put whatever you want on it.
I tire easily of people who can't figure out (worse yet, make the false claims it can't be done) the workarounds for iPod's not using iTunes and getting software on their iPhones that aren't from the app store, especially on a tech forum like this.
I learned from this site how to use an iPod without iTunes, how to play iTunes music with Apple DRM in Windows Media Center (instead of iTunes) and how to use the video camera function in my G2 iPhone. If you don't like that Apple doesn't make all this stuff easy for you to do out of the box, then you must not want Apple to stay in business much longer.
They don't have a monopoly over what gets sold on the iTunes store? They don't have a monopoly over iPads? iPhones?
That is the stupidest thing I've read on slashdot this month.
McDonalds now has a monopoly on Big Macs. Who would have ever thought that!? Microsoft has a monopoly on Win7 and Nike has a monopoly on Shox. Gatorade has a monopoly on "Grape"...oh wait, your argument breaks down there.
What an utterly confounding misunderstanding of the word "monopoly". Brand identity is not the same thing as monopoly.
"Luckily" you found a way to manage your device the you own the way that you want. Or you could have asked your wife for something that doesn't come out of the box wanting to use iTunes as its library management tool?
Apple has a 99.4% marketshare..
In the words of Jim Carey, so you are saying there's still a chance!
[offtopic] Reminds me of the Tea Party people who call Obama a "career politician" when just 18 months ago their mantra was he didn't have enough experience to be President. [/offtopic]
Market share by percentage has nothing to do with a monopoly.
I honestly cannot understand how apple's monopolistic behavior hasn't attracted the same attention that Microsoft's did
It helps by having a good product. When your product sucks AND you have monopolistic behavior, you are just painting a big target on your back.
Plus Apple would actually have to be a monopoly for your comment to make any sense.
Right...As if there weren't plenty of other mobile devices that this app can be developed for.
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
No, the US Government telling Wal-mart they can't carry Glen Beck's Arguing with Idiots book is censorship. Wal-mart not carrying Obama's The Audacity of Hope is just Wal-mart not taking on the cost of a slow mover. Wal-mart not carrying Fuck the Police is just Wal-mart pandering to their base.
But the US government is not allowed to censor whereas corporations have no such limitation. Therefore censorship as a "bad thing" only applies to governments who do so.
You used "visionaries" and "engineers" in the same sentence. Mutually exclusive! Engineers can't do anything without requirements ;-)
... then apple can block apps for any circumstance".
Yep. Welcome to free enterprise.
Censorship is a term reserved for governments. A private corporation saying they don't want their devices used to ridicule public figures is not "censorship".
Well I'm with you until the "popping pills" part. Unless this really happened, I highly doubt any organization would be THAT stupid.
Well, actually, once I was pulled over for nothing, then ticketed for no proof of insurance. When I was asked why I was pulled over, the cop said, "you don't have proof of insurance". Sigh.