The article itself states that they knew that iBooks was in development.
Where does it state that? Are you referring to this?
"Apple's iBooks was already in development when we talked to the company and it certainly must have known that the future plans would doom us to failure," the company said.
That doesn't state that the developer knew iBooks was in development, that states that Apple knew that iBooks was in development. Please take the time to comprehend what you are reading.
Amazon released the Kindle App in June of 2010. iBooks was released January 2010.
The iFlow reader? December 2010
Citation needed. Maybe you were looking at this link. Note the version being released as 4.1. How about you look a little deeper next time? Here is a MacWorld March 2009 review of three e-reader apps, iFlow reader being among them. iFlow Reader is likely older then that review date.
As well, iBooks was ANNOUNCED in Jan 2010, and RELEASED mid 2010, with either the iOS 4.0 release, or one of it's updates.
So while it may not have been their intention when they STARTED the company & development, by the time of release they WERE competing with both. More specifically, they were competing with entrenched competition.
Absolutely false as shown above.
Your argument is invalid. Please spend 2 minutes doing research instead of believing everything the media tells you to.
If you're going to try to debunk someone and turn the phrase, you might want to make sure your information is accurate. That takes longer then 2 minutes. Once again, Your "facts" are false, and your argument is invalid. There was no entrenched competition from either Apple OR Amazon, and it would appear that iFlow beat them both to the iOS by more then a year.
Apple is raping developers and Google is raping your privacy. Never thought I'd consider moving back to Windows Mobile:(
You think Apple isn't raping your privacy? Why do you think they locked down reporting user data in the iOS? It certainly wasn't to protect user data, it was so Apple can charge for that information.
Wired spells it out pretty well.No company outside of Apple can gather data or metrics from an application. Do you want to use that kind of data? Enter iAD. Who do you think is collecting money from iAd?
Mod me down, put a tinfoil hat on me, doesn't make it any less true.
Exactly which iOS device is SUPPOSED to be a computer? There are phones. There are iPods. There are tablets. Not a single iOS device is marketed as a computer.
And what made a businessperson decide to compete against Apple AND Amazon in the same marketspace?
Sorry, but these developers were fucking retarded, and they got their ass handed to them by the big players.
Capitalism 101
Except they didn't decide to compete against Apple AND Amazon in the same marketplace. They were selling ebooks on the iOS before Apple was. I can't be sure but they likely were doing it before Amazon entered. Your argument is invalid. Please read and try again.
you need to play their game. buy in all you pay a hefty fee. buy through the website and ZERO fee.
I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges, but that really doesn't contrast well enough. Amazon is doing well. They've been in the ebook reader for years. Before they released their iOS kindle app, they already had a delivery platform. They already had the bandwidth. It was already set up for their multi-billion dollar company.
These are resources that a small developer doesn't have. They were making minor profits as it was, purchasing the server space and bandwidth may have been out of their budget, and then you have to develop a storefront and payment processing system. These are not minor things. And they are certainly not "ZERO fee".
My sympathy is limited. What the hell did they expect?
The problem is when the gatekeeper decides to enter the selling ebooks market, and they impose a fee AND they tell you how much you can sell ebooks for. At that point, Apple is no longer a simple gatekeeper.
What are we, 5 years old? Don't blame Apple for the failure of your business. Don't like the iBookstore rules? Publish your eBooks on Android instead. Or publish on your own & other web sites in PDF or ePub formats. There are tons of alternatives.
That argument would make sense, provided Apple didn't change the rules in the middle of the game. This company started up before these rules. They were fine under the old rules. They invested time and money under the old rules. Then Apple changes the rules, effectively making Apple the only company capable of turning a profit on ebooks.
Apple is raping developers and Google is raping your privacy. Never thought I'd consider moving back to Windows Mobile:(
You think Apple isn't raping your privacy? Why do you think they locked down reporting user data in the iOS? It certainly wasn't to protect user data, it was so Apple can charge for that information.
Smells like capitalism to me.
Your business failed.
C'est la vie.
Their business didn't fail. They weren't even simply priced out of the market. It was a combination of pricing and fees. Yet the fees affect only non-Apple apps, giving Apple one heck of an advantage. Apple can price lower and still profit, while non Apple companies can't compete at the same price because of the %30 fee that Apple demands. With Apple able to data-mine all the statistics and money that flow through the iOS and Apple's servers, they're REALLY got an advantage that no other company would have. I would suspect a lawsuit will eventually come out of this (not this particular company), but it probably wouldn't go far.
They invested significantly in Apple, had a *slightly* profitable business going. Then Apple effectively goes into "price-fixing" anything on the iOS platform, saying no-one can charge more then they do. As well, anything purchased on an iOS device will have to sacrifice %30 on the altar of Jobs. So:
1: a business starts up an app on [insert iOS device here]
2: business starts raking in profits
3: Apple notices, develops it's own app, as well as negotiating lower prices for itself.
4: Apple prices other business right out of it's market, due to %30 fee that affects everyone but Apple.
5: Profit
No ??????, it's pretty much cut and dry, and especially so now that Apple controls all the data mining from their iOS. This alone allows them to choose their battles, because they can see where the money flows. They can choose to try to take %30 of the profit, or all of it.
Earlier today, Apple's VP of software technology, Guy L. 'Bud' Tribble appeared before a congressional hearing on mobile privacy to address concerns that were first brought to the forefront following the 'location tracking' controversy that emerged a few weeks ago.
How did you do it? Can you do it again without it being discovered? We would like to introduce you to your contact at the FBI.
Did they promote Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights? Or did they merely promote it as a tool to download music and videos?
The former is like touting your guns as a great way to take people's jewelry and get rid of obnoxious spouses. The latter is like proclaiming that your guns are really good at killing, and it's up to you to figure out that there are both legal and illegal times to kill.
Some of the claims (from referenced material of TFA, not from a court document):
CNET Editorial Staff Created MANY Instructional Videos for P2P software for years. CLEARLY Showing Copyrighted Songs were used to demonstrate the software.
Cnet had editorial Articles ( Many Shown Here in this Blog) featuring comparison tests to determine the Best p2p Software FEATURING Known Copyrighted Artists Names such as Britney Spears and Metallica WITH INLINE HOT LINKS to the download pages for the test subjects
CNET Editors RATED the Software with glowing Reviews often with Copyrighted songs Mentioned by Name or Shown in Sample Screen Shots.
They may not have outright stated "pirate music! download music illegally!" or the like, but this might be enough to land them in hot water.
It's so easy to understand why you're clueless because you don't read.
The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
If CNET promoted Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights, and this is proven in court, CNET is going to be paying out. It's not simply that it can violate copyrights, it's that it was made to do so. Since you bring the gun analogy up, lets reapply it after reading: It would be similar to a gun company advertising their guns as being especially suited for gas station stickups, and another model for bank theft.
The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
It's not a matter of how the software can be used, it's a matter of how the software was being promoted. Advertising "Download this software and share documents with your friends" is different from promoting "Download this software and get the latest hits from well known music artists A, B, and C." When you promote the software as a tool to violate copyright, you can't claim that it's an unintentional way for the software to be used.
for its use. It's the theory of selling guns, while immoral by some people's standards, doesn't pull the trigger-- purchasers pull the trigger.
If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
This guy is merely enriching the lawyers that talked him into it..... and this too, will soon pass.
FTFA
The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
If this pans out in court, this won't simply "pass", unless there is a settlement involved. They are alleging that CNET didn't simply distribute PTP file sharing software, but that they encouraged it's use for sharing copyrighted music, highlighting big name (by their standards, not mine) artists in screenshots. This detail is huge, and likely the lynchpin of the entire case.
They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"
The old adage applies "It takes one to know one." Sony isn't professional or highly sophisticated, and they wouldn't know what that looked like if it hacked their network and stole all their data...
Actually, if the attack truly had been so professional, so sophisticated, Sony would never have known about it.
Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.
Meanwhile in reality:
Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony attacking a hacker in a hopeless attempt to control information that had already slipped far out of it's control in federal court in San Francisco.
Robot does what it was programmed to do. Film at 11.
In other news:
Mac fanboys still arrogant hippies.
Windows fanboys still wearing pocket protectors.
Linux fanboys still have 6 digit Slashdot accounts.
They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"
The old adage applies "It takes one to know one." Sony isn't professional or highly sophisticated, and they wouldn't know what that looked like if it hacked their network and stole all their data...
I had an incredibly insightful comment, but I forgot it while waiting 2ms for the comment interface to load. I remembered and forgot it again during the 10 seconds it took the preview to render.
Slashdot Mirror
The article itself states that they knew that iBooks was in development.
Where does it state that? Are you referring to this?
"Apple's iBooks was already in development when we talked to the company and it certainly must have known that the future plans would doom us to failure," the company said.
That doesn't state that the developer knew iBooks was in development, that states that Apple knew that iBooks was in development. Please take the time to comprehend what you are reading.
Amazon released the Kindle App in June of 2010. iBooks was released January 2010.
The iFlow reader? December 2010
Citation needed. Maybe you were looking at this link. Note the version being released as 4.1. How about you look a little deeper next time? Here is a MacWorld March 2009 review of three e-reader apps, iFlow reader being among them. iFlow Reader is likely older then that review date.
As well, iBooks was ANNOUNCED in Jan 2010, and RELEASED mid 2010, with either the iOS 4.0 release, or one of it's updates.
So while it may not have been their intention when they STARTED the company & development, by the time of release they WERE competing with both. More specifically, they were competing with entrenched competition.
Absolutely false as shown above.
Your argument is invalid. Please spend 2 minutes doing research instead of believing everything the media tells you to.
If you're going to try to debunk someone and turn the phrase, you might want to make sure your information is accurate. That takes longer then 2 minutes. Once again, Your "facts" are false, and your argument is invalid. There was no entrenched competition from either Apple OR Amazon, and it would appear that iFlow beat them both to the iOS by more then a year.
Apple is raping developers and Google is raping your privacy. Never thought I'd consider moving back to Windows Mobile :(
You think Apple isn't raping your privacy? Why do you think they locked down reporting user data in the iOS? It certainly wasn't to protect user data, it was so Apple can charge for that information.
Wired spells it out pretty well.No company outside of Apple can gather data or metrics from an application. Do you want to use that kind of data? Enter iAD. Who do you think is collecting money from iAd?
Mod me down, put a tinfoil hat on me, doesn't make it any less true.
Exactly which iOS device is SUPPOSED to be a computer? There are phones. There are iPods. There are tablets. Not a single iOS device is marketed as a computer.
Well...not yet anyway, but you can see where it's headed..
http://www.apple.com/macosx/lion/
And what made a businessperson decide to compete against Apple AND Amazon in the same marketspace?
Sorry, but these developers were fucking retarded, and they got their ass handed to them by the big players.
Capitalism 101
Except they didn't decide to compete against Apple AND Amazon in the same marketplace. They were selling ebooks on the iOS before Apple was. I can't be sure but they likely were doing it before Amazon entered. Your argument is invalid. Please read and try again.
Yet Amazon is doing well.
you need to play their game. buy in all you pay a hefty fee. buy through the website and ZERO fee.
I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges, but that really doesn't contrast well enough. Amazon is doing well. They've been in the ebook reader for years. Before they released their iOS kindle app, they already had a delivery platform. They already had the bandwidth. It was already set up for their multi-billion dollar company.
These are resources that a small developer doesn't have. They were making minor profits as it was, purchasing the server space and bandwidth may have been out of their budget, and then you have to develop a storefront and payment processing system. These are not minor things. And they are certainly not "ZERO fee".
That tinfoil hat looks good on you.
I could say the same about that apple sticker on your car. =D
...you must pay the gatekeeper.
My sympathy is limited. What the hell did they expect?
The problem is when the gatekeeper decides to enter the selling ebooks market, and they impose a fee AND they tell you how much you can sell ebooks for. At that point, Apple is no longer a simple gatekeeper.
What are we, 5 years old? Don't blame Apple for the failure of your business. Don't like the iBookstore rules? Publish your eBooks on Android instead. Or publish on your own & other web sites in PDF or ePub formats. There are tons of alternatives.
That argument would make sense, provided Apple didn't change the rules in the middle of the game. This company started up before these rules. They were fine under the old rules. They invested time and money under the old rules. Then Apple changes the rules, effectively making Apple the only company capable of turning a profit on ebooks.
Absolutely blame Apple.
Apple is raping developers and Google is raping your privacy. Never thought I'd consider moving back to Windows Mobile :(
You think Apple isn't raping your privacy? Why do you think they locked down reporting user data in the iOS? It certainly wasn't to protect user data, it was so Apple can charge for that information.
Smells like capitalism to me. Your business failed. C'est la vie.
Their business didn't fail. They weren't even simply priced out of the market. It was a combination of pricing and fees. Yet the fees affect only non-Apple apps, giving Apple one heck of an advantage.
Apple can price lower and still profit, while non Apple companies can't compete at the same price because of the %30 fee that Apple demands. With Apple able to data-mine all the statistics and money that flow through the iOS and Apple's servers, they're REALLY got an advantage that no other company would have. I would suspect a lawsuit will eventually come out of this (not this particular company), but it probably wouldn't go far.
They invested significantly in Apple, had a *slightly* profitable business going. Then Apple effectively goes into "price-fixing" anything on the iOS platform, saying no-one can charge more then they do. As well, anything purchased on an iOS device will have to sacrifice %30 on the altar of Jobs. So:
1: a business starts up an app on [insert iOS device here]
2: business starts raking in profits
3: Apple notices, develops it's own app, as well as negotiating lower prices for itself.
4: Apple prices other business right out of it's market, due to %30 fee that affects everyone but Apple.
5: Profit
No ??????, it's pretty much cut and dry, and especially so now that Apple controls all the data mining from their iOS. This alone allows them to choose their battles, because they can see where the money flows. They can choose to try to take %30 of the profit, or all of it.
Earlier today, Apple's VP of software technology, Guy L. 'Bud' Tribble appeared before a congressional hearing on mobile privacy to address concerns that were first brought to the forefront following the 'location tracking' controversy that emerged a few weeks ago.
How did you do it?
Can you do it again without it being discovered?
We would like to introduce you to your contact at the FBI.
Did they promote Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights? Or did they merely promote it as a tool to download music and videos?
The former is like touting your guns as a great way to take people's jewelry and get rid of obnoxious spouses. The latter is like proclaiming that your guns are really good at killing, and it's up to you to figure out that there are both legal and illegal times to kill.
Some of the claims (from referenced material of TFA, not from a court document):
CNET Editorial Staff Created MANY Instructional Videos for P2P software for years. CLEARLY Showing Copyrighted Songs were used to demonstrate the software.
Cnet had editorial Articles ( Many Shown Here in this Blog) featuring comparison tests to determine the Best p2p Software FEATURING Known Copyrighted Artists Names such as Britney Spears and Metallica WITH INLINE HOT LINKS to the download pages for the test subjects
CNET Editors RATED the Software with glowing Reviews often with Copyrighted songs Mentioned by Name or Shown in Sample Screen Shots.
They may not have outright stated "pirate music! download music illegally!" or the like, but this might be enough to land them in hot water.
The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
If CNET promoted Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights, and this is proven in court, CNET is going to be paying out. It's not simply that it can violate copyrights, it's that it was made to do so. Since you bring the gun analogy up, lets reapply it after reading: It would be similar to a gun company advertising their guns as being especially suited for gas station stickups, and another model for bank theft.
The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
It's not a matter of how the software can be used, it's a matter of how the software was being promoted. Advertising "Download this software and share documents with your friends" is different from promoting "Download this software and get the latest hits from well known music artists A, B, and C." When you promote the software as a tool to violate copyright, you can't claim that it's an unintentional way for the software to be used.
for its use. It's the theory of selling guns, while immoral by some people's standards, doesn't pull the trigger-- purchasers pull the trigger.
If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
This guy is merely enriching the lawyers that talked him into it..... and this too, will soon pass.
FTFA
The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
If this pans out in court, this won't simply "pass", unless there is a settlement involved. They are alleging that CNET didn't simply distribute PTP file sharing software, but that they encouraged it's use for sharing copyrighted music, highlighting big name (by their standards, not mine) artists in screenshots. This detail is huge, and likely the lynchpin of the entire case.
Disclaimer: IANAL
...don't take any lessons from anyone employed by Sony.
The problme was with unpatched Apache - maybe if they had been running IIS they would have been OK :)
I thought Apache was only meant for casino websites ran off the reservation.
They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"
The old adage applies "It takes one to know one." Sony isn't professional or highly sophisticated, and they wouldn't know what that looked like if it hacked their network and stole all their data...
Actually, if the attack truly had been so professional, so sophisticated, Sony would never have known about it.
Exactly.
What is this 6 digit Slashdot account you speak of ???
touché!
Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.
Meanwhile in reality:
Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony attacking a hacker in a hopeless attempt to control information that had already slipped far out of it's control in federal court in San Francisco.
Robot does what it was programmed to do. Film at 11.
In other news:
Mac fanboys still arrogant hippies.
Windows fanboys still wearing pocket protectors.
Linux fanboys still have 6 digit Slashdot accounts.
They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"
The old adage applies "It takes one to know one." Sony isn't professional or highly sophisticated, and they wouldn't know what that looked like if it hacked their network and stole all their data...
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Sony.
I had an incredibly insightful comment, but I forgot it while waiting 2ms for the comment interface to load. I remembered and forgot it again during the 10 seconds it took the preview to render.