I agree with the practicality of making something work regardless, but I think the distinction here is the pure volume.
Everyone makes their device work with Windows, because Windows has such a humongous marketshare that there's no choice but to work around Microsoft's flaws in implementing the standard.
Do you really expect Apple to test every router ever released at every firmware level? The volume of released routers multiplied by their firmware revisions makes that pretty much impossible.
I'm assuming those routers with flaws in implementating the standard fail to work with many other devices too (game consoles, phones, etc.) even if they manage to work with Windows. So yes, in this case I don't think it's realistic to blame Apple for not working in every possible environment where the standard is implemented incorrectly. The onus is on the router manufacturer (and ultimately, unfortunately, the end user) to update the router firmware to work correctly.
This sure seems to be true, but they'll be dragged along kicking and screaming. Just like the big music labels started losing ground to independent labels who WERE on the intertubes, so will the big publishers start realizing they're losing ground to the publishers who are supporting ebooks at reasonable prices and "reasonable" levels of DRM (if there is any such thing).
That sounds like a good plan, but would only work if all websites were hosted in the US. As long as we allow access to every other country's internet, it becomes problematic (at best) to keep Bad Things away by prosecuting those that host them.
Agreed that the real issue is china filtering speech criticizing the government, not that china was filtering in general.
Columbine was NOT about being bullied. Harris was a psychopath, he was not bullied, and he was not part of the "trenchcoat mafia". That is all myth spread by the misinformation going around shortly after the incident.
That line seems to resonate with the Slashdot crowd, but I can't recall any case of it actually happening. Columbine was misconstrued as a case of fighting back against bullies around here (including comments below), but that wasn't the motive behind Columbine at all.
It took me way too long to figure out why the "ean li" part was missing from the text. And then I burst out laughing in the office when I finally looked at the username....I hope I don't get voted out of my cubicle for that
I'm sorry that new technology has rendered the movie industry's business/delivery model obsolete. I'm not sorry that they're choosing to litigate instead of innovate.
Back in 2005 maybe, do you really mean that today? You can watch movies online via Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and many other legal methods. It's far from 100%, but it's probably 75% or more of what people want to watch.
Presuming the content they're suing over is available from these other online stores, what's the justification for pirating them? Do you think paying for content whatsoever is an obsolete business model?
Legal methods of consuming content will never take off if people are free to copy it illegally from easily available torrent sites. The damages for infringement are absurd, but I don't think the concept of suing for infringement is inherently wrong.
In fact, sending out $100 settlement lawsuits to discourage illegal infringement sounds a hell of a lot for prodding people into obeying copyright law than publicly destroying a few individuals' financial lives as the RIAA has set out to do. (Or offering settlements in the tens of thousands of dollars)
I think this is a great point, and a great question too.
You expect to put any detergent in your dishwasher, so you would complain if you couldn't. You don't expect to be able to boot Linux on your gaming console (without weird hacks), so you don't complain.
Do people expect to be able to run anything they want on their phones?
I don't, but then I've never owned a "smart phone". Others from the Android or Windows Mobile camp expect to be able to run anything, just like on their desktop. I think this is the philosophical divide causing all the complaints. The iPhone put itself in a strange position straddling that divide with their "half-open" app store.
Although this is comparable to jailbreaking your iPhone, since Nintendo does not support or allow running alternate OSes except through hacks. Jailbreaking your iPhone probably lets you run Firefox on there too.
There's nothing wrong with having a closed system, and nothing illegal about it either.
The reason Microsoft was "evil" and illegal to bundle Internet Explorer (and integrate it in its OS, etc.) is that they had a monopoly on desktop OSes and were using it to take over additional markets and stifle competition.
Other than the evil+illegal parts, it was a very smart business move. It would save costs on their end by not having to support multiple browsers, increase "creative freedom" (they could use the browser anywhere in the OS in any way they want, eg. in Windows Explorer, active desktop, etc.), and of course increase market share of their browser.
These are the reasons Apple is doing the same thing with the iPhone. The only problem with Microsoft doing it was being ruled a monopoly.
Yeah, you're right - I should have said "same thing Microsoft tried to do on Windows". I was referring to the integration of the browser with the OS (remember "active desktop", etc.). Those features did exist in Windows98, and they did not even remotely support alternate browsers. (likewise if you type a url into Windows Explorer). This is the same "technical reason" Apple doesn't want to support alternate browsers in the iPhone.
The explicit blocking of competing browsers is definitely unique to the iPhone (and Wii, etc.).
Just because a rule is a rule, doesn't mean it can't be an evil rule.
Totally agreed, rules can be evil. But having a closed platform isn't particularly evil, and no one thinks it's evil coming from the many other companies with closed platforms we deal with every day.
Perhaps Apple shot themselves in the foot by having a "half-open" platform where they try to pick and choose. If you look at the game consoles, the main way they avoid this is by pricing most companies (and individuals) out of making software for their consoles. If Apple had charged $10,000 per license to make iPhone software and rubber stamped every app, would there be less complaining?
It's only evil if it's a lost investment. (in developing an app you expected to be able to release)
There's nothing evil about having a so-called "monopoly" on your proprietary platform. I'd like to see you start spamming Slashdot with posts about how EVIL Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft (on the Xbox), Amazon (on the Kindle), B&N (whatever theirs is called), and perhaps you could complain about your microwave and dishwasher manufacturers too.
No, closed platforms are not inherently evil whatsoever.
I'm not familiar with the duplicate-functionality they've allowed on the App store, any good examples?
One of the biggest problems with the closed App store is that developers run a huge risk of having their app rejected and "losing" all the development time that went into it. I'd never do something like a web browser (even in the Opera Mini way) without getting approval from Apple before starting development.
If enough toes are stubbed by apple closing the door they may start having problems getting developers to make apps, especially complex ones, for the iPhone.
The point of their "iron control" is to make a good device, instead of making a sloppy device where they have to support other devs' software as part of the core experience. It's a very different approach from open devices, but it has its advantages.
Their browser is tightly integrated into the phone experience. Allowing other browsers would mean creating an API, limiting functionality of their browser to published functionality any browser can interoperate with, and so on. It's a lot of effort to dilute their own device. Clearly not a good idea from their perspective.
It's the exact same thing Microsoft did on Windows. The only problem then was that Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OSes. Controlling the browser market on Windows would have effectively extinguished the internet as an open platform. I don't think there's any risk of that happening from the iPhone having a tightly integrated 1st-party browser on their phone.
Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil.
The obvious question though is did anyone at Opera ask Apple before putting all the effort into creating the browser on the iPhone?
If Opera asked and Apple said "make it and find out the hard way", that would be evil.
If Opera asked and Apple said "We'll reject it. We don't want to support multiple browsers on our proprietary platform", then so be it. It's Opera's own fault if it gets rejected.
If they asked and Apple refused to answer, I'd file that under the first category of "make it and find out the hard way" evilness.
Do you really think the quality difference is due to Microsoft and Sony rejecting low-quality games?
The reason for the shovelware on the Wii and DS is that they're easier to develop games for. Then companies rushed to cash in on their unexpected popularity.
You said yourself that Apple's commercial was about "small upstart" vs "monopoly". What does that have to do with Apple controlling software on their phone? Are you suggesting Apple has a monopoly on the cell phone industry?
Conflating monopoly-control with software-control is quite a stretch. Software-control on custom hardware happens all the time, as with the game industry examples. Monopoly-control has happened two primary times - IBM and Microsoft.
The latter is what Apple's commercial was about, not the former.
The ad was more about IBM being a monopoly than about controlling software environments.
As evidenced by the game industry, there is plenty of room for multiple "walled-garden" systems in the market. And there are many advantages to the walled-garden approach, especially for custom hardware platforms. If you're going to complain about Apple, better start complaining about the other companies doing the exact same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the practicality of making something work regardless, but I think the distinction here is the pure volume.
Everyone makes their device work with Windows, because Windows has such a humongous marketshare that there's no choice but to work around Microsoft's flaws in implementing the standard.
Do you really expect Apple to test every router ever released at every firmware level? The volume of released routers multiplied by their firmware revisions makes that pretty much impossible.
I'm assuming those routers with flaws in implementating the standard fail to work with many other devices too (game consoles, phones, etc.) even if they manage to work with Windows. So yes, in this case I don't think it's realistic to blame Apple for not working in every possible environment where the standard is implemented incorrectly. The onus is on the router manufacturer (and ultimately, unfortunately, the end user) to update the router firmware to work correctly.
Java also powers most of the major internet applications available today.
Change that to "large corporation intranet" apps and you might be right.
(you might be right anyway, but I doubt it)
This sure seems to be true, but they'll be dragged along kicking and screaming. Just like the big music labels started losing ground to independent labels who WERE on the intertubes, so will the big publishers start realizing they're losing ground to the publishers who are supporting ebooks at reasonable prices and "reasonable" levels of DRM (if there is any such thing).
That sounds like a good plan, but would only work if all websites were hosted in the US. As long as we allow access to every other country's internet, it becomes problematic (at best) to keep Bad Things away by prosecuting those that host them.
Agreed that the real issue is china filtering speech criticizing the government, not that china was filtering in general.
Doesn't every search engine censor results in the US as well? Just not as egregiously as China.
I take it you think every search engine (heck, every company that does business with china) is pure unadulterated evil?
Columbine was NOT about being bullied. Harris was a psychopath, he was not bullied, and he was not part of the "trenchcoat mafia". That is all myth spread by the misinformation going around shortly after the incident.
http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
Search for "columbine motives" and you'll find many more articles correcting that misinformation.
That line seems to resonate with the Slashdot crowd, but I can't recall any case of it actually happening. Columbine was misconstrued as a case of fighting back against bullies around here (including comments below), but that wasn't the motive behind Columbine at all.
http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
Can you point out any specific incidents where a bullied kid turned into a mass murderer?
It took me way too long to figure out why the "ean li" part was missing from the text. And then I burst out laughing in the office when I finally looked at the username. ...I hope I don't get voted out of my cubicle for that
I'm sorry that new technology has rendered the movie industry's business/delivery model obsolete. I'm not sorry that they're choosing to litigate instead of innovate.
Back in 2005 maybe, do you really mean that today? You can watch movies online via Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and many other legal methods. It's far from 100%, but it's probably 75% or more of what people want to watch.
Presuming the content they're suing over is available from these other online stores, what's the justification for pirating them? Do you think paying for content whatsoever is an obsolete business model?
Legal methods of consuming content will never take off if people are free to copy it illegally from easily available torrent sites. The damages for infringement are absurd, but I don't think the concept of suing for infringement is inherently wrong.
In fact, sending out $100 settlement lawsuits to discourage illegal infringement sounds a hell of a lot for prodding people into obeying copyright law than publicly destroying a few individuals' financial lives as the RIAA has set out to do. (Or offering settlements in the tens of thousands of dollars)
I think this is a great point, and a great question too.
You expect to put any detergent in your dishwasher, so you would complain if you couldn't. You don't expect to be able to boot Linux on your gaming console (without weird hacks), so you don't complain.
Do people expect to be able to run anything they want on their phones?
I don't, but then I've never owned a "smart phone". Others from the Android or Windows Mobile camp expect to be able to run anything, just like on their desktop. I think this is the philosophical divide causing all the complaints. The iPhone put itself in a strange position straddling that divide with their "half-open" app store.
Pretty cool!
Although this is comparable to jailbreaking your iPhone, since Nintendo does not support or allow running alternate OSes except through hacks. Jailbreaking your iPhone probably lets you run Firefox on there too.
As long as we're making poor analogies -
This is like Wal-mart ONLY selling Wal-mart brand toilet paper. If you want Charmin you have to go to Target.
Apple in this case is Wal-mart, and Target is an Android phone. Feel free to pick the store you want.
You quoted it yourself:
(and they don't have a monopoly)
There's nothing wrong with having a closed system, and nothing illegal about it either.
The reason Microsoft was "evil" and illegal to bundle Internet Explorer (and integrate it in its OS, etc.) is that they had a monopoly on desktop OSes and were using it to take over additional markets and stifle competition.
Other than the evil+illegal parts, it was a very smart business move. It would save costs on their end by not having to support multiple browsers, increase "creative freedom" (they could use the browser anywhere in the OS in any way they want, eg. in Windows Explorer, active desktop, etc.), and of course increase market share of their browser.
These are the reasons Apple is doing the same thing with the iPhone. The only problem with Microsoft doing it was being ruled a monopoly.
Yeah, you're right - I should have said "same thing Microsoft tried to do on Windows". I was referring to the integration of the browser with the OS (remember "active desktop", etc.). Those features did exist in Windows98, and they did not even remotely support alternate browsers. (likewise if you type a url into Windows Explorer). This is the same "technical reason" Apple doesn't want to support alternate browsers in the iPhone.
The explicit blocking of competing browsers is definitely unique to the iPhone (and Wii, etc.).
Just because a rule is a rule, doesn't mean it can't be an evil rule.
Totally agreed, rules can be evil. But having a closed platform isn't particularly evil, and no one thinks it's evil coming from the many other companies with closed platforms we deal with every day.
Perhaps Apple shot themselves in the foot by having a "half-open" platform where they try to pick and choose. If you look at the game consoles, the main way they avoid this is by pricing most companies (and individuals) out of making software for their consoles. If Apple had charged $10,000 per license to make iPhone software and rubber stamped every app, would there be less complaining?
So, evil is only evil when it's a surprise.
It's only evil if it's a lost investment. (in developing an app you expected to be able to release)
There's nothing evil about having a so-called "monopoly" on your proprietary platform. I'd like to see you start spamming Slashdot with posts about how EVIL Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft (on the Xbox), Amazon (on the Kindle), B&N (whatever theirs is called), and perhaps you could complain about your microwave and dishwasher manufacturers too.
No, closed platforms are not inherently evil whatsoever.
I'm not familiar with the duplicate-functionality they've allowed on the App store, any good examples?
One of the biggest problems with the closed App store is that developers run a huge risk of having their app rejected and "losing" all the development time that went into it. I'd never do something like a web browser (even in the Opera Mini way) without getting approval from Apple before starting development.
If enough toes are stubbed by apple closing the door they may start having problems getting developers to make apps, especially complex ones, for the iPhone.
The point of their "iron control" is to make a good device, instead of making a sloppy device where they have to support other devs' software as part of the core experience. It's a very different approach from open devices, but it has its advantages.
Their browser is tightly integrated into the phone experience. Allowing other browsers would mean creating an API, limiting functionality of their browser to published functionality any browser can interoperate with, and so on. It's a lot of effort to dilute their own device. Clearly not a good idea from their perspective.
It's the exact same thing Microsoft did on Windows. The only problem then was that Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OSes. Controlling the browser market on Windows would have effectively extinguished the internet as an open platform. I don't think there's any risk of that happening from the iPhone having a tightly integrated 1st-party browser on their phone.
Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil.
The obvious question though is did anyone at Opera ask Apple before putting all the effort into creating the browser on the iPhone?
If Opera asked and Apple said "make it and find out the hard way", that would be evil.
If Opera asked and Apple said "We'll reject it. We don't want to support multiple browsers on our proprietary platform", then so be it. It's Opera's own fault if it gets rejected.
If they asked and Apple refused to answer, I'd file that under the first category of "make it and find out the hard way" evilness.
Do you really think the quality difference is due to Microsoft and Sony rejecting low-quality games?
The reason for the shovelware on the Wii and DS is that they're easier to develop games for. Then companies rushed to cash in on their unexpected popularity.
Arguably, sports confer real-world physical advantages, and this is why they were invented.
But you could equally argue that modern video games confer real-world mental advantages.
Meanwhile both can cause injury in their given area by overdoing it - physical injuries, or screwing up your priorities, respectively.
Youtube's 2005 bad behavior. Slashdot 2010 "That was a totally different company, Google didn't own them"
Fixed that for you, troll.
You said yourself that Apple's commercial was about "small upstart" vs "monopoly". What does that have to do with Apple controlling software on their phone? Are you suggesting Apple has a monopoly on the cell phone industry?
Conflating monopoly-control with software-control is quite a stretch. Software-control on custom hardware happens all the time, as with the game industry examples. Monopoly-control has happened two primary times - IBM and Microsoft.
The latter is what Apple's commercial was about, not the former.
The ad was more about IBM being a monopoly than about controlling software environments.
As evidenced by the game industry, there is plenty of room for multiple "walled-garden" systems in the market. And there are many advantages to the walled-garden approach, especially for custom hardware platforms. If you're going to complain about Apple, better start complaining about the other companies doing the exact same thing.
With the XBOX 360, Microsoft has become the Big Brother railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.
With the Wii and DS, Nintendo has become the Big Brother railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.
With the PSP and PS3, Sony has become the Big Brother railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.
Wait, which device were you talking about again? Oh, right. Apple. It's different when they do it, huh?