For me, if I like a song, I'm going to buy it, and while I subscribe to streaming services, exclusivity agreements don't mean much to me. I can hear anything I want on youtube first before deciding if I want to buy it. The reason I buy: because I can buy it DRM free and play it on any device I like.
The same isn't true of TV and Movies, though, and I therefore refuse to give them a dime of my money unless I'm buying physical media which I immediately rip to make a DRM-free backup copy. I don't pirate music. I can buy it in a form I want. I don't buy movies and TV shows: I can't get them in a form I want. Simple as that.
I have to use Windows for school, so I run Win 7 in a VM. I guess I will now make sure that VM instance doesn't connect to the internet. If I need to download a file, I'll download it to the host machine and move it over.
I own an iPhone, and I almost bought the G1 just because of its potential. Now I'm waiting to see if an an Android phone ever makes it to AT&T. I love my iPhone, but I'm annoyed with its limitations. Lack of cut and paste and the inability to have background processes are the worst of the limitations, in my opinion.
I like Android in theory. A friend of mine has the G1 and loves it. But I live in a rural area, and the only reliable cell service here is AT&T.
I guess this means I'll never hire anyone that graduates from the Philadelphia Public School System. Certainly at work you're not assumed to be "50%" all the time. I don't want anyone coming in with unreasonable expectations, and that's exactly what this system creates.
And what about the students who are actually trying? Seems to me by motivating the slackers, you're creating a system whereby those who work hard are suckers. As a previous poster said, you could slack off at the beginning of the semester and still end up with a B by working hard in the second half of the Semester. Why should Student A try hard when Student B who sits next to him doesn't try at all for half of the year and can get a similar grade.
Actually, we can get an iPhone without the contract. It's very expensive though (Seven or eight hundred American dollars, I think, as compared to 2 or 3 hundred for a phone in contract.) The problem is, it's not unlocked. You would still have to go to AT&T to use it, and that means you'd still be locked into a contract (they don't do month to month or prepaid with the iPhone that I'm aware of.) You could unlock it, and that is 100% legal, but Apple doesn't make it easy.
In America, once you purchase a cell phone you are almost always locked into it by a contract. While you could purchase an unlocked phone (for an exorbitant amount of money), no one I know does this. Instead, you buy a subsidized phone from a cellular provider, and in return you guarantee them that you will use them as your carrier for a certain period. In the case of the iPhone, that's 2 years.
I got the iPhone as a gift. It's on the gift giver's family plan. So, I'm kind of stuck on that plan (not with the phone, but I'd have to buy a full price phone to replace it.)
What I was referring to specifically was the app store. If you're locked into a contract, you have no choice but to get your apps for your iPhone from Apple's app store. I was aware of that going in, but I don't think anyone was truly aware of the limitations Apple was going to put into place. I certainly wasn't aware that Apple would install a kill switch in my phone, as that wasn't disclosed by Apple at all until it was revealed to the public by a third party.
On a day to day basis, I'm happy with my phone. I rarely use a cell phone for making calls. It's generally a portable mail client and web browser for me, and it's hard to beat the Safari Web browsing experience on the iPhone. It is a very capable browser. I am concerned, though, about Apple's restrictions in the app store. I'm waiting for the Android phones to become available, and if I'll wait for a decent model. Then, if they are as good as I expect they will be, I'll buy an unlocked Android phone, and use the iPhone as a fat iPod Touch.
While I despise Windows Mobile Phones (though to be fair, I've never owned one), I seem to recall that you can install third party applications on them without any sort of prior approval. There is no app store for Windows Mobile that I know of. I wish the iPhone was more like that, but that'll never happen. Apple will never give up their control.
iPhone is the flavor of the moment. Apple has their place in the sun for now, but it will go away. Nothing lasts forever in the technology world.
I'm not whining about Apple's hardware. I tend to think it's awful good. The computer I use every day is a MacBook (I also run an XP box and a Linux box for various things.) It's their policies that I find disturbing at this point. I've jailbroken the phone twice, and I'll probably do it again, simply to neuter the Kill Switch and to have the ability to install apps that are not Apple approved.
True, it is a huge difference, but I can't imagine Apple giving up control of App distribution. Still, they might allow Ad Hoc distribution and sale because of the 100 phone limit(which podcaster got around through slight changes in the code per 100 machines.)
The iPhone does allow Ad Hoc install of an Application to 100 phones for the purpose of beta testing apps. Podcaster is using this to sell the App outside Apple's control. I can't imagine that Apple will allow this to continue. They simply have to throw the kill switch on the App and it will vaporize from the phone, and since the purchaser bought the App outside of the App store, they will have no recourse. Apple does not allow local install of Apps. Ad Hoc and the App store are the only games in town.
And I would argue that having choice in what applications you can use would increase their sales, which is really what Apple is after. If they weren't after sales, there would be no reason for them to do things like lower the price of their products to compete with other products, nor would they invest in multi-million dollar advertisement campaigns.
Apple is after our money, and providing choices creates a platform people are more willing to use.
Hope it has a bluetooth keyboard then. I can't stand those little tiny mobile keyboards. Bleh. (Though ANY tactile keyboard beats a touch screen keyboard hands down.)
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.
Why should they allow useless products?
Like 100 flashlight applications? Like the "I am Rich" application? Like more failing social networks then you can shake a stick at? I'm failing to understand how apple has prevented useless products from arriving at the app store.
You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?
Because, if I choose to buy a piece of electronics, Best Buy is not my only option. I can choose to go somewhere else. If Apple restricts an app for no viable reason, then I have no recourse. If I own an iPhone, I am absolutely restricted by the whims of Apple, and that is absolutely ridiculous. They call the iPhone a platform, then they need to treat it as a platform.
Since you sound like a Mac person, let me ask you this: What if Apple came out with their own massively powerful graphics editor, and then they told Adobe to take a hike because Photoshop was competing with their app on OS X. No one would stand for that. Yet everyone seems to accept it on the iPhone. It's unacceptable.
[For the purposes of disclosure - I do own an iPhone and I do own a MacBook running OS X, so I'm definitely not Anti-Apple. This whole App Store thing, though, is incredibly dangerous precedent and disturbs me greatly.]
It isn't illegal. A case could be made that jailbreaking is a DMCA violation, but the fact that Apple hasn't done this implies that they don't feel they could win that particular case.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, if I like a song, I'm going to buy it, and while I subscribe to streaming services, exclusivity agreements don't mean much to me. I can hear anything I want on youtube first before deciding if I want to buy it. The reason I buy: because I can buy it DRM free and play it on any device I like. The same isn't true of TV and Movies, though, and I therefore refuse to give them a dime of my money unless I'm buying physical media which I immediately rip to make a DRM-free backup copy. I don't pirate music. I can buy it in a form I want. I don't buy movies and TV shows: I can't get them in a form I want. Simple as that.
I have to use Windows for school, so I run Win 7 in a VM. I guess I will now make sure that VM instance doesn't connect to the internet. If I need to download a file, I'll download it to the host machine and move it over.
I own an iPhone, and I almost bought the G1 just because of its potential. Now I'm waiting to see if an an Android phone ever makes it to AT&T. I love my iPhone, but I'm annoyed with its limitations. Lack of cut and paste and the inability to have background processes are the worst of the limitations, in my opinion. I like Android in theory. A friend of mine has the G1 and loves it. But I live in a rural area, and the only reliable cell service here is AT&T.
Lastly I agree the Patriot act should not be misused. It probably needs to be rewritten to prevent misuse.
It actually shouldn't be used at all. It allows invasion of privacy without due process. It should have been stricken down a long time ago.
I guess this means I'll never hire anyone that graduates from the Philadelphia Public School System. Certainly at work you're not assumed to be "50%" all the time. I don't want anyone coming in with unreasonable expectations, and that's exactly what this system creates.
And what about the students who are actually trying? Seems to me by motivating the slackers, you're creating a system whereby those who work hard are suckers. As a previous poster said, you could slack off at the beginning of the semester and still end up with a B by working hard in the second half of the Semester. Why should Student A try hard when Student B who sits next to him doesn't try at all for half of the year and can get a similar grade.
Actually, we can get an iPhone without the contract. It's very expensive though (Seven or eight hundred American dollars, I think, as compared to 2 or 3 hundred for a phone in contract.) The problem is, it's not unlocked. You would still have to go to AT&T to use it, and that means you'd still be locked into a contract (they don't do month to month or prepaid with the iPhone that I'm aware of.) You could unlock it, and that is 100% legal, but Apple doesn't make it easy.
In America, once you purchase a cell phone you are almost always locked into it by a contract. While you could purchase an unlocked phone (for an exorbitant amount of money), no one I know does this. Instead, you buy a subsidized phone from a cellular provider, and in return you guarantee them that you will use them as your carrier for a certain period. In the case of the iPhone, that's 2 years.
I got the iPhone as a gift. It's on the gift giver's family plan. So, I'm kind of stuck on that plan (not with the phone, but I'd have to buy a full price phone to replace it.)
What I was referring to specifically was the app store. If you're locked into a contract, you have no choice but to get your apps for your iPhone from Apple's app store. I was aware of that going in, but I don't think anyone was truly aware of the limitations Apple was going to put into place. I certainly wasn't aware that Apple would install a kill switch in my phone, as that wasn't disclosed by Apple at all until it was revealed to the public by a third party.
On a day to day basis, I'm happy with my phone. I rarely use a cell phone for making calls. It's generally a portable mail client and web browser for me, and it's hard to beat the Safari Web browsing experience on the iPhone. It is a very capable browser. I am concerned, though, about Apple's restrictions in the app store. I'm waiting for the Android phones to become available, and if I'll wait for a decent model. Then, if they are as good as I expect they will be, I'll buy an unlocked Android phone, and use the iPhone as a fat iPod Touch.
While I despise Windows Mobile Phones (though to be fair, I've never owned one), I seem to recall that you can install third party applications on them without any sort of prior approval. There is no app store for Windows Mobile that I know of. I wish the iPhone was more like that, but that'll never happen. Apple will never give up their control.
iPhone is the flavor of the moment. Apple has their place in the sun for now, but it will go away. Nothing lasts forever in the technology world.
I'm not whining about Apple's hardware. I tend to think it's awful good. The computer I use every day is a MacBook (I also run an XP box and a Linux box for various things.) It's their policies that I find disturbing at this point. I've jailbroken the phone twice, and I'll probably do it again, simply to neuter the Kill Switch and to have the ability to install apps that are not Apple approved.
True, it is a huge difference, but I can't imagine Apple giving up control of App distribution. Still, they might allow Ad Hoc distribution and sale because of the 100 phone limit(which podcaster got around through slight changes in the code per 100 machines.)
The iPhone does allow Ad Hoc install of an Application to 100 phones for the purpose of beta testing apps. Podcaster is using this to sell the App outside Apple's control. I can't imagine that Apple will allow this to continue. They simply have to throw the kill switch on the App and it will vaporize from the phone, and since the purchaser bought the App outside of the App store, they will have no recourse. Apple does not allow local install of Apps. Ad Hoc and the App store are the only games in town.
It's true that exclusivity drives demand to a certain extent, but they'll reach an upper bound of users soon enough.
And I would argue that having choice in what applications you can use would increase their sales, which is really what Apple is after. If they weren't after sales, there would be no reason for them to do things like lower the price of their products to compete with other products, nor would they invest in multi-million dollar advertisement campaigns. Apple is after our money, and providing choices creates a platform people are more willing to use.
Hope it has a bluetooth keyboard then. I can't stand those little tiny mobile keyboards. Bleh. (Though ANY tactile keyboard beats a touch screen keyboard hands down.)
You mean people actually use Windows Mobile? Who knew? I thought Symbian was where it was at.
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.
Why should they allow useless products?
Like 100 flashlight applications? Like the "I am Rich" application? Like more failing social networks then you can shake a stick at? I'm failing to understand how apple has prevented useless products from arriving at the app store.
You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?
Because, if I choose to buy a piece of electronics, Best Buy is not my only option. I can choose to go somewhere else. If Apple restricts an app for no viable reason, then I have no recourse. If I own an iPhone, I am absolutely restricted by the whims of Apple, and that is absolutely ridiculous. They call the iPhone a platform, then they need to treat it as a platform. Since you sound like a Mac person, let me ask you this: What if Apple came out with their own massively powerful graphics editor, and then they told Adobe to take a hike because Photoshop was competing with their app on OS X. No one would stand for that. Yet everyone seems to accept it on the iPhone. It's unacceptable. [For the purposes of disclosure - I do own an iPhone and I do own a MacBook running OS X, so I'm definitely not Anti-Apple. This whole App Store thing, though, is incredibly dangerous precedent and disturbs me greatly.]
Arrr, if PCs rule the sea, I say we be raiding their coffers!
It isn't illegal. A case could be made that jailbreaking is a DMCA violation, but the fact that Apple hasn't done this implies that they don't feel they could win that particular case.