He mostly set it in design. But realistically, he took the whole open platforms and devices to really bad direction with the closeness of iOS and maybe upcoming Macs. Would you really want that for computer world?
Fuck yes.
Open software like Linux will *ALWAYS* exist. For as long as there are people and computers, Linux, or whatever replaces it, will exist until the end of time. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Canonical, HP, no corporation (or collective of corporations) can ever make that go away.
Ever.
I mean, what exactly do you think is going to happen? Linus is going to see how successful iOS is and lock down the Linux kernel, and somehow convince everyone to not just fork the latest "open" version?
So "freedom" and "open" will always be around and available for the people who want it. And I'm glad that's the case. But for me and right now, I'd rather have computers and devices that just work and do so well. If that means they are so-called "closed", then so be it.
And hundreds of millions of people feel exactly the same way I do. So, fuck yes I want Apple to keep doing exactly what they've been doing.
This isn't a philosophical argument, it's one of legal definitions. No matter what your philosophy of the nature of mathematics are, the same legal definition applies to everyone. You've also left out vast alternative/related philosophies that hold the same pertinent feature of discovery instead of invention.
Except Google took Sun's (now Oracle's) "dictionary", and copied it. They even admit knowing violating Sun's IP in the process. First they tried to negotiate a deal, then, in an internal email, stated that their choice was to come up with something entirely different, or just take Sun's IP without their permission.
On the other hand, it's absolutely absurd to compare a wholly invented by a single entity API with languages whose roots go back thousands of years and are the cumulative result of the impact of millions, and even billions, of people.
A list of books is not an invention, the books themselves are the invention.
An API is part of the invention. It's more like an index of a book that is so extensive one can recreate the book from the index alone (which is what Oracle is complaining about here). Or it's like sheet music, or a movie storyboard, etc.
Copyright law has specific exceptions that explicitly and specifically allow reverse engineering and decompiling just to figure out what the interface specification actual is -- in the event that its not readily available/documented so that the discovered interface could be used for interoperability.
Copyright law has a *LOT* of ambiguity, you mean. Just because it says something vague in one part does not mean it trumps something specific in another part. "Fair use" is very difficult to define sufficiently objectively.
It would absolutely absurd if after going through all that trouble to legally protect our ability to discover what the interface is ( (hmm "discover"... as is describe something that exists), to then prohibit us from writing it down or using it, when the express purpose of the section of law was to enable interoperability.
The 'hmm "discover"... as is describe something that exists' does not mean what you think it means. This "something that exists" is a creative work. You can't "describe a creative work" in such detail as to duplicate it.
No, just those without proper licenses, like Google.
Except most of the software you use daily uses APIs (because they are published) without a proper license (because none was asked) and would be infringing if that is made precedent.
No, this isn't about using (i.e., writing software that makes Windows system calls, for example) an API, but which duplicates an API. WINE could possibly be affected, but Photoshop would not.
A proof is copyrightable. A proof is deeply the same thing as a comuter program. There are thousands of ways to write the same proof, and the idea of the proof may not be copyrightable. But any partiuclar statement of it is.
Precisely like an API.
You can copyright your expression of the proof, but not the proof itself or even the idea used to make the proof.*1
This is how APIs should be treated. A particular expression or documention of one is clearly copyrightable, but the actual function signatures not so much. And anyone can write there own implementation or documentation of an API without violating copyright, just as anyone can write their own mathematical proof without violating copyright.
This is a variation on the whole "a digital file is just a number, and you can't copyright a number" rhetoric. A mathematical proof is a description of something that already exists. It's a discovery. An API is an invention. It's something that did not exist until someone created it, like a song, book, or movie.
This is the copyright law equivalent to giving WOPR the launch codes. If a court rules that a company can own an API, then everybody's software becomes infringing!
No, just those without proper licenses, like Google.
Talk about an exception! Most of us don't consider DC to be in the same Universe as everyone else. Judging by the town's inability to consider themselves bound by the same universal laws and constraints (for example, thermodynamics), you all agree...
Funny, the guy that fits facts to his preconceptions claims *others* to be ignoring reality...
What's so hard to accept the fact that people use iPads?
Viruses are prior art, but the patent subject matter itself is EXTREMELY trivial, and as such not patentable.
You keep making this sort of claim, but that is extremely delusional. The FACT is, this patent exists. It doesn't cease existing simply because some random jackass on the Internet says it doesn't. The only way for it to cease existing requires a legal process, which even Google (who has a lot to gain by doing this) isn't even trying to do.
As for the basis of you claim, it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how patents work. It's not about the ingredients (i.e., executing a JMP to execute alternate instructions), but that this is done (with other things) to speed up a virtual machine. Just like a light bulb isn't patenting "heating up metal so it emits light", but doing that in a certain way to achieve a certain result.
Or a mouse trap isn't invalid because people already know how springs work, triggers, and cross bars work.
If you want to include Android users, since Android is basically Linux, you can add "Average Joe" to the description, since it's used on millions upon millions of mobile devices.
And since more people use Apple products than use Android products (and Android most certainly is *NOT* "basically Linux", it just uses a highly customized Linux kernel), your argument works against you.
Finally Apple cleaned up their act, and spread the word that they were being good GPL citizens. Enough fanbois bought that act for people like you to get away with making the post above.
What are you talking about? Apple released the code immediately upon distribution of Safari, as the license requires.
Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to throw around a term like "fanboi", when you're clearly the one bending reality to fit your own personal preferences.
But given Apple's overly litigagatory stance on any thing they (claim to) develop, I just don't see any of their suggestions getting accepted.
"Overly litigatory [sic] stance"? Surely there must be an extensive list you can cite?
As for "any thing they (claim to) develop", it's called patents. In the real world, companies understand these things. Companies other than Google, at least. Why wouldn't other companies use Apple's technology, if they were to make a reasonable implementation? Zeroconf is widely supported, and codeveloped with Apple. FireWire is patented and requires royalties to Apple, and it's widely supported. As is "Made for iPod". And AirPrint (don't know if it's patented) is used in a lot of current wireless HP printers.
No, he's saying that few people specifically choose Windows, they choose a "computer". Windows is just what comes with a "computer". Few people who buy PCs buy it specifically for Windows.
Most people don't engage in the stupid platform wars that nerds do. They just really don't give a shit, just like they don't care which FPGA their TV set uses.
What "antenna issue"? The one that is so awful that Apple has sold many tens of millions of iPhone 4's, making the iPhone 4 the most popular smartphone out there? Even over a year after its release?
It bothers me when people say "just because Windows sold 400 million copies doesn't make it good," but then Apple apologists will use the same logic for the iPhone.
What's this red herring got to do with my post? Is it somehow meant to debunk the notion that people aren't having some sort of horrible experience with the iPhone 4's antenna?
This issue has been extremely exaggerated. Sales numbers back this up. At the time it was a big news story, people were saying this is some sort of critical flaw, that Apple would have to issue a recall, etc., etc.
Clearly none of that is the case.
But Slashdot is so extremely out of touch with reality, simply pointing out two very obvious fundamental flaws with jhoegl's post gets modded "Troll" simply because it isn't "rah-rah, let's hate Apple!" These flaws are so incontrovertible, you couldn't even actually address them, just bring up a red herring and call me an "apologist"!
What you see here is a corporation abusing the legal system for no other reason than to protect their ass.
How did Apple abuse the system? What exactly did they do?
Of course if the guy had been given the chance to debug the device, perhaps he would have found that pesky little antenna issue.
What "antenna issue"? The one that is so awful that Apple has sold many tens of millions of iPhone 4's, making the iPhone 4 the most popular smartphone out there? Even over a year after its release?
As long as we can both agree that this is primarily a nerdy feature, I don't really disagree with you.
And what I mean by "nerdy feature" is that most people don't have such large data storage needs, and even those that do will find juggling SD cards a hassle. Even just one card permanently inserted involves notably more user attention than just using internal memory, which any nerd can handle (SD cards), but will be somewhere between annoying and impossible for non-nerds.
An interesting aspect of this is that it's a problem that will solve itself over time. An 80GB iPod would cover your needs today, but they only go up to 64GB. Next year (or maybe this fall), they will be 128GB, which should outpace your library size, but maybe not. However, it should double again to 256GB faster that your library will get to that size.
Eventually, storage will be a complete non-issue. Also, iCloud (*IF* streaming ever becomes a part of it) will solve this, as does switching over to services like Spotify (although not ideally suited for a portable WiFi-only device).
Not to start a whole new argument, but I've never run across a notebook (from anyone) that didn't get either hot or loud (or both) when under load. Not since the PowerPC notebooks, until the 2010 MacBook Airs. Everything in between could get quite hot/loud.
I don't know if that's what you meant by "overheating", or if you mean it actually overheated and started causing problems. If that's what happened, Apple surely would have taken care of the problem for you.
But, like I said, it's really nothing I want to really argue about, as long as you have a computer you like, it really doesn't matter to me what your brand choice is. The main point of having a computer is for it to serve your needs, not the needs of some internet stranger.
You didn't address what dloose wrote. He said that expandable storage is there to address a product flaw, and it is. How many times does someone list a "4GB storage, expandable to 64" Android tablet? The iPad does this better, buy just putting the 64GB into the device itself.
The number of users who would benefit from having expandable storage instead of just having the same amount of space built in is very small. Fucking around with SD cards makes Apple's lame iTunes-centric app file transfer system actually look good.
But there are definitely a small number of nerds for whom the hassle involved with SD cards isn't a big deal, and the benefit is of sufficient value to them. That's cool, and definitely nice for them. But please don't confuse most people for nerds. It leads to false conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
He mostly set it in design. But realistically, he took the whole open platforms and devices to really bad direction with the closeness of iOS and maybe upcoming Macs. Would you really want that for computer world?
Fuck yes.
Open software like Linux will *ALWAYS* exist. For as long as there are people and computers, Linux, or whatever replaces it, will exist until the end of time. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Canonical, HP, no corporation (or collective of corporations) can ever make that go away.
Ever.
I mean, what exactly do you think is going to happen? Linus is going to see how successful iOS is and lock down the Linux kernel, and somehow convince everyone to not just fork the latest "open" version?
So "freedom" and "open" will always be around and available for the people who want it. And I'm glad that's the case. But for me and right now, I'd rather have computers and devices that just work and do so well. If that means they are so-called "closed", then so be it.
And hundreds of millions of people feel exactly the same way I do. So, fuck yes I want Apple to keep doing exactly what they've been doing.
Wrong. Anyone who cares about owning their own data cares about openness. Many of them simply don't know it yet.
Yeah, right... They "care" about something they don't even know about?
On Macs, iOS, and iCloud, you *DO* "own your own data". So what exactly are you going on about?
It appears your tinfoil hat is on a bit tight today...
Millions of people also said "yes we do" to MS-DOS.
Being the vanguard of those with absolutely no taste is not necessarily something to brag about.
What's that got to do with Apple? If you're saying they have "absolutely no taste", you're mad.
People don't give a shit about "open" in the FSF/Slashnerd sense.
Pre-flight checklist:
iPad present: check
iPad powers up: check
iPad battery greater than 75%: check
iPad flight manual app loads: check
Only if you are a mathematical platonist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Platonism .
This isn't a philosophical argument, it's one of legal definitions. No matter what your philosophy of the nature of mathematics are, the same legal definition applies to everyone. You've also left out vast alternative/related philosophies that hold the same pertinent feature of discovery instead of invention.
Except Google took Sun's (now Oracle's) "dictionary", and copied it. They even admit knowing violating Sun's IP in the process. First they tried to negotiate a deal, then, in an internal email, stated that their choice was to come up with something entirely different, or just take Sun's IP without their permission.
On the other hand, it's absolutely absurd to compare a wholly invented by a single entity API with languages whose roots go back thousands of years and are the cumulative result of the impact of millions, and even billions, of people.
A list of books is not an invention, the books themselves are the invention.
An API is part of the invention. It's more like an index of a book that is so extensive one can recreate the book from the index alone (which is what Oracle is complaining about here). Or it's like sheet music, or a movie storyboard, etc.
Copyright law has specific exceptions that explicitly and specifically allow reverse engineering and decompiling just to figure out what the interface specification actual is -- in the event that its not readily available/documented so that the discovered interface could be used for interoperability.
Copyright law has a *LOT* of ambiguity, you mean. Just because it says something vague in one part does not mean it trumps something specific in another part. "Fair use" is very difficult to define sufficiently objectively.
It would absolutely absurd if after going through all that trouble to legally protect our ability to discover what the interface is ( (hmm "discover"... as is describe something that exists), to then prohibit us from writing it down or using it, when the express purpose of the section of law was to enable interoperability.
The 'hmm "discover"... as is describe something that exists' does not mean what you think it means. This "something that exists" is a creative work. You can't "describe a creative work" in such detail as to duplicate it.
No, just those without proper licenses, like Google.
Except most of the software you use daily uses APIs (because they are published) without a proper license (because none was asked) and would be infringing if that is made precedent.
No, this isn't about using (i.e., writing software that makes Windows system calls, for example) an API, but which duplicates an API. WINE could possibly be affected, but Photoshop would not.
A proof is copyrightable. A proof is deeply the same thing as a comuter program. There are thousands of ways to write the same proof, and the idea of the proof may not be copyrightable. But any partiuclar statement of it is.
Precisely like an API.
You can copyright your expression of the proof, but not the proof itself or even the idea used to make the proof.*1
This is how APIs should be treated. A particular expression or documention of one is clearly copyrightable, but the actual function signatures not so much. And anyone can write there own implementation or documentation of an API without violating copyright, just as anyone can write their own mathematical proof without violating copyright.
This is a variation on the whole "a digital file is just a number, and you can't copyright a number" rhetoric. A mathematical proof is a description of something that already exists. It's a discovery. An API is an invention. It's something that did not exist until someone created it, like a song, book, or movie.
This is the copyright law equivalent to giving WOPR the launch codes. If a court rules that a company can own an API, then everybody's software becomes infringing!
No, just those without proper licenses, like Google.
Welcome to Slashdot.
I live in the DC metropolitan area.
Talk about an exception! Most of us don't consider DC to be in the same Universe as everyone else. Judging by the town's inability to consider themselves bound by the same universal laws and constraints (for example, thermodynamics), you all agree...
Funny, the guy that fits facts to his preconceptions claims *others* to be ignoring reality...
What's so hard to accept the fact that people use iPads?
I don't understand why Apple is limiting this warning system to only their Japanese users.
They aren't. This system uses Japan's earthquake warning system. If California (for example) had an analogous system, Apple could use it.
Viruses are prior art, but the patent subject matter itself is EXTREMELY trivial, and as such not patentable.
You keep making this sort of claim, but that is extremely delusional. The FACT is, this patent exists. It doesn't cease existing simply because some random jackass on the Internet says it doesn't. The only way for it to cease existing requires a legal process, which even Google (who has a lot to gain by doing this) isn't even trying to do.
As for the basis of you claim, it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how patents work. It's not about the ingredients (i.e., executing a JMP to execute alternate instructions), but that this is done (with other things) to speed up a virtual machine. Just like a light bulb isn't patenting "heating up metal so it emits light", but doing that in a certain way to achieve a certain result.
Or a mouse trap isn't invalid because people already know how springs work, triggers, and cross bars work.
If you want to include Android users, since Android is basically Linux, you can add "Average Joe" to the description, since it's used on millions upon millions of mobile devices.
And since more people use Apple products than use Android products (and Android most certainly is *NOT* "basically Linux", it just uses a highly customized Linux kernel), your argument works against you.
yup, Apple is starting to do those dirty tricks only that evil company from Redmond Washington does:
1.Embrace
2.Extend
3.Extinguish
For example? For your statement to be relevant, there'd need to be at least a few, but I doubt you can even come up with one.
Finally Apple cleaned up their act, and spread the word that they were being good GPL citizens. Enough fanbois bought that act for people like you to get away with making the post above.
What are you talking about? Apple released the code immediately upon distribution of Safari, as the license requires.
Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to throw around a term like "fanboi", when you're clearly the one bending reality to fit your own personal preferences.
But given Apple's overly litigagatory stance on any thing they (claim to) develop, I just don't see any of their suggestions getting accepted.
"Overly litigatory [sic] stance"? Surely there must be an extensive list you can cite?
As for "any thing they (claim to) develop", it's called patents. In the real world, companies understand these things. Companies other than Google, at least. Why wouldn't other companies use Apple's technology, if they were to make a reasonable implementation? Zeroconf is widely supported, and codeveloped with Apple. FireWire is patented and requires royalties to Apple, and it's widely supported. As is "Made for iPod". And AirPrint (don't know if it's patented) is used in a lot of current wireless HP printers.
No, he's saying that few people specifically choose Windows, they choose a "computer". Windows is just what comes with a "computer". Few people who buy PCs buy it specifically for Windows.
Most people don't engage in the stupid platform wars that nerds do. They just really don't give a shit, just like they don't care which FPGA their TV set uses.
What "antenna issue"? The one that is so awful that Apple has sold many tens of millions of iPhone 4's, making the iPhone 4 the most popular smartphone out there? Even over a year after its release?
It bothers me when people say "just because Windows sold 400 million copies doesn't make it good," but then Apple apologists will use the same logic for the iPhone.
What's this red herring got to do with my post? Is it somehow meant to debunk the notion that people aren't having some sort of horrible experience with the iPhone 4's antenna?
This issue has been extremely exaggerated. Sales numbers back this up. At the time it was a big news story, people were saying this is some sort of critical flaw, that Apple would have to issue a recall, etc., etc.
Clearly none of that is the case.
But Slashdot is so extremely out of touch with reality, simply pointing out two very obvious fundamental flaws with jhoegl's post gets modded "Troll" simply because it isn't "rah-rah, let's hate Apple!" These flaws are so incontrovertible, you couldn't even actually address them, just bring up a red herring and call me an "apologist"!
It's truly pathetic around here these days.
What you see here is a corporation abusing the legal system for no other reason than to protect their ass.
How did Apple abuse the system? What exactly did they do?
Of course if the guy had been given the chance to debug the device, perhaps he would have found that pesky little antenna issue.
What "antenna issue"? The one that is so awful that Apple has sold many tens of millions of iPhone 4's, making the iPhone 4 the most popular smartphone out there? Even over a year after its release?
Wow, that's some issue!
As long as we can both agree that this is primarily a nerdy feature, I don't really disagree with you.
And what I mean by "nerdy feature" is that most people don't have such large data storage needs, and even those that do will find juggling SD cards a hassle. Even just one card permanently inserted involves notably more user attention than just using internal memory, which any nerd can handle (SD cards), but will be somewhere between annoying and impossible for non-nerds.
An interesting aspect of this is that it's a problem that will solve itself over time. An 80GB iPod would cover your needs today, but they only go up to 64GB. Next year (or maybe this fall), they will be 128GB, which should outpace your library size, but maybe not. However, it should double again to 256GB faster that your library will get to that size.
Eventually, storage will be a complete non-issue. Also, iCloud (*IF* streaming ever becomes a part of it) will solve this, as does switching over to services like Spotify (although not ideally suited for a portable WiFi-only device).
If "a lot" is many thousands, then sure. Otherwise, not so much...
Scores of manufacturers made hundreds of models of mp3 players. iPods still ruled. Same with the iPad. The iPhone is the only anomaly here.
Not to start a whole new argument, but I've never run across a notebook (from anyone) that didn't get either hot or loud (or both) when under load. Not since the PowerPC notebooks, until the 2010 MacBook Airs. Everything in between could get quite hot/loud.
I don't know if that's what you meant by "overheating", or if you mean it actually overheated and started causing problems. If that's what happened, Apple surely would have taken care of the problem for you.
But, like I said, it's really nothing I want to really argue about, as long as you have a computer you like, it really doesn't matter to me what your brand choice is. The main point of having a computer is for it to serve your needs, not the needs of some internet stranger.
You didn't address what dloose wrote. He said that expandable storage is there to address a product flaw, and it is. How many times does someone list a "4GB storage, expandable to 64" Android tablet? The iPad does this better, buy just putting the 64GB into the device itself.
The number of users who would benefit from having expandable storage instead of just having the same amount of space built in is very small. Fucking around with SD cards makes Apple's lame iTunes-centric app file transfer system actually look good.
But there are definitely a small number of nerds for whom the hassle involved with SD cards isn't a big deal, and the benefit is of sufficient value to them. That's cool, and definitely nice for them. But please don't confuse most people for nerds. It leads to false conclusions.