I wonder why Apple is offering this if no carrier has an appropriate pricing plan to support it? This is like paying cash for a car and STILL making a payment on it every month. Why?
The short answer is: because people want it.
(it's funny, people bitch about phones being carrier-locked, then act confused when a phone is offered without a carrier-lock)
The longer answer is:
- So you don't have to enter a 2 year contract. - For use overseas, being able to buy a local SIM instead of paying AT&T's high international roaming rates - It makes the iPhone more readily available in countries and on carriers which it's not currently sold on
Just to be clear, are you trying to say Google isn't offering an expensive Arduino-based kit? Because they are. I never said you had to buy it from them.
This is little more than Google "blessing" Arduino as Android's tech for controlling external devices and systems. Lots of nerds will have fun with this, and there will be some commercial products, but it's not going to really be an important feature for consumers.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. There isn't business software, PCB design software, label printing software for the Mac? That's quite a bold set of claims, and easily shown to be false.
Or are you just echoing what I wrote, that the entry price point for Macs is higher than for PCs?
Because it's by far the most functional, open, well-supported, cost-effective desktop computing environment in the world. While other offerings have some of these features in greater measure (Linux - openness would be the obvious one), no other choice has an adequate measure of them all.
Which of the things listed does the Mac *not* have in "adequate measure"? And it's far from clear that Windows is "by far" ahead of the Mac across those areas you listed.
Windows is "still in business" because it established itself as the default choice almost two decades ago. The PC and Windows were *much* better suited for business use at the time, and business decisions drove the market. People wanted to have the same system at home as they had at the office.
For the past 5 years, Mac growth has outpaced PC growth. Increasingly, consumers, and even businesses, are more and more buying Macs. There are really only two things holding Mac sales back today: higher than average entry-level price (specifically, that Apple doesn't cater to the low end), and inertia.
Apple is overcoming Windows' inertia just fine. Clearly, people aren't as in agreement with your assessment as you seem to think they are.
Don't worry, you won't have to. In spite of the selective scope the author chose, iOS vastly outnumbers Android.
Wrong. Android officially passed iOS up this year.
You should get your news from non-fandroids. For over a year now, Slashdot headlines and summaries have been based on extremely cherry-picked data and deceptively worded to make it sound like Android is more widely used than iOS. This has led to countless slashdotters coming to false conclusions, like yours.
Android recently shipped on its 100 millionth unit. iOS has recently shipped on its 200 millionth unit.
There already exist X10 and Insteon apps for iOS
Doesn't matter which remote you use, X10 sucks. I don't know enough about Insteon to have an opinion but since its fully backward compatible with X10, it suggests it may also suck.
In other words, you don't have a valid opinion, but you'll have one anyway?
Insteon addresses some of the limitations that makes X10 suck. The Insteon protocol is *not* compatible with X10, but the main implementation from SmartHome has chips which can *also* deal with X10 commands. But the protocol and commands are not, themselves, compatible.
I honestly can't get excited about this, regardless of which platform you're using to drive your Arduino project.
Exactly. And the average person is going to care even less than that. I find it quite amusing that the average slashdot nerd thinks that this is going to be some successful consumer endeavor. I have no doubt that there will be thousands of nerds who will be quite happy with this technology, and that's fantastic. But the average person? Really?
The idea that you think that this definitely won't have any impact at all on the average person is laughable (considering 35%+ US smartphone owners are rocking Android).
Straw man. I never said "any impact at all", I said, "noticeable impact". And it won't.
The average person isn't going to rewire their house to interface with their Android phone. Those that *do* rewire their house (and they definitely aren't "average") will just use X10 or Insteon, instead of this Android-centric tinker-toy.
And almost *no one* is going to buy Android because of this. iOS has far outsold Android. People aren't going to be swayed by some hacker toy that they will never even *hear* about, let alone have the slightest inclination of using.
But I don't want to have to buy an Android device just to turn the lights on in my house:(
Don't worry, you won't have to. In spite of the selective scope the author chose, iOS vastly outnumbers Android. There already exist X10 and Insteon apps for iOS, and even if there weren't, there's no way the masses are going to accept a future where turning on a light requires a personal Android device.
The only story here (which is by no means new) is that Google has an expensive Arduino kit available as an official add-on to Android. I'm sure there will be thousands of tinkerers who will be quite happy about this, and good for them! But the idea that this will have any noticeable impact on the average person is laughable.
iCloud Communications is a VOIP company. Apple's iCloud is not a VOIP system. It is, in fact, quite similar to the Xcerion iCloud service, which is now at cloudme.com. Feel free to look into it yourself.
Obviously they have a web presence, so is it unreasonable to assume they simply didn't think/want to register just "icloud.com" for whatever reason?
If iCloud is an important mark for them, it's not reasonable to assume they didn't think about that domain. That doesn't mean they didn't, we all do things that don't make sense from time to time. But it does raise the question as to why they didn't.
To keep a trademark, you actually have to actively defend it. iCloud Communications has had a lot of time to defend it, and didn't. *Maybe* they didn't know about icloud.com, but it's somewhat strange they wouldn't have looked into it if it was so important to them.
On the other hand, seeing the many millions of dollars Xcerion got for a domain name and a trademark that they seem to think they have some rights to has gotta sting.
The reason iCloud Communications (there's no entity involved named 'iCloud') cares now is they see $$. Xcerion has had the registered trademark and the domain name for years. If iCloud Communications really cared, one must wonder why they never did anything before? You'd think that if the name was so important to them, they would have wanted the domain, so it's not like they didn't know of the existence of this other company.
And *had* they done that, and won, *they* would have received the many millions Xcerion got from Apple. It wasn't until Apple entered the picture, it seems, that iCloud Communications decided their (unregistered) trademark was worth defending.
The application date for the trademark in question is May 29th, 2008. Unless they were using it prior to 2005, they are still in the wrong.
That's rather presumptuous.
What remains to be seen is how well or badly it turns out for the company who is legally in the right (iCloud Comm.).
Yeah, right. iCloud Communications will either win, hitting the jackpot, lose, remaining exactly where they are now (except with more publicity in a few days than they ever would have received during their entire existence), or settle (something in between winning and losing).
The only way they can really "lose" in such a way that turns out badly for them is if Apple, owning the actual registered trademark, sues iCloud Communications and forces them to change their name. That doesn't seem likely. Apple is more than willing to pay for things it wants.
And like I said, this is all rather presumptuous. It assumes they have the exclusive right to the iCloud trademark in the market that Apple's iCloud exists in. It also raises the question of why they never applied for a trademark, and never went after the previous owner of iCloud (including icloud.com, which one would assume they were quite aware of).
Because they're not just 'iCloud' - they're 'iCloud Communications'. They think the name Apple picked is too close to their own name. Kind of like 'Apple Computer' is similar to 'Apple Music' and one might think they are two subsidiaries of the same company, like 'Sony Computer' and 'Sony Music'.
The name Apple picked as being "too close" to iCloud Communications' name was already picked by another company, years ago. Apple bought it from the people who actually registered it.
So, why is it only just *now* that iCloud Communications cares? And why is it just *now* that so many Slashdot nerds care? It's certainly not about the law or the principle, as those haven't changed. It's about one and *only* one thing: Apple.
Legality aside, you would think that if they had been using a name legally for 6 years, they have a right to keep using it.
I haven't heard of Apple trying to tell iCloud Communications that they can no longer user their name, iCloud Communications. However, that situation may change depending on how this continues on.
Something is broken if a larger company can buy a trademark of a smaller company and claim ownership and prevent the smaller company from using it.
Apple bought the actual iCloud trademark from the company that actually registered it, years ago.
What you are calling "dumb[ing] down the population", is Apple making technology better suited for actual humans. That's why Apple has been so successful. They take something out of the reach of 90+% of humanity, and make it as easy as driving a car or using a TV.
It's not "dumb" to not know how to interact with a computer via a command line, or navigate complex settings. I know this is incomprehensible to some nerds, but although there are some people who are mostly incapable of ever really understanding computers, most people out there just really aren't that interested or motivated. And there's no good reason to require they should be, nor should they be left out of the modern world.
Google bought Android before the iPhone was introduced. During Google's development, but before the iPhone was publicly shown, it was a BlackBerry like system, with a keyboard and a standard BlackBerry-like screen that took up the top half of the phone. It didn't have a touch UI. Then the iPhone was introduced, and not long afterwards, Android become just another iPhone clone.
As for Kindle & Nook being any sort of threat to Apple, that's laughable. I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out Amazon sells more books to people using the Kindle app for iPad than they do to people with Kindles. And although both would clearly prefer to have people locked into their own devices (it's funny fandroids never seem to complain about those locked-in devices), I'm sure they are quite happy to sell books to iPad owners.
The fact that apple thought they could become the toll road of all media is disturbing.
What are you talking about? Apple's iTunes stores are all about selling iPods and iOS devices. These aren't significant revenue streams, and they never will be. Apple makes a *LOT* more selling hardware. Just like Android is a vehicle for Google to sell consumers to advertisers, the iTunes stores are there to get people to buy hardware, and Nook and Kindle are there for B&N and Amazon to sell books.
Now, explain how the Stac/DoubleSpace lawsuit is relevant to the topic at hand. And Apple doesn't mind writing a few checks. They do so all the time. They buy products, hire people, and license technologies they think will improve their products.
For example, they asked the WiFi Sync guy for his CV. They hired the notifications guy. The WiFi Sync guy just has sour grapes.
Apple has made tons of money already from their mandated royalties, and I think they are just feeling worried and trying to assuage old grudges of their partners in preparation for the next waves of real competition.
Apple makes almost nothing from their 30% cut. And you vastly overestimate the threat Apple faces. The part about Windows 8 taking on the iPad was especially amusing.
They make their money by selling hardware to their customers. Everything they do is about making their hardware and software more appealing to these very same customers. It's not "cynical" to alter your product to be more appealing.
The reason Google got into the smartphone OS business is because they want a customer base to sell to advertisers. And in fact, the reverse is true, in terms of the impact of competition. The iPhone made Android what it is today. Android went from a BlackBerry clone to an iPhone clone after the iPhone came out.
Apple is Apple's best competitor. When, since 1997, has Apple ever just sat around and rested on its laurels?
More like Apple == Apple. Throughout their history, they've been hell-bent on proprietary hardware and proprietary software to run on it.
opensource.apple.com
Apple has even initiated their own open source projects. And their hardware is based on open standards and industry standards, including standards that Apple themselves have made available to third parties.
You are right, though, that "Apple == Apple", but they are neither completely open, or completely closed. They are user-centric, with a focus on "normal" people. That's the one, main constant at Apple, and also why they are so phenomenally successful. It's also why this "Apple is super-proprietary" or evil or money grubbing, or whatever arguments are so misguided.
At least with Microsoft and the PC, you generally had a little bit of flexibility with the hardware (commodity parts aplenty, at least a few different disk operating systems, Xenix, etc and Linux for the last 20 years), but it's clear that the Apple dream is complete control of an integrated hardware/software stack.
The same Microsoft that would hose your bootloader if you installed Windows after installing Linux? And the same Apple that sells Macs with the express capability of running Windows? And which have been able to run Linux for well over a decade?
It's the freaking dark ages of computing all over again.
The "dark ages" where more people are able to do more things with their computers (especially Apple computers and devices) than ever before? Oh my, what an awful age we live in!
Right, they are "too restrictive". So restrictive, in fact, that iOS is the most popular "app-style" mobile OS. I mean, iOS is just *hurting* for users and developers!
This isn't a sign that Apple is going to change their overall policy. Their overall policy is working out fantastic for them. This just shows that Apple will do what Apple has always done when something doesn't work out, they'll change it.
The original purpose of the clause was to make In App purchasing something end users could trust in and use. The purpose of that clause has not changed, but the implementation has changed slightly due to the impact it had on developers.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why Apple is offering this if no carrier has an appropriate pricing plan to support it? This is like paying cash for a car and STILL making a payment on it every month. Why?
The short answer is: because people want it.
(it's funny, people bitch about phones being carrier-locked, then act confused when a phone is offered without a carrier-lock)
The longer answer is:
- So you don't have to enter a 2 year contract.
- For use overseas, being able to buy a local SIM instead of paying AT&T's high international roaming rates
- It makes the iPhone more readily available in countries and on carriers which it's not currently sold on
Which is to say, because people want it.
"Fanboi" is a compound word, with one part based on the word "fanatic". It's quite clear that "anti-Apple fanatic" sums up your posts here quite well.
And, since you are so eager to use the term yourself, anti-Apple fanboi.
Is your hatred of Apple so much that you have to invent things?
Based on his posts to this story, I'd have thought this was obvious. The poor guy has clearly blown a fuse.
Nokia gets 10$ for every iphone sold. Sure Apple is the winner!!
Nokia gets some undisclosed amount of money for licensing their patents to Apple (as the law requires), you mean. You can be sure it's not $10/iPhone.
Just to be clear, are you trying to say Google isn't offering an expensive Arduino-based kit? Because they are. I never said you had to buy it from them.
This is little more than Google "blessing" Arduino as Android's tech for controlling external devices and systems. Lots of nerds will have fun with this, and there will be some commercial products, but it's not going to really be an important feature for consumers.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. There isn't business software, PCB design software, label printing software for the Mac? That's quite a bold set of claims, and easily shown to be false.
Or are you just echoing what I wrote, that the entry price point for Macs is higher than for PCs?
Perhaps you could elaborate?
Because it's by far the most functional, open, well-supported, cost-effective desktop computing environment in the world. While other offerings have some of these features in greater measure (Linux - openness would be the obvious one), no other choice has an adequate measure of them all.
Which of the things listed does the Mac *not* have in "adequate measure"? And it's far from clear that Windows is "by far" ahead of the Mac across those areas you listed.
Windows is "still in business" because it established itself as the default choice almost two decades ago. The PC and Windows were *much* better suited for business use at the time, and business decisions drove the market. People wanted to have the same system at home as they had at the office.
For the past 5 years, Mac growth has outpaced PC growth. Increasingly, consumers, and even businesses, are more and more buying Macs. There are really only two things holding Mac sales back today: higher than average entry-level price (specifically, that Apple doesn't cater to the low end), and inertia.
Apple is overcoming Windows' inertia just fine. Clearly, people aren't as in agreement with your assessment as you seem to think they are.
Don't worry, you won't have to. In spite of the selective scope the author chose, iOS vastly outnumbers Android.
Wrong. Android officially passed iOS up this year.
You should get your news from non-fandroids. For over a year now, Slashdot headlines and summaries have been based on extremely cherry-picked data and deceptively worded to make it sound like Android is more widely used than iOS. This has led to countless slashdotters coming to false conclusions, like yours.
Android recently shipped on its 100 millionth unit. iOS has recently shipped on its 200 millionth unit.
There already exist X10 and Insteon apps for iOS
Doesn't matter which remote you use, X10 sucks. I don't know enough about Insteon to have an opinion but since its fully backward compatible with X10, it suggests it may also suck.
In other words, you don't have a valid opinion, but you'll have one anyway?
Insteon addresses some of the limitations that makes X10 suck. The Insteon protocol is *not* compatible with X10, but the main implementation from SmartHome has chips which can *also* deal with X10 commands. But the protocol and commands are not, themselves, compatible.
I honestly can't get excited about this, regardless of which platform you're using to drive your Arduino project.
Exactly. And the average person is going to care even less than that. I find it quite amusing that the average slashdot nerd thinks that this is going to be some successful consumer endeavor. I have no doubt that there will be thousands of nerds who will be quite happy with this technology, and that's fantastic. But the average person? Really?
The idea that you think that this definitely won't have any impact at all on the average person is laughable (considering 35%+ US smartphone owners are rocking Android).
Straw man. I never said "any impact at all", I said, "noticeable impact". And it won't.
The average person isn't going to rewire their house to interface with their Android phone. Those that *do* rewire their house (and they definitely aren't "average") will just use X10 or Insteon, instead of this Android-centric tinker-toy.
And almost *no one* is going to buy Android because of this. iOS has far outsold Android. People aren't going to be swayed by some hacker toy that they will never even *hear* about, let alone have the slightest inclination of using.
You DO realize this is why fanboys get picked on?
Citing facts that you don't like doesn't make someone a fanboy.
Android has recently surpassed 100 million units. iOS has recently surpassed 200 million units.
But I don't want to have to buy an Android device just to turn the lights on in my house :(
Don't worry, you won't have to. In spite of the selective scope the author chose, iOS vastly outnumbers Android. There already exist X10 and Insteon apps for iOS, and even if there weren't, there's no way the masses are going to accept a future where turning on a light requires a personal Android device.
The only story here (which is by no means new) is that Google has an expensive Arduino kit available as an official add-on to Android. I'm sure there will be thousands of tinkerers who will be quite happy about this, and good for them! But the idea that this will have any noticeable impact on the average person is laughable.
iCloud Communications is a VOIP company. Apple's iCloud is not a VOIP system. It is, in fact, quite similar to the Xcerion iCloud service, which is now at cloudme.com. Feel free to look into it yourself.
Obviously they have a web presence, so is it unreasonable to assume they simply didn't think/want to register just "icloud.com" for whatever reason?
If iCloud is an important mark for them, it's not reasonable to assume they didn't think about that domain. That doesn't mean they didn't, we all do things that don't make sense from time to time. But it does raise the question as to why they didn't.
To keep a trademark, you actually have to actively defend it. iCloud Communications has had a lot of time to defend it, and didn't. *Maybe* they didn't know about icloud.com, but it's somewhat strange they wouldn't have looked into it if it was so important to them.
On the other hand, seeing the many millions of dollars Xcerion got for a domain name and a trademark that they seem to think they have some rights to has gotta sting.
The reason iCloud Communications (there's no entity involved named 'iCloud') cares now is they see $$. Xcerion has had the registered trademark and the domain name for years. If iCloud Communications really cared, one must wonder why they never did anything before? You'd think that if the name was so important to them, they would have wanted the domain, so it's not like they didn't know of the existence of this other company.
And *had* they done that, and won, *they* would have received the many millions Xcerion got from Apple. It wasn't until Apple entered the picture, it seems, that iCloud Communications decided their (unregistered) trademark was worth defending.
The application date for the trademark in question is May 29th, 2008. Unless they were using it prior to 2005, they are still in the wrong.
That's rather presumptuous.
What remains to be seen is how well or badly it turns out for the company who is legally in the right (iCloud Comm.).
Yeah, right. iCloud Communications will either win, hitting the jackpot, lose, remaining exactly where they are now (except with more publicity in a few days than they ever would have received during their entire existence), or settle (something in between winning and losing).
The only way they can really "lose" in such a way that turns out badly for them is if Apple, owning the actual registered trademark, sues iCloud Communications and forces them to change their name. That doesn't seem likely. Apple is more than willing to pay for things it wants.
And like I said, this is all rather presumptuous. It assumes they have the exclusive right to the iCloud trademark in the market that Apple's iCloud exists in. It also raises the question of why they never applied for a trademark, and never went after the previous owner of iCloud (including icloud.com, which one would assume they were quite aware of).
Then why didn't they apply for a trademark?
Because they're not just 'iCloud' - they're 'iCloud Communications'. They think the name Apple picked is too close to their own name. Kind of like 'Apple Computer' is similar to 'Apple Music' and one might think they are two subsidiaries of the same company, like 'Sony Computer' and 'Sony Music'.
The name Apple picked as being "too close" to iCloud Communications' name was already picked by another company, years ago. Apple bought it from the people who actually registered it.
So, why is it only just *now* that iCloud Communications cares? And why is it just *now* that so many Slashdot nerds care? It's certainly not about the law or the principle, as those haven't changed. It's about one and *only* one thing: Apple.
Legality aside, you would think that if they had been using a name legally for 6 years, they have a right to keep using it.
I haven't heard of Apple trying to tell iCloud Communications that they can no longer user their name, iCloud Communications. However, that situation may change depending on how this continues on.
Something is broken if a larger company can buy a trademark of a smaller company and claim ownership and prevent the smaller company from using it.
Apple bought the actual iCloud trademark from the company that actually registered it, years ago.
What you are calling "dumb[ing] down the population", is Apple making technology better suited for actual humans. That's why Apple has been so successful. They take something out of the reach of 90+% of humanity, and make it as easy as driving a car or using a TV.
It's not "dumb" to not know how to interact with a computer via a command line, or navigate complex settings. I know this is incomprehensible to some nerds, but although there are some people who are mostly incapable of ever really understanding computers, most people out there just really aren't that interested or motivated. And there's no good reason to require they should be, nor should they be left out of the modern world.
Google bought Android before the iPhone was introduced. During Google's development, but before the iPhone was publicly shown, it was a BlackBerry like system, with a keyboard and a standard BlackBerry-like screen that took up the top half of the phone. It didn't have a touch UI. Then the iPhone was introduced, and not long afterwards, Android become just another iPhone clone.
As for Kindle & Nook being any sort of threat to Apple, that's laughable. I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out Amazon sells more books to people using the Kindle app for iPad than they do to people with Kindles. And although both would clearly prefer to have people locked into their own devices (it's funny fandroids never seem to complain about those locked-in devices), I'm sure they are quite happy to sell books to iPad owners.
The fact that apple thought they could become the toll road of all media is disturbing.
What are you talking about? Apple's iTunes stores are all about selling iPods and iOS devices. These aren't significant revenue streams, and they never will be. Apple makes a *LOT* more selling hardware. Just like Android is a vehicle for Google to sell consumers to advertisers, the iTunes stores are there to get people to buy hardware, and Nook and Kindle are there for B&N and Amazon to sell books.
Now, explain how the Stac/DoubleSpace lawsuit is relevant to the topic at hand. And Apple doesn't mind writing a few checks. They do so all the time. They buy products, hire people, and license technologies they think will improve their products.
For example, they asked the WiFi Sync guy for his CV. They hired the notifications guy. The WiFi Sync guy just has sour grapes.
Apple has made tons of money already from their mandated royalties, and I think they are just feeling worried and trying to assuage old grudges of their partners in preparation for the next waves of real competition.
Apple makes almost nothing from their 30% cut. And you vastly overestimate the threat Apple faces. The part about Windows 8 taking on the iPad was especially amusing.
They make their money by selling hardware to their customers. Everything they do is about making their hardware and software more appealing to these very same customers. It's not "cynical" to alter your product to be more appealing.
Yeah, because they never improved their iPods!
The reason Google got into the smartphone OS business is because they want a customer base to sell to advertisers. And in fact, the reverse is true, in terms of the impact of competition. The iPhone made Android what it is today. Android went from a BlackBerry clone to an iPhone clone after the iPhone came out.
Apple is Apple's best competitor. When, since 1997, has Apple ever just sat around and rested on its laurels?
More like Apple == Apple. Throughout their history, they've been hell-bent on proprietary hardware and proprietary software to run on it.
opensource.apple.com
Apple has even initiated their own open source projects. And their hardware is based on open standards and industry standards, including standards that Apple themselves have made available to third parties.
You are right, though, that "Apple == Apple", but they are neither completely open, or completely closed. They are user-centric, with a focus on "normal" people. That's the one, main constant at Apple, and also why they are so phenomenally successful. It's also why this "Apple is super-proprietary" or evil or money grubbing, or whatever arguments are so misguided.
At least with Microsoft and the PC, you generally had a little bit of flexibility with the hardware (commodity parts aplenty, at least a few different disk operating systems, Xenix, etc and Linux for the last 20 years), but it's clear that the Apple dream is complete control of an integrated hardware/software stack.
The same Microsoft that would hose your bootloader if you installed Windows after installing Linux? And the same Apple that sells Macs with the express capability of running Windows? And which have been able to run Linux for well over a decade?
It's the freaking dark ages of computing all over again.
The "dark ages" where more people are able to do more things with their computers (especially Apple computers and devices) than ever before? Oh my, what an awful age we live in!
Right, they are "too restrictive". So restrictive, in fact, that iOS is the most popular "app-style" mobile OS. I mean, iOS is just *hurting* for users and developers!
This isn't a sign that Apple is going to change their overall policy. Their overall policy is working out fantastic for them. This just shows that Apple will do what Apple has always done when something doesn't work out, they'll change it.
The original purpose of the clause was to make In App purchasing something end users could trust in and use. The purpose of that clause has not changed, but the implementation has changed slightly due to the impact it had on developers.
Because they have to pay the labels and studios.
Yes, they saved money by only making one app instead of two. They also are leaving money on the table by not giving their consumers what they want.