And I never said he said he came up with the idea.
Everybody's a backseat nerd here on Slashdot. "Oh, I could've done that better." Yeah, right. It's far easier to criticize someone else's work than it is to do the work yourself.
Why would Sony make a move which would lead to *fewer* sales because a competitor "complained"?
s/competitor/supplier/
No, they are a competitor in sales of supercomputer components. "s///" is replace, not addition. Just because IBM is a supplier, that doesn't mean they are not also a competitor. And the role of competitor is what makes more sense in this particular context. Unless you can somehow show a reason to believe otherwise. Do you think IBM is going to risk millions of CPU sales to strong arm Sony in order to make a few thousand sales? More evidence than "ooh, corporate conspiracy" is needed to back up anomaly256's claim.
Good point about profit on the consoles themselves. But the rest still doesn't make any sense. What difference does it make on production if Sony sells 10,000 cell processors for use in a supercomputer, or IBM does?
Also, links to the transcripts or pertinent quotes? Otherwise it's just hearsay about something that doesn't even make any sense in the first place, that Sony pulled OtherOS simple because IBM asked them to. Even if the transcripts mention that IBM asked them to doesn't mean that's the reason.
I've been playing my PS3 games for the entire outage
This is true of disc games.
Yeah, too bad nobody ever plays those... ???
But it's not true of a few PSN games published by Capcom that require logging in to PSN before playing as a way to crack down on what Capcom believes to be excessive "game sharing".
Wow, a "few PSN games" were rendered unplayable by PSN being offline! OMG, that's *totally* a rebuttal to "I've been playing my PS3 games for the entire outage."!
The upside for everyone else - Wii, Xbox, PC - is that they've been playing their games this entire time.
And now they'll be back to playing their PS3s too. The impact from this will be long forgotten soon enough. Sony haters are few and far between, they just talk a lot online. The 25 million PS3 owners out there aren't going to just jump ship.
Oh, and they don't have to update to an untested version of the "new system software" that still has a pretty good (as in, "non-negligible") chance of bricking your console with the update-from-HDD method they were using.
What the fuck? Do you *really* think there's a "pretty good chance" the update will brick your console?
So no, you shouldnt buy expensive hdmi cables, but you shouldnt mistake the abstract digital concept for its real, messy electrical representation either.
I don't think anyone here was making that mistake. Do you think it's reasonable to imply that any time someone talks about digital data, that they must also make it clear that they know the digital data is built upon analog technology?
Wait... analog technology? Don't you know there's no such thing? All of the universe is quantum. There are discrete states, and it's impossible to be in between them!
So, sure, digital is just built atop analog, but you shouldn't mistake the abstract analog concept for its real, discrete quantum representation either.:)
The PC didn't win out because it was more open, it won out because it better suited the needs of computer users of the time, who were primarily business users and home users that wanted the same thing at home as they had at work.
Why would anyone other than enthusiasts care how "open" it is? What people care about is "does it work, and can I use it?"
You're making an assumption that isn't actually true, or at least isn't completely true. It is in Apple's interests to keep some third party manufacturers, but as with the Apple AppStore itself it isn't in Apple's interest to keep all of them - it certainly isn't in their interest to keep anyone who competes too closely with their own branded and thusly profitable peripherals.
Apple never denies apps or peripherals because they compete with Apple peripherals or apps. Never. The thing you are thinking of is when they don't approve apps that duplicate inherent iPhone/iPod touch functionality. That *can't* fit your idea that this is because it competes with their "own branded and thusly profitable peripherals" (or apps, I assume) (how do they lose a sale on something that is already part of the product?). This is easily explained by Apple's official reason: to keep the core experience intact.
iMovie, GarageBand, Texas Hold'em... These apps *all* have competition on the App Store. Docks, cables, headphones, smart covers, cases... These *all* have competitors in Made For iPod.
Your assertion is completely baseless.
You are correct, MFI isn't a profit center for them, however the iPod, iPhone and all iDevices that use the connector and play with the MFI certified peripherials are a profit center (and Apple peripherals are also profitable for them), therefore close control of MFI and connecting to 'their' devices is what they're after.
To an extent I'd agree with you, MFI does tend to make the peripherals work well with the devices (although like anything the older peripherals are useless), but control is the purpose, not just a good working experience.
They don't control for control's sake. They don't even control for direct profit. They control to make the product more appealing to consumers. Control is *NOT* the purpose, control is the means. The purpose is a good working experience. Apple makes money by making products people want. They do this by making good products, not by controlling people. Every single Apple customer is a voluntary customer. They don't have a monopoly and they aren't a government. You don't hear people say, "I didn't want an [Apple Product], but I had to get one."
Wow, that's pretty scary! I suppose you can cite an example of this happening, right? I mean, if not, and the dock connector has been around for the better part of a decade, you'd think maybe it's not something you need to worry about.
I half agree with you here, but not totally. As far as I know the situation is similar to that of the Apple AppStore, in that you're under an NDA and you can't really talk if you want to keep doing business with Apple. If you don't care about doing business, then you can risk breaking the NDA, but as there's a significant difference between hardware and software it's not likely that you'll be a straw-man that's not worth suing.
Based on Apple's tactics with the AppStore, it's more of a case of a track record than no evidence. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple has done it, after-all where's the drawback for them? It's much easier to control small numbers of large players with a lot to lose than large groups of small players with nothing to lose.
In other words, no, you can't cite a single example.
Google hasn't "upped" shit. If you want to sell your product to many hundreds of millions of people, you pay a small pittance to Apple. Just because Google's system doesn't require a license is pretty much inconsequential to whether or not one will make products targeting the iPod dock connector. You don't create products in a vacuum. You need customers. Apple's customer base is far more lucrative than Google's.
In your opinion Google hasn't "upped" shit, in other people's opinions it might have - certainly it has interested me, a lot more than any hardware integration wit
"The prices are raised across the board. That 10% doesn't cut into their profit margin any more than some other fixed cost does. You just raise your price by 10%, like everyone else."
Are you retracting that statement?
No, because the next paragraph starts with:
"And like you said, this is no longer the case."
In other words, the prices *aren't* raised 10% across the board.
I think we all understand the basics of how commerce works. Poeple will pay for the products and services they want and think are worth the money. But adding a 10% tax to device manufacturers that ultimately gets directly passed on to the consumer is not benfiting the consumer. The iPod has a spec sheet developers build against. Unless you are saying that spec sheet would not exist without the Made For iPod program (unlikely since the devices would not be as popular without all the accessories), then how is adding 10% to the cost benefiting anyone except Apple? Do you really think the devices would work differently without the Made For iPod program?
They aren't adding 10%.
Anyway, they do this so that they can control the spec. This also enforces a compatibility list, so consumers know for sure whether the part will work with their particular iPod, and keeps third parties from deviating from the standard, either deliberately or accidentally.
It's not uncommon for standards to have licenses. FireWire, USB, HDMI, DVD, CD... These all require licenses in order to get the logo. This is normal, and not some sort of silly profit grab. Apple makes *vastly* more money by the existence of third party products than they ever could from license fees. The fees just work as a means to ensure compliance, nothing more.
Given how easy it is in the UK: Yes, I would - and more to the point, friends have already been through this with AP and others
NOrmally a letter detailing the offence, setting out compensation (higher than normal photo rates as it was taken without permission) and mentioning reserving the right to take the matter to small claims court means they settle immediately. Magistrates take an inordintately dim view of companies fucking about with members of the public, and so most companies settle.
Then you're in the minority. Hooray for you. The simple solution is: don't use TwitPic.
Anyways...My two main points are this: 1) Apple's proprietary connector *seems* like fake invention in order to extract license fees.
It's not. It exists for three main reasons:
1. It's thinner and sturdier than USB. 2. It's extensible, and wholly controlled by Apple, so they can extend it however they want. 3. It creates a network effect where devices made for the dock connector work best with Apple devices.
Any revenue from licensing fees is minimal, and clearly meant to be used to ensure products work properly.
2) On the other hand, Google's open-API approach (in this instance) vastly contrasts the business style of Apple, and could make for very interesting market competition in the years to come. If you really think this will have no effect, see above point about how much the G1 and Android were a total joke compared to the iPhone in 2008.
The business model has absolutely nothing to do with the dock connecter, because if you have an iPhone or an iPod, etc., YOU CAN'T USE GOOGLE'S SYSTEM. There's no direct competition. The only way Google's choice can possibly have any effect on Apple is if so many wonderful devices come out for Android and not iOS. That's not going to happen simply due to Google's openness. Businesses and consumer don't give a fuck about it. Only hackers and nerds really care enough for it to affect their buying/creating decision.
First off, it doesn't result in a 10% across the board price increase.
Second off, I'm defending the notion of exchanging money for things that are worth it. Whatever any actual price increase happens to be, people appear overwhelmingly willing to pay it.
As for who benefits, the user benefits in being able to buy devices that just work, which is the primary motivation behind the Made For iPod program.
Well, perhaps the draconian characterization was a bit inflamatory, but I don't find your "it's just business" arguments in the least bit compelling either.
Apple's use of a proprietary, non-standard, and patented connector appears from my perspective (admittedly I am not hardware expert) to be a bit of rent seeking.
The dock connector itself was brilliant. It allowed Apple to have one connector that has been able to keep up with every update these devices have gone through. Instead of FireWire, USB, line-out, digital out, HDMI, composite, component, etc., etc., one connector has been able to serve all these needs, many of which weren't even expected.
As far as "rent seeking", the MFI isn't directly profit-motivated, but instead to make sure that products made for the iPod work well.
USB and FireWire have been around a long time and Apple has, since the introduction of it's MFi program, attempted to add the restrictions to headphones. Would you think it OK for them to charge a tithe for using the 3.5" heaphone jack? (They don't unless you want to use the MFi logo currently, but you get my point)
No, I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that Apple is going to somehow force all headphone makers pay Apple in order to work in an iPod? Because that's insane. They will never, ever, ever do this except where it's a technological necessity (specifically, a previous generation iPod shuffle, which had no buttons, so the headphones *had* to have the buttons).
But in order to listen to an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., Apple will never force you to buy a MFI pair of headphones.
Those that can't get their products to sell enough to be worth the cost of entry aren't going to be missed, pretty much be definition.
That's a really bad way to look at the world.
That's not how I view the world. That's how I view Apple's choice in business model. And it's hard to argue with, but I see you'll try...
First, it's not really true due to the fact that consumers don't always reward the best products.
I never said they do. I said products that don't sell well aren't likely to be missed. And like I said, this is pretty much by definition.
Often they "go with what they know." Further, cost of entry being artificially inflated doesn't help anyone but the company inflating.
Just like "draconian", calling this "inflated" is hyperbolic. The cost of entry is not significantly raised. Also, you can't call it "artificial", when it's Apple's playground. It's like saying the cost of entry to a ballpark is artificially inflated because you have to buy a ticket.
If you read the first link I posted you'd have come across a good example of this where speaker/dock makers were saying they could have made better speakers if they didn't have to pay so much in fees to Apple. The original MFi fee was 10% of every accessory sold (it's now a flat fee structure per unit sold AFAIK). In a lot of industries 10% is the profit margin, especially in the competitive accessory market. Anyways, here's the relevant quote:
The prices are raised across the board. That 10% doesn't cut into their profit margin any more than some other fixed cost does. You just raise your price by 10%, like everyone else. This is only really an issue for high ticket items, since a percentage increase would have much greater impact as the price raises.
And like you said, this is no longer the case. In other words, Apple rectified the situation. A situation that isn't even that problematic except for a small subset of Apple's licensees. Sounds like they are making efforts to mitigate problems that people have. That paints pretty much the opposite picture than you are presenting.
"If we didn't have to pay Apple for the dock and auth chip, we could have made a much better spea
"Businesses who make money selling Apple connectors have to pay money to Apple. It's not onerous, it's business. "
The key point you are ignoring is that under Apple's system, Apple holds *all* the cards.
How am I ignoring that? That's the very foundation of my point. It's Apple's system. If you want to play with them, you abide by their rules. It's in Apple's interest that their rules don't drive away third party manufacturers, while simultaneously making sure third party manufacturers don't piss in Apple's pool. That's why Made for iPod exists. It's not a profit center, it's mainly a way to make sure MFI products work well.
If you invest millions of dollars developing a new innovative accessory and they think it is a threat to them, or if they decide they'd rather sell it under their brand, then they will shut you down and you have no recourse thanks to the agreements you have signed.
Wow, that's pretty scary! I suppose you can cite an example of this happening, right? I mean, if not, and the dock connector has been around for the better part of a decade, you'd think maybe it's not something you need to worry about.
Yes this is "just business", but that don't mean it is *good* business and Google have just upped the ante fairly significantly.
Google hasn't "upped" shit. If you want to sell your product to many hundreds of millions of people, you pay a small pittance to Apple. Just because Google's system doesn't require a license is pretty much inconsequential to whether or not one will make products targeting the iPod dock connector. You don't create products in a vacuum. You need customers. Apple's customer base is far more lucrative than Google's.
People used to dismiss Linux as an embedded platform all the time with a similar argument to yours and now Linux completely dominates the market, so the idea of open in the device space is already proven.
Who dismissed Linux, as an embedded platform? And what exactly what their argument? You seem to think people are going to flock to Android because of this? Embedded systems are distinctly different from things that involve complex user interfaces. Linux's advantages in the embedded space are pretty much nullified when it comes to computers. Why do you think XP quickly dominated the netbook?
While I agree that Apple may have the right to charge a toll for everyone crossing their bridge, I disagree that it's a good idea. Case in point was the recent article on/. about the demise of independent music because of Apple's 30% rake off the top. Another case in point - I haven't bought an Apple product since 1996, so that's about $30,000 worth of business they haven't gotten. I published software for the NeXT, and had Macs through the early 1990s, but I don't want to be locked into either them or MS. I want the on-ramps to the highway to allow ALL traffic that fits the lanes - I don't want separate ramps for MS, Apple, Google or whatnot.
Somehow I think Apple has gotten by without your $30k. Their "restrictions" are mostly invisible or reasonable. If they weren't, people wouldn't be voluntarily buying Apple products. So while you might think the way they act is bad, most people don't.
And the idea that buying a Mac "locks" you into them is as bit of a stretch. Apple uses open standards for just about everything, and it's very simple to export from everything they make.
I use Macs (as you might have guessed), and I have absolutely no fear that if Apple were to ever become as bad as Slashdot seems to think, I could quite simply migrate to Windows or Linux.
And this is why the Year of Linux on the Desktop has never come. Any time someone even *considers* making a non-nerd version of Linux, the pitchforks come out. People don't want complex. They want simple, and simple is exactly what Shuttleworth is striving for. I'm not certain he'll succeed, but I am *quite* certain that no other Linux distro is even trying, so none of them even can succeed.
At least he's trying. So I guess that means he needs to be mocked?
The problem is how it's being framed. It's being framed as, "TwitPic is taking your shit, selling it, and fuck you."
The most plausible explanation (based solely on what I've read on Slashdot so far) is:
Right now, people are taking photos from TwitPic and using them however they want. TwitPic is partnering with a company to be the official method by which you can commercially use pictures from TwitPic. This certainly does involve money going to TwitPic (so, yes, they are selling your photos and not paying you, so the fact is true, but the way it's presented as a big "Fuck You" is not).
I thought it was framed as "Twitpic is taking your shit, selling it", I didn't see a single fuck you in the article. The fuck you is implied.
If you post a picture and AP decides to run it without compensation, if you hold the copyright you can sue them for compensation. If TwitPic sold them the rights to the image for a 5 cents, there's nothing you can do about it.
Right now there's nothing you can reasonably do about it. If the AP were to use a photo of yours, do *you* think you'd go through the effort to sue them?
TwitPic has to have some amount of copyright granted to them or they can't even publish your works at all. At least this way they can do something that the vast majority of their users cannot do, and that is provide something other than a wild west approach to licensing the images. You still retain copyright and can sell them if you want.
It's reasonable to expect TwitPic to want to have some model to make money. Sites don't run on good wishes. If you don't like their terms, you are completely free to not use their service. It's not like they are stealing anything, it's entirely voluntary, and even if you don't think it's something you want to agree with, it's hard to argue that it's not fair.
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
Gravity and breathing aren't inventions or creative works.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
If someone wants to sell their art, I don't see why that should be a problem. It's their work, they should decide the terms it is shared with others. Do *you* work for free? Why should you force anyone else to? And it's a straw man to argue whether art requires an incentive system. It doesn't, but it definitely can and does benefit from one. For example, people will make movies, but they will not be able to make big budget films without the ability to make the money back, and pay everyone involved. Same goes for a lot of creative endeavors.
And there's also a lot of creative works that aren't pure art. For example, the design of the keyboard you typed your reply on. There's a certain amount of creativity involved in designing pretty much anything. Why shouldn't Logitech (for example) be able to make money selling the design of one of its employees?
But I was actually just arguing that without an agreement, there is no reason to allow it. I am for a very, very thin copyright where this is more or less the only thing you are not allowed to do.
That's not what you wrote, which is why I replied the way I did. You could have just started with this instead of defending something which you (I think) didn't exactly mean. I do agree that no one should be able to simply take other people's creative works and profit directly from them without some sort of legal framework. But even that has some sticky areas. For example, each building in a city is a creative work. Should I be unable to sell a photograph of a city without first getting permission from every architect (and everyone else involved in the creative side of the buildings)?
As for the legal framework with TwitPic, it's in the terms of service. No one is forced to agree to them, but voluntary usage of the web site is considered agreement to the terms. Otherwise, are you arguing that people should be able to use the site and completely ignore the terms its offered under? This isn't something absurd (like "if you use this site, you owe me one million dollars"). There's still a lot of uncertainty relating to terms of services and EULAs, etc., that have yet to be ironed out, but either way, this is something that the end user is ostensibly agreeing to, and it's a reasonable trade for usage of the site's services.
Businesses who make money selling Apple connectors have to pay money to Apple. It's not onerous, it's business. Every single iPod, iPhone, iPad owner needs at least one dock connector. Only a very small fraction of Android users will even know about this Arduino kit. So as a business decision, it's silly not to pay a small bit to gain access to such a lucrative market.
Those that can't get their products to sell enough to be worth the cost of entry aren't going to be missed, pretty much be definition.
Now, on the hacker side of things, Google's choice is very interesting. But it's silly to act like this is going to have any notable business impact whatsoever. You may as well think Sony, MS, and Nintendo's licensing model for games is in trouble because game companies can make games for Windows, Mac, and Linux without paying such a license.
The people that use terms like "nanny states" tend to be the ones that think personal responsibility is only something that the victims should have, not the perpetrators. What about Sony taking responsibility for *their* actions (which they do appear to be doing, which is good). The problem isn't that people trusted Sony in the first place (as the OP claims), it's that they somehow demand perfection. It's completely rational to place trust in others. But it's completely irrational to expect others to be perfect.
If Sony had deliberately screwed their users, then all trust should be lost. But that's not what Sony did. They made a mistake, and are now having to deal with it. If they deal with it responsibly, trust can be maintained. If not, then trust can be lost.
But to act like trust shouldn't even exist? Nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
And I never said he said he came up with the idea.
Everybody's a backseat nerd here on Slashdot. "Oh, I could've done that better." Yeah, right. It's far easier to criticize someone else's work than it is to do the work yourself.
The good ol' "let's mock the victim here for not being as smart as me" routine.
But you didn't. It's much easier to *say* how you'd do something than it is to actually do it.
If you really could do so much better, why haven't you done so? Seems like a good way to make a few million, if it's so simple...
Why would Sony make a move which would lead to *fewer* sales because a competitor "complained"?
s/competitor/supplier/
No, they are a competitor in sales of supercomputer components. "s///" is replace, not addition. Just because IBM is a supplier, that doesn't mean they are not also a competitor. And the role of competitor is what makes more sense in this particular context. Unless you can somehow show a reason to believe otherwise. Do you think IBM is going to risk millions of CPU sales to strong arm Sony in order to make a few thousand sales? More evidence than "ooh, corporate conspiracy" is needed to back up anomaly256's claim.
They don't "claim they own the PS3".
Good point about profit on the consoles themselves. But the rest still doesn't make any sense. What difference does it make on production if Sony sells 10,000 cell processors for use in a supercomputer, or IBM does?
Also, links to the transcripts or pertinent quotes? Otherwise it's just hearsay about something that doesn't even make any sense in the first place, that Sony pulled OtherOS simple because IBM asked them to. Even if the transcripts mention that IBM asked them to doesn't mean that's the reason.
I've been playing my PS3 games for the entire outage
This is true of disc games.
Yeah, too bad nobody ever plays those... ???
But it's not true of a few PSN games published by Capcom that require logging in to PSN before playing as a way to crack down on what Capcom believes to be excessive "game sharing".
Wow, a "few PSN games" were rendered unplayable by PSN being offline! OMG, that's *totally* a rebuttal to "I've been playing my PS3 games for the entire outage."!
The upside for everyone else - Wii, Xbox, PC - is that they've been playing their games this entire time.
And now they'll be back to playing their PS3s too. The impact from this will be long forgotten soon enough. Sony haters are few and far between, they just talk a lot online. The 25 million PS3 owners out there aren't going to just jump ship.
Oh, and they don't have to update to an untested version of the "new system software" that still has a pretty good (as in, "non-negligible") chance of bricking your console with the update-from-HDD method they were using.
What the fuck? Do you *really* think there's a "pretty good chance" the update will brick your console?
Which makes absolutely zero sense. Why would Sony make a move which would lead to *fewer* sales because a competitor "complained"?
IBM: "Hey, Sony, quit selling your product to the military, *we* want to sell to the military instead."
Sony: "Ok." ???
Is that *really* what you think happened?
So no, you shouldnt buy expensive hdmi cables, but you shouldnt mistake the abstract digital concept for its real, messy electrical representation either.
I don't think anyone here was making that mistake. Do you think it's reasonable to imply that any time someone talks about digital data, that they must also make it clear that they know the digital data is built upon analog technology?
Wait... analog technology? Don't you know there's no such thing? All of the universe is quantum. There are discrete states, and it's impossible to be in between them!
So, sure, digital is just built atop analog, but you shouldn't mistake the abstract analog concept for its real, discrete quantum representation either. :)
The PC didn't win out because it was more open, it won out because it better suited the needs of computer users of the time, who were primarily business users and home users that wanted the same thing at home as they had at work.
Why would anyone other than enthusiasts care how "open" it is? What people care about is "does it work, and can I use it?"
You're making an assumption that isn't actually true, or at least isn't completely true. It is in Apple's interests to keep some third party manufacturers, but as with the Apple AppStore itself it isn't in Apple's interest to keep all of them - it certainly isn't in their interest to keep anyone who competes too closely with their own branded and thusly profitable peripherals.
Apple never denies apps or peripherals because they compete with Apple peripherals or apps. Never. The thing you are thinking of is when they don't approve apps that duplicate inherent iPhone/iPod touch functionality. That *can't* fit your idea that this is because it competes with their "own branded and thusly profitable peripherals" (or apps, I assume) (how do they lose a sale on something that is already part of the product?). This is easily explained by Apple's official reason: to keep the core experience intact.
iMovie, GarageBand, Texas Hold'em... These apps *all* have competition on the App Store. Docks, cables, headphones, smart covers, cases... These *all* have competitors in Made For iPod.
Your assertion is completely baseless.
You are correct, MFI isn't a profit center for them, however the iPod, iPhone and all iDevices that use the connector and play with the MFI certified peripherials are a profit center (and Apple peripherals are also profitable for them), therefore close control of MFI and connecting to 'their' devices is what they're after.
To an extent I'd agree with you, MFI does tend to make the peripherals work well with the devices (although like anything the older peripherals are useless), but control is the purpose, not just a good working experience.
They don't control for control's sake. They don't even control for direct profit. They control to make the product more appealing to consumers. Control is *NOT* the purpose, control is the means. The purpose is a good working experience. Apple makes money by making products people want. They do this by making good products, not by controlling people. Every single Apple customer is a voluntary customer. They don't have a monopoly and they aren't a government. You don't hear people say, "I didn't want an [Apple Product], but I had to get one."
Wow, that's pretty scary! I suppose you can cite an example of this happening, right? I mean, if not, and the dock connector has been around for the better part of a decade, you'd think maybe it's not something you need to worry about.
I half agree with you here, but not totally. As far as I know the situation is similar to that of the Apple AppStore, in that you're under an NDA and you can't really talk if you want to keep doing business with Apple. If you don't care about doing business, then you can risk breaking the NDA, but as there's a significant difference between hardware and software it's not likely that you'll be a straw-man that's not worth suing.
Based on Apple's tactics with the AppStore, it's more of a case of a track record than no evidence. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple has done it, after-all where's the drawback for them? It's much easier to control small numbers of large players with a lot to lose than large groups of small players with nothing to lose.
In other words, no, you can't cite a single example.
Google hasn't "upped" shit. If you want to sell your product to many hundreds of millions of people, you pay a small pittance to Apple. Just because Google's system doesn't require a license is pretty much inconsequential to whether or not one will make products targeting the iPod dock connector. You don't create products in a vacuum. You need customers. Apple's customer base is far more lucrative than Google's.
In your opinion Google hasn't "upped" shit, in other people's opinions it might have - certainly it has interested me, a lot more than any hardware integration wit
"The prices are raised across the board. That 10% doesn't cut into their profit margin any more than some other fixed cost does. You just raise your price by 10%, like everyone else."
Are you retracting that statement?
No, because the next paragraph starts with:
"And like you said, this is no longer the case."
In other words, the prices *aren't* raised 10% across the board.
I think we all understand the basics of how commerce works. Poeple will pay for the products and services they want and think are worth the money. But adding a 10% tax to device manufacturers that ultimately gets directly passed on to the consumer is not benfiting the consumer. The iPod has a spec sheet developers build against. Unless you are saying that spec sheet would not exist without the Made For iPod program (unlikely since the devices would not be as popular without all the accessories), then how is adding 10% to the cost benefiting anyone except Apple? Do you really think the devices would work differently without the Made For iPod program?
They aren't adding 10%.
Anyway, they do this so that they can control the spec. This also enforces a compatibility list, so consumers know for sure whether the part will work with their particular iPod, and keeps third parties from deviating from the standard, either deliberately or accidentally.
It's not uncommon for standards to have licenses. FireWire, USB, HDMI, DVD, CD... These all require licenses in order to get the logo. This is normal, and not some sort of silly profit grab. Apple makes *vastly* more money by the existence of third party products than they ever could from license fees. The fees just work as a means to ensure compliance, nothing more.
Given how easy it is in the UK: Yes, I would - and more to the point, friends have already been through this with AP and others
NOrmally a letter detailing the offence, setting out compensation (higher than normal photo rates as it was taken without permission) and mentioning reserving the right to take the matter to small claims court means they settle immediately. Magistrates take an inordintately dim view of companies fucking about with members of the public, and so most companies settle.
Then you're in the minority. Hooray for you. The simple solution is: don't use TwitPic.
Anyways...My two main points are this: 1) Apple's proprietary connector *seems* like fake invention in order to extract license fees.
It's not. It exists for three main reasons:
1. It's thinner and sturdier than USB.
2. It's extensible, and wholly controlled by Apple, so they can extend it however they want.
3. It creates a network effect where devices made for the dock connector work best with Apple devices.
Any revenue from licensing fees is minimal, and clearly meant to be used to ensure products work properly.
2) On the other hand, Google's open-API approach (in this instance) vastly contrasts the business style of Apple, and could make for very interesting market competition in the years to come. If you really think this will have no effect, see above point about how much the G1 and Android were a total joke compared to the iPhone in 2008.
The business model has absolutely nothing to do with the dock connecter, because if you have an iPhone or an iPod, etc., YOU CAN'T USE GOOGLE'S SYSTEM. There's no direct competition. The only way Google's choice can possibly have any effect on Apple is if so many wonderful devices come out for Android and not iOS. That's not going to happen simply due to Google's openness. Businesses and consumer don't give a fuck about it. Only hackers and nerds really care enough for it to affect their buying/creating decision.
First off, it doesn't result in a 10% across the board price increase.
Second off, I'm defending the notion of exchanging money for things that are worth it. Whatever any actual price increase happens to be, people appear overwhelmingly willing to pay it.
As for who benefits, the user benefits in being able to buy devices that just work, which is the primary motivation behind the Made For iPod program.
Well, perhaps the draconian characterization was a bit inflamatory, but I don't find your "it's just business" arguments in the least bit compelling either.
Apple's use of a proprietary, non-standard, and patented connector appears from my perspective (admittedly I am not hardware expert) to be a bit of rent seeking.
The dock connector itself was brilliant. It allowed Apple to have one connector that has been able to keep up with every update these devices have gone through. Instead of FireWire, USB, line-out, digital out, HDMI, composite, component, etc., etc., one connector has been able to serve all these needs, many of which weren't even expected.
As far as "rent seeking", the MFI isn't directly profit-motivated, but instead to make sure that products made for the iPod work well.
USB and FireWire have been around a long time and Apple has, since the introduction of it's MFi program, attempted to add the restrictions to headphones. Would you think it OK for them to charge a tithe for using the 3.5" heaphone jack? (They don't unless you want to use the MFi logo currently, but you get my point)
No, I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that Apple is going to somehow force all headphone makers pay Apple in order to work in an iPod? Because that's insane. They will never, ever, ever do this except where it's a technological necessity (specifically, a previous generation iPod shuffle, which had no buttons, so the headphones *had* to have the buttons).
But in order to listen to an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., Apple will never force you to buy a MFI pair of headphones.
Those that can't get their products to sell enough to be worth the cost of entry aren't going to be missed, pretty much be definition.
That's a really bad way to look at the world.
That's not how I view the world. That's how I view Apple's choice in business model. And it's hard to argue with, but I see you'll try...
First, it's not really true due to the fact that consumers don't always reward the best products.
I never said they do. I said products that don't sell well aren't likely to be missed. And like I said, this is pretty much by definition.
Often they "go with what they know." Further, cost of entry being artificially inflated doesn't help anyone but the company inflating.
Just like "draconian", calling this "inflated" is hyperbolic. The cost of entry is not significantly raised. Also, you can't call it "artificial", when it's Apple's playground. It's like saying the cost of entry to a ballpark is artificially inflated because you have to buy a ticket.
If you read the first link I posted you'd have come across a good example of this where speaker/dock makers were saying they could have made better speakers if they didn't have to pay so much in fees to Apple. The original MFi fee was 10% of every accessory sold (it's now a flat fee structure per unit sold AFAIK). In a lot of industries 10% is the profit margin, especially in the competitive accessory market. Anyways, here's the relevant quote:
The prices are raised across the board. That 10% doesn't cut into their profit margin any more than some other fixed cost does. You just raise your price by 10%, like everyone else. This is only really an issue for high ticket items, since a percentage increase would have much greater impact as the price raises.
And like you said, this is no longer the case. In other words, Apple rectified the situation. A situation that isn't even that problematic except for a small subset of Apple's licensees. Sounds like they are making efforts to mitigate problems that people have. That paints pretty much the opposite picture than you are presenting.
"If we didn't have to pay Apple for the dock and auth chip, we could have made a much better spea
"Businesses who make money selling Apple connectors have to pay money to Apple. It's not onerous, it's business. "
The key point you are ignoring is that under Apple's system, Apple holds *all* the cards.
How am I ignoring that? That's the very foundation of my point. It's Apple's system. If you want to play with them, you abide by their rules. It's in Apple's interest that their rules don't drive away third party manufacturers, while simultaneously making sure third party manufacturers don't piss in Apple's pool. That's why Made for iPod exists. It's not a profit center, it's mainly a way to make sure MFI products work well.
If you invest millions of dollars developing a new innovative accessory and they think it is a threat to them, or if they decide they'd rather sell it under their brand, then they will shut you down and you have no recourse thanks to the agreements you have signed.
Wow, that's pretty scary! I suppose you can cite an example of this happening, right? I mean, if not, and the dock connector has been around for the better part of a decade, you'd think maybe it's not something you need to worry about.
Yes this is "just business", but that don't mean it is *good* business and Google have just upped the ante fairly significantly.
Google hasn't "upped" shit. If you want to sell your product to many hundreds of millions of people, you pay a small pittance to Apple. Just because Google's system doesn't require a license is pretty much inconsequential to whether or not one will make products targeting the iPod dock connector. You don't create products in a vacuum. You need customers. Apple's customer base is far more lucrative than Google's.
People used to dismiss Linux as an embedded platform all the time with a similar argument to yours and now Linux completely dominates the market, so the idea of open in the device space is already proven.
Who dismissed Linux, as an embedded platform? And what exactly what their argument? You seem to think people are going to flock to Android because of this? Embedded systems are distinctly different from things that involve complex user interfaces. Linux's advantages in the embedded space are pretty much nullified when it comes to computers. Why do you think XP quickly dominated the netbook?
While I agree that Apple may have the right to charge a toll for everyone crossing their bridge, I disagree that it's a good idea. Case in point was the recent article on /. about the demise of independent music because of Apple's 30% rake off the top. Another case in point - I haven't bought an Apple product since 1996, so that's about $30,000 worth of business they haven't gotten. I published software for the NeXT, and had Macs through the early 1990s, but I don't want to be locked into either them or MS. I want the on-ramps to the highway to allow ALL traffic that fits the lanes - I don't want separate ramps for MS, Apple, Google or whatnot.
Somehow I think Apple has gotten by without your $30k. Their "restrictions" are mostly invisible or reasonable. If they weren't, people wouldn't be voluntarily buying Apple products. So while you might think the way they act is bad, most people don't.
And the idea that buying a Mac "locks" you into them is as bit of a stretch. Apple uses open standards for just about everything, and it's very simple to export from everything they make.
I use Macs (as you might have guessed), and I have absolutely no fear that if Apple were to ever become as bad as Slashdot seems to think, I could quite simply migrate to Windows or Linux.
And this is why the Year of Linux on the Desktop has never come. Any time someone even *considers* making a non-nerd version of Linux, the pitchforks come out. People don't want complex. They want simple, and simple is exactly what Shuttleworth is striving for. I'm not certain he'll succeed, but I am *quite* certain that no other Linux distro is even trying, so none of them even can succeed.
At least he's trying. So I guess that means he needs to be mocked?
The problem is how it's being framed. It's being framed as, "TwitPic is taking your shit, selling it, and fuck you."
The most plausible explanation (based solely on what I've read on Slashdot so far) is:
Right now, people are taking photos from TwitPic and using them however they want. TwitPic is partnering with a company to be the official method by which you can commercially use pictures from TwitPic. This certainly does involve money going to TwitPic (so, yes, they are selling your photos and not paying you, so the fact is true, but the way it's presented as a big "Fuck You" is not).
I thought it was framed as "Twitpic is taking your shit, selling it", I didn't see a single fuck you in the article. The fuck you is implied.
If you post a picture and AP decides to run it without compensation, if you hold the copyright you can sue them for compensation. If TwitPic sold them the rights to the image for a 5 cents, there's nothing you can do about it.
Right now there's nothing you can reasonably do about it. If the AP were to use a photo of yours, do *you* think you'd go through the effort to sue them?
TwitPic has to have some amount of copyright granted to them or they can't even publish your works at all. At least this way they can do something that the vast majority of their users cannot do, and that is provide something other than a wild west approach to licensing the images. You still retain copyright and can sell them if you want.
It's reasonable to expect TwitPic to want to have some model to make money. Sites don't run on good wishes. If you don't like their terms, you are completely free to not use their service. It's not like they are stealing anything, it's entirely voluntary, and even if you don't think it's something you want to agree with, it's hard to argue that it's not fair.
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
Gravity and breathing aren't inventions or creative works.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
If someone wants to sell their art, I don't see why that should be a problem. It's their work, they should decide the terms it is shared with others. Do *you* work for free? Why should you force anyone else to? And it's a straw man to argue whether art requires an incentive system. It doesn't, but it definitely can and does benefit from one. For example, people will make movies, but they will not be able to make big budget films without the ability to make the money back, and pay everyone involved. Same goes for a lot of creative endeavors.
And there's also a lot of creative works that aren't pure art. For example, the design of the keyboard you typed your reply on. There's a certain amount of creativity involved in designing pretty much anything. Why shouldn't Logitech (for example) be able to make money selling the design of one of its employees?
But I was actually just arguing that without an agreement, there is no reason to allow it. I am for a very, very thin copyright where this is more or less the only thing you are not allowed to do.
That's not what you wrote, which is why I replied the way I did. You could have just started with this instead of defending something which you (I think) didn't exactly mean. I do agree that no one should be able to simply take other people's creative works and profit directly from them without some sort of legal framework. But even that has some sticky areas. For example, each building in a city is a creative work. Should I be unable to sell a photograph of a city without first getting permission from every architect (and everyone else involved in the creative side of the buildings)?
As for the legal framework with TwitPic, it's in the terms of service. No one is forced to agree to them, but voluntary usage of the web site is considered agreement to the terms. Otherwise, are you arguing that people should be able to use the site and completely ignore the terms its offered under? This isn't something absurd (like "if you use this site, you owe me one million dollars"). There's still a lot of uncertainty relating to terms of services and EULAs, etc., that have yet to be ironed out, but either way, this is something that the end user is ostensibly agreeing to, and it's a reasonable trade for usage of the site's services.
Draconian? Yawn...
Businesses who make money selling Apple connectors have to pay money to Apple. It's not onerous, it's business. Every single iPod, iPhone, iPad owner needs at least one dock connector. Only a very small fraction of Android users will even know about this Arduino kit. So as a business decision, it's silly not to pay a small bit to gain access to such a lucrative market.
Those that can't get their products to sell enough to be worth the cost of entry aren't going to be missed, pretty much be definition.
Now, on the hacker side of things, Google's choice is very interesting. But it's silly to act like this is going to have any notable business impact whatsoever. You may as well think Sony, MS, and Nintendo's licensing model for games is in trouble because game companies can make games for Windows, Mac, and Linux without paying such a license.
"Criminal negligence"? Which criminal law, exactly, did Sony violate?
The only criminals here were the ones that hacked into Sony's network vandalized the system and stole people's data.
The people that use terms like "nanny states" tend to be the ones that think personal responsibility is only something that the victims should have, not the perpetrators. What about Sony taking responsibility for *their* actions (which they do appear to be doing, which is good). The problem isn't that people trusted Sony in the first place (as the OP claims), it's that they somehow demand perfection. It's completely rational to place trust in others. But it's completely irrational to expect others to be perfect.
If Sony had deliberately screwed their users, then all trust should be lost. But that's not what Sony did. They made a mistake, and are now having to deal with it. If they deal with it responsibly, trust can be maintained. If not, then trust can be lost.
But to act like trust shouldn't even exist? Nonsense.