Nintendo doesn't require their approval, nor do they censor games anymore. They haven't since the creation of the ESRB. Learn your facts before spouting off. You sound like a fucking idiot to people who actually know this shit.
You are absolutely wrong. You cannot write homebrew games for the Wii without either hacking your Wii, or going through Nintendo.
Except, for the PS3 and Wii, you're wrong. The only requirement is that you buy a dev kit from them. After you do that, you can publish whatever the fuck you want. Apple wants you to buy in too, true, but they can then still say no to whatever you make.
There are no homebrew games (outside of hacked consoles) for the Wii, PS3 or Xbox 360. So, no, you can't "publish whatever the fuck you want". You still have to get approval from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
I can't say for sure, but this may as well be about Apple controlling the market for applications on their devices. This would be more on the line of Microsofts trouble about bundling IE with Windows and using a monopolist position to prevent small companies from competition.
Apple's App Store has nothing to do with preventing competition. Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was using one Monopoly to promote another product. Apple has no monopoly.
Why would skype over 3g be different than skype over wifi? They are both tcp/ip connections right?
Right. They're not different on my Nokia N900. Are they different on Android? Are they different on European iPhones (since they don't go via AT&T)? Is that different on other phones on AT&T's network?
They're just as different on the iPhone as they are on any other sufficiently advanced phone. They are just different network adaptors, something like eth0 and eth1. I know the iPhone makes the difference clear to developers, so that they can account for differences in latency, bandwidth, and reliability, of 3G vs WiFi. I would assume Android, and other phones that are sufficiently advanced for the difference to make a difference (i.e., an email and WAP only phone, the differences probably doesn't matter), also have similar ways of telling which you are on.
In the case of Skype, they are (presumably going to be) charging for 3G voice calls because they can. Their charges will be less than price for voice minutes from the cell carrier. Skype seem to think that the revenue from this will be greater than the revenue from having more people use the service for free. I wouldn't think that's the case, but I'm obviously not in a position to know one way or the other. But having free Skype-to-Skype 3G calls means more people will use it which means more people who might pay for a Skype number.
This is also the reason all the people who think things like the App Store are locked in to generate revenue are wrong. It isn't. It's run at close to break-even in order to get more people to buy iPhones, which is where Apple makes their money. If they nickel-and-dimed people on the App Store, they'd sell fewer iPhones and lose far more money than they'd have made. Other industries could learn from this (MPAA, for example, and Hulu and NBC's nonsense).
Actually they haven't - once Microsoft was very open, and you could argue that that openness was the basis of their success.
No, they've been closed and proprietary since day one. What you're referring to is that they licensed DOS to all comers, and you're right that that is the source of their success. Being open in one specific way is not the same as being overall more open.
DOS succeeded at least in part because anyone could write and distribute programs for it, leading to a rich ecosystem of innovative applications.
As opposed to the Mac or Amiga? What computers are you referring to that didn't allow anyone to write and distribute programs for, that allowed DOS to overtake them? The Atari 2600?
The current equivalent is Android, and Apple's attempts to totally control (and monetize) which applications run on their platform is already back-firing.
Apple is not attempting to totally control and monetize which applications run on their platform. They are trying to prevent a certain set of programs from being available, but they don't exert any real control over those that are good to go. Additionally, the App Store is not a significant source of revenue.
As for it backfiring, aside from a handful of internet tirades, how has this affected Apple? iPhone is still outselling Android, the App Store still has more apps, and customer satisfaction with the iPhone still leads the industry, and Apple is still the most profitable phone maker in the world. If this is backfiring, I can't imagine what unbridled success would look like.
Back on topic, the fact that Microsoft has missed both major paradigm shifts (the internet and mobile) is at the root of their fall from grace. Why their shareholders let Steve Ballmer survive is beyond me.
MS's problem is they have no growth. They make so much money that they don't want to upset the apple cart by getting too crazy. Apple, on the other hand, is the boldest tech company out there, and fortune, it appears, favors the bold. Their stock prices and market caps reflect this.
You forgot the exclusion of Flash. How am I served if I can't access my online accounts (some of which use flash).
I can't speak for you personally, but the consumer in general is served by not having their batteries drain, and their web experience becoming a frustration of not being able to interact with things that were not designed for multitouch, and their videos a slide-show,
Additionally, everyone (even Adobe and Flash developers, although they may not recognize the benefit at first) benefits from the move from Flash to HTML5.
Okay, gotcha. So you need *TWO* memory thingies whereas I only need the one of them in the camera that stays in the camera because I have a USB port and cable for use by the camera...
iPad supports direct USB connections to digital cameras. Just FYI.
Personally, I prefer removing my SD card to transfer photos. It's less of a hassle than carrying around a cable and connecting it to a computer (and now, iPad). It also means I can use a second SD card to take photos while the first card is transferring and that I'm not running down the camera's battery to transfer photos.
And since 2007, all we have is facebook, twitter, complex mobile devices, always connected lifestyles, and as much Apple fanfare as MS had in 1997--except it's now all about you (iUniverse and stuff-aboutMe. All dictated by consumers... Do you really want this?
Absolutely, yes. I'm a consumer, not a business. I think it's absolutely wonderful that the driving force in tech is now consumer oriented and not business oriented. I would be happy (but less so) where the driving force Android or Linux. Less so only because both serve the consumer less capably, but at least they aren't as business-centric as MS, or IBM before them.
Cause what you're asking for may not end up being the great panacea you maybe thinking (and with Apple's closed, exploitative thinking...)
It's far better than having MS drive the market, as they have always been far more closed and exploitative than Apple. In fact, Apple is not exploitative at all (not in the way you mean it), and only closed in one[*] very specific way, a way which serves the consumer better. Once that manner of being closed ceases to serve the consumer, I'll be against it, but more likely than not, Apple will have already changed course. They tend to head for where the puck will be, not where it was.
[*] I'm referring, of course, to the App Store. Two other ways, but which are not as severe as the App Store lock-in, are iPods/iPhones/iPads requiring iTunes, and Mac OS X requiring Apple hardware. Neither of those are so severe as to be called "closed" in any meaningful sense, except from a Linux-type point of view.
Call me when Apple's PE ratio gets back down to 14 or so. Then maybe I'd buy it.
That makes no sense. AAPL has been growing like crazy. IBM has not. So you'd rather buy IBM and get a bit of growth and some dividends, over AAPL, which would give you massive growth and no dividends?
PE ratio is not some hard and fast rule. In fact, the only real rule is how things end up. AAPL is so high because of Apple's continued growth. Investors see the iPhone and iPad as major growth markets for Apple. Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't growing at all. In almost every market, from OSs to phones to browsers, they are losing market share. The only place they are doing well, in terms of market share, is in gaming, and somewhat ironically, they've only lost money there.
So there's no real growth for Microsoft, so their PE is low. There's lots of growth for Apple, so their PE is higher. Same with IBM, no real growth, lower PE.
But if I make make a copy of software and give it to you, you can distribute it however you want, as long as I give it to you legally.
In making the original copy, you agreed to the license, which places obligations upon you when you later distribute it, even if distribution does not involve copying.
Retailers of boxed copies are not beholden to any license that hinges on copyright, which would include the GPL.
That's not what's happening here, though. If you sell boxed Linux discs, for example, you never copied anything, and you never agreed to any license. If you instead download and make copies of Linux to resell (or give away), you have agreed to the GPL, and the copies you've sold (or given away) bind you to the GPL.
However, you are not required to include the source code, to host the source code, or offer the source code on physical media. All you have to do is point to the source repository from where you got the distro initially (or to where they got it from, etc., up to the original source). If, however, you modify the distro, you may have to, at the very least, provide (physically, online, or on the discs themselves) the diffs from your changes.
6d perhaps works for that situation, but the fact that the example is all about network servers makes is difficult, I would take it as you would need to offer the corresponding source on a CD that you have, and be turned down.
Care to point out why you think 6 d might not apply? Apps are hosted on Apple's servers, and it says they can point to a third-party's server as long as you clearly point to it. This pointer can be on the app's App Store page with the other links.
The real concern with the GPL on the App Store (and this applies to the Android Marketplace as well) is whether the DRM itself violates the GPL by not allowing the downloaded binaries to be transferred or modified. I suspect it does.
I also don't see that Apple must provide a physical copy of the source. Only 6 a appears to require physical media, and that is just an optional variation on 6 b. 6 a is you can offer the source on the disc (or hard drive, or whatever) and you have no further obligation. 6 d is you can offer the binaries without source, but have to offer either physical media (at a reasonable price) or offer free downloading of the source.
(what? you think everyone who passes on GPL software has to host the source themselves?).
To be in compliance they better be (or at least giving it to those that ask). This of course is limited to those making copies of the software, for if you are simply passing on CDs/DVDs without making a copy, then you don't need to comply with GPL, as you do not need it to be in compliance with copyright law.
Distribution most certainly does fall under copyright law. If I make a copy of a disc and pass it on, the license still applies.
And no, I don't have to personally provide access to the source. I just have to point that person to the original source if asked. If not, if I actually do have to provide, myself directly, the source, then the GPL is broken. I do not believe that is the FSF's intent.
From the GPL itself, "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
If Apple can't get the source code to the users and Apple was the one who distributed and re-licensed that software then I'd encourage any user with the app to sue for their right to also have access to the source code.
Hey, I gave someone a Linux ISO once, does that mean I have to host (or otherwise make directly available from me) the source code for them if they ask me?
As long as the author has the source code available somewhere (which he actually is required to make sure it is), Apple can just point to that.
Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
There's plenty of open software and other open content for the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad.
It's absurd to think they'll pull the app simply to prevent openness. If all they have to do is provide access to the source, that seems like an easy enough thing to do. They can just point to the author's source repository (what? you think everyone who passes on GPL software has to host the source themselves?). If they have to provide the DRM keys, or ship the app without DRM, they likely won't do it because it would significantly alter how the App Store works, which isn't a reasonable thing to expect them to do for a single GNU app.
An interesting side note, the Android Marketplace is in a similar situation. Purchases from the Marketplace are also protected (poorly, which is an entirely other matter). So if Apple is required to allow redistribution of the binaries, Google will be facing the same issue (as will all other online app stores).
It refutes your claim that people don't spend (a lot of) money on air.
I never made that claim. I made the claim that people don't buy products for $499+ based on hype in the sort of numbers that they've been buying iPads.
So is Lindsay Lohan (and has been for a long time).
People buy Lindsay Lohan for $499? Over a million per month in the US alone?
Except for the fact Apple never made a marketing push for AppleTV. I never saw a TV commercial for it, unlike to 50 I see a day for the iPad. Don't remember seeing it on the front page of Apple.com. Can you guess what's on the front page of Apple.com is now? A huge ad for the iPad covering ~80% of the page. The fact that no one bought an AppleTV only proves the point, it's all about the hype Apple puts out.
The point, which you are completely missing, is that if the notion that "people will buy anything that Apple hypes" is true, then why wouldn't Apple simply hype the AppleTV to get it to sell?
This shows the falseness of that notion. Apple products don't sell because they are hyped, they are hyped because they sell. Because people want them. The hype helps amplify sales, but there has to be a truly great product in the first place for the hype to work with.
You could have said the same thing about the iPhone and Android, yet Android phones have already outsold the iPhone.
No they haven't.
Non-Apple Tablets will outsell Apple tablets because more people want a computer that works than want a computer that's shiny, and let's face it, Android works so it meets the basic requirement.
Possible, but doubtful. The reason Android has been selling so well recently in the US is that it's available on carriers other than AT&T, and it's been heavily discounted. Carrier choice is fairly irrelevant on tablets (although not entirely), and discounts are not going to be as common (no subsidies, but there will be sales).
People actually want iPhones more than they want Android, and Apple sells more iPhones (and especially iPhone OS devices) than Android phones (and especially Android devices).
The masses will go with what's cheap, over time. Who cares if the iPad sells more in its first year, or second? There's still a lot of years left (unless the world ends in 2012, is that on what you are basing your projections?)
I'm basing my projection on the likelihood of Android or WebOS ever being a better multitouch OS than iPhone OS.
Did Apple (and the media) hype Apple TV as much as the iPad? I didn't think so. The sales of Apple products are proportional to the degree to which they were hyped.
Hype doesn't appear out of thin air. If all it takes for Apple to sell a product is hype, why would they skimp on it for the AppleTV? Because hype feeds on genuine interest. Hype without genuine interest quickly fades.
People are buying iPads because they're magic and not because they've tried them and compared them to competing devices.
There are no competing devices. And if you don't think people are trying iPads, you clearly haven't been in an Apple Store during the better part of the last two months.
You are right in that people are buying iPads because they are magical. Not literally, of course, but Apple's chosen adjective does a good job of describing the way it feels to use the iPad. And like I've said, if it didn't the marketing would not be able to fake it for long.
The only way the "iPad is just marketing" notion can really be true is if iPad sales fall significantly in a short amount of time as marketing lies are laid bare. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
iPad is a huge success. People don't spend $499+ merely on hype. Not in the sort of numbers the iPad has been seeing.
No the fuck it didn't. The iPad proved that people will buy anything if it's had enough Apple hype ladled onto it.
That's why everyone has an AppleTV.
Oh wait. They don't. People don't buy Apple products because they have an Apple logo, they buy them because they work extremely well. The fact that the products that tend to work the best tend to have an Apple logo says more about Apple and its competition than it does about those that buy Apple products.
I think the new wave of Windows 7 and Android tablets will show that in short order.
Nonsense. Windows 7 tablets are a dead end. Android and WebOS are the only real competition for the iPad going forward. This year, there's no chance Android or WebOS tablets will outsell the iPad, and further down the road, I don't see people buying either over the iPad, as there's pretty much no compelling reason to.
Sadly, breathless hype is a speciality of Apple disciples, and so we'll be hearing about how revolutionary the iPad is long after everyone who actually wanted a real tablet computer has bought one and is happily at home using it.
Only 3-4 million tablet PCs are sold per year. The iPad will outsell the tablet PC this year. Windows 7 won't have any significant impact on this.
Apple's marketing strategy could be best described as "less is more, more is more than that".
No, Apple's marketing strategy is to make sure their products are appealing without marketing, and use marketing as a way of getting people to get into an Apple Store. Once there, their products sell themselves. You can't polish a turd. Apple could not have had the success they have had to date if their products are successful primarily due to marketing, and not for the inherent quality of the products themselves.
Actually, Windows based tablets are actually making headway. For one example, look at a lot of medical use doctors offices/hospitals/clinics, many of them have tablets. For another, look at many classrooms, where if the professor uses any computer, it is quite likely a tablet.
That's not "headway", except possibly in two very small markets. Only 3-4 million tablet PCs are sold per year. I have little doubt that the iPad will outsell all other tablets this year, even given the iPad not being available until April, and the supply being severely constrained.
The far more interesting question isn't "will the tablet PC make headway against the iPad", it's "how long will it take before the iPad sells more total units than total tablet PCs ever sold."
Could the ipad do some of the above? Probably. Is it likely to be given the chance to? I doubt it. Many of the applications used for the medical uses, especially from what I've seen, are both custom and subject to HIPAA. I seriously doubt anyone will actually try to replicate it on the ipad, due to being essentially held hostage to apple's approval for any new versions.
The notion that developers are going to shy away from the iPad for fear of rejection is absurd. It's not terribly difficult to have a fairly reasonable idea of whether or not your app has a reasonable risk of being denied. Sure, there have been a handful of surprising rejections (almost all of which have been accepted after minor changes). Medical apps, especially, have very little risk of being rejected.
That doesn't even address the mess that would be the ipad in regards to HIPAA, due to Apple's control.
And what mess, exactly, is that? "Control" isn't a magic word that means "can't be used by third parties".
Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo doesn't require their approval, nor do they censor games anymore. They haven't since the creation of the ESRB. Learn your facts before spouting off. You sound like a fucking idiot to people who actually know this shit.
You are absolutely wrong. You cannot write homebrew games for the Wii without either hacking your Wii, or going through Nintendo.
Except, for the PS3 and Wii, you're wrong. The only requirement is that you buy a dev kit from them. After you do that, you can publish whatever the fuck you want. Apple wants you to buy in too, true, but they can then still say no to whatever you make.
There are no homebrew games (outside of hacked consoles) for the Wii, PS3 or Xbox 360. So, no, you can't "publish whatever the fuck you want". You still have to get approval from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
I can't say for sure, but this may as well be about Apple controlling the market for applications on their devices. This would be more on the line of Microsofts trouble about bundling IE with Windows and using a monopolist position to prevent small companies from competition.
Apple's App Store has nothing to do with preventing competition. Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was using one Monopoly to promote another product. Apple has no monopoly.
That's forcing people to use your particular billboard and qualifies as censorship.
No one is forced to buy an iPad.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all exert similar (actually, much greater) control over their console platforms.
Why do you think that it took 2 years to get Skype on the iPhone?
Are you from an alternate universe where Skype hasn't been on the iPhone for over a year now?
Why would skype over 3g be different than skype over wifi? They are both tcp/ip connections right?
Right. They're not different on my Nokia N900. Are they different on Android? Are they different on European iPhones (since they don't go via AT&T)? Is that different on other phones on AT&T's network?
They're just as different on the iPhone as they are on any other sufficiently advanced phone. They are just different network adaptors, something like eth0 and eth1. I know the iPhone makes the difference clear to developers, so that they can account for differences in latency, bandwidth, and reliability, of 3G vs WiFi. I would assume Android, and other phones that are sufficiently advanced for the difference to make a difference (i.e., an email and WAP only phone, the differences probably doesn't matter), also have similar ways of telling which you are on.
In the case of Skype, they are (presumably going to be) charging for 3G voice calls because they can. Their charges will be less than price for voice minutes from the cell carrier. Skype seem to think that the revenue from this will be greater than the revenue from having more people use the service for free. I wouldn't think that's the case, but I'm obviously not in a position to know one way or the other. But having free Skype-to-Skype 3G calls means more people will use it which means more people who might pay for a Skype number.
This is also the reason all the people who think things like the App Store are locked in to generate revenue are wrong. It isn't. It's run at close to break-even in order to get more people to buy iPhones, which is where Apple makes their money. If they nickel-and-dimed people on the App Store, they'd sell fewer iPhones and lose far more money than they'd have made. Other industries could learn from this (MPAA, for example, and Hulu and NBC's nonsense).
In the AT&T/Apple world, you the consumer don't make choices.
I'm certain you are very wrong here.
You don't run software willy-nilly.
Wrong, with a few exceptions.
They allow you to run software, and if that software is seen as taking away profits from either entity then it won't get approved.
Cite one example of this from Apple.
Yes, via some kind of USB adapter that you need to pay extra for.
I don't see how that's relevant to the matter at hand.
And that's assuming the software in the iPad recognises the camera of course.
Why wouldn't it?
Actually they haven't - once Microsoft was very open, and you could argue that that openness was the basis of their success.
No, they've been closed and proprietary since day one. What you're referring to is that they licensed DOS to all comers, and you're right that that is the source of their success. Being open in one specific way is not the same as being overall more open.
DOS succeeded at least in part because anyone could write and distribute programs for it, leading to a rich ecosystem of innovative applications.
As opposed to the Mac or Amiga? What computers are you referring to that didn't allow anyone to write and distribute programs for, that allowed DOS to overtake them? The Atari 2600?
The current equivalent is Android, and Apple's attempts to totally control (and monetize) which applications run on their platform is already back-firing.
Apple is not attempting to totally control and monetize which applications run on their platform. They are trying to prevent a certain set of programs from being available, but they don't exert any real control over those that are good to go. Additionally, the App Store is not a significant source of revenue.
As for it backfiring, aside from a handful of internet tirades, how has this affected Apple? iPhone is still outselling Android, the App Store still has more apps, and customer satisfaction with the iPhone still leads the industry, and Apple is still the most profitable phone maker in the world. If this is backfiring, I can't imagine what unbridled success would look like.
Back on topic, the fact that Microsoft has missed both major paradigm shifts (the internet and mobile) is at the root of their fall from grace. Why their shareholders let Steve Ballmer survive is beyond me.
MS's problem is they have no growth. They make so much money that they don't want to upset the apple cart by getting too crazy. Apple, on the other hand, is the boldest tech company out there, and fortune, it appears, favors the bold. Their stock prices and market caps reflect this.
You forgot the exclusion of Flash. How am I served if I can't access my online accounts (some of which use flash).
I can't speak for you personally, but the consumer in general is served by not having their batteries drain, and their web experience becoming a frustration of not being able to interact with things that were not designed for multitouch, and their videos a slide-show,
Additionally, everyone (even Adobe and Flash developers, although they may not recognize the benefit at first) benefits from the move from Flash to HTML5.
Okay, gotcha. So you need *TWO* memory thingies whereas I only need the one of them in the camera that stays in the camera because I have a USB port and cable for use by the camera...
iPad supports direct USB connections to digital cameras. Just FYI.
Personally, I prefer removing my SD card to transfer photos. It's less of a hassle than carrying around a cable and connecting it to a computer (and now, iPad). It also means I can use a second SD card to take photos while the first card is transferring and that I'm not running down the camera's battery to transfer photos.
And since 2007, all we have is facebook, twitter, complex mobile devices, always connected lifestyles, and as much Apple fanfare as MS had in 1997--except it's now all about you (iUniverse and stuff-aboutMe. All dictated by consumers... Do you really want this?
Absolutely, yes. I'm a consumer, not a business. I think it's absolutely wonderful that the driving force in tech is now consumer oriented and not business oriented. I would be happy (but less so) where the driving force Android or Linux. Less so only because both serve the consumer less capably, but at least they aren't as business-centric as MS, or IBM before them.
Cause what you're asking for may not end up being the great panacea you maybe thinking (and with Apple's closed, exploitative thinking...)
It's far better than having MS drive the market, as they have always been far more closed and exploitative than Apple. In fact, Apple is not exploitative at all (not in the way you mean it), and only closed in one[*] very specific way, a way which serves the consumer better. Once that manner of being closed ceases to serve the consumer, I'll be against it, but more likely than not, Apple will have already changed course. They tend to head for where the puck will be, not where it was.
[*] I'm referring, of course, to the App Store. Two other ways, but which are not as severe as the App Store lock-in, are iPods/iPhones/iPads requiring iTunes, and Mac OS X requiring Apple hardware. Neither of those are so severe as to be called "closed" in any meaningful sense, except from a Linux-type point of view.
Call me when Apple's PE ratio gets back down to 14 or so. Then maybe I'd buy it.
That makes no sense. AAPL has been growing like crazy. IBM has not. So you'd rather buy IBM and get a bit of growth and some dividends, over AAPL, which would give you massive growth and no dividends?
PE ratio is not some hard and fast rule. In fact, the only real rule is how things end up. AAPL is so high because of Apple's continued growth. Investors see the iPhone and iPad as major growth markets for Apple. Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't growing at all. In almost every market, from OSs to phones to browsers, they are losing market share. The only place they are doing well, in terms of market share, is in gaming, and somewhat ironically, they've only lost money there.
So there's no real growth for Microsoft, so their PE is low. There's lots of growth for Apple, so their PE is higher. Same with IBM, no real growth, lower PE.
But if I make make a copy of software and give it to you, you can distribute it however you want, as long as I give it to you legally.
In making the original copy, you agreed to the license, which places obligations upon you when you later distribute it, even if distribution does not involve copying.
Retailers of boxed copies are not beholden to any license that hinges on copyright, which would include the GPL.
That's not what's happening here, though. If you sell boxed Linux discs, for example, you never copied anything, and you never agreed to any license. If you instead download and make copies of Linux to resell (or give away), you have agreed to the GPL, and the copies you've sold (or given away) bind you to the GPL.
However, you are not required to include the source code, to host the source code, or offer the source code on physical media. All you have to do is point to the source repository from where you got the distro initially (or to where they got it from, etc., up to the original source). If, however, you modify the distro, you may have to, at the very least, provide (physically, online, or on the discs themselves) the diffs from your changes.
6d perhaps works for that situation, but the fact that the example is all about network servers makes is difficult, I would take it as you would need to offer the corresponding source on a CD that you have, and be turned down.
Care to point out why you think 6 d might not apply? Apps are hosted on Apple's servers, and it says they can point to a third-party's server as long as you clearly point to it. This pointer can be on the app's App Store page with the other links.
The real concern with the GPL on the App Store (and this applies to the Android Marketplace as well) is whether the DRM itself violates the GPL by not allowing the downloaded binaries to be transferred or modified. I suspect it does.
I also don't see that Apple must provide a physical copy of the source. Only 6 a appears to require physical media, and that is just an optional variation on 6 b. 6 a is you can offer the source on the disc (or hard drive, or whatever) and you have no further obligation. 6 d is you can offer the binaries without source, but have to offer either physical media (at a reasonable price) or offer free downloading of the source.
(what? you think everyone who passes on GPL software has to host the source themselves?).
To be in compliance they better be (or at least giving it to those that ask). This of course is limited to those making copies of the software, for if you are simply passing on CDs/DVDs without making a copy, then you don't need to comply with GPL, as you do not need it to be in compliance with copyright law.
Distribution most certainly does fall under copyright law. If I make a copy of a disc and pass it on, the license still applies.
And no, I don't have to personally provide access to the source. I just have to point that person to the original source if asked. If not, if I actually do have to provide, myself directly, the source, then the GPL is broken. I do not believe that is the FSF's intent.
From the GPL itself, "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
If Apple can't get the source code to the users and Apple was the one who distributed and re-licensed that software then I'd encourage any user with the app to sue for their right to also have access to the source code.
Hey, I gave someone a Linux ISO once, does that mean I have to host (or otherwise make directly available from me) the source code for them if they ask me?
As long as the author has the source code available somewhere (which he actually is required to make sure it is), Apple can just point to that.
Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
There's plenty of open software and other open content for the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad.
It's absurd to think they'll pull the app simply to prevent openness. If all they have to do is provide access to the source, that seems like an easy enough thing to do. They can just point to the author's source repository (what? you think everyone who passes on GPL software has to host the source themselves?). If they have to provide the DRM keys, or ship the app without DRM, they likely won't do it because it would significantly alter how the App Store works, which isn't a reasonable thing to expect them to do for a single GNU app.
An interesting side note, the Android Marketplace is in a similar situation. Purchases from the Marketplace are also protected (poorly, which is an entirely other matter). So if Apple is required to allow redistribution of the binaries, Google will be facing the same issue (as will all other online app stores).
You are a master of the straw man. No one said most people don't waste their time or money.
It refutes your claim that people don't spend (a lot of) money on air.
I never made that claim. I made the claim that people don't buy products for $499+ based on hype in the sort of numbers that they've been buying iPads.
So is Lindsay Lohan (and has been for a long time).
People buy Lindsay Lohan for $499? Over a million per month in the US alone?
Except for the fact Apple never made a marketing push for AppleTV. I never saw a TV commercial for it, unlike to 50 I see a day for the iPad. Don't remember seeing it on the front page of Apple.com. Can you guess what's on the front page of Apple.com is now? A huge ad for the iPad covering ~80% of the page. The fact that no one bought an AppleTV only proves the point, it's all about the hype Apple puts out.
The point, which you are completely missing, is that if the notion that "people will buy anything that Apple hypes" is true, then why wouldn't Apple simply hype the AppleTV to get it to sell?
This shows the falseness of that notion. Apple products don't sell because they are hyped, they are hyped because they sell. Because people want them. The hype helps amplify sales, but there has to be a truly great product in the first place for the hype to work with.
You could have said the same thing about the iPhone and Android, yet Android phones have already outsold the iPhone.
No they haven't.
Non-Apple Tablets will outsell Apple tablets because more people want a computer that works than want a computer that's shiny, and let's face it, Android works so it meets the basic requirement.
Possible, but doubtful. The reason Android has been selling so well recently in the US is that it's available on carriers other than AT&T, and it's been heavily discounted. Carrier choice is fairly irrelevant on tablets (although not entirely), and discounts are not going to be as common (no subsidies, but there will be sales).
People actually want iPhones more than they want Android, and Apple sells more iPhones (and especially iPhone OS devices) than Android phones (and especially Android devices).
The masses will go with what's cheap, over time. Who cares if the iPad sells more in its first year, or second? There's still a lot of years left (unless the world ends in 2012, is that on what you are basing your projections?)
I'm basing my projection on the likelihood of Android or WebOS ever being a better multitouch OS than iPhone OS.
People don't spend $499+ merely on hype.
Some Apple customers have spent 1000 USD on an app that shows a stone...
That doesn't refute my claim. If you think it does, you should go back and read the sentence that immediately follows the one you quoted.
Did Apple (and the media) hype Apple TV as much as the iPad? I didn't think so. The sales of Apple products are proportional to the degree to which they were hyped.
Hype doesn't appear out of thin air. If all it takes for Apple to sell a product is hype, why would they skimp on it for the AppleTV? Because hype feeds on genuine interest. Hype without genuine interest quickly fades.
People are buying iPads because they're magic and not because they've tried them and compared them to competing devices.
There are no competing devices. And if you don't think people are trying iPads, you clearly haven't been in an Apple Store during the better part of the last two months.
You are right in that people are buying iPads because they are magical. Not literally, of course, but Apple's chosen adjective does a good job of describing the way it feels to use the iPad. And like I've said, if it didn't the marketing would not be able to fake it for long.
The only way the "iPad is just marketing" notion can really be true is if iPad sales fall significantly in a short amount of time as marketing lies are laid bare. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
iPad is a huge success. People don't spend $499+ merely on hype. Not in the sort of numbers the iPad has been seeing.
No the fuck it didn't. The iPad proved that people will buy anything if it's had enough Apple hype ladled onto it.
That's why everyone has an AppleTV.
Oh wait. They don't. People don't buy Apple products because they have an Apple logo, they buy them because they work extremely well. The fact that the products that tend to work the best tend to have an Apple logo says more about Apple and its competition than it does about those that buy Apple products.
I think the new wave of Windows 7 and Android tablets will show that in short order.
Nonsense. Windows 7 tablets are a dead end. Android and WebOS are the only real competition for the iPad going forward. This year, there's no chance Android or WebOS tablets will outsell the iPad, and further down the road, I don't see people buying either over the iPad, as there's pretty much no compelling reason to.
Sadly, breathless hype is a speciality of Apple disciples, and so we'll be hearing about how revolutionary the iPad is long after everyone who actually wanted a real tablet computer has bought one and is happily at home using it.
Only 3-4 million tablet PCs are sold per year. The iPad will outsell the tablet PC this year. Windows 7 won't have any significant impact on this.
Apple's marketing strategy could be best described as "less is more, more is more than that".
No, Apple's marketing strategy is to make sure their products are appealing without marketing, and use marketing as a way of getting people to get into an Apple Store. Once there, their products sell themselves. You can't polish a turd. Apple could not have had the success they have had to date if their products are successful primarily due to marketing, and not for the inherent quality of the products themselves.
Actually, Windows based tablets are actually making headway. For one example, look at a lot of medical use doctors offices/hospitals/clinics, many of them have tablets. For another, look at many classrooms, where if the professor uses any computer, it is quite likely a tablet.
That's not "headway", except possibly in two very small markets. Only 3-4 million tablet PCs are sold per year. I have little doubt that the iPad will outsell all other tablets this year, even given the iPad not being available until April, and the supply being severely constrained.
The far more interesting question isn't "will the tablet PC make headway against the iPad", it's "how long will it take before the iPad sells more total units than total tablet PCs ever sold."
Could the ipad do some of the above? Probably. Is it likely to be given the chance to? I doubt it. Many of the applications used for the medical uses, especially from what I've seen, are both custom and subject to HIPAA. I seriously doubt anyone will actually try to replicate it on the ipad, due to being essentially held hostage to apple's approval for any new versions.
The notion that developers are going to shy away from the iPad for fear of rejection is absurd. It's not terribly difficult to have a fairly reasonable idea of whether or not your app has a reasonable risk of being denied. Sure, there have been a handful of surprising rejections (almost all of which have been accepted after minor changes). Medical apps, especially, have very little risk of being rejected.
That doesn't even address the mess that would be the ipad in regards to HIPAA, due to Apple's control.
And what mess, exactly, is that? "Control" isn't a magic word that means "can't be used by third parties".