Let's just be honest hear: They're charging too much and imposing arbitrary restrictions because there's minimal competition, minimal regulation, and they believe that their customers will put up with being charged for a separate plan for each and every device they own.
Hence why, if I got an iPad (I won't since it doesn't do anything my iPhone doesn't do), I would use my jailbroken iPhone and do bluetooth tethering (which according to Jobs / Apple, the iPad DOES support) to give it internet.
You're complaining about lack of multi-tasking and honestly, unless they changed the iPad to be able to have mutliple windows on screen at the same time, it wouldn't really be worth it. I have a jailbroken iPhone 3GS and multi-tasking didn't really do anything but burn up the battery, so I turned it off after a couple of days.
A monopoly is when one company / group is the ONLY one that allows access to a product or service. That means that there are no alternatives. Linux, while only 1% or so, is a perfectly viable alternative (it's reasons for not being more widely used are two-fold -- one, most people don't care and two, there are many who lack the basic skills to install any software and so they couldn't install Linux on their own). Mac's are an even easier alternative since (if you've ever been in an Apple store) they cater to the technologically incompetent. You whine that Dell / HP / Acer don't sell OS X - that is APPLE'S fault, not MS's, and even so, if you want OS X you can buy a goddamn Mac.
As for the stupid browser ballot? That came about because Opera cried like a two-year old because most people don't want to download Opera (other browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Chrome were doing just fine on Windows, showing that the issue was just a matter of Opera not liking the fact that they weren't popular).
I get it, your preferred products aren't popular. Guess what, my preferred processor brand (AMD) isn't anywhere near as popular as Intel - do you see me whining like a little bitch? You have no argument other than "I want X to be more popular than Y *cries and pounds fists*". Get over it.
Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly. Are they the largest player? Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple. Unless you can prove that MS forces stores to sell Mac's for more money (they don't, Apple gladly artificially inflates their prices on their own), then you can't claim that Windows is a monopoly. Just because it's the easiest to use cheaper alternative to a Mac doesn't mean it's a monopoly. IE is also not a monopoly since you can download a different browser any time you choose. The overwhelming majority of people who use IE WANT to use it - I can't count how many people, even in IT, say "Why would I use something other than IE?" even after you give them an hour long dissertation on why IE is one of the worst browsers.
Yes, I realize it's Trendy and Cool TM (Apple owns this TM, probably has it copyrighted too) to hate anything from MS, but they have done nothing wrong by bundling a browser with their OS - people expect a browser and media player with their OS, plus there's nothing stopping companies such as Dell from installing different browsers if they choose (most new Dells have Chrome installed).
First, no one is forcing companies to do anything. Most companies DON'T use PhysX. Secondly, PhysX is only used in GAMES, hardly a "necessity" (and yes, I'm a gamer). Thirdly, if you think this is "of questionable legality", then I'm assuming that you think Apple should be sued to hell and back for locking the iPhone / iPod to iTunes, right? Or the fact that I can't use my AMD processor with an Intel chipset, that should be grounds for suing too, right?
You're also forgetting that no game the uses PhysX FORCES you to use it - it's an option that you turn on, just like AA or AF. If you want to use that option on a game, then you need an nvidia card. Just like how if you want to turn on other options to improve graphics, you need a better quality video card than the entry level crap most people have. That's not "collusion", it's "Here are the requirements to do X" and then it's up to customers to decide if they want to do the required stuff or not.
Especially if it causes games to be less enjoyable on other hardware platforms. I could see a real problem with this in terms of anti-trust actions.
Really? Can you point to any provision of anti-trust law that this would violate?
Exactly - that's like saying that there's an anti-trust suit just because Modern Warfare 2 looks better on PS3 than on the 360 or because it looks better on a system running a 295 GTX than on a system running a 9800 GT.
Ah thats right, you have to know its there before you go looking for it.
No, you google to see IF it has DRM and if so, what kind. If parents can find out that there was a toy 1,000 miles from their kid that has a microscopic bit of lead on it, then people can search for other things. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
When the entire point of the Spore fiasco was millions of people who knew nothing about DRM finding out and suing over it, that kind of made it a well known thing. I don't know anyone who's played Spore, but every one I know who buys games knows about the Spore DRM fiasco, even those who don't play any PC games because they can't figure out how to hook up anything more complicated than a dvd player.
Just because you're pissed that you've gotten fucked by DRM when you should've known better doesn't mean that the people who say "Why the hell didn't you look before you leap?" are "arrogant pricks". That just makes you foolish. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, the difference is that wise people learn from them, the others such as yourself get angry at those who learned from their mistakes. I've been burned by DRM too when it first came out and I knew nothing about it - I learned, fast.
Honestly? I'm thinking of finding the customer support email for Ubisoft and writing them an email thanking them for giving a demonstration to their customers of why DRM is bad - people like me go on the forums and tell people that this shit will happen and they say "No it won't, the company wouldn't do that!" - now they know that they will. *jumps with glee*
If you wouldn't take 20 seconds to google "Assassins Creed 2 DRM" and make an even slightly informed decision, then you would have deserved it. It's 2010 people, if you haven't learned that companies will screw you with DRM by now, then you really need to start paying attention.
Then they deserved this. I got burned by DRM once around 5 years ago (maybe more, not sure) when companies first started using it to screw their customers. I learned from that and now I check everything to see what the DRM is - if there's DRM, I don't buy it. Anyone who's a gamer has had at least one friend tell them about why you should avoid DRM - if they still bought it anyways, then they deserve it for not listening to their friends who warned them that shit like this would happen.
If you hire someone to build a brick wall, you get the wall but not all the tools and knowledge to build the wall.
And how is it any different? You can reuse your knowledge to write later code and your "tools" (an IDE, computer, your hands) are yours, no one has argued that. The position you're defending is that if I hire you to build a brick wall, that you own the wall and can resell it to someone else at any time without my permission and that I can't modify the wall in any way without paying you a fortune.
To my knowledge the company I work for has never done any project where we exclusively sign over all the code
Key words there were "to [your] knowledge" - given that it's the norm for companies to own the code you write, that sounds like you simply didn't read the contract you signed with them very well.
I've had clients who think that they own the code simply because they paid for a website that uses one of our libraries. They buy the right to use the code.
That depends, did you create the site and say "We have this and we want to sell it to you and tailor it to your needs"? If you did, then you're absolutely right, you own it. However, if they came to you and paid you to just do the grunt work of coding it, then they own the code. It all depends on who has the idea and pays for the work - if you had the idea and paid for the work and then go out and market it, you own it. If someone else has the idea and simply pays you to do the work, they own it.
So according to you if you built cars, you'd own the cars and would grant Ford (or whatever company) a license to sell them to customers? How about a license for people to eat a burger you slapped together while working in fast food?
If you have the idea to create and sell something on your own, then you own it. If someone else or a company has an idea to create and sell something and hires you just to do the grunt work of making it, you do not own it. That's pretty normal except a group of programmers like yourself think that you should get paid for the work AND get to own someone else's idea / design. That's greed and arrogance on your part, plain and simple.
The industry is adapting to modern times though, so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web
The last several people I knew who got married got a DVD.......but if you consider 4xxx by 2xxx (I forget the exact resolution, but each jpeg was over 5 MB and I know the first part started with a 4) low resolution, I'd love to know what you consider high resolution.
As for the issues of assholes thinking that they own someone's wedding pictures? That's why you just get a friend / family member who's competent and has a good quality camera - problem solved and it saves you several hundred / a few thousand bucks.
As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right.
That depends - do you own your own company where you write code first and then look for people who want to purchase it? If that's true, then you own the code. If they come to you and pay you to write code for them, then they own it because they paid for the entire development of the code.
There's a big difference between having and idea and putting work into creating it and THEN going out and selling it and having someone else come up with an idea and pay you to do the grunt work of manufacturing it. I suppose in your world, the people working in Ford's factories own all of the cars and the designs to the cars just because they did the grunt work?
Other posters have already said that legally it all depends on the license you work out with the customer, and they are correct.
Which is why we need to eliminate licensing and have two modes for work - either you work for someone else and they own what you produce or you work for yourself and others can come to you and buy copies from you. Then it's very simple and there's no needing to read 5,000 lines of legalese bullshit in order to try to find out who owns what.
As for the guy at hand being contracted to produce code, sorry, but if they come to him saying "Write X for us", then they own it because they paid for all of the development. If you write X own your own and then decide to sell copies of it, then you own it. However if someone else comes and pays for you to write X, they own it because they paid all the costs of producing it.
Also, does anyone else find it extremely absurd that only when it comes to software / digital content that people are allowed to sell you something and claim that they still own it? No other industry in the world would be allowed to get away with that bullshit. Sure, I understand distribution rights for a game / song / movie / software, but once you buy that copy, you OWN it.
Except that the book-like functionality is actually useful (especially for protecting the screens when moving it) such as when I dunno.....reading? Just say "I'm blindly bashing because it's from MS" and you can get on the path to recovery.
I know that this is shocking, but not all computers are made for consuming media. If you want to just watch videos on a portable screen, then here you go http://www.apple.com/. However, if you would like a device that would be great for business and school use (you know, actually doing something productive), then the Courier is fan-freakin-tastic. Imagine being able to get notes from a friend when you're out sick with the tap of a button. Never having to worry about grabbing the wrong notebook and never having to worry about shuffling through piles of notes. Being able to have the textbook open on one side of the screen (while they're fighting it, e-textbooks do exist and will become popular in the next decade or so) and taking notes on the other side. Have a chart you need copied from the textbook into your notes? No problem - instead of having to take a few minutes to accurately draw it, take two seconds to copy and paste it into your notes. How can you NOT see the advantage in two screens? Are you really that short sighted that you think just because you can't watch movies on it that it's useless?
It will have great promise and hope that will be dashed as soon as you try to use the thing. Sort of like a Democratic majority in Congress....
Flawed analogy - rational people actually expected the iPad to be useful before we found out the details. I've yet to meet someone rational who actually expected anything worthwhile from a Democratic majority in Congress.
Being able to afford a game has absolutely nothing to do with why a large number of people pirate - are large number of people pirate because they refuse to pay to get ass-raped with DRM.
While you have a point, consider that if you pay for it you make them think their DRM is acceptable. As a compromise, I suggest buying it, pirating it, and writing an angry letter explaining the situation. It'll be ignored of course, but it would make me feel better.
I'd suggest pirating it and sending an angry letter. That way they get the angry letter knowing that you won't buy the game due to the DRM and you still get the pleasure of playing it as an additional "fuck you" to the company that screws over their paying customers. I'm very against pirating because you don't want to pay for something, but recently I got mad enough at game companies screwing over their paying customers that I started downloading DRM'd (and only DRM'd) games. I'm not paying for it anyways, due to the DRM, so getting a pirated copy doesn't harm them and I get the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that if the evil bastards hadn't put DRM in, I'd have paid $60 for the game - due to their greed and general asshole-ish behavior, they got $0.
Except that with enough people boycotting due to DRM (and while publicly the companies will lie and say it's pirates costing them sales, not boycotts), eventually the companies will go bankrupt. Then the people who make the new companies to take over will be well aware that DRM caused the demise of the predecessors and they will avoid such mistakes if they hope to stay in business more than 5 years.
Then you have a problem with your system, not Windows. My Windows 7 laptop with 3 gigs of RAM resumes from hibernate in about half the time it takes it to boot and I've yet to see wireless or anything else break.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's just be honest hear: They're charging too much and imposing arbitrary restrictions because there's minimal competition, minimal regulation, and they believe that their customers will put up with being charged for a separate plan for each and every device they own.
Hence why, if I got an iPad (I won't since it doesn't do anything my iPhone doesn't do), I would use my jailbroken iPhone and do bluetooth tethering (which according to Jobs / Apple, the iPad DOES support) to give it internet.
You're complaining about lack of multi-tasking and honestly, unless they changed the iPad to be able to have mutliple windows on screen at the same time, it wouldn't really be worth it. I have a jailbroken iPhone 3GS and multi-tasking didn't really do anything but burn up the battery, so I turned it off after a couple of days.
A monopoly is when one company / group is the ONLY one that allows access to a product or service. That means that there are no alternatives. Linux, while only 1% or so, is a perfectly viable alternative (it's reasons for not being more widely used are two-fold -- one, most people don't care and two, there are many who lack the basic skills to install any software and so they couldn't install Linux on their own). Mac's are an even easier alternative since (if you've ever been in an Apple store) they cater to the technologically incompetent. You whine that Dell / HP / Acer don't sell OS X - that is APPLE'S fault, not MS's, and even so, if you want OS X you can buy a goddamn Mac.
As for the stupid browser ballot? That came about because Opera cried like a two-year old because most people don't want to download Opera (other browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Chrome were doing just fine on Windows, showing that the issue was just a matter of Opera not liking the fact that they weren't popular).
I get it, your preferred products aren't popular. Guess what, my preferred processor brand (AMD) isn't anywhere near as popular as Intel - do you see me whining like a little bitch? You have no argument other than "I want X to be more popular than Y *cries and pounds fists*". Get over it.
Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly. Are they the largest player? Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple. Unless you can prove that MS forces stores to sell Mac's for more money (they don't, Apple gladly artificially inflates their prices on their own), then you can't claim that Windows is a monopoly. Just because it's the easiest to use cheaper alternative to a Mac doesn't mean it's a monopoly. IE is also not a monopoly since you can download a different browser any time you choose. The overwhelming majority of people who use IE WANT to use it - I can't count how many people, even in IT, say "Why would I use something other than IE?" even after you give them an hour long dissertation on why IE is one of the worst browsers.
Yes, I realize it's Trendy and Cool TM (Apple owns this TM, probably has it copyrighted too) to hate anything from MS, but they have done nothing wrong by bundling a browser with their OS - people expect a browser and media player with their OS, plus there's nothing stopping companies such as Dell from installing different browsers if they choose (most new Dells have Chrome installed).
First, no one is forcing companies to do anything. Most companies DON'T use PhysX. Secondly, PhysX is only used in GAMES, hardly a "necessity" (and yes, I'm a gamer). Thirdly, if you think this is "of questionable legality", then I'm assuming that you think Apple should be sued to hell and back for locking the iPhone / iPod to iTunes, right? Or the fact that I can't use my AMD processor with an Intel chipset, that should be grounds for suing too, right?
You're also forgetting that no game the uses PhysX FORCES you to use it - it's an option that you turn on, just like AA or AF. If you want to use that option on a game, then you need an nvidia card. Just like how if you want to turn on other options to improve graphics, you need a better quality video card than the entry level crap most people have. That's not "collusion", it's "Here are the requirements to do X" and then it's up to customers to decide if they want to do the required stuff or not.
Really? Can you point to any provision of anti-trust law that this would violate?
Exactly - that's like saying that there's an anti-trust suit just because Modern Warfare 2 looks better on PS3 than on the 360 or because it looks better on a system running a 295 GTX than on a system running a 9800 GT.
Ah thats right, you have to know its there before you go looking for it.
No, you google to see IF it has DRM and if so, what kind. If parents can find out that there was a toy 1,000 miles from their kid that has a microscopic bit of lead on it, then people can search for other things. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
When the entire point of the Spore fiasco was millions of people who knew nothing about DRM finding out and suing over it, that kind of made it a well known thing. I don't know anyone who's played Spore, but every one I know who buys games knows about the Spore DRM fiasco, even those who don't play any PC games because they can't figure out how to hook up anything more complicated than a dvd player.
Just because you're pissed that you've gotten fucked by DRM when you should've known better doesn't mean that the people who say "Why the hell didn't you look before you leap?" are "arrogant pricks". That just makes you foolish. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, the difference is that wise people learn from them, the others such as yourself get angry at those who learned from their mistakes. I've been burned by DRM too when it first came out and I knew nothing about it - I learned, fast.
You apparently missed the article about the crack that was posted yesterday (or was it two days ago now?)
Honestly? I'm thinking of finding the customer support email for Ubisoft and writing them an email thanking them for giving a demonstration to their customers of why DRM is bad - people like me go on the forums and tell people that this shit will happen and they say "No it won't, the company wouldn't do that!" - now they know that they will. *jumps with glee*
If you wouldn't take 20 seconds to google "Assassins Creed 2 DRM" and make an even slightly informed decision, then you would have deserved it. It's 2010 people, if you haven't learned that companies will screw you with DRM by now, then you really need to start paying attention.
Then they deserved this. I got burned by DRM once around 5 years ago (maybe more, not sure) when companies first started using it to screw their customers. I learned from that and now I check everything to see what the DRM is - if there's DRM, I don't buy it. Anyone who's a gamer has had at least one friend tell them about why you should avoid DRM - if they still bought it anyways, then they deserve it for not listening to their friends who warned them that shit like this would happen.
If you hire someone to build a brick wall, you get the wall but not all the tools and knowledge to build the wall.
And how is it any different? You can reuse your knowledge to write later code and your "tools" (an IDE, computer, your hands) are yours, no one has argued that. The position you're defending is that if I hire you to build a brick wall, that you own the wall and can resell it to someone else at any time without my permission and that I can't modify the wall in any way without paying you a fortune.
To my knowledge the company I work for has never done any project where we exclusively sign over all the code
Key words there were "to [your] knowledge" - given that it's the norm for companies to own the code you write, that sounds like you simply didn't read the contract you signed with them very well.
I've had clients who think that they own the code simply because they paid for a website that uses one of our libraries. They buy the right to use the code.
That depends, did you create the site and say "We have this and we want to sell it to you and tailor it to your needs"? If you did, then you're absolutely right, you own it. However, if they came to you and paid you to just do the grunt work of coding it, then they own the code. It all depends on who has the idea and pays for the work - if you had the idea and paid for the work and then go out and market it, you own it. If someone else has the idea and simply pays you to do the work, they own it.
So according to you if you built cars, you'd own the cars and would grant Ford (or whatever company) a license to sell them to customers? How about a license for people to eat a burger you slapped together while working in fast food?
If you have the idea to create and sell something on your own, then you own it. If someone else or a company has an idea to create and sell something and hires you just to do the grunt work of making it, you do not own it. That's pretty normal except a group of programmers like yourself think that you should get paid for the work AND get to own someone else's idea / design. That's greed and arrogance on your part, plain and simple.
The industry is adapting to modern times though, so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web
The last several people I knew who got married got a DVD.......but if you consider 4xxx by 2xxx (I forget the exact resolution, but each jpeg was over 5 MB and I know the first part started with a 4) low resolution, I'd love to know what you consider high resolution.
As for the issues of assholes thinking that they own someone's wedding pictures? That's why you just get a friend / family member who's competent and has a good quality camera - problem solved and it saves you several hundred / a few thousand bucks.
As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right.
That depends - do you own your own company where you write code first and then look for people who want to purchase it? If that's true, then you own the code. If they come to you and pay you to write code for them, then they own it because they paid for the entire development of the code.
There's a big difference between having and idea and putting work into creating it and THEN going out and selling it and having someone else come up with an idea and pay you to do the grunt work of manufacturing it. I suppose in your world, the people working in Ford's factories own all of the cars and the designs to the cars just because they did the grunt work?
Other posters have already said that legally it all depends on the license you work out with the customer, and they are correct.
Which is why we need to eliminate licensing and have two modes for work - either you work for someone else and they own what you produce or you work for yourself and others can come to you and buy copies from you. Then it's very simple and there's no needing to read 5,000 lines of legalese bullshit in order to try to find out who owns what.
As for the guy at hand being contracted to produce code, sorry, but if they come to him saying "Write X for us", then they own it because they paid for all of the development. If you write X own your own and then decide to sell copies of it, then you own it. However if someone else comes and pays for you to write X, they own it because they paid all the costs of producing it.
Also, does anyone else find it extremely absurd that only when it comes to software / digital content that people are allowed to sell you something and claim that they still own it? No other industry in the world would be allowed to get away with that bullshit. Sure, I understand distribution rights for a game / song / movie / software, but once you buy that copy, you OWN it.
Except that the book-like functionality is actually useful (especially for protecting the screens when moving it) such as when I dunno.....reading? Just say "I'm blindly bashing because it's from MS" and you can get on the path to recovery.
I know that this is shocking, but not all computers are made for consuming media. If you want to just watch videos on a portable screen, then here you go http://www.apple.com/. However, if you would like a device that would be great for business and school use (you know, actually doing something productive), then the Courier is fan-freakin-tastic. Imagine being able to get notes from a friend when you're out sick with the tap of a button. Never having to worry about grabbing the wrong notebook and never having to worry about shuffling through piles of notes. Being able to have the textbook open on one side of the screen (while they're fighting it, e-textbooks do exist and will become popular in the next decade or so) and taking notes on the other side. Have a chart you need copied from the textbook into your notes? No problem - instead of having to take a few minutes to accurately draw it, take two seconds to copy and paste it into your notes. How can you NOT see the advantage in two screens? Are you really that short sighted that you think just because you can't watch movies on it that it's useless?
It will have great promise and hope that will be dashed as soon as you try to use the thing. Sort of like a Democratic majority in Congress....
Flawed analogy - rational people actually expected the iPad to be useful before we found out the details. I've yet to meet someone rational who actually expected anything worthwhile from a Democratic majority in Congress.
Being able to afford a game has absolutely nothing to do with why a large number of people pirate - are large number of people pirate because they refuse to pay to get ass-raped with DRM.
While you have a point, consider that if you pay for it you make them think their DRM is acceptable. As a compromise, I suggest buying it, pirating it, and writing an angry letter explaining the situation. It'll be ignored of course, but it would make me feel better.
I'd suggest pirating it and sending an angry letter. That way they get the angry letter knowing that you won't buy the game due to the DRM and you still get the pleasure of playing it as an additional "fuck you" to the company that screws over their paying customers. I'm very against pirating because you don't want to pay for something, but recently I got mad enough at game companies screwing over their paying customers that I started downloading DRM'd (and only DRM'd) games. I'm not paying for it anyways, due to the DRM, so getting a pirated copy doesn't harm them and I get the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that if the evil bastards hadn't put DRM in, I'd have paid $60 for the game - due to their greed and general asshole-ish behavior, they got $0.
Except that with enough people boycotting due to DRM (and while publicly the companies will lie and say it's pirates costing them sales, not boycotts), eventually the companies will go bankrupt. Then the people who make the new companies to take over will be well aware that DRM caused the demise of the predecessors and they will avoid such mistakes if they hope to stay in business more than 5 years.
Then you have a problem with your system, not Windows. My Windows 7 laptop with 3 gigs of RAM resumes from hibernate in about half the time it takes it to boot and I've yet to see wireless or anything else break.