As for opening the platform up. The problem is one of security. The security model on iOS requires the generation of provisioning files. Which means Apple ultimately has to support the distribution on an individual software -> device level. If you don't want to use provisioning files and just load whatever you want, that's just jailbreaking and that has been widely available throughout the iPhones life.
I think this argument is very unfair. First, Apple definitely has the resources to fund this additional cost of development (Android is supported on a far greater number of platforms and Apple's available funds are far greater than those of Google). Second, anyone could argue that any feature would be unsustainable from a security standpoint if they didn't want to fund it, and it's not like this is an unreasonable request - again, Android, Linux, Windows, even OS X support a model where users can install software from any source they want, and they are all reasonably secure. Third, users should ultimately be the ones choosing between security vs. functionality... not the vendor. The device is owned by the user, not the vendor.
This is completely wrong. Organizations (e.g. offices, schools) standardize on these platforms, and often times, purchasers/users have no choice in this process. Infuriatingly, my own former secondary school is forcing all students to purchase Ipads starting next year. What would you say then? Move to another district?
There is no real choice in a vertically integrated platform - innocent and unwanting consumers are often dragged downward into it. It has easily already reached a point where Apple can happily manipulate the situation for their own benefit, particularly in the situations I outlined above. Like I said, it's fair for no one.
I'm sure many distributors would gladly give up those perks if it would result in lower rates that they had to pay for Apple. And as I've been harping constantly, it would result in more competitive rates if others were allowed into this arena. I'm sure other methods of payment such as Paypal and Google Checkout would be eager to implement their platforms, and the portion that Paypal skims on top of transactions within their service are much smaller than those taken by Apple (or so I'm guessing, I don't have any figures at all on this).
Unfortunately, Apple is completely (and again, as I believe) unfairly locking them out. Everyone loses except Apple.
You make a fine case, but the fact remains that we would probably see lower rates if there were some actual competition in this respect, and as long as there is none, Apple is more or less free to manipulate the price (ie. cut) as they like. They have a very strong grip here and ultimately it hurts consumers that they have so much control. I still don't see in any way why it's either unfair to Apple, nor harmful to consumers that Apple should be made to open their markets.
It's not a monopoly, so much as it is vertically integrated, which is good for no one. A lot of companies are fairly tied into Apple's platform which only benefits the vendor in the end. If they wanted to put a hurt on their customers, they could raise the rates even higher, though 30% is absurd as it is. Yes, this would encourage adoption of alternative platforms, but it would still harm the industries that have adopted iOS enormously.
I think the fairest solution is to force Apple to open their platform to alternative software sources in the same way as Android. Look at how that has benefited Amazon - they've been pretty successful with the Kindle Fire and their own app store, and it would be great to see this opportunity for innovation on other platforms as well. Apple can do whatever they want with their market, and it's not like people are gonna completely stop using it as there are still going to be plenty of users who see value in Apple's app store. But it would definitely support more indie development which is one of the greatest things money just can't buy.
And you probably wouldn't bitch about it if you had to trade positions with him or her, so I would shut up and be happy I have something worth paying taxes on.
Or, put another way, it's less than ONE QUARTER OF THE ENTIRE US DEFENSE BUDGET for ONE SINGLE YEAR. Not to mention that this would actually return several (hundreds of) times its original investment. That pretty much shows you the value of a nation.
First of all, I don't see anywhere in TFS where Steve Jobs is being bashed. I haven't read TFA.
But more importantly, if Steve Jobs were an honest and well-meaning engineer, don't you think they would want to commemorate him more with a branding of some functional product rather than a legal device which takes away others' ability to do the same?
The is the reason you're looking for. Steve Jobs was not a good person, and the public perception of him is largely that of an idol. In truth, he was a selfish, mistreatful jerk who would use any means, no matter how immoral ('I'm going thermonuclear on Android!'), to dominate the market. Samsung's lawyers at the latest Apple v Samsung hearing put it best:
We see what Apple is doing. It's an intentional engagement of "thermonuclear war," throughout the world. It's an attempt to compete in the courthouse rather than the marketplace. [After the preliminary injunction] Apple went to our customers and misused the "colorably different" langauge, and told them they couldn't sell any of our phones. They're using any results they get through the courts to clobber our name and prevent us from competing in the marketplace fairly, on the merits.
We don't think they're trying to establish boundaries. They're trying to cloud things and use the courthouse to compete with us.
Get a $30 usb optical drive. You can share it between all the devices in the household, rather than having to get one on each device you buy. Of course, you can easily see the disincentive here for the computer manufacturers.
Space age research is still alive and well too. GP's comment comes on the heels of this and this, not to mention that we're also seeing potential earths in other solar systems for the first time ever! plus at the same time learning even more about awesome our own home is.
Maybe the public at large is more concerned about which husband/wife the latest Kardashian is on, but the age of the geeks is accelerating far faster than any it ever has, and it will continue to do so as long as there is the tiniest of means.
And while we're on it, let's not forget that we're also thinking smaller than ever before. How long has it been since we isolated the Higgs Boson???
Not all jobs have to through HR. People who apply through HR directly are just asking to be rejected. If you want to get hired, contact the hiring manager directly and go past the HR BS. Not only does it mean that someone actually qualified to assess your skills is the one looking at your resume, but it also gives you an opportunity to show quite a bit more initiative than other job candidates who go through the conventional route.
They should be punishing them for lying and covering it up when they see these things happening. We know they're occurring. We know that they know. We know nothing is being doing about it. Claiming you were acting under orders didn't work for the Germans at Nuremburg, so we shouldn't be allowing it here.
move the TBP proxy offshore and then proxy the TBP proxy. If they are told to take that down, then move it offshore and proxy that. And if they are told to take that down..
deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake.
Really, no one's life is at stake? You realize that by not exposing innocent civilian killing, you are complicit in allowing it to happen and making it occur more, correct? I'd say that it's much more likely that someone would not hesitate to kill someone if they knew there is no repercussion for it.
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ending because they were so massively successful - they're ending because they're so unpopular. Now true, it's mostly because it has been such a waste of money, but people do see the all the really bad stuff that's happening too and start putting pressure on their leaders to end it. People see what's really going on here - it's not really about killing enemy combatants when over half of your casualties are innocent civilians. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that these leaks have done a small bit to ensure that fewer lives are lost.
Yes, some level of trust is necessary. But are you suggesting that this trust would go so far as to include hushing up about innocent and indiscriminate civilian deaths, torture and inhumane treatment, and all of the other information that has been revealed by Manning and Wikileaks as a whole? And do you mean to suggest that there should be zero accountability or oversight or public awareness of all these horrible atrocities? It's this reason why I can't stand it when Americans constantly shout about supporting the troops. What kind of country is supposed to support this? And even worse, with no oversight or accountability! Instead, the military holds accountable those who reveal them, thereby implicitly condoning these actions.
I don't honestly find that to be particularly surprising, however, I still maintain that if you wish to make a claim like the one I quoted, it won't be very convincing without some backing evidence. I knew before posting that Wikipedia would probably be a fairly slanted source, but I figure a bad source is better than no source if they at least provoke some mental stimulation....
And yet you still have to buy into a vertically integrated platform. It's only a matter of time before that causes problems. Remember the Final Cut (Pro) fiasco? And I'm sure there are plenty of analogs in the Windows world where developers standardize on a platform that only gets deprectaed in a few years.
The great advantage to having an open platform is that you control your fate. Apple makes for a great flavor of the month, but long-term, you're gonna have to make sure that you're gonna be able to support the platform you adopt. If I were making decisions, I'd very much hesitate to buy into such a tightly controlled platform like that.
"If a scientist, or a vast majority of scientists, say something is true, it is considered heresy to even dare to question it."
It doesn't matter who says what. There are tons of examples from history from scientists who were ridiculed for proposing ideas that went against the grain, and later turned out to be right. Examples: http://www.amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Nobody says you can't question the conventional reasoning, but you better have a damn good story to back that up, whether it be an experimental result, contradictory observational facts, or even just a hypothetical, yet logical argument. Science has more to do with answers answers, rather than beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
As for opening the platform up. The problem is one of security. The security model on iOS requires the generation of provisioning files. Which means Apple ultimately has to support the distribution on an individual software -> device level. If you don't want to use provisioning files and just load whatever you want, that's just jailbreaking and that has been widely available throughout the iPhones life.
I think this argument is very unfair. First, Apple definitely has the resources to fund this additional cost of development (Android is supported on a far greater number of platforms and Apple's available funds are far greater than those of Google). Second, anyone could argue that any feature would be unsustainable from a security standpoint if they didn't want to fund it, and it's not like this is an unreasonable request - again, Android, Linux, Windows, even OS X support a model where users can install software from any source they want, and they are all reasonably secure. Third, users should ultimately be the ones choosing between security vs. functionality... not the vendor. The device is owned by the user, not the vendor.
This is completely wrong. Organizations (e.g. offices, schools) standardize on these platforms, and often times, purchasers/users have no choice in this process. Infuriatingly, my own former secondary school is forcing all students to purchase Ipads starting next year. What would you say then? Move to another district?
There is no real choice in a vertically integrated platform - innocent and unwanting consumers are often dragged downward into it. It has easily already reached a point where Apple can happily manipulate the situation for their own benefit, particularly in the situations I outlined above. Like I said, it's fair for no one.
I'm sure many distributors would gladly give up those perks if it would result in lower rates that they had to pay for Apple. And as I've been harping constantly, it would result in more competitive rates if others were allowed into this arena. I'm sure other methods of payment such as Paypal and Google Checkout would be eager to implement their platforms, and the portion that Paypal skims on top of transactions within their service are much smaller than those taken by Apple (or so I'm guessing, I don't have any figures at all on this).
Unfortunately, Apple is completely (and again, as I believe) unfairly locking them out. Everyone loses except Apple.
You make a fine case, but the fact remains that we would probably see lower rates if there were some actual competition in this respect, and as long as there is none, Apple is more or less free to manipulate the price (ie. cut) as they like. They have a very strong grip here and ultimately it hurts consumers that they have so much control. I still don't see in any way why it's either unfair to Apple, nor harmful to consumers that Apple should be made to open their markets.
It's not a monopoly, so much as it is vertically integrated, which is good for no one. A lot of companies are fairly tied into Apple's platform which only benefits the vendor in the end. If they wanted to put a hurt on their customers, they could raise the rates even higher, though 30% is absurd as it is. Yes, this would encourage adoption of alternative platforms, but it would still harm the industries that have adopted iOS enormously.
I think the fairest solution is to force Apple to open their platform to alternative software sources in the same way as Android. Look at how that has benefited Amazon - they've been pretty successful with the Kindle Fire and their own app store, and it would be great to see this opportunity for innovation on other platforms as well. Apple can do whatever they want with their market, and it's not like people are gonna completely stop using it as there are still going to be plenty of users who see value in Apple's app store. But it would definitely support more indie development which is one of the greatest things money just can't buy.
And you probably wouldn't bitch about it if you had to trade positions with him or her, so I would shut up and be happy I have something worth paying taxes on.
Or, put another way, it's less than ONE QUARTER OF THE ENTIRE US DEFENSE BUDGET for ONE SINGLE YEAR. Not to mention that this would actually return several (hundreds of) times its original investment. That pretty much shows you the value of a nation.
Good. The last thing this world needs is the offspring of rich people.
First of all, I don't see anywhere in TFS where Steve Jobs is being bashed. I haven't read TFA.
But more importantly, if Steve Jobs were an honest and well-meaning engineer, don't you think they would want to commemorate him more with a branding of some functional product rather than a legal device which takes away others' ability to do the same?
The is the reason you're looking for. Steve Jobs was not a good person, and the public perception of him is largely that of an idol. In truth, he was a selfish, mistreatful jerk who would use any means, no matter how immoral ('I'm going thermonuclear on Android!'), to dominate the market. Samsung's lawyers at the latest Apple v Samsung hearing put it best:
We see what Apple is doing. It's an intentional engagement of "thermonuclear war," throughout the world. It's an attempt to compete in the courthouse rather than the marketplace. [After the preliminary injunction] Apple went to our customers and misused the "colorably different" langauge, and told them they couldn't sell any of our phones. They're using any results they get through the courts to clobber our name and prevent us from competing in the marketplace fairly, on the merits.
We don't think they're trying to establish boundaries. They're trying to cloud things and use the courthouse to compete with us.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/at-key-apple-samsung-hearing-judge-talks-lower-damages/
It's the iphone, this is a step back!
*ducks*
Get a $30 usb optical drive. You can share it between all the devices in the household, rather than having to get one on each device you buy. Of course, you can easily see the disincentive here for the computer manufacturers.
Unfortunately, far too many stupid people are allowed to vote.
Look at the recent US election. How many politicians who approved NDAA were re-elected? Here's one for example: the President.
Space age research is still alive and well too. GP's comment comes on the heels of this and this, not to mention that we're also seeing potential earths in other solar systems for the first time ever! plus at the same time learning even more about awesome our own home is.
Maybe the public at large is more concerned about which husband/wife the latest Kardashian is on, but the age of the geeks is accelerating far faster than any it ever has, and it will continue to do so as long as there is the tiniest of means.
And while we're on it, let's not forget that we're also thinking smaller than ever before. How long has it been since we isolated the Higgs Boson???
Not all jobs have to through HR. People who apply through HR directly are just asking to be rejected. If you want to get hired, contact the hiring manager directly and go past the HR BS. Not only does it mean that someone actually qualified to assess your skills is the one looking at your resume, but it also gives you an opportunity to show quite a bit more initiative than other job candidates who go through the conventional route.
Yes, but the summary mentioned major browsers
*ducks*
They should be punishing them for lying and covering it up when they see these things happening. We know they're occurring. We know that they know. We know nothing is being doing about it. Claiming you were acting under orders didn't work for the Germans at Nuremburg, so we shouldn't be allowing it here.
move the TBP proxy offshore and then proxy the TBP proxy. If they are told to take that down, then move it offshore and proxy that. And if they are told to take that down..
deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake.
Really, no one's life is at stake? You realize that by not exposing innocent civilian killing, you are complicit in allowing it to happen and making it occur more, correct? I'd say that it's much more likely that someone would not hesitate to kill someone if they knew there is no repercussion for it.
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ending because they were so massively successful - they're ending because they're so unpopular. Now true, it's mostly because it has been such a waste of money, but people do see the all the really bad stuff that's happening too and start putting pressure on their leaders to end it. People see what's really going on here - it's not really about killing enemy combatants when over half of your casualties are innocent civilians. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that these leaks have done a small bit to ensure that fewer lives are lost.
Yes, some level of trust is necessary. But are you suggesting that this trust would go so far as to include hushing up about innocent and indiscriminate civilian deaths, torture and inhumane treatment, and all of the other information that has been revealed by Manning and Wikileaks as a whole? And do you mean to suggest that there should be zero accountability or oversight or public awareness of all these horrible atrocities? It's this reason why I can't stand it when Americans constantly shout about supporting the troops. What kind of country is supposed to support this? And even worse, with no oversight or accountability! Instead, the military holds accountable those who reveal them, thereby implicitly condoning these actions.
It makes me sad.
I don't honestly find that to be particularly surprising, however, I still maintain that if you wish to make a claim like the one I quoted, it won't be very convincing without some backing evidence. I knew before posting that Wikipedia would probably be a fairly slanted source, but I figure a bad source is better than no source if they at least provoke some mental stimulation....
And yet you still have to buy into a vertically integrated platform. It's only a matter of time before that causes problems. Remember the Final Cut (Pro) fiasco? And I'm sure there are plenty of analogs in the Windows world where developers standardize on a platform that only gets deprectaed in a few years.
The great advantage to having an open platform is that you control your fate. Apple makes for a great flavor of the month, but long-term, you're gonna have to make sure that you're gonna be able to support the platform you adopt. If I were making decisions, I'd very much hesitate to buy into such a tightly controlled platform like that.
"If a scientist, or a vast majority of scientists, say something is true, it is considered heresy to even dare to question it."
It doesn't matter who says what. There are tons of examples from history from scientists who were ridiculed for proposing ideas that went against the grain, and later turned out to be right. Examples: http://www.amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Nobody says you can't question the conventional reasoning, but you better have a damn good story to back that up, whether it be an experimental result, contradictory observational facts, or even just a hypothetical, yet logical argument. Science has more to do with answers answers, rather than beliefs.
but in this case knowledgeable people are divided.
Surely you have a reliable source for this claim? Here are several which say otherwise.
I was fine learning that Samsung makes some of the parts in the iphone, but this is just creepy...
Steve! Steve! That you? How's the weather down there?