You mean the fact that you get less storage on an HTC Evo (8 GB vs 16 GB on the iPhone 4) for the same price of $299? That's assuming you send in the $100 dollar 'rebate' and a 2 year commitment.
I actually thing that Android has been great for the smartphone market and specifically on iPhone development. They are definitely having an impact on the iPhone, both in software features and possibly in hardware, although on the hardware front, it's arguable that these are pretty common advances and it would get those in any case.
I do think that Android wouldn't exist today without iPhone, but folks would have to remember back a few years to recall just how horrible smart phones were in the first half of the decade. it was a game changer, and the interface and features on the first Droids were very close if not identical to Apple's (albeit not quite as polished). They did however improve on those features and have continued to do so. That and the fact that Android has a much larger hardware and vendor base will make them a strong competitor in the market and keep Apple on it's toes.
So by your reasoning, any code examples should be discarded as useless? An explanation is fine and a good learning tool but it's not the be-all-end-all of learning techniques.
You can indeed learn by example (there's a reason that saying is so popular).
Connecting to WiFi is as simple as walking into a WiFi signal. It will prompt you as soon as you try to do anything over the network, and ask if you want to connect, even a secured network will auto-accept an iPhone user if it is an AT&T provided WiFi hotspot. I would not equate that to the same thing as going to some service web site, creating a nick, searching for your friend, and hoping/waiting while they join, and then starting a video chat, all while ignoring the fact that there is no PHONE equivalent of the Camfrog app that does video.
As to UTMS, I'm very well aware of what it is, and also aware of the fact that no one uses it, which is the point of this sub-thread. Apple tends to make failed or failing technologies due to lack of interest, interesting and useable to the masses, just like they did with the iPad, and the Smartphone. Granted there were devices before these came along, but the tablets were failing miserably on all fronts, and the smart phones were downright painful to use, especially when it came to browsing, music purchasing/syncing, and applications.
Why would you want to have video chats with complete strangers? The iPhone will be useful for video calls to people you actually know, on a PHONE. Camfrog is an IM/Video app for a PC, which requires both to have the same software, and a nick via Camfrog. You also forgot to mention that there is no smartphone version that actually supports video. Kind of a big gotcha considering the topic at hand.
Just as the Tablet was a poor idea? You argument sounds good on paper, but it takes a good implementation of technology before the masses will want it. Although it might excite the geek crowd, until it's put out in a user friendly fashion that is easy enough for you mother, father, or grandmother to use, it's largely irrelevant to the mass consumer.
Just because a phone implements a video calling technology, doesn't mean that the phone you are calling also supports it. Besides, UMTS is the base technology. It still relies on the application layer to provide the video compression/decompression technology. This new open standard by Apple may very well grease the wheels so that you no longer need a 3rd party app to accomplish this across a wide variety of phones.
"The first national consumer UMTS networks launched in 2002 with a heavy emphasis on telco-provided mobile applications such as mobile TV and video calling. The high data speeds of UMTS are now most often utilised for Internet access: experience in Japan and elsewhere has shown that user demand for video calls is not high, and telco-provided audio/video content has declined in popularity in favour of high-speed access to the World Wide Web - either directly on a handset or connected to a computer via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Infrared or USB."
A bit misleading to indicate that all of these hundreds of millions of phones are ready for video calling, when few actually implement it, fewer folks actually use it (and it's trending downwards), and even fewer still implement it well.
Perhaps the inclusion of this feature in a major phone which will literally work with a click of a touch screen will make this more common and desirable to the masses, much like the iPad is doing for Tablets.
Yes and no. In two years time, i'm sure some 'android' equivalent will establish itself as a real competitor, and it's fan's will claim that it is the best thing since sliced bread and that nothing Apple does is 'orignal' or 'new', all the while forgetting that their tablet probably has it's roots, and it's very existence based on an attempt to 'best the iPad'. The same is true for the iPhone and the current crop of Android devices.
Simply creating a device is only half the challenge. You also have to do it well, which is where they tend to fall to the wayside.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple already has the pole position (no pun intended), and that any new competitors would be the runner up until proven otherwise.
"The first big player that steps up with something competitive to Apple in that regard will have the pole position in 2010's race for the hot re-emergent tablet market."
Camfrog: 1) Open browser 2) Sign up for username/password 3) Verify e-mail address, browser username 4) Beg friends to join up so you can chat with them 5) Wait for them to go online and sign in 6) Profit?
iPhone: 1) Hold home key for 2 seconds 2) Voice Command: "Call BlahBlah" 3) Profit?
The front and back are a special type of glass (supposedly has a tensile strength ten times stronger than common glass). The metal edges with the seems were confirmed to be there because the metel bezel/edge of the phone is actually a pair of antenna's. Folks have been wondering why they would put such a seem on the phone, and it appears the reason is due to usability, rather than style.
The backups from an iPhone or iPod can be encrypted. The iTunes db is not encrypted. Managing the database is as simple as copying some files to the proper locations, and modifying an XML.
I have to wonder how many people really do have the same provider for cell, and internet, which is where this seems to be going. For instance, I get my internet via Time Warner, but my cell service via AT&T. I am not totally opposed to paying per byte for internet, but I would expect the price to be fair, and looking at all of the existing plans, none of them are. They charge exorbitant fees for a paltry 5GB of data on cell networks where they currently provide unlimited data via land lines for the same or less per-month charges. There is a huge disconnect between the value perceived by the user/customer, and the costs being claimed by the likes of AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner, etc.
The cell providers have had years to build out these networks, yet the price hasn't dropped, they still charge huge sums of money for simple text messages, and offer no unlimited plans with the exception of the iPhone plan, and that one is already endangered as well. All of the other cell data plans are capped at 5GB or thereabouts.
At some point, they have to understand the frustration that we get unlimited internet access via land line, but restrictions and high costs for cell data, all to the same internet and probably through the same backbone once it leaves the cell network.
Why would you think you are tied to iTunes with an iPhone. You do realize that the music in the iTunes music store are simple AAC (un-encrypted at that). The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad hardware will play standard MP3 and AAC without issue, which pretty much covers just about any music store out there. There are also a ton of open source alternatives to iTunes. iTunes exposes a standard XML which can be used to maintain the library with any third party software.
And yet you yourself don't use the word 'theft' to describe the same situation, but rather you chose to use 'plagiarism'.
"Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism. Basically taking someone else's work and passing them off as their own in order to garner hits, elevate the status of their blog, and possibly earn some revenue from Google advertising."
Copyright Infringement is NOT theft. The owner of said works can open up their hard drive, safe, or wherever they keep the original and verify it is still there. You can argue that by infringing on their work, you are 'stealing' money from them, yet the money has to exist in their accounts before it can be stolen.
Are these copyright owners suffering financial damage from infringement? Possibly yes, but calling it theft is inaccurate. These people are infringing on a copyrighted work. No more, no less. To be fair, OP did imply that the 'starving artists, homeless in their nansions' were acting like martyrs when they are more than likely far from it, but in any case, it is not theft.
Slashdot Mirror
$199 but the comparison is valid. $199 for both but with the iPhone 4 you get 16 GB vs 8 GB with HTC Evo
You mean the fact that you get less storage on an HTC Evo (8 GB vs 16 GB on the iPhone 4) for the same price of $299? That's assuming you send in the $100 dollar 'rebate' and a 2 year commitment.
http://technabob.com/blog/2010/05/12/htc-evo-4g-price-release-date-specs/
I actually thing that Android has been great for the smartphone market and specifically on iPhone development. They are definitely having an impact on the iPhone, both in software features and possibly in hardware, although on the hardware front, it's arguable that these are pretty common advances and it would get those in any case.
I do think that Android wouldn't exist today without iPhone, but folks would have to remember back a few years to recall just how horrible smart phones were in the first half of the decade. it was a game changer, and the interface and features on the first Droids were very close if not identical to Apple's (albeit not quite as polished). They did however improve on those features and have continued to do so. That and the fact that Android has a much larger hardware and vendor base will make them a strong competitor in the market and keep Apple on it's toes.
So by your reasoning, any code examples should be discarded as useless? An explanation is fine and a good learning tool but it's not the be-all-end-all of learning techniques.
You can indeed learn by example (there's a reason that saying is so popular).
Connecting to WiFi is as simple as walking into a WiFi signal. It will prompt you as soon as you try to do anything over the network, and ask if you want to connect, even a secured network will auto-accept an iPhone user if it is an AT&T provided WiFi hotspot. I would not equate that to the same thing as going to some service web site, creating a nick, searching for your friend, and hoping/waiting while they join, and then starting a video chat, all while ignoring the fact that there is no PHONE equivalent of the Camfrog app that does video.
As to UTMS, I'm very well aware of what it is, and also aware of the fact that no one uses it, which is the point of this sub-thread. Apple tends to make failed or failing technologies due to lack of interest, interesting and useable to the masses, just like they did with the iPad, and the Smartphone. Granted there were devices before these came along, but the tablets were failing miserably on all fronts, and the smart phones were downright painful to use, especially when it came to browsing, music purchasing/syncing, and applications.
Why would you want to have video chats with complete strangers? The iPhone will be useful for video calls to people you actually know, on a PHONE. Camfrog is an IM/Video app for a PC, which requires both to have the same software, and a nick via Camfrog. You also forgot to mention that there is no smartphone version that actually supports video. Kind of a big gotcha considering the topic at hand.
Just as the Tablet was a poor idea? You argument sounds good on paper, but it takes a good implementation of technology before the masses will want it. Although it might excite the geek crowd, until it's put out in a user friendly fashion that is easy enough for you mother, father, or grandmother to use, it's largely irrelevant to the mass consumer.
Just because a phone implements a video calling technology, doesn't mean that the phone you are calling also supports it. Besides, UMTS is the base technology. It still relies on the application layer to provide the video compression/decompression technology. This new open standard by Apple may very well grease the wheels so that you no longer need a 3rd party app to accomplish this across a wide variety of phones.
"The first national consumer UMTS networks launched in 2002 with a heavy emphasis on telco-provided mobile applications such as mobile TV and video calling. The high data speeds of UMTS are now most often utilised for Internet access: experience in Japan and elsewhere has shown that user demand for video calls is not high, and telco-provided audio/video content has declined in popularity in favour of high-speed access to the World Wide Web - either directly on a handset or connected to a computer via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Infrared or USB."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Mobile_Telecommunications_System#Features
A bit misleading to indicate that all of these hundreds of millions of phones are ready for video calling, when few actually implement it, fewer folks actually use it (and it's trending downwards), and even fewer still implement it well.
Perhaps the inclusion of this feature in a major phone which will literally work with a click of a touch screen will make this more common and desirable to the masses, much like the iPad is doing for Tablets.
Time will tell...
Yes and no. In two years time, i'm sure some 'android' equivalent will establish itself as a real competitor, and it's fan's will claim that it is the best thing since sliced bread and that nothing Apple does is 'orignal' or 'new', all the while forgetting that their tablet probably has it's roots, and it's very existence based on an attempt to 'best the iPad'. The same is true for the iPhone and the current crop of Android devices.
Simply creating a device is only half the challenge. You also have to do it well, which is where they tend to fall to the wayside.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple already has the pole position (no pun intended), and that any new competitors would be the runner up until proven otherwise.
"The first big player that steps up with something competitive to Apple in that regard will have the pole position in 2010's race for the hot re-emergent tablet market."
Apple intends to release FaceTime as an open standard.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announces_open_standard_facetime_video_chat_for_iphone_4.html
Should make Video Chats via gadget that much closer to reality.
Camfrog:
1) Open browser
2) Sign up for username/password
3) Verify e-mail address, browser username
4) Beg friends to join up so you can chat with them
5) Wait for them to go online and sign in
6) Profit?
iPhone:
1) Hold home key for 2 seconds
2) Voice Command: "Call BlahBlah"
3) Profit?
Almost forgot. 3-Axis Gyro in it (not sure what applications that will be good for, but it looked interesting in the demo).
Oh, and 9.3 mm thick. They claimed it was the thinest smartphone in the world.
The front and back are a special type of glass (supposedly has a tensile strength ten times stronger than common glass). The metal edges with the seems were confirmed to be there because the metel bezel/edge of the phone is actually a pair of antenna's. Folks have been wondering why they would put such a seem on the phone, and it appears the reason is due to usability, rather than style.
720P video capabilities, 5 MP camera, rumored 512 MB flash (not confirmed yet), 960x640 display (IPS), and Wireless-N (2.4 Ghz only).
Here is the more Geek-centric info on the XML itself (schema info, key info, etc).
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/11/03/itunes.html
VERY useful site if you're interested in tweaking the XML directly.
The backups from an iPhone or iPod can be encrypted. The iTunes db is not encrypted. Managing the database is as simple as copying some files to the proper locations, and modifying an XML.
[Basic info on the XML interface and hte db locations]
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1660
Here are some free alternatives to iTunes. A few minutes of Googling should net you a larger list:
http://www.copytrans.net/copytransmanager.php
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/10/doubletwist-podcasts-android/ (also works with a variety of devices including Android)
http://ipod.about.com/od/introductiontoitunes/tp/itunes_alterns.htm
You may be thinking of the 'White Hole' theory.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=108
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
I have to wonder how many people really do have the same provider for cell, and internet, which is where this seems to be going. For instance, I get my internet via Time Warner, but my cell service via AT&T. I am not totally opposed to paying per byte for internet, but I would expect the price to be fair, and looking at all of the existing plans, none of them are. They charge exorbitant fees for a paltry 5GB of data on cell networks where they currently provide unlimited data via land lines for the same or less per-month charges. There is a huge disconnect between the value perceived by the user/customer, and the costs being claimed by the likes of AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner, etc.
The cell providers have had years to build out these networks, yet the price hasn't dropped, they still charge huge sums of money for simple text messages, and offer no unlimited plans with the exception of the iPhone plan, and that one is already endangered as well. All of the other cell data plans are capped at 5GB or thereabouts.
At some point, they have to understand the frustration that we get unlimited internet access via land line, but restrictions and high costs for cell data, all to the same internet and probably through the same backbone once it leaves the cell network.
http://www.simplehelp.net/2007/07/08/10-alternatives-to-itunes-for-managing-your-ipod/
They also missed a few others like EphPod:
http://www.ephpod.com/
A few minutes on google will find you a decent depth of choices on Linux, Mac, and Windows.
Why would you think you are tied to iTunes with an iPhone. You do realize that the music in the iTunes music store are simple AAC (un-encrypted at that). The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad hardware will play standard MP3 and AAC without issue, which pretty much covers just about any music store out there. There are also a ton of open source alternatives to iTunes. iTunes exposes a standard XML which can be used to maintain the library with any third party software.
Try harder....
"Not if you use an iPod or iPhone."
One might argue thought that if your license is not transferrable, then the 'bot' must also purchase a license to play?
And yet you yourself don't use the word 'theft' to describe the same situation, but rather you chose to use 'plagiarism'.
"Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism. Basically taking someone else's work and passing them off as their own in order to garner hits, elevate the status of their blog, and possibly earn some revenue from Google advertising."
Copyright Infringement is NOT theft. The owner of said works can open up their hard drive, safe, or wherever they keep the original and verify it is still there. You can argue that by infringing on their work, you are 'stealing' money from them, yet the money has to exist in their accounts before it can be stolen.
Are these copyright owners suffering financial damage from infringement? Possibly yes, but calling it theft is inaccurate. These people are infringing on a copyrighted work. No more, no less. To be fair, OP did imply that the 'starving artists, homeless in their nansions' were acting like martyrs when they are more than likely far from it, but in any case, it is not theft.
Apologies, I Forgot the important link that ties things together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
Search for: Ex parte Milligan
That section is what ties martial law into Posse Comitatus
In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
It does. From TFA:
"These emergency measures are supposed to remain in place for no more than 30 days. But they can be extended indefinitely, a month at a time."
Unless they change the wording of the bill to weaken it, they would be required to continually get approval for this on a monthly basis.