I'd like to see some arguments either way about choosing where to live based on availability of telecommunications service.
You won't get an argument, not here anyway. Everyone here checks to see what their internet options are before they move. The problem is, we can't all just up and start a new life a thousand miles away where Google has fiber. Or FIOS, etc. We're anchored to our jobs, our families, our friends. So our options are geographically limited to about a hundred miles in any direction from where we live now. If it's outside that bubble (and for many, it's smaller), it can't be considered because of more important things in life.
To say there's no demand though... that's just horse-pucky. The only people that don't want faster internet are the people who don't really use it anyway, and have no idea what kind of benefits it would offer (for example, no more advertising when watching your favorite TV shows).
But there are also possible uses in cleaning up oil spills, monitoring industrial processes and in national security."
I read that and the first thing I thought was... after the robots kill the protesters, they'll just crawl out of their ear and shimmy into the storm drain. But then I realized, who am I kidding? The government would never do something like that.
The researchers say this process may help uncover the physical underpinnings of devastating mental disorders like schizophrenia, autism, post-traumatic stress disorder and others.'"
Can you find the center of the brain responsible for youtube comments and create a drug that turns that off? The internet will pay you. The internet will pay you a lot.
we already paid AT&T and other telcos for national broadband back the 90s; they don't deserve nor do they get the same deal google does. they need to provide what we paid them to do (the thieves used the money to buy up competitors)
The problem is not laying down fiber or building infrastructure: The problem is that nobody else can because of contractual agreements. And who's fault is this? Not the federal government. In fact, not even the state government. The primary malfactor here is municipalities. Take away their ability to ink exclusive contracts, and this whole issue would dry up in a few years. There's agreements still in force from the 90s saying they'd deliver "broadband internet" of 1mbit/s as long as they have exclusive rights to lay cable and stuff for 20 years.
Even in cases where the agreements aren't exclusive (larger cities, mostly, who have more negotiating power), there is still so much red tape, and so many different layers of bureauacracy to get through before any actual work can be done, that companies smaller than Google have no hope of ever breaking into the market. This is an artificially-created monopoly created not by the telecos, but by municipalities.
You want broadband internet? Crush city hall and hand control over to the state or federal government. Take these small-time politicians out of the mix.
The solution's the standard one: take the long-term view.
Okay, fine, but show me another currency that has such wild yo-yo conversion rates and a financial advisor that suggests investing in it in the first place. I know that being computer geeks we love new technology and an anonymous currency is a great idea. But from a financial standpoint, it's an unmitigated disaster. Every other form of currency is resiliant to DDoS attacks like this, and there are plenty of trading companies that can easily avoid such problems.
You can't build an economy on a currency that can lose half it's value in an afternoon. Period. You will not find any reputable economist who will say putting money into bitcoins is a responsible financial move given just that problem, let alone issues with liquidity, access to funds, speculative investing, etc.
Not always true. Facebook, yahoo, microsoft, google and the like are for profit companies that rely on advertisements and social graphs or referrals to generate revenue, which they need constantly more of.
Who are those advertisements for? You. Who's in those social graphs? You. Who's the name on those referrals? You.
Getting in the way of their warrantless, lawless, do whatever the fuck we want, police state. And so they're just going to keep trying, because let's face it: The law is more or less a lottery. And a single fuckup can establish case law and precident that'll last for centuries. Thanks, common law.
And now, GirlinTraining Eats an Apple Fanboy, Except For The Core Of Course...
Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.
I accused them of adhering to their mission statement, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.
I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course.
Considering that the developers only get paid when their balance reaches a certain threshold or a certain amount of time has elapsed, yeah, practically zero.
It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.
One of these things is not like the other. Can you spot it?
As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own.
Actually, I don't. But I do know them better than you apparently do. The app store alone brings in six billion a year. Go look it up, I'll wait. The data center, equipment, land, everything, cost 1/6th of that. New. From scratch. Obviously, day to day costs would be lower. A lot lower. You may remember another company that has a very large data center: It's called Google, and as I understand it, they're one of the biggest companies on the planet and they don't charge or take a cut of your website's fees to operate. Their profit margins aren't exactly... tiny. So margins for Apple here are huge. Massively huge. Triple digit huge. And with a six billion dollar market, we're talking holy-fuck I just won the lottery huge payout. Which of course, I know, and Apple knows, but you apparently, did not know. I ascribe this to the fact that you only read about technology on forum websites like slashdot, instead of busying yourself with inventing them, as I do. And possibly having not taken macroeconomics yet.
My point about Apple's financial statements was not that fraud never happens../
Back pedal any harder and you may solve the energy crisis. No, you said fraud is a serious crime and implied that any alleged impropriety that Apple could be accused of was likely false, because said fraud is rare. I responded with common-knowledge news events that stamped this with a giant "Bullshit" in 9 foot tall lettering.
Also, I find it amusing that you consider the $99 annual fee to not only be "hidden" (seriously, wtf?) but that it is somehow crippling.
Well, if your math skills didn't suck so hard they were in danger of creating an event horizon from which no clue can escape, you'd realize that $100 from a developer that's making less than $3,000 in the majority of the cases means Apple's cut from this alone is over 3%. That "Apple only takes 30%" is white-washed Grade A marketing bullshit. It takes more. In fact, when you add it all up, they take about as much as the recording industries do from their artists. Which, big surprise, since it's the same business model, but just has a trendy hipster icon plastered across the front.
- the clear indication here is that hobbyist developers are actually finding success on the store.
Your definition of success would be "made more than nothing." My definition of success is somewhat more mature, and reasonable: Makes enough to live on. When you get out of mom's basement, I suspect your definition of success will be less based on the brand of toys you own and more on your ability to get food into your mouth.
What are the earnings of those same group of sub-3k developers on Android, for example? Or simply those releasing software for any platform via their own distribution method.
Find me a case where one of these copyright demand letters was sent to binding arbitration. Go ahead, I'll wait.
And if I could make you wait until you dropped over dead, I'd do it, for being a pentulant little bastard. But a cursory google will quickly show I am right, and you are annoying. Good day, sir.
I was under the impression that binding arbitration requirements could apply only as part of a preexisting contractual relationship between the parties.
The use of a copyrighted work creates a contract. Ta-da. Same thing with the EULAs of software. I mean, if I forced you to sit down and just read the EULAs and associated texts of every software package you have installed... you'd probably starve to death before finishing... Unless you're a really, really fast reader.
You don't think that might be a little distressing?
The law doesn't award emotional damages on the basis of a person's fears about the legal process. They award it based on the damage to reputation, etc., as a result of the false accusation. So all that worry over what will happen? It's worth zero dollars.
This begs the question of what an unreleased and undocumented game was doing on a server designed specifically to distribute as many copies of the game as possible. This is weapons-grade stupidity.
Convince a good lawyer to take this as a class action.
Sorry. Class actions were deleted from your list of acceptable legal remediations by the US Supreme Court after determining that it gave individuals too much power over corporations. Please submit to binding arbitration instead, Citizen.
Sue for court costs, his own legal fees and emotional damages.
Emotional damages? "Your honor, I couldn't sleep. I couldn't work. The idea that someone could accuse me of downloading something on the internet was just so shocking. I couldn't even go out in public, out of fear others might view me as... as a (breaks down sobbing) downloader."
I can't imagine jury anywhere on the planet that wouldn't give the win to the little old lady.
Use this as a model for said trolls and when it becomes clear that we are hoisting these parasites on their own petards, perhaps they'll go away!
You there, troll! Go away. There. I've just rid the internet of one of its most hated archetypes. I'm gonna step out now for a bit of tea. I expect we'll see no more of those people now that the smack down has been given.
In other words they are disturbed by an advertising App whose business model is based on that of every other advertising firm on the planet?
No, they're disturbed by the fact that every other advertising firm on the planet can compete under AppGratis' model. The Apple model has only one advertising firm: Apple.
We can make a horrible world, if we want; however, we might prefer not to.
We've already made a horrible world, at least as far as the law is concerned. It doesn't exist anymore as a way of codifying commonly-held morals, but rather as a way of giving people in power ways of removing others quickly and discreetly. Everyone is a criminal. Everyone. And all it takes to ruin someone's life is to hear the word "Guilty". It's not any small coincidence that housing, employment, public assistance -- everything is tied to not having a criminal record. Considering how ludicriously easy it is to get one (I can film you for a day. I'll find a crime, believe me), this cannot be accidental.
The law doesn't exist to nit-pick, anymore than it exists to delineate between right and wrong. It exists solely, and totally, to delineate between strong and weak.
The App Store itself has been an enormous cash cow for developers, large and small alike.
Let's test that theory. First up, who's making the big bucks? corporations. In fact, over half make Less than $3,000. There are other stories showing the lack of millionaires pouring out of Apple's "enormous cash cow" as you put it. I mean, besides Apple.
Apple's financial statements tell you exactly how much profit they make on the store (hint: it's extremely low, but it is above zero), and if you think they're lying about that as has been often suggested then file a complaint over fraudulent financial reporting - it's a very serious crime.
And as we all know, fraudulent financial reporting, because it's such a serious crime, doesn't happen very often. Like Enron, the subprime mortgage crisis, the "too big to fail" financial institutions, that debacle with Lloyds of London, and oh the list goes on. There isn't a week that goes by where fraudulent financial reporting doesn't make the news.
I'd be interested to see how you justify Apple making "the majority of any profit to be had" with some actual numbers, or if it's just more rampant, ill-informed Apple bashing as usual.
As opposed to blind fan-boy support? Well, regardless of your religious preferences, let's look at a similar business model and then discuss it: record companies. They also have made their profit by acting as middlemen in the distribution of apps. Essentially, the same business model Apple uses, except the percentages are different. Apple doesn't offer marketing support to its customers, whereas the record labels do. That's where a lot of that difference goes; And here's the thing... if you ever want your app to succeed, you're going to have to do more than just code it up and submit it. You'll need to market it. And marketing, my friend, is not cheap. There's also hidden startup fees. For example, did you know that Apple charges $99 a year to app developers for an 'iTunes connect account'? Now, when most app developers have made less than $3,000 for their entire portfolio, that "30%" starts looking more like "33%"... and when you add in marketing and advertising costs to get an "app of the day" or whatever, push that number higher. How much? Well, that's up to Apple. It's a "per customer" sale.
Now that we've discussed how many different ways you're screwed as a developer, let's look at the overhead costs for Apple: App approval. Distribution infrastructure. So basically, you hire a couple dozen people to evaluate apps and you need to rent space in a data center. For an $8 billion dollar a year service, I'm guessing this amounts to... uhh... dick.
So there you have it: Apple's making money hand over fist, and the developers... well... not so much. Did you really expect a different conclusion? That Apple is somehow different from every other publicly-traded company on the Earth? They have the largest market capitalization of any country on Earth. They didn't get there by being generous.
It should be pointed out that EA did lose a ton of money last year ($45 million quarter 4 2012, $381 the quarter before that). If they keep on track they should go out of business pretty quickly.
You're assuming that their business model is rooted in a capitalist economy. You couldn't be more wrong. See also: "Too big to fail," vendor lock-in, copyright, patent troll, "right to profit"...
"Apple must make the majority of any profit to be had. Developers will be paid only a fraction of what their efforts are worth. Loyalty to the Furo--er, Brand is absolute. Apps which go against our brandalist(tm) propaganda are to be banned with immediate effect using one of the dozen or so vaguely-defined rules outlined below. Ka-Pla!"
But more seriously guys... if you're developing for Apple, prepare to be raped. They don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about you, the developer. You should feel privileged to develop for the legacy of the Great Man Jobs. How dare you ask for a fair share of the profit! If you want that, go slink off and develop for (spits) that Anderzoid platform or whatever it's called. Apple is the future. Suck it up, cupcake.
Chris Paget was able to demo similar behavior at DEFCON 18, and he sure didn't need Verizon's help to do so.
That's a horse-shit comparison. Chris Paget isn't a career investigator who's knowledge of computers is limited to right-clicking, double-clicking, and e-mails. You can't judge a fish based on its ability to ride a bicycle. Of course the FBI wants Verizon's help! For two reasons: One, Verizon already has the expertise, and two, it's their shit. How would it look if Gumshoe Freddy tried to hack a cell phone tower and crapped an entire communities' access? 911 calls that go nowhere, customer service lines jammed, people stranded because their GPS glitched out... it would be criminally irresponsible for the FBI to have anyone but Verizon do the work.
Pretty sure the FCC wanted to bust him on stage, actually.
For what? I can walk into a cell phone store and get a cell phone "mini cell" to put in my house to help with reception. FCC approved. I don't need a license to do that. Unless he's causing harmful interference to a licensed broadcaster and the broadcaster reports it, the FCC isn't going to do anything. The FCC is an administrative government entity. It is not really law enforcement in any meaningful sense. There is no CSI: Wireless to be had here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see some arguments either way about choosing where to live based on availability of telecommunications service.
You won't get an argument, not here anyway. Everyone here checks to see what their internet options are before they move. The problem is, we can't all just up and start a new life a thousand miles away where Google has fiber. Or FIOS, etc. We're anchored to our jobs, our families, our friends. So our options are geographically limited to about a hundred miles in any direction from where we live now. If it's outside that bubble (and for many, it's smaller), it can't be considered because of more important things in life.
To say there's no demand though... that's just horse-pucky. The only people that don't want faster internet are the people who don't really use it anyway, and have no idea what kind of benefits it would offer (for example, no more advertising when watching your favorite TV shows).
I'd settle for finding the part of the brain implicated in politicians engaging in cronyism, accepting bribes, and the like.
I'd settle for slashmods with a sense of humo--WAIT! I haven't even posted yet and you've put me -1! Poop heads.
But there are also possible uses in cleaning up oil spills, monitoring industrial processes and in national security."
I read that and the first thing I thought was... after the robots kill the protesters, they'll just crawl out of their ear and shimmy into the storm drain. But then I realized, who am I kidding? The government would never do something like that.
The researchers say this process may help uncover the physical underpinnings of devastating mental disorders like schizophrenia, autism, post-traumatic stress disorder and others.'"
Can you find the center of the brain responsible for youtube comments and create a drug that turns that off? The internet will pay you. The internet will pay you a lot.
we already paid AT&T and other telcos for national broadband back the 90s; they don't deserve nor do they get the same deal google does. they need to provide what we paid them to do (the thieves used the money to buy up competitors)
The problem is not laying down fiber or building infrastructure: The problem is that nobody else can because of contractual agreements. And who's fault is this? Not the federal government. In fact, not even the state government. The primary malfactor here is municipalities. Take away their ability to ink exclusive contracts, and this whole issue would dry up in a few years. There's agreements still in force from the 90s saying they'd deliver "broadband internet" of 1mbit/s as long as they have exclusive rights to lay cable and stuff for 20 years.
Even in cases where the agreements aren't exclusive (larger cities, mostly, who have more negotiating power), there is still so much red tape, and so many different layers of bureauacracy to get through before any actual work can be done, that companies smaller than Google have no hope of ever breaking into the market. This is an artificially-created monopoly created not by the telecos, but by municipalities.
You want broadband internet? Crush city hall and hand control over to the state or federal government. Take these small-time politicians out of the mix.
The solution's the standard one: take the long-term view.
Okay, fine, but show me another currency that has such wild yo-yo conversion rates and a financial advisor that suggests investing in it in the first place. I know that being computer geeks we love new technology and an anonymous currency is a great idea. But from a financial standpoint, it's an unmitigated disaster. Every other form of currency is resiliant to DDoS attacks like this, and there are plenty of trading companies that can easily avoid such problems.
You can't build an economy on a currency that can lose half it's value in an afternoon. Period. You will not find any reputable economist who will say putting money into bitcoins is a responsible financial move given just that problem, let alone issues with liquidity, access to funds, speculative investing, etc.
Not always true. Facebook, yahoo, microsoft, google and the like are for profit companies that rely on advertisements and social graphs or referrals to generate revenue, which they need constantly more of.
Who are those advertisements for? You. Who's in those social graphs? You. Who's the name on those referrals? You.
What the government is arguing is A)
Getting in the way of their warrantless, lawless, do whatever the fuck we want, police state. And so they're just going to keep trying, because let's face it: The law is more or less a lottery. And a single fuckup can establish case law and precident that'll last for centuries. Thanks, common law.
Since when does a company obsessed with DRM release a game to bittorrent for free, before it's announced or launched?
Whenever the company doesn't secure their distribution servers. Obviously.
Maybe there was more coherence in the rest of the post, but it doesn't look likely. Sorry.
That's okay. I felt the same way about your childish rantings, but it's a slow night at work...
And now, GirlinTraining Eats an Apple Fanboy, Except For The Core Of Course ...
Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.
I accused them of adhering to their mission statement, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.
I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course.
Considering that the developers only get paid when their balance reaches a certain threshold or a certain amount of time has elapsed, yeah, practically zero.
It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.
One of these things is not like the other. Can you spot it?
As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own.
Actually, I don't. But I do know them better than you apparently do. The app store alone brings in six billion a year. Go look it up, I'll wait. The data center, equipment, land, everything, cost 1/6th of that. New. From scratch. Obviously, day to day costs would be lower. A lot lower. You may remember another company that has a very large data center: It's called Google, and as I understand it, they're one of the biggest companies on the planet and they don't charge or take a cut of your website's fees to operate. Their profit margins aren't exactly... tiny. So margins for Apple here are huge. Massively huge. Triple digit huge. And with a six billion dollar market, we're talking holy-fuck I just won the lottery huge payout. Which of course, I know, and Apple knows, but you apparently, did not know. I ascribe this to the fact that you only read about technology on forum websites like slashdot, instead of busying yourself with inventing them, as I do. And possibly having not taken macroeconomics yet.
My point about Apple's financial statements was not that fraud never happens../
Back pedal any harder and you may solve the energy crisis. No, you said fraud is a serious crime and implied that any alleged impropriety that Apple could be accused of was likely false, because said fraud is rare. I responded with common-knowledge news events that stamped this with a giant "Bullshit" in 9 foot tall lettering.
Also, I find it amusing that you consider the $99 annual fee to not only be "hidden" (seriously, wtf?) but that it is somehow crippling.
Well, if your math skills didn't suck so hard they were in danger of creating an event horizon from which no clue can escape, you'd realize that $100 from a developer that's making less than $3,000 in the majority of the cases means Apple's cut from this alone is over 3%. That "Apple only takes 30%" is white-washed Grade A marketing bullshit. It takes more. In fact, when you add it all up, they take about as much as the recording industries do from their artists. Which, big surprise, since it's the same business model, but just has a trendy hipster icon plastered across the front.
- the clear indication here is that hobbyist developers are actually finding success on the store.
Your definition of success would be "made more than nothing." My definition of success is somewhat more mature, and reasonable: Makes enough to live on. When you get out of mom's basement, I suspect your definition of success will be less based on the brand of toys you own and more on your ability to get food into your mouth.
What are the earnings of those same group of sub-3k developers on Android, for example? Or simply those releasing software for any platform via their own distribution method.
We weren't discussing
Find me a case where one of these copyright demand letters was sent to binding arbitration. Go ahead, I'll wait.
And if I could make you wait until you dropped over dead, I'd do it, for being a pentulant little bastard. But a cursory google will quickly show I am right, and you are annoying. Good day, sir.
What is your phone number?
(202) 456-1414 is my home number. I don't give out my cell.
I was under the impression that binding arbitration requirements could apply only as part of a preexisting contractual relationship between the parties.
The use of a copyrighted work creates a contract. Ta-da. Same thing with the EULAs of software. I mean, if I forced you to sit down and just read the EULAs and associated texts of every software package you have installed... you'd probably starve to death before finishing... Unless you're a really, really fast reader.
You don't think that might be a little distressing?
The law doesn't award emotional damages on the basis of a person's fears about the legal process. They award it based on the damage to reputation, etc., as a result of the false accusation. So all that worry over what will happen? It's worth zero dollars.
This begs the question of what an unreleased and undocumented game was doing on a server designed specifically to distribute as many copies of the game as possible. This is weapons-grade stupidity.
Convince a good lawyer to take this as a class action.
Sorry. Class actions were deleted from your list of acceptable legal remediations by the US Supreme Court after determining that it gave individuals too much power over corporations. Please submit to binding arbitration instead, Citizen.
Sue for court costs, his own legal fees and emotional damages.
Emotional damages? "Your honor, I couldn't sleep. I couldn't work. The idea that someone could accuse me of downloading something on the internet was just so shocking. I couldn't even go out in public, out of fear others might view me as... as a (breaks down sobbing) downloader."
I can't imagine jury anywhere on the planet that wouldn't give the win to the little old lady.
Your imagination sucks.
Use this as a model for said trolls and when it becomes clear that we are hoisting these parasites on their own petards, perhaps they'll go away!
You there, troll! Go away. There. I've just rid the internet of one of its most hated archetypes. I'm gonna step out now for a bit of tea. I expect we'll see no more of those people now that the smack down has been given.
Linux is free. How are we the product in that situation?
When linux is a web-based service, call me and we'll talk. Until then, stop taking things out of context... it makes you look retarded.
In other words they are disturbed by an advertising App whose business model is based on that of every other advertising firm on the planet?
No, they're disturbed by the fact that every other advertising firm on the planet can compete under AppGratis' model. The Apple model has only one advertising firm: Apple.
We can make a horrible world, if we want; however, we might prefer not to.
We've already made a horrible world, at least as far as the law is concerned. It doesn't exist anymore as a way of codifying commonly-held morals, but rather as a way of giving people in power ways of removing others quickly and discreetly. Everyone is a criminal. Everyone. And all it takes to ruin someone's life is to hear the word "Guilty". It's not any small coincidence that housing, employment, public assistance -- everything is tied to not having a criminal record. Considering how ludicriously easy it is to get one (I can film you for a day. I'll find a crime, believe me), this cannot be accidental.
The law doesn't exist to nit-pick, anymore than it exists to delineate between right and wrong. It exists solely, and totally, to delineate between strong and weak.
The App Store itself has been an enormous cash cow for developers, large and small alike.
Let's test that theory. First up, who's making the big bucks? corporations. In fact, over half make Less than $3,000. There are other stories showing the lack of millionaires pouring out of Apple's "enormous cash cow" as you put it. I mean, besides Apple.
Apple's financial statements tell you exactly how much profit they make on the store (hint: it's extremely low, but it is above zero), and if you think they're lying about that as has been often suggested then file a complaint over fraudulent financial reporting - it's a very serious crime.
And as we all know, fraudulent financial reporting, because it's such a serious crime, doesn't happen very often. Like Enron, the subprime mortgage crisis, the "too big to fail" financial institutions, that debacle with Lloyds of London, and oh the list goes on. There isn't a week that goes by where fraudulent financial reporting doesn't make the news.
I'd be interested to see how you justify Apple making "the majority of any profit to be had" with some actual numbers, or if it's just more rampant, ill-informed Apple bashing as usual.
As opposed to blind fan-boy support? Well, regardless of your religious preferences, let's look at a similar business model and then discuss it: record companies. They also have made their profit by acting as middlemen in the distribution of apps. Essentially, the same business model Apple uses, except the percentages are different. Apple doesn't offer marketing support to its customers, whereas the record labels do. That's where a lot of that difference goes; And here's the thing... if you ever want your app to succeed, you're going to have to do more than just code it up and submit it. You'll need to market it. And marketing, my friend, is not cheap. There's also hidden startup fees. For example, did you know that Apple charges $99 a year to app developers for an 'iTunes connect account'? Now, when most app developers have made less than $3,000 for their entire portfolio, that "30%" starts looking more like "33%"... and when you add in marketing and advertising costs to get an "app of the day" or whatever, push that number higher. How much? Well, that's up to Apple. It's a "per customer" sale.
Now that we've discussed how many different ways you're screwed as a developer, let's look at the overhead costs for Apple: App approval. Distribution infrastructure. So basically, you hire a couple dozen people to evaluate apps and you need to rent space in a data center. For an $8 billion dollar a year service, I'm guessing this amounts to... uhh... dick.
So there you have it: Apple's making money hand over fist, and the developers... well... not so much. Did you really expect a different conclusion? That Apple is somehow different from every other publicly-traded company on the Earth? They have the largest market capitalization of any country on Earth. They didn't get there by being generous.
If it's free guys, you are the product. Please browse responsibly.
It should be pointed out that EA did lose a ton of money last year ($45 million quarter 4 2012, $381 the quarter before that). If they keep on track they should go out of business pretty quickly.
You're assuming that their business model is rooted in a capitalist economy. You couldn't be more wrong. See also: "Too big to fail," vendor lock-in, copyright, patent troll, "right to profit"...
I've decrypted the Apple EULA. It says this:
"Apple must make the majority of any profit to be had. Developers will be paid only a fraction of what their efforts are worth. Loyalty to the Furo--er, Brand is absolute. Apps which go against our brandalist(tm) propaganda are to be banned with immediate effect using one of the dozen or so vaguely-defined rules outlined below. Ka-Pla!"
But more seriously guys... if you're developing for Apple, prepare to be raped. They don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about you, the developer. You should feel privileged to develop for the legacy of the Great Man Jobs. How dare you ask for a fair share of the profit! If you want that, go slink off and develop for (spits) that Anderzoid platform or whatever it's called. Apple is the future. Suck it up, cupcake.
Chris Paget was able to demo similar behavior at DEFCON 18, and he sure didn't need Verizon's help to do so.
That's a horse-shit comparison. Chris Paget isn't a career investigator who's knowledge of computers is limited to right-clicking, double-clicking, and e-mails. You can't judge a fish based on its ability to ride a bicycle. Of course the FBI wants Verizon's help! For two reasons: One, Verizon already has the expertise, and two, it's their shit. How would it look if Gumshoe Freddy tried to hack a cell phone tower and crapped an entire communities' access? 911 calls that go nowhere, customer service lines jammed, people stranded because their GPS glitched out... it would be criminally irresponsible for the FBI to have anyone but Verizon do the work.
Pretty sure the FCC wanted to bust him on stage, actually.
For what? I can walk into a cell phone store and get a cell phone "mini cell" to put in my house to help with reception. FCC approved. I don't need a license to do that. Unless he's causing harmful interference to a licensed broadcaster and the broadcaster reports it, the FCC isn't going to do anything. The FCC is an administrative government entity. It is not really law enforcement in any meaningful sense. There is no CSI: Wireless to be had here.