No, you didn't. Ebert said (according to the summary) that video games can't be art (which I find wrong btw), which is not to say that if they can be art, they are the biggest art industry in the world. You still have to establish that the the industry is in fact artistic, and not merely a few examples within the medium. There are also a lot of artistic movies out there, but most of the money goes into cliched garbage like Avatar.
For my part, I don't agree at all that movies are the "most prevalent/biggest/whatever 'art form' industry on earth", only the (second) most expensive. And since it's so expensive, it's not nearly as prevalent as storytelling. But art? Nah. Most of it is industrial crap.
Again, you make up a false analogy in order to make Apple look good. Apple's store isn't just the only one in town, but the only one in the world that can sell this "book". Apple has designed their "book printing" technology for that very cause.
So the answer to your question is in fact irrelevant to the case. Stop being blinded by your love for a giant corporation that doesn't care about your interests.
That's a very long story to hide the fact that Apple's store is the only one in the world. You can't take your iApp elsewhere. So Apple is, by necessity, not a censor but the censor of iApps. Your argument is without merit.
Apple's walled garden doesn't make censorship magically go away in a puff of free market magic, it leads to censorship – by necessity.
Let's say there's an entity A, that controls the sole distribution channel for a certain kind of media. They can accept or reject expressions for publishing. Is this distribution channel censored?
Let's say A is North Korea's state owned TV channel. Or let's say it's Apple's app store. It doesn't really matter: in neither case there's any talk of censorship, according to you. After all, North Korea can't be forced to use their resources to help you express yourself.
It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
No, there isn't a "full Darwin/BSD under there". Pretty much the whole BSD layer has been removed. You can install it when you jailbreak the phone, though. Without it, the iPhone OS is entirely useless as a BSD.
Learn to read. I said it restricts multitasking, not that it doesn't support it. Also learn some logic: the fact that a multitasking OS doesn't need a multi-core CPU doesn't mean that a multi-core CPU makes sense for a mostly single-tasking OS.
Sure they plan ahead, but the multitasking in the upcoming 4.0 still doesn't need a dual-core CPU. Multi-core is useful for parallel processing, and the OS is clearly not designed with that kind of use in mind – in fact, it's designed to keep multi-processing to a minimum. It's designed for battery life and portable media consumption.
No, the article doesn't make sense at all. Why assume the A4 is a dual-core PowerPC when it's built for an OS that restricts the use of multitasking? It's almost like suggesting using four wheel drive on a motorcycle. This writer is just a total and utter wanker, predicting 50% speed increases for reasons founded in pure fantasy. Bullshit story.
Blah blah blah. You disregard the obvious fact that in the so-called free market, people are allowed to sell products and services as well as buy them, and the way you're downplaying the equally obivous fact that Opera is the only browser on the iPhone so far that doesn't come with WebKit reminds me of something completely different.
Chrome uses a different javascript interpreter in addition to a different UI, and has some interesting security features as well. The other browsers are more akin to the IE frontends on Windows back when Netscape 4.7 was the only functional alternative to IE.
And if your point was that "it is a commonly held belief that there were *no alternatives at all* on the iPhone", why did you then make it by replying to someone making the ludicrous statement that Opera in the App store is a victory for the free market that the choice was already there? Especially when it clearly wasn't, as you've already admitted. I'm just saying: if that was your point, then you didn't make it.
OK, so instead of Opera being the first alternative browser on the platform, you choose to define "alternative browser" in such a way that the platform already has a plethora of "alternative browsers", turning freedom of choice into a game of semantics. What's your point, apart from clouding the issue?
Do any of the other browsers use their own rendering engines (and javascript interpreters), or are they just different frontends for the built-in WebKit?
In the real world, Safari (including on Mac OS X) only has around 5% market share. That's not ubiquitous at all. I think 'irrelevant' is the word you're looking for.
1) Convenience: Theora isn't supported by Windows and OS X by default, so those users won't use it unless it has something special to offer. 2) Competition. Supporting Theora in those OSes would level the playing field for FOSS that can't legally support the dominant but proprietary codecs, so MS/Apple would give away an important competitive advantage if they were to support it. That won't happen. 3) Too little, too late. 4) 5) 6) Quality.
and probably more. Quality alone isn't decisive, as proven by BetaMax vs VHS, OS/2 vs Windows, Vorbis vs mp3, everything vs IE, Debian vs Ubuntu, FreeBSD vs Linux, being rich vs being poor, etc. Theora just isn't an obvious choice for most people, whether consumers or creators. It is, however, the only obvious choice for a free web.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. But the iPad isn't built for them.
No, you didn't. Ebert said (according to the summary) that video games can't be art (which I find wrong btw), which is not to say that if they can be art, they are the biggest art industry in the world. You still have to establish that the the industry is in fact artistic, and not merely a few examples within the medium. There are also a lot of artistic movies out there, but most of the money goes into cliched garbage like Avatar.
For my part, I don't agree at all that movies are the "most prevalent/biggest/whatever 'art form' industry on earth", only the (second) most expensive. And since it's so expensive, it's not nearly as prevalent as storytelling. But art? Nah. Most of it is industrial crap.
But sales/profits/whatever doesn't make something art. Arts have never been profitable, for the most part.
To me it sounds like your argument is based on absolutely nothing at all, except maybe wishful thinking.
Again, you make up a false analogy in order to make Apple look good. Apple's store isn't just the only one in town, but the only one in the world that can sell this "book". Apple has designed their "book printing" technology for that very cause.
So the answer to your question is in fact irrelevant to the case. Stop being blinded by your love for a giant corporation that doesn't care about your interests.
Wrong. You're just redefining censorship to suit your needs as an Apple fanboy.
That's a very long story to hide the fact that Apple's store is the only one in the world. You can't take your iApp elsewhere. So Apple is, by necessity, not a censor but the censor of iApps. Your argument is without merit.
Apple's walled garden doesn't make censorship magically go away in a puff of free market magic, it leads to censorship – by necessity.
Incorrect. Apple is the sole publisher of applications for the iPhone and the iPad.
Let's say there's an entity A, that controls the sole distribution channel for a certain kind of media. They can accept or reject expressions for publishing. Is this distribution channel censored?
Let's say A is North Korea's state owned TV channel. Or let's say it's Apple's app store. It doesn't really matter: in neither case there's any talk of censorship, according to you. After all, North Korea can't be forced to use their resources to help you express yourself.
It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
No, there isn't a "full Darwin/BSD under there". Pretty much the whole BSD layer has been removed. You can install it when you jailbreak the phone, though. Without it, the iPhone OS is entirely useless as a BSD.
No, the restrictions Apple put on multitasking in iPhone OS 4.0 would make the benefits of multi-core minimal at best, and a huge waste of resources.
Learn to read. I said it restricts multitasking, not that it doesn't support it. Also learn some logic: the fact that a multitasking OS doesn't need a multi-core CPU doesn't mean that a multi-core CPU makes sense for a mostly single-tasking OS.
Sure they plan ahead, but the multitasking in the upcoming 4.0 still doesn't need a dual-core CPU. Multi-core is useful for parallel processing, and the OS is clearly not designed with that kind of use in mind – in fact, it's designed to keep multi-processing to a minimum. It's designed for battery life and portable media consumption.
No, the article doesn't make sense at all. Why assume the A4 is a dual-core PowerPC when it's built for an OS that restricts the use of multitasking? It's almost like suggesting using four wheel drive on a motorcycle. This writer is just a total and utter wanker, predicting 50% speed increases for reasons founded in pure fantasy. Bullshit story.
Blah blah blah. You disregard the obvious fact that in the so-called free market, people are allowed to sell products and services as well as buy them, and the way you're downplaying the equally obivous fact that Opera is the only browser on the iPhone so far that doesn't come with WebKit reminds me of something completely different.
Chrome uses a different javascript interpreter in addition to a different UI, and has some interesting security features as well. The other browsers are more akin to the IE frontends on Windows back when Netscape 4.7 was the only functional alternative to IE.
And if your point was that "it is a commonly held belief that there were *no alternatives at all* on the iPhone", why did you then make it by replying to someone making the ludicrous statement that Opera in the App store is a victory for the free market that the choice was already there? Especially when it clearly wasn't, as you've already admitted. I'm just saying: if that was your point, then you didn't make it.
OK, so instead of Opera being the first alternative browser on the platform, you choose to define "alternative browser" in such a way that the platform already has a plethora of "alternative browsers", turning freedom of choice into a game of semantics. What's your point, apart from clouding the issue?
Do any of the other browsers use their own rendering engines (and javascript interpreters), or are they just different frontends for the built-in WebKit?
I know Doom very well, thank you, and you're right about everything, except that "one of these was deeply thought out".
And please note that I never said I prefer the story from the film.
Are you implying that Doom originally had a well-written story?
In the real world, Safari (including on Mac OS X) only has around 5% market share. That's not ubiquitous at all. I think 'irrelevant' is the word you're looking for.
see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1613660&cid=31801318
There are loads of reasons.
1) Convenience: Theora isn't supported by Windows and OS X by default, so those users won't use it unless it has something special to offer.
2) Competition. Supporting Theora in those OSes would level the playing field for FOSS that can't legally support the dominant but proprietary codecs, so MS/Apple would give away an important competitive advantage if they were to support it. That won't happen.
3) Too little, too late.
4)
5)
6) Quality.
and probably more. Quality alone isn't decisive, as proven by BetaMax vs VHS, OS/2 vs Windows, Vorbis vs mp3, everything vs IE, Debian vs Ubuntu, FreeBSD vs Linux, being rich vs being poor, etc. Theora just isn't an obvious choice for most people, whether consumers or creators. It is, however, the only obvious choice for a free web.
Quality is not the reason why Theora lost to H.264, just like quality wasn't the reason why Vorbis lost to mp3.
Lots of cannon fodder. That's the answer.