Looking at the totals at the bottom of the article, the fraud would only lower the votes for Putin's United Russia by 6 percentage units. However, this would be enough to make a coalition of the second, third and fourth party larger than United Russia.
Riemann Hypothesis Takes Shot At Crushing Indian Mathematician
The Riemann Hypothesis (known by the moniker @unsolvable on twitter) has announced an online workshop which it intends to 'conclude by attacking an important mathematician in front of (the participants), in public view.' The mathematician is the Rohit Gupta. The hypothesis outlines its approach based on previous failed attempts, conserved in quasicrystals of the tears of previously broken mathematicians. Its audacious plan, coupled with this recent news about quasicrystals, has kicked up a storm of interest in the Indian twitterverse.
As many others have stated, this is bullshit. There is no such law, it was a rape joke made up by his lawyer. I challenge you to find the law you talk about.
Google compares JPG and WebP at the same level of noise (PSNR). What is missing is comparing the same-size JPG and WebP images. If we can recompress JPEGs to the same size as WebP without visible loss of quality, or without loss of quality worse than WebP recompression, we should just dial down the JPG quality, not switch to WebP.
A note on sending DMCA takedowns to Swedish companies: It ought to work, legally speaking. Not because Sweden has DMCA, but because a Swedish entity becomes liable when they "become aware or should become aware" that they host or link to infringing content. Whether that awareness comes in the form of a DMCA takedown or by smoke signals doesn't matter.
Think about what you just said, then remember that Sweden is not the United States, not a Territory of the United States, and is not in any way, shape, or form, beholden to the laws of the United States.
The DMCA is a US-only law. It does not apply outside of the US and its Territories, no matter how much the public domain thieves might wish it to.
I know that the DMCA is a US-only law. But "Lag (2002:562) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster" is a Swedish law, and it specifies that liability kicks in when you become aware of infringing content (see section 18) - without specifying how that awareness is reached. So if a Swedish operator receives a DMCA complaint one could claim that the operator at that point should become aware of the presence of infringing material. It is then up to the operator to investigate and take action.
I wouldn't call it a double standard. It's the way the legal system works.
It's not just where you link, it is about what your intent was when you created the link, and many other factors. It is impossible to make a general decision without factoring in these things, and impossible to write a law that explicitly enumerates absolutely every possible situation, so we're down to judges and juries trying to make sense of it all.
Given the complexities, I think it works fairly ok.
Even if I agree with the rest of your post, there's a little something that I find somewhat objectionable, if only because it's impossible to apply in a rational way without incurring in a double standard:
So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty.
And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if... Well, you get the idea.
I really have no idea exactly where the line is drawn. Ultimately it comes down to case law.
Do I have to check every link of every webpage I link to, and every link of each of the linked pages, and so on and so forth, to the Infinite and Beyond?
No, it appears that the MPAA/RIAA will do that for you.:)
Actually, what you just said would be true - if it weren't for the fact that Google actively removes links to infringing content.
Google does not remove links to links to links to infringing content.
They do. See here, and you'll see a list of URLs that aren't themselves copies of "Avatar", but that are pages that link to a torrent or something similar. You'll also see search pages that link to pages that in turn link to the content. (The "http://torrentreactor.net/search.php" ones.)
Now whether this post will be removed... well, we'll have to just wait and see.
But in this case I would say that unless they've screwed up really bad, there'll be nothing formally binding TPB and OBT together.
Well, this is the score: Peter Sunde, who was one of the four convicted of TPB, said:
Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde has informed TorrentFreak that the site will soon decentralize and stop running a BitTorrent tracker of its own. Instead they will encourage their users to use a yet to be launched third party tracker for their torrents.
48 hours later, Openbittorrent was launched.
Sunde and the four have claimed that they have sold TPB, but could not show any sales contracts or money transfers, or anything else to support that they had actually sold anything to anyone. In particular, they could not name who it was that signed the contract on behalf of the buyer.
If it is now shown that Sunde or another one of the four, or someone with ties to them are behind OBT, well... I'd say they're in for some hurt.
you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.
Your argument basically makes Google illegal, so doesnt really wash.
Actually, what you just said would be true - if it weren't for the fact that Google actively removes links to infringing content. So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty. But if you remove the link on request you are considered in the clear.
During the Pirate Bay trial, this distinction was made, and it was made clear that Google's compliance with DMCA takedown letters is the only thing that keeps them from being sued.
TPB's compliance with DMCA takedowns (or the Swedish equivalent), however, was, shall we say, not that speedy.
A note on sending DMCA takedowns to Swedish companies: It ought to work, legally speaking. Not because Sweden has DMCA, but because a Swedish entity becomes liable when they "become aware or should become aware" that they host or link to infringing content. Whether that awareness comes in the form of a DMCA takedown or by smoke signals doesn't matter.
True, the court did find that. But the law they used only requires "willful ignorance", so while different, I suspect that the same law will be used again - especially since it is the only law I know of that defines the rights and responsibilities for an internet service provider (not just providers of connectivity, but also websites etc.).
If OBT is found to be completely unaffiliated with any websites or organizations that do actively commit copyright infringement, then proving "willful ignorance" is that much harder. For example, drug lords may use GPG, but unless you can prove that whoever wrote GPG is in cahoots with said drug lords, they can't be held responsible for aiding and abetting. (Even then, the GPG author would probably not, strictly speaking, be accused of the mere act of writing crypto software.)
The suspicion is this: (1) The people behind TPB say they sold the website, but haven't been able to provide any contracts, money transfers or any trace of said sale. (2) OBT is run by the same, or nearly the same, bunch of people.
The case will be much stronger if those two points can be proven.
An analogy would be this: If I say to person A that "I'm going to kill Joe Bloke", buy a gun at place B, a map at place C and ask person D where I can find Joe Bloke, I'm probably the only one that can be held responsible. But if it then turns out that person A runs the gun shop, map shop and is the same as person D, well, A has problems.
I think the reason for the subpoena is that the Hollywood gang thinks that the people behind Open Bittorrent and The Pirate Bay are the same.
Right after the PB trial there was a lot of discussion regarding whether TPB would have been illegal if it hadn't done so much. For example, TPB was convicted because they were actually hosting torrent files, which caused them to fall under a different law than, for example, and ISP. But what if the illegal parts were dropped? Why, you'd be untouchable. The problem is then, is there a way to distribute the functionality of TPB so that the constituent websites are all legal, but taken together, they provide exactly the same service as TPB?
A little while later, Open Bittorrent opened up.
So when the next lawsuit comes up, it will not be Hollywood vs. one site that in itself isn't illegal, but Hollywood vs. a bunch of sites that taken together are claimed to be illegal. However, in order for this to work, there must be proof that the websites are really connected. That's what they're going for.
My prediction: OpenBittorrent will be convicted. TPB was found guilty because they received and hosted torrent files, which in turn triggered liability. You don't have to actually host illegal copies, as long as you receive, store information for a longer period of time than (roughly) the actual transmission of the information, and then send it to one or more consumers, you do not have "common carrier" immunity under Swedish law, and must not only not host illegal content - you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.
Now OpenBittorrent doesn't host torrent files. But it does host something else - the list of peers. It is a tracker, after all.
So I think any OBT trial will be pretty much like TPB trial. The TPB verdict showed that it is very easy (almost too easy) to become an accessory to a crime in Sweden.
I'm afraid that's not all. Adobe did consider the obvious solution (export Flash to XCode), but that was shot down for the reason above - the code wouldn't have been originally written in ObjC.
How seriously? I asked them for XCode export during beta and the response was No. The reason being is that it would have broken everything. They basically implemented their own byte code, and shoehorned on LLVM to run it on the fly. It's the reason they got up and running so quick on Android. They basically created their own virtual machine.
I only remember this point being brought up after Apple had released the new SDK terms. It is possible that Adobe was overstating the difficulties of turning the Flash compiler into a code generator before they realized that their current application was toast.
But the originally written clause was the one I remember being used to shoot down the "generate XCode" way around.
I tried to find a reference, but couldn't find any official Adobe statement.
If you're exporting to an XCode project with a C/Obj C static library, and your code cross compiled to Obj-C, what's the difference?
That your code isn't originally written in Obj-C. Technically, the difference is zero, of course. Legally it is a world of difference.
All Apple cares about is that the developer has full control over their code to be able to add Obj-C features later. This is the problem Adobe ran into.
I'm afraid that's not all. Adobe did consider the obvious solution (export Flash to XCode), but that was shot down for the reason above - the code wouldn't have been originally written in ObjC.
The Mark fiori App was liberal, so it isn't a liberal/conservative thing.
I really don't think it was anything except a mistake. But, and here is my point: Some systems have injustice built-in. A system where someone decides what someone else may see, read or hear is just flat out impossible to get right.
This itself is of course not black-or-white: There is such a thing as quality control, but I'd rather Apple sold everything in the app store and by default limited searches to "Apple QA Approved" applications, or something.
Where is the love for Apple for making this happen? Like they did with music, they stepped in and fixed a really bad situation.
You know, that is a very good example. Two points I'd like to bring up: DRM free music. Being able to buy one track at a time for $0.99. I am in awe of Apple's negotiation skills on that one, and I promise you that when all that went down, I was telling everyone about it. (Just imagine what amount of arm-twisting it must've taken to get the labels to give up DRM - you'd have to connect a jet engine starter to their arms.)
But while we may look at it as manifest destiny now, there was really no guarantee that Apple would succeed with the iPod and iTunes. ("less space than a Nomad...", etc.)
Back in the bad old days of music we had a bunch of labels to choose from, and it took Apple and a massively successful device (iPod) to fix the situation. Plus, I'm willing to bet, ten tons of sweat and a ton of pure dumb luck to top it off.
While we have multiple mobile platforms now, it is not guaranteed that the market will fix itself by itself. My fear is that if Apple is successful in creating a walled garden, just as the record labels were before, we'd have to wait for someone to break down those walls and meanwhile choose which walled garden we want to be imprisoned in - because if Apple successfully builds a walled garden, others will follow.
So I figure, I'll just raise a real big stink about what I think Apple is doing wrong right now, before they become a monopoly, and maybe they will never become a monopoly. I see that as my 2 cent contribution to the free market. I bitch and whine.
(Finally, thank you for a very well written and thoughtful response. I try, I try...)
Apple would be free to allow or disallow anything for any reason in their App store, if they only allowed other app stores. But are you sure that Apple's definition of porn is equal to yours, and even if it were, that they apply that definition consistently?
It's not really about "I WANT MY PORN", but rather that Apple decides to decide for me what I can and can not see. Maybe we're both ok about not having porn on our phones. I sure don't know what I'd do with it on my phone. But maybe I want to play an "Obama IQ" game, even if I think it is loony. Is it right for Apple to keep an application that is political speech away from me? What about Mark Fiore's app? A mistake, certainly, and Jobs has said so, but the problem really is with the concept that someone should sit and approve content for all.
Apple is free to have an App Store where they approve everything for whatever bizarre reasons, but then they must allow other app stores. Otherwise it's like Wal-Mart both deciding what they sell, and making sure there are no other stores, and that's not good for market diversity.
3) not running FLash plug in
I understand that there are quality issues with the Flash plug-in, so I can understand why Apply wants to keep it off the iPhone. Again, refuse it in the Apple app store until it passes quality control. (And then maybe refuse it anyway.)
4) no cross-compiled apps.
This is another one I have problems with. First, it is never the case that you're just a compile away from supporting other architectures, UI elements, etc. Even if it were, you have to do that recompile. Apple, for example, is still using Carbon for iTunes, and if I understand things right, were using it for the Finder up until a little while ago.
Second, programming is moving more and more toward using Domain Specific Languages for better productivity. The user interface is written in a "user interface language", the AI of games in an AI language, and so on. Disallowing cross-compilation just makes it that much harder to develop for the iPhone.
Third, mandating XCode has a terrible lock-in effect. This is bad for the software ecosystem, just as vendor lock-in is everywhere else, because the vendors are no longer competing on merits, but on inertia.
New Flash - there would be no Android phones had Apple not shown the way.
Shown what way? There were smartphones before the iPhone, and Android is so different from the iPhone that it certainly hasn't followed Apple's way.
But what is good for Apple isn't necessarily good for the world.
So, want to tell me how the world is improved if Apple abandons quality control? Knock yourself out.
First, Apple can do as much quality control as they want - of their own stuff. When it comes to quality control of what I and others bring to market, it should really not be up to Apple.
Second, the improvement to the world comes in the same way as the world is improved by free markets.
The problem isn't telling people your opinion. The problem is that pretty much ever level headed person is aware of the two choices you can make (to buy or not to buy) and we're rather sick of hearing the same ignorant whining by people who wouldn't buy them anyway.
Not quite true. First, there's a third option: Buy another device. Second, to say that anyone who complains is someone who wouldn't buy an iPad anyway is plain wrong. There are many, many products that I have thought about buying, but that I ended up not buying because they, in the end, didn't do what I needed them to do. Many marketing people spend a lot of time trying to figure out just why some people won't buy their stuff. They are seen as potential customers, not as "those dorks who wouldn't buy our shit anyway".
I don't like it when people cast things into a "love it or leave it" mold (or "buy it or leave it", in this case). It is never just those two choices.
Most of us are tired of hearing whiney people push their agendas OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
Let's get a couple of things straight here - I resent the label "whiney", and I resent being accused of "pushing [an] agenda". Could you explain just what agenda I'm pushing? In particular, just what about what I write is it you disagree with? Or are you just going to come here and vaguely accuse me of whining and "pushing an agenda", without addressing anything I actually state?
I like my Apple products, but I'm just as sick of hearing how great they are as hearing how much they suck.
I understand, and I can only advice you to exercise your right to not read those articles here on Slashdot. There is a big fight going on here, with Jobs etc. expressing their view that Apple is right - which is their right. So certainly I have the right to say that they are wrong.
If you don't know which side you stand on yet, you don't matter anyway.
Look, there are a couple million people out there who Steve hopes will buy an iPad, and that I hope will buy something else.
Apple isn't a "love it or leave it" deal. There is also a future where Apple stops their walled-garden philosophy and become the choice for the creative person again, and one where they become the new IBM of old or Microsoft of recent memory.
There are a lot of people who are undecided, and as long as some people tries to sway them their way, I have the right to try to sway them the other. I'm sorry if this disturbs you. I'd like for everyone to just get along as well, but it is evident that that's not going to happen by itself here, and then I will argue for the side I think is right.
Apple's not going to host porn apps on the App store, and that's a good business decision.
But what is good for Apple isn't necessarily good for the world. Microsoft's decision to get all monopolistic on Netscape was a good business decision (Netscape is dead and Microsoft got off with a slap on the wrist). Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is a good business strategy (works great), but it's not good for the consumers.
If we're going to discuss this in terms of "what is good for Apple", and ignore the effect that has on the rest of us, then we have really entered the most cynical and immoral of ways of doing business.
(And before you try, don't give me that old line about responsibility to maximize profits - there is no such thing. If a company wants to have a moral compass, they can.)
Frankly, I can see where he's coming from on that, because the last thing a company of Apple's size needs is a pretext for puritans and politicians to bash them over.
The solution is parental controls, locked down by default. Otherwise, by your reasoning, Apple has to adopt to the least-tolerant segment of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the totals at the bottom of the article, the fraud would only lower the votes for Putin's United Russia by 6 percentage units. However, this would be enough to make a coalition of the second, third and fourth party larger than United Russia.
Riemann Hypothesis Takes Shot At Crushing Indian Mathematician
The Riemann Hypothesis (known by the moniker @unsolvable on twitter) has announced an online workshop which it intends to 'conclude by attacking an important mathematician in front of (the participants), in public view.' The mathematician is the Rohit Gupta. The hypothesis outlines its approach based on previous failed attempts, conserved in quasicrystals of the tears of previously broken mathematicians. Its audacious plan, coupled with this recent news about quasicrystals, has kicked up a storm of interest in the Indian twitterverse.
Assange is being accused of "sex by surprise"
As many others have stated, this is bullshit. There is no such law, it was a rape joke made up by his lawyer. I challenge you to find the law you talk about.
If Anonymous really wanted to help WikiLeaks, they would've created a botnet to mirror Wikileaks.
What they're doing now is destructive, not constructive.
the guilty party should have a chance to actually pay them
Carl Lundström is a multi-multi-millionaire. He can pay it all.
Google compares JPG and WebP at the same level of noise (PSNR). What is missing is comparing the same-size JPG and WebP images. If we can recompress JPEGs to the same size as WebP without visible loss of quality, or without loss of quality worse than WebP recompression, we should just dial down the JPG quality, not switch to WebP.
These dropouts dropped out because they were wildly successful. They didn't become wildly successful by dropping out.
I wouldn't call it a double standard. It's the way the legal system works.
How do you call it when the same act
Not the same act. The context matters.
How do they know my intentions, by the way?
By your actions and statements, usually.
A note on sending DMCA takedowns to Swedish companies: It ought to work, legally speaking. Not because Sweden has DMCA, but because a Swedish entity becomes liable when they "become aware or should become aware" that they host or link to infringing content. Whether that awareness comes in the form of a DMCA takedown or by smoke signals doesn't matter.
Think about what you just said, then remember that Sweden is not the United States, not a Territory of the United States, and is not in any way, shape, or form, beholden to the laws of the United States.
The DMCA is a US-only law. It does not apply outside of the US and its Territories, no matter how much the public domain thieves might wish it to.
I know that the DMCA is a US-only law. But "Lag (2002:562) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster" is a Swedish law, and it specifies that liability kicks in when you become aware of infringing content (see section 18) - without specifying how that awareness is reached. So if a Swedish operator receives a DMCA complaint one could claim that the operator at that point should become aware of the presence of infringing material. It is then up to the operator to investigate and take action.
I wouldn't call it a double standard. It's the way the legal system works.
It's not just where you link, it is about what your intent was when you created the link, and many other factors. It is impossible to make a general decision without factoring in these things, and impossible to write a law that explicitly enumerates absolutely every possible situation, so we're down to judges and juries trying to make sense of it all.
Given the complexities, I think it works fairly ok.
Even if I agree with the rest of your post, there's a little something that I find somewhat objectionable, if only because it's impossible to apply in a rational way without incurring in a double standard:
So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty.
And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if... Well, you get the idea.
I really have no idea exactly where the line is drawn. Ultimately it comes down to case law.
Do I have to check every link of every webpage I link to, and every link of each of the linked pages, and so on and so forth, to the Infinite and Beyond?
No, it appears that the MPAA/RIAA will do that for you. :)
Actually, what you just said would be true - if it weren't for the fact that Google actively removes links to infringing content.
Google does not remove links to links to links to infringing content.
They do. See here, and you'll see a list of URLs that aren't themselves copies of "Avatar", but that are pages that link to a torrent or something similar. You'll also see search pages that link to pages that in turn link to the content. (The "http://torrentreactor.net/search.php" ones.)
Now whether this post will be removed... well, we'll have to just wait and see.
But in this case I would say that unless they've screwed up really bad, there'll be nothing formally binding TPB and OBT together.
Well, this is the score: Peter Sunde, who was one of the four convicted of TPB, said:
Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde has informed TorrentFreak that the site will soon decentralize and stop running a BitTorrent tracker of its own. Instead they will encourage their users to use a yet to be launched third party tracker for their torrents.
48 hours later, Openbittorrent was launched.
Sunde and the four have claimed that they have sold TPB, but could not show any sales contracts or money transfers, or anything else to support that they had actually sold anything to anyone. In particular, they could not name who it was that signed the contract on behalf of the buyer.
If it is now shown that Sunde or another one of the four, or someone with ties to them are behind OBT, well... I'd say they're in for some hurt.
you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.
Your argument basically makes Google illegal, so doesnt really wash.
Actually, what you just said would be true - if it weren't for the fact that Google actively removes links to infringing content. So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty. But if you remove the link on request you are considered in the clear.
During the Pirate Bay trial, this distinction was made, and it was made clear that Google's compliance with DMCA takedown letters is the only thing that keeps them from being sued.
TPB's compliance with DMCA takedowns (or the Swedish equivalent), however, was, shall we say, not that speedy.
A note on sending DMCA takedowns to Swedish companies: It ought to work, legally speaking. Not because Sweden has DMCA, but because a Swedish entity becomes liable when they "become aware or should become aware" that they host or link to infringing content. Whether that awareness comes in the form of a DMCA takedown or by smoke signals doesn't matter.
True, the court did find that. But the law they used only requires "willful ignorance", so while different, I suspect that the same law will be used again - especially since it is the only law I know of that defines the rights and responsibilities for an internet service provider (not just providers of connectivity, but also websites etc.).
If OBT is found to be completely unaffiliated with any websites or organizations that do actively commit copyright infringement, then proving "willful ignorance" is that much harder. For example, drug lords may use GPG, but unless you can prove that whoever wrote GPG is in cahoots with said drug lords, they can't be held responsible for aiding and abetting. (Even then, the GPG author would probably not, strictly speaking, be accused of the mere act of writing crypto software.)
The suspicion is this: (1) The people behind TPB say they sold the website, but haven't been able to provide any contracts, money transfers or any trace of said sale. (2) OBT is run by the same, or nearly the same, bunch of people.
The case will be much stronger if those two points can be proven.
An analogy would be this: If I say to person A that "I'm going to kill Joe Bloke", buy a gun at place B, a map at place C and ask person D where I can find Joe Bloke, I'm probably the only one that can be held responsible. But if it then turns out that person A runs the gun shop, map shop and is the same as person D, well, A has problems.
I think the reason for the subpoena is that the Hollywood gang thinks that the people behind Open Bittorrent and The Pirate Bay are the same.
Right after the PB trial there was a lot of discussion regarding whether TPB would have been illegal if it hadn't done so much. For example, TPB was convicted because they were actually hosting torrent files, which caused them to fall under a different law than, for example, and ISP. But what if the illegal parts were dropped? Why, you'd be untouchable. The problem is then, is there a way to distribute the functionality of TPB so that the constituent websites are all legal, but taken together, they provide exactly the same service as TPB?
A little while later, Open Bittorrent opened up.
So when the next lawsuit comes up, it will not be Hollywood vs. one site that in itself isn't illegal, but Hollywood vs. a bunch of sites that taken together are claimed to be illegal. However, in order for this to work, there must be proof that the websites are really connected. That's what they're going for.
My prediction: OpenBittorrent will be convicted. TPB was found guilty because they received and hosted torrent files, which in turn triggered liability. You don't have to actually host illegal copies, as long as you receive, store information for a longer period of time than (roughly) the actual transmission of the information, and then send it to one or more consumers, you do not have "common carrier" immunity under Swedish law, and must not only not host illegal content - you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.
Now OpenBittorrent doesn't host torrent files. But it does host something else - the list of peers. It is a tracker, after all.
So I think any OBT trial will be pretty much like TPB trial. The TPB verdict showed that it is very easy (almost too easy) to become an accessory to a crime in Sweden.
I'm afraid that's not all. Adobe did consider the obvious solution (export Flash to XCode), but that was shot down for the reason above - the code wouldn't have been originally written in ObjC.
How seriously? I asked them for XCode export during beta and the response was No. The reason being is that it would have broken everything. They basically implemented their own byte code, and shoehorned on LLVM to run it on the fly. It's the reason they got up and running so quick on Android. They basically created their own virtual machine.
I only remember this point being brought up after Apple had released the new SDK terms. It is possible that Adobe was overstating the difficulties of turning the Flash compiler into a code generator before they realized that their current application was toast.
But the originally written clause was the one I remember being used to shoot down the "generate XCode" way around.
I tried to find a reference, but couldn't find any official Adobe statement.
If you're exporting to an XCode project with a C/Obj C static library, and your code cross compiled to Obj-C, what's the difference?
That your code isn't originally written in Obj-C. Technically, the difference is zero, of course. Legally it is a world of difference.
All Apple cares about is that the developer has full control over their code to be able to add Obj-C features later. This is the problem Adobe ran into.
I'm afraid that's not all. Adobe did consider the obvious solution (export Flash to XCode), but that was shot down for the reason above - the code wouldn't have been originally written in ObjC.
Section 3.3.1:
Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript
So it doesn't matter if you include an XCode step. The app must be originally written in OC, C, C++ or JS. Sorry, but your solution won't work.
The Mark fiori App was liberal, so it isn't a liberal/conservative thing.
I really don't think it was anything except a mistake. But, and here is my point: Some systems have injustice built-in. A system where someone decides what someone else may see, read or hear is just flat out impossible to get right.
This itself is of course not black-or-white: There is such a thing as quality control, but I'd rather Apple sold everything in the app store and by default limited searches to "Apple QA Approved" applications, or something.
Where is the love for Apple for making this happen? Like they did with music, they stepped in and fixed a really bad situation.
You know, that is a very good example. Two points I'd like to bring up: DRM free music. Being able to buy one track at a time for $0.99. I am in awe of Apple's negotiation skills on that one, and I promise you that when all that went down, I was telling everyone about it. (Just imagine what amount of arm-twisting it must've taken to get the labels to give up DRM - you'd have to connect a jet engine starter to their arms.)
But while we may look at it as manifest destiny now, there was really no guarantee that Apple would succeed with the iPod and iTunes. ("less space than a Nomad...", etc.)
Back in the bad old days of music we had a bunch of labels to choose from, and it took Apple and a massively successful device (iPod) to fix the situation. Plus, I'm willing to bet, ten tons of sweat and a ton of pure dumb luck to top it off.
While we have multiple mobile platforms now, it is not guaranteed that the market will fix itself by itself. My fear is that if Apple is successful in creating a walled garden, just as the record labels were before, we'd have to wait for someone to break down those walls and meanwhile choose which walled garden we want to be imprisoned in - because if Apple successfully builds a walled garden, others will follow.
So I figure, I'll just raise a real big stink about what I think Apple is doing wrong right now, before they become a monopoly, and maybe they will never become a monopoly. I see that as my 2 cent contribution to the free market. I bitch and whine.
(Finally, thank you for a very well written and thoughtful response. I try, I try...)
1) not to allow porn.
2) control over app submissions
Apple would be free to allow or disallow anything for any reason in their App store, if they only allowed other app stores. But are you sure that Apple's definition of porn is equal to yours, and even if it were, that they apply that definition consistently?
It's not really about "I WANT MY PORN", but rather that Apple decides to decide for me what I can and can not see. Maybe we're both ok about not having porn on our phones. I sure don't know what I'd do with it on my phone. But maybe I want to play an "Obama IQ" game, even if I think it is loony. Is it right for Apple to keep an application that is political speech away from me? What about Mark Fiore's app? A mistake, certainly, and Jobs has said so, but the problem really is with the concept that someone should sit and approve content for all.
Apple is free to have an App Store where they approve everything for whatever bizarre reasons, but then they must allow other app stores. Otherwise it's like Wal-Mart both deciding what they sell, and making sure there are no other stores, and that's not good for market diversity.
3) not running FLash plug in
I understand that there are quality issues with the Flash plug-in, so I can understand why Apply wants to keep it off the iPhone. Again, refuse it in the Apple app store until it passes quality control. (And then maybe refuse it anyway.)
4) no cross-compiled apps.
This is another one I have problems with. First, it is never the case that you're just a compile away from supporting other architectures, UI elements, etc. Even if it were, you have to do that recompile. Apple, for example, is still using Carbon for iTunes, and if I understand things right, were using it for the Finder up until a little while ago.
Second, programming is moving more and more toward using Domain Specific Languages for better productivity. The user interface is written in a "user interface language", the AI of games in an AI language, and so on. Disallowing cross-compilation just makes it that much harder to develop for the iPhone.
Third, mandating XCode has a terrible lock-in effect. This is bad for the software ecosystem, just as vendor lock-in is everywhere else, because the vendors are no longer competing on merits, but on inertia.
New Flash - there would be no Android phones had Apple not shown the way.
Shown what way? There were smartphones before the iPhone, and Android is so different from the iPhone that it certainly hasn't followed Apple's way.
But what is good for Apple isn't necessarily good for the world.
So, want to tell me how the world is improved if Apple abandons quality control? Knock yourself out.
First, Apple can do as much quality control as they want - of their own stuff. When it comes to quality control of what I and others bring to market, it should really not be up to Apple.
Second, the improvement to the world comes in the same way as the world is improved by free markets.
The problem isn't telling people your opinion. The problem is that pretty much ever level headed person is aware of the two choices you can make (to buy or not to buy) and we're rather sick of hearing the same ignorant whining by people who wouldn't buy them anyway.
Not quite true. First, there's a third option: Buy another device. Second, to say that anyone who complains is someone who wouldn't buy an iPad anyway is plain wrong. There are many, many products that I have thought about buying, but that I ended up not buying because they, in the end, didn't do what I needed them to do. Many marketing people spend a lot of time trying to figure out just why some people won't buy their stuff. They are seen as potential customers, not as "those dorks who wouldn't buy our shit anyway".
I don't like it when people cast things into a "love it or leave it" mold (or "buy it or leave it", in this case). It is never just those two choices.
Most of us are tired of hearing whiney people push their agendas OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
Let's get a couple of things straight here - I resent the label "whiney", and I resent being accused of "pushing [an] agenda". Could you explain just what agenda I'm pushing? In particular, just what about what I write is it you disagree with? Or are you just going to come here and vaguely accuse me of whining and "pushing an agenda", without addressing anything I actually state?
I like my Apple products, but I'm just as sick of hearing how great they are as hearing how much they suck.
I understand, and I can only advice you to exercise your right to not read those articles here on Slashdot. There is a big fight going on here, with Jobs etc. expressing their view that Apple is right - which is their right. So certainly I have the right to say that they are wrong.
If you don't know which side you stand on yet, you don't matter anyway.
Look, there are a couple million people out there who Steve hopes will buy an iPad, and that I hope will buy something else.
Apple isn't a "love it or leave it" deal. There is also a future where Apple stops their walled-garden philosophy and become the choice for the creative person again, and one where they become the new IBM of old or Microsoft of recent memory.
There are a lot of people who are undecided, and as long as some people tries to sway them their way, I have the right to try to sway them the other. I'm sorry if this disturbs you. I'd like for everyone to just get along as well, but it is evident that that's not going to happen by itself here, and then I will argue for the side I think is right.
Apple's not going to host porn apps on the App store, and that's a good business decision.
But what is good for Apple isn't necessarily good for the world. Microsoft's decision to get all monopolistic on Netscape was a good business decision (Netscape is dead and Microsoft got off with a slap on the wrist). Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is a good business strategy (works great), but it's not good for the consumers.
If we're going to discuss this in terms of "what is good for Apple", and ignore the effect that has on the rest of us, then we have really entered the most cynical and immoral of ways of doing business.
(And before you try, don't give me that old line about responsibility to maximize profits - there is no such thing. If a company wants to have a moral compass, they can.)
Frankly, I can see where he's coming from on that, because the last thing a company of Apple's size needs is a pretext for puritans and politicians to bash them over.
The solution is parental controls, locked down by default. Otherwise, by your reasoning, Apple has to adopt to the least-tolerant segment of the market.