My iPad2 does not charge if I plug the Apple connector cable into my standard USB charger. Has that changed?
Can't speak for the iPad 2, but I plugged my iPhone into a standard USB charger over the week and it worked just fine. Charged a little slower, but I'm sure the output of the charger was less.
iPads generally require 10 watts or else they won't claim to be charging, even though they really are. It's possible in http://www.pcworld.com/article/217116/ipad_usb_charging.html
Well they can't. The API doesn't give developers that capability. Other programming environments (ie, Android, Java, Windows... pretty much all of them) work with a layout system that doesn't guarantee exact positioning very well, but does work on different aspect ratios and densities automatically. iOS uses absolute positioning, so developers have to code specifically to each new screen (save for some special cases where they can get away with it, ie doubling of linear density).
There have always been at least two screen sizes in iOS. Portrait and landscape. iPad adds two more.
The "iOS doesn't support dynamic layout" thing is something I see thrown out by Android developers/supporters all the time, and it's just not true at all.
Wow, letterboxing? Really? Really? Did Apple just never learn how to make an API for UI elements that doesn't suck? No, that's not right, Cocoa was fine; they must have just reinvented the wheel for iOS, poorly.
There is an API. There are two actually, springs and struts and (as of iOS 6) autolayout. Exact same APIs that were on the Mac side.
The problem is developers, unless they supported the iPad as well, tended to ignore these APIs meaning if Apple just starts resizing apps they'll probably break a lot of bad code. Or things like games that only planned on targeting the original resolution.
So Apple played it safe and stuck apps compiled for iOS 5 into a legacy mode.
If you could stop switching topics for three seconds, it might help. We were talking about Motorola, not android. Google is liable for Motorola, period.
Putting in a separate management structure has exactly "0" to do with legal liability. You are pulling this out of your ass.
It's not just a separate management structure. Motorola still legally exists as it's own entity and company. Google owns the majority of shares, but Motorola is still a separate company. You already admitted they have their own CEO, and that's because legally they are distinct.
Motorola is a subsidiary of Google and is therefore legally distinct. It's basically a shell company which should not be a mind boggling concept, companies do this all the time to legally protect themselves.
Except that's not what google did. Other than that, great use of wikipedia. If you took three seconds to look at a balance sheet, you'd see that google includes Motorola's assest and liabilities under it's own umbrella, because it isn't operating it as a separate corporate entity. It isn't on the stock market because it no longer operates as a separate entity:
Huh? Stock market doesn't mean squat for legal standing. That just means Motorola is privately held.
Motorola still exists as an LLC owned by Google. What is an LLC? A limited liability company. An LLC means the owners (Google) are not necessarily liable for anything the company does. LLCs do not have to be listed on the stock market (as if that was at all a reasonable argument.)
Look at the title on their homepage. They can only say "Motorola Mobility LLC. USA" if they've actually filed as an LLC in the US. Again, that does not mean they aren't owned by Google. That just means Google, to the US government, has declared that they are a separate organization and that the owner, Google, is not libable for anything they do.
It's in the NAME OF THE COMPANY that Google isn't liable. I'm not sure how much bigger of a cluestick you need to get. Even though it's not publicly traded and privately held, it's still held as a separate company. Because they're not public, Google can put them on any balance sheet they want, but that doesn't change they're not LEGALLY part of Google.
Ya, it doesn't work that way. If Apple sues, google is liable.
What is this, the Chewbacca defense?
Under the terms of Google's licensing, Android is supplied without legal indemnification. That means Google has transferred all legal liability to the device makers. That basically means Google is saying "We wrote this code, we don't know if it violates any patents, but if it does, it's your problem, not ours."
Just because you say Google is liable, that doesn't make it so. Google's lawyers would disagree with that, and Google has already moved to protect themselves.
And they aren't "independently operated" in any sense of the word, I don't know why you keep saying that, I'm guessing it's because you just pulled it out of your ass to try to make a point when you had none.
I believe those words are being pulled out of someone's ass (no way Google isn't telling Moto what to do), but it's not my ass they're being pulled out of.
As soon as the acquisition was completed, Dennis Woodside, a google employee, took over as CEO. In the last month alone they've fired half the management staff and replaced them with googlers. The company is run entirely by google and it isn't something they're attempting to hide.
Preaching to the choir, but LEGALLY (note the LEGALLY) Motorola is still a separate organization and Google is not necessary liable for their actions. Much like if you owned a business, people could only sue the business, not you directly. It's a common business strategy to protect one's self from legal liability. Remember, legally corporations are people, and Motorola, as long as it exists as a separate company, is still a separate "person".
Last I checked an OEM relationship is just that. Dell OEM's servers for a myriad of manufacturers, the agreement puts liability/warranty/etc. on the end-seller, not Dell. Furthermore, they own Motorola and directly make handsets if you REALLY want to go there. But please, keep telling us all how Google doesn't sell hardware.
I did directly mention Motorola actually in my OP. I specifically mentioned how Google gets to use Motorola as a shell and sue Apple with it, while Apple has only the shell of Motorola to sue.
Google claims that Motorola is independently operated, remember? It's a separate shell.
Last I checked, the back of my Galaxy Nexus said it was made by Samsung, not Google. That would make Google a reseller and only legally liable if they violated an injunction.
Pinch to zoom is a standard feature of Android, surely Google should be the ones being sued.
As part of Android's licensing, Google does not indemnify device makers against legal action. Legally, Apple can only sue the people making money off of Android directly, and that is the device makers, not Google in since Google does not sell Android (an arrangement I'm sure Google likes very much.)
So pretty much Google is sitting pretty in a position where they can't be sued as long as they aren't selling Android devices. They have Motorola, but by keeping maintaining Motorola as a separate entity they can sue other companies (including the lawsuits they've filed against Apple) by proxy without dirtying their own name.
Google has been playing these same legal games for a while, but they're smarter about it, and they're doing it in a way they can play innocent. ("What? Motorola is suing people? Well Motorola is an 'independently run company'! Of COURSE that's not Google!")
The only reason is that they can throw $billions are getting the most experienced coders (e.g. from the linux community) to trim nanoseconds off the drivers they rely on most....
Not seeing how that matters. The end user experience is what it is. What you said is an excuse, not a solution.
The graphics drivers are written in house at NVidia and AMD. Apple doesn't actually write their own drivers. And the GPUs are just bog standard AMD, NVidia, and Intel GPUs (expect for some of the graphics switching.). There is not reason Linux should be at a disadvantage.
And if they did I'd expect worse performance. Back when Apple used to write their own drivers they were totally awful. Apple has less experience writing graphics drivers, I'm not actually sure why you'd expect Apple written drivers to perform better.
Breaking news: Tech blogs covering release of operating system that every single member of their readership may not be using. "Industry relevance" cited.
Sure, but that's an old dying server. A NAS doesn't spare you from that pain. NAS's can be old and dying as well.
At the point you're at, the most cost efficient option would actually be just getting a new server and migrating the data over. No having to muddle with un-ADing everything and get everything onto a NAS. Same services on more stable hardware.
Moving off of Windows to a NAS is a giant unknown. Running on Active Directory means everyone's files are on the server (ideally, if it's set up right), and backed up on the server. Running on a NAS? A NAS is just dumb storage. Do you have backup strategies ready to go for the individual machines? Are you going to be ensuring those backups are happening?
Again, it's one thing to look at this from "the Windows server is dying, it needs to be replaced now" than it is to look at it from longer term maintenance questions.
"We're legally obligated to inform you that the courts have found that the Galaxy Tab is not as cool as the iPad, and also found by the courts to not be an iPad substitute."
Cool, price conscious, and usable are not mutually exclusive.
In plenty of cases, Apple products are cheaper. And usability is personal opinion. Just because Apple products are considered cool, does not mean they are not usable and/or cheap. Apple's reputation of being cool after their decidedly uncool 1996-ish reputation did not appear out of thin air.
If I'm a developer (and I am), in the end the reasoning doesn't matter to me. Only the facts. I can't take advantage of 4.0 features because Android seems to be stuck in 2.3-land.
I don't agree with your logic, but I'm also find myself not really caring. 4.0 is a year old. iOS 5 is also only a year old, yet it commands 80%-85% share of iOS users. 4.0 adoption should be higher.
The action bar got backported, but it didn't include tab support (ooops.) As far as I can tell, Renderscript was never backported. The new audio stuff in Android 4.1 doesn't seem to be being backported. About the only useful thing that was ever back ported almost completely was fragments.
Google seems to backport just enough so that they can say they're putting in the effort, but not enough to make the backporting actually useful. In the end, you're still stuck because the one nugget you need to actually make full use of the backported API is still stuck in the new OS release.
Funny how the summary didn't note why the article was just published, Apple just gave everyone raises. Reports are that geniuses are being paid in the ballpark of $30 an hour now, which is reasonable for an IT focused job.
From TFA:
"Even Apple, it seems, has recently decided it needs to pay its workers more. Last week, four months after The New York Times first began inquiring about the wages of its store employees, the company started to inform some staff members that they would receive substantial raises. An Apple spokesman confirmed the raises but would not discuss their size, timing or impetus, nor who would earn them.
But Cory Moll, a salesman in the San Francisco flagship store and a vocal labor activist, said that on Tuesday he was given a raise of $2.82 an hour, to $17.31, an increase of 19.5 percent and a big jump compared with the 49-cent raise he was given last year."
No that's not what I'm saying at all. You're making the same mistake Lowery is, and which I originally pointed out. Music is not a physical good A car, appliances, band merchanise? Those things are physical goods. There is no "taking" of music. My playing music doesn't prevent anyone else from playing that same music simultaneously. Ultimately Lowery --and you, it seems-- would have every set of ears that can hear to pay money for listening. Well often those ears that would benefit from music most can't afford to pay.
And as I mentioned, if your car if parked on the street and you aren't current using it, I'm not depriving you use of it either.
Yet much like how I devalue your car by riding it around, you stealing music is also devaluing the value of the music. If a car can be bought for $10,000, or acquired for free across the street, what does the market value of the car become? It becomes devalued. Regardless of the music not necessarily being exclusive, the act of stealing it alone is causing monetary damage by devaluing it.
The whole "music isn't exclusive" argument is made many times on this site, and it's just as bunk every time.
You're making my point, but you just don't realize what would drive someone to such a choice. The inspired musician does not create for the money, they create because music moves them. They create because certain music that they heard lit something up in their brain, and from that point on they knew they needed to make music. If these people aren't able to hear that music because they're too poor, the world wouldn't have Jimi Hendrix musician, we would have had Jimmy Hendricks the Seattle burger-flipper. Not because burger flipping pays better, but because he never heard the music he needed to hear... because he couldn't afford to pay for it.
Nope. You don't get to tell me why I create. Sorry. When YOU create something, YOU are totally free to do it to make to do it to make people hear all the beautiful things in your head. But if I want to create because I want to make money, you don't get to tell me no. If Hendricks wants(ed) to give away his music for free, or only allow people to listen to it in elevators, that's his choice. But the key is it's HIS choice, not YOURS.
When you're dictator in chief, then you're free to try to change that. Honestly, it's actually kind of offensive that you are trying to tell people what to do with their work. That's like me coming into your library and telling you how to sort your books.
A few musicians per generation get lucky enough to get paid handsomely for their work. More of the music entertainers are simply celebrities who are successful at self-promotion. (Test yourself: think of Rhianna or Chris Brown. What pops into your head first? Is it the sound of one of their songs, or is it a visual image of how they looked in a photo spread? Now do the same with Adele. Do you see her face first, or hear her voice?)
While romantic, this has nothing to do with the topic.
Would-be celebrities who chase fame and fortune aren't driven by a love of music, they're driven by a thirst for attention and money. Just peruse Craigslist band ads for fifteen minutes and read the blurbs of all the would-bes who "are dedicated to making it!" Now look for all the ads describing people who want to make incredible music. The music industry has done its best to eliminate public perception of any distinction between a musician, and a music star. The difference is inspiration -- one is driven by music, the other by celebrity.
You don't get to tell me why I do things. Sorry. If I wanted to become some sort of Beiber-esk artist with little talent but a lot of stardom, that's my choice. People also have the choice to buy that.
You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you get to rip other people's industries apart.
Slashdot Mirror
My iPad2 does not charge if I plug the Apple connector cable into my standard USB charger. Has that changed?
Can't speak for the iPad 2, but I plugged my iPhone into a standard USB charger over the week and it worked just fine. Charged a little slower, but I'm sure the output of the charger was less.
iPads generally require 10 watts or else they won't claim to be charging, even though they really are. It's possible in http://www.pcworld.com/article/217116/ipad_usb_charging.html
Samsung wanted to submit evidence they had ripped off Sony instead who had done the shape before
The problem with that was that Sony admitted they copied their original design from : drumroll : Apple, closing the loop.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/01/the-sony-device-samsung-claims-inspired-apples-iphone/
Well they can't. The API doesn't give developers that capability. Other programming environments (ie, Android, Java, Windows... pretty much all of them) work with a layout system that doesn't guarantee exact positioning very well, but does work on different aspect ratios and densities automatically. iOS uses absolute positioning, so developers have to code specifically to each new screen (save for some special cases where they can get away with it, ie doubling of linear density).
iOS has supported dynamic positioning since iOS 2. Bad developers use absolute positioning, not iOS.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIView_Class/UIView/UIView.html%23//apple_ref/occ/instp/UIView/autoresizingMask
There have always been at least two screen sizes in iOS. Portrait and landscape. iPad adds two more.
The "iOS doesn't support dynamic layout" thing is something I see thrown out by Android developers/supporters all the time, and it's just not true at all.
Wow, letterboxing? Really? Really? Did Apple just never learn how to make an API for UI elements that doesn't suck? No, that's not right, Cocoa was fine; they must have just reinvented the wheel for iOS, poorly.
There is an API. There are two actually, springs and struts and (as of iOS 6) autolayout. Exact same APIs that were on the Mac side.
The problem is developers, unless they supported the iPad as well, tended to ignore these APIs meaning if Apple just starts resizing apps they'll probably break a lot of bad code. Or things like games that only planned on targeting the original resolution.
So Apple played it safe and stuck apps compiled for iOS 5 into a legacy mode.
Welcome to Slashdot.
If you could stop switching topics for three seconds, it might help. We were talking about Motorola, not android. Google is liable for Motorola, period.
Putting in a separate management structure has exactly "0" to do with legal liability. You are pulling this out of your ass.
It's not just a separate management structure. Motorola still legally exists as it's own entity and company. Google owns the majority of shares, but Motorola is still a separate company. You already admitted they have their own CEO, and that's because legally they are distinct.
Motorola is a subsidiary of Google and is therefore legally distinct. It's basically a shell company which should not be a mind boggling concept, companies do this all the time to legally protect themselves.
Except that's not what google did. Other than that, great use of wikipedia. If you took three seconds to look at a balance sheet, you'd see that google includes Motorola's assest and liabilities under it's own umbrella, because it isn't operating it as a separate corporate entity. It isn't on the stock market because it no longer operates as a separate entity:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MMI
Huh? Stock market doesn't mean squat for legal standing. That just means Motorola is privately held.
Motorola still exists as an LLC owned by Google. What is an LLC? A limited liability company. An LLC means the owners (Google) are not necessarily liable for anything the company does. LLCs do not have to be listed on the stock market (as if that was at all a reasonable argument.)
http://www.motorola.com/us/consumers/home
Look at the title on their homepage. They can only say "Motorola Mobility LLC. USA" if they've actually filed as an LLC in the US. Again, that does not mean they aren't owned by Google. That just means Google, to the US government, has declared that they are a separate organization and that the owner, Google, is not libable for anything they do.
It's in the NAME OF THE COMPANY that Google isn't liable. I'm not sure how much bigger of a cluestick you need to get. Even though it's not publicly traded and privately held, it's still held as a separate company. Because they're not public, Google can put them on any balance sheet they want, but that doesn't change they're not LEGALLY part of Google.
Ya, it doesn't work that way. If Apple sues, google is liable.
What is this, the Chewbacca defense?
Under the terms of Google's licensing, Android is supplied without legal indemnification. That means Google has transferred all legal liability to the device makers. That basically means Google is saying "We wrote this code, we don't know if it violates any patents, but if it does, it's your problem, not ours."
Just because you say Google is liable, that doesn't make it so. Google's lawyers would disagree with that, and Google has already moved to protect themselves.
And they aren't "independently operated" in any sense of the word, I don't know why you keep saying that, I'm guessing it's because you just pulled it out of your ass to try to make a point when you had none.
They're not my words, they're Google's.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57438986-94/google-officially-closes-$12.5-billion-motorola-mobility-deal/
"Google has made it clear that Motorola will operate independently from its own operation"
I believe those words are being pulled out of someone's ass (no way Google isn't telling Moto what to do), but it's not my ass they're being pulled out of.
As soon as the acquisition was completed, Dennis Woodside, a google employee, took over as CEO. In the last month alone they've fired half the management staff and replaced them with googlers. The company is run entirely by google and it isn't something they're attempting to hide.
Preaching to the choir, but LEGALLY (note the LEGALLY) Motorola is still a separate organization and Google is not necessary liable for their actions. Much like if you owned a business, people could only sue the business, not you directly. It's a common business strategy to protect one's self from legal liability. Remember, legally corporations are people, and Motorola, as long as it exists as a separate company, is still a separate "person".
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
Last I checked an OEM relationship is just that. Dell OEM's servers for a myriad of manufacturers, the agreement puts liability/warranty/etc. on the end-seller, not Dell. Furthermore, they own Motorola and directly make handsets if you REALLY want to go there. But please, keep telling us all how Google doesn't sell hardware.
I did directly mention Motorola actually in my OP. I specifically mentioned how Google gets to use Motorola as a shell and sue Apple with it, while Apple has only the shell of Motorola to sue.
Google claims that Motorola is independently operated, remember? It's a separate shell.
Google doesn't sell android? That's weird because I bought a phone directly from them.
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/
Last I checked, the back of my Galaxy Nexus said it was made by Samsung, not Google. That would make Google a reseller and only legally liable if they violated an injunction.
Oh look...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/05/google-confirms-galaxy-nexus-was-pulled-from-play-store-due-to-i/
Pinch to zoom is a standard feature of Android, surely Google should be the ones being sued.
As part of Android's licensing, Google does not indemnify device makers against legal action. Legally, Apple can only sue the people making money off of Android directly, and that is the device makers, not Google in since Google does not sell Android (an arrangement I'm sure Google likes very much.)
So pretty much Google is sitting pretty in a position where they can't be sued as long as they aren't selling Android devices. They have Motorola, but by keeping maintaining Motorola as a separate entity they can sue other companies (including the lawsuits they've filed against Apple) by proxy without dirtying their own name.
Google has been playing these same legal games for a while, but they're smarter about it, and they're doing it in a way they can play innocent. ("What? Motorola is suing people? Well Motorola is an 'independently run company'! Of COURSE that's not Google!")
The only reason is that they can throw $billions are getting the most experienced coders (e.g. from the linux community) to trim nanoseconds off the drivers they rely on most....
Not seeing how that matters. The end user experience is what it is. What you said is an excuse, not a solution.
For graphics, what Apple device drivers?
The graphics drivers are written in house at NVidia and AMD. Apple doesn't actually write their own drivers. And the GPUs are just bog standard AMD, NVidia, and Intel GPUs (expect for some of the graphics switching.). There is not reason Linux should be at a disadvantage.
And if they did I'd expect worse performance. Back when Apple used to write their own drivers they were totally awful. Apple has less experience writing graphics drivers, I'm not actually sure why you'd expect Apple written drivers to perform better.
I bet RIM is ecstatic. Someone is still writing Blackberry software!
Breaking news: Tech blogs covering release of operating system that every single member of their readership may not be using. "Industry relevance" cited.
Sure, but that's an old dying server. A NAS doesn't spare you from that pain. NAS's can be old and dying as well.
At the point you're at, the most cost efficient option would actually be just getting a new server and migrating the data over. No having to muddle with un-ADing everything and get everything onto a NAS. Same services on more stable hardware.
Moving off of Windows to a NAS is a giant unknown. Running on Active Directory means everyone's files are on the server (ideally, if it's set up right), and backed up on the server. Running on a NAS? A NAS is just dumb storage. Do you have backup strategies ready to go for the individual machines? Are you going to be ensuring those backups are happening?
Again, it's one thing to look at this from "the Windows server is dying, it needs to be replaced now" than it is to look at it from longer term maintenance questions.
"We're legally obligated to inform you that the courts have found that the Galaxy Tab is not as cool as the iPad, and also found by the courts to not be an iPad substitute."
Read the Government/Secure deployment guide, which Apple wrote for this exact purpose.
iPhones do hardware encrypted disk, passcoding, ActiveSync, and support MDM (mobile device management) servers to enforce policy.
Android's support for these things is much more... fragmented. I think iPhones would be the better option here.
Cool, price conscious, and usable are not mutually exclusive.
In plenty of cases, Apple products are cheaper. And usability is personal opinion. Just because Apple products are considered cool, does not mean they are not usable and/or cheap. Apple's reputation of being cool after their decidedly uncool 1996-ish reputation did not appear out of thin air.
Does the reason really matter?
If I'm a developer (and I am), in the end the reasoning doesn't matter to me. Only the facts. I can't take advantage of 4.0 features because Android seems to be stuck in 2.3-land.
I don't agree with your logic, but I'm also find myself not really caring. 4.0 is a year old. iOS 5 is also only a year old, yet it commands 80%-85% share of iOS users. 4.0 adoption should be higher.
What APIs exactly got backported?
The action bar got backported, but it didn't include tab support (ooops.) As far as I can tell, Renderscript was never backported. The new audio stuff in Android 4.1 doesn't seem to be being backported. About the only useful thing that was ever back ported almost completely was fragments.
Google seems to backport just enough so that they can say they're putting in the effort, but not enough to make the backporting actually useful. In the end, you're still stuck because the one nugget you need to actually make full use of the backported API is still stuck in the new OS release.
http://clamcase.com/
Magic!
What is a/the goal of evolution?
That's like asking what the goal of the ocean is.
It just is.
Are they contractors? If they don't get benefits and have to pay their own taxes, etc. then it's not quite that ridiculous.
If they're benefits-getting employees, wow.
From my understand, they're real employees with benefits.
The benefits alone puts them a step above most people in this economy.
Funny how the summary didn't note why the article was just published, Apple just gave everyone raises. Reports are that geniuses are being paid in the ballpark of $30 an hour now, which is reasonable for an IT focused job.
From TFA:
"Even Apple, it seems, has recently decided it needs to pay its workers more. Last week, four months after The New York Times first began inquiring about the wages of its store employees, the company started to inform some staff members that they would receive substantial raises. An Apple spokesman confirmed the raises but would not discuss their size, timing or impetus, nor who would earn them.
But Cory Moll, a salesman in the San Francisco flagship store and a vocal labor activist, said that on Tuesday he was given a raise of $2.82 an hour, to $17.31, an increase of 19.5 percent and a big jump compared with the 49-cent raise he was given last year."
No that's not what I'm saying at all. You're making the same mistake Lowery is, and which I originally pointed out. Music is not a physical good A car, appliances, band merchanise? Those things are physical goods. There is no "taking" of music. My playing music doesn't prevent anyone else from playing that same music simultaneously. Ultimately Lowery --and you, it seems-- would have every set of ears that can hear to pay money for listening. Well often those ears that would benefit from music most can't afford to pay.
And as I mentioned, if your car if parked on the street and you aren't current using it, I'm not depriving you use of it either.
Yet much like how I devalue your car by riding it around, you stealing music is also devaluing the value of the music. If a car can be bought for $10,000, or acquired for free across the street, what does the market value of the car become? It becomes devalued. Regardless of the music not necessarily being exclusive, the act of stealing it alone is causing monetary damage by devaluing it.
The whole "music isn't exclusive" argument is made many times on this site, and it's just as bunk every time.
You're making my point, but you just don't realize what would drive someone to such a choice. The inspired musician does not create for the money, they create because music moves them. They create because certain music that they heard lit something up in their brain, and from that point on they knew they needed to make music. If these people aren't able to hear that music because they're too poor, the world wouldn't have Jimi Hendrix musician, we would have had Jimmy Hendricks the Seattle burger-flipper. Not because burger flipping pays better, but because he never heard the music he needed to hear... because he couldn't afford to pay for it.
Nope. You don't get to tell me why I create. Sorry. When YOU create something, YOU are totally free to do it to make to do it to make people hear all the beautiful things in your head. But if I want to create because I want to make money, you don't get to tell me no. If Hendricks wants(ed) to give away his music for free, or only allow people to listen to it in elevators, that's his choice. But the key is it's HIS choice, not YOURS.
When you're dictator in chief, then you're free to try to change that. Honestly, it's actually kind of offensive that you are trying to tell people what to do with their work. That's like me coming into your library and telling you how to sort your books.
A few musicians per generation get lucky enough to get paid handsomely for their work. More of the music entertainers are simply celebrities who are successful at self-promotion. (Test yourself: think of Rhianna or Chris Brown. What pops into your head first? Is it the sound of one of their songs, or is it a visual image of how they looked in a photo spread? Now do the same with Adele. Do you see her face first, or hear her voice?)
While romantic, this has nothing to do with the topic.
Would-be celebrities who chase fame and fortune aren't driven by a love of music, they're driven by a thirst for attention and money. Just peruse Craigslist band ads for fifteen minutes and read the blurbs of all the would-bes who "are dedicated to making it!" Now look for all the ads describing people who want to make incredible music. The music industry has done its best to eliminate public perception of any distinction between a musician, and a music star. The difference is inspiration -- one is driven by music, the other by celebrity.
You don't get to tell me why I do things. Sorry. If I wanted to become some sort of Beiber-esk artist with little talent but a lot of stardom, that's my choice. People also have the choice to buy that.
You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you get to rip other people's industries apart.
So Lowery wanted to be a music star, and th