They control what apps they allow on their store, but they don't control the apps themselves. It's like saying the US government controls its citizens because it controls who can be a citizen.
They also control which citizens can drive, own a firearm, get a job with children, practice medicine, pay tax... need I go on?
Stop this government analogy. The government is there to control the populace, that is their main function. Law exists to stop people killing, maiming, raping and pillaging (and drink-driving).
However, Apple isn't the government. They do still control what I can do with my device because they control the apps I put on it. If Steve decides I can't have an app that enables real OBEX over BT then there won't be one - no dev will bother submitting one. Apple has the last word on what an app can do and while they (apparently) can't ^W don't decide what you do with an app*, they still set limits on what the app was designed to do. If you don't accept that deciding whether an app even exists as far as the customers are concerned counts as control then I've no more to say bar this: re-read the OP and note "what you can do with the device". The Steve has decreed no OBEX love for me and by Jove I can't have it.
*Like, say producing crudely drawn cocks (magenta, of course) in a paint app.
But Apple do control (albeit indirectly) everything to do with the iPhone and the App Store. Granted, they haven't the right to redesign or block elements of a developer's app but they don't have to: they can refuse the app or just ban certain features.
Apple can take action that restricts what I can do with the device. You can say that I only have to jailbreak it but then hasn't Apple indirectly forced me to do that just to run my own apps? Don't get me wrong, they have every right to do what they want with the service and they do indeed control every aspect of the same.
Bad analogy time: you may not be able to make it drink, but you can lead a horse to water. Apple may not be able to make me buy anything or decide what apps I'm allowed to have, but it's their river and I have to either drink or break my reins. The majority of iPhone owners are either ignorant or unwilling to do this; Apple knows it and has taken action to prevent jailbreaking. They're visiting my intentions (*ugh* I feel dirty for using that one) and that's control, which can take many forms, some more subtle than others (that one had a somewhat cleansing effect).
Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything.
Never-ending myth, you mean.
You can't say it's a myth any more than the parent can say otherwise; I doubt very much that private discussions between board members are made public. Might be sinister, might not be, but don't think Hanlon's razor will prove or disprove anything.
Not only controlling all the applications
Apple doesn't control "all the applications".
Don't they? If you want to use your iPhone and keep the warranty then you have to use the App Store; all the apps that are there Apple put there.
and what you can do with the device
Nor do they control what you can do with the device.
In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.
Semantics. Coercion is a form of control and losing my warranty is frankly disincentive enough for me not to jailbreak my phone. As for the governent deciding what cars may be legally driven on roads how could this not be a form of control? The gov't is quite capable of closing a road and preventing me from driving on if they felt the need. Please tell me what you mean by control.
but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?
Apple controls this in no way whatsoever. You are 100% free to sell your iPad to whomever for for whatever price you wish.
With you 100% here. Even Apple aren't stupid enough to make a move in this direction.
Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly
Because they are not.
They are quite tall (vertical) but this doesn't seem like a monopoly to me either
but exactly how is this good for the market or people?
Since it's not true, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.
This is true, although irrelevant, as Apple aren't abusing their customers.
Both points are debateable; I fail to see why you seem so certain yourself. Still, words like abuse are far too loaded for me to even debate - there seems little point in arguing over an opinion anyway. That and I need to get to the corner shop before it closes.
Would someone who's bought one online recently mind reading their store's privacy policy?
I don't care what reason Apple has come up with this time, they shouldn't have any right to this sort of information about buyers who shop at a third party.
I recall the same restriction was placed on iPhone sales too, and given that O2 were/are quite capable of tracking my purchases and saying "sorry, one per customer" it smelled fishy then too.
The problem is that losers with 25% of the actual votes only get a twelth of the voting power in parliament. It might be nice to have a democracy where 2 out of 3 parties have to support new law rather than it being a foregone conclusion most of the time.
Would any of those talentless hacks have demanded $1 million *pinkies* if the show only earned 25c. per showing? They're preening egomaniacs, just as much overpaid (for what they actually do) as professional sportists.
The cover for the battery compartment should have a tiny hole with a cover (a door-within-a-door) The power adaptor is shaped like a battery which goes into the camera, and the wire goes through that little hole in the battery cover, and into the wall.
Sounds like something one could macguyver with some dowels, gaffer tape and a £5 DC power supply. No problems there.
I think you have that the wrong way round. I mean, what's gold actually useful for to such an advanced civilization? Hell, it seems like the more advanced we get the more gold becomes something that's just rare.
All we need to do is make driving a flying car in an urban area a capital offence, though if they crash there'll not be much left for the organ banks...
Tell me, what act proscribes sympathising with suicide bombings?
Publicly extolling such a course of action and potentially inciting others to do so is one thing, but I seriously doubt the Crown would prosecute a case against your freedom of thought.
You aren't the first person to publicly express similar sympathies and you certainly aren't the most well-known, yet I fail to recall a single instance of such a person appearing in the dock. Personally I agree that resorting to any kind of suicide attack does reflect the desperation of the attacker and their cause, but frankly anyone that purposely attacks civilians with such little regard for complicity deserves nothing but contempt.
N.B. Terrorists are probably the new Hitler viz. Godwin so please don't waste your mod points here; this post is for the benefit of the parent. Err... kthxbye... etc.
The problem isn't so much that the iPhone/iPad shouldn't be running Flash due to performance/battery limitations, it's that Apple changed the rules without telling Adobe.
So it's nothing to do with Apple losing Store revenue from people watching TV/Films for free on tvlinks or wherever?
You missed my point. People may slow down on buying another new, even greener car, but that's what the subsidy was for. That and propping up a failing market.
Does the same apply in a civil case? Surely the plaintiff has to demonstrate harm, and he can't do that unless he can prove that he can sense the brain-searing death rays emanating from next door.
Good luck with that, truly. You'll need more than luck though - see above.
Rebel.
How? Take up arms? You won't last ten seconds. Stop paying taxes? Even worse, the Revenoo will be after you.
Rebellion seems to be the only choice until you realise that you need so many people in on it you might as well just vote the same way. Seems like a catch-22 to me...
Slashdot Mirror
They control what apps they allow on their store, but they don't control the apps themselves. It's like saying the US government controls its citizens because it controls who can be a citizen.
They also control which citizens can drive, own a firearm, get a job with children, practice medicine, pay tax... need I go on?
Stop this government analogy. The government is there to control the populace, that is their main function. Law exists to stop people killing, maiming, raping and pillaging (and drink-driving).
However, Apple isn't the government. They do still control what I can do with my device because they control the apps I put on it. If Steve decides I can't have an app that enables real OBEX over BT then there won't be one - no dev will bother submitting one. Apple has the last word on what an app can do and while they (apparently) can't ^W don't decide what you do with an app*, they still set limits on what the app was designed to do. If you don't accept that deciding whether an app even exists as far as the customers are concerned counts as control then I've no more to say bar this: re-read the OP and note "what you can do with the device". The Steve has decreed no OBEX love for me and by Jove I can't have it.
*Like, say producing crudely drawn cocks (magenta, of course) in a paint app.
Arguing over semantics may appear petty, but if one can't clearly say what one means then winning any debate is going to be hard.
N.B. this isn't a dig at Mr. node, I'm merely exercising my pedant muscles. Ironic really, considering the parent's sig - I just noticed that.
But Apple do control (albeit indirectly) everything to do with the iPhone and the App Store. Granted, they haven't the right to redesign or block elements of a developer's app but they don't have to: they can refuse the app or just ban certain features.
Apple can take action that restricts what I can do with the device. You can say that I only have to jailbreak it but then hasn't Apple indirectly forced me to do that just to run my own apps? Don't get me wrong, they have every right to do what they want with the service and they do indeed control every aspect of the same.
Bad analogy time: you may not be able to make it drink, but you can lead a horse to water. Apple may not be able to make me buy anything or decide what apps I'm allowed to have, but it's their river and I have to either drink or break my reins. The majority of iPhone owners are either ignorant or unwilling to do this; Apple knows it and has taken action to prevent jailbreaking. They're visiting my intentions (*ugh* I feel dirty for using that one) and that's control, which can take many forms, some more subtle than others (that one had a somewhat cleansing effect).
Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything.
Never-ending myth, you mean.
You can't say it's a myth any more than the parent can say otherwise; I doubt very much that private discussions between board members are made public. Might be sinister, might not be, but don't think Hanlon's razor will prove or disprove anything.
Not only controlling all the applications
Apple doesn't control "all the applications".
Don't they? If you want to use your iPhone and keep the warranty then you have to use the App Store; all the apps that are there Apple put there.
and what you can do with the device
Nor do they control what you can do with the device.
In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.
Semantics. Coercion is a form of control and losing my warranty is frankly disincentive enough for me not to jailbreak my phone. As for the governent deciding what cars may be legally driven on roads how could this not be a form of control? The gov't is quite capable of closing a road and preventing me from driving on if they felt the need. Please tell me what you mean by control.
but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?
Apple controls this in no way whatsoever. You are 100% free to sell your iPad to whomever for for whatever price you wish.
With you 100% here. Even Apple aren't stupid enough to make a move in this direction.
Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly
Because they are not.
They are quite tall (vertical) but this doesn't seem like a monopoly to me either
but exactly how is this good for the market or people?
Since it's not true, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.
This is true, although irrelevant, as Apple aren't abusing their customers.
Both points are debateable; I fail to see why you seem so certain yourself. Still, words like abuse are far too loaded for me to even debate - there seems little point in arguing over an opinion anyway. That and I need to get to the corner shop before it closes.
Ta ta, J.
Would someone who's bought one online recently mind reading their store's privacy policy?
I don't care what reason Apple has come up with this time, they shouldn't have any right to this sort of information about buyers who shop at a third party.
I recall the same restriction was placed on iPhone sales too, and given that O2 were/are quite capable of tracking my purchases and saying "sorry, one per customer" it smelled fishy then too.
Anyway, how many cow's worth is it going to take to cart around all these tonnes of shit to the nearest power plant?
Please let me know when CHOAM gets floated, I should be able to tell when the Mahdi appears myself and sell, sell, sell!
How is a flight on an American airline traveling to New York City considered a "non US flight"?
Depends, did the flight start from within the US too?
If they opt for a coalition with the conservatives I suspect that most of their support will vanish.
Hear, Hear.
The problem is that losers with 25% of the actual votes only get a twelth of the voting power in parliament. It might be nice to have a democracy where 2 out of 3 parties have to support new law rather than it being a foregone conclusion most of the time.
Truly, if there is life on Mars I think that will cause us to go there and rape it even sooner than otherwise.
Please, tell me you meant raze.
Would any of those talentless hacks have demanded $1 million *pinkies* if the show only earned 25c. per showing? They're preening egomaniacs, just as much overpaid (for what they actually do) as professional sportists.
The cover for the battery compartment should have a tiny hole with a cover (a door-within-a-door) The power adaptor is shaped like a battery which goes into the camera, and the wire goes through that little hole in the battery cover, and into the wall.
Sounds like something one could macguyver with some dowels, gaffer tape and a £5 DC power supply. No problems there.
...turning worthless planets into gold...
I think you have that the wrong way round. I mean, what's gold actually useful for to such an advanced civilization? Hell, it seems like the more advanced we get the more gold becomes something that's just rare.
All we need to do is make driving a flying car in an urban area a capital offence, though if they crash there'll not be much left for the organ banks...
Tell me, what act proscribes sympathising with suicide bombings?
Publicly extolling such a course of action and potentially inciting others to do so is one thing, but I seriously doubt the Crown would prosecute a case against your freedom of thought.
You aren't the first person to publicly express similar sympathies and you certainly aren't the most well-known, yet I fail to recall a single instance of such a person appearing in the dock. Personally I agree that resorting to any kind of suicide attack does reflect the desperation of the attacker and their cause, but frankly anyone that purposely attacks civilians with such little regard for complicity deserves nothing but contempt.
N.B. Terrorists are probably the new Hitler viz. Godwin so please don't waste your mod points here; this post is for the benefit of the parent. Err... kthxbye... etc.
...valued at 30 quatloos per incident.
That's a lot of quatloos, what are the RIAA trying to build an army of thralls?!
Oh Dear.
The problem isn't so much that the iPhone/iPad shouldn't be running Flash due to performance/battery limitations, it's that Apple changed the rules without telling Adobe.
So it's nothing to do with Apple losing Store revenue from people watching TV/Films for free on tvlinks or wherever?
Time to try a Gil Hamilton story.
Plus, as Krauss quipped, everything is a straight line on a log-log plot!
You missed my point. People may slow down on buying another new, even greener car, but that's what the subsidy was for. That and propping up a failing market.
What did you think I was saying
Possibly, but they can always do another Cash for Clunkers.
That's assuming of course that they don't just up the standard again later. And why not?
Does the same apply in a civil case? Surely the plaintiff has to demonstrate harm, and he can't do that unless he can prove that he can sense the brain-searing death rays emanating from next door.
Vote.
Hmm. How's that working out for you?
Run for office.
Good luck with that, truly. You'll need more than luck though - see above.
Rebel.
How? Take up arms? You won't last ten seconds. Stop paying taxes? Even worse, the Revenoo will be after you.
Rebellion seems to be the only choice until you realise that you need so many people in on it you might as well just vote the same way. Seems like a catch-22 to me...
Do you think Shakespeare wrote only for the art?