The latest legal salvo comes a few months after TiVo launched its own strike against AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), alleging that their video services illegally use its TV "time-warping" technology in their digital video recorders. AT&T's U-Verse TV service runs on Microsoft's Internet video technology.
AT&T declined to comment on Microsoft's legal actions.
TiVo hasn't been shy about using the courtroom to protect its intellectual property. The company also has a long-running dispute with Dish Networks Corp. ( DISH) and sister company Echostar Corp. (SATS) over the same DVR technology. The company has agreements with most of the cable companies and DirecTV Group Inc. ( DTV).
Huh what? That was an incoherent fanboi rant. IIS has around 21% vs. Apache at 46% and still IIS6 has holded out to be pretty good, especially comparing to Apache.
So far though, not much beyond proof of concept stuff and things that require user credential authentication.
There were tons of vulnerabilities in Safari and Quicktime etc. not to mention the ones in TFA that would work without user credentials. And this is one in the wild. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/23/0127253
But it has proven to have a pretty good track record - not perfect, but pretty good
Says who? According to TFA, an mp4 video or a picture could install spyware or delete all user files.Thats a pretty good track record? wtf? The only OS with a good track record would be OpenBSD. Apple's software usually has tons of holes.
So your beef is actually that Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it wasn't that good for the consumers - and that the consumers seem to agree, because they do indeed flock to the one shop to get apps.
This is the most backwards logic that I've read in a long time. Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it didn't elicit enough $$$. And how do you know the consumers agree? Was there a survey that showed that people would shun or boycott any other store or never download any app from the author's website? Your logic when applied to MS seems to imply that Windows was top notch quality at the end of 90s, after all, so many people flocked to buy it that it had 95%+ market share. It's just sad how so many intelligent people blindly defend a cultish company at all costs with convoluted logic.
If it's so horrible that a Apple takes a 30% cut, please tell me why people have flocked to the platform? Do they love slavery? Or are a sizable minority making a decent amount of MONEY, and 30% to Apple pays for all your marketing expenses, freeing you to just develop?
They have flocked to the platform because there is no other way to sell apps to the iPhone crowd. My beef is not that Apple takes a 30% cut, they can take 60% for doing a fantastic job for all I care. My beef is that other stores are excluded from competing. There might be a company that can charge only 20% but still provide the bandwidth, absorb CC fees and prove good marketing. Apple's App Store and other app stores can compete on merits instead of being forced upon developers and users. If MS started anything like this and forced it upon all PC users to get rid of viruses and malware and sold Windows only their overpriced hardware while banning Firefox because it duplicates IE's functionality, I am sure you will be singing a different tune. Or would you?
So yes, I do consider it a terrible crime that political apps, anything that can be seen as risque and potentially offensive(to some segment of the population) are banned from what essentially is a handheld computer.
I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.
I love it how *cough* some people on here comment on Apple stories. If it's a discussion about smartphone marketshare, then it's "WOW, APPLE TOTALLY RULEZ THE MARKET FOR SMARTPHONES, THE FUTURE OF ALL PHONES. HERE'S THE LINK TO PROVE THE NUMBERS". And in these kind of stories it's 'Apple is not a monopoly, it has only 10% of smartphone marketshare'. Which is it? And both of such kind of comments are regularly modded way up into the sky by *some people* depending on which kind of story it is. Hate to see so many geeks so enamored with shiny things as to suffer from cognitive dissonance.
At the least, it's a dominant platform(I hate to use that term for someone that's not open to all) which surely deserves some protection from abuse. Apple makes money on the iPhones when selling it to AT&T or unlocked, a forced 30% cut on all software soft for it and a ~$17 kickback from AT&T from every iPhone user every month. This is one of the reasons they don't want people going to websites and downloading programs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Tivo that's suing willy nilly.
The latest legal salvo comes a few months after TiVo launched its own strike against AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), alleging that their video services illegally use its TV "time-warping" technology in their digital video recorders. AT&T's U-Verse TV service runs on Microsoft's Internet video technology.
AT&T declined to comment on Microsoft's legal actions.
TiVo hasn't been shy about using the courtroom to protect its intellectual property. The company also has a long-running dispute with Dish Networks Corp. ( DISH) and sister company Echostar Corp. (SATS) over the same DVR technology. The company has agreements with most of the cable companies and DirecTV Group Inc. ( DTV).
Huh what? That was an incoherent fanboi rant. IIS has around 21% vs. Apache at 46% and still IIS6 has holded out to be pretty good, especially comparing to Apache.
So far though, not much beyond proof of concept stuff and things that require user credential authentication.
There were tons of vulnerabilities in Safari and Quicktime etc. not to mention the ones in TFA that would work without user credentials.
And this is one in the wild. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/23/0127253
But it has proven to have a pretty good track record - not perfect, but pretty good
Says who? According to TFA, an mp4 video or a picture could install spyware or delete all user files.Thats a pretty good track record? wtf? The only OS with a good track record would be OpenBSD. Apple's software usually has tons of holes.
That doesn't say anything about sandboxing or DEP, like you claimed it would "confirm", got any more references to back up your claim?
So your beef is actually that Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it wasn't that good for the consumers - and that the consumers seem to agree, because they do indeed flock to the one shop to get apps.
This is the most backwards logic that I've read in a long time. Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it didn't elicit enough $$$. And how do you know the consumers agree? Was there a survey that showed that people would shun or boycott any other store or never download any app from the author's website? Your logic when applied to MS seems to imply that Windows was top notch quality at the end of 90s, after all, so many people flocked to buy it that it had 95%+ market share. It's just sad how so many intelligent people blindly defend a cultish company at all costs with convoluted logic.
If it's so horrible that a Apple takes a 30% cut, please tell me why people have flocked to the platform? Do they love slavery? Or are a sizable minority making a decent amount of MONEY, and 30% to Apple pays for all your marketing expenses, freeing you to just develop?
They have flocked to the platform because there is no other way to sell apps to the iPhone crowd. My beef is not that Apple takes a 30% cut, they can take 60% for doing a fantastic job for all I care. My beef is that other stores are excluded from competing. There might be a company that can charge only 20% but still provide the bandwidth, absorb CC fees and prove good marketing. Apple's App Store and other app stores can compete on merits instead of being forced upon developers and users. If MS started anything like this and forced it upon all PC users to get rid of viruses and malware and sold Windows only their overpriced hardware while banning Firefox because it duplicates IE's functionality, I am sure you will be singing a different tune. Or would you?
So yes, I do consider it a terrible crime that political apps, anything that can be seen as risque and potentially offensive(to some segment of the population) are banned from what essentially is a handheld computer.
I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.
I love it how *cough* some people on here comment on Apple stories. If it's a discussion about smartphone marketshare, then it's "WOW, APPLE TOTALLY RULEZ THE MARKET FOR SMARTPHONES, THE FUTURE OF ALL PHONES. HERE'S THE LINK TO PROVE THE NUMBERS". And in these kind of stories it's 'Apple is not a monopoly, it has only 10% of smartphone marketshare'. Which is it? And both of such kind of comments are regularly modded way up into the sky by *some people* depending on which kind of story it is. Hate to see so many geeks so enamored with shiny things as to suffer from cognitive dissonance.
At the least, it's a dominant platform(I hate to use that term for someone that's not open to all) which surely deserves some protection from abuse. Apple makes money on the iPhones when selling it to AT&T or unlocked, a forced 30% cut on all software soft for it and a ~$17 kickback from AT&T from every iPhone user every month. This is one of the reasons they don't want people going to websites and downloading programs.
What DRM does Windows 7 have in addition to Windows Vista? And what does the DRM in Windows stop you from doing that you would like to do?