I think that the term "Computer" should really be saved for a device that is a little more open.
A computer is any device with one or more microcontrollers. There's already a term for a computer that is open and intended for any general purpose user program: Personal Computer. Apparently, some people want all computers to be PCs, which is silly.
I don't need another device for doing "content creation". I already have one of those I use when I'm at work. When I'm at home or traveling, I want something light I can use to keep in touch with people and entertain myself; I'd rather carry an iPad than a 7 lb laptop.
That's the beauty of software; it wouldn't add any weight or bulk to the device.
But it can add feature bloat, instability, slowness, shorter battery life, and complexity. All of this undermines the intended use of the iPad.
You really think that this device is subsidized? I can't imagine where you think it should cost more then $499 for the base unit to be manufactured, and the base software written. This is more expensive then I can buy a fully functional laptop for, are you saying a laptop is subsidized?
I'm assuming a 100% markup beyond component costs, which isn't unreasonable for electronics, afaik. Component cost is estimated at $260. After other costs like warranty and manufacturing, it's guessed Apple ends up with a 50% markup. That said, is it immoral to charge too much for an unnecessary luxury item?
Your comparison of the iPad to a laptop is insufficient, since the most costly components of a tablet are the touch-screen. That $500 is roughly equal to (or cheaper than) comparable windows-based tablets. Again, I guarantee if Apple didn't make a percentage of all App Store sales, and the App Store wasn't the only way to get applications, the iPad and iPhone hardware would be more costly in order to maintain the same lifetime device profit margin.
Check my response above. Apple subsidizes the iPad/Phone through locking it to the App Store. There is a substantial economic motivation to keep it locked. And yes, it gives a benefit to the user, as the purchase price is lower than otherwise.
I see them as well within their rights to seek to prevent circumventing this. The DMCA also makes it legal for them to do so, whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, we don't buy it. End of story.
If we don't like walled garden systems, we don't enter them in the first place. Since Apple hardly holds a monopoly, this is quite simple to do. There's nothing immoral with creating a walled garden, only with forcing users into it. That isn't the case here, you have other options.
The difference, of course, is that Sony advertised Other OS as a feature, and it was purchased as such. The iPad and iPhone never advertised nor implied that you could run any general user software.
It is wrong to remove an advertised feature, but it isn't wrong (particularly from a moral standpoint) to not add something that wasn't advertised.
Except that Apple actively works to prevent people from using their device in "unapproved" ways. We are not just talking about missing features, we are talking about a deliberate effort to restrict people, and a complete and utter failure to mention that detail to the unsuspecting consumers who purchase these devices.
The 'unsuspecting' users don't care. Those who do care generally know better, and thus just shouldn't buy it if it bothers them that much.
As for working to prevent people from using it beyond 'approved' uses, it's because your purchased is subsidized by the App Store lock-in. They sell it cheaper because they make money off of you through the App Store (and from AT&T for the iPhone). Note video game consoles, which are often sold for a loss. If you wanted to get away from this model, be prepared to pay more.
I don't think it's immoral to subsidize the price through the lock-down. I also don't think Apple is wrong not to release a more expensive unlocked (and therefor unsubsidized) version. I can understand the reason to want it, but not the moral imperitive to make it mandatory.
Which was exactly my point, and which is immoral on the part of Apple.
Immoral, really? It makes it no longer a PC, that's all. Your alarm clock has a microcontroller on it as well, is it immoral for them to tell you how you can use it? Is it immoral that my microwave oven's warranty is voided if I replace the firmware?
Its uses are intentionally limited for the sake of people who aren't geeks. If unrestricted access is a necessity for you, then just don't buy the damn thing! Or, you jailbreak it and accept the consequences of the voided warranty.
There is nothing 'immoral' about building a device without general-purpose software access. Just because you think it is, or want it to be a PC, that doesn't make it wrong for Apple not to make it one.
Don't you think it's a little early to be saying that? You might end up being 100% correct, and Avatar could be the only movie in the history of 3D movies to do it 'right'. But it could also be like claiming the generation 1 Prius in 1997 was the one-hit wonder of hybrid vehicles. Ten years later, that's definitely not the case.
And that's the problem. Why are more applications available for closed platforms? Are open platforms not attractive enough? Are open platform users not willing to pay for apps/games? Is it really that hard to conquer the market with an open platform?
We'll see how Android goes. Would be nice if it won, though it's still not quite as open as I'd like.
Several reasons. First, the developers like closed environments because it's a known quantity, and piracy is generally better controlled (see PC vs. console gaming). Add that since the owner is the gate-keeper, they may also be willing to throw money at the developers to make exclusives, and part of this reason is the owner of the closed system makes money from it. Apple makes money from all App Store sales, Microsoft makes money from every game sold for the XBox. On the other hand, Microsoft makes no money when you buy a game for PC. Guess which method they prefer?
From the consumer standpoint, the closed solution is usually simpler than the open system. Your average user doesn't even understand what they're doing with Windows if something goes wrong, is it any wonder Linux has almost no market penetration on the desktop? If the closed system provider can create a slicker and simpler to use system that has attracted more developers, most users won't know what they're missing on the open platform.
That said, I enjoy my Android phone. What exactly isn't as open as you'd like about it? It's about as open as I want my phone to be.
I can't think of a single HONEST use for caller ID spoofing. What legitimate uses are there?
A Google Voice/Skype/other VoIP service which wants to identify itself as the actual caller, rather than the ID of the owner of the hardware link between the internet and phone network.
And what Android-based alternative to an iPod Touch do you recommend for someone who doesn't want another phone bill?\
Again, it seems you need to either choose the closed solution which meets your needs, or deal without.
My needs expanded, and my phone failed to expand with them.
It may not necessarily be your fault, but is that Apple's fault? They sold a product for a specific purpose which used to fit your needs, but now you wish it also did something else. I should clarify my definition of 'complain': it's complaining to expect them to make the change you want; it's not complaining to simply wish that they would make the change, yet understand if they don't.
So the question is which is more important to you: the openness of the platform, or the number of applications (games) available?
That choice shouldn't have to be taken. Why should I have to have one box exclusively for major-label video games and a separate box exclusively for independent video games?
I don't think the choice should exist, but I understand why it does. What makes a good system for independent developers is not necessarily good for the big developers. Likewise, what makes a good environment for the major label developers doesn't translate to a good environment for indies. Similarly, different users receive different benefits from open and more closed systems. For example, because XBox Live is a closed system they are better able to ban cheaters and abusive players.
I think it's difficult to expect that companies be required to provide all the benefits of an open environment, at the same time that they provide the benefits of the closed environment. Do we really need the government forcing manufacturers to allow user code on any device with a microprocessor? Until someone figures out a magical system that does the job of both systems equally well, we're stuck with a choice.
The problem here is that it gives the manufacturers too much power that's ripe for abuse. Most people don't want to develop for whatever platform, so they buy a closed platform. The people who do want to write for a platform don't have enough market power to sway anything, so they're out of luck.
Either way, purchasing or developing for a closed system is a tacit statement that you are willing to sacrifice that openness for convenience (more applications, and so on). Is it any wonder Apple and others have made a killing on closed systems? The benefits of convenience make enough of a difference that people are plenty willing to sacrifice freedoms to develop or use the device in certain ways. You can't have it both ways, so people need to pick which is most important to them.
Congress has recognized this problem in a non-computing context. If you buy aftermarket parts for your car, the manufacturer is not permitted to void your warranty. We need similar protection for software. If I install homebrew software on a closed platform, the manufacturer should not be permitted to void my warranty either.
This only applies to voiding warranty purely by the brand name of the part. In other words, if you are allowed to replace the oil pan on your Prius with a Toyota brand pan without voiding the waranty, you must also be able to replace it with a generic oil pan. It does allow them to void the warranty for particular part replacements. For example, they can void warranties for any frame modifications, then simply not provide a vendor frame modification (or only provide it free of charge).
So, we have a first-party OS on the iPhone. By simply not allowing OS replacements other than the free updates provided by Apple, they are actually following the letter of the law. Beyond that, they are not even allowing/prohibiting applications purely by brand name (as the law prohibits). They approve/deny each program individually, and thus still wouldn't run afoul of this law.
If this came out of the blue (formerly allowing all applications and advertising as such, then removing the capability) then I think you have a point. As it is, there was never any pretense that custom software beyond the app store was a feature of the phone. Hell, there was a time you couldn't even write a native application for the iPhone!
If you buy an iPhone when you really wanted an Android phone
What handset should someone have bought instead between when iPhone with iPhone OS 2.0 came out (July 2008) and when Motorola Droid came out (November 2009)?
The G1/HTC Dream came out in October 2008. If the iPhone isn't suitable, then why buy it in the first place? Put another way, if you are purchasing a phone with the expectation that it doesn't meet your needs, how much can you really complain afterward?
or an XBox 360 when you wanted a PC
I want a PC and its comparative openness, but some of my favorite video game genres are horribly underrepresented on PC.
Most of the genres that are more highly represented on console than PC that I can think of involve the kinds of game best played on a couch with others (party games, etc). Anything in particular you're thinking of?
So the question is which is more important to you: the openness of the platform, or the number of applications (games) available? You may not be able to pick both.
When I subscribe to an opinion, I hold strong to it. I don't just forget about it a week later. I have been a 3G user and hobbyist programmer since it launched. I am frustrated by Apple's walled garden greatly since it had began. I am still not convinced it is protecting me from crapware.
So do you feel strongly about it, or not? You bought into the walled garden in the first place, it wasn't forced onto you or a surprise (you yourself admit it frustrated you from the beginning).
The fact that you claim to hold strongly to opinions, yet still bought into the walled garden is exactly my point. If even you bought into it, of course those who aren't as 'strong willed' as you will buy in as well. Obviously Apple's App Store tactics aren't enough to prevent people from buying their device, so they have no incentive to stop.
To expand, the phrase means the measure's primary effect must be to control access. So, CSS fits the bill but MP3 compression does not. Simply being compiled for only a single platform may not by itself be effectively controlling without other mitigating circumstances (for example, that platform being a closed platform to which access is controlled.
I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the iPhone is not, and was never intended to be, a general-purpose computing device. The development model, OS and user experience are designed to bring console-style simplicity and reliability to a smartphone. It works, and everyone is really happy with it, other than a few geeks who just can't grasp that it's not designed to be a really really small laptop.
Agreed. If you buy an iPhone when you really wanted an Android phone, or an XBox 360 when you wanted a PC, or any number of other closed-platform solutions when what you wanted was an open-platform you have only yourself to blame.
After you have bought the device that doesn't fit your requirements is the wrong time to complain about it. Either don't buy it, or deal with the limitations. Simply buying the closed device and then complaining that it's closed continues to funnel money towards that closed platform, and away from the open platform you should have purchased instead. Suddenly, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The music industry also gets revenue from far more places than the PC gaming industry. Music gets radio and internet royalties per play, as well as big licensing deals for use in TV/movies/commercials, beyond people buying a physical or digital copy. PC game makers only get money when people buy the disk or download, that's basically it. You can bet your ass they will want to defend their only income stream, or work to create new ones like paid demos (also note the proliferation of paid DLC on the consoles).
...making a downloadable copy of a game (ie putting it on a server) has no real extra cost (you'd be serving up website, updates, extra maps, etc anyway).
I don't think they're worried about server costs. Hell, usually somebody else is paying for those anyway (FilePlanet, Big Download, or Live/PSN for the console). The cost they do have is the additional development time to create a separate, miniature version of the game. This also requires testing, distribution setups, and overall extra man-hours.
Compound this with the fact that a winery doesn't have to deal with piracy. If you like that wine you tasted and want a bottle, you need to buy it. If you like that game demo and want the full game, many players will not purchase it (or will buy used). The benefit for the company of the extra publicity doesn't necessarily translate to greater sales, so this is the companies trying to salvage it.
It's a raw deal for everyone involved, but I can't say I blame them.
Bear in mind that Sony includes OS updates on disks, for those without internet connectivity. Pretty soon, if you want to keep OtherOS you will have to skip certain games as well.
At least, unlike most state's official state birds, this microbe has a direct effect on the state's economy.
Legislatures do a hell of a lot of purely laudatory actions, we only hear about them when they're strange or funny. For example, Michigan's no-meat Saturday, responded to by a US Representative from MI proposing National Meat Appreciation Day. Sure, it's also a bit of political wrangling, but it's still equally a waste of elected official's time.
Oh, yeah, they have a pretty good football team from their city Green Bay. The team's fans are called "cheese-heads," and attend games wearing giant wedges of cheese as hats.
I'm betting that probably 99% of iPhone users will never hear about this and even they did they would give a resigned yawn and not care.
Those that do hear will rant viciously about it, only to forget it happened within the week. The vast majority will continue to use their iPhone, purchase another is lost or broken, and may even upgrade.
For an example of this behavior in alpha-male geeks, see the Modern Warfare 2 'boycott'. Most people will rant about it, but not change their purchasing decisions, which is why Apple/IW/every other company can do almost whatever they want without hurting their bottom line.
But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.
Exactly, if I were in charge of curating items to publish, I would avoid those which could be considered libelous or slanderous. Doubly so if these applications could be released in multiple nations which have unique sets of laws regarding defamation. And it's a no brainer, since I would be under no compulsion to approve it, legally or otherwise.
Not quite. Now, these are significantly less harmful than the tar and such in cigarettes, but to say it's 100% pure nicotine is false.
The bigger plus is that most of these chemicals are absorbed by the user, rather than dispersed second-hand. There are still trace amounts of harmful things in the solutions, not sure how much is released secondhand.
As have I. I'd love a simulation where time, money, laws, and regard for my own life or that of others were of no importance. Take a monster truck and crush cars at the 270 split! Race on the razors edge down the shoulder as you approach the GW Parkway!
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the term "Computer" should really be saved for a device that is a little more open.
A computer is any device with one or more microcontrollers. There's already a term for a computer that is open and intended for any general purpose user program: Personal Computer. Apparently, some people want all computers to be PCs, which is silly.
I don't need another device for doing "content creation". I already have one of those I use when I'm at work. When I'm at home or traveling, I want something light I can use to keep in touch with people and entertain myself; I'd rather carry an iPad than a 7 lb laptop.
That's the beauty of software; it wouldn't add any weight or bulk to the device.
But it can add feature bloat, instability, slowness, shorter battery life, and complexity. All of this undermines the intended use of the iPad.
You really think that this device is subsidized? I can't imagine where you think it should cost more then $499 for the base unit to be manufactured, and the base software written. This is more expensive then I can buy a fully functional laptop for, are you saying a laptop is subsidized?
I'm assuming a 100% markup beyond component costs, which isn't unreasonable for electronics, afaik. Component cost is estimated at $260. After other costs like warranty and manufacturing, it's guessed Apple ends up with a 50% markup. That said, is it immoral to charge too much for an unnecessary luxury item?
Your comparison of the iPad to a laptop is insufficient, since the most costly components of a tablet are the touch-screen. That $500 is roughly equal to (or cheaper than) comparable windows-based tablets. Again, I guarantee if Apple didn't make a percentage of all App Store sales, and the App Store wasn't the only way to get applications, the iPad and iPhone hardware would be more costly in order to maintain the same lifetime device profit margin.
Check my response above. Apple subsidizes the iPad/Phone through locking it to the App Store. There is a substantial economic motivation to keep it locked. And yes, it gives a benefit to the user, as the purchase price is lower than otherwise.
I see them as well within their rights to seek to prevent circumventing this. The DMCA also makes it legal for them to do so, whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, we don't buy it. End of story.
If we don't like walled garden systems, we don't enter them in the first place. Since Apple hardly holds a monopoly, this is quite simple to do. There's nothing immoral with creating a walled garden, only with forcing users into it. That isn't the case here, you have other options.
I assume you refer to removing Other OS.
The difference, of course, is that Sony advertised Other OS as a feature, and it was purchased as such. The iPad and iPhone never advertised nor implied that you could run any general user software.
It is wrong to remove an advertised feature, but it isn't wrong (particularly from a moral standpoint) to not add something that wasn't advertised.
Except that Apple actively works to prevent people from using their device in "unapproved" ways. We are not just talking about missing features, we are talking about a deliberate effort to restrict people, and a complete and utter failure to mention that detail to the unsuspecting consumers who purchase these devices.
The 'unsuspecting' users don't care. Those who do care generally know better, and thus just shouldn't buy it if it bothers them that much.
As for working to prevent people from using it beyond 'approved' uses, it's because your purchased is subsidized by the App Store lock-in. They sell it cheaper because they make money off of you through the App Store (and from AT&T for the iPhone). Note video game consoles, which are often sold for a loss. If you wanted to get away from this model, be prepared to pay more.
I don't think it's immoral to subsidize the price through the lock-down. I also don't think Apple is wrong not to release a more expensive unlocked (and therefor unsubsidized) version. I can understand the reason to want it, but not the moral imperitive to make it mandatory.
Which was exactly my point, and which is immoral on the part of Apple.
Immoral, really? It makes it no longer a PC, that's all. Your alarm clock has a microcontroller on it as well, is it immoral for them to tell you how you can use it? Is it immoral that my microwave oven's warranty is voided if I replace the firmware?
Its uses are intentionally limited for the sake of people who aren't geeks. If unrestricted access is a necessity for you, then just don't buy the damn thing! Or, you jailbreak it and accept the consequences of the voided warranty.
There is nothing 'immoral' about building a device without general-purpose software access. Just because you think it is, or want it to be a PC, that doesn't make it wrong for Apple not to make it one.
Don't you think it's a little early to be saying that? You might end up being 100% correct, and Avatar could be the only movie in the history of 3D movies to do it 'right'. But it could also be like claiming the generation 1 Prius in 1997 was the one-hit wonder of hybrid vehicles. Ten years later, that's definitely not the case.
And that's the problem. Why are more applications available for closed platforms? Are open platforms not attractive enough? Are open platform users not willing to pay for apps/games? Is it really that hard to conquer the market with an open platform?
We'll see how Android goes. Would be nice if it won, though it's still not quite as open as I'd like.
Several reasons. First, the developers like closed environments because it's a known quantity, and piracy is generally better controlled (see PC vs. console gaming). Add that since the owner is the gate-keeper, they may also be willing to throw money at the developers to make exclusives, and part of this reason is the owner of the closed system makes money from it. Apple makes money from all App Store sales, Microsoft makes money from every game sold for the XBox. On the other hand, Microsoft makes no money when you buy a game for PC. Guess which method they prefer?
From the consumer standpoint, the closed solution is usually simpler than the open system. Your average user doesn't even understand what they're doing with Windows if something goes wrong, is it any wonder Linux has almost no market penetration on the desktop? If the closed system provider can create a slicker and simpler to use system that has attracted more developers, most users won't know what they're missing on the open platform.
That said, I enjoy my Android phone. What exactly isn't as open as you'd like about it? It's about as open as I want my phone to be.
I can't think of a single HONEST use for caller ID spoofing. What legitimate uses are there?
A Google Voice/Skype/other VoIP service which wants to identify itself as the actual caller, rather than the ID of the owner of the hardware link between the internet and phone network.
And what Android-based alternative to an iPod Touch do you recommend for someone who doesn't want another phone bill?\
Again, it seems you need to either choose the closed solution which meets your needs, or deal without.
My needs expanded, and my phone failed to expand with them.
It may not necessarily be your fault, but is that Apple's fault? They sold a product for a specific purpose which used to fit your needs, but now you wish it also did something else. I should clarify my definition of 'complain': it's complaining to expect them to make the change you want; it's not complaining to simply wish that they would make the change, yet understand if they don't.
So the question is which is more important to you: the openness of the platform, or the number of applications (games) available?
That choice shouldn't have to be taken. Why should I have to have one box exclusively for major-label video games and a separate box exclusively for independent video games?
I don't think the choice should exist, but I understand why it does. What makes a good system for independent developers is not necessarily good for the big developers. Likewise, what makes a good environment for the major label developers doesn't translate to a good environment for indies. Similarly, different users receive different benefits from open and more closed systems. For example, because XBox Live is a closed system they are better able to ban cheaters and abusive players.
I think it's difficult to expect that companies be required to provide all the benefits of an open environment, at the same time that they provide the benefits of the closed environment. Do we really need the government forcing manufacturers to allow user code on any device with a microprocessor? Until someone figures out a magical system that does the job of both systems equally well, we're stuck with a choice.
The problem here is that it gives the manufacturers too much power that's ripe for abuse. Most people don't want to develop for whatever platform, so they buy a closed platform. The people who do want to write for a platform don't have enough market power to sway anything, so they're out of luck.
Either way, purchasing or developing for a closed system is a tacit statement that you are willing to sacrifice that openness for convenience (more applications, and so on). Is it any wonder Apple and others have made a killing on closed systems? The benefits of convenience make enough of a difference that people are plenty willing to sacrifice freedoms to develop or use the device in certain ways. You can't have it both ways, so people need to pick which is most important to them.
Congress has recognized this problem in a non-computing context. If you buy aftermarket parts for your car, the manufacturer is not permitted to void your warranty. We need similar protection for software. If I install homebrew software on a closed platform, the manufacturer should not be permitted to void my warranty either.
This only applies to voiding warranty purely by the brand name of the part. In other words, if you are allowed to replace the oil pan on your Prius with a Toyota brand pan without voiding the waranty, you must also be able to replace it with a generic oil pan. It does allow them to void the warranty for particular part replacements. For example, they can void warranties for any frame modifications, then simply not provide a vendor frame modification (or only provide it free of charge).
So, we have a first-party OS on the iPhone. By simply not allowing OS replacements other than the free updates provided by Apple, they are actually following the letter of the law. Beyond that, they are not even allowing/prohibiting applications purely by brand name (as the law prohibits). They approve/deny each program individually, and thus still wouldn't run afoul of this law.
If this came out of the blue (formerly allowing all applications and advertising as such, then removing the capability) then I think you have a point. As it is, there was never any pretense that custom software beyond the app store was a feature of the phone. Hell, there was a time you couldn't even write a native application for the iPhone!
If you buy an iPhone when you really wanted an Android phone
What handset should someone have bought instead between when iPhone with iPhone OS 2.0 came out (July 2008) and when Motorola Droid came out (November 2009)?
The G1/HTC Dream came out in October 2008. If the iPhone isn't suitable, then why buy it in the first place? Put another way, if you are purchasing a phone with the expectation that it doesn't meet your needs, how much can you really complain afterward?
or an XBox 360 when you wanted a PC
I want a PC and its comparative openness, but some of my favorite video game genres are horribly underrepresented on PC.
Most of the genres that are more highly represented on console than PC that I can think of involve the kinds of game best played on a couch with others (party games, etc). Anything in particular you're thinking of?
So the question is which is more important to you: the openness of the platform, or the number of applications (games) available? You may not be able to pick both.
When I subscribe to an opinion, I hold strong to it. I don't just forget about it a week later. I have been a 3G user and hobbyist programmer since it launched. I am frustrated by Apple's walled garden greatly since it had began. I am still not convinced it is protecting me from crapware.
So do you feel strongly about it, or not? You bought into the walled garden in the first place, it wasn't forced onto you or a surprise (you yourself admit it frustrated you from the beginning).
The fact that you claim to hold strongly to opinions, yet still bought into the walled garden is exactly my point. If even you bought into it, of course those who aren't as 'strong willed' as you will buy in as well. Obviously Apple's App Store tactics aren't enough to prevent people from buying their device, so they have no incentive to stop.
To expand, the phrase means the measure's primary effect must be to control access. So, CSS fits the bill but MP3 compression does not. Simply being compiled for only a single platform may not by itself be effectively controlling without other mitigating circumstances (for example, that platform being a closed platform to which access is controlled.
I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the iPhone is not, and was never intended to be, a general-purpose computing device. The development model, OS and user experience are designed to bring console-style simplicity and reliability to a smartphone. It works, and everyone is really happy with it, other than a few geeks who just can't grasp that it's not designed to be a really really small laptop.
Agreed. If you buy an iPhone when you really wanted an Android phone, or an XBox 360 when you wanted a PC, or any number of other closed-platform solutions when what you wanted was an open-platform you have only yourself to blame.
After you have bought the device that doesn't fit your requirements is the wrong time to complain about it. Either don't buy it, or deal with the limitations. Simply buying the closed device and then complaining that it's closed continues to funnel money towards that closed platform, and away from the open platform you should have purchased instead. Suddenly, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The music industry also gets revenue from far more places than the PC gaming industry. Music gets radio and internet royalties per play, as well as big licensing deals for use in TV/movies/commercials, beyond people buying a physical or digital copy. PC game makers only get money when people buy the disk or download, that's basically it. You can bet your ass they will want to defend their only income stream, or work to create new ones like paid demos (also note the proliferation of paid DLC on the consoles).
...making a downloadable copy of a game (ie putting it on a server) has no real extra cost (you'd be serving up website, updates, extra maps, etc anyway).
I don't think they're worried about server costs. Hell, usually somebody else is paying for those anyway (FilePlanet, Big Download, or Live/PSN for the console). The cost they do have is the additional development time to create a separate, miniature version of the game. This also requires testing, distribution setups, and overall extra man-hours.
Compound this with the fact that a winery doesn't have to deal with piracy. If you like that wine you tasted and want a bottle, you need to buy it. If you like that game demo and want the full game, many players will not purchase it (or will buy used). The benefit for the company of the extra publicity doesn't necessarily translate to greater sales, so this is the companies trying to salvage it.
It's a raw deal for everyone involved, but I can't say I blame them.
Bear in mind that Sony includes OS updates on disks, for those without internet connectivity. Pretty soon, if you want to keep OtherOS you will have to skip certain games as well.
At least, unlike most state's official state birds, this microbe has a direct effect on the state's economy.
Legislatures do a hell of a lot of purely laudatory actions, we only hear about them when they're strange or funny. For example, Michigan's no-meat Saturday, responded to by a US Representative from MI proposing National Meat Appreciation Day. Sure, it's also a bit of political wrangling, but it's still equally a waste of elected official's time.
Oh, yeah, they have a pretty good football team from their city Green Bay. The team's fans are called "cheese-heads," and attend games wearing giant wedges of cheese as hats.
Seriously.
Only on /. does a reference to the Packer's 'Cheese-heads' require a link to photographic proof that you aren't joking...
And I'm not sure what you are betting on.
I'm betting that probably 99% of iPhone users will never hear about this and even they did they would give a resigned yawn and not care.
Those that do hear will rant viciously about it, only to forget it happened within the week. The vast majority will continue to use their iPhone, purchase another is lost or broken, and may even upgrade.
For an example of this behavior in alpha-male geeks, see the Modern Warfare 2 'boycott'. Most people will rant about it, but not change their purchasing decisions, which is why Apple/IW/every other company can do almost whatever they want without hurting their bottom line.
But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.
Exactly, if I were in charge of curating items to publish, I would avoid those which could be considered libelous or slanderous. Doubly so if these applications could be released in multiple nations which have unique sets of laws regarding defamation. And it's a no brainer, since I would be under no compulsion to approve it, legally or otherwise.
Not quite. Now, these are significantly less harmful than the tar and such in cigarettes, but to say it's 100% pure nicotine is false.
The bigger plus is that most of these chemicals are absorbed by the user, rather than dispersed second-hand. There are still trace amounts of harmful things in the solutions, not sure how much is released secondhand.
As have I. I'd love a simulation where time, money, laws, and regard for my own life or that of others were of no importance. Take a monster truck and crush cars at the 270 split! Race on the razors edge down the shoulder as you approach the GW Parkway!
I can see it being a great stress reliever :)