It's also pretty humorous you pretend like moving to Android is a world free or testing woes, when there you have to contend with a multitude of devices capabilities and form factors and resolutions - I guess you meant to say where you can just throw something out without worrying about testing. Sadly, I care too much about my users to do so.
I didn't mean to imply that you don't do testing with Android, just that the testing is another usage of your time that might be wasted if the app is ultimately rejected. I'm not comfortable with the fact that a corporation could choose to deny my application to its users if my application happens to clash with their plans, e.g. if they plan on releasing their own application to do something similar. I would rather the users have the choice. I don't like the requirement that applications cannot duplicate functionality, that implies that the current functionality can't be improved upon.
The whole premise that I could spend a significant amount of time developing something that I think is really useful only to have some faceless corporate entity outright disallow my application is something that I don't think I'll ever get used to. Imagine if all Windows software had to be explicitly approved by Microsoft, it just makes for a very hostile relationship between the developers and the manufacturer, and it's not a behavior that I want to encourage by following their rules, even if it means shrinking my customer base.
I have for example done things for clients, where some emergency came up shortly after I left and I came back to resolve that issue, often unpaid because I felt responsible for the work I had done.
Sure, I've done the same thing, but in every single one of those instances the customer initially paid for what I did, which is why I felt obligated to fix the mistakes that were my fault. When I post something online for someone to use, I feel no obligation to help them with every problem they might have. I'll help them if I can, but if I can't I don't feel bad about it. They got my work for free, and frankly since they're using my work instead of developing their own their problems could probably be solved by a few programming classes. I'm not trying to sound arrogant, because I'm well aware of my many shortcomings, but I get pretty frustrated when I post some pretty complex classes for PHP or something like that and I get questions from people who can't figure out how to process a form, or how to connect to a database, and they expect help from me because they're using one of my classes. They're trying to use my work without knowing how to program, and I don't feel obligated to hand-hold every one of them through the learning process.
planning to write a replacement for some of the more useful portions that I am going to open source as well... The fact he published this framework slowed works on other frameworks
Why don't you and the community get together and just fix this framework instead of everyone making their own?
You're right, that's exactly what I'm assuming. I'm not sure that's such a crazy assumption to make, at least for those of us that don't make a habit of wearing metal on our heads.
If you really want to change a platform you do it from the inside, but pushing the edge of what it can do and push the platform maker for new capabilities.
Correct, if your goal is to change a platform then it would make sense to stick with it.
If you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time trying to develop, test, and get your application approved on the one distribution channel you have available and you realize that you can release applications for other platforms quicker (no review process), ensure that your efforts won't be completely in vain (by having your application rejected), and want to distribute your software yourself, then you may decide that the iPhone isn't a viable platform on which to spend your efforts.
C'mon - name a single thing Microsoft would gain by having a backdoor into any Windows installation. Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.
It makes zero business sense to create a backdoor in Windows.
I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure, so that those same targets outside of the US cannot get into the US government systems.
The NSA doesn't need to rely on Windows to gain access to other networks, but considering the fact that many government systems are running Windows, the National Security Agency definitely has an interest in making sure those systems are secure.
An LMS is a learning management system, that's where they keep their online training courses. The company I work for makes an LMS and also training courses, we've done a lot of courses for the Air Force. I'm not sure if we've done a course for ARMS, but we've got courses for the GATES system, CHARM, ATOC, and some other courses for the Air Mobility Command or Air Mobility Warfare Center (now the Expeditionary Center). I even got to hang out at McGuire AFB once and watch the Blue Angels practice. Small world..
It looks like this is our list of courses developed for the EC:
Air Freight AMOC AOC Fundamentals APEX APEX Refresher ARM ATOC Cargo Prep Customer Service Data Records FEMO GATES Load Planning MHE OPREP PAX Stage Manager
This is an example of the ARM course, that looks more like soft skills training than a software sim, so it's probably not related.
Because he put forth a library written by someone with a lot more knowledge than the average user of the library.
I fail to see how that obliges him to do anything. The users should feel lucky that he published the API at all, he could have chosen not to. Would it be a better situation, in your opinion, if he kept it to himself the whole time? If he releases an API he's not under any obligation to support everyone who makes a free choice to use his published work in their own products. It sounds more to me like he was so dissatisfied with Apple and the difficulties surrounding development that continuing to support it wasn't even an option for him. I'm sure at the beginning he fully intended to support it, but things change. If the users don't like it, then they can quit whining and step up to the plate and take control themselves, or they can move to another API. If his API is either the best or only one available then, again, the users should feel lucky that he even decided to release it at all, because they're still benefiting from his work.
I'm fully aware that the vast majority of iPhone apps make very little profit, if only there was a way to make a lot money quickly with relatively little effort on the developer's part...
this is merely a patent with the potential to do good... or do harm
Or both, it doesn't need to be one or the other. It can provide a source of revenue for legitimate developers and also be abused by the unsavory. The fact that applications such as Koi Pond, iFart, Bubblewrap, Flashlight, Ruler, A Level, Alarm Clock, Tip Calculator etc are in the top 10 for popularity indicates that people are willing to download any useless thing, iPhone apps aren't exactly the paragon of programming achievement. It would be almost trivial for a single developer to create one robust advertising engine and apply it to many superficial apps like those, and it's also easy enough to make the ads only kick in after a week or so, to make sure the install base gets as large as possible before you hit everyone. It's not exactly a stretch to think that some online pharmacy, casino, diploma mill, or Folex distributor would be willing to pay a few thousand to a developer to get their ads out to tens or hundreds of thousands of people instantly, and to know that each one of them is forced to look at the ad. And hey, for the right price I'm sure the developer would be happy to provide a list of working phone numbers to their clients also, it wouldn't be the first time an iPhone developer harvested phone numbers. Sure, the apps may get yanked after that, but the money's already in the bank, and the developer makes a new account and comes back with Flashlight Pro or whatever else and does it all over again.
100,000 apps does not translate to 100,000 developers. Believe it or not, but someone who creates such a groundbreaking application as iFart could also turn around and create another magnum opus such as Bubblewrap. Similarly, the Genius minds behind Ruler may also decide to branch out and develop A Level. And considering that all 4 of those are (or were) in the top 10 for most popular apps, why not?
But Joe lost any right to complain when he abandoned the people that relied on his expert judgment in the creation of a framework.
I was sort of with you until there. Why does this guy have an obligation to help everyone who can't figure it out themselves? Why is the developer community entitled to his knowledge and experience? If he was upset at how Apple is controlling things then he has every right to take his toys and go home, and complain about it all the way home. Developers who can't do things themselves have no automatic entitlement to anyone else's expertise, his guidance is given purely on a volunteer basis, and he's completely allowed to stop volunteering his expertise whenever he wants to, for any reason.
If I was a knowledgeable member of an extremely locked-down development community where everyone else felt entitled to my knowledge, I would probably leave also and find people who appreciate what I do a little bit more.
I also had a bug report for when you tried to add a prerequisite that didn't exist to a training task (the system tracked flight Air Force crew training and experience), an error would pop up that said "All this time and it still doesn't work..." In that case, apparently debugging was as far as anyone ever got.
Please tell me these aren't the same developers who wrote the Air Force's current LMS. If so, that would explain a lot. I actually submitted a bug report to the Air Force once about their LMS complete with the section of code (Javascript) that was incorrect, an explanation about why it was incorrect, the corrected code, and an explanation about why the changes fixed the issue. They responded and said that they were "reluctant" to agree with me, and never made the changes.
Oh yeah, the "bug fix" was the difference between this:
score = parseInt(score);
and this:
score = parseInt(score, 10); if (isNaN(score)) score = 0;
preventing other companies from doing it would improve the industry as a whole. You disagreed with that statement
Maybe I misunderstood you, but this is what you said:
they can in some small way improve the cell phone industry by ensuring that no one ever designs a free phone or a low cost cellular plan
I will continue to disagree with you that giving Apple the power to ensure that no one produces a free cell phone will improve the cell phone industry. That is not a power that Apple should have, it's not their decision to make. Like I said in my original reply, if the market can sustain a free ad-supported phone it's not Apple's decision to say who is allowed to produce it. You're giving Apple monopoly power here, and yeah, I disagree with that. I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's what you said.
First, f you read my original post, you would understand that I said this would be okay if it were used by REAL apps that offer TWO versions, one ad-supported, one not. Not scammers who create an app solely to sell advertising.
Ah, so you assume the scammers are going to play by your rules instead of theirs.
I think it's safe to say the latter would probably not get past app review
Oh of course, because as we all know the Apple app review process is a paragon of fairness and transparency, and could never be abused. I mean, it's not like anyone who reviews the apps would have a financial motive to approve apps submitted by their "affiliates", right? But hey, since it's a closed environment you can be *sure* that each app has been throughly tested! Why bother to think about application security for yourself, that's what Apple is for right? Maybe this is what they mean by "think different".
and if an app does do significantly more than show ads, then that means it takes significant time to create the software
What do you mean, you mean apps like Bonzi Buddy, original Weatherbug, BargainBuddy, CoolWebSearch, Internet Optimizer, Movieland, Zango, etc? You mean software like that? I mean, Bonzi Buddy helps you find bargains, that's totally useful, right?!
It's not like they could just turn around and create a new one overnight when people rate it badly.
Actually, it's exactly like that. When you've got tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just waiting to come to you when you get your next distribution channel open, you tend to hire however many programmers you need from however many countries you can to get it done now.
Second, even if they did sneak a useless app that abused such advertising functionality past app review once, I doubt they would be able to do it twice with the same developer account.
You're right, they will probably not be able to post another app. Under the same account.
So you're basically saying that scammers would repeatedly spend a hundred bucks on new accounts just to gain ad revenue.
Congratulations, you've got it, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you have a single advertiser paying you $1,000 to advertise their product, how many developer accounts does that buy? What if you have a single advertiser paying you $10,000? What if you have 100 advertisers paying you $10,000?
You need a pretty decent dual core PC to play high end HD video (1080/60p, for example) using 100% of both CPUs.
No you don't, you need a $100 HD-DVD player from Toshiba, that will play the video just fine.
I realize that there are processor demands on HD video, but decoding and playing a video doesn't really compare to rendering every detail in a 3D scene, it's just entirely different technology.
I've got to give to you, that's some impressive logic. I haven't seen something that straightforward since my last spaghetti dinner.
Let me make one thing perfectly crystal clear: I hate advertising and marketing in all of its forms. Marketing is based on a false premise, if the product was so fantastic they wouldn't need to market it. I would never advocate mandatory ads. What I AM advocating is not allowing Apple to dictate what everyone else can or cannot do. I have zero trust in Apple, and my opinion of them as a company is only slightly higher than my opinion of advertisers.
You seem to assume that Apple is only patenting things so that they can stop others from doing them instead of doing them themselves, and I see no evidence that would be the case. Steve Jobs has his name first on this patent on the list of "inventors". Historically, for patents granted to Apple it is very rare for Steve to list himself first. That fact alone makes me unwilling to assume that Apple never intends to use this patent themselves. To me it seems more like Steve is real impressed with himself for thinking of this great idea and can't wait to monetize it.
Apple has a track record of doing things that are anti-consumer, but they absolutely excel at dressing those things up in a way that makes them look beneficial (i.e., marketing). I see you've taken their bait hook, line, and sinker, and now you're willing to give Apple control over what their industry can and cannot do.
The fact that you haven't ever owned an iPhone means you don't know what you're talking about. When you have a closed ecosystem like the iPhone with only one app store, ratings can make or break your download rate even for free apps. And when people delete apps from their iPhones, they are asked to rate the apps right then. If they're angry about having been forced to watch a bunch of ads, the app's ratings will decline rapidly, and the app will stop getting downloaded equally rapidly.
You're missing the big picture. Yeah, one app gets rated down and banned, then what? Then the exact same lowlifes come back with a new company name, a new program name, everything is new except the code, and they go through the process all over again. All they need to do in order to make money is make sure that their advertisers end up paying them more than the developer fees they pay to Apple. Look at any other piece of malware for examples, look at domain squatters, look at phishers, look at the scum pushing free toolbars and emoticons or whatever shitty software bundles their crap. There is a ridiculous amount of this type of thing going on, but it's not like every scammer has a single thing they're working on. They come back with different names, different products, different domains, different servers, different companies, and they're still pushing the same shit for their same advertisers and still installing the same malware. If you think a spammer is going to post a single app, let it get rated down, and go away to find something else to do, then you're incredibly naive.
There's a name we use for people like you, and it's "apologist". "Fanboy" also comes to mind. Let me ask you this: if Microsoft patented a method for enforcing viewing of advertisements, would you be applauding them for "improving the industry", or would you look at their track record and think it's just another anti-consumer money grab?
FYI: we've had sufficient hardware to play video for about the past 60 years or so.
Surely you're not trying to suggest that playing a video, even a 1080p video, even approaches the level of processing required to render a 3D scene with the aspects I've mentioned. We could also throw in pixel shading, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, and dynamic shadows if you want.
It could be worse. It could stand for the HELL Energetic Liquid Laser.
Also, I'm wondering when the military brainchidren are going to develop the GREATSATAN weapon. Surely this too will help improve our image among people who already think we're controlled by the devil.
"Ultimate" doesn't even mean "awesome", it means last or final. People use it to describe something impressive as saying that it's the final thing or the peak, that nothing can go beyond it.
If a device can display video at 1080p 24+ frames per second, what's the point of more?
Displaying a video and rendering a 3d scene are two entirely different things. With a video you don't need textures, bump mapping, or dynamic lighting, you just play the frames.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also pretty humorous you pretend like moving to Android is a world free or testing woes, when there you have to contend with a multitude of devices capabilities and form factors and resolutions - I guess you meant to say where you can just throw something out without worrying about testing. Sadly, I care too much about my users to do so.
I didn't mean to imply that you don't do testing with Android, just that the testing is another usage of your time that might be wasted if the app is ultimately rejected. I'm not comfortable with the fact that a corporation could choose to deny my application to its users if my application happens to clash with their plans, e.g. if they plan on releasing their own application to do something similar. I would rather the users have the choice. I don't like the requirement that applications cannot duplicate functionality, that implies that the current functionality can't be improved upon.
The whole premise that I could spend a significant amount of time developing something that I think is really useful only to have some faceless corporate entity outright disallow my application is something that I don't think I'll ever get used to. Imagine if all Windows software had to be explicitly approved by Microsoft, it just makes for a very hostile relationship between the developers and the manufacturer, and it's not a behavior that I want to encourage by following their rules, even if it means shrinking my customer base.
I have for example done things for clients, where some emergency came up shortly after I left and I came back to resolve that issue, often unpaid because I felt responsible for the work I had done.
Sure, I've done the same thing, but in every single one of those instances the customer initially paid for what I did, which is why I felt obligated to fix the mistakes that were my fault. When I post something online for someone to use, I feel no obligation to help them with every problem they might have. I'll help them if I can, but if I can't I don't feel bad about it. They got my work for free, and frankly since they're using my work instead of developing their own their problems could probably be solved by a few programming classes. I'm not trying to sound arrogant, because I'm well aware of my many shortcomings, but I get pretty frustrated when I post some pretty complex classes for PHP or something like that and I get questions from people who can't figure out how to process a form, or how to connect to a database, and they expect help from me because they're using one of my classes. They're trying to use my work without knowing how to program, and I don't feel obligated to hand-hold every one of them through the learning process.
planning to write a replacement for some of the more useful portions that I am going to open source as well ...
The fact he published this framework slowed works on other frameworks
Why don't you and the community get together and just fix this framework instead of everyone making their own?
or...
Why is there nothing comparable from Apple?
You're right, that's exactly what I'm assuming. I'm not sure that's such a crazy assumption to make, at least for those of us that don't make a habit of wearing metal on our heads.
If you really want to change a platform you do it from the inside, but pushing the edge of what it can do and push the platform maker for new capabilities.
Correct, if your goal is to change a platform then it would make sense to stick with it.
If you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time trying to develop, test, and get your application approved on the one distribution channel you have available and you realize that you can release applications for other platforms quicker (no review process), ensure that your efforts won't be completely in vain (by having your application rejected), and want to distribute your software yourself, then you may decide that the iPhone isn't a viable platform on which to spend your efforts.
That was a really long sentence.
C'mon - name a single thing Microsoft would gain by having a backdoor into any Windows installation. Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.
It makes zero business sense to create a backdoor in Windows.
I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure, so that those same targets outside of the US cannot get into the US government systems.
The NSA doesn't need to rely on Windows to gain access to other networks, but considering the fact that many government systems are running Windows, the National Security Agency definitely has an interest in making sure those systems are secure.
An LMS is a learning management system, that's where they keep their online training courses. The company I work for makes an LMS and also training courses, we've done a lot of courses for the Air Force. I'm not sure if we've done a course for ARMS, but we've got courses for the GATES system, CHARM, ATOC, and some other courses for the Air Mobility Command or Air Mobility Warfare Center (now the Expeditionary Center). I even got to hang out at McGuire AFB once and watch the Blue Angels practice. Small world..
It looks like this is our list of courses developed for the EC:
Air Freight
AMOC
AOC Fundamentals
APEX
APEX Refresher
ARM
ATOC
Cargo Prep
Customer Service
Data Records
FEMO
GATES
Load Planning
MHE
OPREP
PAX
Stage Manager
This is an example of the ARM course, that looks more like soft skills training than a software sim, so it's probably not related.
Because he put forth a library written by someone with a lot more knowledge than the average user of the library.
I fail to see how that obliges him to do anything. The users should feel lucky that he published the API at all, he could have chosen not to. Would it be a better situation, in your opinion, if he kept it to himself the whole time? If he releases an API he's not under any obligation to support everyone who makes a free choice to use his published work in their own products. It sounds more to me like he was so dissatisfied with Apple and the difficulties surrounding development that continuing to support it wasn't even an option for him. I'm sure at the beginning he fully intended to support it, but things change. If the users don't like it, then they can quit whining and step up to the plate and take control themselves, or they can move to another API. If his API is either the best or only one available then, again, the users should feel lucky that he even decided to release it at all, because they're still benefiting from his work.
And yours implies (states, actually) that the best developers remain instead of moving to more open and potentially profitable platforms.
Don't worry, you'll still be able to find Flashlight Pro and Bubblewrap for years to come.
Even most paid apps don't make that much money
I'm fully aware that the vast majority of iPhone apps make very little profit, if only there was a way to make a lot money quickly with relatively little effort on the developer's part...
this is merely a patent with the potential to do good ... or do harm
Or both, it doesn't need to be one or the other. It can provide a source of revenue for legitimate developers and also be abused by the unsavory. The fact that applications such as Koi Pond, iFart, Bubblewrap, Flashlight, Ruler, A Level, Alarm Clock, Tip Calculator etc are in the top 10 for popularity indicates that people are willing to download any useless thing, iPhone apps aren't exactly the paragon of programming achievement. It would be almost trivial for a single developer to create one robust advertising engine and apply it to many superficial apps like those, and it's also easy enough to make the ads only kick in after a week or so, to make sure the install base gets as large as possible before you hit everyone. It's not exactly a stretch to think that some online pharmacy, casino, diploma mill, or Folex distributor would be willing to pay a few thousand to a developer to get their ads out to tens or hundreds of thousands of people instantly, and to know that each one of them is forced to look at the ad. And hey, for the right price I'm sure the developer would be happy to provide a list of working phone numbers to their clients also, it wouldn't be the first time an iPhone developer harvested phone numbers. Sure, the apps may get yanked after that, but the money's already in the bank, and the developer makes a new account and comes back with Flashlight Pro or whatever else and does it all over again.
Where there's money
Actually, that's what seems to be the problem.
100,000 apps does not translate to 100,000 developers. Believe it or not, but someone who creates such a groundbreaking application as iFart could also turn around and create another magnum opus such as Bubblewrap. Similarly, the Genius minds behind Ruler may also decide to branch out and develop A Level. And considering that all 4 of those are (or were) in the top 10 for most popular apps, why not?
But Joe lost any right to complain when he abandoned the people that relied on his expert judgment in the creation of a framework.
I was sort of with you until there. Why does this guy have an obligation to help everyone who can't figure it out themselves? Why is the developer community entitled to his knowledge and experience? If he was upset at how Apple is controlling things then he has every right to take his toys and go home, and complain about it all the way home. Developers who can't do things themselves have no automatic entitlement to anyone else's expertise, his guidance is given purely on a volunteer basis, and he's completely allowed to stop volunteering his expertise whenever he wants to, for any reason.
If I was a knowledgeable member of an extremely locked-down development community where everyone else felt entitled to my knowledge, I would probably leave also and find people who appreciate what I do a little bit more.
Access, while perhaps not "so great/must have" doesn't really have a viable alternative on any other platform.
Access doesn't have a truly viable solution under Windows, either. At least, not if you care about your data.
I also had a bug report for when you tried to add a prerequisite that didn't exist to a training task (the system tracked flight Air Force crew training and experience), an error would pop up that said "All this time and it still doesn't work..." In that case, apparently debugging was as far as anyone ever got.
Please tell me these aren't the same developers who wrote the Air Force's current LMS. If so, that would explain a lot. I actually submitted a bug report to the Air Force once about their LMS complete with the section of code (Javascript) that was incorrect, an explanation about why it was incorrect, the corrected code, and an explanation about why the changes fixed the issue. They responded and said that they were "reluctant" to agree with me, and never made the changes.
Oh yeah, the "bug fix" was the difference between this:
score = parseInt(score);
and this:
score = parseInt(score, 10);
if (isNaN(score)) score = 0;
preventing other companies from doing it would improve the industry as a whole. You disagreed with that statement
Maybe I misunderstood you, but this is what you said:
they can in some small way improve the cell phone industry by ensuring that no one ever designs a free phone or a low cost cellular plan
I will continue to disagree with you that giving Apple the power to ensure that no one produces a free cell phone will improve the cell phone industry. That is not a power that Apple should have, it's not their decision to make. Like I said in my original reply, if the market can sustain a free ad-supported phone it's not Apple's decision to say who is allowed to produce it. You're giving Apple monopoly power here, and yeah, I disagree with that. I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's what you said.
First, f you read my original post, you would understand that I said this would be okay if it were used by REAL apps that offer TWO versions, one ad-supported, one not. Not scammers who create an app solely to sell advertising.
Ah, so you assume the scammers are going to play by your rules instead of theirs.
I think it's safe to say the latter would probably not get past app review
Oh of course, because as we all know the Apple app review process is a paragon of fairness and transparency, and could never be abused. I mean, it's not like anyone who reviews the apps would have a financial motive to approve apps submitted by their "affiliates", right? But hey, since it's a closed environment you can be *sure* that each app has been throughly tested! Why bother to think about application security for yourself, that's what Apple is for right? Maybe this is what they mean by "think different".
and if an app does do significantly more than show ads, then that means it takes significant time to create the software
What do you mean, you mean apps like Bonzi Buddy, original Weatherbug, BargainBuddy, CoolWebSearch, Internet Optimizer, Movieland, Zango, etc? You mean software like that? I mean, Bonzi Buddy helps you find bargains, that's totally useful, right?!
It's not like they could just turn around and create a new one overnight when people rate it badly.
Actually, it's exactly like that. When you've got tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just waiting to come to you when you get your next distribution channel open, you tend to hire however many programmers you need from however many countries you can to get it done now.
Second, even if they did sneak a useless app that abused such advertising functionality past app review once, I doubt they would be able to do it twice with the same developer account.
You're right, they will probably not be able to post another app. Under the same account.
So you're basically saying that scammers would repeatedly spend a hundred bucks on new accounts just to gain ad revenue.
Congratulations, you've got it, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you have a single advertiser paying you $1,000 to advertise their product, how many developer accounts does that buy? What if you have a single advertiser paying you $10,000? What if you have 100 advertisers paying you $10,000?
You need a pretty decent dual core PC to play high end HD video (1080/60p, for example) using 100% of both CPUs.
No you don't, you need a $100 HD-DVD player from Toshiba, that will play the video just fine.
I realize that there are processor demands on HD video, but decoding and playing a video doesn't really compare to rendering every detail in a 3D scene, it's just entirely different technology.
I've got to give to you, that's some impressive logic. I haven't seen something that straightforward since my last spaghetti dinner.
Let me make one thing perfectly crystal clear: I hate advertising and marketing in all of its forms. Marketing is based on a false premise, if the product was so fantastic they wouldn't need to market it. I would never advocate mandatory ads. What I AM advocating is not allowing Apple to dictate what everyone else can or cannot do. I have zero trust in Apple, and my opinion of them as a company is only slightly higher than my opinion of advertisers.
You seem to assume that Apple is only patenting things so that they can stop others from doing them instead of doing them themselves, and I see no evidence that would be the case. Steve Jobs has his name first on this patent on the list of "inventors". Historically, for patents granted to Apple it is very rare for Steve to list himself first. That fact alone makes me unwilling to assume that Apple never intends to use this patent themselves. To me it seems more like Steve is real impressed with himself for thinking of this great idea and can't wait to monetize it.
Apple has a track record of doing things that are anti-consumer, but they absolutely excel at dressing those things up in a way that makes them look beneficial (i.e., marketing). I see you've taken their bait hook, line, and sinker, and now you're willing to give Apple control over what their industry can and cannot do.
The fact that you haven't ever owned an iPhone means you don't know what you're talking about. When you have a closed ecosystem like the iPhone with only one app store, ratings can make or break your download rate even for free apps. And when people delete apps from their iPhones, they are asked to rate the apps right then. If they're angry about having been forced to watch a bunch of ads, the app's ratings will decline rapidly, and the app will stop getting downloaded equally rapidly.
You're missing the big picture. Yeah, one app gets rated down and banned, then what? Then the exact same lowlifes come back with a new company name, a new program name, everything is new except the code, and they go through the process all over again. All they need to do in order to make money is make sure that their advertisers end up paying them more than the developer fees they pay to Apple. Look at any other piece of malware for examples, look at domain squatters, look at phishers, look at the scum pushing free toolbars and emoticons or whatever shitty software bundles their crap. There is a ridiculous amount of this type of thing going on, but it's not like every scammer has a single thing they're working on. They come back with different names, different products, different domains, different servers, different companies, and they're still pushing the same shit for their same advertisers and still installing the same malware. If you think a spammer is going to post a single app, let it get rated down, and go away to find something else to do, then you're incredibly naive.
There's a name we use for people like you, and it's "apologist". "Fanboy" also comes to mind. Let me ask you this: if Microsoft patented a method for enforcing viewing of advertisements, would you be applauding them for "improving the industry", or would you look at their track record and think it's just another anti-consumer money grab?
FYI: we've had sufficient hardware to play video for about the past 60 years or so.
Surely you're not trying to suggest that playing a video, even a 1080p video, even approaches the level of processing required to render a 3D scene with the aspects I've mentioned. We could also throw in pixel shading, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, and dynamic shadows if you want.
Sounds perfectly cromulent to me.
It could be worse. It could stand for the HELL Energetic Liquid Laser.
Also, I'm wondering when the military brainchidren are going to develop the GREATSATAN weapon. Surely this too will help improve our image among people who already think we're controlled by the devil.
"Ultimate" doesn't even mean "awesome", it means last or final. People use it to describe something impressive as saying that it's the final thing or the peak, that nothing can go beyond it.
If a device can display video at 1080p 24+ frames per second, what's the point of more?
Displaying a video and rendering a 3d scene are two entirely different things. With a video you don't need textures, bump mapping, or dynamic lighting, you just play the frames.
Well sure, but who has to go recover the goat? For that you need goat-recovering dogs.