I don't think the scientific discoveries are in conflict with faith, but rather with the words published in the various Bibles (all of which were written by humans, regardless of various claims to divine inspiration.)...
Even if they were divinely inspired that does not undercut various Church's statements that the words of the bible are figurative not literal. To have a conversation a common language and a common set of concepts have to be used. God may be "all knowing" but if he's talking to a primitive nomadic shepherd he would have to use words and concepts that such a shepherd would understand.
... I think that as a scientist, the observable facts would have to always take precedence over the written down stories...
Not if the words of the bible are taken figuratively rather than literally, in such a case there is no conflict so no precedence is necessary.
...What impact will that have on the framework of belief or faith in the divine?
None for the churches that believe the bible contains figurative language rather than literal truth.
Are you able to go back to your church and say "this book was an allegory written to explain things back when the world was simpler"?
Isn't that essentially what the churches I reference are saying?
And won't that statement require the next logical question, which is, "who's to say which parts of the book are right and which parts are wrong?"
The Catechism you reference explicitly says that genesis uses figurative language. The difference between science and faith seems to only be with respect to a "soul" not the material body.
"390 The account of the fall in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM
"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. ...
Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
The LISA 6502 assembler had an integrated IDE on the Apple II. It did syntax checking and some code generation in real time, doing something useful with all those CPU cycles as it sat there waiting for you to type.
Science is the process of understanding, or at least generating workable knowledge, through observation, theorizing, and testing. The process of science is antithetical to faith since it requires that you test everything.
No. The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops. In more recent times the Catholic church has stated that scientific discoveries are not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. Various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs. Basically that faith addresses areas that are beyond human observation and discovery, the intentions and expectations of God.
Science is the antithesis of religion... A central tenant of science is that you could be wrong, that seems to conflict with religion. Which is not to say you can't have faith and be a scientist. Just that you would have to keep a fair amount of mental separation between the two. I would even go so far as to say that to be a good scientist you would have to question your faith.
The Catholic church is fine with science. I believe they have officially stated that scientific discovery is not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. The church operates an observatory and does real science and collaborates with various universities. The man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest in addition to being a cosmologist and physics professor. The scientific method was established in Western culture by medieval clergymen.
I believe various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs and attitudes towards science. Basically they accept scientific discovery as the explanation of the mechanics of God's universe. How things work from elementary particles to the cosmological. That science and religion address mutually exclusive fields, science the mechanics of the universe, religion the intentions and expectations of God.
Simulators can be very useful for pilot training. However their training value varies greatly depending on the task to be performed. Things relating to standard procedures and corrective actions for unforeseen events may be more useful, things related to air combat maneuvering (ACM) less so. Certainly ACM can be taught at an academic level in a simulator, learning the mechanics of a particular maneuver, being able to replay things from different vantage points, including your opponents. However the experience of actually feeling the g-forces during ACM is very important. Learning/practicing proper technique for maintaining consciousness, learning your personal limits, etc need actual flight time and the skills developed during this flight time are perishable. G-forces are also another input your brain learns to use. With experience a pilot can estimate how many degrees they have turned based on g-force and time, "that feels like 90 degrees", its just another thing that contributes to situational awareness and may negate the need to check a compass or external reference point. Handy if you have a more pressing thing to do.
30% is only for in-app purchases. There are free apps that actually require payment to work. You pay on the developer's site and sign in inside the app. How does the submitter think Netflix subscriptions are paid on iOS?
Its not quite that simple. I don't think the app itself can send the user to the web site for the purchase. I believe this sort of service can only work when you have a pre-existing service outside of iOS apps, as is the case with your Netflix example. iOS apps can merely access such pre-existing paid services, not sign up for them.
Apple should probably pay MS to port MS Office to iOS and preinstall it on ipads. That could tilt the movement to Android back in their direction.
For infrequent office document use, Apple's Pages and Numbers mac apps seem to have good Word and Excel compatibility, at least for the basic documents and spreadsheets that I have created and/or received. The Pages and Numbers ios apps are able to share documents with their mac counterparts via iCloud, admittedly I have not done much work via an iPad, just minor edits and emailing of documents.
Its not retail that the Mac App Store would compete against. It the online stores of Microsoft, Adobe and other large publishers who can afford their own digital distribution channels.
The Mac App Store makes more sense when you are small and "unknown". If you have a well known and established product that people "seek out" then offering your own online store may be the better route.
Apple is getting out of the computer biz and has been for a long time. It's a bit of an open secret that by 2014 - 2015 the only mac computers you will be able to buy are the Air, iMac, and Mini, and I'm not too sure about the Mini. The iPhone and iPad ARE the future of Apple Computers.
The iPhone and iPad are already the heart of Apple. Yet I don't see how the above is getting out of the computer business. The scenario you describe seems like consolidating four product lines into two. For consumers and many developers the MacBook Air may very well be a viable alternative for the MacBook Pro once the Air gets a storage update or two. Personally going with a Pro today is really about saving $380 compared to the 13" Air with a 256MB SSD and external DVD. Once 256MB SSDs make it into the lower end models I might go Air. Performance wise my tasks are more disk bound than CPU bound. I don't need retina since I am normally using an external monitor on a desk. I think I could make a similar argument regarding iMac and Mac Pro. The Pro is already a niche machine.
IMO the most you could say is that Apple would be focusing more on consumers and neglecting the highest end of the customer spectrum. Well that is already the case. FWIW, most developers can get along quite nicely with the consumer lines.
It's not as if they would release 2 ipad versions in one year, completely killing the brand new tablet you bought 6 month earlier...
The second version could do what, exactly, that the first version could not do?
While I agree that "completely killing" is a gross overstatement and I also agree with your sentiment in general that most users would not notice a difference between the 3rd and 4th gen iPads, I would not rule out the possibility that for some there is a noticeable difference.
From 2nd to 3rd gen iPads the GPU goes from dual to quad core, memory from 512 MB to 1024 MB, and the screen resolution doubles (retina display, 4x pixels).
From 3rd to 4th gen iPads the CPU goes from 1.0 GHz to 1.4 and the GPU from 250 MHz to 300.
My understanding is that **some** games run slower on 3rd gen than they do on 2nd gen. There are 4 times as many pixels to update on that retina display and apparently the GPU cores update was not enough. The 4th gen with its CPU and GPU speed updates apparently does not have the same performance issue as the 3rd gen on these games.
For those worried about the resale value of their 3rd gen iPads. Find local developers, they will be more interested than the public in general. Developers will want these slightly slower models for testing purposes.
Seems like a good thing for android developers. The current simulator is a bit slow.
Honestly devices are better. Getting a $300 Nexus 4 phone or a $200 Nexus 7 tablet for development purposes is the way to go. The simulator is fine for limited use, primarily for different screens to test your user interface, but for day to day work I prefer actual devices. YMMV.
If you look at the businesses that have succeeded using FOSS every. single. one. has used one of the "blessed three" business models, selling support, selling hardware, holding out a tin cup.
Google.
So is there a 4th model - selling targeted advertising? Or is this just selling support where the customer is an advertiser rather than a user?
... How is it helpful to have the goggles shine with green laser light to cool them off in this situation?
Presumably the system would be completely self contained. Neither the laser nor the fluorescing being visible. Maybe we can think of the fluorescing as a mechanism to conduct heat from the electronic components to the case of the NVG. Of course that would heat up the NVG case but perhaps it is not emitting in the iR anymore than the person's face underneath it. More info is needed.
I've seen multiple posts like this one, and they all seem to be missing a huge point (maybe I'm getting trolled?... look at how inefficient this process is!?! I'm sure it's extremely useful and interesting for a great many cases, but I don't see (pun) how this is good for night vision goggles.
I'm not arguing that it would work or even be practical. There must be easier ways to conduct heat, methods that don't add to battery usage. I'm just pointing out that the laser and the fluorescence are internal to the unit, and that only key electronic components need to be cooled not the entire unit.:-)
The primary purpose of Night Vision goggles is to see clearly in the dark in those times where you can't/won't use a torch. So, in times where you may not want to be seen yourself. How is it helpful to have the goggles shine with green laser light to cool them off in this situation?
Presumably the system would be completely self contained. Neither the laser nor the fluorescing being visible. Maybe we can think of the fluorescing as a mechanism to conduct heat from the electronic components to the case of the NVG. Of course that would heat up the NVG case but perhaps it is not emitting in the iR anymore than the person's face underneath it. More info is needed.
Schedule volume changes. My notifications turn off at night, but not my ringer, so important phone calls get through. I don't do a thing; it's automatic! This is important because I would forget to turn it back on in the morning.
Apple iOS also offers this. Its called "Do Not Disturb". You can define exceptions to let through, you can optionally let through an immediate second call from the same number, etc.
How about being able to copy files from PC to phone, from phone to phone, either through cable or standard bluetooth communication? I'm at a presentation showing a PDF to customers and I can't *give* it to them. Yes, I can put it on the internet and give them an URL, but even giving them the URL is painful on mobile!
In the past I loaded an arbitrary PDF into Apple's iBooks app. Its a technical document I wanted to have available even when offline. I just launched the iBooks app, I tap on the collections button to switch from books to PDFs, I tap on the share button and one of my options is email.
I just opened a spreadsheet using Apple's Numbers app. The spreadsheet is stored on iCloud and I access it both from computers and iOS devices. While on an iPad I tapped on the tools icon. One of my options under "share" is to email the spreadsheet. I opened a word processing document in Apple's Pages app. The same functionality is offered.
Note that both Numbers and Pages also offer an option to copy the document to iTunes. That will keep the document in sync between computers and iOS devices if one does not want to use iCloud.
They apparently made no provisions in the contract with Apple to continue the service and protect existing Lala customers. They could have required that these existing customers continue to be provided the Lala service for a reasonable timeframe but apparently they did not. Apple was free to shut it down in what looks like 5 months.
Is that really so simple? Does selling a company (with paying customers) free me of all my contractual obligations to these customers?
I would expect that the contractual obligations would transfer with the ownership. Perhaps Lala's EULA/contract with customers always allowed for termination of the service at any time.
From the article: "He [founder Bill Nguyen] called in a few favors and got a meeting with the leadership at Apple. He explained that he had offers from the largest mobile OS competitors and that they wanted to acquire his music startup."
That is not Apple hunting down and killing a competitor. That is a company shopping itself around and playing potential buyers off of each other to maximize the sale price.
My point is that the loss of the Lala service is not entirely Apple's fault. Lala's management deserves to share in that responsibility. They chose a buyer unlikely to continue the service. They apparently did not require a commitment from Apple to continue the service for current customers for a reasonable timeframe.
Apple didn't kill a competitor, a competitor simply sold out, taking $80M and abandoning their creation to others. They apparently made no provisions in the contract with Apple to continue the service and protect existing Lala customers. They could have required that these existing customers continue to be provided the Lala service for a reasonable timeframe but apparently they did not. Apple was free to shut it down in what looks like 5 months.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the scientific discoveries are in conflict with faith, but rather with the words published in the various Bibles (all of which were written by humans, regardless of various claims to divine inspiration.) ...
Even if they were divinely inspired that does not undercut various Church's statements that the words of the bible are figurative not literal. To have a conversation a common language and a common set of concepts have to be used. God may be "all knowing" but if he's talking to a primitive nomadic shepherd he would have to use words and concepts that such a shepherd would understand.
... I think that as a scientist, the observable facts would have to always take precedence over the written down stories ...
Not if the words of the bible are taken figuratively rather than literally, in such a case there is no conflict so no precedence is necessary.
None for the churches that believe the bible contains figurative language rather than literal truth.
Are you able to go back to your church and say "this book was an allegory written to explain things back when the world was simpler"?
Isn't that essentially what the churches I reference are saying?
And won't that statement require the next logical question, which is, "who's to say which parts of the book are right and which parts are wrong?"
A different post in this thread may be helpful: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3436333&cid=42801357
The Catechism you reference explicitly says that genesis uses figurative language. The difference between science and faith seems to only be with respect to a "soul" not the material body.
...
"390 The account of the fall in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM
"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
The LISA 6502 assembler had an integrated IDE on the Apple II. It did syntax checking and some code generation in real time, doing something useful with all those CPU cycles as it sat there waiting for you to type.
Science is the process of understanding, or at least generating workable knowledge, through observation, theorizing, and testing. The process of science is antithetical to faith since it requires that you test everything.
No. The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops. In more recent times the Catholic church has stated that scientific discoveries are not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. Various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs. Basically that faith addresses areas that are beyond human observation and discovery, the intentions and expectations of God.
Science is the antithesis of religion... A central tenant of science is that you could be wrong, that seems to conflict with religion. Which is not to say you can't have faith and be a scientist. Just that you would have to keep a fair amount of mental separation between the two. I would even go so far as to say that to be a good scientist you would have to question your faith.
The Catholic church is fine with science. I believe they have officially stated that scientific discovery is not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. The church operates an observatory and does real science and collaborates with various universities. The man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest in addition to being a cosmologist and physics professor. The scientific method was established in Western culture by medieval clergymen.
I believe various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs and attitudes towards science. Basically they accept scientific discovery as the explanation of the mechanics of God's universe. How things work from elementary particles to the cosmological. That science and religion address mutually exclusive fields, science the mechanics of the universe, religion the intentions and expectations of God.
Simulators can be very useful for pilot training. However their training value varies greatly depending on the task to be performed. Things relating to standard procedures and corrective actions for unforeseen events may be more useful, things related to air combat maneuvering (ACM) less so. Certainly ACM can be taught at an academic level in a simulator, learning the mechanics of a particular maneuver, being able to replay things from different vantage points, including your opponents. However the experience of actually feeling the g-forces during ACM is very important. Learning/practicing proper technique for maintaining consciousness, learning your personal limits, etc need actual flight time and the skills developed during this flight time are perishable. G-forces are also another input your brain learns to use. With experience a pilot can estimate how many degrees they have turned based on g-force and time, "that feels like 90 degrees", its just another thing that contributes to situational awareness and may negate the need to check a compass or external reference point. Handy if you have a more pressing thing to do.
30% is only for in-app purchases. There are free apps that actually require payment to work. You pay on the developer's site and sign in inside the app. How does the submitter think Netflix subscriptions are paid on iOS?
Its not quite that simple. I don't think the app itself can send the user to the web site for the purchase. I believe this sort of service can only work when you have a pre-existing service outside of iOS apps, as is the case with your Netflix example. iOS apps can merely access such pre-existing paid services, not sign up for them.
Apple should probably pay MS to port MS Office to iOS and preinstall it on ipads. That could tilt the movement to Android back in their direction.
For infrequent office document use, Apple's Pages and Numbers mac apps seem to have good Word and Excel compatibility, at least for the basic documents and spreadsheets that I have created and/or received. The Pages and Numbers ios apps are able to share documents with their mac counterparts via iCloud, admittedly I have not done much work via an iPad, just minor edits and emailing of documents.
What cut do you think retail takes?
Its not retail that the Mac App Store would compete against. It the online stores of Microsoft, Adobe and other large publishers who can afford their own digital distribution channels.
The Mac App Store makes more sense when you are small and "unknown". If you have a well known and established product that people "seek out" then offering your own online store may be the better route.
Apple is getting out of the computer biz and has been for a long time. It's a bit of an open secret that by 2014 - 2015 the only mac computers you will be able to buy are the Air, iMac, and Mini, and I'm not too sure about the Mini. The iPhone and iPad ARE the future of Apple Computers.
The iPhone and iPad are already the heart of Apple. Yet I don't see how the above is getting out of the computer business. The scenario you describe seems like consolidating four product lines into two. For consumers and many developers the MacBook Air may very well be a viable alternative for the MacBook Pro once the Air gets a storage update or two. Personally going with a Pro today is really about saving $380 compared to the 13" Air with a 256MB SSD and external DVD. Once 256MB SSDs make it into the lower end models I might go Air. Performance wise my tasks are more disk bound than CPU bound. I don't need retina since I am normally using an external monitor on a desk. I think I could make a similar argument regarding iMac and Mac Pro. The Pro is already a niche machine.
IMO the most you could say is that Apple would be focusing more on consumers and neglecting the highest end of the customer spectrum. Well that is already the case. FWIW, most developers can get along quite nicely with the consumer lines.
It's not as if they would release 2 ipad versions in one year, completely killing the brand new tablet you bought 6 month earlier...
The second version could do what, exactly, that the first version could not do?
While I agree that "completely killing" is a gross overstatement and I also agree with your sentiment in general that most users would not notice a difference between the 3rd and 4th gen iPads, I would not rule out the possibility that for some there is a noticeable difference.
From 2nd to 3rd gen iPads the GPU goes from dual to quad core, memory from 512 MB to 1024 MB, and the screen resolution doubles (retina display, 4x pixels).
From 3rd to 4th gen iPads the CPU goes from 1.0 GHz to 1.4 and the GPU from 250 MHz to 300.
My understanding is that **some** games run slower on 3rd gen than they do on 2nd gen. There are 4 times as many pixels to update on that retina display and apparently the GPU cores update was not enough. The 4th gen with its CPU and GPU speed updates apparently does not have the same performance issue as the 3rd gen on these games.
For those worried about the resale value of their 3rd gen iPads. Find local developers, they will be more interested than the public in general. Developers will want these slightly slower models for testing purposes.
Exactly, you _can't_ buy it.
"Out of Stock" is a temporary thing. Note that today above the "Add To Cart" button it says:
"SHIPS SOON
Ships in 1 - 2 weeks. Tax and shipping will be calculated at checkout."
(offtopic) The Nexus 7 I agree, but... Where can you buy a frikkin Nexus 4 for $300usd?
Google Play, 8GB. Currently out of stock. https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_4_8gb&feature=microsite&hl=en
Seems like a good thing for android developers. The current simulator is a bit slow.
Honestly devices are better. Getting a $300 Nexus 4 phone or a $200 Nexus 7 tablet for development purposes is the way to go. The simulator is fine for limited use, primarily for different screens to test your user interface, but for day to day work I prefer actual devices. YMMV.
Why does Slashdot even accept a submission in Fahrenheit when the subject is science?
Because you can't do car analogies in SI units. It just doesn't work.
Metric is fine for car analogies. Contemporary cars need metric tools, even US domestics.
If you look at the businesses that have succeeded using FOSS every. single. one. has used one of the "blessed three" business models, selling support, selling hardware, holding out a tin cup.
Google.
So is there a 4th model - selling targeted advertising? Or is this just selling support where the customer is an advertiser rather than a user?
But what cools the laser?
The heat sink with external cooling fins (maybe a low RPM fan ?) that the NVG electronics used to be connect to. :-)
... How is it helpful to have the goggles shine with green laser light to cool them off in this situation?
Presumably the system would be completely self contained. Neither the laser nor the fluorescing being visible. Maybe we can think of the fluorescing as a mechanism to conduct heat from the electronic components to the case of the NVG. Of course that would heat up the NVG case but perhaps it is not emitting in the iR anymore than the person's face underneath it. More info is needed.
I've seen multiple posts like this one, and they all seem to be missing a huge point (maybe I'm getting trolled? ... look at how inefficient this process is!?! I'm sure it's extremely useful and interesting for a great many cases, but I don't see (pun) how this is good for night vision goggles.
I'm not arguing that it would work or even be practical. There must be easier ways to conduct heat, methods that don't add to battery usage. I'm just pointing out that the laser and the fluorescence are internal to the unit, and that only key electronic components need to be cooled not the entire unit. :-)
The primary purpose of Night Vision goggles is to see clearly in the dark in those times where you can't/won't use a torch. So, in times where you may not want to be seen yourself. How is it helpful to have the goggles shine with green laser light to cool them off in this situation?
Presumably the system would be completely self contained. Neither the laser nor the fluorescing being visible. Maybe we can think of the fluorescing as a mechanism to conduct heat from the electronic components to the case of the NVG. Of course that would heat up the NVG case but perhaps it is not emitting in the iR anymore than the person's face underneath it. More info is needed.
Schedule volume changes. My notifications turn off at night, but not my ringer, so important phone calls get through. I don't do a thing; it's automatic! This is important because I would forget to turn it back on in the morning.
Apple iOS also offers this. Its called "Do Not Disturb". You can define exceptions to let through, you can optionally let through an immediate second call from the same number, etc.
How about being able to copy files from PC to phone, from phone to phone, either through cable or standard bluetooth communication? I'm at a presentation showing a PDF to customers and I can't *give* it to them. Yes, I can put it on the internet and give them an URL, but even giving them the URL is painful on mobile!
In the past I loaded an arbitrary PDF into Apple's iBooks app. Its a technical document I wanted to have available even when offline. I just launched the iBooks app, I tap on the collections button to switch from books to PDFs, I tap on the share button and one of my options is email.
I just opened a spreadsheet using Apple's Numbers app. The spreadsheet is stored on iCloud and I access it both from computers and iOS devices. While on an iPad I tapped on the tools icon. One of my options under "share" is to email the spreadsheet. I opened a word processing document in Apple's Pages app. The same functionality is offered.
Note that both Numbers and Pages also offer an option to copy the document to iTunes. That will keep the document in sync between computers and iOS devices if one does not want to use iCloud.
DTACK?
Yes, I loved it! DTACK Grounded was also a fun read.
They apparently made no provisions in the contract with Apple to continue the service and protect existing Lala customers. They could have required that these existing customers continue to be provided the Lala service for a reasonable timeframe but apparently they did not. Apple was free to shut it down in what looks like 5 months.
Is that really so simple? Does selling a company (with paying customers) free me of all my contractual obligations to these customers?
I would expect that the contractual obligations would transfer with the ownership. Perhaps Lala's EULA/contract with customers always allowed for termination of the service at any time.
From the article: "He [founder Bill Nguyen] called in a few favors and got a meeting with the leadership at Apple. He explained that he had offers from the largest mobile OS competitors and that they wanted to acquire his music startup."
That is not Apple hunting down and killing a competitor. That is a company shopping itself around and playing potential buyers off of each other to maximize the sale price.
My point is that the loss of the Lala service is not entirely Apple's fault. Lala's management deserves to share in that responsibility. They chose a buyer unlikely to continue the service. They apparently did not require a commitment from Apple to continue the service for current customers for a reasonable timeframe.
Apple didn't kill a competitor, a competitor simply sold out, taking $80M and abandoning their creation to others. They apparently made no provisions in the contract with Apple to continue the service and protect existing Lala customers. They could have required that these existing customers continue to be provided the Lala service for a reasonable timeframe but apparently they did not. Apple was free to shut it down in what looks like 5 months.
It seems biased to blame it all on Apple.