he entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset.
Maybe in Apple's world, but in the rest of the world this isn't true. While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
That contract has always been fairly egregious and overbearing, and is the reason why I don't develop for iOS for my own products. I have, and will, develop for iOS as an employee or contractor for someone else, though, since I don't have to sign that stupid agreement for that.
First, "MInority Report" wasn't really very loopy or complex, so that's a weird comparison to make. Second, yet another zombie movie? No thanks. I'm zombied out for the next decade or two.
it _is_ an american organization, built, operated and paid for by americans.
Why is this an important thing to point out? Everyone knows it, and it is totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the NSA is behaving properly.
Not only so, it also operates to futher american governmental policies, and protects american citizens,
Also irrelevant to the underlying issue. You seem to be trying to argue that the NSA is actually a good organization that acts responsibly and appropriately. I disagree. Whatever good it does (and yes, it does some good) is overshadowed by the bad.
Personally, I partially agree with TheGratefulNet. Trying to obstruct NSA surveillance is a good thing -- even a patriotic thing. My agreement is partial, though, because the best thing to do is try to protect yourself from all attackers, not just the NSA. Fortunately, what you have to do to accomplish that is the same regardless of who the attacker is.
Windows 8 has UI problems, but most can be fixed with third party software.
Which means that Windows 8 UI design was not in a good place. If you have to use third party software to fix something, that means it was broken.
Office has its own problems and it's rather big and bloated, but it is mostly reliable; people would have abandoned it in droves if that were not true.
Which means that Office is not in a good place as well. Office is much worse than it used to be even though it is, as you say, mostly reliable. It's also a huge pain in the ass to use. I know a lot of people who use Office, but I don't know anyone who says that Office is a wonderful piece of software. The only reason that they don't change is because of the lock-in effect.
Microsoft's developer software continue to be solid and their cloud offerings are following suit.
As someone who uses that developer software every single day, I disagree. It is stable, but it also has some real usability problems. As to the cloud, as I said before, I don't know and don't care as I have no interest in the cloud and therefore haven't been following their offerings at all.
Their biggest problem in the past year has been with software updates. They have pushed out multiple updates to Windows that have broken significant numbers of systems. They need to get that problem cleared up ASAP.
That's funny -- because while what you say about them is true, the software updates didn't even occur to me since they have never caused me a single problem. Unlike much of the rest of their software.
Yes, this latest fad (or at least I hope that it's a fad) of rolling releases is doing great harm to the quality of software being released as a whole by the industry. It's also causing all kinds of other problems both technical and in terms of user experience. This approach can't die fast enough.
MS, while often derided, makes some really good SW these days, especially their "cloud" stuff like Azure. Nothing touches it.
Maybe that's true -- I wouldn't know, since I have less than zero interest in using the cloud either as a user or as a developer. However, the Microsoft software that I do actually use is not what I'd call "really good", and has generally been declining in quality.
You're right, Apple has never made incredible software, but I wonder if the decline in their software quality is related to the decline in the quality of software being produced by the industry across the board?
Linux and the OSS companies largely copy either Apple or MS or both.
It isn't what you're running on your box that they're interested in, anymore, it's what you're connecting to for your business layer. If they can get *nix customers connecting to Azure on.NET, I think they'd call that a win.
God, I hope that's the case. Since I won't touch cloudy services with a ten foot pole, this would mean that Microsoft will finally stop being a pain in my butt.
It seems to me what they want to do is make it just difficult enough that Joe Average will shell out the bucks rather than figure out how to use Tor et al.
What they clearly want to do is break the internet. However, if their goal is to stop infringement by Joe Average, this effort would fail. What will happen is an alternate system will be set up by those of us who know how to do such things (whether we engage in piracy or not -- it doesn't matter), then we'll encourage everyone to use it and when we set up machines for our nontech friends and family, we'll set them up to use the alternate system as well.
The customers would never have had access to the music catalogs of the major music labels were it not for deals to implement DRM and patch holes when that DRM is exploited.
Absolutely not true. Customers had access to those music catalogs before iTunes existed, both in legal and illegal ways. I think what you meant was that Apple would never have had access.
And if there are many people whom the DRM doesn't inconvenience, then there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format. The popularity of video game consoles, DVD, and iTunes Music Store prior to 2009 has shown that there do exist enough customers willing to tolerate DRM to keep a market going.
True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.
Think back to 1983 and 1984 when the North American video game market crashed due to too much choice.
Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.
DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.
This also doesn't resemble the truth at all. If there were no such thing as DRM, there would be just as much content being produced. Or, at least, there isn't any indication that wouldn't be true.
So end users were faced with a choice between VCD/SVCD, which has no DRM and no major titles, and DVD, which has DRM and major titles.
because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.
This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.
You want to buy music from multiple vendors on your mobile device?
Who wouldn't want that?
Well we need a standard and open platform like the PC, where any vendor can add their hardware, software or DRM.
We have such a thing, so that's good, but I would argue that DRM is not only unnecessary, it needs to die a fiery death.
Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.
True enough, which is reason #2 that I will never own Apple anything. Reason #1 why I will never use Apple music devices is that would force me to use iTunes, which sucks beyond measure.
I hate attending funerals and only do it because I'm expected to. Would the existence of livestreaming allow me to skip the whole thing while claiming that I took part via the stream? If so, then I'm greatly in favor of it!
Slashdot Mirror
he entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset.
Maybe in Apple's world, but in the rest of the world this isn't true. While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
That contract has always been fairly egregious and overbearing, and is the reason why I don't develop for iOS for my own products. I have, and will, develop for iOS as an employee or contractor for someone else, though, since I don't have to sign that stupid agreement for that.
Not me. There is nobody in Hoolywood that I would trust with any of those stories.
First, "MInority Report" wasn't really very loopy or complex, so that's a weird comparison to make. Second, yet another zombie movie? No thanks. I'm zombied out for the next decade or two.
it _is_ an american organization, built, operated and paid for by americans.
Why is this an important thing to point out? Everyone knows it, and it is totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the NSA is behaving properly.
Not only so, it also operates to futher american governmental policies, and protects american citizens,
Also irrelevant to the underlying issue. You seem to be trying to argue that the NSA is actually a good organization that acts responsibly and appropriately. I disagree. Whatever good it does (and yes, it does some good) is overshadowed by the bad.
Personally, I partially agree with TheGratefulNet. Trying to obstruct NSA surveillance is a good thing -- even a patriotic thing. My agreement is partial, though, because the best thing to do is try to protect yourself from all attackers, not just the NSA. Fortunately, what you have to do to accomplish that is the same regardless of who the attacker is.
Windows 8 has UI problems, but most can be fixed with third party software.
Which means that Windows 8 UI design was not in a good place. If you have to use third party software to fix something, that means it was broken.
Office has its own problems and it's rather big and bloated, but it is mostly reliable; people would have abandoned it in droves if that were not true.
Which means that Office is not in a good place as well. Office is much worse than it used to be even though it is, as you say, mostly reliable. It's also a huge pain in the ass to use. I know a lot of people who use Office, but I don't know anyone who says that Office is a wonderful piece of software. The only reason that they don't change is because of the lock-in effect.
Microsoft's developer software continue to be solid and their cloud offerings are following suit.
As someone who uses that developer software every single day, I disagree. It is stable, but it also has some real usability problems. As to the cloud, as I said before, I don't know and don't care as I have no interest in the cloud and therefore haven't been following their offerings at all.
Their biggest problem in the past year has been with software updates. They have pushed out multiple updates to Windows that have broken significant numbers of systems. They need to get that problem cleared up ASAP.
That's funny -- because while what you say about them is true, the software updates didn't even occur to me since they have never caused me a single problem. Unlike much of the rest of their software.
Yes, this latest fad (or at least I hope that it's a fad) of rolling releases is doing great harm to the quality of software being released as a whole by the industry. It's also causing all kinds of other problems both technical and in terms of user experience. This approach can't die fast enough.
Jobs was a brilliant software architect.
He was competent, but certainly not brilliant. What he was brilliant at was marketing.
God, I miss the Newton.
Audio software that can't handle broken MP3 tags is audio software with a pretty major bug.
I know people that can count on one hand how many phone calls they make in a month from their smartphones...
I'm one of those! I just looked at my call log. In December, I placed a total of three calls from my cell phone.
MS, while often derided, makes some really good SW these days, especially their "cloud" stuff like Azure. Nothing touches it.
Maybe that's true -- I wouldn't know, since I have less than zero interest in using the cloud either as a user or as a developer. However, the Microsoft software that I do actually use is not what I'd call "really good", and has generally been declining in quality.
You're right, Apple has never made incredible software, but I wonder if the decline in their software quality is related to the decline in the quality of software being produced by the industry across the board?
Linux and the OSS companies largely copy either Apple or MS or both.
You have that backwards.
So you want an implicit tone that helps to hide the actual, factual history of Microsoft?
The ones they are using to extort from many Android-based phones, for starters.
I don't think Microsoft cares much about helping IT "get further" as such. It only cares about maximizing profit.
It isn't what you're running on your box that they're interested in, anymore, it's what you're connecting to for your business layer. If they can get *nix customers connecting to Azure on .NET, I think they'd call that a win.
God, I hope that's the case. Since I won't touch cloudy services with a ten foot pole, this would mean that Microsoft will finally stop being a pain in my butt.
It seems to me what they want to do is make it just difficult enough that Joe Average will shell out the bucks rather than figure out how to use Tor et al.
What they clearly want to do is break the internet. However, if their goal is to stop infringement by Joe Average, this effort would fail. What will happen is an alternate system will be set up by those of us who know how to do such things (whether we engage in piracy or not -- it doesn't matter), then we'll encourage everyone to use it and when we set up machines for our nontech friends and family, we'll set them up to use the alternate system as well.
The customers would never have had access to the music catalogs of the major music labels were it not for deals to implement DRM and patch holes when that DRM is exploited.
Absolutely not true. Customers had access to those music catalogs before iTunes existed, both in legal and illegal ways. I think what you meant was that Apple would never have had access.
And if there are many people whom the DRM doesn't inconvenience, then there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format. The popularity of video game consoles, DVD, and iTunes Music Store prior to 2009 has shown that there do exist enough customers willing to tolerate DRM to keep a market going.
True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.
Think back to 1983 and 1984 when the North American video game market crashed due to too much choice.
Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.
DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.
This also doesn't resemble the truth at all. If there were no such thing as DRM, there would be just as much content being produced. Or, at least, there isn't any indication that wouldn't be true.
So end users were faced with a choice between VCD/SVCD, which has no DRM and no major titles, and DVD, which has DRM and major titles.
And that was good for consumers how?
because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.
This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.
You want to buy music from multiple vendors on your mobile device?
Who wouldn't want that?
Well we need a standard and open platform like the PC, where any vendor can add their hardware, software or DRM.
We have such a thing, so that's good, but I would argue that DRM is not only unnecessary, it needs to die a fiery death.
Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.
True enough, which is reason #2 that I will never own Apple anything. Reason #1 why I will never use Apple music devices is that would force me to use iTunes, which sucks beyond measure.
Whatever harm iTunes did, seems to have resulted in a far more vibrant marketplace now than it was years ago.
Be careful about confusing causation with correlation.
I don't know if it's different outside North America, but try to count the number of funerals you've been to
8
and then how many of those were open-casket.
8
I hate attending funerals and only do it because I'm expected to. Would the existence of livestreaming allow me to skip the whole thing while claiming that I took part via the stream? If so, then I'm greatly in favor of it!