Not only has that not changed with the introduction of the iCloud features (it's been $99 since the program was introduced for iOS years ago) and that it's the same whether you use iCloud or not, but that storage has already been allotted to iCloud users (hence the reason developers don't have to pay more to use iCloud features), the interface to it doesn't affect the cost of it.
If all we know is that the level of piracy went up then we can't know what the BSA's effect was.
It seems you're missing the point: They haven't achieved their goal of mitigating piracy. Has piracy lessened? No, in fact it hasn't even stayed flat, it's increased! So what they are doing now obviously isn't right, it may be better than nothing but it's quite categorically not achieving their goal.
Which is exactly why - if anything - software piracy is helping companies get market share and eliminate competition. Better to use an alternative than to pirate.
In other markets this balances out because if a company's product is too expensive people turn to alternatives, when that company loses marketshare they either adapt - by lowering their price or adding more value - or they die, but in the case of software people can pirate and since in most cases a piracy != lost sale that won't kill the company but it will increase their marketshare. That can then get to the case in point where the market leader is perceived - by many - to be massively overpriced but since they are effectively the only game in town there are few - if any - viable alternatives.
I should have put this in the above post but personally I think the 'Free for non-Commercial Use' model is a good method for most paid software companies. I see it as viable predominantly because it wouldn't be far from the system we have now (as in it would require minimal changes) except that these home users - that are probably just using the software for hobby or educational purposes and can't justify the cost nor the infringement penalties anyway - would not be painted as 'criminals' and those who derive income from the tools they use would be the ones who pay for the development of said tools.
It's not a perfect solution and it's not the only solution, but it's more harmonious while being not too far removed from what we have now.
The blame lies 100% at the door of the greedy corporations who are gouging.
Not really. If you believe they are gouging then don't use their products, use a free alternative, like GIMP instead. Now the reason I say that is because I believe piracy is not a way of protest, in fact it just makes it worse. Consider that - as many here will attest - piracy != lost sale so piracy isn't necessarily 'hurting' the company, what it does is cement the idea that the software in question is the best (or at least 'necessary'), superior to cheaper or free alternatives, thus making it the de-facto standard in the market and driving out cheaper or free competitors.
The same thing happens with other software too, Windows for example. People claim to not like it and to pirate it to only use it out of necessity, but that just drives its use in the market leading to more people to use it out of necessity so to a degree piracy drives legitimate sales. Obviously if legitimate sales start to sag but usage continues to grow then the companies see piracy as a problem.
Doesn't that indicate that perhaps a different approach is required? This sue-happy, mafia-style campaign isn't working so perhaps that's not the right way to go about it. I don't have the solution but clearly neither do they.
Well that doesn't answer the question, iCloud isn't a Dropbox clone and that's not because it's restricted to app store applications, allowing non-app store applications to utilize it will not make it a Dropbox/Skydrive clone.
What do you think Apple should do? Enable iCloud access for free to any app, regardless of source?
Sure, why not? Pretty much all other cloud providers do it, if you're an iOS user you probably use iCloud to some extent so that would be the service you want applications to tie in to regardless of where the applications come from. There's no reason to lock out developers that don't want to (or can't for whatever reason) use the app store.
Instead your freedom will be spent building walls and training dogs to guard your belongings.
No-one is taking anything away from you, with that level of ridiculousness you might as well get on the *AA bandwagon of everything that is copied is stolen.
I have no problem with that. I just don't see how you can take OSX, put iOS's restrictions on it, and not have it fall apart.
Surely their target is for everyone to get everything from the app store and from a stability & security standpoint that probably makes sense. Maybe most of their users would be fine with it, who knows.
I also don't see how suck a restictive OS would be used for creating the Apps that fuel iOS.
Charge for a developer unlock seems logical from their perspective.
If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price).
Much more likely than 'picking the right price' it means the underwriters support the price by purchasing shares themselves...and the underwriters for Facebook's IPO certainly do seem to have a lot of shares.
Of course it does, but you clearly don't what a monopoly is.
And you clearly don't know what "proves" means.
Well given that you don't even know what a monopoly is i wouldn't expect you to have the capacity to understand what constitutes proof that your statement is wrong.
How do you know someone is a "suspect"? If there's already some other evidence, however light, that someone is a culprit (such as a witness statement), then fine, arrest him and take the phone, too.
That is how you determine someone is a suspect, you have some amount of evidence that is not enough to prove that the person is guilty of a crime.
Otherwise, I think this is just one of those circular reasoning things: he's a suspect because there might be incriminating information on his phone. We're checking his phone for incriminating information because he's a suspect. (Oh, and, he's a suspect because we suspect there might be incriminating information on his phone.)
No, how do you think a search warrant is issued? There has to be at least some evidence for the police to suspect that someone is involved in criminal activity, hence the term 'suspect' applied to such a person.
Of course they'll still buy iPhones, as long as Apple manages to keep the hipster marketing going.
Isn't the idea of Apple being products for 'hipsters' a little old now? I agree they put a lot of focus on marketing but the iphone (4 or 4S?) is the most common smartphone in the world, they are the Nokia of new smartphone world, where i live they aren't really any more expensive than any other phone on contract and everyone on iOS has basically the same device. iPhones are just average these days, nothing special or 'hipster' about them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only has that not changed with the introduction of the iCloud features (it's been $99 since the program was introduced for iOS years ago) and that it's the same whether you use iCloud or not, but that storage has already been allotted to iCloud users (hence the reason developers don't have to pay more to use iCloud features), the interface to it doesn't affect the cost of it.
If all we know is that the level of piracy went up then we can't know what the BSA's effect was.
It seems you're missing the point: They haven't achieved their goal of mitigating piracy. Has piracy lessened? No, in fact it hasn't even stayed flat, it's increased! So what they are doing now obviously isn't right, it may be better than nothing but it's quite categorically not achieving their goal.
Well the BSA is in the business of stamping out piracy and they are claiming piracy has sharply increased, they're obviously doing something wrong.
Which is exactly why - if anything - software piracy is helping companies get market share and eliminate competition. Better to use an alternative than to pirate.
In other markets this balances out because if a company's product is too expensive people turn to alternatives, when that company loses marketshare they either adapt - by lowering their price or adding more value - or they die, but in the case of software people can pirate and since in most cases a piracy != lost sale that won't kill the company but it will increase their marketshare. That can then get to the case in point where the market leader is perceived - by many - to be massively overpriced but since they are effectively the only game in town there are few - if any - viable alternatives.
I should have put this in the above post but personally I think the 'Free for non-Commercial Use' model is a good method for most paid software companies. I see it as viable predominantly because it wouldn't be far from the system we have now (as in it would require minimal changes) except that these home users - that are probably just using the software for hobby or educational purposes and can't justify the cost nor the infringement penalties anyway - would not be painted as 'criminals' and those who derive income from the tools they use would be the ones who pay for the development of said tools.
It's not a perfect solution and it's not the only solution, but it's more harmonious while being not too far removed from what we have now.
The blame lies 100% at the door of the greedy corporations who are gouging.
Not really. If you believe they are gouging then don't use their products, use a free alternative, like GIMP instead. Now the reason I say that is because I believe piracy is not a way of protest, in fact it just makes it worse. Consider that - as many here will attest - piracy != lost sale so piracy isn't necessarily 'hurting' the company, what it does is cement the idea that the software in question is the best (or at least 'necessary'), superior to cheaper or free alternatives, thus making it the de-facto standard in the market and driving out cheaper or free competitors.
The same thing happens with other software too, Windows for example. People claim to not like it and to pirate it to only use it out of necessity, but that just drives its use in the market leading to more people to use it out of necessity so to a degree piracy drives legitimate sales.
Obviously if legitimate sales start to sag but usage continues to grow then the companies see piracy as a problem.
Well:
Over half of PC users worldwide have admitted to using pirate software
Doesn't that indicate that perhaps a different approach is required? This sue-happy, mafia-style campaign isn't working so perhaps that's not the right way to go about it. I don't have the solution but clearly neither do they.
Not always ;) But in this case yes... :)
Well that doesn't answer the question, iCloud isn't a Dropbox clone and that's not because it's restricted to app store applications, allowing non-app store applications to utilize it will not make it a Dropbox/Skydrive clone.
Ah fair enough, I've always liked Mandriva, it's well-balanced distro.
What do you think Apple should do? Enable iCloud access for free to any app, regardless of source?
Sure, why not? Pretty much all other cloud providers do it, if you're an iOS user you probably use iCloud to some extent so that would be the service you want applications to tie in to regardless of where the applications come from. There's no reason to lock out developers that don't want to (or can't for whatever reason) use the app store.
Well they pay the hosting fees for free apps from which they derive no income.
Instead your freedom will be spent building walls and training dogs to guard your belongings.
No-one is taking anything away from you, with that level of ridiculousness you might as well get on the *AA bandwagon of everything that is copied is stolen.
I have no problem with that. I just don't see how you can take OSX, put iOS's restrictions on it, and not have it fall apart.
Surely their target is for everyone to get everything from the app store and from a stability & security standpoint that probably makes sense. Maybe most of their users would be fine with it, who knows.
I also don't see how suck a restictive OS would be used for creating the Apps that fuel iOS.
Charge for a developer unlock seems logical from their perspective.
If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price).
Much more likely than 'picking the right price' it means the underwriters support the price by purchasing shares themselves...and the underwriters for Facebook's IPO certainly do seem to have a lot of shares.
There's no reason to want an icloud account if you don't have an iOS device or a Mac, which is probably why you can't setup an account online.
Of course there is, syncing outlook mail and contacts, safari bookmarks, using itunes match and i'm pretty sure you can use photostream too.
Yes, I refuse to write a book and try to post it on Slashdot.
I just read through this comment thread and maybe you mentioned it but i missed it, what distro do you use?
So what's your definition of a monopoly?
Of course it does, but you clearly don't what a monopoly is.
And you clearly don't know what "proves" means.
Well given that you don't even know what a monopoly is i wouldn't expect you to have the capacity to understand what constitutes proof that your statement is wrong.
These days it seems for the vast majority of smartphone owners the only ones who don't have iphones are the ones who don't want iphones.
Of course it does, but you clearly don't what a monopoly is.
You mean because my skin is black or I made a statement to the effect I dislike the government, am anti-war, have some sexual perversion, or similar?
No.
How do you know someone is a "suspect"? If there's already some other evidence, however light, that someone is a culprit (such as a witness statement), then fine, arrest him and take the phone, too.
That is how you determine someone is a suspect, you have some amount of evidence that is not enough to prove that the person is guilty of a crime.
Otherwise, I think this is just one of those circular reasoning things: he's a suspect because there might be incriminating information on his phone. We're checking his phone for incriminating information because he's a suspect. (Oh, and, he's a suspect because we suspect there might be incriminating information on his phone.)
No, how do you think a search warrant is issued? There has to be at least some evidence for the police to suspect that someone is involved in criminal activity, hence the term 'suspect' applied to such a person.
Of course they'll still buy iPhones, as long as Apple manages to keep the hipster marketing going.
Isn't the idea of Apple being products for 'hipsters' a little old now? I agree they put a lot of focus on marketing but the iphone (4 or 4S?) is the most common smartphone in the world, they are the Nokia of new smartphone world, where i live they aren't really any more expensive than any other phone on contract and everyone on iOS has basically the same device. iPhones are just average these days, nothing special or 'hipster' about them.
FWIW I use an iphone.