By market power I was referring to the sort of market power with which antitrust law deals
Then all sites have "market power", some more than others. There's nothing wrong with that.
If YouTube is unsuitable for me yet so suitable for the majority of people-other-than-me that other video sharing sites end up driven out of business, then YouTube has market power.
Then they don't, because there are many other video sharing sites that are not out of business, moreover you can host your own videos yourself irrespective of youtube.
Because the context was which of the "hundreds of other video sharing sites" are among the most viable alternatives to YouTube, as a counterargument to i kan reed's claim that YouTube holds market power.
"Most viable" is subjective and depends on your specific needs and if youtube introduces certain restrictions that you are opposed to and don't want to agree to then clearly it doesn't hold market power because the service is not suitable for you. I'm not sure what you think their "market power" is, what market are you referring to that they have power over? Anybody can launch a music site.
However given that searching for video sharing sites provides a link to a Wikipedia entry that lists dozens of them you should be able to identify ones that suit your specific needs.
Second, because Vimeo allows "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited", on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?
Why not just use Youtube? Or one of the hundreds of other video sharing sites.
Perhaps you missed the story yesterday where Google was making the app security on Android even less secure, and in such a way as to prevent users from disabling components which would block ads.
Perhaps you missed that Android is open source and there are many distributions that are not tied to Google. Are there iOS or Windows Phone distributions that are not tied to Apple or Microsoft? No.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
False, the UK and Australia prove your assertion wrong.
For their Mac business unit you mean? You know the one that develops all that software for the Mac? They're going to have a hard time developing for a system they don't have.
Or you could just use Cyanogen Mod, which is exactly what you describe.
Oh ok cool, sorry I'm not overly familiar with the features of Cyanogen Mod, I didn't realize it already did that but it's cool that the solution is already out there.
But they do just sell you the app, or the alternative is ad-supported yet you cheapskates think they should pay for the bandwidth to serve ads. The only greedy one is you! Either pay for it or cop the ads, otherwise the move to the cloud where you lose even more control is the logical choice for developers.
People don't have memories. Nobody cares about Sony's past, or Microsoft's, etc.
It's not that they don't have memories, it's exactly as you pointed out: Nobody cares. Relatively how many Sony customers do you think cared that they removed the OtherOS option from the PS3? Relatively how many Microsoft customers do you think cared that IE was the default browser on Windows or that they added proprietary extensions to Java?
You might care about those things and you might think that other people should care about those things but in reality they don't and outside of some extrapolated "but it's a slippery slope" theory, why should they?
Yeah you got me. I've never used a gaming laptop. Possibly due to the fact that they all seem to have aesthetics designed to appear cool to teenagers, but come off as a bit too try-hard. I'm sure there's some remaining features of them; I mean Alienware's been around for ages, some people must be buying their stuff. Perhaps not the smartest of folks, but we can't all be sensible with our money can we?
I'm not so concerned about the aesthetics but if Alienware laptops are overpriced then what is the appropriately priced alternative?
Want to backup your Notes? Oh wait, that's a hidden db and you need a @me.com email address...<br><br>It isn't a permission per se but Apple has a lot of their own lock-in in how they do things.
Why are you trying to redirect the conversation to something else? Yes Apple has a lot of lock-in: Facetime, Airdrop, Airplay, Lightning, etc... but that's not relevant. The point is iOS's security model is better than Android's, iOS has copied so much from Android recently maybe Android could copy their security model.
The absurd permission demands from simple, crappy applications is why I'd love to see a real alternative to Android that doesn't cost Apple prices.
Why do you need an alternative to Android just for this one issue with Google Play? Why not just modify Android and use the 3rd party app stores, seems a lot simpler than an entire new operating system.
For those apps that absolutely demand access to something, then you should be able to fake it. So: the app that demands access to your address book, you give it one with a couple of bogus entries.
Android is open source, there's no reason you couldn't modify it to support that.
It is my machine so I should get to choose what is allowed.
You can, you get to say allow or disallow. Beyond that you may need to modify the OS yourself, which you also can do.
This is why as mobile internet service gets better more things move to "the cloud", it's the logical solution for supporting an open platform where (some) users are too cheap to pay for the no-ads version and too cheap to pay for bandwidth for the ad-supported version.
You know you aren't restricted to the Google Play store, in fact given that Android is open source you could modify it to support your own permissions system: for example you could wrap all the API calls and have your own permissions layer. Granted it would be pretty time consuming to build but given the size of the community it could fairly easily be done.
If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks
They are banning Glass, not geeks. You do realize you can be a geek and not wear Glass 24/7 don't you? And no it is not even remotely similar to gays and blacks so don't be an idiot.
Ask yourself which company is more likely to sell out your data to advertisers.
Define "your data", because that is very important. If they are selling my emails and my personal details along with tracked location (if I used their location/mapping services or Android that is) then that is very different to anonymized, non-personally identifiable information.
The reason is that for Apple, you are the customer. For Google, you are the product, because its customers are the advertisers.
Stop that rubbish, the privacy policies make it pretty clear:
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers." http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
"We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites." http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
So if you want to show where "you are the product" then go right ahead, from what I can see they both do pretty much the same thing and anything that goes out to 3rd parties outside the reach of these companies' policies is non-personal information.
Slashdot Mirror
By market power I was referring to the sort of market power with which antitrust law deals
Then all sites have "market power", some more than others. There's nothing wrong with that.
If YouTube is unsuitable for me yet so suitable for the majority of people-other-than-me that other video sharing sites end up driven out of business, then YouTube has market power.
Then they don't, because there are many other video sharing sites that are not out of business, moreover you can host your own videos yourself irrespective of youtube.
Anybody can launch a video site.
Because the context was which of the "hundreds of other video sharing sites" are among the most viable alternatives to YouTube, as a counterargument to i kan reed's claim that YouTube holds market power.
"Most viable" is subjective and depends on your specific needs and if youtube introduces certain restrictions that you are opposed to and don't want to agree to then clearly it doesn't hold market power because the service is not suitable for you. I'm not sure what you think their "market power" is, what market are you referring to that they have power over? Anybody can launch a music site.
However given that searching for video sharing sites provides a link to a Wikipedia entry that lists dozens of them you should be able to identify ones that suit your specific needs.
Second, because Vimeo allows "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited", on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?
Why not just use Youtube? Or one of the hundreds of other video sharing sites.
And do you actually believe you can trust any service to not do that?
Ah the /. cynics are out in force ready to put a negative spin on whatever they can.
Yeah maybe, especially since they did present the early 360 demos on Macs.
Perhaps you missed the story yesterday where Google was making the app security on Android even less secure, and in such a way as to prevent users from disabling components which would block ads.
Perhaps you missed that Android is open source and there are many distributions that are not tied to Google. Are there iOS or Windows Phone distributions that are not tied to Apple or Microsoft? No.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
False, the UK and Australia prove your assertion wrong.
Pretty much - I remember waaaay back to 2000-2001 when some contractor shared photos online of Microsoft buying Apple G5 PowerMac desktops by the pallet-load.
For their Mac business unit you mean? You know the one that develops all that software for the Mac? They're going to have a hard time developing for a system they don't have.
Or you could just use Cyanogen Mod, which is exactly what you describe.
Oh ok cool, sorry I'm not overly familiar with the features of Cyanogen Mod, I didn't realize it already did that but it's cool that the solution is already out there.
Yes that's what I said, you do get to choose what is allowed and disallowed, if you want finer grained control then add it to the operating system.
But they do just sell you the app, or the alternative is ad-supported yet you cheapskates think they should pay for the bandwidth to serve ads. The only greedy one is you! Either pay for it or cop the ads, otherwise the move to the cloud where you lose even more control is the logical choice for developers.
"Think of it as a traditional Bloomberg terminal on steroids."
So it looks pretty cool, is pretty much useless and has shrunken testicles?
People don't have memories. Nobody cares about Sony's past, or Microsoft's, etc.
It's not that they don't have memories, it's exactly as you pointed out: Nobody cares. Relatively how many Sony customers do you think cared that they removed the OtherOS option from the PS3? Relatively how many Microsoft customers do you think cared that IE was the default browser on Windows or that they added proprietary extensions to Java?
You might care about those things and you might think that other people should care about those things but in reality they don't and outside of some extrapolated "but it's a slippery slope" theory, why should they?
Yeah you got me. I've never used a gaming laptop. Possibly due to the fact that they all seem to have aesthetics designed to appear cool to teenagers, but come off as a bit too try-hard. I'm sure there's some remaining features of them; I mean Alienware's been around for ages, some people must be buying their stuff. Perhaps not the smartest of folks, but we can't all be sensible with our money can we?
I'm not so concerned about the aesthetics but if Alienware laptops are overpriced then what is the appropriately priced alternative?
Want to backup your Notes? Oh wait, that's a hidden db and you need a @me.com email address...<br><br>It isn't a permission per se but Apple has a lot of their own lock-in in how they do things.
Why are you trying to redirect the conversation to something else? Yes Apple has a lot of lock-in: Facetime, Airdrop, Airplay, Lightning, etc... but that's not relevant. The point is iOS's security model is better than Android's, iOS has copied so much from Android recently maybe Android could copy their security model.
The absurd permission demands from simple, crappy applications is why I'd love to see a real alternative to Android that doesn't cost Apple prices.
Why do you need an alternative to Android just for this one issue with Google Play? Why not just modify Android and use the 3rd party app stores, seems a lot simpler than an entire new operating system.
For those apps that absolutely demand access to something, then you should be able to fake it. So: the app that demands access to your address book, you give it one with a couple of bogus entries.
Android is open source, there's no reason you couldn't modify it to support that.
It is my machine so I should get to choose what is allowed.
You can, you get to say allow or disallow. Beyond that you may need to modify the OS yourself, which you also can do.
This is why as mobile internet service gets better more things move to "the cloud", it's the logical solution for supporting an open platform where (some) users are too cheap to pay for the no-ads version and too cheap to pay for bandwidth for the ad-supported version.
You know you aren't restricted to the Google Play store, in fact given that Android is open source you could modify it to support your own permissions system: for example you could wrap all the API calls and have your own permissions layer. Granted it would be pretty time consuming to build but given the size of the community it could fairly easily be done.
Do they ban children
Yes, under 6 years old is not permitted and under 18 requires a parent or guardian to go with them.
and the demographic that talks to the screen?
Yes they have a no talking policy as well.
If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks
They are banning Glass, not geeks. You do realize you can be a geek and not wear Glass 24/7 don't you? And no it is not even remotely similar to gays and blacks so don't be an idiot.
Ask yourself which company is more likely to sell out your data to advertisers.
Define "your data", because that is very important. If they are selling my emails and my personal details along with tracked location (if I used their location/mapping services or Android that is) then that is very different to anonymized, non-personally identifiable information.
The reason is that for Apple, you are the customer. For Google, you are the product, because its customers are the advertisers.
Stop that rubbish, the privacy policies make it pretty clear:
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
"We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites."
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
So if you want to show where "you are the product" then go right ahead, from what I can see they both do pretty much the same thing and anything that goes out to 3rd parties outside the reach of these companies' policies is non-personal information.