They are not monkeys and not mentally handicapped, so they have no excuse regarding understanding that. And if they are, then they need some kind of legal guardian, because they clearly can't deal with the real world.
Yes...they're the ones who can't deal with the real world.
Yeah, cause its never happened to anyone else before...
Last fall, Apple released their App Store Approval Guidelines. The relevant guideline—the only place where the word "duplicate" appears in the guidelines—is quoted on Stackoverflow:
Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and Kama Sutra apps.
If you were to write and submit your own app that connected to Dropbox, it might get rejected. Given the number of third-party Facebook apps and Twitter clients still available on the App Store, however, I think that unlikely.
Whereas Apple is relying on their lock-in to the "we get a cut of the action, see" iTunes store. It is a tried and true method.
Except iOS devices aren't loss leaders for Apple. Apple makes a negligible amount of profit off of its App Store. The bulk of Apple's profit comes from every device that goes out the door—whether it's paid for by you or by a combination of you and your mobile carrier.
[...] it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect other companies to delay their work out of respect while Apple keeps on doing their work out of respect.
Who expected other companies to delay their work? Apple clearly didn't.
Not liberty for you, jackass, liberty for the people you distribute too. The original author is preventing YOU from exploiting downstream users. Your "freedom" to screw people over is not "freedom". You are being saved from yourself, and your shortsightedness.
So it's "free" as in "don't do that," then. Gotcha. That's fine. Just call it what it is instead of calling it freedom.
Let me guess, you're a libertarian? Yeah? That would explain your moral autism on the issue.
Moderate Democrat who wants more regulation in the financial industry, but thanks for trying.
I do. Create whatever restrictions you like. I don't have to use your code.
So it's "orwellian" to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them?
Not at all; that's not even what I said.
What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.
I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created.
Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.
The GPL license is free as in liberty. Developers who wish to base products on existing GPL software must agree to maintain the liberty of the derived software's users to use the software with the same liberties that the developer did.
If you associate the words "must agree" with the word "liberty," I think you have pretty jacked up definition of liberty.
So was I. But this is something I don't quite get. The iPhone was innovation there's no doubt about it. But the iPad... it's the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed. I have used the iPad several times and the overriding thought is always: there's nothing this thing does that my phone doesn't and it's too big to fit in my pocket... and if I have my backpack why wouldn't I just carry a laptop?
It's really not just the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed (if it were, the iPad wouldn't have UI elements like UIPopover that iPhone/iPod Touch doesn't have), but I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But even if the iPad had no unique UI elements, its larger display still would make it more useful for certain tasks than an iPhone--just like I'd rather write code on a 24" display (preferably two) than a 13" display.
Like you, I consume almost all of my news via RSS (using Reeder and Instapaper on both iPhone and iPad and Google reader on desktops/laptops). If I'm on the couch, in bed, or, yes, even in the restroom, the iPad is the perfect form factor to read through my feeds and mail (and even reply to the occasional mail) and watch video. It's large enough that I can generally see an entire article without scrolling, and a laptop isn't nearly as comfortable to use in those places. Plus, unlike a laptop, I can actually use it all day on a single charge without plugging it in. This alone is huge.
Since then he's stopped reading it, and the iPad now rarely seems to come out of the drawer. Yet Apple is praised for innovating a new market out of nothing.
Or it could have gone this way: (1 year ago) Apple: We like the 10" screen you make; we'd like to buy out all of them for the next year. Supplier CEO: Ka-Ching!
(6 months ago) Everyone else: Hey we'd like to make a small order for 10" screens. We've looked at the market and yours is the only one that's ready for production and has our price point. Supplier CEO: We're all sold out. Sorry. Everyone else: $&^%!
I guess that's what the rest of the market gets for betting their futures on shitty netbooks instead of innovating.
You realize that as a result of the OpenScreen Project anyone can implement something that plays Flash video based on the open specs that are freely available without having to pay any royalties?
I congratulate "anyone" on having the freedom to implement a Flash video player. Perhaps that will be relevant to our conversation when Google does so and then ships it with Chrome.
Google, however, still ships Adobe's closed-source Flash runtime with Chrome.
What happens if Adobe decides, later on, to start charging royalties for using these standards?
I am no fan of Apple but I can admit that they make some nice hardware. Why do they think it will play out any different this time?
The last time, the Board forced Steve out of the company and Apple stopped creating dramatically new products, favoring incremental improvements instead.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not monkeys and not mentally handicapped, so they have no excuse regarding understanding that. And if they are, then they need some kind of legal guardian, because they clearly can't deal with the real world.
Yes...they're the ones who can't deal with the real world.
Last fall, Apple released their App Store Approval Guidelines. The relevant guideline—the only place where the word "duplicate" appears in the guidelines—is quoted on Stackoverflow:
If you were to write and submit your own app that connected to Dropbox, it might get rejected. Given the number of third-party Facebook apps and Twitter clients still available on the App Store, however, I think that unlikely.
Plus there's no no shortage of web browsers on the App Store.
I feel pretty good about Dropbox never being pulled for "duplicating functionality."
Yes. In very much the same way that the iPad was never trying to compete directly against the featureset of netbooks.
It's pretty hard to collect on a bet for "never."
Except iOS devices aren't loss leaders for Apple. Apple makes a negligible amount of profit off of its App Store. The bulk of Apple's profit comes from every device that goes out the door—whether it's paid for by you or by a combination of you and your mobile carrier.
Who expected other companies to delay their work? Apple clearly didn't.
Current LTE chipsets are too bulky and use too much power. It also has HSPA+.
I actually think you have that backwards--if you think that liberty has conditions, then you might be thinking of the word license.
The GPL grants many things. Perpetual access to the source code of derived works is one of those things. Liberty is not.
If you're restricting how I can use something, you may have granted me a license, but you haven't granted me liberty.
Stop redefining words.
So it's "free" as in "don't do that," then. Gotcha. That's fine. Just call it what it is instead of calling it freedom.
Moderate Democrat who wants more regulation in the financial industry, but thanks for trying.
I have no desire whatsoever to infringe on a copyright holder's right to distribute his or her code as he or she sees fit.
My problem stems from the use of the word "liberty" to describe a license as restrictive as the GPL.
I don't, actually, have the liberty to go on a killing spree, because it turns out that we have laws against that.
I do. Create whatever restrictions you like. I don't have to use your code.
Not at all; that's not even what I said.
What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.
I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created. Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.
If you associate the words "must agree" with the word "liberty," I think you have pretty jacked up definition of liberty.
It's really not just the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed (if it were, the iPad wouldn't have UI elements like UIPopover that iPhone/iPod Touch doesn't have), but I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But even if the iPad had no unique UI elements, its larger display still would make it more useful for certain tasks than an iPhone--just like I'd rather write code on a 24" display (preferably two) than a 13" display.
Like you, I consume almost all of my news via RSS (using Reeder and Instapaper on both iPhone and iPad and Google reader on desktops/laptops). If I'm on the couch, in bed, or, yes, even in the restroom, the iPad is the perfect form factor to read through my feeds and mail (and even reply to the occasional mail) and watch video. It's large enough that I can generally see an entire article without scrolling, and a laptop isn't nearly as comfortable to use in those places. Plus, unlike a laptop, I can actually use it all day on a single charge without plugging it in. This alone is huge.
Probably because that's what they did.
Well, I'm pretty sure the Galaxy Tab can indeed place phone calls, but I was talking about Apple, not Samsung.
I guess that's what the rest of the market gets for betting their futures on shitty netbooks instead of innovating.
He's talking about the market of "By Neckbeards, For Neckbeards" devices.
I congratulate "anyone" on having the freedom to implement a Flash video player. Perhaps that will be relevant to our conversation when Google does so and then ships it with Chrome.
Google, however, still ships Adobe's closed-source Flash runtime with Chrome.
What happens if Adobe decides, later on, to start charging royalties for using these standards?
Do you promise?
Google doesn't ship that with Chrome.
"But they could!@#!@#"
But they don't.
1) How free and/or open is the Flash runtime browser plugin that Google ships (and updates) with Chrome?
2) When will Google, in the interest of adopting only open standards vs. closed standards, stop including said plugin with Chrome?
The last time, the Board forced Steve out of the company and Apple stopped creating dramatically new products, favoring incremental improvements instead.
Fewer moving parts.