Yes, Apple runs the iTunes store a non-profit charity.
No, they run it as a value-add to their hardware.
Amazon, on the other hand, treats the hardware as a value-add to their storefront. And this is the crux of the issue. Amazon's focus isn't on their hardware other than as a way to sell their services. With Apple, it's the other way around.
Firefox doesn't have to pay a dime to support H.264. They simply won't because they are taking an ideological stance, not a legal, technological, or economical one.
As for guarantees, big deal. If they raise their rates, it will stop being so widely used. I trust MPEG-LA to act in their members' self-interests, as they've always done, and not fuck everyone over like you seem to be afraid of.
Firefox can support H.264 without charging or paying a fee. All major Linux distros include direct means of getting H.264 support, although this is a fairly unimportant point because this only affects 1% of the people out there.
Licensing terms and fees for H.264 are inconsequential. The only people that care about it are those that feel the need to build up some issue to get worked up about.
It wasn't the fact that the iPhones were lost. It's possible there were different policies he could have implemented, but the risk of loss is impossible to circumvent. I suspect this has to do with the way the losses were handled after the fact.
Impersonating police officers (through deceptive statements and actions, even if never explicitly claiming to be a police officer or wearing a police uniform or badge, thus technically avoiding criminal misconduct) is certainly something Apple management is not comfortable with. Given his past professional career, this seems like something ingrained into his security style, and wouldn't be a practice he would be able to sufficiently alter in the future.
Frankly, although I'm sure he's good at what he does, it's good that he left Apple. The two just weren't a good fit.
Music isn't sold with DRM anymore. The whole argument is moot, you're fighting a past battle. You are trying to convince non-nerds to rally against DRM, and the best example you can come up with is one that isn't even relevant?
The problem is you are trying to convince people to hold an opinion that they simply have no reason to hold. You're grasping at straws. Sure, they are plenty of reasons for a subset of computer geeks to be strongly opposed to DRM, but there are very few reasons for regular people to. For them, DRM is mostly invisible.
DVDs, Blu-ray, cable tv, Xbox, PS3, Wii, iOS, Android... These all contain and extensively use DRM, and most people don't even know it's there, because it works so well.
The premise of this story is false. DRM hasn't been largely unsuccessful, it's been wildly successful. There are only a few edge cases where there have been notable issues and failures.
The question is why wouldn't they subject their mail to Microsoft (or their data to Apple, for your other question)? They already (including most people here) put much more data and trust into Facebook and Google as it is.
What hubris? Most iPhone 4S's don't run their battery down faster than people are happy with. I have no doubt that some phones are getting drastic drains, but this is the way these sort of bugs work. The big ones are obvious. It's the subtle ones that may require addressing after public release.
Apple has been asking users for assistance in narrowing down this issue. There is no "finally". They generally don't talk about things that they don't have information on. If they had spoken up sooner, they would have simply been able to say nothing other than, "hey, people, don't buy our phone, wait for some indeterminate amount of time until we can solve an issue that may or may not even exist, and my only affect a small fraction of our customers".
Features like this tend to creep their way in slowly.
Only if there's some reason for them to. Features don't just magically creep in on their own. People have to have some motivation to implement them. So, what's the motivation here?
- It's something you can turn on. - It's on by default, but you can turn it off easily. - It's on by default and you need a CS degree to turn it off. - It can only be turned off by hacking your system. - It can only be turned off by hacking your system, and this is illegal to do.
Can you cite even one example of this ever happening? How can you say this tends to happen? It's just geek paranoia. Nobody is going to try to stop you from running Linux, and nobody even *can* stop you. The worst thing that can happen is that there will be *some* hardware that can't run Linux, just has been the case since Linus first started this project.
I think it's much simpler than that. For MS to go to any trouble to lock out Linux, Linux would have to be an actual threat to them. Linux's market share is around 1%. It's truly not worth their effort, and it's completely impossible for them to lock Linux out of every PC. The best they could hope for is to lock down some PCs from some manufacturers and some motherboards from some motherboard makers. That's it.
On the other hand, individual PC makers could decide locking their computers to Windows would be beneficial. MS could offer a licensing discount, and quite simply, locking the boot system could help lower support costs for the manufacturer.
If they are getting absorbed by the skin, isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd want in terms of radiation dosage? I.e., more photons absorbed == more chance for DNA damage and cancer?
Also, it would seem that that would skew the danger from different dosages such that what would normally be a low risk dosage (because most of the photons would fly through you) would be a higher risk, because the actual absorption is higher, even at lower dosages?
Um... IF-THEN-ELSE is another way of saying "causality". Every patent relies on causality (because everything in the universe, except perhaps a few edge cases like quantum physics and certain aspects of singularities) relies on causality.
Nintendo has, for this century least, always seemed to be a x.5 gen console maker. The Wii is like a last gen.5, and the WiiU is like a current gen.5. It does seem to be working out fairly well for them in any case.
Does someone who picks up a penny off the public street then have the obligation, for the rest of his life, to intentionally drop coins so others will have equal opportunity to pick up coins?
What sort of nonsense is this?
Google is taking without giving, as a matter of policy. They are free to do this. No one is saying they have to do anything. We are just pointing out that this doesn't exactly sound like the sort of thing that fits with "do no evil" (as childish as that phrase is to begin with).
If Mother Theresa were to walk around picking up every coin that wasn't nailed down, and never gave a cent away, while admonishing others to give away their money, it would be worthy of pointing out this hypocrisy. If Bill Gates were to walk around picking up every coin that wasn't nailed down, but told others they should do the same, hypocrisy would not come into it.
Google is one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. No one is saying they shouldn't be doing the things they are doing so much as we are saying that they sure seem to not be living up to their supposed ideals all that well.
Who is talking about putting a stop to anything? We're just pointing out hypocrisy. That is all. Why do so many people need to turn things into black-and-white extremes?
People shouldn't give money to entities (albeit non-living and amoral) that do bad things like destroying freedom.
No, people should give money to "entities" that provide them with value. Apple provides many hundreds of millions of people with value.
And your last phrase "bad things like destroying freedom". Do you realize how child-like that sounds? It makes you sound like a simpleton. Apple isn't "doing bad things", they aren't "destroying freedom". Freedom is doing just fine. If you don't like Apple products, you are completely free to never pay Apple a cent.
What are you talking about? Siri was never on the iPhone 4, so iPhone 4 users are not finding themselves forced to upgrade. If they want Siri, they can upgrade. If not, they have exactly everything they had before plus plenty of new functionality.
What you're really saying is, Apple keeps making new products with new features, and people like them enough to upgrade. Oh, the horror!
Slashdot Mirror
For things you interact with in a physical manner (i.e., touch screens), yes, you not only want, but absolutely must have responsiveness.
Yes, Apple runs the iTunes store a non-profit charity.
No, they run it as a value-add to their hardware.
Amazon, on the other hand, treats the hardware as a value-add to their storefront. And this is the crux of the issue. Amazon's focus isn't on their hardware other than as a way to sell their services. With Apple, it's the other way around.
And it shows.
We're not talking about going back in time and erasing Flash from ever existing. We're talking about killing it off today.
Firefox doesn't have to pay a dime to support H.264. They simply won't because they are taking an ideological stance, not a legal, technological, or economical one.
As for guarantees, big deal. If they raise their rates, it will stop being so widely used. I trust MPEG-LA to act in their members' self-interests, as they've always done, and not fuck everyone over like you seem to be afraid of.
Does this actually matter?
Firefox can support H.264 without charging or paying a fee. All major Linux distros include direct means of getting H.264 support, although this is a fairly unimportant point because this only affects 1% of the people out there.
Licensing terms and fees for H.264 are inconsequential. The only people that care about it are those that feel the need to build up some issue to get worked up about.
Two problems:
1. HTML5 works fantastically on iOS
2. iOS isn't a monopoly
It wasn't the fact that the iPhones were lost. It's possible there were different policies he could have implemented, but the risk of loss is impossible to circumvent. I suspect this has to do with the way the losses were handled after the fact.
Impersonating police officers (through deceptive statements and actions, even if never explicitly claiming to be a police officer or wearing a police uniform or badge, thus technically avoiding criminal misconduct) is certainly something Apple management is not comfortable with. Given his past professional career, this seems like something ingrained into his security style, and wouldn't be a practice he would be able to sufficiently alter in the future.
Frankly, although I'm sure he's good at what he does, it's good that he left Apple. The two just weren't a good fit.
In other words, all your DRM-enabled equipment. Got it.
No, Answer: not a damed thing.
Music isn't sold with DRM anymore. The whole argument is moot, you're fighting a past battle. You are trying to convince non-nerds to rally against DRM, and the best example you can come up with is one that isn't even relevant?
The problem is you are trying to convince people to hold an opinion that they simply have no reason to hold. You're grasping at straws. Sure, they are plenty of reasons for a subset of computer geeks to be strongly opposed to DRM, but there are very few reasons for regular people to. For them, DRM is mostly invisible.
DVDs, Blu-ray, cable tv, Xbox, PS3, Wii, iOS, Android... These all contain and extensively use DRM, and most people don't even know it's there, because it works so well.
The premise of this story is false. DRM hasn't been largely unsuccessful, it's been wildly successful. There are only a few edge cases where there have been notable issues and failures.
The question is why wouldn't they subject their mail to Microsoft (or their data to Apple, for your other question)? They already (including most people here) put much more data and trust into Facebook and Google as it is.
What hubris? Most iPhone 4S's don't run their battery down faster than people are happy with. I have no doubt that some phones are getting drastic drains, but this is the way these sort of bugs work. The big ones are obvious. It's the subtle ones that may require addressing after public release.
Apple has been asking users for assistance in narrowing down this issue. There is no "finally". They generally don't talk about things that they don't have information on. If they had spoken up sooner, they would have simply been able to say nothing other than, "hey, people, don't buy our phone, wait for some indeterminate amount of time until we can solve an issue that may or may not even exist, and my only affect a small fraction of our customers".
For now.
Features like this tend to creep their way in slowly.
Only if there's some reason for them to. Features don't just magically creep in on their own. People have to have some motivation to implement them. So, what's the motivation here?
- It's something you can turn on.
- It's on by default, but you can turn it off easily.
- It's on by default and you need a CS degree to turn it off.
- It can only be turned off by hacking your system.
- It can only be turned off by hacking your system, and this is illegal to do.
Can you cite even one example of this ever happening? How can you say this tends to happen? It's just geek paranoia. Nobody is going to try to stop you from running Linux, and nobody even *can* stop you. The worst thing that can happen is that there will be *some* hardware that can't run Linux, just has been the case since Linus first started this project.
I think it's much simpler than that. For MS to go to any trouble to lock out Linux, Linux would have to be an actual threat to them. Linux's market share is around 1%. It's truly not worth their effort, and it's completely impossible for them to lock Linux out of every PC. The best they could hope for is to lock down some PCs from some manufacturers and some motherboards from some motherboard makers. That's it.
On the other hand, individual PC makers could decide locking their computers to Windows would be beneficial. MS could offer a licensing discount, and quite simply, locking the boot system could help lower support costs for the manufacturer.
I'm guessing the first two sentences of your post have been augmented by putting into practice the last sentence?
If they are getting absorbed by the skin, isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd want in terms of radiation dosage? I.e., more photons absorbed == more chance for DNA damage and cancer?
Also, it would seem that that would skew the danger from different dosages such that what would normally be a low risk dosage (because most of the photons would fly through you) would be a higher risk, because the actual absorption is higher, even at lower dosages?
Or you can just install Windows...
Um... IF-THEN-ELSE is another way of saying "causality". Every patent relies on causality (because everything in the universe, except perhaps a few edge cases like quantum physics and certain aspects of singularities) relies on causality.
Only the names and uniforms have changed.
Nintendo has, for this century least, always seemed to be a x.5 gen console maker. The Wii is like a last gen.5, and the WiiU is like a current gen.5. It does seem to be working out fairly well for them in any case.
Does someone who picks up a penny off the public street then have the obligation, for the rest of his life, to intentionally drop coins so others will have equal opportunity to pick up coins?
What sort of nonsense is this?
Google is taking without giving, as a matter of policy. They are free to do this. No one is saying they have to do anything. We are just pointing out that this doesn't exactly sound like the sort of thing that fits with "do no evil" (as childish as that phrase is to begin with).
If Mother Theresa were to walk around picking up every coin that wasn't nailed down, and never gave a cent away, while admonishing others to give away their money, it would be worthy of pointing out this hypocrisy. If Bill Gates were to walk around picking up every coin that wasn't nailed down, but told others they should do the same, hypocrisy would not come into it.
Google is one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. No one is saying they shouldn't be doing the things they are doing so much as we are saying that they sure seem to not be living up to their supposed ideals all that well.
Who is talking about putting a stop to anything? We're just pointing out hypocrisy. That is all. Why do so many people need to turn things into black-and-white extremes?
People shouldn't give money to entities (albeit non-living and amoral) that do bad things like destroying freedom.
No, people should give money to "entities" that provide them with value. Apple provides many hundreds of millions of people with value.
And your last phrase "bad things like destroying freedom". Do you realize how child-like that sounds? It makes you sound like a simpleton. Apple isn't "doing bad things", they aren't "destroying freedom". Freedom is doing just fine. If you don't like Apple products, you are completely free to never pay Apple a cent.
What are you talking about? Siri was never on the iPhone 4, so iPhone 4 users are not finding themselves forced to upgrade. If they want Siri, they can upgrade. If not, they have exactly everything they had before plus plenty of new functionality.
What you're really saying is, Apple keeps making new products with new features, and people like them enough to upgrade. Oh, the horror!