Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc
"Plays for sure" - see, that's where the problem with your argument starts. PlaysForSure was introduced late in 2004 - IOW over a year after the iTunes DRM.
I have seen the future of music and its name is iTunes
[...] Many online music services are on the market, but they’ve all done poorly, most likely because, as Jobs said, they all “treat you like a criminal.” For the most part, the other services are subscription based — users pay a $10 or $20 per-month fee for access to a catalog of songs, and they must put up with a Byzantine set of rules outlining how they can use the tracks. Some services only offer “streaming” music, meaning that you have to be connected to the Internet when you want to listen to your songs; others let you download songs so long as you play them on a single machine (forget about transferring them to portable MP3 players); a few services let you burn songs to CDs, but only for selected tracks for an extra per-song fee. The worst part is, you have to keep paying to get the music; once you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to many of the tracks you’ve downloaded.
Universal and Sony rolled out a joint venture called Pressplay. AOL Time Warner (the parent of both Warner and FORTUNE's publisher), Bertelsmann (BMG's owner), EMI, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet. But instead of trying to cooperate to attract customers, the two ventures competed to dominate the digital market. Pressplay wouldn't license its songs to MusicNet, and MusicNet withheld its tunes from Pressplay.
[...]The record companies were also fearful about doing anything that might cannibalize CD sales. So they decided to "rent" people music through the Internet. You paid a monthly subscription fee for songs from MusicNet and Pressplay. But you could download MusicNet tunes onto only one computer, and they disappeared if you didn't pay your bill. That may have protected the record companies from piracy, but it didn't do much for consumers. Why fork over $10 a month for a subscription when you can't do anything with your music but listen to it on your PC? Pressplay launched with CD burning but only for a limited number of songs.
At the end of last year, Pressplay and MusicNet licensed their catalogues to each other, ending their standoff. MusicNet also now permits subscribers to burn certain songs onto CDs. But MusicNet users still can't download songs onto portable players. "These devices haven't caught on yet," insists MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade. Never mind that U.S. sales of portable MP3 players soared from 724,000 in 2001 to 1.6 million last year. Pressplay, for its part, lets subscribers download some songs onto devices, but only those that use Microsoft's Windows Media software. That means no iPods.
But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.
When will this myth ever die? The USB standard appeared in 1996, the USB iMac appeared in 1998 and it wasn't even the first with USB 1.1. Not to mention that the Mac marketshare was below 5%, how exactly did they manage to "push" USB. You want to talk about a standard that Apple really pushed and the PC largely ignored, talk about Firewire. How well did that go, exactly?
Exactly, and the fact that a huge number of USB peripherals came out just in time for the release of the iMac was pure coincidence. And most of them were translucent blue, because that matched with the BSOD that Windows often showed when using USB.
So should these guys go to jail? They mapped out half the access points in the city.
Warflying
Warflying or warstorming is an activity consisting of using an airplane and a Wi-Fi-equipped computer, such as a laptop or a PDA, to detect Wi-Fi wireless networks. Warstorming shares similarities to Wardriving and Warwalking in all aspects except for the method of transport. It originated in Western Australia with the WaFreeNet (WAFN) group taking up a Grumman Tiger four-seater near Perth City in 2002, as documented on the weblog of Jason Jordan
Most warflying is harmless, as most of the people will just scan for the networks, either as an experiment, or just for the pure amusement, or to map out the wireless networks in the area.[citation needed] Due to the nature of flying, it is much more difficult to attempt to access open networks while warflying.
Note that they didn't store any WiFi data unrelated to SSIDs and MACs. Nor did anybody else to our knowledge. Google did. And they kept it over years. And they kept it long after they promised to delete it.
I agree with your general point, but the fine should also take into account that there is no evidence or indication that this was done on purpose, that they did anything with the data, or that they ever intended to do anything with the data.
Yeah, nothing but the fact that a company that makes its money with collecting and storing all sorts of data did exactly that while all the other entities also linking WiFi networks to locations failed to collect and store personal data on those networks.
you think "1984" was to be interpreted literally? We have instead government tapping all internet and phone systems, data mining social media, warring against people who never attacked us in the name of "peace", able to legally "disappear" people who are considered threats without warrant nor oversight, a privileged powerful and wealthy few with government in their pockets engineering the media, social and economic systems for their benefit......we're there
Did you even read Nineteen Eighty-Four? Quick quiz: what was the spying technique that turned in most people in the book? Tapping of phones? Surveillance by Telescreen? Nope, it was good old low-tech "squealing by somebody you trust".
The Siri story in the link was from June 2012. You do know software can be improved. Or do you think Steve Woz was lying.
Well, Siri used Wolfram Aplha before Apple bought it, it uses it now, and there is no indication that it stopped using it any time in between. So even if the problem Woz claims actually existed, it was with Wolfram Alpha, and not with Siri, let alone with Apple "ruining" it.
He gambled and lost. If his gamble had worked he would have made a lot of money for the firm and he would have been a hero to his employer with a hefty bonus on top.
Looks like he gambled with his firms money, but intended to pocket the earnings. Even if it had worked, his company likely would have found out and sued him.
Amazon.cn is not the largest online retailer in China. Which is what I have told you. And yet you keep pretending.
Amazon is the largest online retailer.
Not in China (and by that account probably not in the world either, at least not for long). So why do you bring it up in a vain attempt to show how much most phones sold online in China cost? Because you just can't stop being wrong?
Customers are the people buying your products. Apple's customers are the users, Google's customers are the advertisers.
Please don't waste my time quibbling over words, newspapers, TV, Radio and Magazines, Sports make most of their money through advertising. Would your prefer consumer or User...personally I don't care. ironically by your definition though Google is Apples customer as Apple sells its user to Google:)
Gee, you can't stop being wrong, now can you, Google-Tool.
I agree. Especially considering the news that a quarter of American books sold are electronic, imagine what a disaster it would be if Steve Jobs had succeeded in forming its [another?] cartel.
Yeah, let's all cheer for Amazon's 90+% of the ebook market - freedom at last!
Then show me your source, because right now local Analysis and Local retail...and the graphs you supply by IDG all point to $76 Android phone being a lie made up by you.
You provide no information about china and the source you provide again restates the fact Apple is a failure in China "China is a massive growth prospect but Apple is not making the market share impact there that it is in other markets. The lack of a device on the China Mobile network is a big drawback, combined with high price points."
Do you even read your own links.
You are trying to show that Apple is a failure in China by presenting numbers from Amazon, which has a 2% marketshare among Chinese e-commerce?
You got to see this in context of Apple's policies. They've been known to exclude journalists from events because they've said things Apple didn't like.
Oooh. Of course Samsung is known for inviting bloggers to international trade fairs, where they are forced to staff the booths. True story. Not to mention suing journalists that say things they didn't like. Another true story
So what you are saying is that at least on Fandroid fails at Math. And Logic. And reading comprehension. And at not being a dick.
No my maths is pretty good, Apple users Pirate at 75% Android users at 60%.
That's not 15% more, that's 15 percentage point more., failboy. Apart from that, you are getting your number from a company that computes piracy numbers for their apps with the same tool they used to famously post thousands of false positive piracy confessions. Epic fail by both of you.
BTW nobody ever claimed there was no piracy on iOS - because unlike what you claim that's what jailbreaking is mostly used for. Boo-yah.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.
You mean like eMusic?
They never had DRM.
Actually, eMusic have been around since 1998, so they would have already celebrated their 15th anniversary.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/23396
When Unlimited....Isn't
Emusic customers hit glass ceiling, get booted
by Karl Bode Friday 08-Nov-2002
Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc
"Plays for sure" - see, that's where the problem with your argument starts. PlaysForSure was introduced late in 2004 - IOW over a year after the iTunes DRM.
But that's just a technicality, so let's look at the actual competition. http://www.salon.com/2003/04/29/itunes/
I have seen the future of music and its name is iTunes
[...] Many online music services are on the market, but they’ve all done poorly, most likely because, as Jobs said, they all “treat you like a criminal.” For the most part, the other services are subscription based — users pay a $10 or $20 per-month fee for access to a catalog of songs, and they must put up with a Byzantine set of rules outlining how they can use the tracks. Some services only offer “streaming” music, meaning that you have to be connected to the Internet when you want to listen to your songs; others let you download songs so long as you play them on a single machine (forget about transferring them to portable MP3 players); a few services let you burn songs to CDs, but only for selected tracks for an extra per-song fee. The worst part is, you have to keep paying to get the music; once you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to many of the tracks you’ve downloaded.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342289/
Universal and Sony rolled out a joint venture called Pressplay. AOL Time Warner (the parent of both Warner and FORTUNE's publisher), Bertelsmann (BMG's owner), EMI, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet. But instead of trying to cooperate to attract customers, the two ventures competed to dominate the digital market. Pressplay wouldn't license its songs to MusicNet, and MusicNet withheld its tunes from Pressplay.
[...]The record companies were also fearful about doing anything that might cannibalize CD sales. So they decided to "rent" people music through the Internet. You paid a monthly subscription fee for songs from MusicNet and Pressplay. But you could download MusicNet tunes onto only one computer, and they disappeared if you didn't pay your bill. That may have protected the record companies from piracy, but it didn't do much for consumers. Why fork over $10 a month for a subscription when you can't do anything with your music but listen to it on your PC? Pressplay launched with CD burning but only for a limited number of songs.
At the end of last year, Pressplay and MusicNet licensed their catalogues to each other, ending their standoff. MusicNet also now permits subscribers to burn certain songs onto CDs. But MusicNet users still can't download songs onto portable players. "These devices haven't caught on yet," insists MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade. Never mind that U.S. sales of portable MP3 players soared from 724,000 in 2001 to 1.6 million last year. Pressplay, for its part, lets subscribers download some songs onto devices, but only those that use Microsoft's Windows Media software. That means no iPods.
But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.
It's likely they acted "In Good Faith" given a perfectly normal submission.
Many of the companies sued by Apple could also claim to have acted in good faith.
Sure. The company with the most US Design Patents thought there was no law against copying somebody else's design.
No, this.
When will this myth ever die? The USB standard appeared in 1996, the USB iMac appeared in 1998 and it wasn't even the first with USB 1.1. Not to mention that the Mac marketshare was below 5%, how exactly did they manage to "push" USB. You want to talk about a standard that Apple really pushed and the PC largely ignored, talk about Firewire. How well did that go, exactly?
Exactly, and the fact that a huge number of USB peripherals came out just in time for the release of the iMac was pure coincidence. And most of them were translucent blue, because that matched with the BSOD that Windows often showed when using USB.
So should these guys go to jail? They mapped out half the access points in the city.
Warflying
Warflying or warstorming is an activity consisting of using an airplane and a Wi-Fi-equipped computer, such as a laptop or a PDA, to detect Wi-Fi wireless networks. Warstorming shares similarities to Wardriving and Warwalking in all aspects except for the method of transport.
It originated in Western Australia with the WaFreeNet (WAFN) group taking up a Grumman Tiger four-seater near Perth City in 2002, as documented on the weblog of Jason Jordan
Most warflying is harmless, as most of the people will just scan for the networks, either as an experiment, or just for the pure amusement, or to map out the wireless networks in the area.[citation needed] Due to the nature of flying, it is much more difficult to attempt to access open networks while warflying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warflying
Note that they didn't store any WiFi data unrelated to SSIDs and MACs. Nor did anybody else to our knowledge. Google did. And they kept it over years. And they kept it long after they promised to delete it.
I could easily write down what you're saying while you're talking to someone.
And while you are doing it, I could kill you. So that would make it okay, right? Good we settled it then.
I agree with your general point, but the fine should also take into account that there is no evidence or indication that this was done on purpose, that they did anything with the data, or that they ever intended to do anything with the data.
Yeah, nothing but the fact that a company that makes its money with collecting and storing all sorts of data did exactly that while all the other entities also linking WiFi networks to locations failed to collect and store personal data on those networks.
But that aside - after Google promised they would delete the "accidentally" collected and stored data they -errm, say- managed to forget to actually do it. Got any explanation for that?
And neither is intercepting unencrypted wifi traffic.
But storing it is. And this is what this is fucking about. Well, that and lying about it. And then lying about deleting the data.
I guess some people simply still can't accept that Google is not the white knight, but a company like any other.
That's an insult to most companies.
you think "1984" was to be interpreted literally? We have instead government tapping all internet and phone systems, data mining social media, warring against people who never attacked us in the name of "peace", able to legally "disappear" people who are considered threats without warrant nor oversight, a privileged powerful and wealthy few with government in their pockets engineering the media, social and economic systems for their benefit......we're there
Did you even read Nineteen Eighty-Four? Quick quiz: what was the spying technique that turned in most people in the book? Tapping of phones? Surveillance by Telescreen? Nope, it was good old low-tech "squealing by somebody you trust".
The Siri story in the link was from June 2012. You do know software can be improved. Or do you think Steve Woz was lying.
Well, Siri used Wolfram Aplha before Apple bought it, it uses it now, and there is no indication that it stopped using it any time in between. So even if the problem Woz claims actually existed, it was with Wolfram Alpha, and not with Siri, let alone with Apple "ruining" it.
Anyone have the timeline for Google's disassociation and destruction of search queries? I'm curious how Apple's policies compare against those.
Going by this, not until somebody actually forces them.
He gambled and lost.
If his gamble had worked he would have made a lot of money for the firm and he would have been a hero to his employer with a hefty bonus on top.
Looks like he gambled with his firms money, but intended to pocket the earnings. Even if it had worked, his company likely would have found out and sued him.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Appy+Entertainment+news/news.asp?c=34191
"The piracy rate on Android was 70:1 compared to 3:1 on iOS," Sargent revealed. "That's crippling."
Amazon.cn is not the largest online retailer in China. Which is what I have told you. And yet you keep pretending.
Amazon is the largest online retailer.
Not in China (and by that account probably not in the world either, at least not for long). So why do you bring it up in a vain attempt to show how much most phones sold online in China cost? Because you just can't stop being wrong?
Customers are the people buying your products. Apple's customers are the users, Google's customers are the advertisers.
Please don't waste my time quibbling over words, newspapers, TV, Radio and Magazines, Sports make most of their money through advertising. Would your prefer consumer or User...personally I don't care. ironically by your definition though Google is Apples customer as Apple sells its user to Google :)
Gee, you can't stop being wrong, now can you, Google-Tool.
No I used Amazon to verify average costs of a Chinese Android phone and the what you get for that cost, based on what the Largest Online retailer
Amazon.cn is not the largest online retailer in China. Which is what I have told you. And yet you keep pretending.
further Apple lock-in
I agree. Especially considering the news that a quarter of American books sold are electronic, imagine what a disaster it would be if Steve Jobs had succeeded in forming its [another?] cartel.
Yeah, let's all cheer for Amazon's 90+% of the ebook market - freedom at last!
Even in terms of "market share", Apple is much larger than Google
I'm pretty confident that in the context of this article Google has a lot more customers than Apple :)
Customers are the people buying your products. Apple's customers are the users, Google's customers are the advertisers.
Apples ipod market has died a quiet death
Last quarter Apple sold 12.7 Million iPods. Samsung sold about as much Galaxy Notes - proving again that the Phablet is dying a very loud death.
Then show me your source, because right now local Analysis and Local retail...and the graphs you supply by IDG all point to $76 Android phone being a lie made up by you.
You provide no information about china and the source you provide again restates the fact Apple is a failure in China "China is a massive growth prospect but Apple is not making the market share impact there that it is in other markets. The lack of a device on the China Mobile network is a big drawback, combined with high price points."
Do you even read your own links.
You are trying to show that Apple is a failure in China by presenting numbers from Amazon, which has a 2% marketshare among Chinese e-commerce?
You got to see this in context of Apple's policies. They've been known to exclude journalists from events because they've said things Apple didn't like.
Oooh. Of course Samsung is known for inviting bloggers to international trade fairs, where they are forced to staff the booths. True story. Not to mention suing journalists that say things they didn't like. Another true story
So what you are saying is that at least on Fandroid fails at Math. And Logic. And reading comprehension. And at not being a dick.
No my maths is pretty good, Apple users Pirate at 75% Android users at 60%.
That's not 15% more, that's 15 percentage point more., failboy. Apart from that, you are getting your number from a company that computes piracy numbers for their apps with the same tool they used to famously post thousands of false positive piracy confessions. Epic fail by both of you.
BTW nobody ever claimed there was no piracy on iOS - because unlike what you claim that's what jailbreaking is mostly used for. Boo-yah.
you have 60% pirates,
So your saying that Android users are more likely to pirate by only 15% as the Application I linked to had 75% of Apple user being pirates. pirates.
So what you are saying is that at least on Fandroid fails at Math. And Logic. And reading comprehension. And at not being a dick.