You could almost say that the oil industry is really to blame. We've got a 60 year history of destabilizing a region where this mad ideology originates and then funding (and arming) their dictators. Oil industry and banksters have wrought this upon us. And a family named, "Rothschild"
We'll never deal with terrorism until we deal with that and the fallout from Balfour.
Okay, let's roll with this. You know the US is now sitting on more oil, coal and NG, then there are proven supplies in say Saudi Arabia?
So one more country supporting his thesis - the US has been a major supporter of terrorists for decades.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but after reading the article I could see something to the FBI's arguments.
My understanding is that in this case, the FBI took over Playpen. Let's say that you go to visit Playpen. The FBI has an encrypted record of your visit, which only it has the keys to. How can you counter the evidence supplied by the FBI? What if the FBI's "encryption" method actually spits out false data?
Wouldn't it be easier to just store a completely made up unencrypted record of your visit instead?
And thats what most people who dont understand encryption would say. Unfortunately you completely mis understand the mechanisms being used and a binary blob can decrypt to multiple different data sets depending on key and method. Its pretty much impossible to deduce after decryption whether the result is the same as the original or if the result is alternative output.
You can get a binary blob to decrypt to pretty much anything you want by being inventive with keys and algos. Like you, courts have a hard time understanding whats going on.
Just like you can decrypt the encoded contents of a bookie's notebook to frame anyone you like as a bettor.
Furthermore, there's a significant amount of bigotry directed at Muslims and racism toward people of Middle Eastern descent. The closest to a Middle Eastern character in Star Trek was Julian Bashir, though that's not especially obvious. Alexander Siddig is Sudanese. I think a certain segment of the population wouldn't like him if he was credited under his full name, which is Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderrahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi.
Quote Alpha Memory; "When he began acting, he adopted a shortened version of his name, Siddig El Fadil. He then changed his acting credit to Alexander Siddig at the start of the fourth season of Deep Space Nine, reportedly because people had difficulty pronouncing his birth name."
Launch Facebook on iOS. Tap "More". Tap "More" in the resulting list. Tap "Ads Manager". Tap "Get Started". Tap "Billing". Tap "Add Card".
So you have proven that Facebook doesn't get preferential treatment, and instead does what everybody could do from the start without violating the rules,a dn many have done, including Spotify.
Apple benefits 0 from Spotify which is the entire point of this article. They are blocking Spotify now that they launched their own service. If Apple were to launch a service similar to Facebook you can be certain they would cripple the Facebook app.
Bullshit, Apple changed nothing, neither their behaviour, nor their rules. Now Spotify have changed their behaviour, they suddenly decided to violated the long standing rules on Apple's App Store. And not after Apple Music started, but after Apple Music came to Android. IOW they are scared as fuck.
If you want to play in the Apple walled garden, you have to play according to the rules. Pissing and moaning outside the walled garden doesn't get you preferential treatment.
Ahh, but Spottyfly actually managed to piss into the walled garden. Their app currently violates the rule not to have a link to "external in-app purchases". As does the new version that gets refused because of it.
Spotify should just move exclusivly to Android. Nothing shows the value of your convictions like slaming the door and walking away.
That would pretty much be suicide for Spotify. I'd imagine that most of their paid subscribers come from iOS. After all, iOS users tend to have more disposable income than Android users, and tend to spend considerably more on electronic goods and services.
Like it or not, Spotify has no choice but to have an iOS app available. They can choose to stop allowing in-app purchases, forcing users to figure out on their own how to buy subscriptions, but leaving the platform entirely would be a company-ending move.
If Spottyfly actually thought their users are too stupid to subscribe to their service, they probably would have a point. But what Spottyfly really is scared about is that using Apple's subscription service, it's far too easy to end an subscription you no longer want.
Did you even RTFA? Spotify is attempting to remove the ability to subscribe to their service from the app altogether and Apple is bitching about not being able to get a cut. Never mind that Facebook, Amazon and Netflix, to name a few, don't have to abide by this non-existent rule that if you offer subscriptions you must offer the ability to subscribe in the app.
If the rule were non-existing, nobody would have to abide by it. Since it does exist, they do, including Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. And despite what Spotyfly thinks, so do they. The fact that the app currently on the app store violates the rule isn't a reason they should be allowed to break it in the future, it should be a reason to have it removed. Period.
He wasn't saying he'd have to replace an $800 pair of headphones, he said he'd have to replace his existing headphones WITH an $800 pair, which is clearly Apple's goal.
Apple's goal is bullshit? Because his claim is bullshit. There are se several Lightning headphones, and hundreds of Bluetooth headphones, but if you want to find some really expensive headphones, they will have a jack.
15 U.S. Code 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do?
That would be the "take an 18% loss" option.
Do you actually believe Spotifiy doesn't make far more than 20% profit on their rates? Not to mention that you forget higher profits through increased sales.
Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?
Their claim is that this is what they were trying to do in the update that was rejected. That would be the "or leave" option.
IOW it is possible, others do it, but somehow Spotify fucked up and it's Apple's fault.
You'd have trouble finding your own ass,
I'm shitting as I write this; I'd say I found my own ass just fine, thanks.
You always take a dump onto these pages every time you post here - fine that you finally admit it.
but that's beside the point.
Having read you entire post twice and discarded the invalid, incorrect, or irrelevant portions,
So you ignored everything you wrote? Good idea. Bye
No, Apple didn't "boot" Spotify from the app store. Spotify removed their approved app from the store. There is a world of difference between those two things.
Read that again, in context. Apple didn't give Spotify a choice other than: keep ripping off your customers for 20% of the profit a direct sale nets you, take an 18% loss, or leave.
You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do? Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?
What specific law prevents this contractual arrangement?
I'm not a lawyer so I can't quite the statute, but it'd be the same one that got Microsoft in shit for bundling IE.
You wouldn't find that statute if you were a lawyer either. You'd have trouble finding your own ass, but that's beside the point.
What Microsoft got in trouble was that they got in trouble before and consented " not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows " to get out of it. And then got in trouble for tieing the MS product Internet Explorer with Windows. See, that wasn't only easy, it's also completely unlike anything in this case.
Spotify chose to remove their existing app from the app store instead of removing the feature from their updated app that violated the terms of the app store developers agreement (which is likely the in-app redirection to a web site for payments).
RTFA again. They added the ad (which they'd been allowed previously) and were denied. They removed the violating feature (the ad) and the in-app purchase functionality. They were denied a second time for removing the latter.
I'll forgive you for arguing based on false assumptions if you'll take the time to correct your understanding.
Errm, since it's not allowed in the terms and never was. they may have been let through once because the guy testing the app for approval didn't do his job, or because he didn't think Spotify would be so stupid to have such an add despite the rules saying they can't, or maybe Spotify hid it to avoid detection of it. Doesn't matter - such adds were never allowed, and everybody knows this.But please continue arguing on the false premise that somehow Spotify were the only people on earth who didn't know it.
People can go to spotify's web site, even on their iPhone, and sign up and pay spotify directly, Apple doesn't get a cut at all, then they enter their username/password or whatever in spotify's app and they can happy stream whatever.
They sure can, and this is what Spotify intended; however, those very same users now cannot enter their login info into the Spotify app on iOS unless they already had it installed before Apple refused the aforementioned update and Spotify pulled the app from the store; and those users will already have subscriptions, likely through Apple's system. They do have to pay it, in perpetuity, for any customers already using that option.
Errm what? Are you and Spotify actually claiming that Apple changed how login works on the non-updated app version that you can download now? Instead of Spotify fucking up the process themselves, either by incompetence or by malice to stir up this ruckus?
And are you also claiming that people subscribing using Apple's in-app purchase system can not ever unsubscribe?
Or are are you just writing gibberish because you have no fucking clue what is actually going on?
It's certainly not worth 1/3 the base subscription fee.
Says who? The companies that happily give the 30% (15% for subscriptions lasting longer than a year now) to Apple to give people easy access to their subscriptions, knowing they will make up the money they give Apple in increased numbers? Or those like Spotify that make the customers pay that fee, and still have people paying more for the subscriptions, because the convenience for them is actually worth it?
Of course the convenience is what actually disturbs Spotify - that people can just as easily cancel their subscription without going to their website, and join a competing product. And that's what the market leader Spotify is so worried about. Competition. They are anticompetitive.
Slashdot Mirror
You are one such person. Please explain it to us, why exactly does it have to be a confirmed terrorist attack first?
Because it's a terrorist alert app, not a something happened alert app.
...the democrats to get on the air quickly and start advocating for Banning ALL Assault Trucks immediately!!
And the NRA has called for everybody to shoot at all trucks coming suspiciously close.
You could almost say that the oil industry is really to blame. We've got a 60 year history of destabilizing a region where this mad ideology originates and then funding (and arming) their dictators. Oil industry and banksters have wrought this upon us. And a family named, "Rothschild"
We'll never deal with terrorism until we deal with that and the fallout from Balfour.
Okay, let's roll with this. You know the US is now sitting on more oil, coal and NG, then there are proven supplies in say Saudi Arabia?
So one more country supporting his thesis - the US has been a major supporter of terrorists for decades.
You should be the first to go then.
Well, since you are obviously scared, and scared people are known do do stupid things, you are obviously more dangerous. You go first.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but after reading the article I could see something to the FBI's arguments.
My understanding is that in this case, the FBI took over Playpen. Let's say that you go to visit Playpen. The FBI has an encrypted record of your visit, which only it has the keys to. How can you counter the evidence supplied by the FBI? What if the FBI's "encryption" method actually spits out false data?
Wouldn't it be easier to just store a completely made up unencrypted record of your visit instead?
And thats what most people who dont understand encryption would say. Unfortunately you completely mis understand the mechanisms being used and a binary blob can decrypt to multiple different data sets depending on key and method. Its pretty much impossible to deduce after decryption whether the result is the same as the original or if the result is alternative output.
You can get a binary blob to decrypt to pretty much anything you want by being inventive with keys and algos. Like you, courts have a hard time understanding whats going on.
Just like you can decrypt the encoded contents of a bookie's notebook to frame anyone you like as a bettor.
You see his parents though, and there's no doubt about it. However, I believe KHAN was Punjabi or Sikh?
Whatever their ancestry, Bashir’s parents and Bashir himself are explicitly English in the same way Sisko is explicitly American.
Well yes, because A) Bashir is such a typical English name, and b) Sisko is half-wormhole-being.
Furthermore, there's a significant amount of bigotry directed at Muslims and racism toward people of Middle Eastern descent. The closest to a Middle Eastern character in Star Trek was Julian Bashir, though that's not especially obvious. Alexander Siddig is Sudanese. I think a certain segment of the population wouldn't like him if he was credited under his full name, which is Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderrahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi.
Quote Alpha Memory; "When he began acting, he adopted a shortened version of his name, Siddig El Fadil. He then changed his acting credit to Alexander Siddig at the start of the fourth season of Deep Space Nine, reportedly because people had difficulty pronouncing his birth name."
Actually, the reboot isn't about science and exploration at all. It's about blowing things up and flashy CGI and odd POV shots.
You mean it's like the old movies?
Remember ST:Enterprise? A new TV series doesn't mean the franchise is still alive.
Well, you better remember it, because that's now the only cannon series,
"It's a different timeline" - So Sulu is now gay because Nero went back in time. That's lame, Pegg.
PS: The fact that this explanation is actually lamer than the whole "they found the Botany Bay 20 years earlier" thing says it all.
"It's a different timeline" - So Sulu is now gay because Nero went back in time. That's lame, Pegg.
Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?
Citation please?
Launch Facebook on iOS. Tap "More". Tap "More" in the resulting list. Tap "Ads Manager". Tap "Get Started". Tap "Billing". Tap "Add Card".
So you have proven that Facebook doesn't get preferential treatment, and instead does what everybody could do from the start without violating the rules,a dn many have done, including Spotify.
Apple benefits 0 from Spotify which is the entire point of this article. They are blocking Spotify now that they launched their own service. If Apple were to launch a service similar to Facebook you can be certain they would cripple the Facebook app.
Bullshit, Apple changed nothing, neither their behaviour, nor their rules. Now Spotify have changed their behaviour, they suddenly decided to violated the long standing rules on Apple's App Store. And not after Apple Music started, but after Apple Music came to Android. IOW they are scared as fuck.
If you want to play in the Apple walled garden, you have to play according to the rules. Pissing and moaning outside the walled garden doesn't get you preferential treatment.
Ahh, but Spottyfly actually managed to piss into the walled garden. Their app currently violates the rule not to have a link to "external in-app purchases". As does the new version that gets refused because of it.
That would pretty much be suicide for Spotify. I'd imagine that most of their paid subscribers come from iOS. After all, iOS users tend to have more disposable income than Android users, and tend to spend considerably more on electronic goods and services.
Like it or not, Spotify has no choice but to have an iOS app available. They can choose to stop allowing in-app purchases, forcing users to figure out on their own how to buy subscriptions, but leaving the platform entirely would be a company-ending move.
If Spottyfly actually thought their users are too stupid to subscribe to their service, they probably would have a point. But what Spottyfly really is scared about is that using Apple's subscription service, it's far too easy to end an subscription you no longer want.
Did you even RTFA? Spotify is attempting to remove the ability to subscribe to their service from the app altogether and Apple is bitching about not being able to get a cut. Never mind that Facebook, Amazon and Netflix, to name a few, don't have to abide by this non-existent rule that if you offer subscriptions you must offer the ability to subscribe in the app.
If the rule were non-existing, nobody would have to abide by it. Since it does exist, they do, including Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. And despite what Spotyfly thinks, so do they. The fact that the app currently on the app store violates the rule isn't a reason they should be allowed to break it in the future, it should be a reason to have it removed. Period.
He wasn't saying he'd have to replace an $800 pair of headphones, he said he'd have to replace his existing headphones WITH an $800 pair, which is clearly Apple's goal.
Apple's goal is bullshit? Because his claim is bullshit. There are se several Lightning headphones, and hundreds of Bluetooth headphones, but if you want to find some really expensive headphones, they will have a jack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Specifically product trying (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. 14).
You know what's odd? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/14 The actual law makes no mention of tying in that section.
15 U.S. Code 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Ohh, look, it's Apple, the monopoly without any marketshare again.
It isn't the marketshare of phones that matters, it is the marketshare of app stores...
Ohh, it's Google, the company that supposedly has a higher marketshare in app stores, but doesn't fucking matter when it suits their fanbois.
You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do?
That would be the "take an 18% loss" option.
Do you actually believe Spotifiy doesn't make far more than 20% profit on their rates? Not to mention that you forget higher profits through increased sales.
Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?
Their claim is that this is what they were trying to do in the update that was rejected. That would be the "or leave" option.
IOW it is possible, others do it, but somehow Spotify fucked up and it's Apple's fault.
You'd have trouble finding your own ass,
I'm shitting as I write this; I'd say I found my own ass just fine, thanks.
You always take a dump onto these pages every time you post here - fine that you finally admit it.
but that's beside the point.
Having read you entire post twice and discarded the invalid, incorrect, or irrelevant portions,
So you ignored everything you wrote? Good idea. Bye
No, Apple didn't "boot" Spotify from the app store. Spotify removed their approved app from the store. There is a world of difference between those two things.
Read that again, in context. Apple didn't give Spotify a choice other than: keep ripping off your customers for 20% of the profit a direct sale nets you, take an 18% loss, or leave.
You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do? Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?
What specific law prevents this contractual arrangement?
I'm not a lawyer so I can't quite the statute, but it'd be the same one that got Microsoft in shit for bundling IE.
You wouldn't find that statute if you were a lawyer either. You'd have trouble finding your own ass, but that's beside the point.
What Microsoft got in trouble was that they got in trouble before and consented " not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows " to get out of it. And then got in trouble for tieing the MS product Internet Explorer with Windows. See, that wasn't only easy, it's also completely unlike anything in this case.
Spotify chose to remove their existing app from the app store instead of removing the feature from their updated app that violated the terms of the app store developers agreement (which is likely the in-app redirection to a web site for payments).
RTFA again. They added the ad (which they'd been allowed previously) and were denied. They removed the violating feature (the ad) and the in-app purchase functionality. They were denied a second time for removing the latter. I'll forgive you for arguing based on false assumptions if you'll take the time to correct your understanding.
Errm, since it's not allowed in the terms and never was. they may have been let through once because the guy testing the app for approval didn't do his job, or because he didn't think Spotify would be so stupid to have such an add despite the rules saying they can't, or maybe Spotify hid it to avoid detection of it. Doesn't matter - such adds were never allowed, and everybody knows this.But please continue arguing on the false premise that somehow Spotify were the only people on earth who didn't know it.
People can go to spotify's web site, even on their iPhone, and sign up and pay spotify directly, Apple doesn't get a cut at all, then they enter their username/password or whatever in spotify's app and they can happy stream whatever.
They sure can, and this is what Spotify intended; however, those very same users now cannot enter their login info into the Spotify app on iOS unless they already had it installed before Apple refused the aforementioned update and Spotify pulled the app from the store; and those users will already have subscriptions, likely through Apple's system. They do have to pay it, in perpetuity, for any customers already using that option.
Errm what? Are you and Spotify actually claiming that Apple changed how login works on the non-updated app version that you can download now? Instead of Spotify fucking up the process themselves, either by incompetence or by malice to stir up this ruckus?
And are you also claiming that people subscribing using Apple's in-app purchase system can not ever unsubscribe?
Or are are you just writing gibberish because you have no fucking clue what is actually going on?
It's certainly not worth 1/3 the base subscription fee.
Says who? The companies that happily give the 30% (15% for subscriptions lasting longer than a year now) to Apple to give people easy access to their subscriptions, knowing they will make up the money they give Apple in increased numbers? Or those like Spotify that make the customers pay that fee, and still have people paying more for the subscriptions, because the convenience for them is actually worth it?
Of course the convenience is what actually disturbs Spotify - that people can just as easily cancel their subscription without going to their website, and join a competing product. And that's what the market leader Spotify is so worried about. Competition. They are anticompetitive.
They aren't, until Apple becomes big enough, then they have no choice...
Ohh, look, it's Apple, the monopoly without any marketshare again.