So what if I use Apple equipment exclusively? I like the aesthetic, and I like OS X. For high end hardware, i know it will be supported for years. My rMBP will be able to run Sierra. Fast. None of the keys are pulled off. None of the use shows. My laptop could sell on EBay for $1000. I have needed to service one of my thunderbolt displays, as the power supply went out; but that only cost me $90 and Apple themselves did the repair. Fantastic hardware. Oh and the operating system? It's really the best in the world for the desktop. Hands down. Oh and I administer full-stack Windows solutions for some companies. AD, Exchange, share point, etc.... I also develope in Linux most of my projects (LAMP or Node.js). For a developer, Apple hardware can't be beat, and the software can't either. The stuff for me, like using iMessage to carry on my conversations whatever I'm using, like using airdrop to transfer large files between my macs, it all works really really well. And there is NOTHING on Windows that can compare to terminal app for Mac. Putty is shit compared to it.Mac combines the best of both worlds. Most of the apps that run in Windows run in OS X, and if I need to split a file every 25,000 lines, split -l 25000./somefile.txt. Or any other Linux utility I might need like Ed to netcat.
Oh and not having Tim Cook watch what I do on a Mac while squeezing every penny he can by pawning my info out to the highest bidder? Priceless.
An iPad, an iPhone, they are computers. They are mobile computers.
Desktop: Mac Mini w/ 2 27 inch thunderbolt displays, Apple TV for collaboration in my office as well.
For my laptop, I use a 2012 rMBP with 16GB ram, 768GB disks. Served me for 4 years and it's still going strong.
I use Safari for personal browsing since it integrates with my key chain, and chrome for developing. I use BBEdit for a text editor, or vi/vim when in a shell. VurtualBox for dev environments, and Apple Mail for... Mail.
No. No one died because of technology. People died because they are not using the technology correctly. Tesla let the drivers know that the tech was in beta, Telsa let the drivers know to pay attention and still be alert and able to take control if the system fails to do exactly what it failed to do.
Tech fails all the time, and thats OK, because programmers find the holes and improve the technology. Like people, its not full-proof. It gets better when people use it more. How many windows patches would there be if MS was still keeping it in a lab and trying to perfect it by themselves, to say nothing of FOSS. Use is the evolutionary process in software. Tesla Autopilot is already at human levels when statistically compared, and perhaps better even.
So some one died. Thats sad. But the ROI on human life will be redeemed exponentially when the technology gets good enough to reduces fatalities on roadways to less than the hundreds of thousands we have today. Tesla and the rest of them are taking the dangers out of transportation for millions of users. They will make mistakes along the way, but the benefit is worth the cost here. Everyone who agrees to the Telsa Autopilot TOS agrees too, and if the users would follow the instructions more carefully, then the cost wouldn't be as high.
Popular imagination the warnings, instructions and limitations the manufacture tells you to follow and listen to. To do otherwise is just careless and stupid.
Horseshit. I don't expect an AUTOmobile to be mobile for me. Any person knows that an Autopilot in an aircraft doesn't mean there is no pilot. An autopilot in a car doesn't mean the car doesn't need a driver. Tesla tell you NOT TO TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE CAR, and they tell you that the Autopilot feature is in beta. The driver that got killed, while sad, was being irresponsible with a piece of technology and not following directions. A chainsaw's instruction manual tells you not to operate without safety goggles and to practice safe operation. If some moron fails to listen to the instructions and loses an eye, that doesn't mean we should take chainsaws away from all individuals. That just means stupid people don't listen to instructions, but we know that already.
If the company was hacked and the passwords were stored insecurely, then it is responsible. If a second company gets hacked and you shared the same passwords, the second company is responsible for the damage done to it, and you are responsible for the damage done to you. The first company should not be held accountable. They didn't decide your password. They allow you the freedom to set it yourself. Don't be a fool and split passwords among various services. Seriously.
You can't complain when it has been repeated so often NOT TO USE COMMON PASSWORDS. YOUR SECURITY IS THAT OF THE WEAKEST PASSWORDS. You can't complain because you failed to enable two-factor. You can't complain if your password was easy to guess and the attackers guessed it (you can if the company allows millions to be tested without locking out your account and blocking the attack, this is a brute force password break, and should be mitigated in authentication software).
Macwrite was a WYSIWYG editor, and Microsoft came out with word relatively identically timed to when Microsoft came out with Windows. I'll grant you, Macwrite is not what Word is, but it what some would have considered at the time a reference design. It was supposed to be used "by mere mortals". Microsoft did have the insight to realize that the office is where these applications would find their niche, not in the kids bedroom doing homework papers.
But my point remains. Microsoft finds impulse to enter a market where others are already succeeding, by creating a "me too, but it works with the rest of our stuff" approach. Just look at Bing as the perfect example of that. MS does that. They created Bing when there was no real need for it. Google was serving the needs of the search market just fine. Contrast that with Apple. They only created Maps because google would not allow them to have turn-by-turn directions without the app supplying data they wanted to harvest for marketers. Apple would not allow google to collect that data, and could not sit idly by while Android had turn-by-turn. Apple won't enter a market where they don't have to, without the ability to create some innovative value.
Nope. Microsoft is not a monopoly, not anymore at least. They were when I.E. was breaking standards and forcing web sites to its proprietary rendering engine. They only have a relatively large market share in email servers, consumer desktop OSs, and office software, none of which is large enough to bar entrants and competitors.
No. What MS doing now is seeing Apple's success and vying for those markets, unsuccessfully. Their problem is that hey are just bad at it.
1. Apple created System 1, and Microsoft created Windows with developer preview access. 2. Apple had MacWrite again as a developer preview, and again, Microsoft copied to Word. 3. Apple Came out with the iPod, its first real block buster success... Microsoft copied with the Zune, terribly. 4. Apple created the iPhone, Microsoft copied unsuccessfully with its Nokia Lumina. 5. Apple iPad, Microsoft surface (RT at first). 6. MacBook, surface book. 7. Now the iMac.
What's just as just as troubling thought is they seem to be eating into other markets that were previously complimentary. Hosted exchange, servers. (A'la azure), and clients. These were previously sacred ground Microsoft cultivated for many years thriving ecosystems around its primary products. Today, it's taking those markets for itself, since it has few other areas to expand into.
It doesn't matter, people are just as blinded by the rising / setting sun in their eyes. Not to beat a dead horse, but as long as the system proves more safe to operate than people per mile traveled it should be a beaming success (pun intended).
What really will make this system come into its own are three things:
1. Having non-vision sensors installed which will happen at some point (RADAR, LIDAR, sound based sonar, etc etc etc)
2. Having the fleet of autonomous systems communicate with the network / roadway and other vehicles. This will make vehicle-to-vehicle accidents far less likely.
3. Having the major thoroughfares autonomous-mandatory. This is where the system will come into its own. No more lights, no more stop signs, no more stopping just for stopping's sake (middle of the night "just me at this stop sign or red light"). The cars will be able to time their crossing in perfect synchrony, improving the average speed, wearing brakes less, spending less fuel on re-accelleration... The future here is really going to be an improvement on the current state, by far.
No. Bullshit. What's un-American is one company thinking it can invite the private property of another company. This is a right of access dispute and a property dispute. Nothing more. And if you feel like Google has the right to put its wires on ATT poles without seeking permission and negotiating for that acces, please send me your business address, as my storage costs could always come down, and I'm happy to use your space for free as well.
Horse shit. You clearly need a refresher-course in Anti-Competitive behavior. See here.
Or for those of you are lazy: Section 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"
That is the original text of the Sherman Act. The law that basically makes it illegal to monopolize a market by position. Apple do not have this position. Android is a larger OS by market share, which Apple can not influence. If Apple and Google decided to divvy up the music streaming business that would be a violation and an effective duopoly, but that is not the case here.
Apple does have costs associated with running the App store, and they have disproportionally levied fees on payments in order to subsidize their costs to provide the App Store services to free apps. Thank goodness they have, since most small developers can not afford:
1. A real quality control department. The review process keeps many bugs out of the App Store. Not all, but most.
2. Shady, shitty, data steeling apps.
3. Apps infested with spyware, malware, etc... etc...
4. The infrastructure to support updates, discovery, sales channels, a user-review solution... the list goes on....
If the benefits of the App Store didn't make it worth-while for app developers, the App Store would be pretty barren of apps. Its not. Apple do not have a monopoly on phones, phone OS's, and therefore can not have a monopoly on anything contained therein.
Yes, it sucks that you have to compete with essentially... Your vendor. This is becoming more and more prevalent in the IT industry, just look at office 365 vs the MSPs who resell exchange cloud services.
Your proposed solution sounds good, but my issue with it is that the App Store does not cost Apple $0 to operate. So if they gave away their 30%, that would harm them disproportionately since they would then also have to provide for their App Store team.
It's a tough nut to crack. They should be free to pursue every avenue of business, but they should also have to compete fairly. I'm not sure there is a really slick solution that makes things truly level. They use undocumented APIs for music that hook into Siri, and they have also integrated with the native iPOD app. Two things Spotify just can't do. There's an awesome clip of Steve jobs introducing default I.E. for OS X, and he said "Since we believe in choice, you can change your default browser if you choose", to thunderous applause. Apple have changed their beliefs since then.
This is a problem for one sector of the industry against another sector. The model Apple has created saves the small developer a lot of resources and energy by allowing them to offload to apple:
1) the hosting costs of serving their application
2) Set up a payment gateway, processor, PCI compliance.. etc..
3) Provides metrics for small developers, a user-feedback system, an automatic update mechanism
4) A sales strategy that helps get smaller app developers noticed.
Searching in the App store is more small-developer friendly than searching in Google. If we used google for searching for our app games, all we would ever find is EA, and other developers wouldn't be as successful. The model works and the ecosystem is a testament to that.
and I can't state this enough 5) Providing a lot of small developers a robust QA department.
Can you image the plethora of crash, buggy, shitty, malware-ridden, infected, suspicious, devious, dubious, and malicious apps we would have if we all downloaded apps off random web-pages instead of the curated app store?
I don't feel like looking through all the slashdot articles on the various bugs and crap that have come out on Android, and friends of mine who are devout Android users have remarked how much better the iOS app versions seem to be. There is nothing you could get me to do to leave the curated app store, even there are downsides to the curation. Some apps get banned for content or purpose (porn, political satire) reducing selection. Also, Apple isn't perfect, and providing a high quality product does lead the consumer to believe the apps must be for all intents and purposes, perfect. So they may be less likely to practice computing safety. Suspicions attachment in email? In outlook, you listen to the warning. On an iPhone, you feel like theres not much it that can break, but there still issues that get through.
But, can you imagine if Microsoft did this for Windows EXEs? We wouldn't have as many of the shitty anti-virus, anti-malware, any-spyware, toolbar-removing, homepage-changing, crap-vertizing safety apps we have on PCs today. Not having to deal with that mess on my phone, priceless, and well worth the 30% overhead on my measly app costs, considering most really useful apps are free anyway, where Apple just absorbs these costs itself.
The real complaints come from the big guys, who have all this infrastructure. This is why you can't subscribe to Office365 via the Office apps. This is why there is no Autocad purchasable on the iPad. Their costs take into account all these functions, without having to subsidize it for free Apps. But they have their own sales channels and the app is seen as a "bolt-on". Just like the app that comes with your company phone system.
The real problem here occurs when you have hyper-competitive markets like song-streaming. Spotify, AM, Pandora, they all fight every contract and deal they make for fractions of pennies due to the micro-margins and huge throughput in their business models. That causes them to penny-pinch for the cost savings they need to be competitive. Those markets are now butting up against Apple's hard and fast "We didn't negotiate with Microsoft for Office, why would we negotiate with you? The rules are posted on the website right there!" rules for cost-sharing. And they are not happy about it.
I am not an expert, so I was speaking in general terms. I meant functional as the cell it replaced, where the cancer is indistinguishable from the original save for its immortality.
The part where this doesn't make sense is that our gametes don't have the cancerous genes, only the cancerous cells do. The rest of you is still you. Cancer doesn't change the cell structure of all your cells, just the cancerous ones. Your sperm or egg are still the same (unless you have ovarian/testicular cancer).
Yes but (hopefully), we reproduced before our mutation happened, before our genes went bad.
No. The part where this doesn't make sense is that our gametes don't have the cancerous genes, only the cancerous cells do. The rest of you is still you. Cancer doesn't change the cell structure of all your cells, just the cancerous ones. Your sperm or egg are still the same (unless you have ovarian/testicular cancer).
Funny, but ironic. Autocorrect took a bad word, made it good, and broke the meaning in your words.
It always struck me as strange when I hear that cancer cells don't really die. It's as if cancer cells are evolution working to fix one problem (cell death), and creating another (cells not functioning). I wonder if one day some cancerous cells will evolve to function. Imagine having a cancer in your lungs that efficiently pass oxygen, or a brain tumor that functions like brain matter. It's our bodies trying to stop dying. Cancer creeps up on us where we do the most damage. Smoke a cigarette? Damage to lungs, make cells immortal. Irradiate the skin in tanning beds? Damage to skin cells, make skin immortal. Eat terrible diet? Stomach or colon cancer, make cells immortal.
Maybe our bodies just havnt figured out how to make the immortal cells function.
He did so it is an ISIS related attack. I'm just saying not all Islamic terrorists do it for religion, just like all Christian terrorists do it for religion. In this case he did.
I don't know since the media has not said yet (mid-Sunday) that the attack was religiously motivated. Until it is revealed otherwise, there is no reason to think it is. But, if you wanna go that route: Christian Terrorism.
But you don't find people alarmed at all of Cristendom because Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic. Some terrorist attacks are religiously motivated, some are not. And when it comes to religious motivation, the crowning achievement in religious terrorism by far was the European Crusades that sought to conquer the holy lands by spilling blood. Just because it wasn't a covert operation, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism, and it was religiously motivated.
It doesn't make the topic any more or less import. Surveillance is one of the defining constructs of the Information Age, and "answering that question" / "solving that problem" is going to have huge ramifications for the next century, or longer. It's on part in my opinion as to weather America should have entered WWII.
IMHO, surveillance is no less than the end to personal control and self determination on so many levels. What you can discover, you can mitigate. Imagine if England has this sort of power in the 1770's, the world would be vastly different today. We have obviously fallen short in terms of creating a government entity which is properly in check by the governed, free from abuse or corruption, so it's significantly dangerous to endow such an organization with both the power to see everything and do anything they want to about it.
Then you have the crime factor, theft of that data and abuse of power by those in the position to abuse that information (I'm looking at you Comcast & AT&T). Sir Tim is right. We need make commonplace and standard tomorrow, end to end encryption as TCP/IP is today. Nothing else can guarantee us our liberties with regards to it.
Neither am I It's a very effective tactic. It worked so well neutralizing Julian Assange. They (THEY) learn from their successes as well as their mistakes.//PUT ON TIN FOIL HAT NOW
The problem here is the content creators (*IAA asshats) who have no business sense. I can not get a good justification for the complexity of their distribution channels (country codes in dvd drives, IP restrictions, all of if). Why? Why?
If it's a sales tax issue, then the local taxes should be bolted after the sticker price ($9.99 + tax). If it's because censorship beauros around the world need to get and classify the material, fine! But let the governments worry about blocking it. This becomes a real problem when customers in countries not seemingly affected by these externalities end up suffering and have to regress in technology because of it.
And speaking of backwards, why isn't Netflix itself who is suffering the issue turning off IPv6? Why should I fuck up my home router because their service doesn't work with the latest shit? Clearly I'm living right here (SoCal), since my card and my billing address are here. Complain to their support dept and claim you need V6 for work, make them fix it, or lose business!/rant
Slashdot Mirror
So what if I use Apple equipment exclusively? I like the aesthetic, and I like OS X. For high end hardware, i know it will be supported for years. My rMBP will be able to run Sierra. Fast. None of the keys are pulled off. None of the use shows. My laptop could sell on EBay for $1000. I have needed to service one of my thunderbolt displays, as the power supply went out; but that only cost me $90 and Apple themselves did the repair. Fantastic hardware. Oh and the operating system? It's really the best in the world for the desktop. Hands down. Oh and I administer full-stack Windows solutions for some companies. AD, Exchange, share point, etc.... I also develope in Linux most of my projects (LAMP or Node.js). For a developer, Apple hardware can't be beat, and the software can't either. The stuff for me, like using iMessage to carry on my conversations whatever I'm using, like using airdrop to transfer large files between my macs, it all works really really well. And there is NOTHING on Windows that can compare to terminal app for Mac. Putty is shit compared to it.Mac combines the best of both worlds. Most of the apps that run in Windows run in OS X, and if I need to split a file every 25,000 lines, split -l 25000 ./somefile.txt. Or any other Linux utility I might need like Ed to netcat.
Oh and not having Tim Cook watch what I do on a Mac while squeezing every penny he can by pawning my info out to the highest bidder? Priceless.
An iPad, an iPhone, they are computers. They are mobile computers. Desktop: Mac Mini w/ 2 27 inch thunderbolt displays, Apple TV for collaboration in my office as well. For my laptop, I use a 2012 rMBP with 16GB ram, 768GB disks. Served me for 4 years and it's still going strong. I use Safari for personal browsing since it integrates with my key chain, and chrome for developing. I use BBEdit for a text editor, or vi/vim when in a shell. VurtualBox for dev environments, and Apple Mail for... Mail.
No. No one died because of technology. People died because they are not using the technology correctly. Tesla let the drivers know that the tech was in beta, Telsa let the drivers know to pay attention and still be alert and able to take control if the system fails to do exactly what it failed to do.
Tech fails all the time, and thats OK, because programmers find the holes and improve the technology. Like people, its not full-proof. It gets better when people use it more. How many windows patches would there be if MS was still keeping it in a lab and trying to perfect it by themselves, to say nothing of FOSS. Use is the evolutionary process in software. Tesla Autopilot is already at human levels when statistically compared, and perhaps better even.
So some one died. Thats sad. But the ROI on human life will be redeemed exponentially when the technology gets good enough to reduces fatalities on roadways to less than the hundreds of thousands we have today. Tesla and the rest of them are taking the dangers out of transportation for millions of users. They will make mistakes along the way, but the benefit is worth the cost here. Everyone who agrees to the Telsa Autopilot TOS agrees too, and if the users would follow the instructions more carefully, then the cost wouldn't be as high.
Popular imagination the warnings, instructions and limitations the manufacture tells you to follow and listen to. To do otherwise is just careless and stupid.
Have you ever been in an airplane with out a pilot? Why would you expect to get into a car without a driver?
Horseshit. I don't expect an AUTOmobile to be mobile for me. Any person knows that an Autopilot in an aircraft doesn't mean there is no pilot. An autopilot in a car doesn't mean the car doesn't need a driver. Tesla tell you NOT TO TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE CAR, and they tell you that the Autopilot feature is in beta. The driver that got killed, while sad, was being irresponsible with a piece of technology and not following directions. A chainsaw's instruction manual tells you not to operate without safety goggles and to practice safe operation. If some moron fails to listen to the instructions and loses an eye, that doesn't mean we should take chainsaws away from all individuals. That just means stupid people don't listen to instructions, but we know that already.
Save the paper, don't print!
If the company was hacked and the passwords were stored insecurely, then it is responsible. If a second company gets hacked and you shared the same passwords, the second company is responsible for the damage done to it, and you are responsible for the damage done to you. The first company should not be held accountable. They didn't decide your password. They allow you the freedom to set it yourself. Don't be a fool and split passwords among various services. Seriously.
You can't complain when it has been repeated so often NOT TO USE COMMON PASSWORDS. YOUR SECURITY IS THAT OF THE WEAKEST PASSWORDS.
You can't complain because you failed to enable two-factor.
You can't complain if your password was easy to guess and the attackers guessed it (you can if the company allows millions to be tested without locking out your account and blocking the attack, this is a brute force password break, and should be mitigated in authentication software).
Get the fuck out of here, you with your stupid.... facts, and stuff.
Macwrite was a WYSIWYG editor, and Microsoft came out with word relatively identically timed to when Microsoft came out with Windows. I'll grant you, Macwrite is not what Word is, but it what some would have considered at the time a reference design. It was supposed to be used "by mere mortals". Microsoft did have the insight to realize that the office is where these applications would find their niche, not in the kids bedroom doing homework papers.
But my point remains. Microsoft finds impulse to enter a market where others are already succeeding, by creating a "me too, but it works with the rest of our stuff" approach. Just look at Bing as the perfect example of that. MS does that. They created Bing when there was no real need for it. Google was serving the needs of the search market just fine. Contrast that with Apple. They only created Maps because google would not allow them to have turn-by-turn directions without the app supplying data they wanted to harvest for marketers. Apple would not allow google to collect that data, and could not sit idly by while Android had turn-by-turn. Apple won't enter a market where they don't have to, without the ability to create some innovative value.
Nope. Microsoft is not a monopoly, not anymore at least. They were when I.E. was breaking standards and forcing web sites to its proprietary rendering engine. They only have a relatively large market share in email servers, consumer desktop OSs, and office software, none of which is large enough to bar entrants and competitors.
No. What MS doing now is seeing Apple's success and vying for those markets, unsuccessfully. Their problem is that hey are just bad at it.
1. Apple created System 1, and Microsoft created Windows with developer preview access.
2. Apple had MacWrite again as a developer preview, and again, Microsoft copied to Word.
3. Apple Came out with the iPod, its first real block buster success... Microsoft copied with the Zune, terribly.
4. Apple created the iPhone, Microsoft copied unsuccessfully with its Nokia Lumina.
5. Apple iPad, Microsoft surface (RT at first).
6. MacBook, surface book.
7. Now the iMac.
What's just as just as troubling thought is they seem to be eating into other markets that were previously complimentary. Hosted exchange, servers. (A'la azure), and clients. These were previously sacred ground Microsoft cultivated for many years thriving ecosystems around its primary products. Today, it's taking those markets for itself, since it has few other areas to expand into.
It doesn't matter, people are just as blinded by the rising / setting sun in their eyes. Not to beat a dead horse, but as long as the system proves more safe to operate than people per mile traveled it should be a beaming success (pun intended).
What really will make this system come into its own are three things:
1. Having non-vision sensors installed which will happen at some point (RADAR, LIDAR, sound based sonar, etc etc etc)
2. Having the fleet of autonomous systems communicate with the network / roadway and other vehicles. This will make vehicle-to-vehicle accidents far less likely.
3. Having the major thoroughfares autonomous-mandatory. This is where the system will come into its own. No more lights, no more stop signs, no more stopping just for stopping's sake (middle of the night "just me at this stop sign or red light"). The cars will be able to time their crossing in perfect synchrony, improving the average speed, wearing brakes less, spending less fuel on re-accelleration... The future here is really going to be an improvement on the current state, by far.
No. Bullshit. What's un-American is one company thinking it can invite the private property of another company. This is a right of access dispute and a property dispute. Nothing more. And if you feel like Google has the right to put its wires on ATT poles without seeking permission and negotiating for that acces, please send me your business address, as my storage costs could always come down, and I'm happy to use your space for free as well.
Horse shit. You clearly need a refresher-course in Anti-Competitive behavior. See here.
Or for those of you are lazy:
Section 1: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"
That is the original text of the Sherman Act. The law that basically makes it illegal to monopolize a market by position. Apple do not have this position. Android is a larger OS by market share, which Apple can not influence. If Apple and Google decided to divvy up the music streaming business that would be a violation and an effective duopoly, but that is not the case here.
Apple does have costs associated with running the App store, and they have disproportionally levied fees on payments in order to subsidize their costs to provide the App Store services to free apps. Thank goodness they have, since most small developers can not afford:
1. A real quality control department. The review process keeps many bugs out of the App Store. Not all, but most.
2. Shady, shitty, data steeling apps.
3. Apps infested with spyware, malware, etc... etc...
4. The infrastructure to support updates, discovery, sales channels, a user-review solution...
the list goes on....
If the benefits of the App Store didn't make it worth-while for app developers, the App Store would be pretty barren of apps. Its not. Apple do not have a monopoly on phones, phone OS's, and therefore can not have a monopoly on anything contained therein.
Mr. Sewell is right.
Yes, it sucks that you have to compete with essentially... Your vendor. This is becoming more and more prevalent in the IT industry, just look at office 365 vs the MSPs who resell exchange cloud services.
Your proposed solution sounds good, but my issue with it is that the App Store does not cost Apple $0 to operate. So if they gave away their 30%, that would harm them disproportionately since they would then also have to provide for their App Store team.
It's a tough nut to crack. They should be free to pursue every avenue of business, but they should also have to compete fairly. I'm not sure there is a really slick solution that makes things truly level. They use undocumented APIs for music that hook into Siri, and they have also integrated with the native iPOD app. Two things Spotify just can't do. There's an awesome clip of Steve jobs introducing default I.E. for OS X, and he said "Since we believe in choice, you can change your default browser if you choose", to thunderous applause. Apple have changed their beliefs since then.
This is a problem for one sector of the industry against another sector. The model Apple has created saves the small developer a lot of resources and energy by allowing them to offload to apple:
1) the hosting costs of serving their application
2) Set up a payment gateway, processor, PCI compliance.. etc..
3) Provides metrics for small developers, a user-feedback system, an automatic update mechanism
4) A sales strategy that helps get smaller app developers noticed.
Searching in the App store is more small-developer friendly than searching in Google. If we used google for searching for our app games, all we would ever find is EA, and other developers wouldn't be as successful. The model works and the ecosystem is a testament to that.
and I can't state this enough
5) Providing a lot of small developers a robust QA department.
Can you image the plethora of crash, buggy, shitty, malware-ridden, infected, suspicious, devious, dubious, and malicious apps we would have if we all downloaded apps off random web-pages instead of the curated app store?
I don't feel like looking through all the slashdot articles on the various bugs and crap that have come out on Android, and friends of mine who are devout Android users have remarked how much better the iOS app versions seem to be. There is nothing you could get me to do to leave the curated app store, even there are downsides to the curation. Some apps get banned for content or purpose (porn, political satire) reducing selection. Also, Apple isn't perfect, and providing a high quality product does lead the consumer to believe the apps must be for all intents and purposes, perfect. So they may be less likely to practice computing safety. Suspicions attachment in email? In outlook, you listen to the warning. On an iPhone, you feel like theres not much it that can break, but there still issues that get through.
But, can you imagine if Microsoft did this for Windows EXEs? We wouldn't have as many of the shitty anti-virus, anti-malware, any-spyware, toolbar-removing, homepage-changing, crap-vertizing safety apps we have on PCs today. Not having to deal with that mess on my phone, priceless, and well worth the 30% overhead on my measly app costs, considering most really useful apps are free anyway, where Apple just absorbs these costs itself.
The real complaints come from the big guys, who have all this infrastructure. This is why you can't subscribe to Office365 via the Office apps. This is why there is no Autocad purchasable on the iPad. Their costs take into account all these functions, without having to subsidize it for free Apps. But they have their own sales channels and the app is seen as a "bolt-on". Just like the app that comes with your company phone system.
The real problem here occurs when you have hyper-competitive markets like song-streaming. Spotify, AM, Pandora, they all fight every contract and deal they make for fractions of pennies due to the micro-margins and huge throughput in their business models. That causes them to penny-pinch for the cost savings they need to be competitive. Those markets are now butting up against Apple's hard and fast "We didn't negotiate with Microsoft for Office, why would we negotiate with you? The rules are posted on the website right there!" rules for cost-sharing. And they are not happy about it.
I am not an expert, so I was speaking in general terms. I meant functional as the cell it replaced, where the cancer is indistinguishable from the original save for its immortality.
The part where this doesn't make sense is that our gametes don't have the cancerous genes, only the cancerous cells do. The rest of you is still you. Cancer doesn't change the cell structure of all your cells, just the cancerous ones. Your sperm or egg are still the same (unless you have ovarian/testicular cancer).
Yes but (hopefully), we reproduced before our mutation happened, before our genes went bad.
No. The part where this doesn't make sense is that our gametes don't have the cancerous genes, only the cancerous cells do. The rest of you is still you. Cancer doesn't change the cell structure of all your cells, just the cancerous ones. Your sperm or egg are still the same (unless you have ovarian/testicular cancer).
Funny, but ironic. Autocorrect took a bad word, made it good, and broke the meaning in your words.
It always struck me as strange when I hear that cancer cells don't really die. It's as if cancer cells are evolution working to fix one problem (cell death), and creating another (cells not functioning). I wonder if one day some cancerous cells will evolve to function. Imagine having a cancer in your lungs that efficiently pass oxygen, or a brain tumor that functions like brain matter. It's our bodies trying to stop dying. Cancer creeps up on us where we do the most damage. Smoke a cigarette? Damage to lungs, make cells immortal. Irradiate the skin in tanning beds? Damage to skin cells, make skin immortal. Eat terrible diet? Stomach or colon cancer, make cells immortal.
Maybe our bodies just havnt figured out how to make the immortal cells function.
He did so it is an ISIS related attack. I'm just saying not all Islamic terrorists do it for religion, just like all Christian terrorists do it for religion. In this case he did.
I don't know since the media has not said yet (mid-Sunday) that the attack was religiously motivated. Until it is revealed otherwise, there is no reason to think it is. But, if you wanna go that route: Christian Terrorism.
But you don't find people alarmed at all of Cristendom because Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic. Some terrorist attacks are religiously motivated, some are not. And when it comes to religious motivation, the crowning achievement in religious terrorism by far was the European Crusades that sought to conquer the holy lands by spilling blood. Just because it wasn't a covert operation, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism, and it was religiously motivated.
It doesn't make the topic any more or less import. Surveillance is one of the defining constructs of the Information Age, and "answering that question" / "solving that problem" is going to have huge ramifications for the next century, or longer. It's on part in my opinion as to weather America should have entered WWII.
IMHO, surveillance is no less than the end to personal control and self determination on so many levels. What you can discover, you can mitigate. Imagine if England has this sort of power in the 1770's, the world would be vastly different today. We have obviously fallen short in terms of creating a government entity which is properly in check by the governed, free from abuse or corruption, so it's significantly dangerous to endow such an organization with both the power to see everything and do anything they want to about it.
Then you have the crime factor, theft of that data and abuse of power by those in the position to abuse that information (I'm looking at you Comcast & AT&T). Sir Tim is right. We need make commonplace and standard tomorrow, end to end encryption as TCP/IP is today. Nothing else can guarantee us our liberties with regards to it.
Neither am I It's a very effective tactic. It worked so well neutralizing Julian Assange. They (THEY) learn from their successes as well as their mistakes. //PUT ON TIN FOIL HAT NOW
The problem here is the content creators (*IAA asshats) who have no business sense. I can not get a good justification for the complexity of their distribution channels (country codes in dvd drives, IP restrictions, all of if). Why? Why?
/rant
If it's a sales tax issue, then the local taxes should be bolted after the sticker price ($9.99 + tax). If it's because censorship beauros around the world need to get and classify the material, fine! But let the governments worry about blocking it. This becomes a real problem when customers in countries not seemingly affected by these externalities end up suffering and have to regress in technology because of it.
And speaking of backwards, why isn't Netflix itself who is suffering the issue turning off IPv6? Why should I fuck up my home router because their service doesn't work with the latest shit? Clearly I'm living right here (SoCal), since my card and my billing address are here. Complain to their support dept and claim you need V6 for work, make them fix it, or lose business!