The iPod UI was horrible, it relied on already knowing how to use it. It included several completely unlabelled controls, and no indication of how to use them.
As for capacity. The Nomad had a larger capacity than the first iPod, even though it came out a year earlier. It also labelled all it's controls, so was much easier to learn to use with a better UI.
But Apple had better marketing, and you bought the marketing hook, line, and sinker. Your post even admits that you didn't buy the iPod because it was better, only because you didn't know about the better alternatives. Proof again that they were better at marketing, not at innovating.
Apple is a real case study in why it doesn't matter if your product is better, only if you can market it well.
They never were a tech innovator, only a marketing one.
I note your examples are "first widely successful" and never "first to do X" or "best", because they never have been. You've always been able to buy a competing product that does more, and costs less.
They've been successful because they're great at convincing people to buy inferior products for more money, not because they make the best product.
This release is exactly on brand for them. Add a bunch of features the competition has had for years, talk up the innovation, nothing more.
Nothing new here. Apple has always had horribly unintuitive interfaces. It's been one of their biggest weaknesses for ages.
Apple has one strength, and only one. They are positively amazing at marketing. They constantly take products that are years behind their competitors in feature set, more difficult to learn to use, and cost twice as much, and get people to line up around the block to buy.
Any other company would kill for that kind of marketing ability.
Two problems: 1) US law doesn't apply to space launches performed outside of the US. 2) US law rarely applies to any corporation that has more than a few million dollars lying around.
Bias is easily defined: Anything that doesn't match the subjective opinion of the government of the day.
These days that means that a hiring algorithm had better hire better than 50% women, and every ethnicity in relation to it's percentage representation in the population. What the algorithm is not allowed to do is take in to account any factors that might skew that, such as the applicant pool being predominantly one group, or the qualifications of individual applicants.
Funny how many American apologists were all over themselves to scream that the US never wanted him in the first place, and that it was all just conspiracy theory that they were trying to lay their hands on him. And yet, the instant he's out of the embassy, there's a US extradition warrant waiting for him. Funny that, it's almost as if this was an obvious thing right from the start....
Do you really think Microsoft will happily hand over a license to Wine? or LibreOffice? I doubt the various free SQL servers would have much luck getting licenses either.
Sure, open source software would happily grant licenses, but more often than not the open source project is on the other side of the equation, relying on interoperability to survive.
An order like this would cripple most of those projects.
Federal Regulations as they pertain to software (from https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-26.html): Title 37 Part 201.26: (b)(3) Public domain computer software means software which has been publicly distributed with an explicit disclaimer of copyright protection by the copyright owner.
That means that you can in fact explicitly place something in the public domain. Once you do that, you can not go back on those people who have used that version. Now there's nothing stopping you from distributing a new version under a different license, but that's not the same as reversing the decision on the original.
Even the US government you are stating signed this in to law doesn't believe your take on it, as they themselves specifically place items in the public domain (e.g. see the copyright page on the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html) which despite a publishing date of 2016, is explicitly in the public domain.
If you don't find the CIA authoritative on this matter, let's go to the Copyright Office itself, and look at the Federal Regulations as they pertain to software (from https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-26.html): Title 37 Part 201.26: (b)(3) Public domain computer software means software which has been publicly distributed with an explicit disclaimer of copyright protection by the copyright owner.
So you're the only person who seems to think that you absolutely must charge for licenses from all people, and cannot distribute work for free if you want to (despite millions of pieces of work that fall under that category)
I never called it false. I called your ridiculous interpretation of it false. There's a big difference.
As for law. I'm still waiting for you to show me the specific wording in the law that sets out minimum prices you can charge for a copyright license. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Definition of madness: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
In this case, repeating falsehoods.
Sure, have it your way. All record labels, all movie studios, and all software companies will go out of business immediately. It is 100% impossible for them to make money as doing so relies on licensing their work to others, which as you clearly state is impossible under the Berne convention
Until you can show me the actual text of law that shows the exact minimum payment legally allowed to license work, it's clear that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Licensing for free is exactly the same as licensing for money. If you can't do one, you can't do the other either.
Who, you called me a name, that MUST make you right! You don't need to do actual research, you can insult people!
I never said they could overrule the Berne convention, there's no conflict between being given copyright, and allowing the world to use it for free with no strings attached. All the laws state is that you automatically get the choice, and that without any action on your part nobody can use it in any way whatsoever.
If you were right on this and people couldn't give away the right to use their creations, they also wouldn't be able to make money licensing work to others. Putting something in the public domain is as simple as issuing a license to everyone, for no money, with no conditions attached. This is legally no different from giving someone a limited license in exchange for money which is done millions of times every day.
BTW, you didn't state which copyright cartel you're shilling for. That sort of disclosure would be appropriate in cases where you deliberately try to mislead people in this manner.
There are many, many, people who have successfully done so. Your disagreement with their choice does not make it any less valid.
You legally get copyright, but you are free to license it any way that you want, including free for everyone with no strings attached.
And yet many people have successfully done just that. So I'd say it is you who have not researched it.
Yes, you automatically get copyright on your works. But you are free to license that in any way you want. Including free for everyone with no strings attached.
A company is still free to explicitly give those rights to the public domain, or license them under a non-restrictive license.
Of course it makes it an active act that tends to go against shareholder interests, vs a passive act that's for the betterment of society as a whole, so the odds of it happening in most cases is very small.
You hire lawyers and politicians to make it legally impossible for people to go with a competing product, then you launch your own inferior product and wait for the money to roll in.
Well, you could maybe look at what the argument is, instead of who brought it forward. I know it's cool to hate on the big companies, and we all know it's well deserved, but who the players are should not affect the merit, or lack thereof, of any particular argument.
In this particular case, you root for Google. Not because Google is in any way "good" or "not evil", but because Oracle is trying to ensure that no company can ever make anything interoperable with another company's stuff ever again. There is no accusation that Google copied code, only that they re-implemented the API. A strict interpretation in favour of Oracle would mean that you could never use anyone's API to interface with them without violating their copyright (or paying royalties, etc) This would be a very dangerous precedent.
That does happen with some equipment, and it makes the guys doing the wiring want to kill the idiot who designed it. The bays are all set up with the expectation that wiring will be in a certain place, when it's on the other side it can be awkward to work around depending on how full the bay is.
It's obvious you've never been to business class. These people stopped caring if they got caught a decade ago or more. It's now lie, lie, lie, employ enough lawyers and politicians to deal with any consequences, lie, lie, lie some more.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPod UI was horrible, it relied on already knowing how to use it. It included several completely unlabelled controls, and no indication of how to use them.
As for capacity. The Nomad had a larger capacity than the first iPod, even though it came out a year earlier. It also labelled all it's controls, so was much easier to learn to use with a better UI.
But Apple had better marketing, and you bought the marketing hook, line, and sinker. Your post even admits that you didn't buy the iPod because it was better, only because you didn't know about the better alternatives. Proof again that they were better at marketing, not at innovating.
Apple is a real case study in why it doesn't matter if your product is better, only if you can market it well.
They never were a tech innovator, only a marketing one.
I note your examples are "first widely successful" and never "first to do X" or "best", because they never have been. You've always been able to buy a competing product that does more, and costs less.
They've been successful because they're great at convincing people to buy inferior products for more money, not because they make the best product.
This release is exactly on brand for them. Add a bunch of features the competition has had for years, talk up the innovation, nothing more.
Nothing new here. Apple has always had horribly unintuitive interfaces. It's been one of their biggest weaknesses for ages.
Apple has one strength, and only one. They are positively amazing at marketing. They constantly take products that are years behind their competitors in feature set, more difficult to learn to use, and cost twice as much, and get people to line up around the block to buy.
Any other company would kill for that kind of marketing ability.
FAA clearance is only required for us launches.
Pepsi isn't doing the launch. So laws regarding it won't apply to them.
Also see point 2 above.
Two problems:
1) US law doesn't apply to space launches performed outside of the US.
2) US law rarely applies to any corporation that has more than a few million dollars lying around.
Bias is easily defined: Anything that doesn't match the subjective opinion of the government of the day.
These days that means that a hiring algorithm had better hire better than 50% women, and every ethnicity in relation to it's percentage representation in the population. What the algorithm is not allowed to do is take in to account any factors that might skew that, such as the applicant pool being predominantly one group, or the qualifications of individual applicants.
Funny how many American apologists were all over themselves to scream that the US never wanted him in the first place, and that it was all just conspiracy theory that they were trying to lay their hands on him. And yet, the instant he's out of the embassy, there's a US extradition warrant waiting for him. Funny that, it's almost as if this was an obvious thing right from the start....
Do you really think Microsoft will happily hand over a license to Wine? or LibreOffice?
I doubt the various free SQL servers would have much luck getting licenses either.
Sure, open source software would happily grant licenses, but more often than not the open source project is on the other side of the equation, relying on interoperability to survive.
An order like this would cripple most of those projects.
The US government disagrees with you:
Federal Regulations as they pertain to software (from https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-26.html):
Title 37 Part 201.26:
(b)(3) Public domain computer software means software which has been publicly distributed with an explicit disclaimer of copyright protection by the copyright owner.
That means that you can in fact explicitly place something in the public domain. Once you do that, you can not go back on those people who have used that version. Now there's nothing stopping you from distributing a new version under a different license, but that's not the same as reversing the decision on the original.
Even the US government you are stating signed this in to law doesn't believe your take on it, as they themselves specifically place items in the public domain (e.g. see the copyright page on the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html) which despite a publishing date of 2016, is explicitly in the public domain.
If you don't find the CIA authoritative on this matter, let's go to the Copyright Office itself, and look at the Federal Regulations as they pertain to software (from https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-26.html):
Title 37 Part 201.26:
(b)(3) Public domain computer software means software which has been publicly distributed with an explicit disclaimer of copyright protection by the copyright owner.
So you're the only person who seems to think that you absolutely must charge for licenses from all people, and cannot distribute work for free if you want to (despite millions of pieces of work that fall under that category)
I never called it false. I called your ridiculous interpretation of it false. There's a big difference.
As for law. I'm still waiting for you to show me the specific wording in the law that sets out minimum prices you can charge for a copyright license. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Definition of madness: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
In this case, repeating falsehoods.
Sure, have it your way. All record labels, all movie studios, and all software companies will go out of business immediately. It is 100% impossible for them to make money as doing so relies on licensing their work to others, which as you clearly state is impossible under the Berne convention
Until you can show me the actual text of law that shows the exact minimum payment legally allowed to license work, it's clear that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Licensing for free is exactly the same as licensing for money. If you can't do one, you can't do the other either.
Who, you called me a name, that MUST make you right! You don't need to do actual research, you can insult people! I never said they could overrule the Berne convention, there's no conflict between being given copyright, and allowing the world to use it for free with no strings attached. All the laws state is that you automatically get the choice, and that without any action on your part nobody can use it in any way whatsoever. If you were right on this and people couldn't give away the right to use their creations, they also wouldn't be able to make money licensing work to others. Putting something in the public domain is as simple as issuing a license to everyone, for no money, with no conditions attached. This is legally no different from giving someone a limited license in exchange for money which is done millions of times every day. BTW, you didn't state which copyright cartel you're shilling for. That sort of disclosure would be appropriate in cases where you deliberately try to mislead people in this manner.
There are many, many, people who have successfully done so. Your disagreement with their choice does not make it any less valid. You legally get copyright, but you are free to license it any way that you want, including free for everyone with no strings attached.
And yet many people have successfully done just that. So I'd say it is you who have not researched it. Yes, you automatically get copyright on your works. But you are free to license that in any way you want. Including free for everyone with no strings attached.
You left out "Engage in regulatory capture to lock out competition".
I thought I covered that with hiring politicians.
A company is still free to explicitly give those rights to the public domain, or license them under a non-restrictive license.
Of course it makes it an active act that tends to go against shareholder interests, vs a passive act that's for the betterment of society as a whole, so the odds of it happening in most cases is very small.
Unfortunately the legal precedent wouldn't be just for Java. It would be for all APIs for every piece of software ever written.
You may not like Java, and that's perfectly fair, but that's not a reason to root for Oracle in this case.
That's not how it works.
You hire lawyers and politicians to make it legally impossible for people to go with a competing product, then you launch your own inferior product and wait for the money to roll in.
THAT's how it works.
Competing on actual merit is so last century.
Well, you could maybe look at what the argument is, instead of who brought it forward. I know it's cool to hate on the big companies, and we all know it's well deserved, but who the players are should not affect the merit, or lack thereof, of any particular argument.
In this particular case, you root for Google. Not because Google is in any way "good" or "not evil", but because Oracle is trying to ensure that no company can ever make anything interoperable with another company's stuff ever again. There is no accusation that Google copied code, only that they re-implemented the API. A strict interpretation in favour of Oracle would mean that you could never use anyone's API to interface with them without violating their copyright (or paying royalties, etc) This would be a very dangerous precedent.
So what happens after graduation? because ethics doesn't seem to play any part in the operation of any major company at this point.
That does happen with some equipment, and it makes the guys doing the wiring want to kill the idiot who designed it. The bays are all set up with the expectation that wiring will be in a certain place, when it's on the other side it can be awkward to work around depending on how full the bay is.
It's obvious you've never been to business class. These people stopped caring if they got caught a decade ago or more. It's now lie, lie, lie, employ enough lawyers and politicians to deal with any consequences, lie, lie, lie some more.
They are. But the point is that they take the value from you either way, you might as well take the rewards.