Thanks for continuing to prove my point. China's leadership is just as Communist, in ideal and much of the practice, as they ever were. "Red-baiting" has nothing to do with it. Call the leadership pragmatic if you wish, but China is still solidly a Communist nation.
Also, the United States has pockets of what could be called "socialism" in government and government programs. Does that mean the United States is socialist, or isn't Capitalist/Democratic? Of course not. To say that the existence of elements traditionally antithetical to pure "Communism" is proof that China is no longer "Communist" completely misses the larger point, and ignores the fact that China actually has significant intelligence programs dedicated to making people outside of China believe they are no longer Communist, and hint: it's not because they "really aren't any more".
Communist? Certainly they're still authoritarian, but China hasn't been communist in decades.
I don't even know where to go with this, except to say that you are a shining example of everything I just said in the very post to which you responded.
And if you're going to get all semantic about it in the same way that some people say "the United States isn't really a 'democracy'; it's a federal republic," then go for it. But otherwise, it's perfectly acceptable and indeed correct to refer to China as Communist.
China has had a massive, documented, and concerted effort to get people of all stripes, from authors to analysts to politicians to government officials to individuals members of societies such as yourself, to believe they are no longer "Communist". Apparently it's working quite well.
It's comfortable on the chair of moral relativism, isn't it?
If you believe that Communism and freedom and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, I can see your line of reasoning. Sure, Capitalism is in the mix as well, but Captialism only exists and flourishes in a manifestly free society. Some believe that neither model is "better"; just different - the old "Under Communism, man exploits man - under Capitalism, it's the other way around" bit.
Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on. Sure, freedom is tempered with the rule of law, and no system of government is perfect, but to quote Winston Churchill, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
China can be expected to increase strategic intelligence operations with respect to the United States and its other adversaries, especially as it continues its campaign for "multi-polarity". China employs a wide range of intelligence efforts with respect to the United States, many of which can be traced directly to intelligence capabilities within China's military and government establishment. Because China believes that the United States is a primary adversary, even as the US provides a good deal of the facilitation of China's growth, China can still be expected to continue and increase its strategic intelligence operations with respect to the US.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, China in some ways became the de facto ideological leader of the worldwide Communist movement. China found that it could use international Communist groups and networks, just as the Soviets did, to find persons sympathetic to the causes of Communism and socialism. Indeed, China has actively interacted with and supported international Communists, even persons or organizations known to be involved in criminal activities such a counterfeiting and money laundering. Chinese government officials have been known to meet with those in Communist organizations and student groups abroad, and there are indications such resources are leveraged in a similar fashion as with Russian intelligence.
As something of a flag bearer for world Communism, Beijing has become a "second Rome for Marxism-Leninism". China's Communists, much like the former Soviet Union's, believe world socialism is inevitable and that the Americans are a symbol of what is standing in their way. With the Soviets, the watchword was American "imperialism"; with the Chinese, American "hegemony". However, the Chinese also understand that many in the United States and the West in general view Communism negatively. As such, resources are also devoted to putting forth the images of Capitalism and quasi-democratic ideals, even as the vast populace of China enjoys no such benefit therefrom.
Part of China's strategic campaign is aided by its own system of government. As a system of government with control over much its own press, and even considerable influence over foreign press, China is executing an internal propaganda campaign against the United States with China's own people. At any opportunity, US intentions are painted as at best questionable and at worst aggressive and malicious. This environment, over time, will continue to enhance any support among the general populace for anti-US policy, or actions that must be taken against the United States, possibly with respect to quasi-autonomous disputed areas, such as Taiwan. Without access to multiple viewpoints on a situation, the Chinese people are fed a picture of the world as the Communist leadership wants it seen. Today, that includes mass censorship of the internet, and any sites associated with resistance movements, reformist groups, human rights organizations, and so on.
The propaganda does not stop at China's borders. The effort extends internationally, as China labors to appear clothed in the ideals of Capitalism and free markets - which it, in turn, knows will be seen by many experts as indicative of the decline of Communism. Some propaganda operations are not so subtle, with international news organizations living under the threat of losing their Beijing presence if information that is perceived too negative is published about China.
The continuing enhancement of these ideas lead to easing of trade restrictions, which in turn increases the transfer of high technology into China, and, especially, the finances so critically needed for the silent buildup of China's strength, military and otherwise. China is diligently working to continue to build its conventional army and navy, while also growing its strategic and high technology military capabilities. Chinese military theorists have envisioned new battlefields, where conflict does not happen in open warfare but also on the Internet, via the worl
Sorry, iPhone is still the primary reason Safari is present on Windows.
Granted, this isn't about "developers", per se, and the reason I put "SDK" is in quotes is exactly for that reason.
But the reason that Safari came to Windows is because of iPhone. I'm sure the Safari/WebKit team also wants it to be a great general purpose and competitive browser for Windows as well. But the executive decision to do this at all was likely largely made because all third party access to iPhone will be via Safari, and making Safari available on Windows...well, I trust (hope?) you can see the reasoning.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google delivered iPhone-specific web applications, but I'm not sure about Google Gears, since that is designed to allow web apps to run offline, whereas iPhone really needs them to be run online.
Am I the only person that's terrified by the idea of allowing web browser apps to start dialling people? I really hope they get the security model correct.
Probably so, because plenty of other phones can current do this.
And it's not "web browser apps dialing people". It's the ability to click a phone number (or other element, like an address) in a web page and have it handled by the iPhone properly. Palm, Windows Mobile, etc., devices all do this (i.e., click a phone number in a web browser, and have the phone dial it).
Um, that's not the point of why I said "view in Safari".
This isn't about apps being only tied to Safari in some magical way, or being "prevented" from running elsewhere. It's the opposite: making sure they run right in Safari, since the iPhone's browser is (essentially) Safari.
So, while they may be "Web 2.0"/AJAX applications designed with iPhone in mind, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to them as "iPhone apps"
I don't call Google Maps a "Mac application" when it's running in Safari on OS X.
You would if a Mac was an appliance and the app was only designed for and targeted at specific functionality and features of only Safari on OS X.
Of course these aren't native iPhone applications. No one is claiming they are, and no one's trying to make people think they are. They're simply rich web/AJAX applications. A simple web page, or even a rich generic web application, wouldn't be called an "iPhone app". But one targeted specifically at iPhone's functionality, features, interface, and screen size will be. Especially if this ends up being the only way third parties can get functionality to the iPhone.
And besides, this is the way Google is delivering applications; ever heard of "Google Apps"? Just because they're running via a browser doesn't mean they can't be called apps. And when they're targeted at one platform, it's perfectly reasonable to call them apps for that platform, especially a speciality device like iPhone. Sure, sure, we can get into semantic arguments all day long about how it's *really* just a web page and the fact that someone might have "targeted" it to iPhone still doesn't make it an "iPhone app". But the rest of the world will be browsing through, and using, directories of third party "iPhone apps" on their iPhone.
(Of course I would have preferred a true iPhone SDK, being able to directly access and use the underlying frameworks on iPhone, and have native apps reside locally. But that's not happening right now. So instead of saying "Rich Web 2.0/AJAX applications targeted for iPhone", we'll just say "iPhone apps", ok?)
While it might be disappointing that there isn't a true iPhone SDK that lets developers write native apps to OS X/iPhone frameworks, 1.) "Web 2.0"/AJAX applications can be advanced in functionality, and still have access to all of iPhone's services, and 2.) it's not written in stone that there will NEVER be an iPhone SDK or some mechanism or process for adding native applications to iPhone. But the above app is just a quick and dirty example of what can be done.
It's to act as a development vehicle for iPhone, since all third party iPhone apps will be rich Web 2.0/AJAX applications.
On this topic, such applications can indeed have the look and feel of iPhone applications, and have access to all iPhone internal services, such as phone dialing, access to maps functionality, and any other iPhone services.
This isn't just, "Oh, let's bring out Safari for Windows for the hell of it, and let people see how good of a browser it is, and maybe they'll buy a Mac!"
Since live/near-live/realtime coverage of NCAA events is prohibited without license, and has long been the case, it really doesn't matter if "blogging" was mentioned by that specific word. If it's live coverage from the event, it's live coverage from the event. The relevant question would be, whether "blogging" was mentioned by name or not, why wouldn't it be covered by all the same restrictions as any other kind of live coverage rights that media entities license and pay for? It's not just radio and TV. There are numerous web-based, mobile-based, pager-pased, datacast, and other text-based services that provide "live" coverage of events. They all have to be licensed properly, and usually paid for as well. "Blogging" is no difference. The NCAA's right to license such live, and even recorded, coverage has stood up in court.
And since this article seems to come down on the side of the "blogger", the fact that it mentioned that, "the memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game," probably means it was fairly obvious that blogging was not allowed during the game, to say nothing of the previous points I just made.
The question "does blogging equal broadcast" has not been answered. Until then, it's a 1st Amendment question.
The question of ANY kind of live coverage of an NCAA event requiring licensing to cover said event, by any mechanism, including "blogging", has already been asked and answered numerous times in the courts. There already are numerous web-based, mobile, paging, datacast, and other textual services that do live or near-live coverage of such events, and they pay for and license the content and right to do so from the rights holder. Also, the blogger is not prohibited from reporting on the event after the fact. The question "does blogging equal broadcast" doesn't have to be answered; any live or near-realtime coverage of the event must be licensed. In this particular scenario, the person was even informed that his specific activity was prohibited.
Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The first amendment applies manifestly to the federal government, even if it can be extended to states. But this isn't really a first amendment issue; under this person's press credentials and terms, he is allowed to relate the events of the game, just not live, from the event, because live or near-live coverage is covered by other licensing and costs. Other journalistic entities do essentially live textual coverage of games, and they have a license to do so.
This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a state university, using state property, and using state resources to enforce their policies (police, courts). The Constitutional dimension to this case is not as black-and-white as you seem to believe; however, I tend to agree with the bulk of your analysis. The key is whether state action is present. Lacking that, there is no need to continue the legal analysis.
The NCAA isn't even a quasi-governmental agency. It's a private association. I'd agree that public universities can be considered quasi-government, albeit state, and that's to what I was referring. I don't pretend that any Constitutional element in this or any other instance is *that* black-and-white; else, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court that can be widely split on Constitutional issues.
Take it further. Replace blogging with "talking to your friend on a cellphone about the game as it's going on." Under the NCAA interpretation, this would be violating their policies. I would like to see them try to enforce that. The answer is, short of requiring everybody to turn in their cellphones at the gate, they can't.
But you're taking it further in the other direction. Yeah, I can call my buddies and tell them the score from my cell phone. But providing live coverage to a newspaper's web site with press credentials when you are not licensed to provide such coverage (and other court-tested licenses and restrictions on such broadcasts already exist) crosses a line. Could the line be blurry? Sure. But not for someone with press credentials who was informed that live blogging wasn't permitted.
Simply accepting a license to attend a sporting event does not strip you of all rights. As an example, there is a line of 4th Amendment cases regarding the propriety of, and limits to, searching sporting event attendees.
The NCAA's right to control and license the live/near-live and recorded contents of its events has been tested and confirmed in the courts. The live scenario has its own set of conditions and restrictions, and doesn't prevent someone from immediately reporting the event after the fact for a newspaper, online service, podcast, or what have you (within the terms of the license). So the point is that the relevant controls that NCAA asserts on its content have already been tested, and blogging is simply a new element that is being treated the same as other mechanisms.
Actually, the NCAA's right to control live/semi-live/recorded broadcast of its events, from public/state institutions or otherwise, has been tested and confirmed time and again in the courts. The fact that some NCAA institutions are quasi-governmental entities is incidental to this argument. If you extend your argument, then unrestricted video, audio, text, or any other kind of broadcast should also be allowed without licensing from the events.
If you want to kind of make the stretch argument that this is "taxpayer funded", well, any events that the NCAA would even care about kicking a "live blogger" with press credentials out of are going to be at programs that are already highly profitable for the institution, and thus not funded by taxpayer dollars.
I believe I have addressed your concerns here and a bit here.
If that was your first post, I'd be right behind you. But you went the reciprocal-tinfoil strawman route and got caught.
That was also in my first post:
The Courier-Journal said that the University of Louisville sent out a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game. The memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game.
Check.
But Bennett had not been approached after live-blogging previous games in the playoffs.
[...] The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.
That doesn't invalidate the other legitimate arguments I made, and just because you don't personally agree with them doesn't make them invalid, or incorrect, for that matter.
And, as I said, there is licensing involved in the live, semi-realtime play-by-play textual (web, mobile) content that media entities such as CBS, CNNSI, and ESPN provide.
The bottom line is, no matter how extensive it is or isn't, "live blogging" or any other kind of live coverage is NOT ALLOWED by persons with press passes, and they were told this. That is the end of the discussion.
I find it amusing that people can put forth all kinds of ridiculous slippery slope arguments on other technology issues, but can't fathom that someone might actually want to, say, "video blog" from an event. Well, why not? Why not "live podcast" an event? I know *this guy* wasn't doing that, but he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing, either.
Sure, maybe one day all the old school "business models" will collapse, and we'll all live in blog and YouTube-utopia. I think most people would prefer to have the chance to have access to things like ESPN HD, and ESPN pays good money to be in that space. And no, some newspaper's blogger isn't going to threaten ESPN. But people do license and pay for the right to cover the events "live", by any mechanism. Why is this guy different? Because he's doing it on a "blog"?
Yes, many NCAA institutions are public research universities that are essentially quasi-governmental entities. I even considered raising this point in my post.
But, a few points:
1. It's not a federal entity. (But to play devil's advocate to my own position, many public, and even private, universities receive a good amount of federal funding.)
2. It is the NCAA. From TFA:
"[...] Brian Bennett was approached by NCAA officials [...]"
"blogging from an NCAA championship event 'is against NCAA policies'"
"a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game [...]said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game."
3. The rights for NCAA events do belong jointly to schools and the NCAA, and the schools allow (and prefer) the NCAA to manage aspects of such events.
4. If live blogging without licensing is acceptable for some reason, then so should live broadcast by any other mechanism.
5. You can argue that the NCAA is acting as a proxy for "the government" in the context of state schools, but that argument doesn't wash. He wasn't kicked out for "blogging"; he was kicked out for violating terms that he agreed to as a person with press credentials, which meant that unauthorized live (or semi-live; even broadcast coverage is delayed slightly) coverage is prohibited. The fact that he was blogging or doing it via "text" is incidental. Replace blogging with a camera or a microphone, and then try to make a free speech argument out of it. That would at least be logically consistent.
Bottom line: a lot of money is involved in the NCAA and for schools; money that greatly benefits those institutions not just in the form of the sports themselves, but in income that supports so many other programs, athletic and otherwise, facilities, alumni donations, and so on. NCAA, and the schools, rightly want to control that process to some extent, and they have the rights to do so in our current legal system.
NCAA policy expressly prohibits live-blogging/coverage of the game by press, he was informed of it in advance, he had press credentials; he violated the policy anyway, got caught, and got removed.
End of story.
And no, there is no first amendment question here at all, government or no. And if there is, it's the same for any other live coverage of an event by any mechanism. I know the whole "Congress shall pass no law" thing is pesky, but yet there it is. I guess that's why your argument is always best served by trying to link government and corporate interests, making corporate "censorship" a de facto first amendment issue.
This isn't some journalist innocently trying to report the game with new technology that bucks a business model, or a guy who might want to tell his buddies about the game via computer. It's someone who wants to be considered a journalist, with journalist credentials, violating the policy set forth by the issuer of said credentials.
What a doozy of a sensationalistic story. The "See any serious problems with this story?" link took on a whole new meaning.
First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.
Second, let's go to TFA:
The Courier-Journal said that the University of Louisville sent out a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game. The memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game.
Check.
But Bennett had not been approached after live-blogging previous games in the playoffs.
Oh, so then it must be okay? Talk about a non-story. The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.
This was a person who wasn't removed for "blogging", but a person with press credentials who was providing live coverage of the event.
The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "blogging" magically different or protected?
Could someone set up a radio broadcast station from within an NCAA event without arranging the necessary licensing with the teams and the NCAA? Could someone do the same with a cell phone and broadcast it to a pirate radio station? Sure. The answer is you can do it if you don't get caught. Conspiracy theorists will wail about how it's all about money and control, just another example of censorship in our corporate/government-controlled police state society, ignoring any and all other aspects to order and law in a civil society, and the fact that, believe it or not, economic factors actually do come into play when a lot of money is involved in producing something.
Do you think ESPN, CNNSI, CBS and other sports news aggregators get the content for their live play-by-play event services on web sites and mobile devices for free? Hell no. The "information wants to be free" and "everything is okay when it's done using technology, but only when it's the people and not corporations or government" arguments can be saved for elsewhere.
What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No? Where do you draw the line?
If everyone wants to have bloggers be considered legitimate "journalists" no matter who they are, they're going to have to play by the same rules everyone else does, too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sure, sure, he's just "reporting on the event" with "newer technology" than the old antiquated dinosaurs, right? Wrong. He's providing some semblance of live coverage of the event, and that's something other content providers have to license and pay for.
If you're live-broadcasting an event, the NCAA is likely to get its feathers ruffled, and not allow you to do it. This is not the government, and if you think it's "censorship" or inhibiting free speech or that bloggers are just "journalists", except in more real time, then why don't you get all up in arms about not being able to broadcast the video or audio from the events live or in near realtime, either?
This isn't about "blogging". It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials - that is another critical point - without having paid to do so, like everyone else who provides such coverage has.
This is WWDC. It is a developer conference, not a consumer conference. Its focus has always been software (although WWDC has occasionally been the forum for hardware announcements). Apple is doing more and more product introductions as they're ready (e.g., like last week's new MacBook Pro introduction), and less and less product introductions at conferences and "special events".
Everyone expecting brushed aluminum iMacs and new Cinema Displays shouldn't have expected that in the first place. And an Apple-branded virtualization solution? It's been known since last WWDC that Leopard wouldn't have integrated virtualization. With threedifferentsolutions already existing, plus Boot Camp, why would you even expect that, no matter how nice it would be?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for continuing to prove my point. China's leadership is just as Communist, in ideal and much of the practice, as they ever were. "Red-baiting" has nothing to do with it. Call the leadership pragmatic if you wish, but China is still solidly a Communist nation.
Also, the United States has pockets of what could be called "socialism" in government and government programs. Does that mean the United States is socialist, or isn't Capitalist/Democratic? Of course not. To say that the existence of elements traditionally antithetical to pure "Communism" is proof that China is no longer "Communist" completely misses the larger point, and ignores the fact that China actually has significant intelligence programs dedicated to making people outside of China believe they are no longer Communist, and hint: it's not because they "really aren't any more".
A 'second Rome', or a 'Constantinople'?
In that usage, "second Rome" refers to Constantinople.
Communist? Certainly they're still authoritarian, but China hasn't been communist in decades.
I don't even know where to go with this, except to say that you are a shining example of everything I just said in the very post to which you responded.
And if you're going to get all semantic about it in the same way that some people say "the United States isn't really a 'democracy'; it's a federal republic," then go for it. But otherwise, it's perfectly acceptable and indeed correct to refer to China as Communist.
China has had a massive, documented, and concerted effort to get people of all stripes, from authors to analysts to politicians to government officials to individuals members of societies such as yourself, to believe they are no longer "Communist". Apparently it's working quite well.
It's comfortable on the chair of moral relativism, isn't it?
If you believe that Communism and freedom and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, I can see your line of reasoning. Sure, Capitalism is in the mix as well, but Captialism only exists and flourishes in a manifestly free society. Some believe that neither model is "better"; just different - the old "Under Communism, man exploits man - under Capitalism, it's the other way around" bit.
Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on. Sure, freedom is tempered with the rule of law, and no system of government is perfect, but to quote Winston Churchill, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
China can be expected to increase strategic intelligence operations with respect to the United States and its other adversaries, especially as it continues its campaign for "multi-polarity". China employs a wide range of intelligence efforts with respect to the United States, many of which can be traced directly to intelligence capabilities within China's military and government establishment. Because China believes that the United States is a primary adversary, even as the US provides a good deal of the facilitation of China's growth, China can still be expected to continue and increase its strategic intelligence operations with respect to the US.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, China in some ways became the de facto ideological leader of the worldwide Communist movement. China found that it could use international Communist groups and networks, just as the Soviets did, to find persons sympathetic to the causes of Communism and socialism. Indeed, China has actively interacted with and supported international Communists, even persons or organizations known to be involved in criminal activities such a counterfeiting and money laundering. Chinese government officials have been known to meet with those in Communist organizations and student groups abroad, and there are indications such resources are leveraged in a similar fashion as with Russian intelligence.
As something of a flag bearer for world Communism, Beijing has become a "second Rome for Marxism-Leninism". China's Communists, much like the former Soviet Union's, believe world socialism is inevitable and that the Americans are a symbol of what is standing in their way. With the Soviets, the watchword was American "imperialism"; with the Chinese, American "hegemony". However, the Chinese also understand that many in the United States and the West in general view Communism negatively. As such, resources are also devoted to putting forth the images of Capitalism and quasi-democratic ideals, even as the vast populace of China enjoys no such benefit therefrom.
Part of China's strategic campaign is aided by its own system of government. As a system of government with control over much its own press, and even considerable influence over foreign press, China is executing an internal propaganda campaign against the United States with China's own people. At any opportunity, US intentions are painted as at best questionable and at worst aggressive and malicious. This environment, over time, will continue to enhance any support among the general populace for anti-US policy, or actions that must be taken against the United States, possibly with respect to quasi-autonomous disputed areas, such as Taiwan. Without access to multiple viewpoints on a situation, the Chinese people are fed a picture of the world as the Communist leadership wants it seen. Today, that includes mass censorship of the internet, and any sites associated with resistance movements, reformist groups, human rights organizations, and so on.
The propaganda does not stop at China's borders. The effort extends internationally, as China labors to appear clothed in the ideals of Capitalism and free markets - which it, in turn, knows will be seen by many experts as indicative of the decline of Communism. Some propaganda operations are not so subtle, with international news organizations living under the threat of losing their Beijing presence if information that is perceived too negative is published about China.
The continuing enhancement of these ideas lead to easing of trade restrictions, which in turn increases the transfer of high technology into China, and, especially, the finances so critically needed for the silent buildup of China's strength, military and otherwise. China is diligently working to continue to build its conventional army and navy, while also growing its strategic and high technology military capabilities. Chinese military theorists have envisioned new battlefields, where conflict does not happen in open warfare but also on the Internet, via the worl
Sorry, iPhone is still the primary reason Safari is present on Windows.
Granted, this isn't about "developers", per se, and the reason I put "SDK" is in quotes is exactly for that reason.
But the reason that Safari came to Windows is because of iPhone. I'm sure the Safari/WebKit team also wants it to be a great general purpose and competitive browser for Windows as well. But the executive decision to do this at all was likely largely made because all third party access to iPhone will be via Safari, and making Safari available on Windows...well, I trust (hope?) you can see the reasoning.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google delivered iPhone-specific web applications, but I'm not sure about Google Gears, since that is designed to allow web apps to run offline, whereas iPhone really needs them to be run online.
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5627640.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#History
Am I the only person that's terrified by the idea of allowing web browser apps to start dialling people? I really hope they get the security model correct.
Probably so, because plenty of other phones can current do this.
And it's not "web browser apps dialing people". It's the ability to click a phone number (or other element, like an address) in a web page and have it handled by the iPhone properly. Palm, Windows Mobile, etc., devices all do this (i.e., click a phone number in a web browser, and have the phone dial it).
Other phones allow much MORE access to the dialing/wireless network natively; the whole point of having third party iPhone apps be essentially web applications is precisely to sandbox them away from a security perspective.
Um, that's not the point of why I said "view in Safari".
This isn't about apps being only tied to Safari in some magical way, or being "prevented" from running elsewhere. It's the opposite: making sure they run right in Safari, since the iPhone's browser is (essentially) Safari.
Read this post to understand the situation.
Can we please stop calling them iPhone apps?
No, because these web apps will be designed:
1.) with the look and feel of iPhone
2.) to use iPhone user interface functionality
3.) to use iPhone services
4.) for the screen size/shape of iPhone
5.) to work most effectively on iPhone
So, while they may be "Web 2.0"/AJAX applications designed with iPhone in mind, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to them as "iPhone apps"
I don't call Google Maps a "Mac application" when it's running in Safari on OS X.
You would if a Mac was an appliance and the app was only designed for and targeted at specific functionality and features of only Safari on OS X.
Of course these aren't native iPhone applications. No one is claiming they are, and no one's trying to make people think they are. They're simply rich web/AJAX applications. A simple web page, or even a rich generic web application, wouldn't be called an "iPhone app". But one targeted specifically at iPhone's functionality, features, interface, and screen size will be. Especially if this ends up being the only way third parties can get functionality to the iPhone.
And besides, this is the way Google is delivering applications; ever heard of "Google Apps"? Just because they're running via a browser doesn't mean they can't be called apps. And when they're targeted at one platform, it's perfectly reasonable to call them apps for that platform, especially a speciality device like iPhone. Sure, sure, we can get into semantic arguments all day long about how it's *really* just a web page and the fact that someone might have "targeted" it to iPhone still doesn't make it an "iPhone app". But the rest of the world will be browsing through, and using, directories of third party "iPhone apps" on their iPhone.
(Of course I would have preferred a true iPhone SDK, being able to directly access and use the underlying frameworks on iPhone, and have native apps reside locally. But that's not happening right now. So instead of saying "Rich Web 2.0/AJAX applications targeted for iPhone", we'll just say "iPhone apps", ok?)
...of an iPhone "application" (view in Safari).
While it might be disappointing that there isn't a true iPhone SDK that lets developers write native apps to OS X/iPhone frameworks, 1.) "Web 2.0"/AJAX applications can be advanced in functionality, and still have access to all of iPhone's services, and 2.) it's not written in stone that there will NEVER be an iPhone SDK or some mechanism or process for adding native applications to iPhone. But the above app is just a quick and dirty example of what can be done.
...isn't to entice people to buy a Mac.
It's to act as a development vehicle for iPhone, since all third party iPhone apps will be rich Web 2.0/AJAX applications.
On this topic, such applications can indeed have the look and feel of iPhone applications, and have access to all iPhone internal services, such as phone dialing, access to maps functionality, and any other iPhone services.
This isn't just, "Oh, let's bring out Safari for Windows for the hell of it, and let people see how good of a browser it is, and maybe they'll buy a Mac!"
This is the "SDK" for iPhone.
Since live/near-live/realtime coverage of NCAA events is prohibited without license, and has long been the case, it really doesn't matter if "blogging" was mentioned by that specific word. If it's live coverage from the event, it's live coverage from the event. The relevant question would be, whether "blogging" was mentioned by name or not, why wouldn't it be covered by all the same restrictions as any other kind of live coverage rights that media entities license and pay for? It's not just radio and TV. There are numerous web-based, mobile-based, pager-pased, datacast, and other text-based services that provide "live" coverage of events. They all have to be licensed properly, and usually paid for as well. "Blogging" is no difference. The NCAA's right to license such live, and even recorded, coverage has stood up in court.
And since this article seems to come down on the side of the "blogger", the fact that it mentioned that, "the memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game," probably means it was fairly obvious that blogging was not allowed during the game, to say nothing of the previous points I just made.
The question "does blogging equal broadcast" has not been answered. Until then, it's a 1st Amendment question.
The question of ANY kind of live coverage of an NCAA event requiring licensing to cover said event, by any mechanism, including "blogging", has already been asked and answered numerous times in the courts. There already are numerous web-based, mobile, paging, datacast, and other textual services that do live or near-live coverage of such events, and they pay for and license the content and right to do so from the rights holder. Also, the blogger is not prohibited from reporting on the event after the fact. The question "does blogging equal broadcast" doesn't have to be answered; any live or near-realtime coverage of the event must be licensed. In this particular scenario, the person was even informed that his specific activity was prohibited.
it's not a first amendment question.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The first amendment applies manifestly to the federal government, even if it can be extended to states. But this isn't really a first amendment issue; under this person's press credentials and terms, he is allowed to relate the events of the game, just not live, from the event, because live or near-live coverage is covered by other licensing and costs. Other journalistic entities do essentially live textual coverage of games, and they have a license to do so.
This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a state university, using state property, and using state resources to enforce their policies (police, courts). The Constitutional dimension to this case is not as black-and-white as you seem to believe; however, I tend to agree with the bulk of your analysis. The key is whether state action is present. Lacking that, there is no need to continue the legal analysis.
The NCAA isn't even a quasi-governmental agency. It's a private association. I'd agree that public universities can be considered quasi-government, albeit state, and that's to what I was referring. I don't pretend that any Constitutional element in this or any other instance is *that* black-and-white; else, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court that can be widely split on Constitutional issues.
Take it further. Replace blogging with "talking to your friend on a cellphone about the game as it's going on." Under the NCAA interpretation, this would be violating their policies. I would like to see them try to enforce that. The answer is, short of requiring everybody to turn in their cellphones at the gate, they can't.
But you're taking it further in the other direction. Yeah, I can call my buddies and tell them the score from my cell phone. But providing live coverage to a newspaper's web site with press credentials when you are not licensed to provide such coverage (and other court-tested licenses and restrictions on such broadcasts already exist) crosses a line. Could the line be blurry? Sure. But not for someone with press credentials who was informed that live blogging wasn't permitted.
Simply accepting a license to attend a sporting event does not strip you of all rights. As an example, there is a line of 4th Amendment cases regarding the propriety of, and limits to, searching sporting event attendees.
The NCAA's right to control and license the live/near-live and recorded contents of its events has been tested and confirmed in the courts. The live scenario has its own set of conditions and restrictions, and doesn't prevent someone from immediately reporting the event after the fact for a newspaper, online service, podcast, or what have you (within the terms of the license). So the point is that the relevant controls that NCAA asserts on its content have already been tested, and blogging is simply a new element that is being treated the same as other mechanisms.
Actually, the NCAA's right to control live/semi-live/recorded broadcast of its events, from public/state institutions or otherwise, has been tested and confirmed time and again in the courts. The fact that some NCAA institutions are quasi-governmental entities is incidental to this argument. If you extend your argument, then unrestricted video, audio, text, or any other kind of broadcast should also be allowed without licensing from the events.
If you want to kind of make the stretch argument that this is "taxpayer funded", well, any events that the NCAA would even care about kicking a "live blogger" with press credentials out of are going to be at programs that are already highly profitable for the institution, and thus not funded by taxpayer dollars.
I believe I have addressed your concerns here and a bit here.
If that was your first post, I'd be right behind you. But you went the reciprocal-tinfoil strawman route and got caught.
That was also in my first post:
The Courier-Journal said that the University of Louisville sent out a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game. The memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game.
Check.
But Bennett had not been approached after live-blogging previous games in the playoffs.
[...] The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.
That doesn't invalidate the other legitimate arguments I made, and just because you don't personally agree with them doesn't make them invalid, or incorrect, for that matter.
And, as I said, there is licensing involved in the live, semi-realtime play-by-play textual (web, mobile) content that media entities such as CBS, CNNSI, and ESPN provide.
The bottom line is, no matter how extensive it is or isn't, "live blogging" or any other kind of live coverage is NOT ALLOWED by persons with press passes, and they were told this. That is the end of the discussion.
I find it amusing that people can put forth all kinds of ridiculous slippery slope arguments on other technology issues, but can't fathom that someone might actually want to, say, "video blog" from an event. Well, why not? Why not "live podcast" an event? I know *this guy* wasn't doing that, but he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing, either.
Sure, maybe one day all the old school "business models" will collapse, and we'll all live in blog and YouTube-utopia. I think most people would prefer to have the chance to have access to things like ESPN HD, and ESPN pays good money to be in that space. And no, some newspaper's blogger isn't going to threaten ESPN. But people do license and pay for the right to cover the events "live", by any mechanism. Why is this guy different? Because he's doing it on a "blog"?
Yes, many NCAA institutions are public research universities that are essentially quasi-governmental entities. I even considered raising this point in my post.
But, a few points:
1. It's not a federal entity. (But to play devil's advocate to my own position, many public, and even private, universities receive a good amount of federal funding.)
2. It is the NCAA. From TFA:
"[...] Brian Bennett was approached by NCAA officials [...]"
"blogging from an NCAA championship event 'is against NCAA policies'"
"a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game [...]said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game."
3. The rights for NCAA events do belong jointly to schools and the NCAA, and the schools allow (and prefer) the NCAA to manage aspects of such events.
4. If live blogging without licensing is acceptable for some reason, then so should live broadcast by any other mechanism.
5. You can argue that the NCAA is acting as a proxy for "the government" in the context of state schools, but that argument doesn't wash. He wasn't kicked out for "blogging"; he was kicked out for violating terms that he agreed to as a person with press credentials, which meant that unauthorized live (or semi-live; even broadcast coverage is delayed slightly) coverage is prohibited. The fact that he was blogging or doing it via "text" is incidental. Replace blogging with a camera or a microphone, and then try to make a free speech argument out of it. That would at least be logically consistent.
Bottom line: a lot of money is involved in the NCAA and for schools; money that greatly benefits those institutions not just in the form of the sports themselves, but in income that supports so many other programs, athletic and otherwise, facilities, alumni donations, and so on. NCAA, and the schools, rightly want to control that process to some extent, and they have the rights to do so in our current legal system.
Wrong.
NCAA policy expressly prohibits live-blogging/coverage of the game by press, he was informed of it in advance, he had press credentials; he violated the policy anyway, got caught, and got removed.
End of story.
And no, there is no first amendment question here at all, government or no. And if there is, it's the same for any other live coverage of an event by any mechanism. I know the whole "Congress shall pass no law" thing is pesky, but yet there it is. I guess that's why your argument is always best served by trying to link government and corporate interests, making corporate "censorship" a de facto first amendment issue.
This isn't some journalist innocently trying to report the game with new technology that bucks a business model, or a guy who might want to tell his buddies about the game via computer. It's someone who wants to be considered a journalist, with journalist credentials, violating the policy set forth by the issuer of said credentials.
Not much more to say about it.
What a doozy of a sensationalistic story. The "See any serious problems with this story?" link took on a whole new meaning.
First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.
Second, let's go to TFA:
The Courier-Journal said that the University of Louisville sent out a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game. The memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game.
Check.
But Bennett had not been approached after live-blogging previous games in the playoffs.
Oh, so then it must be okay? Talk about a non-story. The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.
This was a person who wasn't removed for "blogging", but a person with press credentials who was providing live coverage of the event.
The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "blogging" magically different or protected?
Could someone set up a radio broadcast station from within an NCAA event without arranging the necessary licensing with the teams and the NCAA? Could someone do the same with a cell phone and broadcast it to a pirate radio station? Sure. The answer is you can do it if you don't get caught. Conspiracy theorists will wail about how it's all about money and control, just another example of censorship in our corporate/government-controlled police state society, ignoring any and all other aspects to order and law in a civil society, and the fact that, believe it or not, economic factors actually do come into play when a lot of money is involved in producing something.
Do you think ESPN, CNNSI, CBS and other sports news aggregators get the content for their live play-by-play event services on web sites and mobile devices for free? Hell no. The "information wants to be free" and "everything is okay when it's done using technology, but only when it's the people and not corporations or government" arguments can be saved for elsewhere.
What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No? Where do you draw the line?
If everyone wants to have bloggers be considered legitimate "journalists" no matter who they are, they're going to have to play by the same rules everyone else does, too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sure, sure, he's just "reporting on the event" with "newer technology" than the old antiquated dinosaurs, right? Wrong. He's providing some semblance of live coverage of the event, and that's something other content providers have to license and pay for.
If you're live-broadcasting an event, the NCAA is likely to get its feathers ruffled, and not allow you to do it. This is not the government, and if you think it's "censorship" or inhibiting free speech or that bloggers are just "journalists", except in more real time, then why don't you get all up in arms about not being able to broadcast the video or audio from the events live or in near realtime, either?
This isn't about "blogging". It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials - that is another critical point - without having paid to do so, like everyone else who provides such coverage has.
Most of what's going on in Leopard (and at WWDC in general) isn't mentioned in the keynote.
This is WWDC. It is a developer conference, not a consumer conference. Its focus has always been software (although WWDC has occasionally been the forum for hardware announcements). Apple is doing more and more product introductions as they're ready (e.g., like last week's new MacBook Pro introduction), and less and less product introductions at conferences and "special events".
Everyone expecting brushed aluminum iMacs and new Cinema Displays shouldn't have expected that in the first place. And an Apple-branded virtualization solution? It's been known since last WWDC that Leopard wouldn't have integrated virtualization. With three different solutions already existing, plus Boot Camp, why would you even expect that, no matter how nice it would be?
And who would care about this announcement? This isn't just "Safari for Windows". Jeez. It's the channel for development for iPhone, since all of iPhone's third-party development will be as Safari web apps.
...RLY?