I take it you've never been a developer for desktop platforms. If everyone had had your attitude, one wonders how people ever managed to write software for computers, with all the so-called "fragmentation". "Oh no, all these millions of websites that people can download applications for Windows, how will I as a developer ever cope! And there isn't even an official Microsoft Store to save poor little me!"
Let's see your evidence for this FUD? My 5800 is on Vodafone, and I can download applications from where I like.
It's hilarious trying to watch Apple fans claiming "Look, everyone else will be as bad, too, honest!" Anyway, I thought the locked down "app" store model was supposed to be a good thing, according to Apple fans, right?
Wow, the second to least popular company in the mobile market is more popular than a company that's even less popular than it.
If you're a commercial company, maybe you could read the rules of the different stores, and choose the best? And I'm confused - on what basis do you "know the rules" for Apple, and not any of the other stores? Oh yes, that's right, because you did read the rules.
And heaven forbid, maybe you could have a website for people to download your application. Commercial stores that take a cut should be in addition. Are you actually a developer, or are you just making this up? If everyone acted like you, one wonders how people could ever have released software without Apple to hold your hand:
"But how can we possibly release an application for Windows, without Microsoft to allow us to release it on their site, and take a cut!"
Correlation is not causation. If having multiple app download places is a problem, how come it isn't for Nokia at 40-50% of the mobile market? Or for the 95% of the market that isn't Apple? Or for 100% of platforms on the desktop?
The fact that users had to dig around and search for apps
Um, no, you're confusing things. By all means have a store where it is easy to find applications, but I fail to see how an additional store makes it hard. And I fail to see how using Google or just visiting the website is harder than using an application store's search engine. Any half decent bog standard phone has been doing web access for the last five years now, if your phone can't handle that, that's a problem.
Is the app on one cellular carrier's store and nowhere else? Is it on the generic Android app store?
Blimey, I wonder how you ever managed to use a computer with questions like these. Do you even have any applications other than those installed by the company you bought your PC from? I remember when Slashdot used to be a place for computer geeks - not anymore.
On Windows, I download applications from where I like. On my 5800 I download applications from where I like. Same as I did on my V980, or my Amiga years ago. No one criticises how every platform in the history of computing, except the Iphone, has worked.
Not to mention that it's still speculation by the OP that Vodafone will be locking their phones down. Both my aforementioned phones are on Vodafone, and they've implemented no such restrictions. And "app" store that they supplied is in addition to this.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
An entity transaction is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
So the way I see it, either they have the right to redistribute, or Intel would be committing copyright infringement.
And it would be an obvious loophole if a contract, NDA, EULA or anything else could trump the GPL, because then people would just distribute a GPL application with an additional bit saying "Actually you have to agree not to redistribute this application".
And this explains everything that is wrong with Slashdot moderation these days (just because an argument may be wrong, doesn't mean it should be modded down).
But then there was the foolish compromise in order to not simply add more planets to the list, because they'd been taught for generations that there were only 9 planets.
Any company would most likely say no (you're speaking to the lawyers, and what have they got to gain by saying yes?), at which point if you went ahead anyway, they know about your project, and have more of an argument to say that you knowingly copied the game that they owned the rights to.
Can you point to me how many commercial games out there are totally original new ideas, as opposed to borrowing from previous games?
The big studios are not going to produce the creative, fun-to-play kind of games that an independent developer can. You are not competing with them - you have a range of freedom the professional game developer can only dream about.
Do you write games yourself, OOI?
The reason why commercial game developers tend to be less original is because coming up with original games, that are still fun to play, is hard. An idea may seem original and fun, only to become unworkable when you try to implement it.
And if commercial games aren't "fun-to-play", why do they sell so well?
I agree entirely. If creating a "successor" of a game - any game that was similar to existing games - was illegal, than the vast majority of commercial games out there would be illegal.
Unfortunately it seems to be a common myth in indie game development circles that rules and ideas are covered by copyright.
It's not about "tinkering", it's simple consumer choice. I like my 5800's browser, but I like that I also could have the choice to download Opera Mobile. And when Firefox for mobiles is released, I'll try that too.
The success of Firefox shows that it's not just "tinkerers" and geeks who want the choice to try a different browser, but ordinary people too. And these people are buying phones that allow them to do that. They don't want to be told "Sorry, you can't install our application, because Apple doesn't allow you to".
Note that we already have web censorship (like Australia, allegedly for "child pr0n" - but see the Wikipedia case for how that works out in practice).
But yes, it is particularly mad that any pretence of "only child pr0n" is being dropped, and now all it'll take is copyright infringement to get on the blacklist.
Indeed. I was going to say that maybe they're just scraping the barrel for the obligitary daily Apple story, but we already have the Iphone story as you note, and there's the Ipad story. I guess now we get daily stories for each of Apple products.
Imagine, the Slashdot headlines of 2015:
* Boring DIY hacks for your old iPad. * Blog spots Apple ordering new parts, rumours of revolutionary magical new device that will change your life! * Announcement of a pre-announcement that Apple will soon announce a minor update to the iPod. * Whole new version of Ubuntu, so let's cover something else for a change. * Iphone to get multitasking, at last. * Apple blocks non-approved food items from being stored in the iFridge.
The first netbooks would be the obvious example (Asus Eee PC).
There's also the point that Apple are held to a higher standard - the media give them overwhelming amounts of coverage even for non-noteworthy products (oh, yet another tablet - and just look at this non-story, about news of a mere future possibility of a phone update), so the fact that the Air - at first hyped for being revolutionary - ended up being ignored, is rather telling.
This is Apple. You're forgetting the possibility that they might well go "Who needs a mouse?" It doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or not - Apple could ship a Mac using touch and without a mouse, and the media (and all the Apple fans here) will be going on and on about how revolutionary it is, and yet another Apple first.
Alternatively they could simply add mouse support. They may finally manage to add multitasking support, only years after everyone else, so who knows what they are capable of now.
Sure, but what proportion of of OS X users does that make up?
Even here on Slashdot, supposedly a geek place, look how much love there is for the Ipad and Iphone - far more than in the mainstream, in fact, so I'm not sure it's true (sadly) that most geeks who like Apple products do so for its openness.
He said future. There is nothing in his post that is misinformed.
Yes, you're quite right that OS X Apple PCs are a world of difference from the Iphones and Ipads. But at the same time, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Apple drop OS X for Iphone OS in future. You said it yourself:
Many iPad or iPhone users are looking forward to the day they can replace their computer with an iPpliance
And so Apple may decide to cater for them - and why bother with the hassle of trying to maintain two operating systems? Apple has no allegience to any particular technology - they've a long history of dropping things (PowerPC, the first "MacOS") when it no longer suited them, even when for years they seemed core to their business and something they'd spent large amounts of effort trying to promote.
Indeed. I'm not sure what my thoughts are on the nuclear bombings, but I can't help thinking: if it had been Japan or Germany that had managed to develop and drop a nuclear bomb, it would today be remembered as at least a terrible tragedy, if not a war crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you've never been a developer for desktop platforms. If everyone had had your attitude, one wonders how people ever managed to write software for computers, with all the so-called "fragmentation". "Oh no, all these millions of websites that people can download applications for Windows, how will I as a developer ever cope! And there isn't even an official Microsoft Store to save poor little me!"
Let's see your evidence for this FUD? My 5800 is on Vodafone, and I can download applications from where I like.
It's hilarious trying to watch Apple fans claiming "Look, everyone else will be as bad, too, honest!" Anyway, I thought the locked down "app" store model was supposed to be a good thing, according to Apple fans, right?
Wow, the second to least popular company in the mobile market is more popular than a company that's even less popular than it.
If you're a commercial company, maybe you could read the rules of the different stores, and choose the best? And I'm confused - on what basis do you "know the rules" for Apple, and not any of the other stores? Oh yes, that's right, because you did read the rules.
And heaven forbid, maybe you could have a website for people to download your application. Commercial stores that take a cut should be in addition. Are you actually a developer, or are you just making this up? If everyone acted like you, one wonders how people could ever have released software without Apple to hold your hand:
"But how can we possibly release an application for Windows, without Microsoft to allow us to release it on their site, and take a cut!"
Correlation is not causation. If having multiple app download places is a problem, how come it isn't for Nokia at 40-50% of the mobile market? Or for the 95% of the market that isn't Apple? Or for 100% of platforms on the desktop?
The fact that users had to dig around and search for apps
Um, no, you're confusing things. By all means have a store where it is easy to find applications, but I fail to see how an additional store makes it hard. And I fail to see how using Google or just visiting the website is harder than using an application store's search engine. Any half decent bog standard phone has been doing web access for the last five years now, if your phone can't handle that, that's a problem.
Is the app on one cellular carrier's store and nowhere else? Is it on the generic Android app store?
Blimey, I wonder how you ever managed to use a computer with questions like these. Do you even have any applications other than those installed by the company you bought your PC from? I remember when Slashdot used to be a place for computer geeks - not anymore.
Where is it?
On Windows, I download applications from where I like. On my 5800 I download applications from where I like. Same as I did on my V980, or my Amiga years ago. No one criticises how every platform in the history of computing, except the Iphone, has worked.
Not to mention that it's still speculation by the OP that Vodafone will be locking their phones down. Both my aforementioned phones are on Vodafone, and they've implemented no such restrictions. And "app" store that they supplied is in addition to this.
pedophilia dressed up cartoon outfits
I'm curious what you are referring to here? Pedophilia is about children, not cartoons - which are, you know, fictional.
It is a product of the same culture that brings you hugely xenophobic attitudes towards other races
Oh, the irony of this post.
The fastest commercially available x86 chips have been a little under 4 GHz for about five years now.
Megahertz Myth. As far as I can tell, over the last 5 years individual cores have still been getting faster, just not with higher clock speeds.
Yes but the researchers can choose to redistribute the binaries, and then any of the recipients also have the right to receive the source.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html , section 10:
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
An entity transaction is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
So the way I see it, either they have the right to redistribute, or Intel would be committing copyright infringement.
And it would be an obvious loophole if a contract, NDA, EULA or anything else could trump the GPL, because then people would just distribute a GPL application with an additional bit saying "Actually you have to agree not to redistribute this application".
And this explains everything that is wrong with Slashdot moderation these days (just because an argument may be wrong, doesn't mean it should be modded down).
But then there was the foolish compromise in order to not simply add more planets to the list, because they'd been taught for generations that there were only 9 planets.
So the court is free to ignore it. That shouldn't make it a crime to use email.
It must be the Apple definition of "first" - first, except for the ones that came before it.
Any company would most likely say no (you're speaking to the lawyers, and what have they got to gain by saying yes?), at which point if you went ahead anyway, they know about your project, and have more of an argument to say that you knowingly copied the game that they owned the rights to.
Can you point to me how many commercial games out there are totally original new ideas, as opposed to borrowing from previous games?
The big studios are not going to produce the creative, fun-to-play kind of games that an independent developer can. You are not competing with them - you have a range of freedom the professional game developer can only dream about.
Do you write games yourself, OOI?
The reason why commercial game developers tend to be less original is because coming up with original games, that are still fun to play, is hard. An idea may seem original and fun, only to become unworkable when you try to implement it.
And if commercial games aren't "fun-to-play", why do they sell so well?
I agree entirely. If creating a "successor" of a game - any game that was similar to existing games - was illegal, than the vast majority of commercial games out there would be illegal.
Unfortunately it seems to be a common myth in indie game development circles that rules and ideas are covered by copyright.
It's not about "tinkering", it's simple consumer choice. I like my 5800's browser, but I like that I also could have the choice to download Opera Mobile. And when Firefox for mobiles is released, I'll try that too.
The success of Firefox shows that it's not just "tinkerers" and geeks who want the choice to try a different browser, but ordinary people too. And these people are buying phones that allow them to do that. They don't want to be told "Sorry, you can't install our application, because Apple doesn't allow you to".
Note that we already have web censorship (like Australia, allegedly for "child pr0n" - but see the Wikipedia case for how that works out in practice).
But yes, it is particularly mad that any pretence of "only child pr0n" is being dropped, and now all it'll take is copyright infringement to get on the blacklist.
Indeed. I was going to say that maybe they're just scraping the barrel for the obligitary daily Apple story, but we already have the Iphone story as you note, and there's the Ipad story. I guess now we get daily stories for each of Apple products.
Imagine, the Slashdot headlines of 2015:
* Boring DIY hacks for your old iPad.
* Blog spots Apple ordering new parts, rumours of revolutionary magical new device that will change your life!
* Announcement of a pre-announcement that Apple will soon announce a minor update to the iPod.
* Whole new version of Ubuntu, so let's cover something else for a change.
* Iphone to get multitasking, at last.
* Apple blocks non-approved food items from being stored in the iFridge.
The first netbooks would be the obvious example (Asus Eee PC).
There's also the point that Apple are held to a higher standard - the media give them overwhelming amounts of coverage even for non-noteworthy products (oh, yet another tablet - and just look at this non-story, about news of a mere future possibility of a phone update), so the fact that the Air - at first hyped for being revolutionary - ended up being ignored, is rather telling.
This is Apple. You're forgetting the possibility that they might well go "Who needs a mouse?" It doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or not - Apple could ship a Mac using touch and without a mouse, and the media (and all the Apple fans here) will be going on and on about how revolutionary it is, and yet another Apple first.
Alternatively they could simply add mouse support. They may finally manage to add multitasking support, only years after everyone else, so who knows what they are capable of now.
Sure, but what proportion of of OS X users does that make up?
Even here on Slashdot, supposedly a geek place, look how much love there is for the Ipad and Iphone - far more than in the mainstream, in fact, so I'm not sure it's true (sadly) that most geeks who like Apple products do so for its openness.
He said future. There is nothing in his post that is misinformed.
Yes, you're quite right that OS X Apple PCs are a world of difference from the Iphones and Ipads. But at the same time, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Apple drop OS X for Iphone OS in future. You said it yourself:
Many iPad or iPhone users are looking forward to the day they can replace their computer with an iPpliance
And so Apple may decide to cater for them - and why bother with the hassle of trying to maintain two operating systems? Apple has no allegience to any particular technology - they've a long history of dropping things (PowerPC, the first "MacOS") when it no longer suited them, even when for years they seemed core to their business and something they'd spent large amounts of effort trying to promote.
Actually yes, it does have to be an accident, by the dictionary definition. Though yes, you make a fair point.
Indeed. I'm not sure what my thoughts are on the nuclear bombings, but I can't help thinking: if it had been Japan or Germany that had managed to develop and drop a nuclear bomb, it would today be remembered as at least a terrible tragedy, if not a war crime.