we are talking about censorship as in hiding information from people
Free has two definitions. Censor has one. Weed is not information, bits that can be duplicated. This is the same argument as theft vs copyright infringement. I take your weed, you no longer have it. I copy your video, you still have your copy and now I have mine. It seems you are the one with the logically flawed argument.
So, since the mods find you so "informative" Mr. "It isn't censored," let's see you produce the missing 15 seconds of that internet video clip. Can't do it? Why not? "It's not teh censereed!!!" Come on buddy, where is it? What, you can't find it? Oh and if you could it would be illegal for you to post it? Why? Because you would need a license to do so. Wow, just like in China!
Under the new rules, video sites require a license that only state companies can obtain. That is in line with regulations that require all Chinese media to be state-owned.
Only the privileged are allowed access to the information. Just because there is a legal way for a privileged few to obtain the information doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Should your right to read be based on your ability to pay or your rank in the Chinese government? Is there really any difference? Can information that is not gratis truly be libre?
The US has been shutting down video sites for years, faster, and more frequently than China has ever dreamed. Now we're supposed to be appalled because they don't like one or two of the handful that are left? Give me a break. Even in videos where Americans complain about Chinese internet video censorship, we see American internet video censorship. Did nobody notice the blacked out screen denoting "THE FOLLOWING ABC NEWS FOOTAGE COULD NOT BE CLEARED FOR INTERNET USE" about 70% through part 6 of that documentary? American hypocrisy is truly stunning.
Won't work. A voter can be smart, but voters are stupid. Voters want lower taxes. Voters also want their candidate to bring home the bacon. Those two stances are diametrically opposed. Either you want reduced spending or reduced taxes. Our endless deficits are only the candidates giving voters what they want. BOTH. The same is true for/. moderation. You can say two things that are exact opposite and receive +4 or +5 moderation on both statements. It all depends on your spin.
No limits on the money they spend seems to be the big problem.
I beg to differ. I think their ability to create money is the big problem. Their way out of this quandary should be understandable to any intelligent thinking person. They will print money to cover the debt, and in doing so, destroy the value of your dollars with inflation. In 1971, an ounce of gold cost $40. Today, an ounce of gold costs over $900. In 1860, an ounce of gold would buy a really nice suit. Today... an ounce of gold will buy a really nice suit. Gold supply is fairly inelastic. Therefore its value in relation to other goods remains roughly the same. Since dollars are no longer backed by gold, dollars can be printed on a whim.
Fractional reserve lending is the root of all evil here. If you have representative money like the dollar of 1929, then you end up with a run on the bank. If you have a fiat currency that isn't backed by anything like the dollar of today, you have endless inflation. That happens because fractional reserve lending creates more debt than there is money to pay that debt. Yes, that's a cute little fictional story, but it does a pretty good job of explaining the situation so that even children can understand it.
It becomes literally impossible for everyone to pay their debt, so you become a slave to your creditors. The banks. You've sold your soul to the company store. If you have debt, you are enslaved by the Federal Reserve System. They spin debt as a positive thing. It's not debt, it's "credit." Even president Woodrow Wilson realized his mistake shortly after creating the Fed. He's quoted as saying:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
It's almost a 100 years later and that small group of dominant men still rule you like kings. There's only one candidate who claims to have any intention of doing anything about it. Too bad he's "unelectable." I guess that word means he's not in right banker's pocket.
There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.
If they didn't bother to log referrer(!) I doubt they're logging prefetch.
I would imagine you would need to spend more money for "business" service. That should drop you into a different block of IPs. Either that or get the various spam blockers out there to collectively change their minds.
OTOH, phones have historically been MUCH more reliable.
You've been saying this throughout the thread. We're discussing mobile phones. That statement is complete total bullshit. "Can you hear me now?" "Fewest dropped calls" "More bars in more places" Notice a trend there? They're all advertising great coverage because mobile phones are notorious for shitty reception, dead zones, and just simple lack of coverage. When people think "mobile phone," crystal clarity and five nines uptime is NOT what comes to mind. I don't know ANYONE who doesn't complain about cell coverage on occasion. Look at AT&T's present coverage map. If the phone is as mission critical as you claim it to be, then it should be a crime for Apple to prevent unlocking, because I see a lot of "no coverage available" areas on that AT&T map. I should be able to carry sims for every network just in case Truckasaurus attacks me on a country road that AT&T doesn't cover and I need to phone for help.
You must have a strange definition of "computer phone" if the N95 doesn't qualify. Nokia doesn't even sell it as a "phone" they call it a multimedia computer. It costs about twice what the iPhone does, and has sold about twice as many units. As of the beginning of last month, 7 million N95s vs. the iPhone's 4 million. The N95 did beat the iPhone to market by about two months (Another feather in Nokia's cap), but it's selling faster and generating more revenue than the iPhone, no matter how you look at it.... So.. wow... I guess you ought to consider actually looking up the numbers next time before telling someone else they don't do much reading.
Apple dictates that nobody will be allowed to negatively affect the experience of the customer who BUY their devices.
It appears to me that they are trying to make the experience so miserable themselves that nobody WANTS to buy the device.
Can you imagine yourself at the side of the road with your phone and its battery is dead, even though you charged it just hours ago and did not use it?
I'm not the one who bought a defective phone with no battery door. Besides, I've read much more realistic iPhone disaster scenarios in the news that I don't read. You see, what happened is some background task kept running and drained its owner's bank account of $4800. That wouldn't have happened if the iPhone wasn't locked to the American AT&T network. The owner could have just popped in a new SIM card for that locale and everything would have been peachy. But hey, it just one of many fine experiences brought to you under Apple's control. Others include, Look! I shattered my iPhone,Damn it! Why won't my headphones work? and everyone's favorite, I've been visited by the brick fairy!
Enjoy your app-less iPhone though. I'm sure you'll be kickin' it with that drug database in no time.
NO. YOU. CAN'T. You cannot run any app, even on your own iPhone, without buying a developer key from Apple. You cannot distribute that app without Apple's *approval* (I'm not saying assistance, I'm saying approval) Apple DICTATES what you are allowed to run on your iPhone, and they can revoke a key and disable any app for any reason at their whim.
How many iPhone owners do you suppose exist,
I don't care how many phone owners exist. You still don't get it. These things run Mac OS X. How many Mac owners exist? That's what pays the bills at Apple Computer Inc. How fast do you think Macintosh market share would climb if phones counted as full blown desktops? Can you currently buy an Apple computer for $399? Wouldn't it be awesome if you could, and get a free iPod, and a free iPhone with it?? There would still be a market for the rest of the line, but you would literally have a pocket computer. It would be absolutely freaking awesome, and THEY'RE SCREWING IT UP! This would drive new development, entice new developers to join the flock, bringing Apple business like they've never had before, and create a halo effect like they could only dream of having with the iPod. But no... instead they've chosen to make it the most hostile environment for developers imaginable.
Apple has no obligation to hackers, but may rightfully thwart them at every turn within the law. Apple has no obligation to developers, but may rightfully thwart them at every turn within the law.
There, fixed that for ya. FANTASTIC idea BTW. Make development the most miserable experience possible. I'm sure that will attract lots of developers who will write lots of apps. <sarcasm/>
Those who want an open system are welcome to program devices with Linux or even Windows CE.
They do. That's why Apple is a bit player with single digit market share. They've done nothing but drop the ball on the iPhone since its debut. As a result, they will likely REMAIN a bit player with single digit market share.
Sorry that you could not come up with better examples than that! Who would want to run those apps or any like them in a PHONE with a tiny screen?
Just because you have limited vision doesn't make it any less a pocket sized computer. Give me an HDTV connected iPod dock and all of a sudden screen size isn't an issue. A bluetooth keyboard and mouse round it out as a standard computer. You're looking at it as "just" a phone. It runs Mac OS X. It isn't "just" a phone. It's a computer. It's a Mac. Developers should be able to develop software without stupid fees and keys for that Mac just like they can on every other Mac. You don't think the iPhone's 620MHz processor can't handle Photoshop? An original 233 MHz G3 iMac didn't have any problem running Photoshop 10 years ago. It did the job so well, in fact, that Apple had the balls to run their snail commercial. There's more power in the iPhone than there was is the desktops most people here started with.
Nobody of any measurable clout will. You'll get a handful of dippy games and shareware some developer could write in an afternoon. Some with clout already have. EA realizes that people might want to play a cute and fun game on their iphone or itouch while killing time in a doctor's waiting room or on a commuter train. Epocrates, Inc., a maker of healthcare software will make an incentive for its 500,000 or so users to buy iphones.
You aren't countering my point, you're strengthening it. EA games and... oh wow! Epocrates. A drug database... the value isn't in the software at all, it's in the data tables. I could crank out a simple interface to a database in one afternoon. There is essentially no development cost to it.
Yet if ISPs were blocking residential http servers, these anti-spam nerds would FLIP OUT. ISP blocked your residential smtp server? Meh *shrugs* The anti-spam crusaders are ruining the open nature of the internet. False positives are unacceptable. I'll take spam over false positives any day.
This content is mine; you can't have it. If you want to access it for free, you have to let me track your activity.
Uh, no I don't... My web browser controls what is loaded in a very fine tuned manner. When I load a page at slashdot.org, I only load what I want.
My browser didn't load those 'mc' and 'uid' quantserve cookies that are tracking people everywhere online from slashdot to hotornot.com. I did however load, store, and will later use the Slashdot.org cookies. I have granular control over all my cookies, and they are one click away.
At my command, my browser also blocks swf files, other known ad sizes, and blocks data entirely from known bad guys like doubleclick. If something does slip through, eliminating it is a simple control click away. The PERL wizards will appreciate that I can blackhole data based on regular expressions in URLs. Any domain, path, file extension... I can nuke it. It's certainly much more powerful than a hosts file.
My browser also blocks the popups that other browsers like Safari miss... If I need something that didn't get though, there's a little icon for everything that was blocked in the form of cookies, popups, images, etc on the status bar at the bottom of my window. Images and SWFs are a grey box. Hover and it tells me the domain. Click and it loads. Everything is one click away.
I can even change all of those settings on a domain by domain basis. My browser gives me complete control over what I load and what gets displayed. My browser even makes it simple to snatch images from websites like flickr that attempt to block me from saving images. I just view page info and there's an list of every image on the page. No more hunting through page source to find a image. Click the display button to see it. Click the save button to keep it.
I don't even have to load your front page to use your site in many cases. In my url bar, I type "google macdork site:slashdot.org" and I get a google search for "macdork site:slashdot.org." I can do the same with yahoo, msn, ebay... I can shortcut any search box on any site with one click simplicity. Why should I have to be subject to Yahoo's front page and their latest "Top 10 ways to spend your money" list and other info-tainment-mercials, when I just want to use their search engine without the distraction? For sites with different parameters like the RIAA Radar I can dictate which parameters are used in the search, so "riaakey" shortcut does a keyword search while "riaaart" does an artist search.
You two can bicker about who has "the power" in the arrangement, but reality dictates that you do not define what I can and cannot do with the data your web server spews at me. My browser is in control of that. You're only able to dictate your terms to people who use limited, crappy browsers. The entire ad based internet is based on that assumption. For people like myself however, I am able to view "your" content on my terms unless you decide to shut your site down. If anyone is wondering by now, I use Omniweb. Registered user since 2004. (^_^)
You misspelled my name McDork. He wasn't feeling generous - he just simply doesn't care. This is pretty obvious, do try and keep up.
I also misspelled "Yeah" and if you look really hard, you might find a superfluous comma or an apostrophe out of place. I'll try to keep up with those grammatical errors SuperKendal, but you might want to keep that red ink pen handy anyway. It seems to be your best bet at invalidating my reply... d(^_~)
Nobody HAS to write software for any particular gadget or computer.
That's sorta the point. Nobody of any measurable clout will. You'll get a handful of dippy games and shareware some developer could write in an afternoon. You won't see professional packages like Office or Photoshop. It's sad to see Apple crippling their phones like this. I was interested in developing apps for it, but not after hearing their unreasonable demands.
Apple will try very hard to avoid for their products what happened to Windows.
Yeah, 90% market share must be awful.
They will not tolerate the kind of crap they have gotten used to in PCs in their phones.
Uhh... iPhones crash. Your defense is extremely weak, yet I honestly think you actually believe it. That is so sad.
Yes, but Apple only does this as a safeguard to help protect more timid users.
Funny, because I recall Steve Jobs making it clear in September that Apple would fight attempts to unlock the iPhone. He didn't say anything about protecting the timid. I think it went more like this. "It's a cat and mouse game" and "It's our job to keep them from breaking in." I guess I missed his "Protect the timid" speech.
He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones.
Yeaaaaah... I'm sure you're right SuperKendal. Steve was just feeling generous. I don't imagine that billion dollar class action lawsuit regarding the intentional bricking had anything to do with it.
If you do, so what? You still have to sell it somehow, unless you write it just for your own amusement. Do you think that people will sell your stuff for free, no matter even if it is insanely great?
I have my own server, my own credit card merchant account, and my own SSL certificate vouched for by a root certificate authority accepted by all major web browsers. You're assuming I want or even need Apple's assistance in selling and distributing my software.
If given the choice of your "killer" app which may be virus infested, or a clean "vetted by Apple" program, directly from Apple's servers, which with most people pay money for?
So you're saying Mac OS X is insecure and riddled with viruses? Even Apple would disagree when they aren't talking out of the other side of their mouth. Are you suggesting that Adobe Photoshop, a Mac stalwart that has been on the platform for nearly two decades, is insecure because it executes interpreted code? Have you any shred of proof whatsoever? No, you don't, because it doesn't exist. Thanks to the restrictions on the SDK, you'll never see anything like it on your iPhone unless Apple produces it themselves.
What serious developers really care anyway? Do you think you're going to see Rhapsody or Napster on it? P2P apps? You can't even develop a competing web browser because of the interpreted code clause. Who is going to go to the trouble of dumping the time and money into developing an app just to have Apple say "No thanks" and refuse to sign and distribute it for you... for that matter, what serious developers consider Apple clipping them for 30% to be a fair deal? Maybe if you're selling $10 shareware or some lame games, but why is Apple entitled to 30% of my revenue if I develop a killer phone app that runs on a subscription model?
I realize you're just shooting off at the mouth, but you could be the one that ends up in jail with psychotic posts like that. My advice: See a shrink and figure out how to let it go. It's only junk mail.
Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down.
Many people think that the rich should pay more taxes to be fair, but the flip side of the argument is that the wealthy already pay much more in taxes than anybody else.
I'm surrounded by starving people. I have a warehouse full of perishable food. It's more than I and my entire family could ever eat by ourselves. Should I be compelled to share it with the starving? Do you think it's unfair that I should have to share my food? Do you think the starving will feel any remorse when I refuse to share it and they slaughter my family and I and take it?
especially with a 1% market share clearly does not represent a monopoly won by unfair practices
What's your point, that the iPhone doesn't represent a monopoly? That's obvious and irrelevant. MSIE started with a 1% marketshare. That didn't stop the DOJ from filing a complaint seeking a one million dollar a day fine a year later. Why? Because MS was abusing their OS monopoly to give their browser an advantage. You've conceded that iTMS gives iPhone an advantage. Unless you're arguing that iTMS's 90% marketshare in online music sales does not represent a monopoly, which you do not seem to be addressing, the debate is over. Assuming iTMS is a monopoly, then Apple's refusal to deal on Fairplay is clearly illegal under antitrust regulations. Stating I've won based on that assumption is perfectly valid as long as you continue to fail to refute that iTMS represents a monopoly.
Apple certainly has an advantage, but you do not make a case for anti-trust by arguing different things are the same.
Thanks, you just conceded the debate. I don't need to make the case that the two situations are exactly the same. Apple's refusal to deal with other phone manufactures with regard to Fairplay is enough. Apple has had around 90% market share for more than two years in the online music business. It would be easy to prove their dominance constitutes a monopoly. That means they are subject to those antitrust regulations regarding monopolies.
Apple has been safe so far. For iPod, they built their monopoly with a great product that outsold competing MP3 players. No problem. With iTMS, they created a monopoly where everyone else had failed. There was no online music market until iTMS, and without iTMS there still isn't one... again, no problem. Now, they are entering the enormous mobile phone market and in doing so, they are leveraging their monopolies to their advantage. That's against the law. If they want to enter the phone market, they may very well be forced to license Fairplay and remove the contract restrictions they've put on their SDK. Not only that, they may be subject to punitive measures as well for breaking the law in the first place. Frankly, if there isn't an Apple antitrust case involving iPhone by the end of the year, I'll be shocked. Ironic isn't it? Microsoft will be able to sue Apple for antitrust violations because Apple won't license Fairplay on Windows mobile.
Slashdot Mirror
Free has two definitions. Censor has one. Weed is not information, bits that can be duplicated. This is the same argument as theft vs copyright infringement. I take your weed, you no longer have it. I copy your video, you still have your copy and now I have mine. It seems you are the one with the logically flawed argument.
So, since the mods find you so "informative" Mr. "It isn't censored," let's see you produce the missing 15 seconds of that internet video clip. Can't do it? Why not? "It's not teh censereed!!!" Come on buddy, where is it? What, you can't find it? Oh and if you could it would be illegal for you to post it? Why? Because you would need a license to do so. Wow, just like in China!
Only the privileged are allowed access to the information. Just because there is a legal way for a privileged few to obtain the information doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Should your right to read be based on your ability to pay or your rank in the Chinese government? Is there really any difference? Can information that is not gratis truly be libre?
It's obvious you don't understand the word censor.
The US has been shutting down video sites for years, faster, and more frequently than China has ever dreamed. Now we're supposed to be appalled because they don't like one or two of the handful that are left? Give me a break. Even in videos where Americans complain about Chinese internet video censorship, we see American internet video censorship. Did nobody notice the blacked out screen denoting "THE FOLLOWING ABC NEWS FOOTAGE COULD NOT BE CLEARED FOR INTERNET USE" about 70% through part 6 of that documentary? American hypocrisy is truly stunning.
Won't work. A voter can be smart, but voters are stupid. Voters want lower taxes. Voters also want their candidate to bring home the bacon. Those two stances are diametrically opposed. Either you want reduced spending or reduced taxes. Our endless deficits are only the candidates giving voters what they want. BOTH. The same is true for /. moderation. You can say two things that are exact opposite and receive +4 or +5 moderation on both statements. It all depends on your spin.
No limits on the money they spend seems to be the big problem.I beg to differ. I think their ability to create money is the big problem. Their way out of this quandary should be understandable to any intelligent thinking person. They will print money to cover the debt, and in doing so, destroy the value of your dollars with inflation. In 1971, an ounce of gold cost $40. Today, an ounce of gold costs over $900. In 1860, an ounce of gold would buy a really nice suit. Today... an ounce of gold will buy a really nice suit. Gold supply is fairly inelastic. Therefore its value in relation to other goods remains roughly the same. Since dollars are no longer backed by gold, dollars can be printed on a whim.
Fractional reserve lending is the root of all evil here. If you have representative money like the dollar of 1929, then you end up with a run on the bank. If you have a fiat currency that isn't backed by anything like the dollar of today, you have endless inflation. That happens because fractional reserve lending creates more debt than there is money to pay that debt. Yes, that's a cute little fictional story, but it does a pretty good job of explaining the situation so that even children can understand it.
It becomes literally impossible for everyone to pay their debt, so you become a slave to your creditors. The banks. You've sold your soul to the company store. If you have debt, you are enslaved by the Federal Reserve System. They spin debt as a positive thing. It's not debt, it's "credit." Even president Woodrow Wilson realized his mistake shortly after creating the Fed. He's quoted as saying:
It's almost a 100 years later and that small group of dominant men still rule you like kings. There's only one candidate who claims to have any intention of doing anything about it. Too bad he's "unelectable." I guess that word means he's not in right banker's pocket.
From TFA:
If they didn't bother to log referrer(!) I doubt they're logging prefetch.
Just when you thought anti-gravity was dead for good. Hey, at least this thing sounds like it will work as advertised...
Spam filtering blocks my email constantly. I'm sure this is only a temporary outage.
I would imagine you would need to spend more money for "business" service. That should drop you into a different block of IPs. Either that or get the various spam blockers out there to collectively change their minds.
You've been saying this throughout the thread. We're discussing mobile phones. That statement is complete total bullshit. "Can you hear me now?" "Fewest dropped calls" "More bars in more places" Notice a trend there? They're all advertising great coverage because mobile phones are notorious for shitty reception, dead zones, and just simple lack of coverage. When people think "mobile phone," crystal clarity and five nines uptime is NOT what comes to mind. I don't know ANYONE who doesn't complain about cell coverage on occasion. Look at AT&T's present coverage map. If the phone is as mission critical as you claim it to be, then it should be a crime for Apple to prevent unlocking, because I see a lot of "no coverage available" areas on that AT&T map. I should be able to carry sims for every network just in case Truckasaurus attacks me on a country road that AT&T doesn't cover and I need to phone for help.
You must have a strange definition of "computer phone" if the N95 doesn't qualify. Nokia doesn't even sell it as a "phone" they call it a multimedia computer. It costs about twice what the iPhone does, and has sold about twice as many units. As of the beginning of last month, 7 million N95s vs. the iPhone's 4 million. The N95 did beat the iPhone to market by about two months (Another feather in Nokia's cap), but it's selling faster and generating more revenue than the iPhone, no matter how you look at it.... So.. wow... I guess you ought to consider actually looking up the numbers next time before telling someone else they don't do much reading.
Apple dictates that nobody will be allowed to negatively affect the experience of the customer who BUY their devices.It appears to me that they are trying to make the experience so miserable themselves that nobody WANTS to buy the device.
Can you imagine yourself at the side of the road with your phone and its battery is dead, even though you charged it just hours ago and did not use it?I'm not the one who bought a defective phone with no battery door. Besides, I've read much more realistic iPhone disaster scenarios in the news that I don't read. You see, what happened is some background task kept running and drained its owner's bank account of $4800. That wouldn't have happened if the iPhone wasn't locked to the American AT&T network. The owner could have just popped in a new SIM card for that locale and everything would have been peachy. But hey, it just one of many fine experiences brought to you under Apple's control. Others include, Look! I shattered my iPhone, Damn it! Why won't my headphones work? and everyone's favorite, I've been visited by the brick fairy!
Enjoy your app-less iPhone though. I'm sure you'll be kickin' it with that drug database in no time.
NO. YOU. CAN'T. You cannot run any app, even on your own iPhone, without buying a developer key from Apple. You cannot distribute that app without Apple's *approval* (I'm not saying assistance, I'm saying approval) Apple DICTATES what you are allowed to run on your iPhone, and they can revoke a key and disable any app for any reason at their whim.
How many iPhone owners do you suppose exist,I don't care how many phone owners exist. You still don't get it. These things run Mac OS X. How many Mac owners exist? That's what pays the bills at Apple Computer Inc. How fast do you think Macintosh market share would climb if phones counted as full blown desktops? Can you currently buy an Apple computer for $399? Wouldn't it be awesome if you could, and get a free iPod, and a free iPhone with it?? There would still be a market for the rest of the line, but you would literally have a pocket computer. It would be absolutely freaking awesome, and THEY'RE SCREWING IT UP! This would drive new development, entice new developers to join the flock, bringing Apple business like they've never had before, and create a halo effect like they could only dream of having with the iPod. But no... instead they've chosen to make it the most hostile environment for developers imaginable.
Apple has no obligation to hackers, but may rightfully thwart them at every turn within the law. Apple has no obligation to developers, but may rightfully thwart them at every turn within the law.There, fixed that for ya. FANTASTIC idea BTW. Make development the most miserable experience possible. I'm sure that will attract lots of developers who will write lots of apps. <sarcasm />
Those who want an open system are welcome to program devices with Linux or even Windows CE.They do. That's why Apple is a bit player with single digit market share. They've done nothing but drop the ball on the iPhone since its debut. As a result, they will likely REMAIN a bit player with single digit market share.
Just because you have limited vision doesn't make it any less a pocket sized computer. Give me an HDTV connected iPod dock and all of a sudden screen size isn't an issue. A bluetooth keyboard and mouse round it out as a standard computer. You're looking at it as "just" a phone. It runs Mac OS X. It isn't "just" a phone. It's a computer. It's a Mac. Developers should be able to develop software without stupid fees and keys for that Mac just like they can on every other Mac. You don't think the iPhone's 620MHz processor can't handle Photoshop? An original 233 MHz G3 iMac didn't have any problem running Photoshop 10 years ago. It did the job so well, in fact, that Apple had the balls to run their snail commercial. There's more power in the iPhone than there was is the desktops most people here started with.
Nobody of any measurable clout will. You'll get a handful of dippy games and shareware some developer could write in an afternoon. Some with clout already have. EA realizes that people might want to play a cute and fun game on their iphone or itouch while killing time in a doctor's waiting room or on a commuter train. Epocrates, Inc., a maker of healthcare software will make an incentive for its 500,000 or so users to buy iphones.You aren't countering my point, you're strengthening it. EA games and... oh wow! Epocrates. A drug database... the value isn't in the software at all, it's in the data tables. I could crank out a simple interface to a database in one afternoon. There is essentially no development cost to it.
Yet if ISPs were blocking residential http servers, these anti-spam nerds would FLIP OUT. ISP blocked your residential smtp server? Meh *shrugs* The anti-spam crusaders are ruining the open nature of the internet. False positives are unacceptable. I'll take spam over false positives any day.
Uh, no I don't... My web browser controls what is loaded in a very fine tuned manner. When I load a page at slashdot.org, I only load what I want.
My browser didn't load those 'mc' and 'uid' quantserve cookies that are tracking people everywhere online from slashdot to hotornot.com. I did however load, store, and will later use the Slashdot.org cookies. I have granular control over all my cookies, and they are one click away.
At my command, my browser also blocks swf files, other known ad sizes, and blocks data entirely from known bad guys like doubleclick. If something does slip through, eliminating it is a simple control click away. The PERL wizards will appreciate that I can blackhole data based on regular expressions in URLs. Any domain, path, file extension... I can nuke it. It's certainly much more powerful than a hosts file.
My browser also blocks the popups that other browsers like Safari miss... If I need something that didn't get though, there's a little icon for everything that was blocked in the form of cookies, popups, images, etc on the status bar at the bottom of my window. Images and SWFs are a grey box. Hover and it tells me the domain. Click and it loads. Everything is one click away.
I can even change all of those settings on a domain by domain basis. My browser gives me complete control over what I load and what gets displayed. My browser even makes it simple to snatch images from websites like flickr that attempt to block me from saving images. I just view page info and there's an list of every image on the page. No more hunting through page source to find a image. Click the display button to see it. Click the save button to keep it.
I don't even have to load your front page to use your site in many cases. In my url bar, I type "google macdork site:slashdot.org" and I get a google search for "macdork site:slashdot.org." I can do the same with yahoo, msn, ebay... I can shortcut any search box on any site with one click simplicity. Why should I have to be subject to Yahoo's front page and their latest "Top 10 ways to spend your money" list and other info-tainment-mercials, when I just want to use their search engine without the distraction? For sites with different parameters like the RIAA Radar I can dictate which parameters are used in the search, so "riaakey" shortcut does a keyword search while "riaaart" does an artist search.
You two can bicker about who has "the power" in the arrangement, but reality dictates that you do not define what I can and cannot do with the data your web server spews at me. My browser is in control of that. You're only able to dictate your terms to people who use limited, crappy browsers. The entire ad based internet is based on that assumption. For people like myself however, I am able to view "your" content on my terms unless you decide to shut your site down. If anyone is wondering by now, I use Omniweb. Registered user since 2004. (^_^)
I also misspelled "Yeah" and if you look really hard, you might find a superfluous comma or an apostrophe out of place. I'll try to keep up with those grammatical errors SuperKendal, but you might want to keep that red ink pen handy anyway. It seems to be your best bet at invalidating my reply... d(^_~)
That's sorta the point. Nobody of any measurable clout will. You'll get a handful of dippy games and shareware some developer could write in an afternoon. You won't see professional packages like Office or Photoshop. It's sad to see Apple crippling their phones like this. I was interested in developing apps for it, but not after hearing their unreasonable demands.
Apple will try very hard to avoid for their products what happened to Windows.Yeah, 90% market share must be awful.
They will not tolerate the kind of crap they have gotten used to in PCs in their phones.Uhh... iPhones crash. Your defense is extremely weak, yet I honestly think you actually believe it. That is so sad.
Funny, because I recall Steve Jobs making it clear in September that Apple would fight attempts to unlock the iPhone. He didn't say anything about protecting the timid. I think it went more like this. "It's a cat and mouse game" and "It's our job to keep them from breaking in." I guess I missed his "Protect the timid" speech.
He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones.Yeaaaaah... I'm sure you're right SuperKendal. Steve was just feeling generous. I don't imagine that billion dollar class action lawsuit regarding the intentional bricking had anything to do with it.
I have my own server, my own credit card merchant account, and my own SSL certificate vouched for by a root certificate authority accepted by all major web browsers. You're assuming I want or even need Apple's assistance in selling and distributing my software.
If given the choice of your "killer" app which may be virus infested, or a clean "vetted by Apple" program, directly from Apple's servers, which with most people pay money for?So you're saying Mac OS X is insecure and riddled with viruses? Even Apple would disagree when they aren't talking out of the other side of their mouth. Are you suggesting that Adobe Photoshop, a Mac stalwart that has been on the platform for nearly two decades, is insecure because it executes interpreted code? Have you any shred of proof whatsoever? No, you don't, because it doesn't exist. Thanks to the restrictions on the SDK, you'll never see anything like it on your iPhone unless Apple produces it themselves.
Antitrust. There, fixed that for ya... d(^_-)
What serious developers really care anyway? Do you think you're going to see Rhapsody or Napster on it? P2P apps? You can't even develop a competing web browser because of the interpreted code clause. Who is going to go to the trouble of dumping the time and money into developing an app just to have Apple say "No thanks" and refuse to sign and distribute it for you... for that matter, what serious developers consider Apple clipping them for 30% to be a fair deal? Maybe if you're selling $10 shareware or some lame games, but why is Apple entitled to 30% of my revenue if I develop a killer phone app that runs on a subscription model?
I hope everyone who makes such remarks, and the mods who find them funny, might one day respect the 8th as much as the 1st.
I realize you're just shooting off at the mouth, but you could be the one that ends up in jail with psychotic posts like that. My advice: See a shrink and figure out how to let it go. It's only junk mail.
No upmods, yet someone downmodded as overrated? From the moderation guidelines:
Clear cut case of moderation abuse.
I'm surrounded by starving people. I have a warehouse full of perishable food. It's more than I and my entire family could ever eat by ourselves. Should I be compelled to share it with the starving? Do you think it's unfair that I should have to share my food? Do you think the starving will feel any remorse when I refuse to share it and they slaughter my family and I and take it?
Oh wait, I have the solution! Let them eat cake.
What's your point, that the iPhone doesn't represent a monopoly? That's obvious and irrelevant. MSIE started with a 1% marketshare. That didn't stop the DOJ from filing a complaint seeking a one million dollar a day fine a year later. Why? Because MS was abusing their OS monopoly to give their browser an advantage. You've conceded that iTMS gives iPhone an advantage. Unless you're arguing that iTMS's 90% marketshare in online music sales does not represent a monopoly, which you do not seem to be addressing, the debate is over. Assuming iTMS is a monopoly, then Apple's refusal to deal on Fairplay is clearly illegal under antitrust regulations. Stating I've won based on that assumption is perfectly valid as long as you continue to fail to refute that iTMS represents a monopoly.
Thanks, you just conceded the debate. I don't need to make the case that the two situations are exactly the same. Apple's refusal to deal with other phone manufactures with regard to Fairplay is enough. Apple has had around 90% market share for more than two years in the online music business. It would be easy to prove their dominance constitutes a monopoly. That means they are subject to those antitrust regulations regarding monopolies.
Apple has been safe so far. For iPod, they built their monopoly with a great product that outsold competing MP3 players. No problem. With iTMS, they created a monopoly where everyone else had failed. There was no online music market until iTMS, and without iTMS there still isn't one... again, no problem. Now, they are entering the enormous mobile phone market and in doing so, they are leveraging their monopolies to their advantage. That's against the law. If they want to enter the phone market, they may very well be forced to license Fairplay and remove the contract restrictions they've put on their SDK. Not only that, they may be subject to punitive measures as well for breaking the law in the first place. Frankly, if there isn't an Apple antitrust case involving iPhone by the end of the year, I'll be shocked. Ironic isn't it? Microsoft will be able to sue Apple for antitrust violations because Apple won't license Fairplay on Windows mobile.