I think most of the complaints here are valid. Google is installing system level software without notifying the user and is updating that software involuntarily when the user launches the app.
How many times has a new update "broken" things on your machine? I prefer to install the updates when I choose to, not when Google chooses to.
Now to address some of the inaccuracies I see in the previous postings...
Those of you comparing the Google mechanism to Apple's update mechanisms are way off base. (Windows AND Mac versions)
Unlike Google, Apple clearly tells you up front that it wants to install a software update mechanism and gives you the option NOT to use it. Windows users who claim it automaticgally turns itself back on when you turn it off need to loosen their neckties and get some oxygen up to their brains. This just isn't accurate.
And enough with the phony claims that Apple sneaks software onto the user's machine. That's just not true either. They are VERY clear about what is being installed and always offer you the option to NOT install the extra software.
On the Mac, Software Update can be configured NOT to automatically install updates, and there is much transparency regarding the update process. It isn't sneakily hidden in the background. They are up front about it.
On Windows, you can easily configure the software update mechanism to ignore updates and never darken your door again. Use the prefs, folks. That's what they are there for.
Next, what on earth (the real one, not the google one) does google need to be doing in the system space. This is an end user app. There is no reason that the update mechanism can't reside within the app. Why do they feel the need to install a system level daemon to accomplish the task. (Yes, I know they are not alone in this respect. I resent it just as much in the other vendors as well.)
So let's have an accurate discussion about this. I DO think Google has crossed the line here and I don't think the comparison's to Apple's approach are valid.
You can't center "around" something. You can revolve around something or you can center ON something. But you can't center around. Doesn't even make sense and it's on two front-page Slashdot articles.
In the little pissing match that seems to have developed in the last few weeks, Apple has a major advantage when dealing with the labels.
Apple has managed to snap up most of the available flash memory being produced by Samsung and the other manufacturers. They have also arranged sweetheart pricing deals with the same manufacturers. This leaves almost no flash memory left in the supply chain for other portable player makers to use in their units. And even if they can get them, the prices Apple is paying for their supply allows them to price their products lower than the competition. If the labels want ANY kind of digital music sales (which remains to be seen) they'll have to work with Apple somehow.
Read this article for more details on why Apple will remain in the driver's seat when it comes to iTunes pricing. Here's a key excerpt:
Having secured a large chunk of the supply of flash memory from Samsung and Toshiba and a price break from Samsung, Apple is going to constrain the supply for flash chips. That's going to make it difficult for competitors making flash-memory-based players that work with other music services to get their products on the shelves this holiday season.
How bad will it be for Apple's rivals in the music-player business? A research report by WR Hambrecht says manufacturers of flash memory will be experiencing an uncomfortably tight supply environment this quarter and into the first quarter of 2006. Samsung and Toshiba both have their second- and third-tier customers on allocation -- which means lots of smaller companies will be told to get in line and wait for their flash chips.
And it may only get worse for those companies. Analysts at UBS Investment Research suggest that Apple could get an even bigger price break on flash chips from Samsung, and Toshiba may give it favorable pricing as well, making it even tougher for others to compete on price and amid constrained supplies. Rumors are also buzzing that Apple may soon tie up even more flash supplies by cutting a deal with Hynix Semiconductor.
I think folks are missing the point and getting caught up in all the details. The point is that "secret" TSA rules are being claimed and enforced by the airlines without the enforcee being allowed to know what rules they are being subjected to and under what circumstances. The airlines use TSA as a smokescreen for their own arbitrary policies.
EFF founder John Gilmore has been fighting these so-called rules for some time now. Check out Gilmore vs Ashcroft regarding these rules.
Wired magazing wrote:
A recent lawsuit filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation founder John Gilmore against U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, United Airlines and several others challenges the requirement that airline flyers present government-issued identification in order to travel within the United States.
As it turns out, there may be no such law on the books. Instead, carefully worded rules and statements allow airlines to make it seem that way. Under current federal regulations, they're only required to ask for ID, not to make it a condition of travel.
"It creates the illusion of security without any real security," longtime civil libertarian Gilmore said of the ID requirement, which he deliberately flouted at San Francisco and Oakland, California, airports on July 4 in order to establish the case.
Our consituttion provides for redress of grieveances against the government. But how can you address something when you aren't even allowed to know it's number, title, or content?
First and foremost, this is about free access to tools and technology. Remember that copyright infringement is already illegal. The heavy handed tactics of attacking any technology that MIGHT be used for infringement misses the point completely. It's not the technology...it's what you do with it.
You can use a chainsaw to cut your winter firewood, or you can use it to commit a Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Does that mean we should outlaw chainsaws? No, of couse not. The act of killing is already against the law and has nothing to do with chainsaw technology. It is about actions and not tools.
So too is it with technologies like BitTorrent. Yes, certainly a large community of cheap-ass slackers who want goodies for free have exploited this great content delivery system for their own purposes. But to be sure, there are so many other legit uses for it. The LEGAL online music trading community has also taken up BitTorrent to distribute high quality live recordings of bands that permit taping. (The Dead, Phish, Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam, etc to name even a few!) Sites like Sharing the Groove and eTree provide legal lossless audio in FLAC and Shorten format to fans of the music. These lossless files can be quite large and the demand for them can be quite strong the night after a good concert. Well, gosh... This is Just the sort of thing that BitTorrent does and does well. It serves high bandwidth and high demand files with grace and ease. This isn't about piracy. It's about access to technology. The Supreme Court ruled in the betamax case that there were enough legit uses for the technology that it couldn't be outlawed simply because some people were using it to copy porn tapes. I reserve the right to use this technology in a lawful fashion despite what others may choose to do with it.
More than once I have turned to a Torrent link to get a copy of some content that was in high demand at the time. (Animatrix previews, Gollum's Acceptance speech, etc.) All were legit downloads when the normal methods of acquiring the content were under heavy/. effect.
Let's try to keep this in mind during these troubling times of heavy litigation by big media. They killed Napster, they'll try to kill BT and any other centralized system they can find. The chilling new bill introduced in congress should be a warning to us all. The concept of p2p itself is under attack. Fight for your rights to these tools.
Okay, I went and dug out the help files from the iTunes 4.0 package. Here's EXACTLY what the help says about sharing:
If your computer is connected to any other computers over a local network, you can share the music in your library and playlists with up to five of those computers.
The computers need to be in the same subnet as your computer (see the Network pane of System Preferences to see what subnet your computer is in). You choose the items you share in the Sharing pane of iTunes preferences.
You can also set your sharing preferences to look for shared music. Any shared music that's available on your network appears in your iTunes Source list. You can also see the shared music on a specific computer that isn't in the same subnet, if you know the computer's IP address.
When you play a shared song, it's streamed over the network to your computer. You can listen to it but you can't add it to your library or playlists, transfer it to an iPod, or burn it on a CD. You can tell if a song is shared by selecting the song and choosing File > Get Info. If the Kind is "remote" (in the Summary pane), it's a shared file.
You can't share Audible spoken word content or QuickTime sound files. Sharing is intended for personal use only.
Sounds pretty clear to me. (Except of course for that part about connecting to computers outside your subnet if you know their IP address!)
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no it doesn't. You have the option to NOT install the updater. It is not automatic.
How many times has a new update "broken" things on your machine? I prefer to install the updates when I choose to, not when Google chooses to.
Now to address some of the inaccuracies I see in the previous postings...
Those of you comparing the Google mechanism to Apple's update mechanisms are way off base. (Windows AND Mac versions)
Unlike Google, Apple clearly tells you up front that it wants to install a software update mechanism and gives you the option NOT to use it. Windows users who claim it automaticgally turns itself back on when you turn it off need to loosen their neckties and get some oxygen up to their brains. This just isn't accurate.
And enough with the phony claims that Apple sneaks software onto the user's machine. That's just not true either. They are VERY clear about what is being installed and always offer you the option to NOT install the extra software.
On the Mac, Software Update can be configured NOT to automatically install updates, and there is much transparency regarding the update process. It isn't sneakily hidden in the background. They are up front about it.
On Windows, you can easily configure the software update mechanism to ignore updates and never darken your door again. Use the prefs, folks. That's what they are there for.
Next, what on earth (the real one, not the google one) does google need to be doing in the system space. This is an end user app. There is no reason that the update mechanism can't reside within the app. Why do they feel the need to install a system level daemon to accomplish the task. (Yes, I know they are not alone in this respect. I resent it just as much in the other vendors as well.)
So let's have an accurate discussion about this. I DO think Google has crossed the line here and I don't think the comparison's to Apple's approach are valid.
Just my .02 dollars.
You can't center "around" something. You can revolve around something or you can center ON something. But you can't center around. Doesn't even make sense and it's on two front-page Slashdot articles.
Apple has managed to snap up most of the available flash memory being produced by Samsung and the other manufacturers. They have also arranged sweetheart pricing deals with the same manufacturers. This leaves almost no flash memory left in the supply chain for other portable player makers to use in their units. And even if they can get them, the prices Apple is paying for their supply allows them to price their products lower than the competition. If the labels want ANY kind of digital music sales (which remains to be seen) they'll have to work with Apple somehow.
Read this article for more details on why Apple will remain in the driver's seat when it comes to iTunes pricing. Here's a key excerpt:
EFF founder John Gilmore has been fighting these so-called rules for some time now. Check out Gilmore vs Ashcroft regarding these rules.
Wired magazing wrote:
Our consituttion provides for redress of grieveances against the government. But how can you address something when you aren't even allowed to know it's number, title, or content?You can use a chainsaw to cut your winter firewood, or you can use it to commit a Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Does that mean we should outlaw chainsaws? No, of couse not. The act of killing is already against the law and has nothing to do with chainsaw technology. It is about actions and not tools.
So too is it with technologies like BitTorrent. Yes, certainly a large community of cheap-ass slackers who want goodies for free have exploited this great content delivery system for their own purposes. But to be sure, there are so many other legit uses for it. The LEGAL online music trading community has also taken up BitTorrent to distribute high quality live recordings of bands that permit taping. (The Dead, Phish, Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam, etc to name even a few!) Sites like Sharing the Groove and eTree provide legal lossless audio in FLAC and Shorten format to fans of the music. These lossless files can be quite large and the demand for them can be quite strong the night after a good concert. Well, gosh... This is Just the sort of thing that BitTorrent does and does well. It serves high bandwidth and high demand files with grace and ease. This isn't about piracy. It's about access to technology. The Supreme Court ruled in the betamax case that there were enough legit uses for the technology that it couldn't be outlawed simply because some people were using it to copy porn tapes. I reserve the right to use this technology in a lawful fashion despite what others may choose to do with it.
More than once I have turned to a Torrent link to get a copy of some content that was in high demand at the time. (Animatrix previews, Gollum's Acceptance speech, etc.) All were legit downloads when the normal methods of acquiring the content were under heavy /. effect.
Let's try to keep this in mind during these troubling times of heavy litigation by big media. They killed Napster, they'll try to kill BT and any other centralized system they can find. The chilling new bill introduced in congress should be a warning to us all. The concept of p2p itself is under attack. Fight for your rights to these tools.
(Stepping down from my sagging soapbox.)