Because the Bison output isn't the preferred form for editing. The Bison input is. Arguing you can just edit the Bison output is a bit like saying "You have the.a files to my C program! You can just edit.a files in place, you don't need the source!" (Only a bit, mind you.)
But really, this isn't a GPL violation. This is a simple blunder by the copyright owner. The copyright owner is incapable of violating the GPL, because he/they aren't held to it. So whatever: They'll fix it.
The story is interesting for the existence of the blunder itself, not for any kind of political or legal ramifications of the blunder.
Apple killed the traditional OS X Server with 10.7. Despite the 10.7 version number, this is really a 1.0 of something new: an entirely "overlay" based server for Mac OS X.
I expect it to grow. Some of the things it has will no doubt never come back, but I think a lot will over time.
In the meantime, if you need something missing, there's lots of great options out there: various flavours of Linux, plus Snow Leopard. No need to go to Windows, unless of course you want to.
Good grief. Neither of those cited "reasons" is a practical reason, and they're not even theoretical problems to most people. I've never had a battery fail on me, and I've never even seen a file with different DRM nor visited a site that sold any. (I don't think there even are any available to Canadians, though I could be wrong. And, frankly, I don't care if I am.)
That's really all you've got for declaring a huge fraction of the population slaves to fashion? Is it possible you're just a slave to your own paranoia?
Yes, developers can avoid sharing by making the purchases available on their web site and having the iOS app use the purchase. They're just not allowed to provide a link in the application to that web site.
If the developer provides both In App Purchase and off website purchase, Apple would get a 30% split of the In App Purchase only, and nothing of the off website purchase. Of course, all other things most users would probably do In App Purchase. Kindle's probably an exception, since one of Apple's rules is (was?) that In App Purchase can only handle things on iOS. If you want to make that resource available to a user's account on other devices, it's got to be off a website.
Disclaimer: I'm an app developer that uses this loophole, though our last update was long enough ago that we still have a link. (Possibly also because we're too small to worry about, I don't really know.) I still don't like it.:)
I think calling it a lie of omission might be reaching a bit, but sure. The app purchase itself is 70-30. That's why so many companies make the app free and try to charge for things the app needs or uses outside of the store, so they don't need to share a penny of it with Apple.
No, it means 35% have a reasonable expectation that the product will be worth buying that they're planning for that purchase now.
Regardless of whether someone's willing to buy a product unseen, if the announcement comes out and it's a dud most of them will quietly back down and not buy one.
This is where I am. I have an iPhone 3GS, and my wife has an iPhone 3G. The iPhone 3GS is decent, but the 3G needs replacement. We're planning on buying an iPhone 5 now, without seeing one. (Possibly two, due to the nature of our contract; I suspect we'll need to recommit both accounts to purchase one phone, and I doubt the 3GS will be useful for another 3 years.) But, of course, if it's announced and it's a dud we won't get one. It isn't really possible to buy an Apple product without seeing it, is it?
I think it's likely we're not quite understanding each other, yeah.
Yes, excluding jailbreaks apps come through Apple's App Store. However, they can be free. Apple will approve free applications. And you can purchase content from within or without the App Store. This "greed" question comes down to purchase of content in free apps. (Presumably, it would come up in paid apps offering content outside of the App Store, too, but there's been little gnashing of teeth over that)
Apple doesn't consider use of the app "bringing the customer." Let's pretend there's a newspaper Xyz with an app. Apple doesn't consider just downloading and using the app to be Apple bringing the customer to the deal. Apple considers using in-app purchase to be Apple bringing the customer to the purchase. By the same token, Apple would consider the customer purchasing the paper from Xyz's web site to be Xyz bringing the customer to the purchase.
What Apple doesn't want is for the Xyz iPhone app to provide a link in the iPhone app in lieu of in-app purchase. Apple would view that as Xyz taking Apple's share for customers Apple is bringing to the deal. In app purchase and on-site purchase? Fine. On-site purchase from the website, even on the iPhone, so long as the app didn't send them to the site for the purchase? Fine. On-site purchase with a link from the app and no in-app purchase? Not fine.
So, we've moved on to the personal insult stage? Thanks, but I'll keep above that line.
The Kindle app is all but meaningless to Apple sales. Nobody buys an iPad for Kindle. They buy an iPad for dozens of apps they want. Kindle app? Bonus to customer. But fewer iBooks sales. Loss to Apple.
If customers care about the Kindle, they buy a Kindle.
Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPad and a Kindle. The Kindle app adds not a penny to Apple's revenue.
Because Apple does allow purchases outside of the App Store, just as long as the developer also allows purchases inside the App Store. I've got several applications that do this. (Very consumer friendly, too: Content I bought years ago for Palm OS was available to me on my iPhone.)
The price in the store of the app is $0. That makes Apple's share of the app revenue also $0. Further, purchases for the Kindle are outside of the App Store. That means Apple's share of any purchase is also $0. Yet Apple reviews and hosts the app.
Why should Amazon be able to duck any form of paying Apple for the hosting? Why is Apple the only one being greedy here, and not Amazon as well?
Exactly what share of the money was Amazon offering?
I think letting them continue without a link is actually pretty generous on Apple's part. It isn't like Apple's seeing a penny out of this app. No more people are buying an iPad for reading Amazon books than, say, web surfing or Angry Birds HD.
No. "SOP" is to not actually know about a problem until it's reported through Apple Bug Reporter. That's because they generally do not, in fact, know about the problem. Apple doesn't, to my knowledge, hire vast teams of web surfers to find every possible security problem posted anywhere on the Internet.
Once they have the problem, it's prioritized according to how severe the problem is, how easy it is to exploit, and (yes) how many people know about it. How many people know about a problem is part of its risk load. I've reported security problems and got prompt fixes for things few people knew about, both simple and complex. In fact, the longest I've ever waited is an exploit I reported in 10.5 that had to wait for 10.5.2. (My guess is that 10.5.1 was nearly finalized before 10.5 shipped.) I was even offered a security credit for something that dozens of people knew about that nobody had bothered reporting. And yes, they'll typically only publicly acknowledge the problem after a patch is available. That's SOP across the industry, really. (Though I don't think it's ideal.)
It all starts with a problem report, though. So what's the rdar:// number of this problem?
It's just astonishing how many people would rather attribute to malice things that are easier explained by a lack of information.
I didn't mod it as funny, but I admit: I'm trying to imagine a typical consumer opening an iMac every time a firmware update is needed. And I find it pretty @#$%ing funny. My dad can barely apply software updates as it is.
I've been using Netflix for months now in Metro Vancouver. I stay well within my 6GB/mo mobile on Rogers, and neither Shaw nor Telus ever complained about my bandwidth usage (I switched for Telus's TV lineup).
You have no idea how the Canadian medical system works, do you?
I pay on every dollar I earn, every dollar I spend, and a fee every month besides for medical services that I'll use in a significant way once or twice in my lifetime. You know what? I pay. And it's a great deal because my life isn't ruined if I get sick.
As a Canadian, the only deal available to me is $7.99 for streaming only. I looked over the catalog and decided there was enough there to be worth $7.99/month.
So what's not worth $7.99 to Americans, the DVDs or the streaming? Given that your streaming library is more extensive, I assume it's the DVDs. Cancel that and enjoy the streaming.
I plan to stream a few episodes of a series I'm watching over 3G from my hospital bed later today.
Even more than the money, which is horrible, combine it with time. At this point, I think they've admitted to being less than half way through the product when they're were originally supposed to be finished and have already already spent more than they were supposed to in total.
From Wikipedia: "In June 2011, it was reported that the Webb telescope will cost at least four times more than originally proposed, and launch at least seven years late. Initial budget estimates were that the observatory would cost $1.6 billion and launch in 2011. NASA has now scheduled the telescope for a 2018 launch, though outside analysts suggest the flight could slip past 2020. The latest estimated price tag for the telescope is now $6.8 billion."
Although a loss for science, this would seem to be more accurately blamed on poor management and budgeting. Perhaps a smaller, better managed project will rise from the ashes.
Yes. Apple already lets you download files a second time from the App Store. I've done this many, many times.
As for starting over with a clean drive, I imagine you'd have to boot off your existing Snow Leopard DVD. Maybe you'd be able to restore straight from Time Machine, or maybe you'd have to install Snow Leopard and upgrade again. Or, sure, have an existing USB thumb drive. I'm sure they'll be a way.
We have a number of roundabouts in the area. I drive through one a couple of times daily, and several more on a weekly-or-more basis. Most of them function wonderfully; better than a traffic light.
There's one exception: The city recently planned a two roundabout system just after exiting a freeway. However, they decided to save money by putting in a traffic light and a roundabout instead. Unsurprisingly, the interaction between the two is horrible. Two lights or two roundabouts would have been fine, but the combination backs traffic right out onto the highway.
(Another busier exit got two roundabouts as planned. It works perfectly.)
Slashdot Mirror
Because the Bison output isn't the preferred form for editing. The Bison input is. Arguing you can just edit the Bison output is a bit like saying "You have the .a files to my C program! You can just edit .a files in place, you don't need the source!" (Only a bit, mind you.)
But really, this isn't a GPL violation. This is a simple blunder by the copyright owner. The copyright owner is incapable of violating the GPL, because he/they aren't held to it. So whatever: They'll fix it.
The story is interesting for the existence of the blunder itself, not for any kind of political or legal ramifications of the blunder.
Apple killed the traditional OS X Server with 10.7. Despite the 10.7 version number, this is really a 1.0 of something new: an entirely "overlay" based server for Mac OS X.
I expect it to grow. Some of the things it has will no doubt never come back, but I think a lot will over time.
In the meantime, if you need something missing, there's lots of great options out there: various flavours of Linux, plus Snow Leopard. No need to go to Windows, unless of course you want to.
Good grief. Neither of those cited "reasons" is a practical reason, and they're not even theoretical problems to most people. I've never had a battery fail on me, and I've never even seen a file with different DRM nor visited a site that sold any. (I don't think there even are any available to Canadians, though I could be wrong. And, frankly, I don't care if I am.)
That's really all you've got for declaring a huge fraction of the population slaves to fashion? Is it possible you're just a slave to your own paranoia?
No, that helped. What you mean has clicked now. :)
Yes, developers can avoid sharing by making the purchases available on their web site and having the iOS app use the purchase. They're just not allowed to provide a link in the application to that web site.
If the developer provides both In App Purchase and off website purchase, Apple would get a 30% split of the In App Purchase only, and nothing of the off website purchase. Of course, all other things most users would probably do In App Purchase. Kindle's probably an exception, since one of Apple's rules is (was?) that In App Purchase can only handle things on iOS. If you want to make that resource available to a user's account on other devices, it's got to be off a website.
Disclaimer: I'm an app developer that uses this loophole, though our last update was long enough ago that we still have a link. (Possibly also because we're too small to worry about, I don't really know.) I still don't like it. :)
I think calling it a lie of omission might be reaching a bit, but sure. The app purchase itself is 70-30. That's why so many companies make the app free and try to charge for things the app needs or uses outside of the store, so they don't need to share a penny of it with Apple.
No, it means 35% have a reasonable expectation that the product will be worth buying that they're planning for that purchase now.
Regardless of whether someone's willing to buy a product unseen, if the announcement comes out and it's a dud most of them will quietly back down and not buy one.
This is where I am. I have an iPhone 3GS, and my wife has an iPhone 3G. The iPhone 3GS is decent, but the 3G needs replacement. We're planning on buying an iPhone 5 now, without seeing one. (Possibly two, due to the nature of our contract; I suspect we'll need to recommit both accounts to purchase one phone, and I doubt the 3GS will be useful for another 3 years.) But, of course, if it's announced and it's a dud we won't get one. It isn't really possible to buy an Apple product without seeing it, is it?
I think it's likely we're not quite understanding each other, yeah.
Yes, excluding jailbreaks apps come through Apple's App Store. However, they can be free. Apple will approve free applications. And you can purchase content from within or without the App Store. This "greed" question comes down to purchase of content in free apps. (Presumably, it would come up in paid apps offering content outside of the App Store, too, but there's been little gnashing of teeth over that)
Apple doesn't consider use of the app "bringing the customer." Let's pretend there's a newspaper Xyz with an app. Apple doesn't consider just downloading and using the app to be Apple bringing the customer to the deal. Apple considers using in-app purchase to be Apple bringing the customer to the purchase. By the same token, Apple would consider the customer purchasing the paper from Xyz's web site to be Xyz bringing the customer to the purchase.
What Apple doesn't want is for the Xyz iPhone app to provide a link in the iPhone app in lieu of in-app purchase. Apple would view that as Xyz taking Apple's share for customers Apple is bringing to the deal. In app purchase and on-site purchase? Fine. On-site purchase from the website, even on the iPhone, so long as the app didn't send them to the site for the purchase? Fine. On-site purchase with a link from the app and no in-app purchase? Not fine.
So, we've moved on to the personal insult stage? Thanks, but I'll keep above that line.
The Kindle app is all but meaningless to Apple sales. Nobody buys an iPad for Kindle. They buy an iPad for dozens of apps they want. Kindle app? Bonus to customer. But fewer iBooks sales. Loss to Apple.
If customers care about the Kindle, they buy a Kindle.
Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPad and a Kindle. The Kindle app adds not a penny to Apple's revenue.
Because Apple does allow purchases outside of the App Store, just as long as the developer also allows purchases inside the App Store. I've got several applications that do this. (Very consumer friendly, too: Content I bought years ago for Palm OS was available to me on my iPhone.)
Let's look at Amazon/Kindle.
The price in the store of the app is $0. That makes Apple's share of the app revenue also $0. Further, purchases for the Kindle are outside of the App Store. That means Apple's share of any purchase is also $0. Yet Apple reviews and hosts the app.
Why should Amazon be able to duck any form of paying Apple for the hosting? Why is Apple the only one being greedy here, and not Amazon as well?
Exactly what share of the money was Amazon offering?
I think letting them continue without a link is actually pretty generous on Apple's part. It isn't like Apple's seeing a penny out of this app. No more people are buying an iPad for reading Amazon books than, say, web surfing or Angry Birds HD.
No. "SOP" is to not actually know about a problem until it's reported through Apple Bug Reporter. That's because they generally do not, in fact, know about the problem. Apple doesn't, to my knowledge, hire vast teams of web surfers to find every possible security problem posted anywhere on the Internet.
Once they have the problem, it's prioritized according to how severe the problem is, how easy it is to exploit, and (yes) how many people know about it. How many people know about a problem is part of its risk load. I've reported security problems and got prompt fixes for things few people knew about, both simple and complex. In fact, the longest I've ever waited is an exploit I reported in 10.5 that had to wait for 10.5.2. (My guess is that 10.5.1 was nearly finalized before 10.5 shipped.) I was even offered a security credit for something that dozens of people knew about that nobody had bothered reporting. And yes, they'll typically only publicly acknowledge the problem after a patch is available. That's SOP across the industry, really. (Though I don't think it's ideal.)
It all starts with a problem report, though. So what's the rdar:// number of this problem?
It's just astonishing how many people would rather attribute to malice things that are easier explained by a lack of information.
I didn't mod it as funny, but I admit: I'm trying to imagine a typical consumer opening an iMac every time a firmware update is needed. And I find it pretty @#$%ing funny. My dad can barely apply software updates as it is.
The subject couldn't watch it either.
I've been using Netflix for months now in Metro Vancouver. I stay well within my 6GB/mo mobile on Rogers, and neither Shaw nor Telus ever complained about my bandwidth usage (I switched for Telus's TV lineup).
You have no idea how the Canadian medical system works, do you?
I pay on every dollar I earn, every dollar I spend, and a fee every month besides for medical services that I'll use in a significant way once or twice in my lifetime. You know what? I pay. And it's a great deal because my life isn't ruined if I get sick.
Get your head out if your ass. Nothing's free.
Why not just figure out what part you want and pay less for it than you're paying now?
You're paying $9.99 now. Pay $7.99 for what you want instead.
As a Canadian, the only deal available to me is $7.99 for streaming only. I looked over the catalog and decided there was enough there to be worth $7.99/month.
So what's not worth $7.99 to Americans, the DVDs or the streaming? Given that your streaming library is more extensive, I assume it's the DVDs. Cancel that and enjoy the streaming.
I plan to stream a few episodes of a series I'm watching over 3G from my hospital bed later today.
Great example! What would have happened if the war had been ten years behind schedule and billions over budget?
(For the more inflicted among you: YES, I KNOW. That was the point.)
Even more than the money, which is horrible, combine it with time. At this point, I think they've admitted to being less than half way through the product when they're were originally supposed to be finished and have already already spent more than they were supposed to in total.
Well, they're currently $5 billion over budget and 10 years behind schedule. Still think all they need is a bit more money? :)
It's a good idea, but it's clearly being mismanaged.
From Wikipedia:
"In June 2011, it was reported that the Webb telescope will cost at least four times more than originally proposed, and launch at least seven years late. Initial budget estimates were that the observatory would cost $1.6 billion and launch in 2011. NASA has now scheduled the telescope for a 2018 launch, though outside analysts suggest the flight could slip past 2020. The latest estimated price tag for the telescope is now $6.8 billion."
Although a loss for science, this would seem to be more accurately blamed on poor management and budgeting. Perhaps a smaller, better managed project will rise from the ashes.
The patent is on a technique old enough that I think my PowerBook 540 would have violated it back in 1994.
(I'm not claiming this was the first machine to do this, just that it was the first one I owned that I knew did so.)
Yes. Apple already lets you download files a second time from the App Store. I've done this many, many times.
As for starting over with a clean drive, I imagine you'd have to boot off your existing Snow Leopard DVD. Maybe you'd be able to restore straight from Time Machine, or maybe you'd have to install Snow Leopard and upgrade again. Or, sure, have an existing USB thumb drive. I'm sure they'll be a way.
We have a number of roundabouts in the area. I drive through one a couple of times daily, and several more on a weekly-or-more basis. Most of them function wonderfully; better than a traffic light.
There's one exception: The city recently planned a two roundabout system just after exiting a freeway. However, they decided to save money by putting in a traffic light and a roundabout instead. Unsurprisingly, the interaction between the two is horrible. Two lights or two roundabouts would have been fine, but the combination backs traffic right out onto the highway.
(Another busier exit got two roundabouts as planned. It works perfectly.)
Mentioned in the WWDC Keynote: You can install a single copy on all your authorized Macs. I think that's 5.