If you have a killer app and someone will buy the phone for your app, why put yourself at Apples mercy?
Why? Because Apple is cool, that's why. Okay, I didn't say it was rational.
It sounds to me like developers of useless, unusable, and or badly marketed applications are not finding buyers and blaming free cheap apps for their failings.
Which is generally the same reaction that many large closed-source software houses have to the advent of sophisticated open-source operating systems and applications. Hard to compete with dirt-cheap (or free), especially if it's as good or better.
There are still programs we pay for that are $3,000+ a seat
Some of the simulation programs my company uses cost $75,000 a seat. It's a thunk, but it's not a huge market and compared to the cost of building and tweaking dozens of prototypes... well worth the money.
and I still can't see spending more than $100 Grand on it for an iPhone app.
100k goes fast, and that's not even considering non-development-related costs. If your app requires hosting or has any server-side component, that's going to be an ongoing expense. If you aren't selling your product as a service, or have a subscription fee, those costs are going to have to be paid out of the take from new sales.
If your app proves to be really popular, odds are you're going to need a support staff. That hundred grand is gone. Pfft.
This is particularly true because any Apple-related product is going to be heavy on the graphics, and that's going to require art support (not many coders know their way around Photoshop or have any animation skills whatsoever.) Ditto on sound effects and music. A hundred grand sounds like a lot, but when it comes to software development and support nowadays, it really isn't.
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade.
Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do.
Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK
Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
VICTOR
You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
There's one near where I used to live that I would hit sometimes for a breakfast sandwich on Saturday mornings. Bit into one of the things, and the meat was rotted. Had to pull over and throw up, it was awful. Never went back. To be fair, though, I had a very similar experience at a nearby McDonald's that I switched to after the first experience.
i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech.
Free speech (as understood in the United States, under our Constitution) sets limits on what the government can do to suppress speech. It says nothing about individuals (or corporations) suing each other for redress due to libelous or slanderous statements. So no, the government can't go after these anonymous posters for whatever it was they said (assuming it falls into the "protected speech" category) but this Zebulon character certainly can.
True enough, but on the other hand, sometimes things are obviously unconstitutional even to a layman. Our lawmakers continue to pump out such laws, knowing full well they would never pass Constitutional muster. Personally, if some of the fruitcakes we call "Congressmen" would just take a deep breath and ask themselves "What would the Founders think?" before submitting that next bill, I think we'd all be a heck of a lot better off.
Interestingly, it seems as a student government representative she was fulfilling her duties by attempting to negotiate change between students and faculty. Her email was well written, clear and concise.
I fail to see how the university can justify any reprisal.
Haven't worked much in the uni environment have you? Grumpy old men shouting "Get off my lawn" seem welcoming compared to the grizzly bear attitude of a tenured professor who feels their authority has been challenged.
Yeah, no kidding. But in this case it wasn't the faculty that were riled up (it was their help she was trying to enlist with alleged spam.) It was the Administration, specifically the school President who got bent out of shape here.
I disagree with your characterization. MSU had never, until that point, enforced the policy even on actual spam and hacking activities. They enforced it the moment someone disagreed with a faculty position. One of the professors got bent out of shape by being confronted with discord from a student (the temerity!).
There's no blubbering here, just righteous defiance. Remember, she insisted that charges be brought against her.
Gotta give her credit for standing up for herself. Furthermore, it was only one professor out of some four thousand who registered a complaint. Apparently this wasn't a big problem for the faculty at all... just for the Administration.
That Lou what's-her-name President of the school will probably end up regretting this. She wanted to make a clear statement to the students: do what we tell you, and don't try to get the faculty on your side.. Instead, they ran up against someone who wouldn't cave when threatened. Now they're going to have to put up or shut up. Not only that, but if Ms. Spencer sticks to her guns, they may end up having a Federal judge tell them where to stick their email policies.
RTFA! It is alleged that the student violated the policy. However, reading the policy, there is a clause that specifically permits bulk emailing communications regarding changes to university policies of procedures. There is room to interpret that as permission to bulk email about the changed academic calendar.
Except her email wasn't an [informative] communication about the changes, it was a [personal and political] protest against the changes. As other have pointed out, the former is specifically permitted, the latter specifically forbidden.
Which may prove to be completely irrelevant if that policy is shown to be in violation of Federal law. Public Universities have responsibilities under the law that they cannot simply dispense with for their own bureaucratic convenience. We'll see... the University is taking a bath on this one PR-wise anyway, and if they're smart they'll drop it. I doubt they'd do too well in court if she gets a good lawyer.
for it's own sake, but rather to hold off the storm that's brewing over MediaSentry's unlicensed, illegal, and fundamentally incompetent investigations. I assume that if MediaSentry ends up in some serious hot water this could affect a lot of lawsuits.
Too late. Read some of the other posts in this thread. And, if you're serious about your artistic tax, you are going to need a few well-placed Congresspersons in your hip pocket. Start with Diane Feinstein and Orrin Hatch, and work your way down from there.
Unfortunately, you're still forgetting one thing: the same corporate bloodsuckers that brought us to this point will still be in charge. Honestly, I know what you're trying to say, but it cannot work so long as this bunch is running the show. It just can't, because every deal they've ever struck (with Congress, with their customers) they've reneged upon. They cannot be trusted. Period. And that's true whether you're an artist, a customer, or just an innocent bystander.
To couch this in religious terms, any agreement reached with these people would be a deal with the Devil. We know how those usually turn out.
More to the point, copyright (the legal framework upon which all of these shenanigans have their basis) was meant to benefit the people of the United States, not an oligopoly of foreign-owned corporations. These people are duplicitous, fraudulent, criminal, and have committed crimes against the State and the people of this country. They are not to be taken seriously as the gatekeepers of anything.
Well, the Paypal button is a good idea because there are a lot of people (like me, for instance) who won't buy anything from a click-though as a matter of principle. On the other hand, there are those (like me, for instance) who will make a direct contribution if given the opportunity.
I'll be heading over there as soon as I find my Paypal account info...
Hey... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
I don't know. I think of Satan as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion. I think of Mr. Oppenheim more as the living dead.
Could be. Are you referring to a typical zombie, or do you think he has more vampirical leanings?
the world is run by the nearly and the wholly sociopathic.
Not that I'm disagreeing completely with that statement but I don't think Jobs is anything like sociopathic. Egotistical and obsessive, perhaps, maybe narcissistic as well, but not sociopathic.
He is inarguably brilliant, in any case--not that I'd want to work closely with him.
Most of the truly sociopathic CEOs tend to ultimately destroy their companies in an unending quest for personal aggrandizement. Sociopathy is also a spectrum, ranging from mild to murderous.
The problem is, when a large corporation falters (as Apple has, more than once) it is often difficult to determine if it was because of incompetence or sociopathy at the top.
The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks...
Satan called, he wants his good name back.
Hey... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
Sarah Jane: Oh, Doctor. You're just being childish."
Doctor Who: "What's wrong with being childish? I like being childish."
Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.
I agree with the others who want to support to your efforts. Don't worry so much about the advertising, but add a direct donation button, take Paypal and credit-cards, and I'll bet you'll be surprised how much support you get from Slashdot users alone. Me, I'd be first in line, since I subscribe to your RSS feed (thank you for that, by the way.) As a group, I'd say we're pretty cheap (after all, we spend so much time downloading (ahem!) "free" music) but what you offer on your blog is unique and relevant.
And for all you nitpickers that don't feel Ray's site is quite up to your aesthetic standards, well. If I wanted pretty pictures and no content I'd head over to FOXNEWS.COM. Ray's site is exactly what the World Wide Web was intended to be by its inventors: fast, efficient and most of all informative. The Web has largely been conscripted as a marketing tool, with all the hype and overhead that goes along with that. Keep it simple, Ray, and those of us who really care about your content will keep coming back. I'd say that's especially important: so many modern Web sites leave dial-up and foreign users out in the cold with all the baggage they have to download.
Anyone know what these posts are about? I've been seeing em more and more. Are the interwebs talking to us?
Yes, most people don't realize it, but this is all Cisco's vault. Their routers have had the potential to act as a neural net for some time now: the Internet became fully self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th, 1997. We just haven't realized it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a killer app and someone will buy the phone for your app, why put yourself at Apples mercy?
Why? Because Apple is cool, that's why. Okay, I didn't say it was rational.
It sounds to me like developers of useless, unusable, and or badly marketed applications are not finding buyers and blaming free cheap apps for their failings.
Which is generally the same reaction that many large closed-source software houses have to the advent of sophisticated open-source operating systems and applications. Hard to compete with dirt-cheap (or free), especially if it's as good or better.
There are still programs we pay for that are $3,000+ a seat
Some of the simulation programs my company uses cost $75,000 a seat. It's a thunk, but it's not a huge market and compared to the cost of building and tweaking dozens of prototypes ... well worth the money.
and I still can't see spending more than $100 Grand on it for an iPhone app.
100k goes fast, and that's not even considering non-development-related costs. If your app requires hosting or has any server-side component, that's going to be an ongoing expense. If you aren't selling your product as a service, or have a subscription fee, those costs are going to have to be paid out of the take from new sales. If your app proves to be really popular, odds are you're going to need a support staff. That hundred grand is gone. Pfft.
This is particularly true because any Apple-related product is going to be heavy on the graphics, and that's going to require art support (not many coders know their way around Photoshop or have any animation skills whatsoever.) Ditto on sound effects and music. A hundred grand sounds like a lot, but when it comes to software development and support nowadays, it really isn't.
Which may prove to be completely irrelevant if that policy is shown to be in violation of Federal law.
By sending this bulk mail she violated the university's bulk email policy, and she is being punished as a result. Which law is this violating?
Hopefully it's violating the First Amendment.
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade. Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do. Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for. VICTOR You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Nevertheless, sometimes a vacation is in order.
I'm also wondering why, if the allegation is that untrue or that actionable, the franchise company doesn't come to his aid??
Seems to me if there was really a case here, Dunkin' Donuts Inc. would be first in line at the legal office.
Either way, I have the feeling that he's going to be under the microscope by Dunkin's legal team from now on.
There's one near where I used to live that I would hit sometimes for a breakfast sandwich on Saturday mornings. Bit into one of the things, and the meat was rotted. Had to pull over and throw up, it was awful. Never went back. To be fair, though, I had a very similar experience at a nearby McDonald's that I switched to after the first experience.
Never went back there either.
i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech.
Free speech (as understood in the United States, under our Constitution) sets limits on what the government can do to suppress speech. It says nothing about individuals (or corporations) suing each other for redress due to libelous or slanderous statements. So no, the government can't go after these anonymous posters for whatever it was they said (assuming it falls into the "protected speech" category) but this Zebulon character certainly can.
Or maybe he does have a case and his is a clean and proper store.
Well, if it wasn't before ... it is now.
True enough, but on the other hand, sometimes things are obviously unconstitutional even to a layman. Our lawmakers continue to pump out such laws, knowing full well they would never pass Constitutional muster. Personally, if some of the fruitcakes we call "Congressmen" would just take a deep breath and ask themselves "What would the Founders think?" before submitting that next bill, I think we'd all be a heck of a lot better off.
Haven't worked much in the uni environment have you? Grumpy old men shouting "Get off my lawn" seem welcoming compared to the grizzly bear attitude of a tenured professor who feels their authority has been challenged.
Yeah, no kidding. But in this case it wasn't the faculty that were riled up (it was their help she was trying to enlist with alleged spam.) It was the Administration, specifically the school President who got bent out of shape here.
I disagree with your characterization. MSU had never, until that point, enforced the policy even on actual spam and hacking activities. They enforced it the moment someone disagreed with a faculty position. One of the professors got bent out of shape by being confronted with discord from a student (the temerity!).
There's no blubbering here, just righteous defiance. Remember, she insisted that charges be brought against her.
Gotta give her credit for standing up for herself. Furthermore, it was only one professor out of some four thousand who registered a complaint. Apparently this wasn't a big problem for the faculty at all ... just for the Administration.
That Lou what's-her-name President of the school will probably end up regretting this. She wanted to make a clear statement to the students: do what we tell you, and don't try to get the faculty on your side.. Instead, they ran up against someone who wouldn't cave when threatened. Now they're going to have to put up or shut up. Not only that, but if Ms. Spencer sticks to her guns, they may end up having a Federal judge tell them where to stick their email policies.
Except her email wasn't an [informative] communication about the changes, it was a [personal and political] protest against the changes. As other have pointed out, the former is specifically permitted, the latter specifically forbidden.
Which may prove to be completely irrelevant if that policy is shown to be in violation of Federal law. Public Universities have responsibilities under the law that they cannot simply dispense with for their own bureaucratic convenience. We'll see ... the University is taking a bath on this one PR-wise anyway, and if they're smart they'll drop it. I doubt they'd do too well in court if she gets a good lawyer.
I don't know if that would be safe.
Who knows where they've already been?
Assume the worst.
for it's own sake, but rather to hold off the storm that's brewing over MediaSentry's unlicensed, illegal, and fundamentally incompetent investigations. I assume that if MediaSentry ends up in some serious hot water this could affect a lot of lawsuits.
The problem is your posts hit 5 mods REAL FAST, and there's scant opportunity to Mod you Funny.
Not at all. You just have to be patient. Look at him now ... not one but two +5 Funnies.
Sometimes the metamoderation system actually works.
I hope this nonsense isn't visited upon the US.
Too late. Read some of the other posts in this thread. And, if you're serious about your artistic tax, you are going to need a few well-placed Congresspersons in your hip pocket. Start with Diane Feinstein and Orrin Hatch, and work your way down from there.
Unfortunately, you're still forgetting one thing: the same corporate bloodsuckers that brought us to this point will still be in charge. Honestly, I know what you're trying to say, but it cannot work so long as this bunch is running the show. It just can't, because every deal they've ever struck (with Congress, with their customers) they've reneged upon. They cannot be trusted. Period. And that's true whether you're an artist, a customer, or just an innocent bystander.
To couch this in religious terms, any agreement reached with these people would be a deal with the Devil. We know how those usually turn out.
More to the point, copyright (the legal framework upon which all of these shenanigans have their basis) was meant to benefit the people of the United States, not an oligopoly of foreign-owned corporations. These people are duplicitous, fraudulent, criminal, and have committed crimes against the State and the people of this country. They are not to be taken seriously as the gatekeepers of anything.
Well, the Paypal button is a good idea because there are a lot of people (like me, for instance) who won't buy anything from a click-though as a matter of principle. On the other hand, there are those (like me, for instance) who will make a direct contribution if given the opportunity.
...
I'll be heading over there as soon as I find my Paypal account info
Hey ... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
I don't know. I think of Satan as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion. I think of Mr. Oppenheim more as the living dead.
Could be. Are you referring to a typical zombie, or do you think he has more vampirical leanings?
Not that I'm disagreeing completely with that statement but I don't think Jobs is anything like sociopathic. Egotistical and obsessive, perhaps, maybe narcissistic as well, but not sociopathic.
He is inarguably brilliant, in any case--not that I'd want to work closely with him.
Most of the truly sociopathic CEOs tend to ultimately destroy their companies in an unending quest for personal aggrandizement. Sociopathy is also a spectrum, ranging from mild to murderous.
The problem is, when a large corporation falters (as Apple has, more than once) it is often difficult to determine if it was because of incompetence or sociopathy at the top.
The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks...
Satan called, he wants his good name back.
Hey ... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
To pretend otherwise is utterly childish.
Sarah Jane: Oh, Doctor. You're just being childish."
Doctor Who: "What's wrong with being childish? I like being childish."
Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.
I agree with the others who want to support to your efforts. Don't worry so much about the advertising, but add a direct donation button, take Paypal and credit-cards, and I'll bet you'll be surprised how much support you get from Slashdot users alone. Me, I'd be first in line, since I subscribe to your RSS feed (thank you for that, by the way.) As a group, I'd say we're pretty cheap (after all, we spend so much time downloading (ahem!) "free" music) but what you offer on your blog is unique and relevant.
And for all you nitpickers that don't feel Ray's site is quite up to your aesthetic standards, well. If I wanted pretty pictures and no content I'd head over to FOXNEWS.COM. Ray's site is exactly what the World Wide Web was intended to be by its inventors: fast, efficient and most of all informative. The Web has largely been conscripted as a marketing tool, with all the hype and overhead that goes along with that. Keep it simple, Ray, and those of us who really care about your content will keep coming back. I'd say that's especially important: so many modern Web sites leave dial-up and foreign users out in the cold with all the baggage they have to download.
Anyone know what these posts are about? I've been seeing em more and more. Are the interwebs talking to us?
Yes, most people don't realize it, but this is all Cisco's vault. Their routers have had the potential to act as a neural net for some time now: the Internet became fully self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th, 1997. We just haven't realized it yet.