By "do the job" you mean "swap for another one", right? Since that is how the battery replacement program works, unless you specifically want the original one back (in which case, it takes longer).
You might have been going for funny (although, debatable on that point), I was going for accuracy. Each one of those is taken as expressed from actual slashdot posts. They are paraphrased, but accurate responses. That might explain why I've missed some comedy factor: I wasn't going for humour.
Yes, ask those Chinese workers who are paid more than the workers sitting right beside them in the same factory but who happen to be making Xbox or PS3, or some other thing. The ones who make specifically Apple stuff *are* paid more, at Apple's demand of their supplier.
Apple does something bad: Bashspeak: See! Apple is evil! It's proof!
Apple does something positive: Bashspeak: Apple clearly has an ulterior motive, here's some cynical, paranoid ranting about how this is really something evil!
Apple releases changes back into GPL projects: Bashspeak: Apple is *legally obliged* to do that! They wouldn't do it otherwise! They hate everything to do with open source!
Apple open sources its own projects like libdispatch, calendar/addressbook server etc etc: Bashspeak: Those are not important! No one uses those!
Apple prices iPad less than any Android tablet of equal spec: Bashspeak: The iPad is still too expensive (even though it is several hundred dollars cheaper than we were all saying it would be on release)! It's only less than the Android tablets because Apple uses anti-competitve practices to price other multinational giants like Samsung out of the market! It's definitely not because that's what a tablet costs, definitely not!
Apple throws its weight behind developers being targeted by patent troll: Bashspeak: It's Apple's fault for forcing developers to use technologies that could be attacked by patent trolls! Apple are evil!
Apple point out that antenna attenuation is not limited to the iPhone 4, but it just worse due to the design of the loop antenna: Bashspeak: Apple are just trying to make other manufacturers look bad!
Apple offers free bumpers to all iPhone customers that cures the problem: Bashspeak: Nothing less that taking back *all* the iPhones and redesigning them completely will put this heinous injustice right! It doesn't matter that 95% of iPhone 4 users are not having any problems but welcomed the free case.
Apple include a non-truncated, non-specific hotspot and tower tracking log that demonstrably does not track your precise movements in real time: Bashspeak: Apple is tracking your exact movements in realtime!
Android phones do identical thing and also *send that data to Google* (which Apple's phones do not do [although it says it is possible in the ToS, Apple has not collected this data so far]): Bashspeak: Oh, that's totally fine. Android is *open*. You can opt out! (like you can on iOS too, but hey, facts are inconvenient!)
Apple runs a walled garden on iOS: Bashspeak: That's slavery! Apple rents the phone to you! You do not own your device!
Android apps start to feature malware: Bashspeak: Well, duh! That's what happens when you sideload apps! If you want guaranteed malware free just use the Android Market [ie, the walled garden]
Android apps *in the market* start to feature malware: Bashspeak: Well duh! It should be obvious that these are not the legit apps! Just copies with malware added in! Absolutely no issue! No threat, this is a non-story designed to trash Android!
Apple has minor malware issue with a single easy-to kill trojan that requires full user duping to install: Bashspeak: Apple has a malware explosion! Now we see clear proof just how much of a swiss cheese security nightmare OS X is after over 10 years of no attacks! It was entirely down to obscurity! Not a single hacker in the history of the internet was interested in compromising OS X until now!
Android starts sending SMS messages to the wrong people: Bashspeak: I have not seen this problem, therefore it's not an issue (seriously, I saw this from multiple people. the panic damage control was hilarious)
Hacker releases code to "brute force" the 4 digit passcose on iPhone: Bashspeak: See! iPhones are so insecure!
Android outsells iPhone in a single quarter just before the release of the iPhone 4 when iPhone 3GS sales were way down, and simultaneously during a Verizon 2 for 1 giveaway on Android handsets that counted double for each new customer: Bashspeak: Ha! see! Android is killing iOS! Open will always win!
Users point out the unusual circumstances that have depressed iPhone numbers and swelle
In response to the OP's question - ie, it doesn't only work with "Sprint and Youtube Video, native slideshow viewers etc", it works as an unrestricted HDMI output - ie, if you can see it on the iPads's screen, you can see it on the main screen (if you have mirroring on).
So, in that when you connect an HDMI lead to an iPad you get mirroring or screen spanning, yes, it is "without limitation". I also understand "what that means".
I've not used it (since I don't have one) but for the iPad 2, Jobs specifically mentioned a marked improvement over video output on HDMI (compared to the iPad 1 which does it, but with limitations). From my understanding of a friend's husband who streams TV to his plasma direct from the iPad all the time, it works without limitation on "approved" content. As far as apps go, I believe it does full mirroring (and quite possibly runs as two separate screens -eg, notes and slides in Keynote, with the big screen showing just the full slides - but don;t quote me on that, I can't remember if I've seen that done live or if it was just being talked about).
No, Apple can do whatever it likes. If it chooses to ban a particular app, that is up to Apple. It has a walled garden to maintain, and a user experience to sell. If that doesn't work for you (or anyone in particular) there are other options available.
I already did - I used to use FF on OS X but dropped it like a rock with FF4. They stepped backwards, at least on the Mac with 4.
However, I'm not much better off with Safari - with the Adblock extension it has a memory leak that causes it to gradually consume all available RAM after a couple of days being open. Quitting and reopening it works (closing all tabs does not). Chrome is ok (and I use both browsers side by side) and is slightly faster than Safari and doesn't chew up quite so much RAM - crucially I get it back when closing tabs, so I don't ever end up in a disk thrashing situation like I do in Safari when it's consuming 2.4GB of RAM with only one tab open.
It's hilarious that because he went through a process and found that an iPhone worked well for his wife, when he specified initially that he has no Apple products of his own that he uses (bar a shuffle or a mini or something that he barely touches any more) that he's suddenly an "Apple fanboi".
It seems like that's the "go to" response for any possible positive response relating to Apple.
Sure, the guy doesn't use any Apple products himself, but he bought his wife an iPhone and she loved it! He's clearly sucking Jobs' cock! Burn him!
I think that's part of it, but it rolls back neatly to the point of the article, that when you say "iPhone" you know what you're getting. When you say "HTC" you have a number of choices, some good and some bad, but for a consumer who simply wants an easy to use phone that will meet their needs, saying "I want an iPhone" works. I've seen some awesome Android handsets (including one with the great 'trace your finger on the k/b to type' which I wish the iPhone had), and I've used some awful ones. You just have to be careful in selecting the right one. This is the issue that MS is now facing with WP7 - they need people to think the same way that they do for buying a computer with Windows on it - "it will do the job for me, and lots of people use it and like it".
Both iPhone and Android handsets have this momentum (iPhone especially with the limited hardware choice compared to the larger variety of Android phones).
"What Windows has to do with it" is something called a "direct comparison".
You are saying "I am trying to say that even $30 is too expensive, when it is just an tiny update. It even looks the same as it used to." - when the "look" of Win 95 to Win 98 didn't change, for example. Not that changing the look entirely needs to happen for an OS to be considered a new version (you're seriously going with that as a legitimate reason? The 2008 and 2009 Ford Fiesta use the same body shell. This means the 2009 one should be free, right?)
While the look of OS X has remained broadly similar across the versions (ie, they have found a UI that works and don;t see the need to mess with it too much) does not mean that subsequent releases of the OS are merely "software updates". The amount of work and features that have gone into it between 10.1 and 10.6 (and now 7) just don;t bear that out.
Simply the fact that it looks the same is not a reason to say "lolz it's just a point release and should be free!"
If these "overhyped ui bullshit" are so meaningless, why did Nokia raise such a stink over them?
Apple was ready to pay, and have been (ignoring the separate issue that they use off-the-shelf radio hardware made by a third party supplier who has already paid for a GSM licence).
Now you want to muddy the water and claim that Nokia's "actual tech" patents are somehow "more worthy" or whatever it is you're trying to do. The simple version is that the two parties cannot agree on the value of what Apple needs to give in exchange for the fixed, legally unchangeable value of the GSM patents.
Yeah, that's great.... if you charge a gazillion dollars for the hardware. Apart from the Mac Pro, which is overpriced, the hardware is pretty comparable with similar hardware on the "pc" side.
If you want bottom-of-the-barrel razor-thin-profit-margin junk though, like the lowest end Dell or other cheap machine, then such is life. If you want a decent machine (on either side of the OS spectrum), the prices are comparable - especially recently with increases in the GPU offerings.
Well, the reason the app worked in the first place was because it used undocumented APIs put there by Apple as part of their own, unreleased, wireless sync system. The ability has been in iOS for a long time (and Apple has used it in other products), he simply decided to add it third party-style to the iPhone by using what Apple was already planning to use in iOS 5.
I'm not saying Apple is blameless, but the rules state * no duplication of core function (and this is "syncing, but over wireless") [compare to slashdot stories where/. os very much on the other side of the semantic debate "it's buying something... but on the internet"] * no calling of undocumented APIs
No, it really isn't. Here's "exactly what happened" in an easily digestible format:
* Nokia invents GSM and patents it * Nokia submits GSM as a standard for cellular communication * It is accepted, but under RAND terms since it will be a required part of any mobile phone to buy a licence to this patent - this means all licence costs must be the same for everyone who purchases it. For simplicity, let's say that's $10. * Lots of manufacturers make phones that all communicate with one another, each paying Nokia $10 or giving them something of equal value for the use of the patent. * Everyone is happy.
*Apple comes along and makes the iPhone and submits a payment request to use GSM patents (note here, they *know* they must pay to use them - it's part of the RAND terms that protect *both* sides) * Nokia says "sure, but we want x,y and z patents from you, we think that comes to the $10 price for the GSM patents" * Apple says "no, x,y and z patents are worth a lot more than $10. We are willing (required) to pay $10 and that is what we will pay" * Neither side can agree on the value of Apple's patents that Nokia wants in exchange - Apple says they are high, Nokia says they are low. * They go to court to determine the value of the patents.
At *no* point during any of this did Apple "steal hardware tech and not pay for it" - Apple *knows* they must pay to use the GSM and associated patents, and that they are covered under RAND terms so they will not pay more than anyone else is paying. That is exactly what the court case is about - they want to pay, but they legally don;t have to pay more than anyone else who paid to use the patents.
That is what I was saying. However, it's clearly not as quick and pithy as "lulz, Apple stole from nokia and won't pay!"
Seriously though, you probably have homework. We'll be here when you're done.
My point is that the app has existed for a while, yet also according to slashdot Android has had wireless syncing since the beginning, so one of them must have "been first" if it's a legitimate claim to call wifi syncing an innovative feature that could only have been arrived at by copying.
Apple haters were all over the iOS 5 update saying the feature was copied from Android. Now it's... copied from this guy? So did he copy it from Android?
Or is this another "it's an obvious idea so really is it copyable?" discussions that also permeate slashdot?
I'm just curious. There's no doubt it was a "me too" feature added to iPhones (although the underlying wireless sync ability has been there for ages - it's how the app worked, via undocumented API calls), but is this a case of someone deciding to paint your car red as an aftermarket feature and then complaining when the manufacturer offers red as a stock colour in the new model year?
Now you're talking about Sony who I *do* disagree with on that point (they should not have removed OtherOS function, or provided a simple and supported way to get it back on request), but from Apple's perspective no one is deciding to retrospectively con you - you know ahead of time about the pros and cons of an iOS device. They are well documented and advertised.
It's no different to Microsoft's Xbox live ecosystem - if you want to play the later Halo titles (beyond number 2) then this is where you go, but there's nothing stopping you leaving for a different ecosystem if you don;t like it there if you are upset with something that has always been true about it - for example, closed off and "limited" store. Where it starts to get amusingly silly (and this is where a lot of slashdot haters come in) is that it's not enough to simply say "that's not for me" and go with something else, but they must either a) demand that the service/product/company change to suit them, or b) must be killed with fire for even existing and that anyone who willingly chooses to use said product or service has somehow been "conned" into it.
Because while it's their sandbox and the rules are more restrictive that those of other sandboxes it is an extremely profitable sandbox to develop in, even with the restrictions. $2.5 billion-dollars-of-profit to developers (after Apple's 30% cut) sort of profitable. Clearly not everyone is running into a problem of "most of the money to the distributor, and pennies to the actual innovator" (seriously!? Do you even proofread what you write?!)
Slashdot Mirror
By "do the job" you mean "swap for another one", right? Since that is how the battery replacement program works, unless you specifically want the original one back (in which case, it takes longer).
Just because fox News told you that doesn't make it true.
You might have been going for funny (although, debatable on that point), I was going for accuracy. Each one of those is taken as expressed from actual slashdot posts. They are paraphrased, but accurate responses. That might explain why I've missed some comedy factor: I wasn't going for humour.
Yes, ask those Chinese workers who are paid more than the workers sitting right beside them in the same factory but who happen to be making Xbox or PS3, or some other thing. The ones who make specifically Apple stuff *are* paid more, at Apple's demand of their supplier.
And we'll add some Apple bashing translation:
Apple does something bad:
Bashspeak: See! Apple is evil! It's proof!
Apple does something positive:
Bashspeak: Apple clearly has an ulterior motive, here's some cynical, paranoid ranting about how this is really something evil!
Apple releases changes back into GPL projects:
Bashspeak: Apple is *legally obliged* to do that! They wouldn't do it otherwise! They hate everything to do with open source!
Apple open sources its own projects like libdispatch, calendar/addressbook server etc etc:
Bashspeak: Those are not important! No one uses those!
Apple prices iPad less than any Android tablet of equal spec:
Bashspeak: The iPad is still too expensive (even though it is several hundred dollars cheaper than we were all saying it would be on release)! It's only less than the Android tablets because Apple uses anti-competitve practices to price other multinational giants like Samsung out of the market! It's definitely not because that's what a tablet costs, definitely not!
Apple throws its weight behind developers being targeted by patent troll:
Bashspeak: It's Apple's fault for forcing developers to use technologies that could be attacked by patent trolls! Apple are evil!
Apple point out that antenna attenuation is not limited to the iPhone 4, but it just worse due to the design of the loop antenna:
Bashspeak: Apple are just trying to make other manufacturers look bad!
Apple offers free bumpers to all iPhone customers that cures the problem:
Bashspeak: Nothing less that taking back *all* the iPhones and redesigning them completely will put this heinous injustice right! It doesn't matter that 95% of iPhone 4 users are not having any problems but welcomed the free case.
Apple include a non-truncated, non-specific hotspot and tower tracking log that demonstrably does not track your precise movements in real time:
Bashspeak: Apple is tracking your exact movements in realtime!
Android phones do identical thing and also *send that data to Google* (which Apple's phones do not do [although it says it is possible in the ToS, Apple has not collected this data so far]):
Bashspeak: Oh, that's totally fine. Android is *open*. You can opt out! (like you can on iOS too, but hey, facts are inconvenient!)
Apple runs a walled garden on iOS:
Bashspeak: That's slavery! Apple rents the phone to you! You do not own your device!
Android apps start to feature malware:
Bashspeak: Well, duh! That's what happens when you sideload apps! If you want guaranteed malware free just use the Android Market [ie, the walled garden]
Android apps *in the market* start to feature malware:
Bashspeak: Well duh! It should be obvious that these are not the legit apps! Just copies with malware added in! Absolutely no issue! No threat, this is a non-story designed to trash Android!
Apple has minor malware issue with a single easy-to kill trojan that requires full user duping to install:
Bashspeak: Apple has a malware explosion! Now we see clear proof just how much of a swiss cheese security nightmare OS X is after over 10 years of no attacks! It was entirely down to obscurity! Not a single hacker in the history of the internet was interested in compromising OS X until now!
Android starts sending SMS messages to the wrong people:
Bashspeak: I have not seen this problem, therefore it's not an issue (seriously, I saw this from multiple people. the panic damage control was hilarious)
Hacker releases code to "brute force" the 4 digit passcose on iPhone:
Bashspeak: See! iPhones are so insecure!
Android outsells iPhone in a single quarter just before the release of the iPhone 4 when iPhone 3GS sales were way down, and simultaneously during a Verizon 2 for 1 giveaway on Android handsets that counted double for each new customer:
Bashspeak: Ha! see! Android is killing iOS! Open will always win!
Users point out the unusual circumstances that have depressed iPhone numbers and swelle
In response to the OP's question - ie, it doesn't only work with "Sprint and Youtube Video, native slideshow viewers etc", it works as an unrestricted HDMI output - ie, if you can see it on the iPads's screen, you can see it on the main screen (if you have mirroring on).
So, in that when you connect an HDMI lead to an iPad you get mirroring or screen spanning, yes, it is "without limitation". I also understand "what that means".
I've not used it (since I don't have one) but for the iPad 2, Jobs specifically mentioned a marked improvement over video output on HDMI (compared to the iPad 1 which does it, but with limitations). From my understanding of a friend's husband who streams TV to his plasma direct from the iPad all the time, it works without limitation on "approved" content. As far as apps go, I believe it does full mirroring (and quite possibly runs as two separate screens -eg, notes and slides in Keynote, with the big screen showing just the full slides - but don;t quote me on that, I can't remember if I've seen that done live or if it was just being talked about).
Nice hyperbole.
I can see why you "win" so many arguments. Easy when you make up facts.
No, Apple can do whatever it likes. If it chooses to ban a particular app, that is up to Apple. It has a walled garden to maintain, and a user experience to sell. If that doesn't work for you (or anyone in particular) there are other options available.
Which app is that? Are you talking about the DUI checkpoint apps that Apple did not ban?
I already did - I used to use FF on OS X but dropped it like a rock with FF4. They stepped backwards, at least on the Mac with 4.
However, I'm not much better off with Safari - with the Adblock extension it has a memory leak that causes it to gradually consume all available RAM after a couple of days being open. Quitting and reopening it works (closing all tabs does not). Chrome is ok (and I use both browsers side by side) and is slightly faster than Safari and doesn't chew up quite so much RAM - crucially I get it back when closing tabs, so I don't ever end up in a disk thrashing situation like I do in Safari when it's consuming 2.4GB of RAM with only one tab open.
It's hilarious that because he went through a process and found that an iPhone worked well for his wife, when he specified initially that he has no Apple products of his own that he uses (bar a shuffle or a mini or something that he barely touches any more) that he's suddenly an "Apple fanboi".
It seems like that's the "go to" response for any possible positive response relating to Apple.
Sure, the guy doesn't use any Apple products himself, but he bought his wife an iPhone and she loved it! He's clearly sucking Jobs' cock! Burn him!
I think that's part of it, but it rolls back neatly to the point of the article, that when you say "iPhone" you know what you're getting. When you say "HTC" you have a number of choices, some good and some bad, but for a consumer who simply wants an easy to use phone that will meet their needs, saying "I want an iPhone" works. I've seen some awesome Android handsets (including one with the great 'trace your finger on the k/b to type' which I wish the iPhone had), and I've used some awful ones. You just have to be careful in selecting the right one. This is the issue that MS is now facing with WP7 - they need people to think the same way that they do for buying a computer with Windows on it - "it will do the job for me, and lots of people use it and like it".
Both iPhone and Android handsets have this momentum (iPhone especially with the limited hardware choice compared to the larger variety of Android phones).
I'll just link to the post that already replied to you: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2228992&cid=36405510
"What Windows has to do with it" is something called a "direct comparison".
You are saying "I am trying to say that even $30 is too expensive, when it is just an tiny update. It even looks the same as it used to." - when the "look" of Win 95 to Win 98 didn't change, for example. Not that changing the look entirely needs to happen for an OS to be considered a new version (you're seriously going with that as a legitimate reason? The 2008 and 2009 Ford Fiesta use the same body shell. This means the 2009 one should be free, right?)
While the look of OS X has remained broadly similar across the versions (ie, they have found a UI that works and don;t see the need to mess with it too much) does not mean that subsequent releases of the OS are merely "software updates". The amount of work and features that have gone into it between 10.1 and 10.6 (and now 7) just don;t bear that out.
Simply the fact that it looks the same is not a reason to say "lolz it's just a point release and should be free!"
If these "overhyped ui bullshit" are so meaningless, why did Nokia raise such a stink over them?
Apple was ready to pay, and have been (ignoring the separate issue that they use off-the-shelf radio hardware made by a third party supplier who has already paid for a GSM licence).
Now you want to muddy the water and claim that Nokia's "actual tech" patents are somehow "more worthy" or whatever it is you're trying to do. The simple version is that the two parties cannot agree on the value of what Apple needs to give in exchange for the fixed, legally unchangeable value of the GSM patents.
Yeah, that's great.... if you charge a gazillion dollars for the hardware. Apart from the Mac Pro, which is overpriced, the hardware is pretty comparable with similar hardware on the "pc" side.
If you want bottom-of-the-barrel razor-thin-profit-margin junk though, like the lowest end Dell or other cheap machine, then such is life. If you want a decent machine (on either side of the OS spectrum), the prices are comparable - especially recently with increases in the GPU offerings.
Yes, because Win95>98 and 2000 > XP > Vista > 7 were all "updates" right? Not even "service patches".
What reality do you live in?
So you're saying you hardly hang out with anyone over 16? That's not really a supporting argument. Perhaps you should get out more.
Well, the reason the app worked in the first place was because it used undocumented APIs put there by Apple as part of their own, unreleased, wireless sync system. The ability has been in iOS for a long time (and Apple has used it in other products), he simply decided to add it third party-style to the iPhone by using what Apple was already planning to use in iOS 5.
I'm not saying Apple is blameless, but the rules state /. os very much on the other side of the semantic debate "it's buying something... but on the internet"]
* no duplication of core function (and this is "syncing, but over wireless") [compare to slashdot stories where
* no calling of undocumented APIs
No, it really isn't. Here's "exactly what happened" in an easily digestible format:
* Nokia invents GSM and patents it
* Nokia submits GSM as a standard for cellular communication
* It is accepted, but under RAND terms since it will be a required part of any mobile phone to buy a licence to this patent - this means all licence costs must be the same for everyone who purchases it. For simplicity, let's say that's $10.
* Lots of manufacturers make phones that all communicate with one another, each paying Nokia $10 or giving them something of equal value for the use of the patent.
* Everyone is happy.
*Apple comes along and makes the iPhone and submits a payment request to use GSM patents (note here, they *know* they must pay to use them - it's part of the RAND terms that protect *both* sides)
* Nokia says "sure, but we want x,y and z patents from you, we think that comes to the $10 price for the GSM patents"
* Apple says "no, x,y and z patents are worth a lot more than $10. We are willing (required) to pay $10 and that is what we will pay"
* Neither side can agree on the value of Apple's patents that Nokia wants in exchange - Apple says they are high, Nokia says they are low.
* They go to court to determine the value of the patents.
At *no* point during any of this did Apple "steal hardware tech and not pay for it" - Apple *knows* they must pay to use the GSM and associated patents, and that they are covered under RAND terms so they will not pay more than anyone else is paying. That is exactly what the court case is about - they want to pay, but they legally don;t have to pay more than anyone else who paid to use the patents.
That is what I was saying. However, it's clearly not as quick and pithy as "lulz, Apple stole from nokia and won't pay!"
Seriously though, you probably have homework. We'll be here when you're done.
My point is that the app has existed for a while, yet also according to slashdot Android has had wireless syncing since the beginning, so one of them must have "been first" if it's a legitimate claim to call wifi syncing an innovative feature that could only have been arrived at by copying.
Apple haters were all over the iOS 5 update saying the feature was copied from Android. Now it's... copied from this guy? So did he copy it from Android?
Or is this another "it's an obvious idea so really is it copyable?" discussions that also permeate slashdot?
I'm just curious. There's no doubt it was a "me too" feature added to iPhones (although the underlying wireless sync ability has been there for ages - it's how the app worked, via undocumented API calls), but is this a case of someone deciding to paint your car red as an aftermarket feature and then complaining when the manufacturer offers red as a stock colour in the new model year?
Now you're talking about Sony who I *do* disagree with on that point (they should not have removed OtherOS function, or provided a simple and supported way to get it back on request), but from Apple's perspective no one is deciding to retrospectively con you - you know ahead of time about the pros and cons of an iOS device. They are well documented and advertised.
It's no different to Microsoft's Xbox live ecosystem - if you want to play the later Halo titles (beyond number 2) then this is where you go, but there's nothing stopping you leaving for a different ecosystem if you don;t like it there if you are upset with something that has always been true about it - for example, closed off and "limited" store. Where it starts to get amusingly silly (and this is where a lot of slashdot haters come in) is that it's not enough to simply say "that's not for me" and go with something else, but they must either a) demand that the service/product/company change to suit them, or b) must be killed with fire for even existing and that anyone who willingly chooses to use said product or service has somehow been "conned" into it.
Because while it's their sandbox and the rules are more restrictive that those of other sandboxes it is an extremely profitable sandbox to develop in, even with the restrictions. $2.5 billion-dollars-of-profit to developers (after Apple's 30% cut) sort of profitable. Clearly not everyone is running into a problem of "most of the money to the distributor, and pennies to the actual innovator" (seriously!? Do you even proofread what you write?!)
Caved in by.... not banning DUI checkpoint apps.
Ahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
Yeah, that's exactly what Apple did. *roll eyes*
Run along kid, the adults are talking.