Are Apple "copying" Android, or are they copying this guy? Yesterday all the comments were about how iOS was just "catching up to Android", now it's "they're ripping off this developer".
You can't have your cake and eat it.
FWIW, silly policy rejecting apps that duplicate iOS function, but it is in the rules. I am not surprised the app was rejected.
Then in that case, if you want to store beans, you don;t buy your freezer because it is incompatible with beans. It's not illegal for you to make freezers that do this, not wrong in any way, as long as you don;t stop other people from making freezers that work the way their designers and vendors want them to.
You are under no obligation, legal or moral, to be forced to make a product that works with my beans, just as long as you don't stop other people from doing so.
It remains to be seen - and crucially, the app on the store that works precisely that way *is still available on the store*. So I would say it *is* public information... and so, it would seem, does Apple.
If I'm a dickhead for lamenting that slashdot is posting demonstrably obvious lies, as shown in the very articles they link to and thinking 'oh how far/. has falled, it used to be ok', then that's what I am.
Apple has *not* banned DUI checkpoint apps. Not even one. All of the checkpoint apps that were up on the store before today are still there.
What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information, which DUI checkpoints are *not included in* since the police advertise them.
How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news. Maybe the correction was sent to them via text message from Android, but it somehow got sent to a guy who cleans windows in Atlanta instead.
As an official source of the information, presumably no.
What the article goes on to say, right at the end, is that no apps have been pulled as a result of this ToS update since all DUI checkpoints are already publicly advertised by the police themselves. So as it stands right now, nothing about the status quo has changed, except that Apple has tightened up its rules on apps that list information to specify that it must already be public-obtailable information.
Of course, this is reported as "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" which is a total lie. No surprise for a slashdot summary title though.
No, it's not illegal since Apple's isn't the only mobile app store (you are not forced to use iOS).
And in your hypothetical scenario, even as the only bean store in the whole world it is not an anti-trust issue to not sell one type of beans - in that logical scenario, you are forced to sell something against your will. How very freedom-loving. Nothing preventing the bean supplier going with another store. Now there are two bean stores!
Now, if I shut down the competing bean store somehow, or attempt to cripple it (for example, telling my suppliers that I won't use them if they also supply the other bean shop) *then* that's raising the anti-trust flag.
Simply choosing what I want to sell is not anticompetitive.
What app has been pulled? Did you even RTFA? No apps have been pulled and all the ones currently in the store still are. Apple simply changed the ToS to specify that non-public information would be disallowed.
It seems you've just written a troll post with a vague guess about what the story is about and the flaws are obvious.
I know this is is slashdot, but if you don't want to look like an uninformed idiot you should really check on some actual facts before giving your opinion on what you assume are facts based on your random guesswork. Maybe this is why you posted AC.
Which is totally your choice, and I fully stand behind your right to hold that opinion and say whatever you like. Where I have a problem is if you try to claim that me choosing not to sell beans in my store is somehow illegal.
It's either totally crushing iOS and being a triumph for "open over closed" *or* Apple has a monopoly on mobile apps.... you can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, or to have a homogenous system - another analogous position would be Xbox Live and the online store there, or the PSN (when it's working, I kid, I kid).
Crucially no one is forcing you to use an iOS device, or an Xbox 360, or a Playstation, and using one of those does not restrict the competitors at all.
Well, since the article itself doesn't actually mention any banned apps, then.... who knows. The real story is the change in the ToS, as quoted in the article. It has been re-spun into "Apple bans DUI apps" in a somewhat sensationalist fashion. However, given that they didn't run with any examples then I'd guess no.
So don't buy Widget X that only works with widget B from my store. No one *forced* anyone to buy Widget X in the first place, or in any way covered up the fact that it had an exclusive parts supplier.
I have used VueScan in the past with a different scanner, but this one has soldiered on just fine with the original plugin - the fact that it looks like a little bit of OS 9 from a timeward is just fine. I suspect I will need to look elsewhere if I move to Lion when it comes out, since not only will that plugin finally die but the version of the Creative Suite I have will also finally be gone since the apps are not universal binaries.
Managed to avoid buying upgrades to CS so far, but it looks like it might be finally time to bite the bullet.
The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.
The answer to your question is thus "no", as answered in TFA.
Oh come on, I hear this all the time but it's seriously FUD.
This is a company that took great pains to put in emulation software (Rosetta) when they switched to Intel, and had their IDE set up to profile different versions of the OS going back several (target a build for 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 etc), and kept the Classic environment around for years after the shift away from OS 9 (and I *still* have OS 9 plugins running in Photoshop on OS X 10.6 that still work - my scanner), and did the same thing earlier when going away from 68k.
The company that tried to make each transition as smooth as possible "ditching support after about 2 days" (obvious hyperbole, but not even remotely rooted in even a thin shred of truth).
That depends, on a laptop? Not trivial - you need to take out the logic board to get the screen off on many of them, and then you need to disassemble the screen. Unless he was the only guy working, and he had a lot of excess time, it would not be trivial to do - it would add at least a couple of hours to each job which is not a huge amount of time, but it's not a 5 minute thing either.
Indeed, but when have you known Apple to be ostentatious with things like LEDs - the sleep light on my iMac is *behind* the polycarbonate case, with no indication it is there from the outside unless it is on. It's very diffuse when illuminated. The iSight light is a little more defined, and green, but it is still small and unobtrusive, I agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, which is it?
Are Apple "copying" Android, or are they copying this guy? Yesterday all the comments were about how iOS was just "catching up to Android", now it's "they're ripping off this developer".
You can't have your cake and eat it.
FWIW, silly policy rejecting apps that duplicate iOS function, but it is in the rules. I am not surprised the app was rejected.
Then in that case, if you want to store beans, you don;t buy your freezer because it is incompatible with beans. It's not illegal for you to make freezers that do this, not wrong in any way, as long as you don;t stop other people from making freezers that work the way their designers and vendors want them to.
You are under no obligation, legal or moral, to be forced to make a product that works with my beans, just as long as you don't stop other people from doing so.
It remains to be seen - and crucially, the app on the store that works precisely that way *is still available on the store*. So I would say it *is* public information... and so, it would seem, does Apple.
"suggests" is pretty loaded... in much the same way as the title "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" when it clearly hasn't done so.
You're right, at the moment no one knows what will happen to the apps on the store right now - anything we come up with is speculative.
If I'm a dickhead for lamenting that slashdot is posting demonstrably obvious lies, as shown in the very articles they link to and thinking 'oh how far /. has falled, it used to be ok', then that's what I am.
And the app will still be on the store. Apple has not banned DUI checkpoint apps, even hypothetical ones.
Apple agrees with you, which is why they didn't ban DUI checkpoint apps.
What the hell passes for "facts" these days?
Apple has *not* banned DUI checkpoint apps. Not even one. All of the checkpoint apps that were up on the store before today are still there.
What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information, which DUI checkpoints are *not included in* since the police advertise them.
How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news. Maybe the correction was sent to them via text message from Android, but it somehow got sent to a guy who cleans windows in Atlanta instead.
As an official source of the information, presumably no.
What the article goes on to say, right at the end, is that no apps have been pulled as a result of this ToS update since all DUI checkpoints are already publicly advertised by the police themselves. So as it stands right now, nothing about the status quo has changed, except that Apple has tightened up its rules on apps that list information to specify that it must already be public-obtailable information.
Of course, this is reported as "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" which is a total lie. No surprise for a slashdot summary title though.
Me fail inglish unpossible
No, it's not illegal since Apple's isn't the only mobile app store (you are not forced to use iOS).
And in your hypothetical scenario, even as the only bean store in the whole world it is not an anti-trust issue to not sell one type of beans - in that logical scenario, you are forced to sell something against your will. How very freedom-loving. Nothing preventing the bean supplier going with another store. Now there are two bean stores!
Now, if I shut down the competing bean store somehow, or attempt to cripple it (for example, telling my suppliers that I won't use them if they also supply the other bean shop) *then* that's raising the anti-trust flag.
Simply choosing what I want to sell is not anticompetitive.
What app has been pulled? Did you even RTFA? No apps have been pulled and all the ones currently in the store still are. Apple simply changed the ToS to specify that non-public information would be disallowed.
It seems you've just written a troll post with a vague guess about what the story is about and the flaws are obvious.
I know this is is slashdot, but if you don't want to look like an uninformed idiot you should really check on some actual facts before giving your opinion on what you assume are facts based on your random guesswork. Maybe this is why you posted AC.
Intel switch was announced in 2005, and started right away. Did you buy that G5 second hand?
Which is totally your choice, and I fully stand behind your right to hold that opinion and say whatever you like. Where I have a problem is if you try to claim that me choosing not to sell beans in my store is somehow illegal.
No competition? What about Android?
It's either totally crushing iOS and being a triumph for "open over closed" *or* Apple has a monopoly on mobile apps.... you can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, or to have a homogenous system - another analogous position would be Xbox Live and the online store there, or the PSN (when it's working, I kid, I kid).
Crucially no one is forcing you to use an iOS device, or an Xbox 360, or a Playstation, and using one of those does not restrict the competitors at all.
Well, since the article itself doesn't actually mention any banned apps, then.... who knows. The real story is the change in the ToS, as quoted in the article. It has been re-spun into "Apple bans DUI apps" in a somewhat sensationalist fashion. However, given that they didn't run with any examples then I'd guess no.
So don't buy Widget X that only works with widget B from my store. No one *forced* anyone to buy Widget X in the first place, or in any way covered up the fact that it had an exclusive parts supplier.
It is *not* illegal to have a monopoly.
I have used VueScan in the past with a different scanner, but this one has soldiered on just fine with the original plugin - the fact that it looks like a little bit of OS 9 from a timeward is just fine. I suspect I will need to look elsewhere if I move to Lion when it comes out, since not only will that plugin finally die but the version of the Creative Suite I have will also finally be gone since the apps are not universal binaries.
Managed to avoid buying upgrades to CS so far, but it looks like it might be finally time to bite the bullet.
They're not illegal. The troll summary writer used the word illegal.
The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.
The answer to your question is thus "no", as answered in TFA.
I run a store. I don't want to sell beans in my store. I remove all beans from my store.
Do I have a legal leg to stand on here?
Oh come on, I hear this all the time but it's seriously FUD.
This is a company that took great pains to put in emulation software (Rosetta) when they switched to Intel, and had their IDE set up to profile different versions of the OS going back several (target a build for 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 etc), and kept the Classic environment around for years after the shift away from OS 9 (and I *still* have OS 9 plugins running in Photoshop on OS X 10.6 that still work - my scanner), and did the same thing earlier when going away from 68k.
The company that tried to make each transition as smooth as possible "ditching support after about 2 days" (obvious hyperbole, but not even remotely rooted in even a thin shred of truth).
That depends, on a laptop? Not trivial - you need to take out the logic board to get the screen off on many of them, and then you need to disassemble the screen. Unless he was the only guy working, and he had a lot of excess time, it would not be trivial to do - it would add at least a couple of hours to each job which is not a huge amount of time, but it's not a 5 minute thing either.
It's connected in-line with the physical power to the camera. If there is a voltage to the camera, the LED is lit.
Indeed, but when have you known Apple to be ostentatious with things like LEDs - the sleep light on my iMac is *behind* the polycarbonate case, with no indication it is there from the outside unless it is on. It's very diffuse when illuminated. The iSight light is a little more defined, and green, but it is still small and unobtrusive, I agree.