If that's the case, then why do a ridiculously large percentage of iPhone users root their devices to change them from stock?
[citation needed]
I think you are vastly, vastly overestimating the number of iPhone users who root their device, unless you have a cite for the actual percentage and can thus tell us what "ridiculously large" means. 0.5%? 1%? 10%?
The law does not require him to divulge his medical information, merely to tell them that the liquids he carries are for medical use (along with the doctor's note he carries that does not go into specifics).
The TSA has a policy in place for this already - they use a screening process to check the liquids and then they are able to be taken on board.
He has absolutely no requirement (and is, in fact, protected by the law) to go into details with the TSA about what those medical issues are, nor are the TSA qualified to make a judgement on what is "medically necessary" - that determination has already been made by his doctor. All the TSA have to do is acknowledge that fact and screen the liquids.
Again, this is not something that needs to be debated. The law, and the policies laid out for the TSA already, are very clear on this.
His own "question" does not imply what you suggest - he merely states that there is no need for the TSA to make any judgement call at all. If he "lets the TSA decide" (which is against the law and against policy) maybe he gets on the plane, maybe he doesn't - maybe they decide he's faking it (clearly an agent who is marginally less qualified than a mall cop can make these sorts of medical diagnoses in an airport terminal).
Again, simple policy following was all that was required. He states "medical liquid" and demonstrates legitimacy (medic alert bracelet, doctor's letter, medic alert card etc) and they screen the liquids. End of chat. He *does not* need to go into his medical history or his reasons for requiring the liquids with the TSA at all.
You left out the part where he quoted the TSA's own policy (that any amount of liquid for a medical condition is allowed once it has been screened), and that he had it screened.
He doesn't expect anyone to "get by" by saying "I need my juice, for medical reasons, I'm not going to tell you more." - He expects that the TSA will follow its own written and well documented procedure, and the previously determined rulings of the courts over what the TSA is expected to do. They have the means to screen the liquid, and their policy allows an unlimited quantity of it to be taken on board.
In other words, he wants them to follow the law as it is written. They did not do this.
Try reading the article, and also maybe the summary too. I find it helps when commenting on the story so you don't look like a moron.
No, the point wasn't that well made - that's what I mean about reconning it.
There is no attempt at all made at sarcasm or satire, nor was the point made about the control of apps on the app store - if that really was the intention then it was extremely poorly made, given that the post made an assertion that was clearly false. There are plenty of other more salient points that could have been made on that front (for example, that iOS Chrome only has access to the sandboxed JS engine, while iOS Safari has access to a faster non-sandboxed one).
The point wasn't that Firefox was absent from the app store - the point made was that Apple was "slowing down" Firefox. If the point was to show what a good example Firefox being missing from the app store is, perhaps the point shouldn't have been how Apple are slowing it down, which implies that it is running on a platform that Apple controls?
Like I said, the original comment was classic uninformed Apple bashing, and as is typical for calling that out, other posters (or the actual poster who is now brave enough to log in) try to defend it by twisting around in the wind desperately to make it somehow still valid. It happens all the time.
Elephant in the room time: MSNBC is the liberal propaganda arm of the democratic party. MSNBC tries to ignore stories that have any whiff of putting their glorious democrats in a bad light while simultaneously manufacturing outrage over conservatives in the hopes of distracting the public from seing the democrats as they really are.
So spare us the "Fox News is worse" garbage. While the Fox News slant is well known and acknowledged, every other news organization is left-of-center and denies it has any bias whatsoever. If MSNBC can't be relied upon to report all stories, even those that are negative to democrats, then it is a propaganda firm, not a news oranization.
Does MSNBC's 85% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Of course not! The 85% is at least 85% liberal opinion. Does Fox news 55% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Yes it does. Some of the liberals, independents, or non-conservatives that are now, or have been, on Fox are: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Mara Liasson, Santita Jackson, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Simon Rosenberg, Bill Schulz, Shepard Smith, Juan Williams. Conservatives on MSNBC? Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough (arguably fiscally conservative, socially liberal RINO). Sounds like MSNBC's reporting is severely un-fair and un-balanced.
You counting the token liberal pundits on Fox News that get shouted down by the right wing pundits and hosts of the shows as "airing liberal views". How adorable.
When the original Galaxy came out, there were an awful lot of reviewers who drew the obvious comparison that it looked a little *too* much like the iPhone, in comparison to the other Android handsets released around the same time - it's not like the argument was that it was like the iPhone because it was a smartphone with a touch screen.
It's also not as if Samsung would be unaware of what Apple might do in the face of that action - it's hardly Apple's first dance in the legal quagmire over alleged copying of their designs.
So yes, Samsung are not entirely blameless in that situation. They made an extremely similar-looking-and-feeling iPhone competitor, and they were surprised when they got sued because of it by *Apple*? Please.
Also, the iPhone doesn't have to be "original" to be a valid product that is defendable by a lawsuit - it just has to be distinct in its design. To use a car analogy, the Corvette is hardly "original" - I mean, cars existed before and since, right? But if you made a car that looked just like it (beyond the things like 4 wheels and an engine), in terms of body styling etc then you would get sued. Is the lawsuit invalid because the concept of a car is not new?
4 times was a number I pulled out of my ass but seriously who would make that kind of excuse for a similarly specced Lenovo?
Many people would, but more because they don't really care about their technical possessions if the way I see people treat their laptops and phones is any indication.
Only on a thread about an Apple product would people argue that a flaw in something costing 4 times the price of the competition is "not that bad". I want to sell things to these people.
Not that I disagree about people juystifying the issue as "not that bad" (seriously, just get the panel replaced for free), but where can I buy a 2.4 GHz i7 quad with 8GB RAM, a 256 GB SSD, 1GB 650M and a 15" 2880x1800 laptop for $550?
While the lawsuit may be excessive it is hardly a case of snobby expectations to expect to not receive a faulty product, especially one that is so incredibly expensive.
Indeed, which is why he should probably tell Apple he has a defective screen and then let them replace it, as they have been doing with anyone who has the problem.
It's quicker than a lawsuit, but possibly less lucrative.
PLEASE please PLEASE let it be that the Samsung displays are just fine while LG displays are not. I really want to see Apple squirm over this issue.
It's not that I'm "Anti-Apple" here, but just the way we saw that it is clearly wrong for the music publishers to sue their customers, I see it as pretty damned stupid for Apple to sue its suppliers.
Apple sells things which are made of a whole lot of other things. When Apple started suing the supplier of their component things, they are attacking a part which they depend on. It makes me think of a bridge attacking the pillars it sits on. I just want to see incredibly stupid behavior rewarded.
Samsung's panels don't have the image retention problem, no, but they do have different colour characteristics that aren't quite as good as the LG panels. The LG panels are better when they are working properly, but it's clear they have (or had, since they seem to be getting on top of it) a serious yield issue.
Sure, it's "bad business" to sue your supplier, but when your supplier provokes you, it surely has to take some blame for the loss of business (you think Samsung is happy that billions of dollars are flowing to their competitors instead of them? I wonder if that loss of business is offset by the profits from the Galaxy line? Possibly.)
If you have ghosting on your screen, Apple will swap the panel. However, what he's probably complaining about is that it's a "panel lottery" and you might get another LG panel as a replacement that may have exactly the same problem, or it might be perfect for the rest of its life.
People did the same thing with the first retina iPad, since the screens were made by both LG and Samsung, with people returning their LG model over and over until they finally got a Samsung version.
You have a year of Applecare on all new Macs, and it covers manufacturing defects among other things so they will fix the problem for you, but it can be a hassle if the problem keeps recurring. After three repairs on the same problem they'll often just give you a new machine, but it's still a lottery if the underlying problem with the panels themselves is not sorted out - a new machine might have exactly the same problem.
Yeah, bet Samsung's display division were really happy when Samsung's phone division photocopied their biggest OEM customer's phone design.
It cuts both ways - Apple was one of Samsung's biggest customers. Severing that relationship is costly for both sides. Samsung sells Apple memory, screens and CPUs. Apple sunk a huge amount of cash into one of Samsung's factories in Texas for that very reason.
Provoking one of your biggest customers is not an entirely consequence-free action, unless your ultimate goal is exactly this - cost yourself business and hand it on a plate to your inferior competitor, just to make Apple look bad. That's expensive PR.
Hello? Why is a web browser launching other applications without explicit user consent? Ever?
This was the classic Microsoft security hole - executing anything that came in which could possibly be executed - Word documents, spreadsheets, autoplay files, Universal Plug and Play. Microsoft has now turned most of that off. Apple is replicating a classic Microsoft mistake here.
It doesn't, or it shouldn't - that was the point. Safari *does* explicitly ask for consent before launching apps downloaded from the internet, but one script type was whitelisted by accident/oversight. This has now been fixed.
That's a weird definition of coasting.. Of course you don't put the clutch in when coasting for a red light, that would entirely defeat the purpose of coasting, this is part of standard drivers education at least here. I don't have a car and don't drive much, but I do know how to coast.
No, that is the actual definition of coasting: the vehicle is moving but the transmission is not engaged. You are taught *not* to do that on your driving test, and instead you do as you said, leave the transmission engaged and use engine braking to assist your deceleration when slowing down. That is not coasting though, that is merely slowing down.
From the UK Highway Code, under "Vehicle Control":
102. Coasting. This term describes a vehicle travelling in neutral or with the clutch pressed down. Do not coast, whatever the driving conditions. It reduces driver control because
engine braking is eliminated
vehicle speed downhill will increase quickly
increased use of the footbrake can reduce its effectiveness
steering response will be affected particularly on bends and corners
it may be more difficult to select the appropriate gear when needed.
How? If I want to slow down and let off the gas pedal completely the wheels turning will still continue to turn the engine. The valves still open and shut, oil and coolant still circulate. My car does shut off the injectors when coasting and when the RPMs drop too low while doing this it turns them back on to keep the engine running. Typically this happens around 25 mph but can be put off some by selecting a lower gear and even then it is running really lean anyway so it is still consuming less fuel than normal.
Coasting means disconnecting the drive train. ie, putting the clutch in, or just putting the manual box into neutral. When you do that, the engine is not turned over by inertia, it simply has to idle.
American cars don't coast since they don't tend to go in for manual transmissions.
No I don't miss the point. You used a horrible example in an attempt to prove your point. You also neglected to consider the real factor that drives hybrid adoption (fashion accessory, hippie check puddles).
For example: If I had posted the analysis but assumed the hybrid got only 1 mpg more mileage but cost $40,000 more would that have a valid comparison? It's just as valid as yours was.
As you say: You should have used 'actual car options', not numbers you pulled from a dark smelly place.
I see it's clear that you've already made your mind up about hybrids, so I suspect if he'd used real numbers you'd still have just dismissed him out of hand as it's clear you reject anything that doesn't match up to your "common sense".
He was clear that his example was an estimate, and he even included a disclaimer at the end about using fully researched figures to make the ultimate determination (rather than, you know, simply stating that "everyone knows hybrids aren't worth it").
I find it amusing that you are then trying to argue that *he's* the one pulling things from a "dark, smelly place".
Can someone point out to me exactly what part of the above comment is at all trolling?
An offtopic mod for a comment directly asking how a comment about identifying mobile apps that are not being available iOS, in a thread about iOS apps and availability of said apps, could be modded troll?
If this carries on, I'm going to start getting the feeling that people around here just don't like me.
Stop looking for reasons to justify your decision to avoid Apple. Either do or don't, it's your choice, but twisting people's words to suit your opinion is just silly.
All high and mighty... what a dick. You don't know me from Adam. As if I'm shivering in a basement somewhere looking for reasons to hate Apple... I'm damn proud of it; APPLE SUCKS. And I'm obviously right to do so. Fanbois... lordy...
Right, as I said, you can hate apple as much as you want, just don't attempt to justify it by deliberately misinterpreting what people say and using that as proof of your hate.
I don't know you from Adam, but I do know you've been on a 20 year boycott of a single company, which clearly started back in the distant computing past. 20 years ago was 1993 - Apple didn't even have PowerPC chips at that point, and was several years before Gil Ameilo was appointed CEO. Apple was virtually at the bottom of the well and practically dead. If you've carried a grudge for that long then I can only assume you have a seething hatred that burns more than a thousand suns. What could they have possibly done all that time ago that enraged you so much? Was the partnership with IBM and Motorola really that bad? Did the original PPC 603 offend you somehow?
Your "obviously righteous" hatred clearly defines you. Have you thought about perhaps... chilling out?
he point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store
And rightly so: they get bad press because of the draconion restrictions they insist on putting on apps even when it is completely unnecessary. That is 100% Apple's fault.
Basically, they're getting bad press for having a particularly restrictive walled garden.
It's Apple's fault that a developer requested that they pull an app that has copyrighted code belonging to that developer, and Apple complied with their request?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever seen a Thunderbolt port?
I guess not, based on your post. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of a good bash.
If that's the case, then why do a ridiculously large percentage of iPhone users root their devices to change them from stock?
[citation needed]
I think you are vastly, vastly overestimating the number of iPhone users who root their device, unless you have a cite for the actual percentage and can thus tell us what "ridiculously large" means. 0.5%? 1%? 10%?
You just made my point for me.
The law does not require him to divulge his medical information, merely to tell them that the liquids he carries are for medical use (along with the doctor's note he carries that does not go into specifics).
The TSA has a policy in place for this already - they use a screening process to check the liquids and then they are able to be taken on board.
He has absolutely no requirement (and is, in fact, protected by the law) to go into details with the TSA about what those medical issues are, nor are the TSA qualified to make a judgement on what is "medically necessary" - that determination has already been made by his doctor. All the TSA have to do is acknowledge that fact and screen the liquids.
Again, this is not something that needs to be debated. The law, and the policies laid out for the TSA already, are very clear on this.
His own "question" does not imply what you suggest - he merely states that there is no need for the TSA to make any judgement call at all. If he "lets the TSA decide" (which is against the law and against policy) maybe he gets on the plane, maybe he doesn't - maybe they decide he's faking it (clearly an agent who is marginally less qualified than a mall cop can make these sorts of medical diagnoses in an airport terminal).
Again, simple policy following was all that was required. He states "medical liquid" and demonstrates legitimacy (medic alert bracelet, doctor's letter, medic alert card etc) and they screen the liquids. End of chat. He *does not* need to go into his medical history or his reasons for requiring the liquids with the TSA at all.
You left out the part where he quoted the TSA's own policy (that any amount of liquid for a medical condition is allowed once it has been screened), and that he had it screened.
He doesn't expect anyone to "get by" by saying "I need my juice, for medical reasons, I'm not
going to tell you more." - He expects that the TSA will follow its own written and well documented procedure, and the previously determined rulings of the courts over what the TSA is expected to do. They have the means to screen the liquid, and their policy allows an unlimited quantity of it to be taken on board.
In other words, he wants them to follow the law as it is written. They did not do this.
Try reading the article, and also maybe the summary too. I find it helps when commenting on the story so you don't look like a moron.
No, the point wasn't that well made - that's what I mean about reconning it.
There is no attempt at all made at sarcasm or satire, nor was the point made about the control of apps on the app store - if that really was the intention then it was extremely poorly made, given that the post made an assertion that was clearly false. There are plenty of other more salient points that could have been made on that front (for example, that iOS Chrome only has access to the sandboxed JS engine, while iOS Safari has access to a faster non-sandboxed one).
The point wasn't that Firefox was absent from the app store - the point made was that Apple was "slowing down" Firefox. If the point was to show what a good example Firefox being missing from the app store is, perhaps the point shouldn't have been how Apple are slowing it down, which implies that it is running on a platform that Apple controls?
Like I said, the original comment was classic uninformed Apple bashing, and as is typical for calling that out, other posters (or the actual poster who is now brave enough to log in) try to defend it by twisting around in the wind desperately to make it somehow still valid. It happens all the time.
Apple prevents non-webkit browsers accessing hardware accelaration. This slows down Firefox. Just one example.
Firefox is not on the app store.
Sorry, your example must have a basis in reality to be taken seriously.
Wooosh.
Sorry, you can't retcon the comment as a joke by adding "whoosh" after the fact when someone points out that it's factually inaccurate.
Apple prevents non-webkit browsers accessing hardware accelaration. This slows down Firefox. Just one example.
Firefox is not on the app store.
Sorry, your example must have a basis in reality to be taken seriously.
Elephant in the room time: MSNBC is the liberal propaganda arm of the democratic party. MSNBC tries to ignore stories that have any whiff of putting their glorious democrats in a bad light while simultaneously manufacturing outrage over conservatives in the hopes of distracting the public from seing the democrats as they really are.
So spare us the "Fox News is worse" garbage. While the Fox News slant is well known and acknowledged, every other news organization is left-of-center and denies it has any bias whatsoever. If MSNBC can't be relied upon to report all stories, even those that are negative to democrats, then it is a propaganda firm, not a news oranization.
Does MSNBC's 85% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Of course not! The 85% is at least 85% liberal opinion. Does Fox news 55% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Yes it does. Some of the liberals, independents, or non-conservatives that are now, or have been, on Fox are: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Mara Liasson, Santita Jackson, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Simon Rosenberg, Bill Schulz, Shepard Smith, Juan Williams. Conservatives on MSNBC? Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough (arguably fiscally conservative, socially liberal RINO). Sounds like MSNBC's reporting is severely un-fair and un-balanced.
You counting the token liberal pundits on Fox News that get shouted down by the right wing pundits and hosts of the shows as "airing liberal views". How adorable.
Come on, moderators, at least be subtle.
"Overrated" is not the same as "I disagree", especially on a base score comment.
Yes, provocation.
When the original Galaxy came out, there were an awful lot of reviewers who drew the obvious comparison that it looked a little *too* much like the iPhone, in comparison to the other Android handsets released around the same time - it's not like the argument was that it was like the iPhone because it was a smartphone with a touch screen.
It's also not as if Samsung would be unaware of what Apple might do in the face of that action - it's hardly Apple's first dance in the legal quagmire over alleged copying of their designs.
So yes, Samsung are not entirely blameless in that situation. They made an extremely similar-looking-and-feeling iPhone competitor, and they were surprised when they got sued because of it by *Apple*? Please.
Also, the iPhone doesn't have to be "original" to be a valid product that is defendable by a lawsuit - it just has to be distinct in its design. To use a car analogy, the Corvette is hardly "original" - I mean, cars existed before and since, right? But if you made a car that looked just like it (beyond the things like 4 wheels and an engine), in terms of body styling etc then you would get sued. Is the lawsuit invalid because the concept of a car is not new?
4 times was a number I pulled out of my ass but seriously who would make that kind of excuse for a similarly specced Lenovo?
Many people would, but more because they don't really care about their technical possessions if the way I see people treat their laptops and phones is any indication.
I think this is akin to getting caught stealing money from the tip jar and trying to make it look like you were just "making change".
Too late, you woke the dragon.
Only on a thread about an Apple product would people argue that a flaw in something costing 4 times the price of the competition is "not that bad". I want to sell things to these people.
Not that I disagree about people juystifying the issue as "not that bad" (seriously, just get the panel replaced for free), but where can I buy a 2.4 GHz i7 quad with 8GB RAM, a 256 GB SSD, 1GB 650M and a 15" 2880x1800 laptop for $550?
While the lawsuit may be excessive it is hardly a case of snobby expectations to expect to not receive a faulty product, especially one that is so incredibly expensive.
Indeed, which is why he should probably tell Apple he has a defective screen and then let them replace it, as they have been doing with anyone who has the problem.
It's quicker than a lawsuit, but possibly less lucrative.
PLEASE please PLEASE let it be that the Samsung displays are just fine while LG displays are not. I really want to see Apple squirm over this issue.
It's not that I'm "Anti-Apple" here, but just the way we saw that it is clearly wrong for the music publishers to sue their customers, I see it as pretty damned stupid for Apple to sue its suppliers.
Apple sells things which are made of a whole lot of other things. When Apple started suing the supplier of their component things, they are attacking a part which they depend on. It makes me think of a bridge attacking the pillars it sits on. I just want to see incredibly stupid behavior rewarded.
Samsung's panels don't have the image retention problem, no, but they do have different colour characteristics that aren't quite as good as the LG panels. The LG panels are better when they are working properly, but it's clear they have (or had, since they seem to be getting on top of it) a serious yield issue.
Sure, it's "bad business" to sue your supplier, but when your supplier provokes you, it surely has to take some blame for the loss of business (you think Samsung is happy that billions of dollars are flowing to their competitors instead of them? I wonder if that loss of business is offset by the profits from the Galaxy line? Possibly.)
If you have ghosting on your screen, Apple will swap the panel. However, what he's probably complaining about is that it's a "panel lottery" and you might get another LG panel as a replacement that may have exactly the same problem, or it might be perfect for the rest of its life.
People did the same thing with the first retina iPad, since the screens were made by both LG and Samsung, with people returning their LG model over and over until they finally got a Samsung version.
You have a year of Applecare on all new Macs, and it covers manufacturing defects among other things so they will fix the problem for you, but it can be a hassle if the problem keeps recurring. After three repairs on the same problem they'll often just give you a new machine, but it's still a lottery if the underlying problem with the panels themselves is not sorted out - a new machine might have exactly the same problem.
Karma is a bitch.
Yeah, bet Samsung's display division were really happy when Samsung's phone division photocopied their biggest OEM customer's phone design.
It cuts both ways - Apple was one of Samsung's biggest customers. Severing that relationship is costly for both sides. Samsung sells Apple memory, screens and CPUs. Apple sunk a huge amount of cash into one of Samsung's factories in Texas for that very reason.
Provoking one of your biggest customers is not an entirely consequence-free action, unless your ultimate goal is exactly this - cost yourself business and hand it on a plate to your inferior competitor, just to make Apple look bad. That's expensive PR.
Hello? Why is a web browser launching other applications without explicit user consent? Ever?
This was the classic Microsoft security hole - executing anything that came in which could possibly be executed - Word documents, spreadsheets, autoplay files, Universal Plug and Play. Microsoft has now turned most of that off. Apple is replicating a classic Microsoft mistake here.
It doesn't, or it shouldn't - that was the point. Safari *does* explicitly ask for consent before launching apps downloaded from the internet, but one script type was whitelisted by accident/oversight. This has now been fixed.
That's a weird definition of coasting.. Of course you don't put the clutch in when coasting for a red light, that would entirely defeat the purpose of coasting, this is part of standard drivers education at least here. I don't have a car and don't drive much, but I do know how to coast.
No, that is the actual definition of coasting: the vehicle is moving but the transmission is not engaged. You are taught *not* to do that on your driving test, and instead you do as you said, leave the transmission engaged and use engine braking to assist your deceleration when slowing down. That is not coasting though, that is merely slowing down.
From the UK Highway Code, under "Vehicle Control":
102. Coasting. This term describes a vehicle travelling in neutral or with the clutch pressed down. Do not coast, whatever the driving conditions. It reduces driver control because
engine braking is eliminated
vehicle speed downhill will increase quickly
increased use of the footbrake can reduce its effectiveness
steering response will be affected particularly on bends and corners
it may be more difficult to select the appropriate gear when needed.
How? If I want to slow down and let off the gas pedal completely the wheels turning will still continue to turn the engine. The valves still open and shut, oil and coolant still circulate. My car does shut off the injectors when coasting and when the RPMs drop too low while doing this it turns them back on to keep the engine running. Typically this happens around 25 mph but can be put off some by selecting a lower gear and even then it is running really lean anyway so it is still consuming less fuel than normal.
Coasting means disconnecting the drive train. ie, putting the clutch in, or just putting the manual box into neutral. When you do that, the engine is not turned over by inertia, it simply has to idle.
American cars don't coast since they don't tend to go in for manual transmissions.
No I don't miss the point. You used a horrible example in an attempt to prove your point. You also neglected to consider the real factor that drives hybrid adoption (fashion accessory, hippie check puddles).
For example: If I had posted the analysis but assumed the hybrid got only 1 mpg more mileage but cost $40,000 more would that have a valid comparison? It's just as valid as yours was.
As you say: You should have used 'actual car options', not numbers you pulled from a dark smelly place.
I see it's clear that you've already made your mind up about hybrids, so I suspect if he'd used real numbers you'd still have just dismissed him out of hand as it's clear you reject anything that doesn't match up to your "common sense".
He was clear that his example was an estimate, and he even included a disclaimer at the end about using fully researched figures to make the ultimate determination (rather than, you know, simply stating that "everyone knows hybrids aren't worth it").
I find it amusing that you are then trying to argue that *he's* the one pulling things from a "dark, smelly place".
Out of interest, what cool apps?
Troll mod for this comment? Really?
Can someone point out to me exactly what part of the above comment is at all trolling?
An offtopic mod for a comment directly asking how a comment about identifying mobile apps that are not being available iOS, in a thread about iOS apps and availability of said apps, could be modded troll?
If this carries on, I'm going to start getting the feeling that people around here just don't like me.
Stop looking for reasons to justify your decision to avoid Apple. Either do or don't, it's your choice, but twisting people's words to suit your opinion is just silly.
All high and mighty... what a dick. You don't know me from Adam. As if I'm shivering in a basement somewhere looking for reasons to hate Apple... I'm damn proud of it; APPLE SUCKS. And I'm obviously right to do so. Fanbois... lordy...
Right, as I said, you can hate apple as much as you want, just don't attempt to justify it by deliberately misinterpreting what people say and using that as proof of your hate.
I don't know you from Adam, but I do know you've been on a 20 year boycott of a single company, which clearly started back in the distant computing past. 20 years ago was 1993 - Apple didn't even have PowerPC chips at that point, and was several years before Gil Ameilo was appointed CEO. Apple was virtually at the bottom of the well and practically dead. If you've carried a grudge for that long then I can only assume you have a seething hatred that burns more than a thousand suns. What could they have possibly done all that time ago that enraged you so much? Was the partnership with IBM and Motorola really that bad? Did the original PPC 603 offend you somehow?
Your "obviously righteous" hatred clearly defines you. Have you thought about perhaps... chilling out?
Out of interest, what cool apps?
Troll mod for this comment? Really?
Can someone point out to me exactly what part of the above comment is at all trolling?
he point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store
And rightly so: they get bad press because of the draconion restrictions they insist on putting on apps even when it is completely unnecessary. That is 100% Apple's fault.
Basically, they're getting bad press for having a particularly restrictive walled garden.
It's Apple's fault that a developer requested that they pull an app that has copyrighted code belonging to that developer, and Apple complied with their request?
So, Apple can't win in this situation then.
Got it.