You don't get it. What vux984 is saying is that he set up the magic trackpad so that he only has to touch the trackpad to click, and he does not have to exert a force on it.
I personally got rid of everything that requires to exert an additional vertical force on the trackpad the day I tried to use it on my laps. I'm talking about a wireless magic trackpad of course. I replaced everything with two and three fingers gestures, and it feels so confortable that I setup my laptop the same way, and never looked back. So force touch for me doesn't make sense, but I have to admit that I have not tried a force touch enabled magic trackpad.
I do get it. He is saying that he has never used the force touch feature when that's literally impossible, even if he taps it lightly enough to just register his finger - the cap sensor and the strain gauges work together on the new trackpad. Je just didn't understand that.
There are two thresholds where it clicks - the fact that its haptic vs mechanical is irreelevent. I never ever touch it with enough force to engage either click threshold.
So any additional functionality mapped to touching with greater force; I'm not ever using. So it may as well not be there.
Ah, so you're changing your argument. Fair enough.
I was just pointing out that you were factually incorrect and based an argument on it. Next time you say that you don't use any part of a technology that you literally have to (because that's how the trackpad works in its entirety) you'll know a little more about it.
You have finally realized that your touchscreen controller actually provides a pressure strength and are able to hype it up like it's revolutionary.
Not even if we realize the limitations of pressure sensing of a standard capacitive controller and add additional sensors to make the detection less granular is this something new. I don't know how long Synaptics (touchpad manufacturer) have had their capacitive+force sensor combination available but it is at least two years, but even ignoring that the idea and implementation isn't anything new.
Bah.
Err, no.
Apple's implementation of force touch on the Macbook Pro trackpad (where it is current used, not counting this rumour that it will be on the iPhone) uses a set of strain gauges to measure the applied pressure. It doesn't use the touchscreen controller.
You might want to actually look up how it works before trying to score a "sick burn" (is that what the kids call it these days?) from your armchair quarterback position.
I also don't see where Apple are hyping it up to make it seem like a revolution. They are advertising that the MBPr and MB have it, but I fail to see how their advertising materials claim it's revolutionary. Unless you think the term "whole new way to experience a trackpad" means that, and not "this trackpad works differently than the old ones due to the numerous new ways you can use it due to the force sensors"
Apple is frequently guilty of hyperbole when it comes to advertising, but on the force touch it's pretty understated. Did you just assume they would claim it was a revolution that had never been seen before? Given that you don't understand how Apple's implementation works I have to assume you've done zero research on it. Google (a popular search engine) can tell you quite a lot about it if you're interested.
Apple's implementation (at least on the trackpad on the Macbook Pro) is a set of strain gauges and a haptic feedback device that simulates the "click".
Look at the teardown of the MBPr's trackpad - it doesn't physically have a clickable button any more. It is 100% exclusively totally (just for redundancy) controlled via haptic feedback.
It does not physically click. Not even a little bit.
It is a flat plate with no moving parts that has a haptic feedback device fixed to it.
"Sign in to the dashboard with your Microsoft account,"
No, go fuck yourself. Give me control over my updates/drivers inside the OS and don't make me sign up for your fucking spam in order to have a WORKING operating system.
Wow, you need to calm down kid.
That is not a site for consumer.... you know what, if you didn't get it the first time, I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it any more simply.
We're seeing a slow backing-away from the ideal: - Mac doesn't get viruses. - Mac doesn't get viruses if you use trusted software and mainstream web pages. - Mac doesn't get viruses if you use Apple software and the Apple website. - Mac doesn't get viruses if you don't use it. - Mac gets viruses.
We'd all come off more honest if we just agreed that Mac gets viruses.
For the nit picky, the second-to-last in that list seems ridiculous, but it isn't. Non-user-initiated infections are possible if it's a bug in the network stack or system services and it requires no user interaction to cause the infection. This is why XP machines get infected within 15 minutes *even if you don't do anything* (and especially if you don't patch it like a rabid maniac jabbing the Windows Update button). You can claim this is impossible on a Mac if you like but I won't believe you.
What reality distortion field? I'm not sure what part of my comment would result in that, given that I was replying with a factual statement to a comment that seemed to think that Mackeeper was software written by Apple, or that somehow Apple devices were immune to bad code. Or is that just your go to attempt at an insult? Pretty weak either way.
You're arguing from a position that does not really exist - the whole "Macs don't get viruses" thing (let's ignore that this is a trojan and not a virus, but whatever) hasn't been the current talking point officially or otherwise for a very long time, and it was never actually Apple's official advertising (because it wasn't literally true - they talked a lot about how it was more secure than Windows but never said immune).
What Apple bashers like to keep stating is that that's what they believe Apple fans are all saying, when it really isn't. OS X is as secure as any Unix system - that is, pretty good, but not immune.
What we have here is a trojan, which is a problem common to all operating systems that run on computers. But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to push.
No one is claiming that infections are "impossible" on a Mac - but you can claim that that's what Apple fans are claiming if you like.
For the record, there aren't any actual viruses for OS X in the wild. DISCLAIMER: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK OS X IS IMMUNE/END DISCLAIMER, but there are plenty of trojans and other malware. The Microsoft Office trojan torrent being one of the most famous. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. A torrent that claimed to be a pirate copy of Office that was a trojan. Got a lot of people that one.
So, from what I can see, you're the only one claiming that people are claiming that Macs don't get viruses. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.
I'd have to see the artist's contracts but it is pretty scary if the label has all the power to negotiate something like that. The songwriters, artists etc are supposed to get royalties having the label decide to give away free samples is insane. I want the movie industry to do the same thing: I'll pay them the second time I watch their movie.
The power that the labels have is very strong. It's hardly scary to know that they hold all the cards - why do you think the rise of indie labels has been greeted with such enthusiasm by artists.
In this case, what Apple did was exchange a longer free period for higher per-song royalties after the free period ends, but it does this on a per-label basis and clearly hammers out these sorts of deals with the biggest ones first. The smaller labels and indies can negotiate different deals if they like, but do you think they'll be able to do better than Sony, for example, will be able to manage (making the assumption that Sony will press Apple for the best deal that is good for Sony)? They can't deal directly with the artists even if they want to because the rights to the music aren't owned by the artists themselves.
The fact that the music labels hold all the cards is separate issue - artists have been getting the short end of the stick since long before Apple was even allowed to compete in the music business by law (hello Apple Records vs Apple Inc lawsuit).
It was an ultimatum from Apple, accept our terms or your music won't be on our service. They negotiated from a position of power, they ran into an artist who also has power and not only didn't accept Apple's ultimatum but brought to bear the power of public opinion and succeeded in changing Apple's position. She deserves a lot of credit for doing what she did.
Err, no.
You don't seem to understand how music rights work - Taylor Swift's record label is the one who made the deal with Apple for the artists it represents. What she choses to flap about is irrelevant. She made the same fuss with Spotify.
If she has a problem with the deal that her label made, then she can argue with them, not with Apple. She has the power to tell her label to "make the stand" but she doesn't negotiate directly with Apple or Spotify or Pandora at any stage.
I don't get it how did Apple get away with saying they won't pay royalties? Everyone else has to. What they just say "well we aren't making money so we don't have to pay"? Can I use that when I seed my torrents?
They aren't "getting away with it" - they negotiated with the labels who own the music. Both parties agreed to the terms.
3 months free trial (instead of 1 like with Pandora or Spotify) in exchange for higher per-track royalties after the trial ends (compared to Pandora and Spotify).
I'm amazed how many people seem to this this was just some ultimatum by Apple. I mean, the trolly-click-baity headlines like to paint it as such, so I can see maybe how that idea might spread, but you think people would be able to smell click bait.
... did the poor artists on Apple's music service sign something which allows Apple to distribute their music for free? Are new artists STILL giving away the rights to their own music? Has nothing been learned in the past 10-20 years? Or can these small labels & artists sue the living shit out of Apple over this?
Apple negotiated with the music labels that own the rights to the music.
In exchange for 3 months free trial they pay more per track in royalties after the free trial than Pandora or Spotify.
They clearly negotiated with the largest labels first and then offered the same terms to smaller labels and indies, who were totally free to either negotiate a different deal or decide not to participate in Apple Music (which doesn't affect their deals regarding the iTunes Store, which is handled separately).
You think the way this has been painted that Apple went around with heavies and physically beat the artists to make them agree.
I will never buy from Apple and will never develop for Apple platforms.
You won't because they agreed a set of terms with the rights holders for how the music service would be launched?
What an odd decision.
I mean, whatever floats your boat I guess.
I assume you have the same set of criteria for Spotify and Pandora, or is that different because they only negotiated for 1 month free trial (and pay a lower percentage of royalties after that 1 month ends compared to Apple)?
Well, they negotiated for the three month trial in exchange for increased royalties for the rights holders after that time is up - the people who own the music agreed to these terms, so Swift's rant is misdirected (and also conveniently ignores that she made the same rant against Pandora and Spotify, but this is an Apple bash piece, so leaving that out makes it look like it's specifically an Apple issue).
Apple didn't do this in a vacuum, and they certainly didn't lay it out as an ultimatum. These discussions have been ongoing for months.
With all the sound and fury about people "stealing" copyrighted materials, how is Apple getting away with this?
Best as I can tell, EACH Instance should be punishable with thousands of dollars of fines and jail terms for those at Apple who authorize this.
So you don't think that Apple spent months (likely years) negotiating the deal for this? They specifically set up the 3 month trial period followed by an *increased* share of the revenue for the rights holders (i.e., more than Pandora and Spotify are paying per track). All of this is set out in pages and pages of contracts.
Where's the "head explode with incomprehension of extreme stupidity" meme when you need it?
No wonder you forgot to log in. I'd be embarrassed too. How do you even tie your shoes?
Counting Crows sell the recordings taken off their sound board for most of the gigs they perform on an independent website. It's pretty reasonable too.
Their studio albums are available via the usual route, but it's a great way to hear their live material (which is almost always chaining around between performances).
No problem. There was a lot of mixed information about how the free Windows keys would work due to a lack of info from MS themselves when they announced it, whether it would be one year only, and whether you'd be able to do a clean install or just an upgrade only etc.
Microsoft has clarified that it's a full Windows key that can be used for clean installs and that once you have it, it's the same as buying a copy of Windows today.
This looks to me like an incentive to sell your books in serialized weekly installments much as Dickens and Dumas did. The end result is a marathon run --- the 800 page novel --- not a casual summer read.
It would look like that if it had anything to do with sales. As usual for slashdot, the summary and headline aren't actual facts.
This change affects books in the lending library system. Anything on the ebook store is not affected by this change and is paid out the same way it always was.
This change just affects the lending system and is designed to eliminate exactly the problem you are describing - authors intentionally breaking up books into chapters and listing them as 15 separate books instead of one book because it meant they got 15x more of the subscription pool money for the KU lending library. Amazon is just changing how the money is split up in that system only to try and discourage that behaviour.
I actually published a book on performance testing on Amazon and have signed up for the KU program. I sell about 5 books per month. Living in the 'first world' I can safely say that the money isn't why I do it. I am still happy to see sales, cause that tells me people read my book. And it would be even more interesting to see if people actually read it. So for me, I'm not worried about missing out on a few dollars and may even get some more feedback.
However, I also buy books in the Kindle store. First thing I do is to convert the books to epubs so I can load them on my Sony Ereader. I am sure I'm not the only one. How does Amazon handle those? Seems to me those are counted as not read even though the buyer actually read them. Just not on a Kindle reader.
The summary is woefully inaccurate as usual. This change only affects titles in KU that are borrowed, and even then only applies to the way that the money already allocated for paying authors in that pool is split up. It used to be per book, and was being abused by submissions of very short titles with no value that were being artificially "read" to increase the payout value. Amazon is switching the model so that actual books are more likely to take the lion's share of the money allocated for that service.
Titles that are purchased as ebooks through Amazon's store are unaffected by this change.
So, if Amazon isn't going to pay the author until each page is read, does that mean I don't have to pay Amazon unless I read each page?
I'd have to wonder why you'd subscribe to an ebook lending service if you weren't going to read any of the books, but you could try arguing this with them I suppose.
(Obviously this doesn't apply to ebooks that amazon actually sells, but who needs facts in a slashdot headline or summary).
Shouldn't we call it "free trial" rather than "free"? As far as I understand it, we're going to have to pay up after the first year of "trial". This goes for everyone including us who got a full Windows installation.
You understand incorrectly.
Once you have a Windows 10 key, its yours.
To make it more obvious, the price for the foist year will be $0.00, and if you "buy" it during this time for the low, low price of $0.00 then you get a key that doesn't expire.
If you buy it after that year the price will be more than $0.00 (let's say $x, where x is not zero) and you will get a key that doesn't expire.
What will almost certainly happen though is that the period where it is available for free will be extended indefinitely. It's clear they want to push adoption of the Windows ecosystem to make it more homogenous and the best way to do that rapidly is to make it look like the window for the free upgrade is limited. I suspect it will be free forevermore, but they want a rapid uptake of users rather than a slow trickle.
I buy a reference book and only read the chapter I need for a current job, then the author is only compensated for 1/20th of what I paid Amazon and Amazon gets the rest?
Someone sue Amazon publishing so hard that they can't find their god damn feet ok?
How many reference books and textbooks are by self published authors and are part of the subscription-based lending library for ebooks?
Oh, you thought this applied to all ebooks amazon sells?!
Well, I guess the click bait headline does sort of suggest this, but no, as usual the summary is woefully bereft of proper facts.
You're quite right when you say I don't know much about Macs. I have no idea what is the current rev of OS X, so Yosemite and El Capitan are just noise to me. The point here is that my friend's Mac apparently couldn't be upgraded to run a compatible version of the Airport Utility in order to manage her new Airport Extreme, which is absurd. Were the Airport Extreme to have a web based management interface, like EVERY OTHER consumer router on the planet, her old Mac, as well as any other machine with a web browser, could have managed it.
As for running Linux on old hardware, it's not just that it runs. It's *USEFUL* too on old hardware.
As for the CLI to manage the Airport Extreme, what makes you think that rev of the CLI would work if the Airport Utility wouldn't? The GUI is just a front-end to the CLI.
The point here is that Apple's gear isn't compatible with itself over time, and it forces people to purchase upgrades unnecessarily. I suppose the best thing you could say for it is that its clearly a successful business model...
All very well, but it comes off as baseless Apple bashing - you admit yourself that you don't know anything about it. The Airport Extreme is controlled by an application and always has been, and the system requirements are listed on the box. Your original comment posited an impossible situation - I can't think of any combination of Apple laptop hardware and AE hardware that would result in incompatibility if the time is restricted to 4 years.
Sure the choice of using an app to control the AE is an unusual one, but it works on Windows, OS X and iOS and it works on pretty much everything.
My thought is that you have fudged the numbers a little to make it sound worse than it is. The 6th Gen Extreme (that requires Lion to set up on OS X) was released in 2013 and the last Mac laptop that can't run that was released in early 2006 which is 7 years, since it came out in June 2013.
If it's any AE earlier than the 6th gen then the software will run on any Mac released in the last 13 years (going back to the PowerPC G4 era).
If you're going to tell tall tales, you might not want to tell them about things that (you personally have admitted) you know nothing about.
But what am I saying? I'm interrupting an anti-Apple circle jerk. My apologies, carry on.
Add to that the complications by DRM, Apple Connect, and the new service flat out not working on some music devices (competitors to Apple, now that they own Beats), and you have a recipe for yet another troubled streaming site.
So, what? Android devices and Windows are not competitors to Apple?
Both ecosystems have been explicitly mentioned as supported by Apple during the launch announcement, so I'm curious what "competitors" are going to be "flat out not working"
We'll ignore the equally false DRM (there isn't any per se - it's a streaming service with a download feature for offline listening that links to the DRM-free store if you want to buy the songs outright.
Why would it be a GPL violation? LibreOffice isn't distributed under the GPL.
Not to mention the fact that the iOS app store has been compatible with the GPL (V2 and earlier) for some time now, after complaints about this very issue - Apple changed the terms in response some time ago.
Plus, the App Store on OS X is not like the iOS one - it downloads a bundle that you can run that can contain anything you like, including the full source code if you really want.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get it.
What vux984 is saying is that he set up the magic trackpad so that he only has to touch the trackpad to click, and he does not have to exert a force on it.
I personally got rid of everything that requires to exert an additional vertical force on the trackpad the day I tried to use it on my laps. I'm talking about a wireless magic trackpad of course. I replaced everything with two and three fingers gestures, and it feels so confortable that I setup my laptop the same way, and never looked back. So force touch for me doesn't make sense, but I have to admit that I have not tried a force touch enabled magic trackpad.
I do get it. He is saying that he has never used the force touch feature when that's literally impossible, even if he taps it lightly enough to just register his finger - the cap sensor and the strain gauges work together on the new trackpad. Je just didn't understand that.
No, it really doesn't.
It really doesn't MATTER.
There are two thresholds where it clicks - the fact that its haptic vs mechanical is irreelevent. I never ever touch it with enough force to engage either click threshold.
So any additional functionality mapped to touching with greater force; I'm not ever using. So it may as well not be there.
Ah, so you're changing your argument. Fair enough.
I was just pointing out that you were factually incorrect and based an argument on it. Next time you say that you don't use any part of a technology that you literally have to (because that's how the trackpad works in its entirety) you'll know a little more about it.
You have finally realized that your touchscreen controller actually provides a pressure strength and are able to hype it up like it's revolutionary.
Not even if we realize the limitations of pressure sensing of a standard capacitive controller and add additional sensors to make the detection less granular is this something new. I don't know how long Synaptics (touchpad manufacturer) have had their capacitive+force sensor combination available but it is at least two years, but even ignoring that the idea and implementation isn't anything new.
Bah.
Err, no.
Apple's implementation of force touch on the Macbook Pro trackpad (where it is current used, not counting this rumour that it will be on the iPhone) uses a set of strain gauges to measure the applied pressure. It doesn't use the touchscreen controller.
You might want to actually look up how it works before trying to score a "sick burn" (is that what the kids call it these days?) from your armchair quarterback position.
I also don't see where Apple are hyping it up to make it seem like a revolution. They are advertising that the MBPr and MB have it, but I fail to see how their advertising materials claim it's revolutionary. Unless you think the term "whole new way to experience a trackpad" means that, and not "this trackpad works differently than the old ones due to the numerous new ways you can use it due to the force sensors"
Apple is frequently guilty of hyperbole when it comes to advertising, but on the force touch it's pretty understated. Did you just assume they would claim it was a revolution that had never been seen before? Given that you don't understand how Apple's implementation works I have to assume you've done zero research on it. Google (a popular search engine) can tell you quite a lot about it if you're interested.
Apple's implementation (at least on the trackpad on the Macbook Pro) is a set of strain gauges and a haptic feedback device that simulates the "click".
No, it really doesn't.
Look at the teardown of the MBPr's trackpad - it doesn't physically have a clickable button any more. It is 100% exclusively totally (just for redundancy) controlled via haptic feedback.
It does not physically click. Not even a little bit.
It is a flat plate with no moving parts that has a haptic feedback device fixed to it.
"Sign in to the dashboard with your Microsoft account,"
No, go fuck yourself. Give me control over my updates/drivers inside the OS and don't make me sign up for your fucking spam in order to have a WORKING operating system.
Wow, you need to calm down kid.
That is not a site for consumer.... you know what, if you didn't get it the first time, I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it any more simply.
Reality distortion field: activated.
We're seeing a slow backing-away from the ideal:
- Mac doesn't get viruses.
- Mac doesn't get viruses if you use trusted software and mainstream web pages.
- Mac doesn't get viruses if you use Apple software and the Apple website.
- Mac doesn't get viruses if you don't use it.
- Mac gets viruses.
We'd all come off more honest if we just agreed that Mac gets viruses.
For the nit picky, the second-to-last in that list seems ridiculous, but it isn't. Non-user-initiated infections are possible if it's a bug in the network stack or system services and it requires no user interaction to cause the infection. This is why XP machines get infected within 15 minutes *even if you don't do anything* (and especially if you don't patch it like a rabid maniac jabbing the Windows Update button). You can claim this is impossible on a Mac if you like but I won't believe you.
What reality distortion field? I'm not sure what part of my comment would result in that, given that I was replying with a factual statement to a comment that seemed to think that Mackeeper was software written by Apple, or that somehow Apple devices were immune to bad code. Or is that just your go to attempt at an insult? Pretty weak either way.
You're arguing from a position that does not really exist - the whole "Macs don't get viruses" thing (let's ignore that this is a trojan and not a virus, but whatever) hasn't been the current talking point officially or otherwise for a very long time, and it was never actually Apple's official advertising (because it wasn't literally true - they talked a lot about how it was more secure than Windows but never said immune).
What Apple bashers like to keep stating is that that's what they believe Apple fans are all saying, when it really isn't. OS X is as secure as any Unix system - that is, pretty good, but not immune.
What we have here is a trojan, which is a problem common to all operating systems that run on computers. But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to push.
No one is claiming that infections are "impossible" on a Mac - but you can claim that that's what Apple fans are claiming if you like.
For the record, there aren't any actual viruses for OS X in the wild. DISCLAIMER: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK OS X IS IMMUNE /END DISCLAIMER, but there are plenty of trojans and other malware. The Microsoft Office trojan torrent being one of the most famous. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. A torrent that claimed to be a pirate copy of Office that was a trojan. Got a lot of people that one.
So, from what I can see, you're the only one claiming that people are claiming that Macs don't get viruses. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.
Apple just works! Even when badly written by a bunch of idiots!
Pssssst! Mackeeper is not code written by Apple! Keep it under your hat!
Just thought I should let you know before you make yourself look like a fool.... oh, sorry. I was delayed in traffic. If only I'd made it here sooner!
Never mind.
I'd have to see the artist's contracts but it is pretty scary if the label has all the power to negotiate something like that. The songwriters, artists etc are supposed to get royalties having the label decide to give away free samples is insane. I want the movie industry to do the same thing: I'll pay them the second time I watch their movie.
The power that the labels have is very strong. It's hardly scary to know that they hold all the cards - why do you think the rise of indie labels has been greeted with such enthusiasm by artists.
In this case, what Apple did was exchange a longer free period for higher per-song royalties after the free period ends, but it does this on a per-label basis and clearly hammers out these sorts of deals with the biggest ones first. The smaller labels and indies can negotiate different deals if they like, but do you think they'll be able to do better than Sony, for example, will be able to manage (making the assumption that Sony will press Apple for the best deal that is good for Sony)? They can't deal directly with the artists even if they want to because the rights to the music aren't owned by the artists themselves.
The fact that the music labels hold all the cards is separate issue - artists have been getting the short end of the stick since long before Apple was even allowed to compete in the music business by law (hello Apple Records vs Apple Inc lawsuit).
It was an ultimatum from Apple, accept our terms or your music won't be on our service. They negotiated from a position of power, they ran into an artist who also has power and not only didn't accept Apple's ultimatum but brought to bear the power of public opinion and succeeded in changing Apple's position. She deserves a lot of credit for doing what she did.
Err, no.
You don't seem to understand how music rights work - Taylor Swift's record label is the one who made the deal with Apple for the artists it represents. What she choses to flap about is irrelevant. She made the same fuss with Spotify.
If she has a problem with the deal that her label made, then she can argue with them, not with Apple. She has the power to tell her label to "make the stand" but she doesn't negotiate directly with Apple or Spotify or Pandora at any stage.
I don't get it how did Apple get away with saying they won't pay royalties? Everyone else has to. What they just say "well we aren't making money so we don't have to pay"? Can I use that when I seed my torrents?
They aren't "getting away with it" - they negotiated with the labels who own the music. Both parties agreed to the terms.
3 months free trial (instead of 1 like with Pandora or Spotify) in exchange for higher per-track royalties after the trial ends (compared to Pandora and Spotify).
I'm amazed how many people seem to this this was just some ultimatum by Apple. I mean, the trolly-click-baity headlines like to paint it as such, so I can see maybe how that idea might spread, but you think people would be able to smell click bait.
... did the poor artists on Apple's music service sign something which allows Apple to distribute their music for free? Are new artists STILL giving away the rights to their own music? Has nothing been learned in the past 10-20 years? Or can these small labels & artists sue the living shit out of Apple over this?
Apple negotiated with the music labels that own the rights to the music.
In exchange for 3 months free trial they pay more per track in royalties after the free trial than Pandora or Spotify.
They clearly negotiated with the largest labels first and then offered the same terms to smaller labels and indies, who were totally free to either negotiate a different deal or decide not to participate in Apple Music (which doesn't affect their deals regarding the iTunes Store, which is handled separately).
You think the way this has been painted that Apple went around with heavies and physically beat the artists to make them agree.
I will never buy from Apple and will never develop for Apple platforms.
You won't because they agreed a set of terms with the rights holders for how the music service would be launched?
What an odd decision.
I mean, whatever floats your boat I guess.
I assume you have the same set of criteria for Spotify and Pandora, or is that different because they only negotiated for 1 month free trial (and pay a lower percentage of royalties after that 1 month ends compared to Apple)?
I'm curious.
Well, they negotiated for the three month trial in exchange for increased royalties for the rights holders after that time is up - the people who own the music agreed to these terms, so Swift's rant is misdirected (and also conveniently ignores that she made the same rant against Pandora and Spotify, but this is an Apple bash piece, so leaving that out makes it look like it's specifically an Apple issue).
Apple didn't do this in a vacuum, and they certainly didn't lay it out as an ultimatum. These discussions have been ongoing for months.
With all the sound and fury about people "stealing" copyrighted materials, how is Apple getting away with this?
Best as I can tell, EACH Instance should be punishable with thousands of dollars of fines and jail terms for those at Apple who authorize this.
So you don't think that Apple spent months (likely years) negotiating the deal for this? They specifically set up the 3 month trial period followed by an *increased* share of the revenue for the rights holders (i.e., more than Pandora and Spotify are paying per track). All of this is set out in pages and pages of contracts.
Where's the "head explode with incomprehension of extreme stupidity" meme when you need it?
No wonder you forgot to log in. I'd be embarrassed too. How do you even tie your shoes?
Counting Crows sell the recordings taken off their sound board for most of the gigs they perform on an independent website. It's pretty reasonable too.
Their studio albums are available via the usual route, but it's a great way to hear their live material (which is almost always chaining around between performances).
No problem. There was a lot of mixed information about how the free Windows keys would work due to a lack of info from MS themselves when they announced it, whether it would be one year only, and whether you'd be able to do a clean install or just an upgrade only etc.
Microsoft has clarified that it's a full Windows key that can be used for clean installs and that once you have it, it's the same as buying a copy of Windows today.
This looks to me like an incentive to sell your books in serialized weekly installments much as Dickens and Dumas did. The end result is a marathon run --- the 800 page novel --- not a casual summer read.
It would look like that if it had anything to do with sales. As usual for slashdot, the summary and headline aren't actual facts.
This change affects books in the lending library system. Anything on the ebook store is not affected by this change and is paid out the same way it always was.
This change just affects the lending system and is designed to eliminate exactly the problem you are describing - authors intentionally breaking up books into chapters and listing them as 15 separate books instead of one book because it meant they got 15x more of the subscription pool money for the KU lending library. Amazon is just changing how the money is split up in that system only to try and discourage that behaviour.
I actually published a book on performance testing on Amazon and have signed up for the KU program. I sell about 5 books per month. Living in the 'first world' I can safely say that the money isn't why I do it. I am still happy to see sales, cause that tells me people read my book. And it would be even more interesting to see if people actually read it. So for me, I'm not worried about missing out on a few dollars and may even get some more feedback.
However, I also buy books in the Kindle store. First thing I do is to convert the books to epubs so I can load them on my Sony Ereader. I am sure I'm not the only one. How does Amazon handle those? Seems to me those are counted as not read even though the buyer actually read them. Just not on a Kindle reader.
The summary is woefully inaccurate as usual. This change only affects titles in KU that are borrowed, and even then only applies to the way that the money already allocated for paying authors in that pool is split up. It used to be per book, and was being abused by submissions of very short titles with no value that were being artificially "read" to increase the payout value. Amazon is switching the model so that actual books are more likely to take the lion's share of the money allocated for that service.
Titles that are purchased as ebooks through Amazon's store are unaffected by this change.
So, if Amazon isn't going to pay the author until each page is read, does that mean I don't have to pay Amazon unless I read each page?
I'd have to wonder why you'd subscribe to an ebook lending service if you weren't going to read any of the books, but you could try arguing this with them I suppose.
(Obviously this doesn't apply to ebooks that amazon actually sells, but who needs facts in a slashdot headline or summary).
Shouldn't we call it "free trial" rather than "free"? As far as I understand it, we're going to have to pay up after the first year of "trial". This goes for everyone including us who got a full Windows installation.
You understand incorrectly.
Once you have a Windows 10 key, its yours.
To make it more obvious, the price for the foist year will be $0.00, and if you "buy" it during this time for the low, low price of $0.00 then you get a key that doesn't expire.
If you buy it after that year the price will be more than $0.00 (let's say $x, where x is not zero) and you will get a key that doesn't expire.
What will almost certainly happen though is that the period where it is available for free will be extended indefinitely. It's clear they want to push adoption of the Windows ecosystem to make it more homogenous and the best way to do that rapidly is to make it look like the window for the free upgrade is limited. I suspect it will be free forevermore, but they want a rapid uptake of users rather than a slow trickle.
educational materials to be published at all.
I buy a reference book and only read the chapter I need for a current job, then the author is only compensated for 1/20th of what I paid Amazon and Amazon gets the rest?
Someone sue Amazon publishing so hard that they can't find their god damn feet ok?
How many reference books and textbooks are by self published authors and are part of the subscription-based lending library for ebooks?
Oh, you thought this applied to all ebooks amazon sells?!
Well, I guess the click bait headline does sort of suggest this, but no, as usual the summary is woefully bereft of proper facts.
You're quite right when you say I don't know much about Macs. I have no idea what is the current rev of OS X, so Yosemite and El Capitan are just noise to me. The point here is that my friend's Mac apparently couldn't be upgraded to run a compatible version of the Airport Utility in order to manage her new Airport Extreme, which is absurd. Were the Airport Extreme to have a web based management interface, like EVERY OTHER consumer router on the planet, her old Mac, as well as any other machine with a web browser, could have managed it.
As for running Linux on old hardware, it's not just that it runs. It's *USEFUL* too on old hardware.
As for the CLI to manage the Airport Extreme, what makes you think that rev of the CLI would work if the Airport Utility wouldn't? The GUI is just a front-end to the CLI.
The point here is that Apple's gear isn't compatible with itself over time, and it forces people to purchase upgrades unnecessarily. I suppose the best thing you could say for it is that its clearly a successful business model...
All very well, but it comes off as baseless Apple bashing - you admit yourself that you don't know anything about it. The Airport Extreme is controlled by an application and always has been, and the system requirements are listed on the box. Your original comment posited an impossible situation - I can't think of any combination of Apple laptop hardware and AE hardware that would result in incompatibility if the time is restricted to 4 years.
Sure the choice of using an app to control the AE is an unusual one, but it works on Windows, OS X and iOS and it works on pretty much everything.
My thought is that you have fudged the numbers a little to make it sound worse than it is. The 6th Gen Extreme (that requires Lion to set up on OS X) was released in 2013 and the last Mac laptop that can't run that was released in early 2006 which is 7 years, since it came out in June 2013.
If it's any AE earlier than the 6th gen then the software will run on any Mac released in the last 13 years (going back to the PowerPC G4 era).
If you're going to tell tall tales, you might not want to tell them about things that (you personally have admitted) you know nothing about.
But what am I saying? I'm interrupting an anti-Apple circle jerk. My apologies, carry on.
Add to that the complications by DRM, Apple Connect, and the new service flat out not working on some music devices (competitors to Apple, now that they own Beats), and you have a recipe for yet another troubled streaming site.
So, what? Android devices and Windows are not competitors to Apple?
Both ecosystems have been explicitly mentioned as supported by Apple during the launch announcement, so I'm curious what "competitors" are going to be "flat out not working"
We'll ignore the equally false DRM (there isn't any per se - it's a streaming service with a download feature for offline listening that links to the DRM-free store if you want to buy the songs outright.
Why would it be a GPL violation? LibreOffice isn't distributed under the GPL.
Not to mention the fact that the iOS app store has been compatible with the GPL (V2 and earlier) for some time now, after complaints about this very issue - Apple changed the terms in response some time ago.
Plus, the App Store on OS X is not like the iOS one - it downloads a bundle that you can run that can contain anything you like, including the full source code if you really want.