Only shoehornjob would be arrogant enough to call his cock "shoehorn? more like boot horn!"
At least, that's what some website said that he said, so it must be true. No need to check sources or anything, I'll just attribute it to him being an arrogant douche.
DISCLAIMER: This post might contain sarcasm. YMMV.
(Note, Apple's own description is "dining facility" and "cafeteria with meeting rooms").
You've listed one of the very important parts to producing a successful product and/or service, yes. Well done.
Putting Apple's success *entirely* on "marketing and blind loyalty" is one of the biggest reasons Apple does so well while others flounder. It's very easy to dismiss their success out of hand without understanding what it is they do so well.
If it really is "so easy" and that "any company could do what they do" (as the original AC post claimed) then... why aren't they? The goal of a company is to make money. If what Apple is doing is so easy then surely there should be lots of companies rolling in cash?
I'm honestly curious. If it's all 100% marketing, why isn't anyone else doing it? Surely other companies can hire marketing people too, right?
Very much like that, actually. Have you had to use them? They're nowhere near as nice or well behaved as native apps...
Oh, I agree. Native is the way to go, but it's hardly the first example of a weakly-ported app, but they're usually poor in the Win > other platform direction.
My point was that it's still cross platform, if not the most shining example.
.qt,.mov Quicktime movies. It's a codec, your post is like saying "WMV isn't a codec, Windows Media Player can play any codec you have a plugin for." The software and the codec have a similar name. Back when Apple was viciously proprietary about the spread of their QT codec, it would only play in the stupid Quicktime Malware plugins.
You're still wrong, but good attempt at trying to correct me..mov is a container format that can contain (duh!) any number of different codecs and streams.
Again, "back when Apple was viciously proprietary" the codec of choice inside Quicktime containers (.mov) was probably Sorenson.
Just to be clear: the.mov format is a container. It can contain many different codecs (and has always done, and continues to do).
If I ask you what codec your file uses and you tell me it's a.mov file then I do not have enough information to be sure about what codec I need to install to play it back.
Once the format is the only one used, and is burned into all hardware, good luck migrating off of that anytime soon. So they could make a lot of money by increasing licensing fees a couple of orders of magnitude, and that's exactly what they will do if they think they can make more money that way.
...and then all future devices will drop it for an alternative. With the speed that hardware turns over presently it would be foolish to assume you had total control and that your users had nowhere to go.
That's the whole point. You want to make it affordable and attractive so that you maintain your revenue stream. Assuming you're in a position of dominance you don't try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Then you have a dead goose and no more eggs in the future.
How is it bait and switch if the choices are very clear up front?
It's no different to the current model offered by a lot of software, especially in the mobile space, where a paid-for ad-free app exists in parallel with its almost-identical free version that only differs by showing ads. The only difference I see is that it applies to the whole OS instead of just a single app.
It's also similar to the TV model - watch the show for free over the air with ads in the middle or wait and buy the DVD.
As a marketing tactic it's pretty run-of-the-mill.
The purpose of the royalties are to provide a continuing and stable revenue stream to those who have put resources into developing it and thus the goal is to ensure wide adoption of the standard so that it gains traction and ubiquity. Punitive fees that "might increase in the future! oooh scary!" runs counter to that goal. If people stop using the format because it is expensive and difficult to implement then the revenue stops flowing in.
Just because it is a licenced standard with royalties does not automatically make it part of an evil scheme to make everyone pay exorbitant fees - it's merely a business model that depends on wide use of the standard to recoup the development costs. It doesn't mean that they're going to wait until you are comfortable in your property and then jack up the rent with an evil laugh - you'd simply move out and then their regular income stream is gone.
Maybe you want the Quicktime Player to die, and on Windows maybe it's not needed - the fact that it is necessary for iTunes is merely because it's cross platform and Quicktime is a core component of OS X.
I'm not sure what Apple's goals with Qucktime Player are - version X is a step backwards from version 7 on OS X, and I keep both installed concurrently and prefer to use v7 where possible.
To bring it back to the topic - Quicktime Player can play any codec you have a plugin for, so that would be h.264, webM, wmv, ogg vorbis, mp3, aac etc; and almost any container format (some better than others).
So what you're advocating is... peace of mind/security through obscurity?
Isn't this the stick that slashdot beats Apple with now that malware is becoming more prevalent on OS X; that it's purely a function of marketshare (a position I do not agree with, although marketshare is clearly part of it)? If Android is the biggest mobile OS then surely it will see regular malware stories, as we've been led to believe is the reason Windows malware is overwhelmingly the most common, and so on?
What do you suggest? They simply not report the story? How does that make Android safer or keep the users more informed?
People on slashdot are *very* quick to jump to the "astroturfing!!!! zomg!" bandwagon when any perceived criticism of their platform/OS/company/etc of choice is raised.
Gridlinked is a still a bargain at that price though, but I see your point. The bulk costs that went into it (like editing, proofreading, etc) are sunk already. I think we're meant to believe that the extra cost is down to reformatting it for eBook release.
The Polity universe is very good (home of his earlier stuff, including the excellent Agent Cormac series and the Spatterjay series). I have just finished "The Departure" from his new series (Owner series) and it is excellent.
If you're looking for a "quick" blast into the series, then the Spatteryjay series (set in the Polity universe) is a collection of three novels (The Skinner, The Voyage of Sable Keech, Orbus) rather than the lengthier Agent Cormac run, which stands at 5 (possibly 6 now with prequels?), beginning with Gridlinked in publishing order (but not chronological).
Apple wants to get other people's work for free but does not want them to be able to use their own devices for whichever purposes they want to. The guy which did their famous '1984' superbowl commercial is either turning in his grave now or laughing himself to pieces.
The first paragraph is just misinformed ranting, but it's the quoted paragraph that really demonstrates your misunderstanding.
Apple does not want to "get something for free" and simultaneously block other people from using their own patents. Apple HAS NO CHOICE but to use the 3G patent in question - it's IN THE STANDARD (in exchange for being under FRAND terms). This means Motorola is obligated to licence it to Apple fairly.
On the other hand, Apple has no patents in the standard and is thus under no obligation to offer any of its patents in return. They could pay in cash if they really wanted to (although most patent licensing deals are not done this way).
Apple does not have to give up anything of theirs that they don't want to - all they need to do is pay a fair, reasonable and non-descriminatory amount for that 3G patent (which may or may not include cross licensing some of their patents).
Motorola on the other hand, simply MUST licence that patent under FRAND terms or it demonstrates extreme untrustworthiness and future bad precedent.
Regardless of what you think of Apple (it's clear your mind is made up on that, but let's set that aside), what do you think will happen to Motorola the next time a standard is put together when they submit patents for inclusion? What will happen to Google, as Moto Mobile's new owner? Not sure, as an international standards body responsible for things like 3G, Wifi, etc) I want a manufacturer in my FRAND pool who has a proven track record of going against their contractual obligations to abuse competitors, which is what Motorola Mobility, and by extension, Google has now become.
Hate Apple with the frothing hatred that only a truly detached-from-th-world neckbeard ever could, but consider what it means for your "side" (assuming you want to break it down in such a childish manner) and the playing field as a whole.
I think Apple's slide-to-unlock lawsuits and lumping the Galaxy Tab in with the Nexus during the Samsung lawsuit were silly (and without real merit) but this is not the way to retaliate on Android's part.
Your point... I do not think it means what you think it means.
How can the developers get "shafted" by deciding specifically to release code under the BSD licence by choice, only for that code to later be used exactly as the licence intended?
If they wanted to make money off the code they would ave released it under a different licence. If they wanted to do something more like the GPL then they would have released it under a different licence.
My point is that they were in no way "shafted" because Apple decided to use Darwin as the core of their OS.
I also did not say that OS X was open, I said that their modifications to the original BSD code (in the form of the Darwin OS) are open and available. The whole of OS X is not under the BSD licence but the core Unix parts are - ie, the core pieces that were originally released as BSD back in the day. What? You think the original devs were "shafted" because they don't have access to the entire source of OS X?
Apple can't distribute any code that uses the GPL through the Appstore, it doesn't matter whether they want to or not, the Appstore is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL. They could do so with their OS, but there's no particular reason why a commercial vendor needs to rely upon a 3rd party to provide things that are important for the OS.
This is false. You *can* distribute GPL apps on the App Store, and there are many on there.
Here's a list of apps on there right now, some of these are GPL, some use other licences. The Wordpress app, for example, is GPL and on the store as we speak.
They're hostile to the GPLv3 because it is hostile to them. They are non-hostile to open source in a general sense, however, looking at the projects they are involved with. They realise that it's a win-win for both them and the OSS community at large in many circumstances.
They also changed their App Store terms to become more friendly to GPLv2 and earlier (and there are numerous examples of GPL software on there) in response to initial critique that the terms of the original agreements made it incompatible.
Don't mistake their hostility towards GPLv3 (which is a pretty hostile itself) as a hate for OSS as a whole.
The arguments are what matter, not the person presenting them. Dismissing something out of hand because of the person saying it is by definition, an ad hominem, regardless of their previous history.
Their prior history may provide a clue that causes you to question any new material they place in front of you, but to say you can "safely ignore anything ever written by X" because "they have clearly demonstrated Y" previously is absolutely an ad hominem.
Goodness me, your post is almost totally devoid of facts.
BSD is still open source, the original developers still have full access to it.
Apple's modifications are also open and available, also to those developers.
The original developers received no compensation because they chose to release the code under a very permissive licence. They did this on purpose and required no compensation. You're trying to make it look like Apple "stole" something, which is a totally nonsensical position.
The BSD licence was specifically created for this purpose; it's deliberately very permissive. However, taking that code and forking it does *nothing* to "close off the code from the original developers".
Actually, that is *exactly* what we do right now - with "Fiji" water being the biggest example - a spring with lots and lots of lovely water coming out of it that is bottled up and shipped to the US while the local population faces water shortages, all because people have been fooled into thinking that the Fiji water is somehow better than tap water.
Yes, you use an iTunes Gift Card - you can buy them at numerous stores and they are very quick and easy to redeem. While it may look like you need a CC to open an Apple ID, you do not - you can set one up without a credit card ever touching the account and only ever charge it up with gift cards.
No need to *ever* put your credit card info into a device that is in your kid's control.
So why link his credit card in the first place then?
If you trick a parent into extending their credit liability to a child, and then convince the child to transfer ownership of, say, the value of the family house, clearly this is not going to be legal.
Oh come on? Really? "Trick a parent into extending their credit"? At the time of the issue in question there was a convenience system in place that enabled you to make purchases after entering your details once on *a device that is yours*. The Apple ID in question and your payment information belong to you - if you hand off the device to your kid in this window then that's your problem.
Do you really think it was a Machiavellian scheme by Apple to trick parents into spending money on the App Store? Seriously? It was a security lapse that favoured convenience over security (which should never be the case for something involving your credit card) that they corrected, nothing more. It certainly wasn't a "bait" tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
So does Apple, to this day.
Blame Cnet for the embellishment. Maybe they thought the headline "Apple builds cafeteria" wouldn't draw so many page hits? Couldn't possibly be that!
Only shoehornjob would be arrogant enough to call his cock "shoehorn? more like boot horn!"
At least, that's what some website said that he said, so it must be true. No need to check sources or anything, I'll just attribute it to him being an arrogant douche.
DISCLAIMER: This post might contain sarcasm. YMMV.
(Note, Apple's own description is "dining facility" and "cafeteria with meeting rooms").
You've listed one of the very important parts to producing a successful product and/or service, yes. Well done.
Putting Apple's success *entirely* on "marketing and blind loyalty" is one of the biggest reasons Apple does so well while others flounder. It's very easy to dismiss their success out of hand without understanding what it is they do so well.
If it really is "so easy" and that "any company could do what they do" (as the original AC post claimed) then... why aren't they? The goal of a company is to make money. If what Apple is doing is so easy then surely there should be lots of companies rolling in cash?
I'm honestly curious. If it's all 100% marketing, why isn't anyone else doing it? Surely other companies can hire marketing people too, right?
Very much like that, actually. Have you had to use them? They're nowhere near as nice or well behaved as native apps...
Oh, I agree. Native is the way to go, but it's hardly the first example of a weakly-ported app, but they're usually poor in the Win > other platform direction.
My point was that it's still cross platform, if not the most shining example.
Quicktime isn't a codec, really.
.qt, .mov
Quicktime movies.
It's a codec, your post is like saying "WMV isn't a codec, Windows Media Player can play any codec you have a plugin for." The software and the codec have a similar name. Back when Apple was viciously proprietary about the spread of their QT codec, it would only play in the stupid Quicktime Malware plugins.
You're still wrong, but good attempt at trying to correct me. .mov is a container format that can contain (duh!) any number of different codecs and streams.
Again, "back when Apple was viciously proprietary" the codec of choice inside Quicktime containers (.mov) was probably Sorenson.
Just to be clear: the .mov format is a container. It can contain many different codecs (and has always done, and continues to do).
If I ask you what codec your file uses and you tell me it's a .mov file then I do not have enough information to be sure about what codec I need to install to play it back.
Sort of like apps that require the X window system on OS X, or Wine apps on OS X or Linux, eh?
Once the format is the only one used, and is burned into all hardware, good luck migrating off of that anytime soon. So they could make a lot of money by increasing licensing fees a couple of orders of magnitude, and that's exactly what they will do if they think they can make more money that way.
...and then all future devices will drop it for an alternative. With the speed that hardware turns over presently it would be foolish to assume you had total control and that your users had nowhere to go.
That's the whole point. You want to make it affordable and attractive so that you maintain your revenue stream. Assuming you're in a position of dominance you don't try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Then you have a dead goose and no more eggs in the future.
And this is different from the current mobile app model/ad-supported shareware model how?
How is it bait and switch if the choices are very clear up front?
It's no different to the current model offered by a lot of software, especially in the mobile space, where a paid-for ad-free app exists in parallel with its almost-identical free version that only differs by showing ads. The only difference I see is that it applies to the whole OS instead of just a single app.
It's also similar to the TV model - watch the show for free over the air with ads in the middle or wait and buy the DVD.
As a marketing tactic it's pretty run-of-the-mill.
That smacks a little of FUD.
The purpose of the royalties are to provide a continuing and stable revenue stream to those who have put resources into developing it and thus the goal is to ensure wide adoption of the standard so that it gains traction and ubiquity. Punitive fees that "might increase in the future! oooh scary!" runs counter to that goal. If people stop using the format because it is expensive and difficult to implement then the revenue stops flowing in.
Just because it is a licenced standard with royalties does not automatically make it part of an evil scheme to make everyone pay exorbitant fees - it's merely a business model that depends on wide use of the standard to recoup the development costs. It doesn't mean that they're going to wait until you are comfortable in your property and then jack up the rent with an evil laugh - you'd simply move out and then their regular income stream is gone.
Quicktime isn't a codec, really.
Maybe you want the Quicktime Player to die, and on Windows maybe it's not needed - the fact that it is necessary for iTunes is merely because it's cross platform and Quicktime is a core component of OS X.
I'm not sure what Apple's goals with Qucktime Player are - version X is a step backwards from version 7 on OS X, and I keep both installed concurrently and prefer to use v7 where possible.
To bring it back to the topic - Quicktime Player can play any codec you have a plugin for, so that would be h.264, webM, wmv, ogg vorbis, mp3, aac etc; and almost any container format (some better than others).
So what you're advocating is... peace of mind/security through obscurity?
Isn't this the stick that slashdot beats Apple with now that malware is becoming more prevalent on OS X; that it's purely a function of marketshare (a position I do not agree with, although marketshare is clearly part of it)? If Android is the biggest mobile OS then surely it will see regular malware stories, as we've been led to believe is the reason Windows malware is overwhelmingly the most common, and so on?
What do you suggest? They simply not report the story? How does that make Android safer or keep the users more informed?
People on slashdot are *very* quick to jump to the "astroturfing!!!! zomg!" bandwagon when any perceived criticism of their platform/OS/company/etc of choice is raised.
Gridlinked is a still a bargain at that price though, but I see your point. The bulk costs that went into it (like editing, proofreading, etc) are sunk already. I think we're meant to believe that the extra cost is down to reformatting it for eBook release.
I suggest anything by Neal Asher.
The Polity universe is very good (home of his earlier stuff, including the excellent Agent Cormac series and the Spatterjay series). I have just finished "The Departure" from his new series (Owner series) and it is excellent.
If you're looking for a "quick" blast into the series, then the Spatteryjay series (set in the Polity universe) is a collection of three novels (The Skinner, The Voyage of Sable Keech, Orbus) rather than the lengthier Agent Cormac run, which stands at 5 (possibly 6 now with prequels?), beginning with Gridlinked in publishing order (but not chronological).
Apple wants to get other people's work for free but does not want them to be able to use their own devices for whichever purposes they want to. The guy which did their famous '1984' superbowl commercial is either turning in his grave now or laughing himself to pieces.
The first paragraph is just misinformed ranting, but it's the quoted paragraph that really demonstrates your misunderstanding.
Apple does not want to "get something for free" and simultaneously block other people from using their own patents. Apple HAS NO CHOICE but to use the 3G patent in question - it's IN THE STANDARD (in exchange for being under FRAND terms). This means Motorola is obligated to licence it to Apple fairly.
On the other hand, Apple has no patents in the standard and is thus under no obligation to offer any of its patents in return. They could pay in cash if they really wanted to (although most patent licensing deals are not done this way).
Apple does not have to give up anything of theirs that they don't want to - all they need to do is pay a fair, reasonable and non-descriminatory amount for that 3G patent (which may or may not include cross licensing some of their patents).
Motorola on the other hand, simply MUST licence that patent under FRAND terms or it demonstrates extreme untrustworthiness and future bad precedent.
Regardless of what you think of Apple (it's clear your mind is made up on that, but let's set that aside), what do you think will happen to Motorola the next time a standard is put together when they submit patents for inclusion? What will happen to Google, as Moto Mobile's new owner? Not sure, as an international standards body responsible for things like 3G, Wifi, etc) I want a manufacturer in my FRAND pool who has a proven track record of going against their contractual obligations to abuse competitors, which is what Motorola Mobility, and by extension, Google has now become.
Hate Apple with the frothing hatred that only a truly detached-from-th-world neckbeard ever could, but consider what it means for your "side" (assuming you want to break it down in such a childish manner) and the playing field as a whole.
I think Apple's slide-to-unlock lawsuits and lumping the Galaxy Tab in with the Nexus during the Samsung lawsuit were silly (and without real merit) but this is not the way to retaliate on Android's part.
I take it you used the classic "common sense says it must be true, so it is" reasoning there.
Have you actually looked at benchmarks?
Your point... I do not think it means what you think it means.
How can the developers get "shafted" by deciding specifically to release code under the BSD licence by choice, only for that code to later be used exactly as the licence intended?
If they wanted to make money off the code they would ave released it under a different licence. If they wanted to do something more like the GPL then they would have released it under a different licence.
My point is that they were in no way "shafted" because Apple decided to use Darwin as the core of their OS.
I also did not say that OS X was open, I said that their modifications to the original BSD code (in the form of the Darwin OS) are open and available. The whole of OS X is not under the BSD licence but the core Unix parts are - ie, the core pieces that were originally released as BSD back in the day. What? You think the original devs were "shafted" because they don't have access to the entire source of OS X?
Your hyperbole is amusing, but it doesn't advance your argument and just makes you look like a petulant child.
If you want to debate properly, I am here and willing but so far I am not seeing anything of substance.
Apple can't distribute any code that uses the GPL through the Appstore, it doesn't matter whether they want to or not, the Appstore is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL. They could do so with their OS, but there's no particular reason why a commercial vendor needs to rely upon a 3rd party to provide things that are important for the OS.
This is false. You *can* distribute GPL apps on the App Store, and there are many on there.
Here's a list of apps on there right now, some of these are GPL, some use other licences. The Wordpress app, for example, is GPL and on the store as we speak.
http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/
They're hostile to the GPLv3 because it is hostile to them. They are non-hostile to open source in a general sense, however, looking at the projects they are involved with. They realise that it's a win-win for both them and the OSS community at large in many circumstances.
They also changed their App Store terms to become more friendly to GPLv2 and earlier (and there are numerous examples of GPL software on there) in response to initial critique that the terms of the original agreements made it incompatible.
Don't mistake their hostility towards GPLv3 (which is a pretty hostile itself) as a hate for OSS as a whole.
Actually, it is.
The arguments are what matter, not the person presenting them. Dismissing something out of hand because of the person saying it is by definition, an ad hominem, regardless of their previous history.
Their prior history may provide a clue that causes you to question any new material they place in front of you, but to say you can "safely ignore anything ever written by X" because "they have clearly demonstrated Y" previously is absolutely an ad hominem.
Goodness me, your post is almost totally devoid of facts.
BSD is still open source, the original developers still have full access to it.
Apple's modifications are also open and available, also to those developers.
The original developers received no compensation because they chose to release the code under a very permissive licence. They did this on purpose and required no compensation. You're trying to make it look like Apple "stole" something, which is a totally nonsensical position.
The BSD licence was specifically created for this purpose; it's deliberately very permissive. However, taking that code and forking it does *nothing* to "close off the code from the original developers".
Actually, that is *exactly* what we do right now - with "Fiji" water being the biggest example - a spring with lots and lots of lovely water coming out of it that is bottled up and shipped to the US while the local population faces water shortages, all because people have been fooled into thinking that the Fiji water is somehow better than tap water.
Yes, you use an iTunes Gift Card - you can buy them at numerous stores and they are very quick and easy to redeem. While it may look like you need a CC to open an Apple ID, you do not - you can set one up without a credit card ever touching the account and only ever charge it up with gift cards.
No need to *ever* put your credit card info into a device that is in your kid's control.
So why link his credit card in the first place then?
If you trick a parent into extending their credit liability to a child, and then convince the child to transfer ownership of, say, the value of the family house, clearly this is not going to be legal.
Oh come on? Really? "Trick a parent into extending their credit"? At the time of the issue in question there was a convenience system in place that enabled you to make purchases after entering your details once on *a device that is yours*. The Apple ID in question and your payment information belong to you - if you hand off the device to your kid in this window then that's your problem.
Do you really think it was a Machiavellian scheme by Apple to trick parents into spending money on the App Store? Seriously? It was a security lapse that favoured convenience over security (which should never be the case for something involving your credit card) that they corrected, nothing more. It certainly wasn't a "bait" tactic.