I just went back over almost a month of my posts, and I've not replied to you once before. So, either you're holding a very big ball of hate and an axe-grindingly-long grudge for something I posted a long time ago and I've forgotten all about, or you're remembering a reply I made to one of your troll posts made while posting as AC (I'm going to assume you do - you seem like the type with this sort of reply).
If it's the reverse and you're replying to *me* and yet are claiming I'm following *you* around because I happen to be posting on slashdot... Well, in that case cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
Nope, it's not that - I have slashdot "xxx has replied to a comment/thread" info emails going back a couple of years and you've replied to me many times, but before today the last time was March 29th, 2009. (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2053462&cid=35648290) I vaguely remember that discussion now - you were claiming fly ash was not a substantial pollutant or something. That was ages ago. If you're holding a grudge since then, then Jesus you need to get laid or something. I had no hard feelings.
If it's more recent, then you must be thinking of a reply I made to one of your troll accounts, assuming you are remembering something you posted as a reply to me, since I don't consider a reply to you after 9+ months as "following you around". Try not to get your accounts mixed up - it will lead to fewer foot in mouth episodes like this.
The negative feature of being free to choose to install whatever software I choose on a device that I own? Yes, with freedom comes risk, but I would rather be free to make a mistake than not.
Og absolutely - I have no issue with that position, my point was that this freedom is touted as a major benefit of Android (it is), but then as soon as any negative aspect of it is brought up - like this malware situation - suddenly the argument is "oh, well no one uses the non-official marketplace stores" - you can't have your cake and eat it, either people use them to great effect, or they're hardly a major benefit of the platform. If it's only a niche benefit in use by a tiny minority of users, then why promote it so heavily?
Don't read this wrong - I think it's a great feature (and something that would be good to have on iOS as an optional thing with a warning that says "beyond here be dragons" or something), but the way you argued the point in your original post it downplayed it to the point of uselessness (ie, if no one uses it and it's a security risk, why is it there?)
There are Android phones on all the carriers here too, along with iPhones - the ones that are as good as iPhones (and don;t get me wrong, there are some excellent Android handsets) cost about the same, but if you want to tout the really horrible Android handsets that cost a lot less because they're just shoddy and awful (and I've seen a fair few of them - my housemate owns one and curses it daily), then go right ahead. I personally think those really shitty Android handsets do more to promote the iPhone than any amount of Apple marketing, which is a serious shame since it need not be perceived as bad when it's the fault of crappy hardware.
I don't hate Android. Far from it - I think it's great. I personally use an iPhone, but that should be beside the point. I'm merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in arguments about Android on slashdot.
Following you around? My goodness, someone has a high opinion of themselves!
Don't tell me I called you on some bullshit in another thread?
Maybe you should stop trolling slashdot. I'm here a lot and I read most of the articles and threads; don't mistake that for a personal crusade against you.
What would actually be useful is to know the number of malware instances that have made it on to app stores that people actually use (eg the official one), how many people installed them, and how long it was before the app was removed. But obviously this number would be much lower, and so generate far fewer page hits.
So, wait... the supposed major benefit of Android over iOS, that you can go outside the main app store, is something that no one actually uses?
Or is this just true when its negative features are brought into the spotlight?
Based on some of the blatantly false information being touted as facts on here by people claiming to know better, I'd say that it's a fair bet most of the people trashing the iPad have never actually been in the same room as one, let alone used one.
Still, in this case it's clearly not a suitable product for the OP since it does not match the criteria.
Shady deals with the RIAA! My goodness, your bias is showing. We'll ignore that though.
Your suggestion that they're interested in getting a cut of the app revenue is simply not supported by the numbers - the app store and the music store are just about break even ventures for Apple. They're not run at a loss, but the profit is a drop in the ocean compared to the profits made on the hardware that the stores exist to serve.
Apple makes the *vast* bulk of its money on hardware sales. The only reason the stores exist is to sell iOS devices - they have no interest in any Machiavellian schemes to squeeze every last penny out of app store revenues if only it wouldn't hurt their PR - it's simply not on the agenda as a serious source of income for them. They worked out what it would cost to run the store at approximately break even and set the percentages and store policies up to fit that.
It is "not rational" to make business decisions that don't further your bottom line, and setting a minimum price level on the app store would merely shift profits around in the noise of the data. They're not "looking to make a buck at any cost" from the app store because it simply does not generate anything like a statistically significant amount of profit for them in the first place.
There was certainly no decision taken where some bean counter said "hmm, I'm not sure I like this 'free' word here... I think apps should have a minimum cost to maximise profit" while a PR person replied with "no, we need to take the hit and allow free apps to ensure good PR".
If anything, the lack of free apps on the store could limit the sales if iOS devices and curtail their profits that way. All of this has been thrashed out many times before, and Apple certainly knows (and has told the public through its financial statements) where it makes its money and how to keep it flowing in.
Man, I just have to go back to "Shady deals with the RIAA"... it's just hilarious.
Nothing stopping you running an account for app purchases using nothing but gift cards. You don't even need a credit card to open the account to start with.
They're called apps because that's what they've always been called on OS X, since the application bundle has the suffix.app
It was natural to carry that over to the iPhone when they launched the store. It wasn't a word "invented" by marketing, it was a word already in common use around the Mac. No need to change it by adding an i in the front or trying to force a new name (Apple are good at marketing, after all!)
Why? Just because the TFA says it is what they should do?
Your post reminds me of the Apple rumours that crop up from 'analysts' looking for page hits that are then treated as press releases from Apple themselves, and subsequently used to demonise Apple in the same post. It happens on/. all the time.
Ah, you must have been the guy on here before the release of the first iPad claiming it would be "over $1000", since you don't really have any other 'valid' point to make about a product that none of us know anything about, just that it will 'definitely' be overpriced.
It will definitely be on many, many PCs soon - it's an Intel tech and they've indicated it will be released on all motherboards from them in early 2012.
You missed my point entirely - the sheer salves volume just does not bear out that assumption, unless a sizeable population of the world comprises hipsters, and it clearly doesn't. I'm sure there are some, just as there are with any brand that isn't in a race for the bottom, but to claim it makes up the bulk of Apple's sales because you personally don't think the Nano is god value compared to a Sansa clip is probably one of the major reasons why Apple's marketshare is so good - people make assumptions about what it is Apple does to generate sales and are usually wide of the mark.
Yes, exactly - I understand why the GPLv3 exists, I was merely using it as another example of a software licence and the various conditions it creates, like the licence that covers commercial distribution of OS X.
And I couldn't find my socks this morning. They were probably hidden by Apple to make me buy an iHeater. They withdrew the product when I found my new socks.
I hate flash as much as the next guy, but HTML5 has worse performance for all but the simplest of animations where it is, at best, comparable. And "refusing to include" is the same as "banning". They gave end users no way at all from installing the flash software on their own devices - if that isn't a ban then what is?
And yes they do try and stop OS X from being installed on other devices. The Hackintosh crowd is currently small enough to escape their attention but how many independent hardware manufacturers are there that ship PCs running OS X and that haven't been sued out of existence by Apple?
Ban: "never"
Refusing to include: "performance sucks, so we're not shipping it - perhaps if it were to improve, it might be included..."
(Ban suggests an immovable position).
Your second point is just silly - the licensing on OS X is what prevents independent hardware manufacturers from selling OS X boxes, but that is no different from, say, the GPLv3 preventing people like Tivo from selling boxes with "Tivi-ised" GPLv3 software.
What the home user does is not really relevant here - and Apple doesn't really care what you do - witness the lengths they *don't* go to regarding encryption/drm/serials/online activation etc - it's just not there because they do not need it to stop commercial sales of OS X (that break the licence terms), and leaving all that crap out is better for the homebrew users who don;t have to crack anything.
Their choice of licence hardly suggests Apple are "trying to make it impossible" as the GP claimed, merely that commercially it was not possible. It doesn't impede the home user at all, which is by design.
Well, you don't sound old enough to be making any decisions involving purchases over a dollar or two for candy, so I'm not sure they'll miss you either way.
Wow, you got +4 insightful for those "factually challenged" statements. Slashdot really has gone to the dogs.
Nice troll if that's what you were going for though. Barely even one truthful statement in any of that, but presented as if you'd actually looked it up and checked your statements. Bravo.
Slashdot Mirror
I just went back over almost a month of my posts, and I've not replied to you once before. So, either you're holding a very big ball of hate and an axe-grindingly-long grudge for something I posted a long time ago and I've forgotten all about, or you're remembering a reply I made to one of your troll posts made while posting as AC (I'm going to assume you do - you seem like the type with this sort of reply).
If it's the reverse and you're replying to *me* and yet are claiming I'm following *you* around because I happen to be posting on slashdot... Well, in that case cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
Nope, it's not that - I have slashdot "xxx has replied to a comment/thread" info emails going back a couple of years and you've replied to me many times, but before today the last time was March 29th, 2009. (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2053462&cid=35648290) I vaguely remember that discussion now - you were claiming fly ash was not a substantial pollutant or something. That was ages ago. If you're holding a grudge since then, then Jesus you need to get laid or something. I had no hard feelings.
If it's more recent, then you must be thinking of a reply I made to one of your troll accounts, assuming you are remembering something you posted as a reply to me, since I don't consider a reply to you after 9+ months as "following you around". Try not to get your accounts mixed up - it will lead to fewer foot in mouth episodes like this.
The negative feature of being free to choose to install whatever software I choose on a device that I own? Yes, with freedom comes risk, but I would rather be free to make a mistake than not.
Og absolutely - I have no issue with that position, my point was that this freedom is touted as a major benefit of Android (it is), but then as soon as any negative aspect of it is brought up - like this malware situation - suddenly the argument is "oh, well no one uses the non-official marketplace stores" - you can't have your cake and eat it, either people use them to great effect, or they're hardly a major benefit of the platform. If it's only a niche benefit in use by a tiny minority of users, then why promote it so heavily?
Don't read this wrong - I think it's a great feature (and something that would be good to have on iOS as an optional thing with a warning that says "beyond here be dragons" or something), but the way you argued the point in your original post it downplayed it to the point of uselessness (ie, if no one uses it and it's a security risk, why is it there?)
What if I don't want to pay for shit?
There are Android phones on all the carriers here too, along with iPhones - the ones that are as good as iPhones (and don;t get me wrong, there are some excellent Android handsets) cost about the same, but if you want to tout the really horrible Android handsets that cost a lot less because they're just shoddy and awful (and I've seen a fair few of them - my housemate owns one and curses it daily), then go right ahead. I personally think those really shitty Android handsets do more to promote the iPhone than any amount of Apple marketing, which is a serious shame since it need not be perceived as bad when it's the fault of crappy hardware.
I don't hate Android. Far from it - I think it's great. I personally use an iPhone, but that should be beside the point. I'm merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in arguments about Android on slashdot.
Following you around? My goodness, someone has a high opinion of themselves!
Don't tell me I called you on some bullshit in another thread?
Maybe you should stop trolling slashdot. I'm here a lot and I read most of the articles and threads; don't mistake that for a personal crusade against you.
What would actually be useful is to know the number of malware instances that have made it on to app stores that people actually use (eg the official one), how many people installed them, and how long it was before the app was removed. But obviously this number would be much lower, and so generate far fewer page hits.
So, wait... the supposed major benefit of Android over iOS, that you can go outside the main app store, is something that no one actually uses?
Or is this just true when its negative features are brought into the spotlight?
The usual bullshit... someone likes a product I hate so therefore their opinion is clearly some marketing shill.
Does this sort of tired old trolling not get you down?
DISCLAIMER: I do not use OWA.
Stop making apps for the sake of making an app. If the solution doesn't require any specific equipment on the device, just write make it a website.
A wwebsite as on the internet?
Is that you, Paul?
I can see why you didn't log in.
Can't tell if trolling or genuinely stupid.
Well played sir.
Based on some of the blatantly false information being touted as facts on here by people claiming to know better, I'd say that it's a fair bet most of the people trashing the iPad have never actually been in the same room as one, let alone used one.
Still, in this case it's clearly not a suitable product for the OP since it does not match the criteria.
Shady deals with the RIAA! My goodness, your bias is showing. We'll ignore that though.
Your suggestion that they're interested in getting a cut of the app revenue is simply not supported by the numbers - the app store and the music store are just about break even ventures for Apple. They're not run at a loss, but the profit is a drop in the ocean compared to the profits made on the hardware that the stores exist to serve.
Apple makes the *vast* bulk of its money on hardware sales. The only reason the stores exist is to sell iOS devices - they have no interest in any Machiavellian schemes to squeeze every last penny out of app store revenues if only it wouldn't hurt their PR - it's simply not on the agenda as a serious source of income for them. They worked out what it would cost to run the store at approximately break even and set the percentages and store policies up to fit that.
It is "not rational" to make business decisions that don't further your bottom line, and setting a minimum price level on the app store would merely shift profits around in the noise of the data. They're not "looking to make a buck at any cost" from the app store because it simply does not generate anything like a statistically significant amount of profit for them in the first place.
There was certainly no decision taken where some bean counter said "hmm, I'm not sure I like this 'free' word here... I think apps should have a minimum cost to maximise profit" while a PR person replied with "no, we need to take the hit and allow free apps to ensure good PR".
If anything, the lack of free apps on the store could limit the sales if iOS devices and curtail their profits that way. All of this has been thrashed out many times before, and Apple certainly knows (and has told the public through its financial statements) where it makes its money and how to keep it flowing in.
Man, I just have to go back to "Shady deals with the RIAA"... it's just hilarious.
Then... don't.
Nothing stopping you running an account for app purchases using nothing but gift cards. You don't even need a credit card to open the account to start with.
They're called apps because that's what they've always been called on OS X, since the application bundle has the suffix .app
It was natural to carry that over to the iPhone when they launched the store. It wasn't a word "invented" by marketing, it was a word already in common use around the Mac. No need to change it by adding an i in the front or trying to force a new name (Apple are good at marketing, after all!)
I can, of course, pay my rent with the warm fuzzy feeling of goodwill from releasing free software. Oh wait.
My mom accepts goodwill in lieu of rent for living in her basement... oh now I see why you think software costs nothing to make.
Lightbulb!
Why? Just because the TFA says it is what they should do?
Your post reminds me of the Apple rumours that crop up from 'analysts' looking for page hits that are then treated as press releases from Apple themselves, and subsequently used to demonise Apple in the same post. It happens on /. all the time.
Paul, I think it's time to lay off the 'roids.
Your wife's face is also not somewhere you put your fist. Lay off that too.
Ah, you must have been the guy on here before the release of the first iPad claiming it would be "over $1000", since you don't really have any other 'valid' point to make about a product that none of us know anything about, just that it will 'definitely' be overpriced.
Well, it's Intel's tech, so I guess that makes it single vendor.
It will definitely be on many, many PCs soon - it's an Intel tech and they've indicated it will be released on all motherboards from them in early 2012.
You missed my point entirely - the sheer salves volume just does not bear out that assumption, unless a sizeable population of the world comprises hipsters, and it clearly doesn't. I'm sure there are some, just as there are with any brand that isn't in a race for the bottom, but to claim it makes up the bulk of Apple's sales because you personally don't think the Nano is god value compared to a Sansa clip is probably one of the major reasons why Apple's marketshare is so good - people make assumptions about what it is Apple does to generate sales and are usually wide of the mark.
Yes, exactly - I understand why the GPLv3 exists, I was merely using it as another example of a software licence and the various conditions it creates, like the licence that covers commercial distribution of OS X.
And I couldn't find my socks this morning. They were probably hidden by Apple to make me buy an iHeater. They withdrew the product when I found my new socks.
This is all true!
I hate flash as much as the next guy, but HTML5 has worse performance for all but the simplest of animations where it is, at best, comparable. And "refusing to include" is the same as "banning". They gave end users no way at all from installing the flash software on their own devices - if that isn't a ban then what is?
And yes they do try and stop OS X from being installed on other devices. The Hackintosh crowd is currently small enough to escape their attention but how many independent hardware manufacturers are there that ship PCs running OS X and that haven't been sued out of existence by Apple?
Ban: "never"
Refusing to include: "performance sucks, so we're not shipping it - perhaps if it were to improve, it might be included..."
(Ban suggests an immovable position).
Your second point is just silly - the licensing on OS X is what prevents independent hardware manufacturers from selling OS X boxes, but that is no different from, say, the GPLv3 preventing people like Tivo from selling boxes with "Tivi-ised" GPLv3 software.
What the home user does is not really relevant here - and Apple doesn't really care what you do - witness the lengths they *don't* go to regarding encryption/drm/serials/online activation etc - it's just not there because they do not need it to stop commercial sales of OS X (that break the licence terms), and leaving all that crap out is better for the homebrew users who don;t have to crack anything.
Their choice of licence hardly suggests Apple are "trying to make it impossible" as the GP claimed, merely that commercially it was not possible. It doesn't impede the home user at all, which is by design.
Having sex with girls? ;)
Well, you don't sound old enough to be making any decisions involving purchases over a dollar or two for candy, so I'm not sure they'll miss you either way.
Wow, you got +4 insightful for those "factually challenged" statements. Slashdot really has gone to the dogs.
Nice troll if that's what you were going for though. Barely even one truthful statement in any of that, but presented as if you'd actually looked it up and checked your statements. Bravo.