And it lacks the noise reduction of Siri on the 4S, so it won't be nearly so good at recognising what you say in everyday environments. Like in the car for example.
You've obviously not seen Apple's financial results. Here's a quick visualisation. The last point for the iPhone line is the 4S. http://frncs.co/apple/
You might think it's a half-arsed gimmick. But something sold those iPhone 4Ss at an unprecedented rate, way beyond all analyst predictions. And Siri was the number 1 new feature promoted.
There's a difference between running and running as well as on the 4S. The demo of noise reduction is impressive. http://www.audience.com/demos/transmit-noise-en.php It's easy to see why with that noise reduction, Siri would be much more accurate than without it, in real scenarios.
Apple obviously wants Siri to be judged on it's best performance. They have a reputation for quality to maintain.
Why guess when details of Audience's earSmart technology is easily available in the web. It's a custom DSP (which of course will contain software). It's not software that "any sufficiently-powerful DSP".
So until something that is already demonstrably possible, clearly worthwhile, and very well understood is spotted in the wild, it's safe to assume they don't exist?
You're in the realm of big foot, the yeti and the loch ness monster there. Sure, they're theoretically possible. But you'd expect someone to have found evidence for them by now.
Malware does some harm, or at the very least spies on people which requires sending information over the network. Either of these things would have been spotted by now.
They've certainly had no problem spotting malware on Android!
Lets take Shakespeare as an example. He predated copyright laws. He wrote his works as a work for hire. He was paid a lump sum, and then the theatre company owned the play, and Shakespeare would get no royalties. The theatre company may in turn have sold the play to a printers for a lump sum. However that would be a dangerous thing to do, as once published, the theatre company and the printers had no further control over it. Other printers could print it, other theatre companies could perform it.
People who wanted to copy the play, for publication or performance could not get a copy of the script. The scripts were never given in full to the actors. They only got their own lines and cue-lines.
And the ability to record a performance hadn't been invented then. No tape recorders, and not even any shorthand. Someone could try and write down what was said, but with a quill, ink-pot and parchment he'd be spotted pretty easily. And could never have kept up anyway.
Nevertheless people did try to copy. From memory. And so an early bootleg printed script of Hamlet had the most famous speech starting:
"To be. or not to be, I there's the point, To die, to sleep, is that all? I all. No, to sleep, to dream, I marry there is goes."
Few of Shakespeare's plays were published in his lifetime. Were it not for the 2 actors from Shakespeare's company taking it on themselves to assemble the first folio, some years after Shakespeare's death, we could have lost some of the greatest works written in the English Language.
As it is, at least one of his plays was lost. "Love's Labours Won".
I imagine if copyright existed back then, Shakespeare would have seen the value of publishing his own works in his own lifetime. Which would have made their survival less of a matter of good fortune.
Actually, the rejection by the pirates of the analogy of "theft", does pose the question of what other crime is closest to piracy.
The rapist wants pleasure (sex and power) for free. The victim has what the rapist wants. The rapist doesn't care about the victim's right to give permission or not. The victim doesn't lose anything physical. What the victim loses is virtual (self respect, feeling secure) and potential (future happiness).
(Note: I'm expecting the intellectually challenged not to be able to cope with the concept of an analogy, and to make the mistake of thinking this is saying one thing is as evil as the other. Post a message along those lines and you're just being a predictable fool.)
I understand what you're saying. That there have been vulnerabilities, and therefore you'd expect at some stage for some virus or malware to take advantage of one. And of course that possibility does exist for the future.
But it's not happened as yet. So as I say, they're not "rare", they're non-existant.
The iBook format uses proprietary extensions which is no different to what Microsoft did with HTML support in Internet Explorer in order to lock in users to their web browser.
Your own link says why it's not like Microsoft's embrace and extend tactic: "They havenâ(TM)t asserted proprietary new features or syntax for ePub the way, say, Netscape and Internet Explorer asserted proprietary new tags and features for HTML. The output of iBooks Author is no more intended to be an industry standard than are any other Apple-proprietary document formats â" Pages, Numbers, Keynote, etc. This is Appleâ(TM)s own e-book format, intended only to be displayed (played?) using Appleâ(TM)s own software running on Appleâ(TM)s own devices."
*IF* the output from iBooks Author had an extension of.epub, and Apple intended their format with extensions to become the defacto standard, then that would be like Microsoft's embrace and extend. But in fact Apple have done the very opposite.
if Apple was interested in maintaining open standards then they'd submit the changes included in the.ibook standard as extensions to the epub format.
And your own link explains why that wasn't a good move for Apple either. This way Apple get the industry's best interactive book features on the day they announce their textbooks initiative. They don't have to announce, then wait around for a year or so for approval of extensions to a standard.
On top of all that Apple can't take advantage of any monopolistic behaviour in ebooks because it doesn't have one. They don't even have the largest market share - Amazon does.
Simple: because making the tool free and pushing it to become the de-facto standard means more people will use the Apple book store (or whatever they're calling it), and they'll make more money on ebook sales.
There's nothing simple about that at all. That seems to be nothing more than an item of faith on your part. The logic seems entirely the other way.
Apple can get even more customers by being nice. Being nice never drove anyone away. But by doing stuff like this, launching frivolous patent wars etc, Apple fails the "nice" test. So it loses a chance to get even more customers.
Not really no. The only people that are aware whats in the EULA for a development tool is few geeks on Slashdot and the like. The only people that object to it are people who hate Apple whatever they do. And they won't buy Apple anyway. So they're not lost customers.
Sorry, a person is nice by their actions in totality. I like doing business with Google and I trust Google because they're nice. So "nice" IS a viable business model if it gains the trust of your customers.
You like doing business with Google. Lots of people like doing business with Apple. So what?
"Nice" isn't a business model. It's hardly even a worthwhile adjective.
There is decent business sense in that as well. If they create the best eBook authoring tool, they have the best store, and best readers, they would be making money all around.
How would that money be increased by letting other ebook stores benefit from their app?
They have magical products end to end, so it still provides them a lot of income, possibly more since it could make iBooks author the de facto standard.
To turn that into a profit would require charging for iBooks Author. And iBook tools is such a small niche, income from selling it would be irrelevant compared to actually selling ebooks.
Of course, that would rely on them actually having and continuing to have the best end to end.
They do have the best because they left the old standard behind.
That's pretty much the entire idea behind open standards, and ibooks is at least partially based on such a standard.
The point of open standards is it benefits those who need easy compatibility between systems of different organisations. Having made the best authoring tool, and having their own successful ebook store, they don't need compatibility with any other organisation at the ebook format level.
"Jerk" doesn't quite cover it. I believe terms such as "evil" and "monopolistic" should also be applied.
Please explain in what way anyone is worse off now than the day before iBooks Author was released. In the absence of a compelling answer, how on earth does the word "evil" apply? It's ignorance of the first order.
Imagine if Microsoft said "We don't own the content of your document, but if we find any of your *.docx files being offered anywhere other than approved Microsoft partner's shop, we will sue you into the ground."
Microsoft charges for Word. A general purpose word processing program. They sell it for all the things that WPs are expected to do. Create word processor files, print then and/or share them freely. If they didn't, no one would buy it.
Apple doesn't charge for iBooks Author. It's a specific tool for preparing eBooks for the iBooks store from source content files. It could have been implemented as a web-app on the author section of their iBooks Store. But a native app means they can make it better and give it more features.
You can imagine anything you like, but the two are not equivalent.
Why on earth should Apple spend significant amounts of money to develop a free tool which could be used by suppliers of competitors?
They invested a significant amount of money in it. They aren't charging for it. So it's only sensible that they get the advantage of it, and not their competitors.
The term implies that you cannot distribute using the.ibooks format, not that you cannot distribute the output of iBooks Author.
Actually it's the combination of both. "If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the.ibooks format generated using iBooks Author..."
Which doesn't restrict you from using the iBooks format if it was generated with something other than iBooks Author.
Nor does it restrict you from using output from iBooks Author if it's in a format other than iBooks. For example iBooks author has an export as PDF feature. You'd be OK to sell that through some other store.
Slashdot Mirror
Decisions are rarely made on only one criteria.
And it lacks the noise reduction of Siri on the 4S, so it won't be nearly so good at recognising what you say in everyday environments. Like in the car for example.
You've obviously not seen Apple's financial results.
Here's a quick visualisation. The last point for the iPhone line is the 4S.
http://frncs.co/apple/
You might think it's a half-arsed gimmick. But something sold those iPhone 4Ss at an unprecedented rate, way beyond all analyst predictions. And Siri was the number 1 new feature promoted.
There's a difference between running and running as well as on the 4S. The demo of noise reduction is impressive.
http://www.audience.com/demos/transmit-noise-en.php
It's easy to see why with that noise reduction, Siri would be much more accurate than without it, in real scenarios.
Apple obviously wants Siri to be judged on it's best performance. They have a reputation for quality to maintain.
Why guess when details of Audience's earSmart technology is easily available in the web. It's a custom DSP (which of course will contain software). It's not software that "any sufficiently-powerful DSP".
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S = 5th iPhone
It's a bad analogy, because in the case of piracy, the victim loses nothing;
The victim loses nothing physical in either case. They lose things which are not physical in both cases.
So until something that is already demonstrably possible, clearly worthwhile, and very well understood is spotted in the wild, it's safe to assume they don't exist?
You're in the realm of big foot, the yeti and the loch ness monster there. Sure, they're theoretically possible. But you'd expect someone to have found evidence for them by now.
Malware does some harm, or at the very least spies on people which requires sending information over the network. Either of these things would have been spotted by now.
They've certainly had no problem spotting malware on Android!
Lets take Shakespeare as an example. He predated copyright laws. He wrote his works as a work for hire. He was paid a lump sum, and then the theatre company owned the play, and Shakespeare would get no royalties. The theatre company may in turn have sold the play to a printers for a lump sum. However that would be a dangerous thing to do, as once published, the theatre company and the printers had no further control over it. Other printers could print it, other theatre companies could perform it.
People who wanted to copy the play, for publication or performance could not get a copy of the script. The scripts were never given in full to the actors. They only got their own lines and cue-lines.
And the ability to record a performance hadn't been invented then. No tape recorders, and not even any shorthand. Someone could try and write down what was said, but with a quill, ink-pot and parchment he'd be spotted pretty easily. And could never have kept up anyway.
Nevertheless people did try to copy. From memory. And so an early bootleg printed script of Hamlet had the most famous speech starting:
"To be. or not to be, I there's the point,
To die, to sleep, is that all? I all.
No, to sleep, to dream, I marry there is goes."
Few of Shakespeare's plays were published in his lifetime. Were it not for the 2 actors from Shakespeare's company taking it on themselves to assemble the first folio, some years after Shakespeare's death, we could have lost some of the greatest works written in the English Language.
As it is, at least one of his plays was lost. "Love's Labours Won".
I imagine if copyright existed back then, Shakespeare would have seen the value of publishing his own works in his own lifetime. Which would have made their survival less of a matter of good fortune.
Actually, the rejection by the pirates of the analogy of "theft", does pose the question of what other crime is closest to piracy.
The rapist wants pleasure (sex and power) for free.
The victim has what the rapist wants.
The rapist doesn't care about the victim's right to give permission or not.
The victim doesn't lose anything physical.
What the victim loses is virtual (self respect, feeling secure) and potential (future happiness).
(Note: I'm expecting the intellectually challenged not to be able to cope with the concept of an analogy, and to make the mistake of thinking this is saying one thing is as evil as the other. Post a message along those lines and you're just being a predictable fool.)
That's not a virus or malware.
I understand what you're saying. That there have been vulnerabilities, and therefore you'd expect at some stage for some virus or malware to take advantage of one. And of course that possibility does exist for the future.
But it's not happened as yet. So as I say, they're not "rare", they're non-existant.
http://techfragments.com/news/982/Software/Apple_iPhone_Virus_Spreads_By_SMS_Messages.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-virus-botnet-bank-details,9136.html
http://www.mactrast.com/2010/07/iphone-virus-discovered-be-vigilant-and-seek-advice/
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3573755?start=0&tstart=0
1) A vulnerability with a demo. There was never any malware written to exploit it, and as it was long since fixed, there never will be.
2) Only affects jailbroken iPhones.
3) You're the victim of an APRIL FOOL! From 2 years ago!
http://vimeo.com/10587301
4) Is nothing more than a user with a problem and no tech knowledge blaming his problem on a virus. There is no virus.
While reasonably rare, iPhone viruses and malware do exist in the wild.
No they don't. At least not on non-jailbroken iPhones.
Ah, you're a Fox News watcher. What a surprise.
How to reboot an iPod Touch:
http://www.apple.com/support/ipodtouch/assistant/ipodtouch/#section_1
The iBook format uses proprietary extensions which is no different to what Microsoft did with HTML support in Internet Explorer in order to lock in users to their web browser.
Your own link says why it's not like Microsoft's embrace and extend tactic:
"They havenâ(TM)t asserted proprietary new features or syntax for ePub the way, say, Netscape and Internet Explorer asserted proprietary new tags and features for HTML. The output of iBooks Author is no more intended to be an industry standard than are any other Apple-proprietary document formats â" Pages, Numbers, Keynote, etc. This is Appleâ(TM)s own e-book format, intended only to be displayed (played?) using Appleâ(TM)s own software running on Appleâ(TM)s own devices."
*IF* the output from iBooks Author had an extension of .epub, and Apple intended their format with extensions to become the defacto standard, then that would be like Microsoft's embrace and extend. But in fact Apple have done the very opposite.
if Apple was interested in maintaining open standards then they'd submit the changes included in the .ibook standard as extensions to the epub format.
And your own link explains why that wasn't a good move for Apple either. This way Apple get the industry's best interactive book features on the day
they announce their textbooks initiative. They don't have to announce, then wait around for a year or so for approval of extensions to a standard.
On top of all that Apple can't take advantage of any monopolistic behaviour in ebooks because it doesn't have one. They don't even have the largest market share - Amazon does.
I guess the egoless programmer part of Agile methodologies wasn't for you then.
Simple: because making the tool free and pushing it to become the de-facto standard means more people will use the Apple book store (or whatever they're calling it), and they'll make more money on ebook sales.
There's nothing simple about that at all. That seems to be nothing more than an item of faith on your part. The logic seems entirely the other way.
Apple can get even more customers by being nice. Being nice never drove anyone away. But by doing stuff like this, launching frivolous patent wars etc, Apple fails the "nice" test. So it loses a chance to get even more customers.
Not really no. The only people that are aware whats in the EULA for a development tool is few geeks on Slashdot and the like. The only people that object to it are people who hate Apple whatever they do. And they won't buy Apple anyway. So they're not lost customers.
Sorry, a person is nice by their actions in totality. I like doing business with Google and I trust Google because they're nice. So "nice" IS a viable business model if it gains the trust of your customers.
You like doing business with Google. Lots of people like doing business with Apple. So what?
"Nice" isn't a business model. It's hardly even a worthwhile adjective.
There is decent business sense in that as well. If they create the best eBook authoring tool, they have the best store, and best readers, they would be making money all around.
How would that money be increased by letting other ebook stores benefit from their app?
They have magical products end to end, so it still provides them a lot of income, possibly more since it could make iBooks author the de facto standard.
To turn that into a profit would require charging for iBooks Author. And iBook tools is such a small niche, income from selling it would be irrelevant compared to actually selling ebooks.
Of course, that would rely on them actually having and continuing to have the best end to end.
They do have the best because they left the old standard behind.
That's pretty much the entire idea behind open standards, and ibooks is at least partially based on such a standard.
The point of open standards is it benefits those who need easy compatibility between systems of different organisations. Having made the best authoring tool, and having their own successful ebook store, they don't need compatibility with any other organisation at the ebook format level.
Because that's what "nice" companies do.
No it's not. Companies act to make a profit. Not to be nice. All that differs is their business model for making money out of their activities.
Google for example makes my life easier for free with great tools and so I don't mind buying from them when I have to.
They just have a different business model. They make their money on advertising. That's why they provide those tools. Not because they are nice.
BTW, there's no Santa Claus either. Sorry about that.
"Jerk" doesn't quite cover it. I believe terms such as "evil" and "monopolistic" should also be applied.
Please explain in what way anyone is worse off now than the day before iBooks Author was released. In the absence of a compelling answer, how on earth does the word "evil" apply? It's ignorance of the first order.
Imagine if Microsoft said "We don't own the content of your document, but if we find any of your *.docx files being offered anywhere other than approved Microsoft partner's shop, we will sue you into the ground."
Microsoft charges for Word. A general purpose word processing program. They sell it for all the things that WPs are expected to do. Create word processor files, print then and/or share them freely. If they didn't, no one would buy it.
Apple doesn't charge for iBooks Author. It's a specific tool for preparing eBooks for the iBooks store from source content files. It could have been implemented as a web-app on the author section of their iBooks Store. But a native app means they can make it better and give it more features.
You can imagine anything you like, but the two are not equivalent.
Why on earth should Apple spend significant amounts of money to develop a free tool which could be used by suppliers of competitors?
They invested a significant amount of money in it. They aren't charging for it. So it's only sensible that they get the advantage of it, and not their competitors.
Businesses are not charities.
The term implies that you cannot distribute using the .ibooks format, not that you cannot distribute the output of iBooks Author.
Actually it's the combination of both. .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author..."
"If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the
Which doesn't restrict you from using the iBooks format if it was generated with something other than iBooks Author.
Nor does it restrict you from using output from iBooks Author if it's in a format other than iBooks. For example iBooks author has an export as PDF feature. You'd be OK to sell that through some other store.