"But go ahead, cheer them on in their effort to leech off Apple's brand"
They're not leeching off Apple anymore than selling a used CD leeches off the RIAA. Or selling your car leeches off a factory worker. The reason people are cheering Psystar has nothing to do with that company and everything to do with protecting and supporting the first sale doctrine.
"Being able to buy a machine with it preinstalled is of zero value unless you're trying to pass it off as somehow being "official.""
Nope, buying a better equipped computer for less money that what Apple sells is necessarily a value. It has nothing to do with passing it off as official. Not everything in life is about bragging rights. Some people, believe it or not, pragmatically buy tools merely to get work done.
I'll admit that Night of the Living Dead was a brilliant movie. However, the rest of his movies are crap. Contrived crap for the purpose of expounding on his social and political views. I'm not saying I disagree with his views, I'm just saying a zombie movie is probably not the best forum for discussing them.
Both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are not mere news parodies or simple comedies. They're actual news shows that also happen to be funny. They don't make stuff up like SNL or the Onion, they present real news.
Sort of like the movie Shaun of the Dead. Despite what people think, it was not a parody of zombie movies, it was a real zombie movie that also happened to be really funny.
"would they be powerless to do anything about that?"
No, they should simply follow the Constitution and due process.
"I don't think any of these were follows."
What you think and a nickel will get you five pennies.
"Did he have those?"
Was he required under the law? Did that allow the State to violate his Constitutional rights?
"There are rules and zoning requirements involved."
Once again, did the rules apply to this guy? And second, did that violation, if it existed, allow the State to violate his Constitutional rights?
"The issue here is not necessarily whether or not he was allowed to posses those substances, but whither or not he was possessing them in a way which was safe and lawful - as defined by the zoning laws and fire codes."
Agreed that that's one of the issues. But it's not "The" issue. The real issue is whether the State violated the guy's Constitutional rights.
"The did not need a warrant because the stuff was "in plain sight" when the first-responders went into the home."
You're right that the fire department did not need a warrant when they were in the home. But when the State came back to fully search it, including areas that were not in plain site, a warrant was clearly needed.
No, actually it's an asinine question. Why do some people buy diamonds to wear as trinkets? Why do some people insist on driving gas guzzling SUVs? Why do some people like the color red more than blue? To ask "why" is nonsense because it's a purely subjective answer. To put it another way, there are no right answers. I can't explain objectively why I subjectively like something. It's simply impossible. Why do you like your favorite song? Because it "rocks" more? What does that mean? Because it has a great melody? What does that mean? Because it's beautiful? What does that mean?
That can be shown in this quote: "It all seems really stupid to me." Yes, to you it is. That's your subjective opinion. Should I ask you to explain it objectively? No.
"certainly not slick enough to justify the price."
Well, at least 8 people disagreed with you prior to Apple yanking it. And most people think Blu-rays are too expensive for the price, should we ban them too? Heck, there are any number of things that I consider too expensive to buy, but I see no reason to ban them solely because I don't see a value in buying them.
"It added nothing but potential problems to their business."
First, a mere 8 sales added $2,399.92 in revenue to Apple's bottom line. That's hardly nothing. And second, I've yet to hear described any actual problems, let alone about any "potential" problems. If you have some, please let me know about them.
"This is pretty obvious."
What was pretty obvious? I was paying attention but I have no idea what is obvious.
"So I really don't see the need for speculation on the subject"
Agreed. When FireStormZ stated without any factual support that we should "agree with Apple for yanking it," I refused to agree without support. If anyone here is speculating, it's FireStormZ. If he subjectively agrees with Apple's decision, that's his business and I'd have no business disagreeing. But when he thinks everyone should agree, he should back up his opinion because it's no longer subjective, it's objective.
"especially when you are not affected."
Why should it matter whether or not I'm affected? Apparently, you're not affected, but you're commenting.
"this would be very expensive for Apple or the developer"
But because of the price, fewer people would buy it, even accidentally, which means there will be fewer charge backs as compared to other apps. And I can't for the life of me figure out how someone can accidentally spend $1000 on a phone app. I'm not saying it cannot happen, I'm saying it would happen so rarely that it would not constitute a basis to pull the app.
Who cares? Well all the people who commented to this growing thread, they certainly care. And the people who modded my comments up to insightful and interesting certainly care. And despite your claim of not caring, you took the time to respond twice. Which is pretty bizarre behavior for something you claim not to care about.
"Why is this even an issue? Apple could yank it and wanted to. So they did."
Apparently, you have not been reading this thread. The issue is not whether Apple has the right to yank the app. It clearly does and it clearly did.
This thread started when FireStormZ wrote: "but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
I replied "why" as in, why do I have to agree with Apple? Before I could agree with Apple, I would need some sort of rational or a reasonable basis for the yanking. I have yet to see any. So I asked why we should agree. And as of now no one has provided any basis.
I should have pointed this out sooner, but I find it interesting that the app displays a glowing red gem. People love buying meat-space gems. They'll spend thousands, tens of thousands, and yes even hundreds of thousands of dollars on gems. And what do they do with those overpriced rocks? They wear them as trinkets. Can you fricken believe that? Spending that much money, which bears no relationship to the true value of the gem, to wear as a trinket is completely asinine in my book. It's something I would never do. But yet, I would never want to ban jewelers from selling their gems. I don't see how this is any different.
So, in summary, Apple certainly can yank this and any other app it wants. However, I see no reason to agree with that decision and no reason has been provided to me as of yet.
To whom? Where is your support for this? And exactly how does the sale of a third party app make the Apple brand look bad?
"People spending $1000 on an app that does nothing but be expensive underscores the idea that the iPhone is a useless toy for people to show off extravagance.
It does not do nothing. It displays a glowing red gem. That's something. You might not want that something, I certainly do not want that something, but that's our subjective opinions. Apparantly, 8 people did want it and that was their subjective opinions.
Let's me ask this, did you buy every app at Apple's store? No, why not? Is it because some of the apps, heck, most of the apps do not fill any need you might have? Does that mean that all of those apps should be pulled too?
"Apple doesn't want to be a brand of over-indulgence."
God I hope you recognized the irony of that statement!
Once again, give me a reason why this particular app should be pulled. Just so you know, I've given up holding my breath.
The problem with making up a reason as you did, i.e., saying that Apple could be sued, is that the same reason could be applied to any app that Apple sells. And considering that far less people would buy the $1000 app, the chances of a lawsuit would be far less in that circumstance.
Can you come up with an actual, i.e., not a made up reason, why this specific app and only this specific app should be pulled? I won't be holding my breath.
"but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
Why? If the developer fully and honestly explained what his app did and did not do, and if fully informed people were willing to buy it, why should it be yanked? Merely because you would not buy it? If that's the standard then nearly all the apps should be yanked.
I bought a cheap Blu-ray drive off of Newegg and installed it in my HTPC. I rent Blu-rays from Netflix and rip them to Matroska files to watch later. However, if I had to buy Blu-ray discs outright I'd certainly live without them.
Don't get me wrong, Blu-ray movies look awesome, but not anywhere near 30 bucks a disc awesome.
How is Joe-Blow going to learn about how draconian and pointless DRM is unless crap like this happens?! This is exactly the sort of stuff we need to happen to get that message across.
From the blurb itself, it's five time the size of earth, it's revolving around a cooler sun than earth, and it might not have liquid water or a thick atmosphere. Yeah, that's exactly like earth!
Idiot: "The computer mouse will be extinct with a few years."
Computer user: "But the mouse is ubiquitous, it very easy to use, is cheap, and it simply works.
Idiot: "You'll use touch screens."
Computer user: "My new monitor does not act as a touch screen."
Idiot: "Well, the monitor as you know it will also become extinct."
Computer user: "Fine, let's say I choose to replace my 20 dollar mouse with a 300 dollar touch screen monitor, but why would I want to constantly reach up and touch the screen when I can simply use my mouse to control the cursor while comfortably resting my hand on the desk?"
Idiot: "You don't understand, there will be a whole new paradigm for monitors. They'll be built into surfaces like the top of desks."
Computer user: "So what you're saying is that the computer desk, as we know it, will also become extinct?"
Idiot: "Oh certainly, you're catching on."
Computer User: "Let me get this straight, you want me to replace my current monitor and my computer desk, for a desk with a built-in monitor, probably costing about one grand, which will need to be replaced about every four years, the average life span for a monitor, because for some bizarre reason you think my 20 dollar mouse is too hard to use?"
Idiot: "Yeah, isn't this exciting?!"
Computer user: Sound of gun being loaded, sound of gun fire, sound of idiot dropping dead. End scene.
According to the Untied States Supreme Court in Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988), a defendant's right to remain silent means that a defendant cannot be compelled to provide a combination to a safe, even though he could be compelled to turn over a copy of a key to a lock box. I wonder if the court in California will follow this or will he be compelled to divulge the password.
Damn right they can. If people are willing to pay a price, to send text messages who's to say that price is too high? If you don't like the price, don't buy the product or service. How fricken easy is that? The last time I checked no one has ever died from not having text messaging capabilities. So the choice should be real easy.
The more industry tries to lock down TV broadcasts and equipment, the more moms and dads and grandparents they confuse when they can't watch their programs.
Never stand between an American and his TV. It only pisses him off.
Slashdot Mirror
"But go ahead, cheer them on in their effort to leech off Apple's brand"
They're not leeching off Apple anymore than selling a used CD leeches off the RIAA. Or selling your car leeches off a factory worker. The reason people are cheering Psystar has nothing to do with that company and everything to do with protecting and supporting the first sale doctrine.
"Being able to buy a machine with it preinstalled is of zero value unless you're trying to pass it off as somehow being "official.""
Nope, buying a better equipped computer for less money that what Apple sells is necessarily a value. It has nothing to do with passing it off as official. Not everything in life is about bragging rights. Some people, believe it or not, pragmatically buy tools merely to get work done.
I'll admit that Night of the Living Dead was a brilliant movie. However, the rest of his movies are crap. Contrived crap for the purpose of expounding on his social and political views. I'm not saying I disagree with his views, I'm just saying a zombie movie is probably not the best forum for discussing them.
Both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are not mere news parodies or simple comedies. They're actual news shows that also happen to be funny. They don't make stuff up like SNL or the Onion, they present real news.
Sort of like the movie Shaun of the Dead. Despite what people think, it was not a parody of zombie movies, it was a real zombie movie that also happened to be really funny.
"would they be powerless to do anything about that?"
No, they should simply follow the Constitution and due process.
"I don't think any of these were follows."
What you think and a nickel will get you five pennies.
"Did he have those?"
Was he required under the law? Did that allow the State to violate his Constitutional rights?
"There are rules and zoning requirements involved."
Once again, did the rules apply to this guy? And second, did that violation, if it existed, allow the State to violate his Constitutional rights?
"The issue here is not necessarily whether or not he was allowed to posses those substances, but whither or not he was possessing them in a way which was safe and lawful - as defined by the zoning laws and fire codes."
Agreed that that's one of the issues. But it's not "The" issue. The real issue is whether the State violated the guy's Constitutional rights.
"The did not need a warrant because the stuff was "in plain sight" when the first-responders went into the home."
You're right that the fire department did not need a warrant when they were in the home. But when the State came back to fully search it, including areas that were not in plain site, a warrant was clearly needed.
"Here's a better question: Why do you care?"
No, actually it's an asinine question. Why do some people buy diamonds to wear as trinkets? Why do some people insist on driving gas guzzling SUVs? Why do some people like the color red more than blue? To ask "why" is nonsense because it's a purely subjective answer. To put it another way, there are no right answers. I can't explain objectively why I subjectively like something. It's simply impossible. Why do you like your favorite song? Because it "rocks" more? What does that mean? Because it has a great melody? What does that mean? Because it's beautiful? What does that mean?
That can be shown in this quote: "It all seems really stupid to me." Yes, to you it is. That's your subjective opinion. Should I ask you to explain it objectively? No.
"certainly not slick enough to justify the price."
Well, at least 8 people disagreed with you prior to Apple yanking it. And most people think Blu-rays are too expensive for the price, should we ban them too? Heck, there are any number of things that I consider too expensive to buy, but I see no reason to ban them solely because I don't see a value in buying them.
"It added nothing but potential problems to their business."
First, a mere 8 sales added $2,399.92 in revenue to Apple's bottom line. That's hardly nothing. And second, I've yet to hear described any actual problems, let alone about any "potential" problems. If you have some, please let me know about them.
"This is pretty obvious."
What was pretty obvious? I was paying attention but I have no idea what is obvious.
"So I really don't see the need for speculation on the subject"
Agreed. When FireStormZ stated without any factual support that we should "agree with Apple for yanking it," I refused to agree without support. If anyone here is speculating, it's FireStormZ. If he subjectively agrees with Apple's decision, that's his business and I'd have no business disagreeing. But when he thinks everyone should agree, he should back up his opinion because it's no longer subjective, it's objective.
"especially when you are not affected."
Why should it matter whether or not I'm affected? Apparently, you're not affected, but you're commenting.
"this would be very expensive for Apple or the developer"
But because of the price, fewer people would buy it, even accidentally, which means there will be fewer charge backs as compared to other apps. And I can't for the life of me figure out how someone can accidentally spend $1000 on a phone app. I'm not saying it cannot happen, I'm saying it would happen so rarely that it would not constitute a basis to pull the app.
"And I am saying, Who cares?"
Who cares? Well all the people who commented to this growing thread, they certainly care. And the people who modded my comments up to insightful and interesting certainly care. And despite your claim of not caring, you took the time to respond twice. Which is pretty bizarre behavior for something you claim not to care about.
"Why is this even an issue? Apple could yank it and wanted to. So they did."
Apparently, you have not been reading this thread. The issue is not whether Apple has the right to yank the app. It clearly does and it clearly did.
This thread started when FireStormZ wrote: "but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
I replied "why" as in, why do I have to agree with Apple? Before I could agree with Apple, I would need some sort of rational or a reasonable basis for the yanking. I have yet to see any. So I asked why we should agree. And as of now no one has provided any basis.
I should have pointed this out sooner, but I find it interesting that the app displays a glowing red gem. People love buying meat-space gems. They'll spend thousands, tens of thousands, and yes even hundreds of thousands of dollars on gems. And what do they do with those overpriced rocks? They wear them as trinkets. Can you fricken believe that? Spending that much money, which bears no relationship to the true value of the gem, to wear as a trinket is completely asinine in my book. It's something I would never do. But yet, I would never want to ban jewelers from selling their gems. I don't see how this is any different.
So, in summary, Apple certainly can yank this and any other app it wants. However, I see no reason to agree with that decision and no reason has been provided to me as of yet.
"Because it makes the Apple brand look bad"
To whom? Where is your support for this? And exactly how does the sale of a third party app make the Apple brand look bad?
"People spending $1000 on an app that does nothing but be expensive underscores the idea that the iPhone is a useless toy for people to show off extravagance.
It does not do nothing. It displays a glowing red gem. That's something. You might not want that something, I certainly do not want that something, but that's our subjective opinions. Apparantly, 8 people did want it and that was their subjective opinions.
Let's me ask this, did you buy every app at Apple's store? No, why not? Is it because some of the apps, heck, most of the apps do not fill any need you might have? Does that mean that all of those apps should be pulled too?
"Apple doesn't want to be a brand of over-indulgence."
God I hope you recognized the irony of that statement!
Once again, give me a reason why this particular app should be pulled. Just so you know, I've given up holding my breath.
The problem with making up a reason as you did, i.e., saying that Apple could be sued, is that the same reason could be applied to any app that Apple sells. And considering that far less people would buy the $1000 app, the chances of a lawsuit would be far less in that circumstance.
Can you come up with an actual, i.e., not a made up reason, why this specific app and only this specific app should be pulled? I won't be holding my breath.
"but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
Why? If the developer fully and honestly explained what his app did and did not do, and if fully informed people were willing to buy it, why should it be yanked? Merely because you would not buy it? If that's the standard then nearly all the apps should be yanked.
I bought a cheap Blu-ray drive off of Newegg and installed it in my HTPC. I rent Blu-rays from Netflix and rip them to Matroska files to watch later. However, if I had to buy Blu-ray discs outright I'd certainly live without them.
Don't get me wrong, Blu-ray movies look awesome, but not anywhere near 30 bucks a disc awesome.
They were probably too busy playing hacky sack.
How is Joe-Blow going to learn about how draconian and pointless DRM is unless crap like this happens?! This is exactly the sort of stuff we need to happen to get that message across.
Not surprisingly, a direct head-shot had no effect.
From the blurb itself, it's five time the size of earth, it's revolving around a cooler sun than earth, and it might not have liquid water or a thick atmosphere. Yeah, that's exactly like earth!
Idiot: "The computer mouse will be extinct with a few years."
Computer user: "But the mouse is ubiquitous, it very easy to use, is cheap, and it simply works.
Idiot: "You'll use touch screens."
Computer user: "My new monitor does not act as a touch screen."
Idiot: "Well, the monitor as you know it will also become extinct."
Computer user: "Fine, let's say I choose to replace my 20 dollar mouse with a 300 dollar touch screen monitor, but why would I want to constantly reach up and touch the screen when I can simply use my mouse to control the cursor while comfortably resting my hand on the desk?"
Idiot: "You don't understand, there will be a whole new paradigm for monitors. They'll be built into surfaces like the top of desks."
Computer user: "So what you're saying is that the computer desk, as we know it, will also become extinct?"
Idiot: "Oh certainly, you're catching on."
Computer User: "Let me get this straight, you want me to replace my current monitor and my computer desk, for a desk with a built-in monitor, probably costing about one grand, which will need to be replaced about every four years, the average life span for a monitor, because for some bizarre reason you think my 20 dollar mouse is too hard to use?"
Idiot: "Yeah, isn't this exciting?!"
Computer user: Sound of gun being loaded, sound of gun fire, sound of idiot dropping dead. End scene.
"You can be compelled to testify if the testimony is not self-incriminating."
Thanks for proving my point. Certainly proof that he knows the sole working password could incriminate him.
"Slight difference here is that the password is a work product not owned by him."
I knew someone would say this. We're talking about a right to remain silent. It simply does not matter who owns it.
According to the Untied States Supreme Court in Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988), a defendant's right to remain silent means that a defendant cannot be compelled to provide a combination to a safe, even though he could be compelled to turn over a copy of a key to a lock box. I wonder if the court in California will follow this or will he be compelled to divulge the password.
No, just really bad writing.
Damn right they can. If people are willing to pay a price, to send text messages who's to say that price is too high? If you don't like the price, don't buy the product or service. How fricken easy is that? The last time I checked no one has ever died from not having text messaging capabilities. So the choice should be real easy.
If you ever find yourself in a flamewar on Wikipedia you cannot win, bomb Tampa, Florida out of existence.
How come I never have any mod points when someone says something brilliantly funny?!
The more industry tries to lock down TV broadcasts and equipment, the more moms and dads and grandparents they confuse when they can't watch their programs.
Never stand between an American and his TV. It only pisses him off.