As a follow up to my own post (after reader through more links), I am baffled where the author of the article got that graphic because RIM's dev blog has a different graphic - http://rimdevblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/app-world-content-rating-1.jpg - and it has a very different limit to sexual content.
To quote:
"Black Berry App World will not accept apps with graphic nudity."
So, while the article's graphic pretty clearly does describe porn, I am baffled as to where that graphic came from...
Heck, I'll even write it out for you in case you're not even willing to click on one link - "Graphic sexual content, graphic nudity, or content appropriate only for or legally restricted to persons at least 18 years of age."
If that doesn't describe porn than I don't know what does. Porn.
"Some body possessing knowledge that makes the statement certain" would be Apple in the case of anything relating to the not-yet-announced iPad 3. Anyone other than Apple making any comment about what the iPad 3 does or does not possess is rumour.
As for Mac Rumour's pictures: 1) It would be utterly trivial to fake those. You know, that does happen on the internet, right? 2) There is no guarantee, if they are real parts, that they are actually parts that will appear in the iPad 3. They may appear in some iPad prototype that might, possibly, appear in the next iPad but until Apple announces it, that's just speculation. Here's a tip: Apple probably has numerous prototype versions of iPads being tested. Happened before, will happen again.
So, again, I ask, can you link to Apple's announcement which is the only source that can _CONFIRM_ what the iPad 3 does or does not have? No? Ok, until then what you are reading are RUMOURS.
You mean like paying when you buy the chips from Qualcomm who had already paid a licensing fee to Motorola for the patents in question?
Yeah.
Motorola is attempting to double-dip. They want money from Qualcomm _and_ Apple for the same chip.
Actually, that last part isn't true - what Motorola actually wants is access to Apple's non-FRAND patents and they're attempting to leverage their own FRAND patents against them in the hopes of forcing a cross-licensing agreement (*). For chips made by Qualcomm who already paid to license the patents. So the double-dipping part is true...
* And I remain baffled that the Slashdot crowd considers this business practice to be acceptable, regardless of who does it or against whom it is done. It goes against the very heart of everything that FRAND stands for and, if successful, will have chilling effects on, well, pretty much any and every industry that makes use of FRAND patents to establish industry standards. In my opinion, _ANY_ company that abuses a FRAND patent should be viewed in a negative light. Then again, I must be new here...
If every company with a FRAND-related patent charged 2.25% nobody would be able to create a product. That you think it's not a ton of money shows how short-sighted you are being and how you're failing to look at the bigger picture.
Not to mention that FRAND stands for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and 2.25% is most certainly _NOT_ Fair nor Reasonable.
...if I put a few months work into a text, it becomes popular/useful to others, and then someone asks if other arrangements can be made for distribution (e.g., maybe someone wants to make and sell a regular paper edition). I'm stuck if I ever charged money for it.
No. You're not. You're misunderstanding the license restriction. The.ibooks file that iBooks Author creates can only be distributed through Apple. The book can be distributed any way you want. If you make a.ibooks file and sell it through Apple and garner some interest for a print version or a Kindle version or whatever, all you need to do is transfer the information to the new format and you can sell it.
The restriction applies to the _file_ that iBooks Author creates, not the book that you write. And, given that Apple is the only company to publish software that can (currently) read a.ibooks file, that is a reasonable restriction.
The key reason for the restriction is so that, should someone (such as a Cydia developer) create a program that can read.ibooks files, you cannot sell the.ibooks files created with iBooks Author on that store.
No but instead of paying a hundred dollars or more for the book you're paying _at most_ $15 for the iBook edition.
Now, that book you bought that you're able to resell - how much are you selling it for? I'm willing to bet you're not selling it for $15 below the price you paid for it which means the iBook costs less, even though you can't resell. You are out-of-pocket less money _and_ you get to keep the book.
...just that business has to be given no alternative.
Really? Seriously? That was modded "Insightful"??
If businesses are given no alternative, why shouldn't that apply to consumers? Oh. Consumers should get a choice but not businesses? Aren't businesses just consumers in a different form?
It's Google's business - they can run it however they want. If you walk into a McDonalds and start swearing and cursing out loud, I think it's reasonable _and expected_ to be escorted off the premises. Google is simply doing the same thing, just on the internet. And here's the important part: If you don't like it, don't use it. Easy. Stop bitching and complaining - if you don't like their product, don't use it. Move on.
The alternative, he says, is more control by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Apple.
What? Apple? I know that dropping the "Apple-bomb" in any discussion helps to generate page-views, but what? Apple controlling the internet? I can understand Google, to say the least. I can understand Facebook as well. They both are a huge part of the internet but Apple? Apple supports (heavily) an open source browser engine... Ah... Wait... I see. They support webkit which is the foundation of Safari and Chrome (you know, Chrome, which is kicking Firefox's ass right now) as well is most mobile browsers, all of which compete directly with Firefox. Sorry. Bias clearly noted. As you were...
Seriously? Are we going to post every single story about a major tech company filing a patent for something? Or are we just going to do it when Apple files a patent because "they are teh evil!!"? I mean, come on! "Major tech company files patent for new tech - news at 11!" Uh. Yeah. Happens _literally_ every single day.
One of the worst non-stories I've seen in a while...
Sorry to be a dick but you're bragging about that page? Really? You know when they say "size doesn't matter"? Yeah - sometimes it also means being as small as possible is not necessarily a good thing. I would have thought that page was trash ten years ago when Geocities webpages were everywhere so, now, it's really not good... Seriously, stop bragging about it and spend some time designing a real page.
Bell is not going to do anything - ANYTHING - unless they believe they can squeeze every possible dime out of their customers. This is a company hellbent on profits at the cost of anything remotely approximating good business. Worse, they are a company that still thinks they have a monopoly and acts like it. And, worst of all, too many Canadians are willing to let them when there are many better options available. I'd go with Rogers (who I loathe) a million times over before going with Bell...
Believe me, the only reason they're doing this is they did the math and they believe they can screw their customers over better this way. I believe someone else in the thread supplied math that demonstrates this rather nicely...
Don't for a second think that Bell is doing something good - they are screwing customers every chance they can. They are the worst sort of the greed-corporations...
Sure I am but I think you're full of shit so I'm challenging you to put your money where your mouth is. But you'll reply with stuff like that because you have no proof what so ever. Do you even know when the patent in question was filed for? Do you know when it was granted? Here's a secret - I do. So, before you challenge my ability to use Google, perhaps you'd like to give it a try before you spout off stupid nonsense that has no foundation in fact.
This patent was filed for _and granted_ years before Skype was even conceived. Not sure how you got modded "insightful" given how utterly uninformative and inaccurate your post is...
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this elsewhere in the discussion but it might get buried and missed. While the article has an interesting graphic which describes an adult rating that clearly includes porn ( http://blogs.cio.com/sites/cio.com/files/u80/BB_AppWorldRatings.jpg ), the actual RIM dev blog ( http://devblog.blackberry.com/2011/11/blackberry-app-world-content-ratings/?CPID=TWDNPI&Date=113011 ) has an entirely different graphic ( http://rimdevblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/app-world-content-rating-1.jpg ) which _prohibits graphic sexual content._
I don't know about you but I think I'll take my information from the actual source and chalk this article up to nothing more than FUD...
As a follow up to my own post (after reader through more links), I am baffled where the author of the article got that graphic because RIM's dev blog has a different graphic - http://rimdevblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/app-world-content-rating-1.jpg - and it has a very different limit to sexual content.
To quote:
"Black Berry App World will not accept apps with graphic nudity."
So, while the article's graphic pretty clearly does describe porn, I am baffled as to where that graphic came from...
Seems like quite the FUD to me...
Yeah. Porn. Did you even click on the link? Here, I'll make it easy for you - here's the graphic that spells it out - http://blogs.cio.com/sites/cio.com/files/u80/BB_AppWorldRatings.jpg
Heck, I'll even write it out for you in case you're not even willing to click on one link - "Graphic sexual content, graphic nudity, or content appropriate only for or legally restricted to persons at least 18 years of age."
If that doesn't describe porn than I don't know what does. Porn.
Precisely how stupid are you?
"Some body possessing knowledge that makes the statement certain" would be Apple in the case of anything relating to the not-yet-announced iPad 3. Anyone other than Apple making any comment about what the iPad 3 does or does not possess is rumour.
As for Mac Rumour's pictures:
1) It would be utterly trivial to fake those. You know, that does happen on the internet, right?
2) There is no guarantee, if they are real parts, that they are actually parts that will appear in the iPad 3. They may appear in some iPad prototype that might, possibly, appear in the next iPad but until Apple announces it, that's just speculation. Here's a tip: Apple probably has numerous prototype versions of iPads being tested. Happened before, will happen again.
So, again, I ask, can you link to Apple's announcement which is the only source that can _CONFIRM_ what the iPad 3 does or does not have? No? Ok, until then what you are reading are RUMOURS.
Confirmed? Really? AWESOME!! Uh, just because I want to see, could someone post a link to Apple's announcement confirming it?
Yeah.
Confirmed. I think you're using that word without knowing what it means...
You mean like paying when you buy the chips from Qualcomm who had already paid a licensing fee to Motorola for the patents in question?
Yeah.
Motorola is attempting to double-dip. They want money from Qualcomm _and_ Apple for the same chip.
Actually, that last part isn't true - what Motorola actually wants is access to Apple's non-FRAND patents and they're attempting to leverage their own FRAND patents against them in the hopes of forcing a cross-licensing agreement (*). For chips made by Qualcomm who already paid to license the patents. So the double-dipping part is true...
* And I remain baffled that the Slashdot crowd considers this business practice to be acceptable, regardless of who does it or against whom it is done. It goes against the very heart of everything that FRAND stands for and, if successful, will have chilling effects on, well, pretty much any and every industry that makes use of FRAND patents to establish industry standards. In my opinion, _ANY_ company that abuses a FRAND patent should be viewed in a negative light. Then again, I must be new here...
If every company with a FRAND-related patent charged 2.25% nobody would be able to create a product. That you think it's not a ton of money shows how short-sighted you are being and how you're failing to look at the bigger picture.
Not to mention that FRAND stands for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and 2.25% is most certainly _NOT_ Fair nor Reasonable.
2.25%? Yeah. That's Fair and Reasonable.
Not.
There was nothing ambiguous about it. At all. It was obvious.
I still find it absolutely mind-boggling that anyone thought Apple was claiming rights to the content...
...if I put a few months work into a text, it becomes popular/useful to others, and then someone asks if other arrangements can be made for distribution (e.g., maybe someone wants to make and sell a regular paper edition). I'm stuck if I ever charged money for it.
No. You're not. You're misunderstanding the license restriction. The .ibooks file that iBooks Author creates can only be distributed through Apple. The book can be distributed any way you want. If you make a .ibooks file and sell it through Apple and garner some interest for a print version or a Kindle version or whatever, all you need to do is transfer the information to the new format and you can sell it.
.ibooks file, that is a reasonable restriction.
.ibooks files, you cannot sell the .ibooks files created with iBooks Author on that store.
The restriction applies to the _file_ that iBooks Author creates, not the book that you write. And, given that Apple is the only company to publish software that can (currently) read a
The key reason for the restriction is so that, should someone (such as a Cydia developer) create a program that can read
No but instead of paying a hundred dollars or more for the book you're paying _at most_ $15 for the iBook edition.
Now, that book you bought that you're able to resell - how much are you selling it for? I'm willing to bet you're not selling it for $15 below the price you paid for it which means the iBook costs less, even though you can't resell. You are out-of-pocket less money _and_ you get to keep the book.
...just that business has to be given no alternative.
Really? Seriously? That was modded "Insightful"??
If businesses are given no alternative, why shouldn't that apply to consumers? Oh. Consumers should get a choice but not businesses? Aren't businesses just consumers in a different form?
Wow...
Samsung would never bite the hand that feeds it...
Apple generates page-views. RIM and Nokia do not.
It's Google's business - they can run it however they want. If you walk into a McDonalds and start swearing and cursing out loud, I think it's reasonable _and expected_ to be escorted off the premises. Google is simply doing the same thing, just on the internet. And here's the important part: If you don't like it, don't use it. Easy. Stop bitching and complaining - if you don't like their product, don't use it. Move on.
The alternative, he says, is more control by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Apple.
What? Apple? I know that dropping the "Apple-bomb" in any discussion helps to generate page-views, but what? Apple controlling the internet? I can understand Google, to say the least. I can understand Facebook as well. They both are a huge part of the internet but Apple? Apple supports (heavily) an open source browser engine... Ah... Wait... I see. They support webkit which is the foundation of Safari and Chrome (you know, Chrome, which is kicking Firefox's ass right now) as well is most mobile browsers, all of which compete directly with Firefox. Sorry. Bias clearly noted. As you were...
Seriously? Are we going to post every single story about a major tech company filing a patent for something? Or are we just going to do it when Apple files a patent because "they are teh evil!!"? I mean, come on! "Major tech company files patent for new tech - news at 11!" Uh. Yeah. Happens _literally_ every single day.
One of the worst non-stories I've seen in a while...
Sorry to be a dick but you're bragging about that page? Really? You know when they say "size doesn't matter"? Yeah - sometimes it also means being as small as possible is not necessarily a good thing. I would have thought that page was trash ten years ago when Geocities webpages were everywhere so, now, it's really not good... Seriously, stop bragging about it and spend some time designing a real page.
Sorry to be a dick - someone had to tell you...
Bell is not going to do anything - ANYTHING - unless they believe they can squeeze every possible dime out of their customers. This is a company hellbent on profits at the cost of anything remotely approximating good business. Worse, they are a company that still thinks they have a monopoly and acts like it. And, worst of all, too many Canadians are willing to let them when there are many better options available. I'd go with Rogers (who I loathe) a million times over before going with Bell...
Believe me, the only reason they're doing this is they did the math and they believe they can screw their customers over better this way. I believe someone else in the thread supplied math that demonstrates this rather nicely...
Don't for a second think that Bell is doing something good - they are screwing customers every chance they can. They are the worst sort of the greed-corporations...
And exactly when does Apple receive the moniker: "Lord of all evil"?
And exactly when will the average slashdot reader learn the real meaning of the word "evil"?
Are you incapable of formulating a simple query?
Sure I am but I think you're full of shit so I'm challenging you to put your money where your mouth is. But you'll reply with stuff like that because you have no proof what so ever. Do you even know when the patent in question was filed for? Do you know when it was granted? Here's a secret - I do. So, before you challenge my ability to use Google, perhaps you'd like to give it a try before you spout off stupid nonsense that has no foundation in fact.
Citation please. Baseless accusations are worthless without some sort of backing.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647
This patent was filed for _and granted_ years before Skype was even conceived. Not sure how you got modded "insightful" given how utterly uninformative and inaccurate your post is...
the first example of a realtime spell checker i encountered in 1997 with MS Word.
And this patent predates that. Filed for on Feb 1, 1996. http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647
So, before you go citing prior art that isn't actually prior, how about you do some basic investigation so you can be informed.