Reader Dhandforth adds: "10 cent favorites will now cost 9.9x more. What's worse, a community of music fans (followers and followees) will disappear on May 31. Evil. Sigh."
Evil? Evil?
You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.
I understand the submitter added a tidbit about Apple to increase the likelihood of the story making it to the front page but why does a story about Microsoft have an "Apple:" tag? This is a story about Microsoft and HTML5 - take your pick but neither of those is Apple.
But I should be able to override that and install whatever I please.
You can override that and install whatever you want. It's called jailbreaking. Apple recommends against it but it's your device and you can choose to ignore their warning if you want. If, however, you want to enjoy the user experience Apple assumes you want to enjoy, then you won't jailbreak it. Your choice.
People are still bitter about swapping 15+ install floppies to update their programs (I assume some people remember the joy of a Photoshop install...). The magical power of 512k portable storage! People are bitter and their memories are long. Apple will rue the day they did away with that little bit of magic!
Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit and put a stop to it. Everyone deserves their day in court but I think SCO has gotten more than their due...
I admit, I'm an Apple Fanboy and enjoy reading stories about Apple but I just do not give a flying fuck about "this" app being approved and "that" app being rejected. I really, really, really just do not care.
Here's a secret - a _LOT_ of apps are approved/rejected on a regular basis. Like, really, a lot. I'd wager a fuckton would be an accurate measure of the quantity. This really is not news. Really, really not news.
And I don't care if it paints Apple in a bad light or a good light - I just don't give a fuck. Why streamline the "story" to read "Apple conducts business just like it did yesterday." Much simpler that way.
It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.
Yeah. With the exception that they don't delete any of your information, it's dead easy.
To actually _delete_ your account, you have to manually go through and delete _EVERYTHING_ which is, to say the least, time consuming. And there's no guarantee that your information is actually deleted - Facebook probably still has it and still sells it...
All 144 of us used PowerPoint, simply because it was the easiest way to complement what you were talking about.
I've never heard PowerPoint being described as "the easiest way" to do anything other than give yourself a brain aneurysm. If you honestly felt it was the easiest way to complement your presentations, than I shudder to think what the other options were...
And, to be clear, I'm dead serious. This is a brilliant and simple approach to making it clear why people need to upgrade. There's no debate about it when it's laid out that clearly.
Erm, excuse me??? Isn't the *ONLY* way to download an app onto a (non-jailbroken) iPhone via the App Store??? Or am I missing something?
Yes. You are missing something. Web apps. I'll give you two excellent examples. Google Voice (m.google.com/voice) and Bejeweled (http://www.popcap.com/games/iphone/bejeweled). So, if you want to develop an app for the iPhone, you do not need to go through Apple - you can publish as a web app.
Because of the DRM on the iPhone, they're also preventing you from buying product at another store.
So, if I want to run an iPhone app on a Droid, it'll work? What about World of Warcraft? I bought the game and I'd love to play it on a Droid and I hear Droids are open to apps from anyone, right?
Oh. I see. The apps haven't been made to run on the Droid. They could have been because nobody is stopping the developers from writing for whatever platform they want to write for but the developers decided that other platforms were more profitable. I see.
Do you really want one company dictating what products are available in an entire market?
The point I was making, which probably got cluttered because I used a specific example, is that _ALL_ retailers, to one degree or another, dictate what products are available to their market. Apple isn't preventing apps from being made - they are preventing apps from being sold through iTunes. Want to make an app that Apple doesn't approve? Go for it. Release it for Android. Release it as a web app. Release it for Mac. Release it for PC. Release it however and wherever you want, _except_ through iTunes. Just as Walmart isn't sending "goons to stand outside other stores and prevent you from entering", nor is Apple employing goons to ensure apps aren't made. They are just deciding which apps they want to sell. Like I said, there are numerous ways to release an app, including for the iPhone, which does not require Apple's approval (just ask Google - Google Voice).
I stopped reading there. Apple doesn't even have a _MAJORITY_ of the smartphone market so it sure as hell doesn't have "a near-monopoly". It isn't even the number 1 smartphone maker NOR the number 2 smartphone maker - it's the 3rd largest. So, please, before you bandy about claims of "near-monopoly", make sure they're at least in a position where that claim can be vaguely debated, which is to say in the number 1 position and, quite frankly, with a majority of the market.
Actually, I lied. I read on...
...and a lot of books are only available online on Kindle or iBooks...
You're (erroneously) complaining about Apple's "near-monopoly" over content and then you point out an example of books for which Apple doesn't even vaguely come close to having a "near-monopoly". Amazon is significantly ahead of all other competitors (I recall the numbers being something like 450,000 books for Amazon and 70,000-ish for Apple - a _WIDE_ margin in Amazon's favour). Yes, you can get Amazon's ebooks on the iProduct of your choice, because they've made apps for that, but Apple isn't selling them to you - Amazon is.
Seriously, people talk about Apple's "near-monopoly" yet they've not remotely looked at the numbers and fail to realize that Apple only holds a "near-monopoly" in one, and only one, market - portable music players (for which they hold about 70%-ish of the market - a "near-monopoly). _EVERY_ other market they are in, they are not in a "near-monopoly" position. Not even vaguely open for debate.
Hate them if you want but at least base your reasons for hating them on something approaching fact.
Exactly. Look no further than iWork. Microsoft made noise about ceasing Mac development for Office and suddenly Apple had a text editing, spreadsheet, and presentation software suite available. Adobe may think that Apple needs them more than Adobe needs Apple but that's a game of chicken that Adobe would do well to not play. Apple's stared in the face of significantly, dramatically larger software developers than Adobe and didn't flinch...
And, as someone who's used Final Cut (Apple's answer to Adobe turning their back on Premiere), allow me to say that Apple can and will make a damn fine program when forced to do so. I'd actually _love_ to see them put together a graphics suite, in fact...
You mean you can't use web apps through Safari without the necessity of jailbreaking your phone in the way Apple first wanted developers to make apps? When did this change?...
Apple's only moral responsibility is to let their users do whatever they feel like, and they have failed.
No. It isn't. Their moral responsibility is to maximize shareholder profits which they have succeeded in doing, beyond expectations. They have decided to not appeal to fringe geeks and nerds but to instead appeal to the affluent mass market in order to meet their moral responsibility. That moral mass market would prefer if "porn" was not readily available on their consumer electronic devices.
_YOU_ may not like that but Apple's shareholders, to whom Apple answers, likes it quite a bit.
For anyone who's about to bitch and moan about Apple closing their app store to questionable apps ("porn"), and I know that list is long, ask yourself if you have a problem with Walmart dictating what products can and cannot appear on their store shelves. If you are ok with Walmart having enormous control over what appears in their stores, to the point that content providers will make Walmart-friendly CDs (for example), then feel free to bitch about Apple doing exactly the same thing. At the very least you'll be consistent in your view that stores everywhere should carry everything just because it exists, regardless of whatever business plan they may have and customer base they may wish to appeal to. Otherwise, keep your complaints to yourself because every damn store on the planet does this. Walmart, which has probably the broadest selection of products, doesn't carry everything, just because it exists, so why should Apple? Just because someone wants to build it and just because some people want to buy it doesn't qualify something to appear in a company's store...
Every subject on Slashdot has its periodic articles that are nothing more than fluff. Nothing new nor special. People are getting bitchy about it because all things Apple are becoming increasingly polarized but it's no different than any of the other main subjects regularly discussed here. So, I say again, either quit bitching about it because it's not going to change or get your nerd news elsewhere. So long as Slashdot's content is based on reader contributions, it ain't going to change, be it about Apple, Linux, copyright, or whatever subject you're discussing.
Quit bitching or go somewhere else. Lots of Apple fans read _and contribute to_ Slashdot. There are a variety of subjects I don't care about but I know numerous Slashdot readers are passionate about them so I know I'll continue to see those subjects in submissions. I just skip them. The content I want to read is interesting enough that I can just skip over the content I'm "sick and tired" of seeing. So, seriously, you have a choice - quit bitching about it or go read your geek news somewhere else. It isn't going to change so you might as well complain about death and taxes while you're at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Reader Dhandforth adds: "10 cent favorites will now cost 9.9x more. What's worse, a community of music fans (followers and followees) will disappear on May 31. Evil. Sigh."
Evil? Evil?
You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.
I understand the submitter added a tidbit about Apple to increase the likelihood of the story making it to the front page but why does a story about Microsoft have an "Apple:" tag? This is a story about Microsoft and HTML5 - take your pick but neither of those is Apple.
And here I thought I was an Apple fanboi...
But I should be able to override that and install whatever I please.
You can override that and install whatever you want. It's called jailbreaking. Apple recommends against it but it's your device and you can choose to ignore their warning if you want. If, however, you want to enjoy the user experience Apple assumes you want to enjoy, then you won't jailbreak it. Your choice.
I wish I had mod points - please consider this +1 Insightful.
Here I thought Google was going to stand behind the manufacturers who were supporting Android. I wonder where they went when Microsoft called HTC?...
People are still bitter about swapping 15+ install floppies to update their programs (I assume some people remember the joy of a Photoshop install...). The magical power of 512k portable storage! People are bitter and their memories are long. Apple will rue the day they did away with that little bit of magic!
:)
Or something like that...
Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit and put a stop to it. Everyone deserves their day in court but I think SCO has gotten more than their due...
I admit, I'm an Apple Fanboy and enjoy reading stories about Apple but I just do not give a flying fuck about "this" app being approved and "that" app being rejected. I really, really, really just do not care.
Here's a secret - a _LOT_ of apps are approved/rejected on a regular basis. Like, really, a lot. I'd wager a fuckton would be an accurate measure of the quantity. This really is not news. Really, really not news.
And I don't care if it paints Apple in a bad light or a good light - I just don't give a fuck. Why streamline the "story" to read "Apple conducts business just like it did yesterday." Much simpler that way.
Ok. Rant done.
It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.
Yeah. With the exception that they don't delete any of your information, it's dead easy.
To actually _delete_ your account, you have to manually go through and delete _EVERYTHING_ which is, to say the least, time consuming. And there's no guarantee that your information is actually deleted - Facebook probably still has it and still sells it...
All 144 of us used PowerPoint, simply because it was the easiest way to complement what you were talking about.
I've never heard PowerPoint being described as "the easiest way" to do anything other than give yourself a brain aneurysm. If you honestly felt it was the easiest way to complement your presentations, than I shudder to think what the other options were...
Well done sir. Well done.
And, to be clear, I'm dead serious. This is a brilliant and simple approach to making it clear why people need to upgrade. There's no debate about it when it's laid out that clearly.
Seriously -- who hasn't ever lost their phone or their wallet?
Me.
Of course, having said that, I'm now going to lose both _and_ my car keys... Thanks.
Oh gawd. Please. When is this hyperpoblic crap going to end?
Being able to control who gets to use the processors (and, more importantly, who doesn't) would give Apple a huge advantage over it's competitors.
I would imagine that various trade organizations would monitor that sort of thing very, very, very closely.
Erm, excuse me??? Isn't the *ONLY* way to download an app onto a (non-jailbroken) iPhone via the App Store??? Or am I missing something?
Yes. You are missing something. Web apps. I'll give you two excellent examples. Google Voice (m.google.com/voice) and Bejeweled (http://www.popcap.com/games/iphone/bejeweled). So, if you want to develop an app for the iPhone, you do not need to go through Apple - you can publish as a web app.
Introduce yourself to Final Cut Pro. Premiere, replaced.
Because of the DRM on the iPhone, they're also preventing you from buying product at another store.
So, if I want to run an iPhone app on a Droid, it'll work? What about World of Warcraft? I bought the game and I'd love to play it on a Droid and I hear Droids are open to apps from anyone, right?
Oh. I see. The apps haven't been made to run on the Droid. They could have been because nobody is stopping the developers from writing for whatever platform they want to write for but the developers decided that other platforms were more profitable. I see.
Do you really want one company dictating what products are available in an entire market?
The point I was making, which probably got cluttered because I used a specific example, is that _ALL_ retailers, to one degree or another, dictate what products are available to their market. Apple isn't preventing apps from being made - they are preventing apps from being sold through iTunes. Want to make an app that Apple doesn't approve? Go for it. Release it for Android. Release it as a web app. Release it for Mac. Release it for PC. Release it however and wherever you want, _except_ through iTunes. Just as Walmart isn't sending "goons to stand outside other stores and prevent you from entering", nor is Apple employing goons to ensure apps aren't made. They are just deciding which apps they want to sell. Like I said, there are numerous ways to release an app, including for the iPhone, which does not require Apple's approval (just ask Google - Google Voice).
Apple does have a near-monopoly...
I stopped reading there. Apple doesn't even have a _MAJORITY_ of the smartphone market so it sure as hell doesn't have "a near-monopoly". It isn't even the number 1 smartphone maker NOR the number 2 smartphone maker - it's the 3rd largest. So, please, before you bandy about claims of "near-monopoly", make sure they're at least in a position where that claim can be vaguely debated, which is to say in the number 1 position and, quite frankly, with a majority of the market.
Actually, I lied. I read on...
...and a lot of books are only available online on Kindle or iBooks...
You're (erroneously) complaining about Apple's "near-monopoly" over content and then you point out an example of books for which Apple doesn't even vaguely come close to having a "near-monopoly". Amazon is significantly ahead of all other competitors (I recall the numbers being something like 450,000 books for Amazon and 70,000-ish for Apple - a _WIDE_ margin in Amazon's favour). Yes, you can get Amazon's ebooks on the iProduct of your choice, because they've made apps for that, but Apple isn't selling them to you - Amazon is.
Seriously, people talk about Apple's "near-monopoly" yet they've not remotely looked at the numbers and fail to realize that Apple only holds a "near-monopoly" in one, and only one, market - portable music players (for which they hold about 70%-ish of the market - a "near-monopoly). _EVERY_ other market they are in, they are not in a "near-monopoly" position. Not even vaguely open for debate.
Hate them if you want but at least base your reasons for hating them on something approaching fact.
Exactly. Look no further than iWork. Microsoft made noise about ceasing Mac development for Office and suddenly Apple had a text editing, spreadsheet, and presentation software suite available. Adobe may think that Apple needs them more than Adobe needs Apple but that's a game of chicken that Adobe would do well to not play. Apple's stared in the face of significantly, dramatically larger software developers than Adobe and didn't flinch...
And, as someone who's used Final Cut (Apple's answer to Adobe turning their back on Premiere), allow me to say that Apple can and will make a damn fine program when forced to do so. I'd actually _love_ to see them put together a graphics suite, in fact...
You mean you can't use web apps through Safari without the necessity of jailbreaking your phone in the way Apple first wanted developers to make apps? When did this change?...
Why am I even responding to an AC?...
Apple's only moral responsibility is to let their users do whatever they feel like, and they have failed.
No. It isn't. Their moral responsibility is to maximize shareholder profits which they have succeeded in doing, beyond expectations. They have decided to not appeal to fringe geeks and nerds but to instead appeal to the affluent mass market in order to meet their moral responsibility. That moral mass market would prefer if "porn" was not readily available on their consumer electronic devices.
_YOU_ may not like that but Apple's shareholders, to whom Apple answers, likes it quite a bit.
For anyone who's about to bitch and moan about Apple closing their app store to questionable apps ("porn"), and I know that list is long, ask yourself if you have a problem with Walmart dictating what products can and cannot appear on their store shelves. If you are ok with Walmart having enormous control over what appears in their stores, to the point that content providers will make Walmart-friendly CDs (for example), then feel free to bitch about Apple doing exactly the same thing. At the very least you'll be consistent in your view that stores everywhere should carry everything just because it exists, regardless of whatever business plan they may have and customer base they may wish to appeal to. Otherwise, keep your complaints to yourself because every damn store on the planet does this. Walmart, which has probably the broadest selection of products, doesn't carry everything, just because it exists, so why should Apple? Just because someone wants to build it and just because some people want to buy it doesn't qualify something to appear in a company's store...
Yeah. I'm grumpy. Deal with it.
Every subject on Slashdot has its periodic articles that are nothing more than fluff. Nothing new nor special. People are getting bitchy about it because all things Apple are becoming increasingly polarized but it's no different than any of the other main subjects regularly discussed here. So, I say again, either quit bitching about it because it's not going to change or get your nerd news elsewhere. So long as Slashdot's content is based on reader contributions, it ain't going to change, be it about Apple, Linux, copyright, or whatever subject you're discussing.
Quit bitching or go somewhere else. Lots of Apple fans read _and contribute to_ Slashdot. There are a variety of subjects I don't care about but I know numerous Slashdot readers are passionate about them so I know I'll continue to see those subjects in submissions. I just skip them. The content I want to read is interesting enough that I can just skip over the content I'm "sick and tired" of seeing. So, seriously, you have a choice - quit bitching about it or go read your geek news somewhere else. It isn't going to change so you might as well complain about death and taxes while you're at it.
And you believe that?