I once heard the statement that all famines in the last 200 years have been political, not agricultural. That is to say that you are correct; food is available, but is redirected for various purposes, including the fighting of wars and the enrichment of scoundrels.
they are more likely to just hop on a bicycle which is rigged to a dynamo
Thus combatting the likelihood of obesity from eating all those mangoes and chickens. I once thought of the bicycle/dynamo idea for kids who want to play video games. Force them to ride for long enough to power their games, thus burning off the fat that accumulates when they're just sitting there. Forget about third-world problems; there are plenty of them here in the first world!
Yes, and Windows (and other non-Apple) fanbois eviscerated (verbally at least) Apple for not including it. Some of the same people (Paul Thurrott, I'm looking at you) are making all sorts of excuses for Microsoft not including it now.
Personally, I didn't really care much about cut and paste when I got my ipod touch; now that I have it, I like it. So for me, this is a big "whatever". But if you lambasted Apple for not having it but you want to excuse MS for not having it, you have some introspection to do.
Of course, I'm using "you" in the general sense; I am not accusing you personally, parent poster, of having done so.
THANK YOU. That sort of mentality disgusts me. I stayed at a place in Belize near the Guatemalan border once, and that place is third world by anyone's definition. And walking down the streets you had to dodge the chickens and keep an eye out for falling mangoes. I'm sure that if they had a way to power their cell phone towers with mangoes and chickens (and other plentiful items, they'd be thrilled to do so.
This. I mean, one day, I know I'll buy the iPad. I like Apple products. But for me, it's because they're useful. I could give two sh*ts about the chip itself, as long as I know that it's (a) fast enough so that the product works as advertised, (b) low-power enough so that I can get the advertised battery life and (c) cool enough so that it won't burn me if I watch a movie with it on my lap.
All the reviews seem to state that AB and C are true, so as far as I'm concerned, it's a smaller, faster, cooler, more efficient chip. We've only seen a gazillion such improvements since my beloved Commodore 64 came out. Since I'm not a hardware guy, I just can't bring myself to get excited about them.
One thing that's entertaining about this, though, is that it is somewhat of a big middle finger to Intel, who I'm sure wanted to have their own iron in all Apple products once they became partners. Instead, Apple is basically saying, "We think mobile's the future, and we want to control our own destiny there. We'll let you power our dinosaur products, but you don't get a share of this new market."
That's a great extension of the analogy, and it underscores that it's OK to dislike Apple's policies for the inconvenience they cause and their arbitrary nature. But I notice that you rightly did not call it the WF conflict censorship.
Um, out of curiosity, where'd you come up with the name Purefoy? My first grade teacher's name was Mrs. Purefoy, and this is the first time I've heard that name in decades. Was it random, or did you happen to have the same teacher?
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. In much the same way as it is easy to feel good about lynchings when you are white, yes.
Geeze. That's even more offensive than a Godwin. Congratulations. You may be interested to know that over the years many people of all colors have taken stands against lynchings, risking their own skin, regardless of its hue, for the sake of their brethren.
No, they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it via the Apple App Store.
If the publisher made a web-accessible version of the same content, the iPad/Phone owners could access it just fine. And if they made an Android version of the app, then people who don't like Apple's policies could just buy a different device and buy it from a different app store.
Further, they admitted their mistake, so the accurate answer would actually be that they delayed anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining the program from the Apple App Store.
Finally, even if they made it totally impossible for people to view this content on the iPad/iPhone, since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right? I mean, what about all those carrier specific deals where you can "get exclusive clips from American Idol on your Sprint phone"? Are they censoring me because I can't access them on my Blackberry because it's on the AT&T network?
That's ridiculous. If I write a letter to the NYTimes and they don't publish it, is that censorship? No, it's editing. If a bum wants to wash my car's window at a stoplight and I tell him no, is that censorship? No, it's my choice not to purchase his services. If I make new soda that's 10 times better than Coke, and McDonalds still refuses to sell it, is that censorship? No, it's a simple business decision.
Being censored by its definition implies a much darker--existentially speaking--scenario than having a product denied access to a private marketplace.
You may as well pull a godwin and call them Nazis, as if they're systematically gassing developers. Hyperbole is unnecessary here. People have every right to dislike their decisions, but it's just stupid to call it censorship.
Further to that is the issue of regional monopolies/duopolies. I know the main article is about wireless providers, but in wired internet access, I have two options where I am: Comcast (fast, pricey) or Qwest DSL (cheap, slow). 5 miles away Verizon has FIOS, but they don't have it in my neck of the woos, nor do they have Comcast over where Verizon is doing their thing.
Being able to comparison shop implies that you've got two companies providing truly comparable products, but instead, we've got apples and oranges. Yes, they're both fruit, but if you want apples and you've only got one vendor to go to, they can pretty much set their price.
If Verizon and Comcast had to compete for clients in the 10 Mbps and up service level, costs would go down, caps would go up, and DSL would probably become a $5 add on for telephone customers so that Qwest could even stay in business. They'd probably offer it as a back-up option to keep on just in case your fast Internet goes down.
The only way the iAd thing could fall in to any of those categories is if there were no alternatives on the market. There are dozens of manufacturers, thousands of phone models to choose from - competition is fierce and healthy in this domain.
If it were anyone but Google complaining, I'd actually have a little more sympathy, as the iPhone is the one that's giving ads the greatest amount of face time. But they just spent their entire dev conference talking about how much better android is than the iPhone, trashing it in every dick way they could. So now Apple's being a dick back to them, basically saying, put your money where your mouth is. If your system is so great, then clearly you don't need to put your ads in front of our customers outside of a web context.
I just figure, Google can't have it both ways. Either they're beating Apple at their own game--in which case they shouldn't care--or they're still dependent, in which case they just need to step up their phone game.
The closest you get from a developer analogy is say Google AppEngine - which is a webapp hosting / development framework. Which you are free to use whichever ad network you choose on the resulting webapps.
For now.
Just kidding, of course. Just had to try it out; I sometimes hear that as an argument of last resort about Apple when people complain about policies that aren't actually bad.
I'll go with what Gruber said. This is a dick move on Apple's part, but (a) it's probably not illegal and (b) if you don't like it then either buy a different product (if you're a consumer) or make a better product people will want to buy (if you're a vendor).
People keep saying this or that is the end of Apple. If there's adverse fallout, they'll adjust. But most people buying iPhones don't care about this sort of thing; they're probably the ones that slashdotters have finally convinced that Google is evil, so when confronted with this new policy, they'll say, "good!"
A vendor prefix doesn’t mean “proprietary”—it means “experimental”. Once the standard reaches final recommendation status, which can only occur once two independent implementations have been created, then the vendor prefixes will be dropped.
Likewise, it is not a standard, then. If people code their pages to fit what Apple are currently touting as a standard, they will find in many cases that once the standards are solidified, they will have to recode to ensure cross-browser. support.
I see your point, but I think they could have done it better. The warning coud have said...
You're not using Safari; do you want to download it?
Some of the features being shown off here aren't yet implemented on other browsers, hence this warning. Do you want to go on anyway? [link to go on]
Beyond that, of course, I've seen it mentioned that it's disingenuous to talk about standards while using webkit-specific tags. While I'm a happy user of many Apple products, I agree with this statement; if Apple are going to make webkit-specific tags, they should have full feature compatibility with their standarized equivalents.
Slashdot Mirror
I once heard the statement that all famines in the last 200 years have been political, not agricultural. That is to say that you are correct; food is available, but is redirected for various purposes, including the fighting of wars and the enrichment of scoundrels.
Yes, I realize that. Thank you, o wise AC.
they are more likely to just hop on a bicycle which is rigged to a dynamo
Thus combatting the likelihood of obesity from eating all those mangoes and chickens. I once thought of the bicycle/dynamo idea for kids who want to play video games. Force them to ride for long enough to power their games, thus burning off the fat that accumulates when they're just sitting there. Forget about third-world problems; there are plenty of them here in the first world!
Yes, and Windows (and other non-Apple) fanbois eviscerated (verbally at least) Apple for not including it. Some of the same people (Paul Thurrott, I'm looking at you) are making all sorts of excuses for Microsoft not including it now.
Personally, I didn't really care much about cut and paste when I got my ipod touch; now that I have it, I like it. So for me, this is a big "whatever". But if you lambasted Apple for not having it but you want to excuse MS for not having it, you have some introspection to do.
Of course, I'm using "you" in the general sense; I am not accusing you personally, parent poster, of having done so.
I think that might be a Godwinberg. Or Goldwin. Or?
Well, look at it this way: that energy is cheap. Think of it as converting wood chips and dried cow dung into energy.
THANK YOU. That sort of mentality disgusts me. I stayed at a place in Belize near the Guatemalan border once, and that place is third world by anyone's definition. And walking down the streets you had to dodge the chickens and keep an eye out for falling mangoes. I'm sure that if they had a way to power their cell phone towers with mangoes and chickens (and other plentiful items, they'd be thrilled to do so.
This. I mean, one day, I know I'll buy the iPad. I like Apple products. But for me, it's because they're useful. I could give two sh*ts about the chip itself, as long as I know that it's (a) fast enough so that the product works as advertised, (b) low-power enough so that I can get the advertised battery life and (c) cool enough so that it won't burn me if I watch a movie with it on my lap.
All the reviews seem to state that AB and C are true, so as far as I'm concerned, it's a smaller, faster, cooler, more efficient chip. We've only seen a gazillion such improvements since my beloved Commodore 64 came out. Since I'm not a hardware guy, I just can't bring myself to get excited about them.
One thing that's entertaining about this, though, is that it is somewhat of a big middle finger to Intel, who I'm sure wanted to have their own iron in all Apple products once they became partners. Instead, Apple is basically saying, "We think mobile's the future, and we want to control our own destiny there. We'll let you power our dinosaur products, but you don't get a share of this new market."
LOL! OK, silly me. Thanks for reminding me that I need to add Joyce to my reading list.
Yes, become a developer, get the source from the iApp's developer, and install it to your own device via XCode.
That's a great extension of the analogy, and it underscores that it's OK to dislike Apple's policies for the inconvenience they cause and their arbitrary nature. But I notice that you rightly did not call it the WF conflict censorship.
Um, out of curiosity, where'd you come up with the name Purefoy? My first grade teacher's name was Mrs. Purefoy, and this is the first time I've heard that name in decades. Was it random, or did you happen to have the same teacher?
I wish you hadn't posted anon, because your statement isn't that far off from the truth. I'd rephrase it as follows:
Apple's closed ecosystem works for the non-technical masses. Open platform work for those who like to tinker.
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. In much the same way as it is easy to feel good about lynchings when you are white, yes.
Geeze. That's even more offensive than a Godwin. Congratulations. You may be interested to know that over the years many people of all colors have taken stands against lynchings, risking their own skin, regardless of its hue, for the sake of their brethren.
No, they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it via the Apple App Store.
If the publisher made a web-accessible version of the same content, the iPad/Phone owners could access it just fine. And if they made an Android version of the app, then people who don't like Apple's policies could just buy a different device and buy it from a different app store.
Further, they admitted their mistake, so the accurate answer would actually be that they delayed anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining the program from the Apple App Store.
Finally, even if they made it totally impossible for people to view this content on the iPad/iPhone, since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right? I mean, what about all those carrier specific deals where you can "get exclusive clips from American Idol on your Sprint phone"? Are they censoring me because I can't access them on my Blackberry because it's on the AT&T network?
That's ridiculous. If I write a letter to the NYTimes and they don't publish it, is that censorship? No, it's editing. If a bum wants to wash my car's window at a stoplight and I tell him no, is that censorship? No, it's my choice not to purchase his services. If I make new soda that's 10 times better than Coke, and McDonalds still refuses to sell it, is that censorship? No, it's a simple business decision.
Being censored by its definition implies a much darker--existentially speaking--scenario than having a product denied access to a private marketplace.
You may as well pull a godwin and call them Nazis, as if they're systematically gassing developers. Hyperbole is unnecessary here. People have every right to dislike their decisions, but it's just stupid to call it censorship.
Further to that is the issue of regional monopolies/duopolies. I know the main article is about wireless providers, but in wired internet access, I have two options where I am: Comcast (fast, pricey) or Qwest DSL (cheap, slow). 5 miles away Verizon has FIOS, but they don't have it in my neck of the woos, nor do they have Comcast over where Verizon is doing their thing.
Being able to comparison shop implies that you've got two companies providing truly comparable products, but instead, we've got apples and oranges. Yes, they're both fruit, but if you want apples and you've only got one vendor to go to, they can pretty much set their price.
If Verizon and Comcast had to compete for clients in the 10 Mbps and up service level, costs would go down, caps would go up, and DSL would probably become a $5 add on for telephone customers so that Qwest could even stay in business. They'd probably offer it as a back-up option to keep on just in case your fast Internet goes down.
The only way the iAd thing could fall in to any of those categories is if there were no alternatives on the market. There are dozens of manufacturers, thousands of phone models to choose from - competition is fierce and healthy in this domain.
If it were anyone but Google complaining, I'd actually have a little more sympathy, as the iPhone is the one that's giving ads the greatest amount of face time. But they just spent their entire dev conference talking about how much better android is than the iPhone, trashing it in every dick way they could. So now Apple's being a dick back to them, basically saying, put your money where your mouth is. If your system is so great, then clearly you don't need to put your ads in front of our customers outside of a web context.
I just figure, Google can't have it both ways. Either they're beating Apple at their own game--in which case they shouldn't care--or they're still dependent, in which case they just need to step up their phone game.
That, along with the title of the article, is brilliant. Thank you for that link.
The closest you get from a developer analogy is say Google AppEngine - which is a webapp hosting / development framework. Which you are free to use whichever ad network you choose on the resulting webapps.
For now.
Just kidding, of course. Just had to try it out; I sometimes hear that as an argument of last resort about Apple when people complain about policies that aren't actually bad.
I'll go with what Gruber said. This is a dick move on Apple's part, but (a) it's probably not illegal and (b) if you don't like it then either buy a different product (if you're a consumer) or make a better product people will want to buy (if you're a vendor).
People keep saying this or that is the end of Apple. If there's adverse fallout, they'll adjust. But most people buying iPhones don't care about this sort of thing; they're probably the ones that slashdotters have finally convinced that Google is evil, so when confronted with this new policy, they'll say, "good!"
Uh, since Apple runs the app store, like it or not, they're the content distribution service as well.
They're not controlling what ads show up on web pages, which are not part of the delivery system of the app store.
Like it or not, the GP's example was apt.
No, your reference would be nerdy, not geeky.
Man, I was going to do something parallel about a porn, but you had to go all high-brow with, like, books and stuff.
A vendor prefix doesn’t mean “proprietary”—it means “experimental”. Once the standard reaches final recommendation status, which can only occur once two independent implementations have been created, then the vendor prefixes will be dropped.
Likewise, it is not a standard, then. If people code their pages to fit what Apple are currently touting as a standard, they will find in many cases that once the standards are solidified, they will have to recode to ensure cross-browser. support.
Beyond that, of course, I've seen it mentioned that it's disingenuous to talk about standards while using webkit-specific tags. While I'm a happy user of many Apple products, I agree with this statement; if Apple are going to make webkit-specific tags, they should have full feature compatibility with their standarized equivalents.