In what way is the iPhone different in offering EDGE+WiFi to the myriad of other devices that have offered the same? Why do you think no one understands when the concept isn't even new? WiFi may appeal to some depending on where you use the device, but WiFi is in no way a substitute for 3G. Who wants to have to purchase a data plan AND a WiFi plan? When I get to work or home, why would I want to access the internet through my phone? The world isn't filled with free WiFi on the road.
The iPhone isn't a PDA with a phone builtin either. The Treo is that device (and others that followed) and manufacturers learned that dedicated keyboards were, in fact, desired features for such devices. Apple is ignoring this, as they frequently do, as they stampede toward form over function. PDAs traditionally offer 3rd party apps which the iPhone will not. The iPhone is an iPod with cell phone and web browsing functions added. In that regard it is inferior to smartphones that exist today.
"The people who really want an iPhone are not really Apple fanatics at all, we are exiled Palm fans!"
I don't believe that but, if it were true, it would be really pathetic. Palm PDAs evolved even though it Palm itself was too incompetent to do it and had to buy out Handspring in order stay afloat. Grafitti had its day and if it were a superior technology it would still exist. Instead, serious users came to use Blackberrys to get real work done. Real users with real needs ultimately define what effective devices are. Apple, in its hubris, is pretending this doesn't exist.
Having had both, my WM5 smartphone has been far superior to the touchscreen version. Far from being underpowered, it is far faster and more stable, not to mention being much smaller and having a superior keyboard. Also, my experience was that the slideout keyboard certainly was needed.
"If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home"."
A real photographer doesn't have to get out his camera because it's always with him. Furthermore, for convenient use, real photographers with commonly use a PnS rather than their SLRs. What you are is a photography poser, and one that needs to mention the cost of his lenses at that.
Do you also carry around a two-way pager for your text messages since you abhor functional integration so much?
"You still haven't said where you can actually obtain a cheaper-for-the-same-specs grey box."
"If you like that, that's great, but the fact that Apple doesn't compete in that sector doesn't mean they're more expensive, just absent."
Yes, because we all know that the only machines worth having are defined by what Apple offers. If it doesn't have exactly the same specs as an Apple then it's undesirable.
Funny that you say that. I've asked you to provide facts more than once and you've made no attempt. I've also offered some that you've ignored. Who's the one not interested in facts here?
"Its dishonest to represent your opinion and perspective as factual information about what was presented and said."
Opinions are never factual information. Quotes are. I've provided facts, not opinions.
"Its also manipulative if you are doing it because you have some axe to grind."
You assume I have an axe to grind because you don't like what I say. Nevertheless, all I've said is what Steve Jobs has said minus the candy coating and hand waving.
"Why not be honest. Post an Apple hate spew. Drop the laughable pretense at rationality and the name shell game."
You are clearly crazy. Just what is it you are objecting to? You've never even made that clear.
"Industry professional" certainly doesn't imply objective or unbiased. In fact there's no correlation whatsoever. Many industry professionals are professionally biased and that goes for Mac ones just as much as it does for Dvorak.
I'd say that users prefer the system they are most familiar with so it doesn't surprise me that these OS X users you refer to prefer OS X over the Vista downloads they've tried. I don't see the merit in that nor do I see how any of them being "industry professionals" adds merit to their opinions.
Of course, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with preferring OS X. I use both, I prefer XP because it's more familiar to me, I'm in no rush to try Vista, and I'd be happy to switch entirely to OS X if there weren't roadblocks to me accomplishing that. Frankly, if you considered that either OS is simply a means of launching your web browser, Firefox for me either way, you'd be roughly right the majority of the time. OS differences are overrated.
"...most of the Mac users I've talked to actually have downloaded Vista betas and tried them out."
What an unusual group of Mac users you talk to. I think it's safe to say that fewer Mac users would download Vista than Windows users and only a small percentage of Windows users would do so. How many PPC Mac users have downloaded Vista do you think?
"Yes they could have skipped SATA and gone straight for SAS but that suffered a perception of risk."
I'm not sure who you think "they" is. SATA was developed first by a consortium of manufacturers that desired to replace parallel ATA. They did not want nor did they have any need for a SCSI protocol. What they needed was a serial interface that worked with existing software.
When SATA came out, it became clear to the SCSI people that SATA was a grave threat to SCSI's artificially inflated margins. Coming out with high-margin server drives with SATA interfaces would cause customers to question if the high prices were justified but SCSI knew that the future was in serial interfaces. In the end, the SCSI group decided to adopt the entire SATA physical interface; performance was fine, production costs lower, time to market quicker, and interoperability possible. In the end, we all benefit because products can transparently support SATA or SAS if the manufacturers desire it. Drive manufacturers still get to pretend that SAS, being SCSI, commands a higher price because it's better.
SAS stole the entire physical interface from SATA and was deliberately implemented to allow combination SAS/SATA controllers. Saying that SAS isn't designed to be used by a SATA controller shows a total lack of understanding in the matter.
SCSI doesn't offer any "speed boost" over ATA either and SAS is certainly not faster than SATA. It's the devices that may or may not be faster.
Finally, solid state storage has been used to accelerate server apps for decades.
"I'm sorry, you seem to have failed the reading comprehension portion of this exam. I discussed the semantic meaning of "theft" as is in the dictionary, and only got into legal definitions when finding out what copyright actually is."
Don't be a prick. This is no exam and you aren't qualified to quiz me, much less be so condescending. You chose dictionary definitions of the word "theft" that referred to legal definitions. Pick a definition of "theft" that doesn't refer to law and argue that one.
"No, "violating a right" does not equal "stealing.""
I never said they were equal, but it certainly can and does in this instance. I have a "right" to personal property and when you take it from me you are stealing. When you can argue that my right to distribution isn't "property", it isn't something that I possess, then maybe you have an argument.
"we have many, many rights, and infringement upon those rights is rarely considered stealing, either colloquially or legally"
Well, "rarely" is certainly subjective isn't it? Regardless, your point is irrelevant. It only matters whether "stealing" is an appropriate term in this case.
"The only reason the terms "stealing" or "theft" are used with copyright is because there is an assumption that the artist would have earned money if you hadn't done whatever you did."
"The only reason" my ass. I've offered you a reason that you've chosen to ignore in order to make that argument. Curious that, in refuting my claim you'd make a statement that is already directly contradicted by what you are refuting.
"The terms "theft" and "stealing" are totally inappropriate to the discussion."
Did your mother never teach you that taking something that wasn't yours was stealing? I guess in your case if it didn't exist in code then it was never taught to you. I'd love to hear you pitch your definition of "stealing" to your mom just before she whoops your ass. For that matter, I'd love to hear you explain that it's too great a burden to keep track of all candy in the store so you were entitled to relieve them of a few pieces. After all, how would they know you didn't obtain them legally? It's not stealing if they can't prove it after all. I am referring, of course, to the following:
"I tend to feel that, once you've sold a few million copies of a recording of a song (Hellooooo, Metallica!), it becomes somewhat burdensome on the government to enforce your rights to distribute it in the manner you choose."
Hardly offering a solution or any new perspective on the situation, are you?
You are free to engage in specious, and ultimately meaningless, arguments over the definitions of words in an attempt to deflect wrongdoing in this matter. It's popular here on/. for reasons that are interesting to contemplate. I have no problem calling a spade exactly what it is. Apparently, your priorities are different.
Just what are the facts? I noticed you haven't bothered to offer any nor have you even suggested what I am misrepresenting. I assume it's about the claim that Apple won't allow 3rd party apps. Who knows.
Some Jobs quotes:
"I don't want people to think of this as a computer," he said. "I think of it as reinventing the phone."
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
"We define everything that is on the phone," Jobs told the New York Times. "You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn't work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers." Jobs told Newsweek something similar. "You don't want your phone to be an open platform," he said. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
A couple articles discussing the fact that Apple won't allow 3rd party apps:
Of course, there are many others but there's no need to list them. The fact that the iPhone is closed to 3rd party development is so well established and confirmed by Apple that it's a joke that anyone would suggest otherwise. Go ahead and masturbate to the belief that Jobs is about to deliver the greatest gadget in the history of the world; that is if you've even made it through puberty.
Just what is a 3rd party app if it isn't software developed, tested, distributed and supported by a company other than the 1st party i.e. Apple? Apple has made it clear that it won't allow that. There is absolutely no controversy. 3rd party partners perhaps, 3rd party apps absolutely not.
As I impied before, you seem totally unable of forming any argument on your own. Why don't you try offering something other than personal insult?
No. Apple has made some specific comments regarding the product. Not all comments on the iPhone are speculation.
"Only a few people at Apple really know how hard it will be for third-party developers to sell apps for the iPhone."
Unless Apple changes their stated position it will be impossible for 3rd parties to sell their own apps.
"Most people seem to assume Apple is closing everyone out entirely. I am betting not so closed, but who really knows?"
Apple controls access to any SDKs, controls the ability to develop apps, controls distribution and retains the right to approve any 3rd party apps. As such, any app that provides functions that Apple doesn't want on the phone (say...VoIP, MS-DRMed music, IM apps that compete with iChat, etc) will not get approved. The system is closed.
"If you have a real argument to make, go for it."
Sure I will. I will quote my own statement: "All these are unsubstantiated claims. The first is unproven, the second arguably wrong, and the last two are simply speculation."
"unsubstantiated" : You made all the comments I quoted without any facts or evidence to back them up. All your points were unsubstantiated.
"unproven" - this refers to your claim that "Apple's tendency is to favor application quality over quantity." Care to prove that? Just because Jobs says it doesn't mean it isn't so (and Jobs didn't even say it). Where has there been any evidence that this is the case and in what way have you attempted to prove the point?
"arguably wrong" - this refers to "There is a trade-off at some level between wide-open access for third-party development and platform stability.". Jobs claims that the iPhone runs "OS X", a platform that Apple would have us believe offers superior stability to any other. This stability exists in spite of wide-open 3rd party application support (i.e. no trade-off for platform stability). OS X, properly implemented, should provide system immunity from misbehaving applications. In practice, there is no platform stability issue on any existing smartphones or computer systems that can't be ultimately blamed on the OS itself. Your comment is "arguably wrong" because I can successfully argue that it is wrong.
Of course my comments cast judgement. They are also correct. I've now substantiated my positions; something that most would realize didn't need substantiation and something that you have twice failed to do yourself. Frankly, your comments are poorly thought out and reflect an unjustified confidence in the well-meaning of a company that is known for its hubris and deceit. Jobs is keeping the platform closed because he hopes to profit maximally from it, just as he kept the iPod closed to Windows because, and he publicly stated this, the iPod was part of the superior Mac user experience and was reserved only for mac users. He eventually changed course on that, and I feel it's likely that he will change course on the decision to close the iPhone platform as well. It has nothing to do with ensuring app quality or platform stability; it has everything to do with control over device functions and profit.
As is usually the case, you've set into arguing what is "theft" or "stealing" from a strictly legal perspective. Language itself is a superset of legal definitions and defining "theft" as a crime causes the word's meaning to be dependent on variations of law when it has meaning beyond that context. Just because someone calls copyright violations "theft" doesn't mean he's cracked open the law books and is referring to any law in particular and it really doesn't matter which law applies to copyright violation and whether it includes "theft" in its description. If "theft" requires taking of property or services, then what is "identity theft"?
Laws vary from location to location and some areas "theft" and "larceny" are one in the same. In others there are differences. Clearly, theft of physical property (larceny) is NOT what copyright violation is. That fact is obvious and has been ruled upon by the SCOTUS. US supreme court justices have gone on record as having said that, while copyright violation is not "theft of physical property i.e. larceny, it is clearly theft. They clearly understand the difference between language and law.
Regarding what constitutes property with copyright, the copyright itself is property as is the copyrighted work. If I produce an artistic work that is copyrighted (and certain copyright protections are implicit) I not only own the work (which may by reproducable at zero cost) but I own the copyright itself. I can sell the work, copies of the work, rights to reproduction and duplication, and I can sell the copyright itself. When you copy my work without authorization (and it doesn't fall under fair use), you are violating my right to control distribution and are stealing from me in that respect since you have taken from me the right to control that particular duplication and distribution. The crime you commit is not larceny but that does not mean it is not "theft". "Theft" is a word as well as a legal term.
As for the second half of your post, don't interpret my objections regarding "theft" to be a defense of the status quo. I dislike the current copyright system and believe it does not serve the best interests of the people. The purpose of intellectual property laws is to benefit the people and that has been clearly broken for some time.
As a curious aside, I once loaned a car of mine to a friend who was down on his luck and was without transportation for a week. The understanding was that he would use the car for the week to get to work and earn the money to pay off his car repair bills. Instead, he immediately changed his cellphone number and skipped town. After 3 weeks without being able to contact him, I decided to report the car stolen. The response from the police and my insurance company was that it was a personal matter for me to resolve with my friend because no theft had taken place. Since I had authorized him to take the car, no theft had occurred.
I certainly don't favor that interpretation and anyone knows that it was simply an excuse to get out of work on the policeman's part and to avoid responsibility for the insurance company. The guy clearly stole the car. After about a month a work, I tracked down his family and he was shamed into returning it. It had been smoked out, stank like an ashtray and had been in two accidents.
I'm not a big fan of arguing the technicalities of what constitutes legal theft versus fraud, copyright violation, etc. What I do know is when I've been stolen from;-) When someone says that illegally downloading music is stealing and you cite legalese as an argument against it, you are simply disrepecting the language. When it's the RIAA saying it, they deserve better disrepect than that.
In order to work on iPhone apps, according to Jobs, you will have to enter into an agreement with Apple whereby you partner with them to develop the software. Apple controls distribution. That is not 3rd party development and Apple has made it clear that 3rd party development will not be allowed.
It has been enjoyable arguing with you. You make your points so powerfully.
"*Copying* is illegal under some conditions, but it is never theft, as no property is taken."
Not true. This is a tired argument. Copying is not "larceny" but not all theft is larceny. There are examples of theft: theft of services and theft of intellectual property for example, that do not involve the taking of physical property.
"It is a separate question as to whether something like *a song* can be property at all, but even if it is conceded solely for the sake of argument that it can be, merely *copying* it does not deprive the supposed owner of the song, and so can not be theft."
Wrong. You are confusing theft with larceny again. Not all theft is larceny. Copyright violation is certainly not larceny but that doesn't mean it's not theft.
"It is often stated that it is theft because it deprives the (purported) owner of the song of money he might have otherwise been paid, however this fails also, as regardless of what might or might not have happened otherwise, the money in question was never actually his."
His right to control distribution is his, however, and that has been taken from him.
"Depending on the exact situation, it's possible that your brother might be guilty of some offense, but that offense would not be stealing."
No, but that has no bearing on intellectual property theft.
"Thanks for artfuly pulling very short quotes out of context..."
I didn't pull anything out of context. Quite the opposite. Find one quote that I misrepresented.
"...in an attempt to smear the article and glaze a personal attack on top."
Not true at all. The articles themselves were worthless and content-free. There were no "personal attacks" either.
"And by "nothing but substantiated," you are stating that it is substantiated. I don't think you were trying to be complmentary."
Ahh, thanks for the catch. Of course I meant "anything but substantiated". Nothing else would make sense.
"The rest of your screed is just typical of the tired analysts with nothing interesting to say: rag on details that don't matter, spin arguements that are not true, misquote anyone who disagrees with you, and... oh wait, your forgot to use the word "fanboy" several times."
I think you have me confused with RoughlyDrafted. I didn't forget "fanboy" either. RoughlyDrafted is a blogsite that hopes to profit from publishing Apple shill-pieces. You, on the other hand, are likely to be a fanboy. Satisfied?
Yes, Steve Jobs and another exec both said that in interviews. Any development by parties other than Apple would have to be coordinated with Apple. That means no 3rd party apps and they said that specifically.
Don't know. Depends on the product. I've seen the demos and, beyond the interaction with 2D and 3D maps, it seems more a curiosity than an advancement. On a phone I'm not convinced it's all that interesting though I could be convinced.
"Which one...?"
That 7+ years is plenty of time to develop an API. AI has been going on a lot longer and it's still not useful.
"You seem to think that you are an expert on what I believe."
Actually, it was you that said that I was the one who couldn't see. To quote you: "You can't see what you can't see and I'm so sorry to have so grossly misrepresented you." Who is claiming to be the expert here?
"Apple's DRM system is largely dictated by the music and video industry."
Perhaps, but we don't really know that. Apple benefits from its DRM scheme and deliberately locks out other vendors. One could argue that Apple is the one driving DRM for the benefit of iPod and iTunes.
"They also have to do this without sacrificing their own property which protects their long term ability to do the business they want to do."
No, they don't. You're just apologizing for Apple's business methods. You think Apple can't compete solely on merit?
"You may not like the current law regarding DRM and I don't necessarily disagree with your dislike, but DRM is not an acronym for something satanic."
Since when did I ever say that? I simply said that Apple fears fairplay being subverted or their platform's reliance on iTS being bypassed.
"They are legally required to conduct business as a for-profit company."
Haha, no they aren't. They are in business to make money but not because they're legally required to. It's good that you realize that Apple is in business to make money. Now perhaps you might understand that locking the 3rd party developers out might be motivated by profit, not quality.
"You seem to think that there is something nefarious about this fact and you also seem to be associating negative aspects of DRM law with Apple."
I never said nor implied any such thing. I would never say anything as stupid as "DRM law".
"Microsoft has the biggest reality distortion field going in this business because they've go most users believing that they are getting what they deserve (screwed) for their money."
This isn't a discussion about Microsoft. You're simply exposing your predudices here.
"The second biggest reality distortion field going is generated by RMS and the open source movement."
This isn't a discussion of RMS or open source either.
"Why are you so offended by that."
I've made no comments regarding MS or RMS here. Who says I'm offended one way or another?
I'm saying the obvious---that the OS is what comes with the computer that runs the applications. It comprises more than just the kernel. OS X is the kernel, the user space programs, the GUI. Most Mac users will claim that iLife is part of OS X when it is not.
"It is now."
It IS now in fact. Steve Jobs is taking advantage of that confusion to pimp his new device. He knows that, when he says that the iPhone runs OS X, that most people won't realize that it means nothing because the OS is, in fact, an entirely different experience.
"Do you realise how illogical you are being?..."
I realize exactly what i am saying. An OS to a users is not the same as a kernel to a systems developer. The iPhone has its own OS, ambiguously and deliberately branded as "OS X" (where were versions 1-9?), that is likely heavily based on Mac OS X, but is unique in its own right. Apple wants people to associate the iPhone OS with Mac OS X even though they share nothing in common from an end user's perspective. Whether a kernel can, or does, have multiple UIs fronting it is entirely irrelevent.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way is the iPhone different in offering EDGE+WiFi to the myriad of other devices that have offered the same? Why do you think no one understands when the concept isn't even new? WiFi may appeal to some depending on where you use the device, but WiFi is in no way a substitute for 3G. Who wants to have to purchase a data plan AND a WiFi plan? When I get to work or home, why would I want to access the internet through my phone? The world isn't filled with free WiFi on the road.
The iPhone isn't a PDA with a phone builtin either. The Treo is that device (and others that followed) and manufacturers learned that dedicated keyboards were, in fact, desired features for such devices. Apple is ignoring this, as they frequently do, as they stampede toward form over function. PDAs traditionally offer 3rd party apps which the iPhone will not. The iPhone is an iPod with cell phone and web browsing functions added. In that regard it is inferior to smartphones that exist today.
"The people who really want an iPhone are not really Apple fanatics at all, we are exiled Palm fans!"
I don't believe that but, if it were true, it would be really pathetic. Palm PDAs evolved even though it Palm itself was too incompetent to do it and had to buy out Handspring in order stay afloat. Grafitti had its day and if it were a superior technology it would still exist. Instead, serious users came to use Blackberrys to get real work done. Real users with real needs ultimately define what effective devices are. Apple, in its hubris, is pretending this doesn't exist.
Having had both, my WM5 smartphone has been far superior to the touchscreen version. Far from being underpowered, it is far faster and more stable, not to mention being much smaller and having a superior keyboard. Also, my experience was that the slideout keyboard certainly was needed.
"If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home"."
A real photographer doesn't have to get out his camera because it's always with him. Furthermore, for convenient use, real photographers with commonly use a PnS rather than their SLRs. What you are is a photography poser, and one that needs to mention the cost of his lenses at that.
Do you also carry around a two-way pager for your text messages since you abhor functional integration so much?
"You still haven't said where you can actually obtain a cheaper-for-the-same-specs grey box."
"If you like that, that's great, but the fact that Apple doesn't compete in that sector doesn't mean they're more expensive, just absent."
Yes, because we all know that the only machines worth having are defined by what Apple offers. If it doesn't have exactly the same specs as an Apple then it's undesirable.
"You are not interested in facts."
Funny that you say that. I've asked you to provide facts more than once and you've made no attempt. I've also offered some that you've ignored. Who's the one not interested in facts here?
"Its dishonest to represent your opinion and perspective as factual information about what was presented and said."
Opinions are never factual information. Quotes are. I've provided facts, not opinions.
"Its also manipulative if you are doing it because you have some axe to grind."
You assume I have an axe to grind because you don't like what I say. Nevertheless, all I've said is what Steve Jobs has said minus the candy coating and hand waving.
"Why not be honest. Post an Apple hate spew. Drop the laughable pretense at rationality and the name shell game."
You are clearly crazy. Just what is it you are objecting to? You've never even made that clear.
"Industry professional" certainly doesn't imply objective or unbiased. In fact there's no correlation whatsoever. Many industry professionals are professionally biased and that goes for Mac ones just as much as it does for Dvorak.
I'd say that users prefer the system they are most familiar with so it doesn't surprise me that these OS X users you refer to prefer OS X over the Vista downloads they've tried. I don't see the merit in that nor do I see how any of them being "industry professionals" adds merit to their opinions.
Of course, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with preferring OS X. I use both, I prefer XP because it's more familiar to me, I'm in no rush to try Vista, and I'd be happy to switch entirely to OS X if there weren't roadblocks to me accomplishing that. Frankly, if you considered that either OS is simply a means of launching your web browser, Firefox for me either way, you'd be roughly right the majority of the time. OS differences are overrated.
"...most of the Mac users I've talked to actually have downloaded Vista betas and tried them out."
What an unusual group of Mac users you talk to. I think it's safe to say that fewer Mac users would download Vista than Windows users and only a small percentage of Windows users would do so. How many PPC Mac users have downloaded Vista do you think?
"Yes they could have skipped SATA and gone straight for SAS but that suffered a perception of risk."
I'm not sure who you think "they" is. SATA was developed first by a consortium of manufacturers that desired to replace parallel ATA. They did not want nor did they have any need for a SCSI protocol. What they needed was a serial interface that worked with existing software.
When SATA came out, it became clear to the SCSI people that SATA was a grave threat to SCSI's artificially inflated margins. Coming out with high-margin server drives with SATA interfaces would cause customers to question if the high prices were justified but SCSI knew that the future was in serial interfaces. In the end, the SCSI group decided to adopt the entire SATA physical interface; performance was fine, production costs lower, time to market quicker, and interoperability possible. In the end, we all benefit because products can transparently support SATA or SAS if the manufacturers desire it. Drive manufacturers still get to pretend that SAS, being SCSI, commands a higher price because it's better.
SAS stole the entire physical interface from SATA and was deliberately implemented to allow combination SAS/SATA controllers. Saying that SAS isn't designed to be used by a SATA controller shows a total lack of understanding in the matter.
SCSI doesn't offer any "speed boost" over ATA either and SAS is certainly not faster than SATA. It's the devices that may or may not be faster.
Finally, solid state storage has been used to accelerate server apps for decades.
This is apparently not your area of expertise.
"I'm sorry, you seem to have failed the reading comprehension portion of this exam. I discussed the semantic meaning of "theft" as is in the dictionary, and only got into legal definitions when finding out what copyright actually is."
/. for reasons that are interesting to contemplate. I have no problem calling a spade exactly what it is. Apparently, your priorities are different.
Don't be a prick. This is no exam and you aren't qualified to quiz me, much less be so condescending. You chose dictionary definitions of the word "theft" that referred to legal definitions. Pick a definition of "theft" that doesn't refer to law and argue that one.
"No, "violating a right" does not equal "stealing.""
I never said they were equal, but it certainly can and does in this instance. I have a "right" to personal property and when you take it from me you are stealing. When you can argue that my right to distribution isn't "property", it isn't something that I possess, then maybe you have an argument.
"we have many, many rights, and infringement upon those rights is rarely considered stealing, either colloquially or legally"
Well, "rarely" is certainly subjective isn't it? Regardless, your point is irrelevant. It only matters whether "stealing" is an appropriate term in this case.
"The only reason the terms "stealing" or "theft" are used with copyright is because there is an assumption that the artist would have earned money if you hadn't done whatever you did."
"The only reason" my ass. I've offered you a reason that you've chosen to ignore in order to make that argument. Curious that, in refuting my claim you'd make a statement that is already directly contradicted by what you are refuting.
"The terms "theft" and "stealing" are totally inappropriate to the discussion."
Did your mother never teach you that taking something that wasn't yours was stealing? I guess in your case if it didn't exist in code then it was never taught to you. I'd love to hear you pitch your definition of "stealing" to your mom just before she whoops your ass. For that matter, I'd love to hear you explain that it's too great a burden to keep track of all candy in the store so you were entitled to relieve them of a few pieces. After all, how would they know you didn't obtain them legally? It's not stealing if they can't prove it after all. I am referring, of course, to the following:
"I tend to feel that, once you've sold a few million copies of a recording of a song (Hellooooo, Metallica!), it becomes somewhat burdensome on the government to enforce your rights to distribute it in the manner you choose."
Hardly offering a solution or any new perspective on the situation, are you?
You are free to engage in specious, and ultimately meaningless, arguments over the definitions of words in an attempt to deflect wrongdoing in this matter. It's popular here on
Just what are the facts? I noticed you haven't bothered to offer any nor have you even suggested what I am misrepresenting. I assume it's about the claim that Apple won't allow 3rd party apps. Who knows.
p les-jobs-more-iphone-apps-coming-before-launch/932 0/ 0430200
Some Jobs quotes:
"I don't want people to think of this as a computer," he said. "I think of it as reinventing the phone."
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
"We define everything that is on the phone," Jobs told the New York Times. "You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn't work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers." Jobs told Newsweek something similar. "You don't want your phone to be an open platform," he said. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
A couple articles discussing the fact that Apple won't allow 3rd party apps:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/ap
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12
Of course, there are many others but there's no need to list them. The fact that the iPhone is closed to 3rd party development is so well established and confirmed by Apple that it's a joke that anyone would suggest otherwise. Go ahead and masturbate to the belief that Jobs is about to deliver the greatest gadget in the history of the world; that is if you've even made it through puberty.
What reference did I cite?
Just what is a 3rd party app if it isn't software developed, tested, distributed and supported by a company other than the 1st party i.e. Apple? Apple has made it clear that it won't allow that. There is absolutely no controversy. 3rd party partners perhaps, 3rd party apps absolutely not.
As I impied before, you seem totally unable of forming any argument on your own. Why don't you try offering something other than personal insult?
Haha. I would say the same for you. Thanks for offering evidence on the multitude of products that use a multitouch interface.
Care to compare our programming penis sizes?
"So, yeah, I am speculating. Isn't everyone?"
No. Apple has made some specific comments regarding the product. Not all comments on the iPhone are speculation.
"Only a few people at Apple really know how hard it will be for third-party developers to sell apps for the iPhone."
Unless Apple changes their stated position it will be impossible for 3rd parties to sell their own apps.
"Most people seem to assume Apple is closing everyone out entirely. I am betting not so closed, but who really knows?"
Apple controls access to any SDKs, controls the ability to develop apps, controls distribution and retains the right to approve any 3rd party apps. As such, any app that provides functions that Apple doesn't want on the phone (say...VoIP, MS-DRMed music, IM apps that compete with iChat, etc) will not get approved. The system is closed.
"If you have a real argument to make, go for it."
Sure I will. I will quote my own statement: "All these are unsubstantiated claims. The first is unproven, the second arguably wrong, and the last two are simply speculation."
"unsubstantiated" : You made all the comments I quoted without any facts or evidence to back them up. All your points were unsubstantiated.
"unproven" - this refers to your claim that "Apple's tendency is to favor application quality over quantity." Care to prove that? Just because Jobs says it doesn't mean it isn't so (and Jobs didn't even say it). Where has there been any evidence that this is the case and in what way have you attempted to prove the point?
"arguably wrong" - this refers to "There is a trade-off at some level between wide-open access for third-party development and platform stability.". Jobs claims that the iPhone runs "OS X", a platform that Apple would have us believe offers superior stability to any other. This stability exists in spite of wide-open 3rd party application support (i.e. no trade-off for platform stability). OS X, properly implemented, should provide system immunity from misbehaving applications. In practice, there is no platform stability issue on any existing smartphones or computer systems that can't be ultimately blamed on the OS itself. Your comment is "arguably wrong" because I can successfully argue that it is wrong.
Of course my comments cast judgement. They are also correct. I've now substantiated my positions; something that most would realize didn't need substantiation and something that you have twice failed to do yourself. Frankly, your comments are poorly thought out and reflect an unjustified confidence in the well-meaning of a company that is known for its hubris and deceit. Jobs is keeping the platform closed because he hopes to profit maximally from it, just as he kept the iPod closed to Windows because, and he publicly stated this, the iPod was part of the superior Mac user experience and was reserved only for mac users. He eventually changed course on that, and I feel it's likely that he will change course on the decision to close the iPhone platform as well. It has nothing to do with ensuring app quality or platform stability; it has everything to do with control over device functions and profit.
As is usually the case, you've set into arguing what is "theft" or "stealing" from a strictly legal perspective. Language itself is a superset of legal definitions and defining "theft" as a crime causes the word's meaning to be dependent on variations of law when it has meaning beyond that context. Just because someone calls copyright violations "theft" doesn't mean he's cracked open the law books and is referring to any law in particular and it really doesn't matter which law applies to copyright violation and whether it includes "theft" in its description. If "theft" requires taking of property or services, then what is "identity theft"?
;-) When someone says that illegally downloading music is stealing and you cite legalese as an argument against it, you are simply disrepecting the language. When it's the RIAA saying it, they deserve better disrepect than that.
Laws vary from location to location and some areas "theft" and "larceny" are one in the same. In others there are differences. Clearly, theft of physical property (larceny) is NOT what copyright violation is. That fact is obvious and has been ruled upon by the SCOTUS. US supreme court justices have gone on record as having said that, while copyright violation is not "theft of physical property i.e. larceny, it is clearly theft. They clearly understand the difference between language and law.
Regarding what constitutes property with copyright, the copyright itself is property as is the copyrighted work. If I produce an artistic work that is copyrighted (and certain copyright protections are implicit) I not only own the work (which may by reproducable at zero cost) but I own the copyright itself. I can sell the work, copies of the work, rights to reproduction and duplication, and I can sell the copyright itself. When you copy my work without authorization (and it doesn't fall under fair use), you are violating my right to control distribution and are stealing from me in that respect since you have taken from me the right to control that particular duplication and distribution. The crime you commit is not larceny but that does not mean it is not "theft". "Theft" is a word as well as a legal term.
As for the second half of your post, don't interpret my objections regarding "theft" to be a defense of the status quo. I dislike the current copyright system and believe it does not serve the best interests of the people. The purpose of intellectual property laws is to benefit the people and that has been clearly broken for some time.
As a curious aside, I once loaned a car of mine to a friend who was down on his luck and was without transportation for a week. The understanding was that he would use the car for the week to get to work and earn the money to pay off his car repair bills. Instead, he immediately changed his cellphone number and skipped town. After 3 weeks without being able to contact him, I decided to report the car stolen. The response from the police and my insurance company was that it was a personal matter for me to resolve with my friend because no theft had taken place. Since I had authorized him to take the car, no theft had occurred.
I certainly don't favor that interpretation and anyone knows that it was simply an excuse to get out of work on the policeman's part and to avoid responsibility for the insurance company. The guy clearly stole the car. After about a month a work, I tracked down his family and he was shamed into returning it. It had been smoked out, stank like an ashtray and had been in two accidents.
I'm not a big fan of arguing the technicalities of what constitutes legal theft versus fraud, copyright violation, etc. What I do know is when I've been stolen from
In order to work on iPhone apps, according to Jobs, you will have to enter into an agreement with Apple whereby you partner with them to develop the software. Apple controls distribution. That is not 3rd party development and Apple has made it clear that 3rd party development will not be allowed.
It has been enjoyable arguing with you. You make your points so powerfully.
"*Copying* is illegal under some conditions, but it is never theft, as no property is taken."
Not true. This is a tired argument. Copying is not "larceny" but not all theft is larceny. There are examples of theft: theft of services and theft of intellectual property for example, that do not involve the taking of physical property.
"It is a separate question as to whether something like *a song* can be property at all, but even if it is conceded solely for the sake of argument that it can be, merely *copying* it does not deprive the supposed owner of the song, and so can not be theft."
Wrong. You are confusing theft with larceny again. Not all theft is larceny. Copyright violation is certainly not larceny but that doesn't mean it's not theft.
"It is often stated that it is theft because it deprives the (purported) owner of the song of money he might have otherwise been paid, however this fails also, as regardless of what might or might not have happened otherwise, the money in question was never actually his."
His right to control distribution is his, however, and that has been taken from him.
"Depending on the exact situation, it's possible that your brother might be guilty of some offense, but that offense would not be stealing."
No, but that has no bearing on intellectual property theft.
"Thanks for artfuly pulling very short quotes out of context..."
I didn't pull anything out of context. Quite the opposite. Find one quote that I misrepresented.
"...in an attempt to smear the article and glaze a personal attack on top."
Not true at all. The articles themselves were worthless and content-free. There were no "personal attacks" either.
"And by "nothing but substantiated," you are stating that it is substantiated. I don't think you were trying to be complmentary."
Ahh, thanks for the catch. Of course I meant "anything but substantiated". Nothing else would make sense.
"The rest of your screed is just typical of the tired analysts with nothing interesting to say: rag on details that don't matter, spin arguements that are not true, misquote anyone who disagrees with you, and... oh wait, your forgot to use the word "fanboy" several times."
I think you have me confused with RoughlyDrafted. I didn't forget "fanboy" either. RoughlyDrafted is a blogsite that hopes to profit from publishing Apple shill-pieces. You, on the other hand, are likely to be a fanboy. Satisfied?
Yes, Steve Jobs and another exec both said that in interviews. Any development by parties other than Apple would have to be coordinated with Apple. That means no 3rd party apps and they said that specifically.
"Will you be convinced if I do?"
Don't know. Depends on the product. I've seen the demos and, beyond the interaction with 2D and 3D maps, it seems more a curiosity than an advancement. On a phone I'm not convinced it's all that interesting though I could be convinced.
"Which one...?"
That 7+ years is plenty of time to develop an API. AI has been going on a lot longer and it's still not useful.
What embarrassment? What misrepresention?
Surely you can verify that my account has existed longer than any iPhone article. Grow up.
"You seem to think that you are an expert on what I believe."
Actually, it was you that said that I was the one who couldn't see. To quote you: "You can't see what you can't see and I'm so sorry
to have so grossly misrepresented you." Who is claiming to be the expert here?
"Apple's DRM system is largely dictated by the music and video industry."
Perhaps, but we don't really know that. Apple benefits from its DRM scheme and deliberately locks out other vendors. One could argue that Apple is the one driving DRM for the benefit of iPod and iTunes.
"They also have to do this without sacrificing their own property which protects their long term ability to do the business they want to do."
No, they don't. You're just apologizing for Apple's business methods. You think Apple can't compete solely on merit?
"You may not like the current law regarding DRM and I don't necessarily disagree with your dislike, but DRM is not an acronym for something satanic."
Since when did I ever say that? I simply said that Apple fears fairplay being subverted or their platform's reliance on iTS being bypassed.
"They are legally required to conduct business as a for-profit company."
Haha, no they aren't. They are in business to make money but not because they're legally required to. It's good that you realize that Apple is in business to make money. Now perhaps you might understand that locking the 3rd party developers out might be motivated by profit, not quality.
"You seem to think that there is something nefarious about this fact and you also seem to be associating negative aspects of DRM law with Apple."
I never said nor implied any such thing. I would never say anything as stupid as "DRM law".
"Microsoft has the biggest reality distortion field going in this business because they've go most users believing that they are getting what they deserve (screwed) for their money."
This isn't a discussion about Microsoft. You're simply exposing your predudices here.
"The second biggest reality distortion field going is generated by RMS and the open source movement."
This isn't a discussion of RMS or open source either.
"Why are you so offended by that."
I've made no comments regarding MS or RMS here. Who says I'm offended one way or another?
"What are you saying?"
I'm saying the obvious---that the OS is what comes with the computer that runs the applications. It comprises more than just the kernel. OS X is the kernel, the user space programs, the GUI. Most Mac users will claim that iLife is part of OS X when it is not.
"It is now."
It IS now in fact. Steve Jobs is taking advantage of that confusion to pimp his new device. He knows that, when he says that the iPhone runs OS X, that most people won't realize that it means nothing because the OS is, in fact, an entirely different experience.
"Do you realise how illogical you are being?..."
I realize exactly what i am saying. An OS to a users is not the same as a kernel to a systems developer. The iPhone has its own OS, ambiguously and deliberately branded as "OS X" (where were versions 1-9?), that is likely heavily based on Mac OS X, but is unique in its own right. Apple wants people to associate the iPhone OS with Mac OS X even though they share nothing in common from an end user's perspective. Whether a kernel can, or does, have multiple UIs fronting it is entirely irrelevent.
The technology is mature as evidenced by the number of products we've seen using it.
"7+ years old is far from infancy, and is plenty of time for an approach to an API to have developed."
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
"...from this particular patent owned by Red Hat."
Red Hat doesn't own this patent. They've merely applied for one.