Yes, and so we might start seeing more DRM in our lives, so it worth standardizing.
The conversation on/. is often driven by those who reject DRM, but what about those of us who would accept it if it were done right (like me)?
Just like for formats and containers, we need royalty free standards for DRM. If I buy DRM'ed content I want to be able to take it to any phone, iPod, TV, car, etc. that I own. I do not want to buy multiple copies and I certainly don't want to get locked into a single supplier.
would be that computers from different companies and with OS's could be used together in one school.
Of course, that's an idea that Apple is fighting tooth and nail.
So now, a school feels that they have to force everyone to conform to the same one platform (and the most expensive). And all the software, peripherals, and media that these students and their families buy will further lock them into the Apple platform.
> First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft.
And in this case, being nasty means giving a new platform away for free and competing openly on that new platform? I'm not suggesting that Google is an angel or that they shouldn't be watched, but I'm missing the evil in their actions here.
If giving back to open source and allowing your users to enjoy the benefits of openness and competition are evil, then maybe Apple needs to become more evil.
Yes, laughing at this proposal is appropriate, but there is a real problem.
Unfortunately, I think that I am the problem.
In spite of the fact that I understand and value the role that newspaper play, particularly in investigative journalism, I continue to increase the amount of news that I get online.
I often visit the sites of the same newspapers that I have always trusted, but I know that the revenue they get from my online presense is much less then they got from the subscription that I have now cancelled (and its associated advertising revenue). Once they get good enough, I'll get a pad or a tablet and stop reading from paper completely.
As well, I'm slipping into reading articles from scattered sites, probably because those scattered sites pander to my particular view of the world and don't have to uphold the journalistic standards that the newspaper did.
To top it off, I don't believe in bail-outs, which usually don't work and are typically politically motivated anyway.
So, I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know that there is a problem. Not much help am I.
Apple has in the past blocked apps: - because they criticize prominent politicians, - because they mention Android, - because they compete with Apple services, - because they had soft porn, and weren't from Apple approved companies, - for no discernible reason at all. (All of these instances have been reported here on/.)
But now Apple decides to block an app due to changed GUI guidelines and NOW we think there is a problem!
When Steve Jobs chooses to respond to an e-mail, you know that this is an example they want to highlight - it follows the script. When the FCC has to get involved and force Apple to reverse course and stop lying about the reasons for app store rejection - that's when we start to understand the app store.
If it has the option to plug-in any DRM then the problem isn't solved at all.
What good does it do me to buy a book that uses this wonderful universal format, only to find that it is wrapped in DRM that only works on one platform?
I agree that Apple has been subject to unfair criticism in regard to this problem. This problem is not about Apple in particular - it is more about conditions in China in particular. For example, let's remember the huge number of Chinese miners who die every year due to unsafe conditions.
By the same token, Apple's offer to subsidize their wages is equally meaningless, though understandable given the unfair criticism they were subject too.
The changes that are needed are more fundamental.
Perhaps what we need is more companies like Google who are prepared to make real sacrifices in the name of the fundamental freedoms. What Google gave up in leaving China is enormous - just look at the investment reports.
I'm sorry that more companies didn't support Google in some way so that the whole saga could have ended better. Nokia, Apple, and MS have instead slipped rather nicely into the void left by Google. Nokia has generally had an excellent record on political issues (e.g. always having the best environmental record) so I had hoped for more from them.
As a post-script, I will slip in a little gratuitous Apple bashing (since the O.P. requested it and I have let Apple off so far). Though Apple is not to blame for what happened at Foxconn, it is interesting how Apple is starting to resemble a totalitarian state like China - with its giant bureaucracy of appstore censors who won't let bad things be said about prominent politicians or about Apple itself, and because it seems to be creating some sort of competition free zone with the iPhone/iPad (e.g. you shall only get porn from Playboy because they are the designated porn distributors).
So, every product that claims to be 'green' is equally green for you?
You don't think it would be useful to have some help in determining which ones adhere to practices that are generally considered to be good (or at least, not so bad) for the environment?
I personally am not willing to trust that every claim of green, or open, or whatever is equal, but I don't have time to investigate these things myself, so I appreciate the help of organizations that will help me sort these things out.
I'm not looking for companies or products claiming these titles to be perfect, but without some scrutiny these claims will become meaningless and we won't even know the difference.
But don't they wrap their media in proprietary DRM that they refuse to license?
Isn't it kinda' the worst sort-of lock-in when you actually pay for some media (and you are paying at Apple's inflated prices) and they prevent you from playing it on platforms they don't like.
I'm not a normal/. user in that I am not philosophically opposed to DRM. I just won't use DRM that is used against me in this way.
Periodically they take a snapshot of content from their site, on a particular region, clean it up, and then make a book.
Then customers can buy the book (getting both printed and eBook) and take it with them on their trip.
I would be interested in something similar from Wikipedia. For those of us who like to read non-fiction, a book of Wikipedia content (edited and cleaned up) would be worth something.
It's been great to see MSIE lose its grip on the browser market, but it seems that maybe things have become more complicated.
As bad as MSIE is, the user can add whatever they want to it. For example, Flash delivers new codecs and Google was able to deliver an HTML5 compliant core that worked with MSIE6.
But one of the browsers taking share from IE is Safari on the iPhone/iPad/iPod. Those users can't try a different browser or use any technology that Apple doesn't approve it. Can a third party deliver a new codec to Safari on these devices? Does Opera Mini for the iPhone come with Ogg codecs (I mention Ogg because I'm imaging Apple would Opera mini if it did)? I really don't know the answers to these questions and I hope someone will enlighten me.
While Safari supports HTML5, times changes, and other things like codecs are becoming more important.
So perhaps now we are looking at a much more fundamental threat.
I'm thrilled that I'm able to use whatever software I want on Android. The problem is, I don't actually want Flash - I just wanted the ability to decide for myself.
So, that's great that you will be supporting it, but please let me turn it off or uninstall it from my phone.
On the iPod they had no competition when selling content so they sold inferior content for higher prices then their competitors (who sold 192Kbps for $0.79, but never got far cause they couldn't license Apple's DRM).
They won't be able to repeat that trick for eBooks but their is a solution that allows them to avoid competing and continue selling things at Apple high prices: force the other retailers to raise their prices to Apple's levels. They can do this because of their clout and the new U.S. law that allows the publishers to enforce the recommended sales price. Actually, the publishers didn't mind and are happy to enforce the higher price now that they have a powerful ally.
This is primarily aimed at Amazon (though smaller publishers and consumers get hurt, of course) who could have competed on the iPad. Now, with everyone selling books on the iPad at the same price users are very likely to choose Apple because of the ease and the integration.
(If you think you detect some dislike of Apple, you are right. I have no personal interest in any of this, but I have grown increasingly disgusted by this company.)
Fastmail has served me very well over the years, but a couple of years ago they stopped making improvements and adding new features.
I wondered whether they decided that they wouldn't ever be able to compete with stuff like gmail and so they decided to stop investing and just milk it for whatever revenue they could get. This wasn't a terrible thing, mind you - the service kept working very well, but it did fall further and further behind. Gmail, in particular, is now offering a better service for free, so I doubt that fastmail was getting many new subscribers.
I think we are confusing two issues: the merits of Flash and Apple's blocking of Flash. Allowing this to happen is a bit like allowing a free speech debate to focus on the particular speech being surpressed.
I don't like Flash and I don't want it on my phone, but I don't want Apple controlling that.
Let me be more specific and practical about this. This time they are blocking something that I don't want, but in the vast majority of cases they are blocking something that I do want. As well, they usually do it because it might interfere with plans that they or their partners have for getting more money out of their users (e.g. Google Voice), or because it competes with their inferior technology (e.g. anything that competes with iAd).
People need to understand the National Post. It is a prominent and important national paper in Canada, but it is a bit like Fox in the U.S.
It was created and payed for by Conrad Black - a well know Canadian Conservative (bit and little 'c') who I believe is still in jail - specifically in order to promote his Conservative values. He was very clear about this (I personally heard him articulate this in a TV Ontario interview by Steve Pakin) and about his disdain for any attempt at objectivity in journalism.
So, the idea that the National Post would concern itself with journalistic standards does not make sense in light of its genesis.
I understand that fixed release dates are useful for planning, but I think Ubuntu has put too much emphasis on them. Software should not be released until it is ready.
The idea of releasing it on schedule, with this big bug in it, and then issuing a quick fix when it is ready (one of the options discussed) is silly and rather deceptive. If what they have on April 30th is only beta quality then don't call it a release just so you can say that you stuck to your schedule.
What's worse then someone telling me what I can and can't watch or read? Someone lying about why they are doing it - pretending that they are doing it for some sort of morality or public good when it has become obvious that they aren't.
Then again, I guess explanations used for censorship are usually dishonest so I shouldn't be surprised.
People have already pointed out that the iPhone is, in fact, not a porn-free zone. It is, though, becoming a competition free zone as Apple blocks apps that might compete with their own or those of their corporate buddies.
The concerns about the Google cloud need to be weighed against Yale's current system. Every system has vulnerabilities.
Whatever countries they are worried about, are they sure that people from those countries can't hack into their systems and find what they are after more easily then they can do same for Google's systems?
What about the danger from someone within Yale's organization (one of the most common threats)? Is that worse with Gmail or with their current system?
The article focuses on NoSQL's claim to scalability, but isn't that just one of the features of (some of the) NoSQL options?
Google, Amazon, and Microsoft all provide NoSQL storage as a service that is easy to use and cheap, particularly for getting started. Those are two pretty important features and I would imagine that it is those features, rather then dreams of needing vast scalability, that attract the many web startups.
"BilltoMobile aims to charge fees of less than 20 percent of a transaction. It does so by bypassing the short codes to connect directly with mobile carrier billing systems and their subscriber databases. It took a couple of years for BilltoMobile to create this system and to strike deals with U.S. carriers."
The incredible efficiency of modern telecom and computer systems continues to impress me. To imagine, they have managed to develop a system where they can take less then 20% of the transaction!
To think that we used to use cash for transactions.
In the music business Apple was happy to have companies sell at different prices, they had a lock on the market via the iPod so people would pay $0.99 for 128Kb songs while others (e.g. Yahoo) were charging $0.79 for the same song encoded at 178Kb (in WMA format).
Books will be different: they won't be able to force consumers to pay their inflated prices because they can't stop people from buying from their competitors. The solution - prevent competition by working with the publishers to force everyone to sell at the same, higher, price.
Either way, prevent competition - previously via lock-in, now via forcing every to adopt their high prices.
No, this is not about Amazon "selling ebooks at a loss in the hope of squelching all other e-readers."
Amazon is making their e-books available on all possible platforms (including iPhones, PC's, and iPad if Apple lets them). Consumers will not need to buy a Kindle to take advantage of Amazon's pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and so we might start seeing more DRM in our lives, so it worth standardizing.
The conversation on /. is often driven by those who reject DRM, but what about those of us who would accept it if it were done right (like me)?
Just like for formats and containers, we need royalty free standards for DRM. If I buy DRM'ed content I want to be able to take it to any phone, iPod, TV, car, etc. that I own. I do not want to buy multiple copies and I certainly don't want to get locked into a single supplier.
would be that computers from different companies and with OS's could be used together in one school.
Of course, that's an idea that Apple is fighting tooth and nail.
So now, a school feels that they have to force everyone to conform to the same one platform (and the most expensive). And all the software, peripherals, and media that these students and their families buy will further lock them into the Apple platform.
> First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft.
And in this case, being nasty means giving a new platform away for free and competing openly on that new platform? I'm not suggesting that Google is an angel or that they shouldn't be watched, but I'm missing the evil in their actions here.
If giving back to open source and allowing your users to enjoy the benefits of openness and competition are evil, then maybe Apple needs to become more evil.
Yes, laughing at this proposal is appropriate, but there is a real problem.
Unfortunately, I think that I am the problem.
In spite of the fact that I understand and value the role that newspaper play, particularly in investigative journalism, I continue to increase the amount of news that I get online.
I often visit the sites of the same newspapers that I have always trusted, but I know that the revenue they get from my online presense is much less then they got from the subscription that I have now cancelled (and its associated advertising revenue). Once they get good enough, I'll get a pad or a tablet and stop reading from paper completely.
As well, I'm slipping into reading articles from scattered sites, probably because those scattered sites pander to my particular view of the world and don't have to uphold the journalistic standards that the newspaper did.
To top it off, I don't believe in bail-outs, which usually don't work and are typically politically motivated anyway.
So, I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know that there is a problem. Not much help am I.
I think we've got it backwards.
Apple has in the past blocked apps: /.)
- because they criticize prominent politicians,
- because they mention Android,
- because they compete with Apple services,
- because they had soft porn, and weren't from Apple approved companies,
- for no discernible reason at all.
(All of these instances have been reported here on
But now Apple decides to block an app due to changed GUI guidelines and NOW we think there is a problem!
When Steve Jobs chooses to respond to an e-mail, you know that this is an example they want to highlight - it follows the script. When the FCC has to get involved and force Apple to reverse course and stop lying about the reasons for app store rejection - that's when we start to understand the app store.
If it has the option to plug-in any DRM then the problem isn't solved at all.
What good does it do me to buy a book that uses this wonderful universal format, only to find that it is wrapped in DRM that only works on one platform?
I agree that Apple has been subject to unfair criticism in regard to this problem. This problem is not about Apple in particular - it is more about conditions in China in particular. For example, let's remember the huge number of Chinese miners who die every year due to unsafe conditions.
By the same token, Apple's offer to subsidize their wages is equally meaningless, though understandable given the unfair criticism they were subject too.
The changes that are needed are more fundamental.
Perhaps what we need is more companies like Google who are prepared to make real sacrifices in the name of the fundamental freedoms. What Google gave up in leaving China is enormous - just look at the investment reports.
I'm sorry that more companies didn't support Google in some way so that the whole saga could have ended better. Nokia, Apple, and MS have instead slipped rather nicely into the void left by Google. Nokia has generally had an excellent record on political issues (e.g. always having the best environmental record) so I had hoped for more from them.
As a post-script, I will slip in a little gratuitous Apple bashing (since the O.P. requested it and I have let Apple off so far). Though Apple is not to blame for what happened at Foxconn, it is interesting how Apple is starting to resemble a totalitarian state like China - with its giant bureaucracy of appstore censors who won't let bad things be said about prominent politicians or about Apple itself, and because it seems to be creating some sort of competition free zone with the iPhone/iPad (e.g. you shall only get porn from Playboy because they are the designated porn distributors).
So, every product that claims to be 'green' is equally green for you?
You don't think it would be useful to have some help in determining which ones adhere to practices that are generally considered to be good (or at least, not so bad) for the environment?
I personally am not willing to trust that every claim of green, or open, or whatever is equal, but I don't have time to investigate these things myself, so I appreciate the help of organizations that will help me sort these things out.
I'm not looking for companies or products claiming these titles to be perfect, but without some scrutiny these claims will become meaningless and we won't even know the difference.
But don't they wrap their media in proprietary DRM that they refuse to license?
Isn't it kinda' the worst sort-of lock-in when you actually pay for some media (and you are paying at Apple's inflated prices) and they prevent you from playing it on platforms they don't like.
I'm not a normal /. user in that I am not philosophically opposed to DRM. I just won't use DRM that is used against me in this way.
Periodically they take a snapshot of content from their site, on a particular region, clean it up, and then make a book.
Then customers can buy the book (getting both printed and eBook) and take it with them on their trip.
I would be interested in something similar from Wikipedia. For those of us who like to read non-fiction, a book of Wikipedia content (edited and cleaned up) would be worth something.
Apple has a habit of forcing any connector or standard (formal or de-facto) that they don't control out the door.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/ipads-lack-of-flashusbbluetooth-is-all-about-lock-in-updated/5922
It's been great to see MSIE lose its grip on the browser market, but it seems that maybe things have become more complicated.
As bad as MSIE is, the user can add whatever they want to it. For example, Flash delivers new codecs and Google was able to deliver an HTML5 compliant core that worked with MSIE6.
But one of the browsers taking share from IE is Safari on the iPhone/iPad/iPod. Those users can't try a different browser or use any technology that Apple doesn't approve it. Can a third party deliver a new codec to Safari on these devices? Does Opera Mini for the iPhone come with Ogg codecs (I mention Ogg because I'm imaging Apple would Opera mini if it did)? I really don't know the answers to these questions and I hope someone will enlighten me.
While Safari supports HTML5, times changes, and other things like codecs are becoming more important.
So perhaps now we are looking at a much more fundamental threat.
I'm thrilled that I'm able to use whatever software I want on Android. The problem is, I don't actually want Flash - I just wanted the ability to decide for myself.
So, that's great that you will be supporting it, but please let me turn it off or uninstall it from my phone.
Thanks.
and they hate that.
On the iPod they had no competition when selling content so they sold inferior content for higher prices then their competitors (who sold 192Kbps for $0.79, but never got far cause they couldn't license Apple's DRM).
They won't be able to repeat that trick for eBooks but their is a solution that allows them to avoid competing and continue selling things at Apple high prices: force the other retailers to raise their prices to Apple's levels. They can do this because of their clout and the new U.S. law that allows the publishers to enforce the recommended sales price. Actually, the publishers didn't mind and are happy to enforce the higher price now that they have a powerful ally.
This is primarily aimed at Amazon (though smaller publishers and consumers get hurt, of course) who could have competed on the iPad. Now, with everyone selling books on the iPad at the same price users are very likely to choose Apple because of the ease and the integration.
(If you think you detect some dislike of Apple, you are right. I have no personal interest in any of this, but I have grown increasingly disgusted by this company.)
Fastmail has served me very well over the years, but a couple of years ago they stopped making improvements and adding new features.
I wondered whether they decided that they wouldn't ever be able to compete with stuff like gmail and so they decided to stop investing and just milk it for whatever revenue they could get. This wasn't a terrible thing, mind you - the service kept working very well, but it did fall further and further behind. Gmail, in particular, is now offering a better service for free, so I doubt that fastmail was getting many new subscribers.
I think we are confusing two issues: the merits of Flash and Apple's blocking of Flash. Allowing this to happen is a bit like allowing a free speech debate to focus on the particular speech being surpressed.
I don't like Flash and I don't want it on my phone, but I don't want Apple controlling that.
Let me be more specific and practical about this. This time they are blocking something that I don't want, but in the vast majority of cases they are blocking something that I do want. As well, they usually do it because it might interfere with plans that they or their partners have for getting more money out of their users (e.g. Google Voice), or because it competes with their inferior technology (e.g. anything that competes with iAd).
> My family members are too cheap to spring the $$$ for a Mac.
So everyone is supposed to spring for the most expensive option or you will call them "too cheap"?
People need to understand the National Post. It is a prominent and important national paper in Canada, but it is a bit like Fox in the U.S.
It was created and payed for by Conrad Black - a well know Canadian Conservative (bit and little 'c') who I believe is still in jail - specifically in order to promote his Conservative values. He was very clear about this (I personally heard him articulate this in a TV Ontario interview by Steve Pakin) and about his disdain for any attempt at objectivity in journalism.
So, the idea that the National Post would concern itself with journalistic standards does not make sense in light of its genesis.
I understand that fixed release dates are useful for planning, but I think Ubuntu has put too much emphasis on them. Software should not be released until it is ready.
The idea of releasing it on schedule, with this big bug in it, and then issuing a quick fix when it is ready (one of the options discussed) is silly and rather deceptive. If what they have on April 30th is only beta quality then don't call it a release just so you can say that you stuck to your schedule.
What's worse then someone telling me what I can and can't watch or read? Someone lying about why they are doing it - pretending that they are doing it for some sort of morality or public good when it has become obvious that they aren't.
Then again, I guess explanations used for censorship are usually dishonest so I shouldn't be surprised.
People have already pointed out that the iPhone is, in fact, not a porn-free zone. It is, though, becoming a competition free zone as Apple blocks apps that might compete with their own or those of their corporate buddies.
The concerns about the Google cloud need to be weighed against Yale's current system. Every system has vulnerabilities.
Whatever countries they are worried about, are they sure that people from those countries can't hack into their systems and find what they are after more easily then they can do same for Google's systems?
What about the danger from someone within Yale's organization (one of the most common threats)? Is that worse with Gmail or with their current system?
The article focuses on NoSQL's claim to scalability, but isn't that just one of the features of (some of the) NoSQL options?
Google, Amazon, and Microsoft all provide NoSQL storage as a service that is easy to use and cheap, particularly for getting started. Those are two pretty important features and I would imagine that it is those features, rather then dreams of needing vast scalability, that attract the many web startups.
From another article about this service:
"BilltoMobile aims to charge fees of less than 20 percent of a transaction. It does so by bypassing the short codes to connect directly with mobile carrier billing systems and their subscriber databases. It took a couple of years for BilltoMobile to create this system and to strike deals with U.S. carriers."
The incredible efficiency of modern telecom and computer systems continues to impress me. To imagine, they have managed to develop a system where they can take less then 20% of the transaction!
To think that we used to use cash for transactions.
In the music business Apple was happy to have companies sell at different prices, they had a lock on the market via the iPod so people would pay $0.99 for 128Kb songs while others (e.g. Yahoo) were charging $0.79 for the same song encoded at 178Kb (in WMA format).
Books will be different: they won't be able to force consumers to pay their inflated prices because they can't stop people from buying from their competitors. The solution - prevent competition by working with the publishers to force everyone to sell at the same, higher, price.
Either way, prevent competition - previously via lock-in, now via forcing every to adopt their high prices.
No, this is not about Amazon "selling ebooks at a loss in the hope of squelching all other e-readers."
Amazon is making their e-books available on all possible platforms (including iPhones, PC's, and iPad if Apple lets them). Consumers will not need to buy a Kindle to take advantage of Amazon's pricing.