Right. I was new to PCs and naive, but it was even clear to me that it was supposed to be paid for and that my friendly neighborhood BBS offered it "cracked" so that anybody could use it--just as they did with plenty of other software.
They also ended Mystery Science Theater 3000, only the greatest show ever invented by robots in space.
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 show is the greatest experiment ever invented by two mad scientists working for a scientific institute here on Earth. The robots in space were created by the subject of the experiments, who at the time was just another face in a red jumpsuit working for the mad scientists.
Also, it hasn't happened yet. It will happen, though, in the not too distant future.
So, do you disagree that the primary purpose of most "social" games is to exploit player's friends in order to expand their revenue potential by exposing more people to ads or inviting more purchases of content?
Wow! This must be a new record! I almost made it all the way to the bottom of a Slashdot thread--just barely there--before an Android-centric discussion turned into an anti-Apple thrashing.
For a second there I forgot where I was. Thanks for bringing me back.
Your alternate theory is that a competitor actively sabotaged JC Penny's search engine rankings so that it would be the on the top results for many consumer products during the explosive holiday season; with the hope that JC Penny would be caught and punished a couple of months after raking in the dough from their increased Christmas sales?
Your comment assumes that there are no external patent claims or that any provided would have no merit. If VP8 is indeed encumbered by third party patents--and they can prove it--wouldn't you agree that WebM has then no advantage over H.264 by essentially becoming a legal liability to its users?
Now, I emphasize that those are the conditions of the argument, not facts. However, having Google on one end claiming that the there are no patents encumbering VP8 is still not a fact, and does not prove it either way.
If MPEG LA is able to find any patent holders with claims on VP8 technologies, then it would mean that Google was wrong in its assertion. If they cannot, then VP8 should remain untarnished and its merits and advantage vindicated.
So, this is essentially a step in killing WebM support if indeed there are patent claims against it.
Wow, get out of your basement much? Which band were you in?
I remember being in a band in high-school in the 80s: partying and chicks were abundant, to say the least. If you were in a band, and you knew how to play well, you were automatically cool (unless you played uncool music like obscure ballads from the 1940s, lounge or marching music, or any genre represented by a Theramin or Wendy Carlos).
By contrast, playing Guitar Hero made you look like a geek. Don't get me wrong, I loved the original Guitar Hero--it brought so many memories; but it was still something I would not talk about in public.
Now, DJ'ing in the 80s was even better: no band-mates to bog you down, and a private booth to boot! But I wouldn't touch DJ Hero with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
And this is the typical "geek-centric" response. "Apple," they say, "could release a polished turd and it will sell millions." Point out that they do not sell polished turds, and that there is value in all their products and that the masses are purchasing them because they have their own reasons, and they concede; point out that the "geek-centric" view may be different than the general consumer and they even agree.
And then they respond with "sure, maybe they haven't yet... but they could."
Right. Apple has a history of selling polished turds that the "cult-like" following buys blindly. Except, no, wait... you agree that they haven't, that you and the other geeks do not buy their products in spite of the value perceived by consumers in general, due to your own personal choice. But of course, they could sell a polished turd and the masses would jump to it.
Where's the supporting--or even suggesting--evidence to that argument?
So, laptops built from a single slab of aluminium, back-lighted keyboard, and glossy screens are starting to look like cheap junk when compared to the plastic cased-fare offered by most manufacturers?
Have you actually handled an iPad? How about a Nook or a Kindle? The first feels like a solid product, with a metal enclosing and virtually no seams; while the other two feel like plastic cheap-ware. The same happens with some of the competitors' tablets.
Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.
That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?
There is no lock-in because nobody is forced to purchase apps or media from iTunes. The iPad is perfectly capable right out of the box with its built-in Web browser and other apps. Oh, you mean it doesn't have Adobe Flash support? Boo-hoo! It appears that hasn't stopped its sales, so perhaps people do not really care that much about it. They can access YouTube already through a built-in app.
Regarding music and other media, owners can install their own from other sources than the iTunes Store.
Sure Apple's revenue cut is 30% rather than 100% (less for music), but their margins on software and media can be comparable to their hardware margins because their cost of sales is so much less.
That 30% is not margin; it is the cost of running an e-commerce enterprise, complete with electronic payment and content delivery systems, none of which the developer has to bother with.
Then there's the on-going revenue from ad views.
No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.
"App" is short for "Application," which is short of "Application Program." It always meant the application of a technology in the form of a computer program.
For instance, word processing is a kind of technology; a concept of how to manage textual information, if you will. A specific word processing package containing a computer program is the application of this word processing technology. Thus, it's a word processing application.
This is why the terms eventually were used interchangeably. It may not be semantically correct, but it is a short-hand for the longer term. Likewise for "app."
That's a fair question, and the answer is--unsurprisingly--that you may not want to get it on the iPad.
However, some people already use their iPads to read their news from other sources, and this would provide another source. And if it offers enough relevant content to them, they may even stick with it.
So, to recapitulate, while The Daily on the iPad may not offer anything relevant to you (mainly because it does not let you link to external web sites), it may be of value to other people.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only aided by 15 years of guilt. Noticed that none of those donors actually paid any money back when the product was useful.
-dZ.
Right. I was new to PCs and naive, but it was even clear to me that it was supposed to be paid for and that my friendly neighborhood BBS offered it "cracked" so that anybody could use it--just as they did with plenty of other software.
-dZ.
From the article summary:
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 show is the greatest experiment ever invented by two mad scientists working for a scientific institute here on Earth. The robots in space were created by the subject of the experiments, who at the time was just another face in a red jumpsuit working for the mad scientists.
Also, it hasn't happened yet. It will happen, though, in the not too distant future.
Get your facts straight.
-dZ.
Using special Dark Emitting Diodes (D.E.D.).
-dZ.
Or infinite monkeys with typewriters.
Since you're already maxed out, I'm going to scrap my moderator points and respond:
Thanks for the best laugh on a dreary morning! You sir win the Intarwebz today.
-dZ.
You know, "self-declared" means that he has declared himself a god. As far I know he has not done so.
-dZ.
So, do you disagree that the primary purpose of most "social" games is to exploit player's friends in order to expand their revenue potential by exposing more people to ads or inviting more purchases of content?
-dZ.
Wow! This must be a new record! I almost made it all the way to the bottom of a Slashdot thread--just barely there--before an Android-centric discussion turned into an anti-Apple thrashing.
For a second there I forgot where I was. Thanks for bringing me back.
-dZ.
More like the Marketing Department.
-dZ.
Your alternate theory is that a competitor actively sabotaged JC Penny's search engine rankings so that it would be the on the top results for many consumer products during the explosive holiday season; with the hope that JC Penny would be caught and punished a couple of months after raking in the dough from their increased Christmas sales?
Right.
-dZ.
I hear you, bro! I'm still waiting for that darn Keyboard Component that will bring into my house a true "Intelligent Television."
-dZ.
But if you don't use it, what business is it of yours to recommend one? Your friends must think you're weird.
-dZ.
Your comment assumes that there are no external patent claims or that any provided would have no merit. If VP8 is indeed encumbered by third party patents--and they can prove it--wouldn't you agree that WebM has then no advantage over H.264 by essentially becoming a legal liability to its users?
Now, I emphasize that those are the conditions of the argument, not facts. However, having Google on one end claiming that the there are no patents encumbering VP8 is still not a fact, and does not prove it either way.
If MPEG LA is able to find any patent holders with claims on VP8 technologies, then it would mean that Google was wrong in its assertion. If they cannot, then VP8 should remain untarnished and its merits and advantage vindicated.
So, this is essentially a step in killing WebM support if indeed there are patent claims against it.
-dZ.
OMG! I can't believe I missed that. Sorry.
dZ.
Wow, get out of your basement much? Which band were you in?
I remember being in a band in high-school in the 80s: partying and chicks were abundant, to say the least. If you were in a band, and you knew how to play well, you were automatically cool (unless you played uncool music like obscure ballads from the 1940s, lounge or marching music, or any genre represented by a Theramin or Wendy Carlos).
By contrast, playing Guitar Hero made you look like a geek. Don't get me wrong, I loved the original Guitar Hero--it brought so many memories; but it was still something I would not talk about in public.
Now, DJ'ing in the 80s was even better: no band-mates to bog you down, and a private booth to boot! But I wouldn't touch DJ Hero with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
-dZ.
Meanwhile Activision is rolling in the dough while people keep on purchasing the newest game craze.
Disposing of the stale carcasses of old franchises does not spell doom when new franchises are on the rise.
-dZ.
I know I'm going to burn for this, but what the heck...
Who's Jimmy Page, the guy from Led Zeppelin?
-dZ.
And this is the typical "geek-centric" response. "Apple," they say, "could release a polished turd and it will sell millions." Point out that they do not sell polished turds, and that there is value in all their products and that the masses are purchasing them because they have their own reasons, and they concede; point out that the "geek-centric" view may be different than the general consumer and they even agree.
And then they respond with "sure, maybe they haven't yet... but they could."
Right. Apple has a history of selling polished turds that the "cult-like" following buys blindly. Except, no, wait... you agree that they haven't, that you and the other geeks do not buy their products in spite of the value perceived by consumers in general, due to your own personal choice. But of course, they could sell a polished turd and the masses would jump to it.
Where's the supporting--or even suggesting--evidence to that argument?
-dZ.
So, laptops built from a single slab of aluminium, back-lighted keyboard, and glossy screens are starting to look like cheap junk when compared to the plastic cased-fare offered by most manufacturers?
Have you actually handled an iPad? How about a Nook or a Kindle? The first feels like a solid product, with a metal enclosing and virtually no seams; while the other two feel like plastic cheap-ware. The same happens with some of the competitors' tablets.
-dZ.
That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?
There is no lock-in because nobody is forced to purchase apps or media from iTunes. The iPad is perfectly capable right out of the box with its built-in Web browser and other apps. Oh, you mean it doesn't have Adobe Flash support? Boo-hoo! It appears that hasn't stopped its sales, so perhaps people do not really care that much about it. They can access YouTube already through a built-in app.
Regarding music and other media, owners can install their own from other sources than the iTunes Store.
That 30% is not margin; it is the cost of running an e-commerce enterprise, complete with electronic payment and content delivery systems, none of which the developer has to bother with.
No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.
-dZ.
"App" is short for "Application," which is short of "Application Program." It always meant the application of a technology in the form of a computer program.
For instance, word processing is a kind of technology; a concept of how to manage textual information, if you will. A specific word processing package containing a computer program is the application of this word processing technology. Thus, it's a word processing application.
This is why the terms eventually were used interchangeably. It may not be semantically correct, but it is a short-hand for the longer term. Likewise for "app."
-dZ.
You do know that the New York Times is also a national publication, offering content that is not necessarily specific to New York, right?
-dZ.
That's a fair question, and the answer is--unsurprisingly--that you may not want to get it on the iPad.
However, some people already use their iPads to read their news from other sources, and this would provide another source. And if it offers enough relevant content to them, they may even stick with it.
So, to recapitulate, while The Daily on the iPad may not offer anything relevant to you (mainly because it does not let you link to external web sites), it may be of value to other people.
-dZ.
Sure, and I'm very happy for you. The parent post was mistakenly complaining about the "The Daily" app for not offering this, which I corrected.
-dZ.