How is Apple giving them free reign, when the policy states that the developer is required to get the user's consent and Apple's written permission to access identifying information?
>> Except everyone but Google (and Bing presumably) are allowed access to all the precious user data they are supposedly protecting.
Only after getting the user's consent. How is this not an improvement from what we have right now, where they snatch the data willy-nilly without the user's knowledge?
As I replied above to another comment, I am perfectly fine with downloading and using an Ad-Supported App that announces itself as such, and indeed there are plenty of these in the App Store.
What they don't announce is all the data they are sneakily extracting from the device while displaying the ads. Why wasn't that part announced in the product description?
"Supported by selling your personal and location information to advertisers while displaying Ads!" and "New Feature: We'll let X Analytics company track you while you play so that all major advertisers may target you with even more ads outside this app!" just doesn't have the same innocuous ring as "Ad Supported", right?
There's a problem with that rationale: When I go to the App Store, free apps typically say "Ad Supported" or something like that. At that point I make the decision to download it and use it. Fine, your point is well taken.
However, what the description didn't tell me was, "We'll-scrape-all-the-info-we-can-get-to-off-your-device-while-displaying-Ads Supported".
Why is that? Is it because there is a tacit understanding among developers that the user may decline such wholesale disregard to his privacy? Then they are admitting that their business model is dependent on being sneaky with regards to their customers.
There is an allegation that the prototype was taken from that Apple punkass' bag, and not just "left at a bar" as is being claimed. Either way, I do not have the full facts of the case, so I'll wait for the court to decide.
I find Objective-C a superior language than other crap I have to deal with at work. C# is a wonderful language, in my opinion, but its ties to the.NET framework limits its platform scope and, to me at least, its appeal.
That's like saying that the combination you get by throwing a couple of dice is not truly random because the outcome is constrained by the values depicted in the faces.
I'm sure that the users of telephone systems were as bewildered by the communications networks at the turn of the 19th century as users are today by computer networks. Over 100 years of the technology permeating our society in many facets has allowed the technology to be demystified, and its concerns to be understood. Computer networks--specifically, end-to-end user communications such Wi-Fi networks--are fairly new.
You can be sure that the common man will not understand, say, the privacy implications of using VOIP communications and how they differ from using a POTS telephone service, yet to you these may be obvious.
That said, people are able to appreciate the privacy concerns when explained in detail, these are just not obvious to the general lay person. To insist that it should be is rather unreasonable.
Isn't the whole point to use to in order to identify someone? Presumably, that hash code is associated with your personal record in the library's database.
As the name implies, NO2ID is against personally identifying and tracking individuals across our society, their concerns are much more broader than specifically biometrics or ID cards. These are mere tools to reach that goal.
Because the general public does not understand the underlying technology that makes computer networks work, and so may not understand the difference between connecting two computers by wire or by radio. Thus, it should be reasonable to expect them to not automatically equate the latter to broadcasting using CB radio.
Opera Mini does not render HTML nor processes JavaScript. This is done on Opera's servers, and streamed down to the client for display using the native framework.
Sure, ask the Mozilla Dev Team to write iFirefox to use WebKit instead of Gecko. There are other browsers for the iPhone, you know, but Apple requires them to use WebKit as the sole rendering layer.
It's perfectly understandable. Most Apple-bashing zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody, for some irrational control-freakery bout they have attained. So it may seem surprising when their entrenched, biased opinions are rattled by an otherwise business-savvy move that seems too rational.
With your first supposition, I agree. However, with your second comment,
>> That, or journalists who know what they are doing, but can't find work in the old school places will end up forming a startup and succeeding in bringing first tier news where the AP and the paywall sites fail.
I disagree. They could do this right now, however nobody has found a way to sustainably make money off of it, which is the predicament we are in right now.
If they find a way to make money without a paywall, then more power to them. But offering content for free and depending on Internet advertising has not been enough so far.
That argument would be valid, except for the fact that he is actually wanting Google to stop indexing his pages. That he didn't do this immediately on the very day that he spoke about the problems with aggregators is just incidental. Deals have to be made, technology has to be put in place, and business models have to be analysed and prepared.
On the one hand, this could be the earliest that he could get his web sites ready for this. On the other, he could have just been reading Slashdot and decided last night that, "well, they asked for it, so I'll show them."
I believe this is what he is currently planning on doing. It shows that he is putting his money where his mouth is, for all those, in Slashdot or elsewhere, who demanded that he do this in order to prove that it wasn't just the loud musings of a crazy old fart.
He may be crazy, but he is showing that he really believes in what he is saying, and is willing to explore non-traditional means in order to find a viable business model for web publication.
Even if this proves successful, it is still A Good Thing; he is not decrying the advent of the Internet and claiming that newspapers have a right to exist (he could just get out of the Internet completely and try to survive off-line, but he is not doing this). He is actually embracing the Internet, or trying to. In essence, he is confirming with his actions that traditional print media may be obsolete and that the Internet is the new medium to exploit; it is just a matter of finding the proper, sustainable business model.
We have not yet, and this may not be it, but I am positive that whatever model arises eventualy, it will not be free-for-all, come-as-you-go, user-generated, hippie-lovey content.
So the "web news" will cease to be the traditional, journalistic news, and will be replaced by casual "bloggers"?
I think there is a chance that this strategy will work. Considering that Mr. Murdoch has traditionally been a smart and cunning business man, I think he expects this too.
However, nothing remains the same forever, and better models may evolve. Therefore, to think that this would spell the end of the free Interwebs or society or anything like that is just plain stupid. For instance, it may come to pass that some publishers would like to expand their market share, so they may make deals with aggregators to offer "teasers" and deep-link to their content as loss-leaders--but this time at more reasonable terms for them, so that both sides make money out of it.
>> People want something to read on the Internet in the morning,
You forget one thing, there was a time when people didn't have "something to read on the Internet in the morning," yet the world turned, the sun rose and set, and people purchased subscriptions of bought their newspapers at the corner newsstand. The fact that there was always a guy at the traffic light giving out his self-published periodical for free did not much sway those that wanted more substantive and professional publications.
People only want something to read on the Internet in the morning for free, because currently it is free; they are just used to this. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is not sustainable, so it may change soon. People will adapt and the world will continue turning, the sun rising and setting, and someone will make money.
Slashdot Mirror
How is Apple giving them free reign, when the policy states that the developer is required to get the user's consent and Apple's written permission to access identifying information?
-dZ.
>> Except everyone but Google (and Bing presumably) are allowed access to all the precious user data they are supposedly protecting.
Only after getting the user's consent. How is this not an improvement from what we have right now, where they snatch the data willy-nilly without the user's knowledge?
-dZ.
As I replied above to another comment, I am perfectly fine with downloading and using an Ad-Supported App that announces itself as such, and indeed there are plenty of these in the App Store.
What they don't announce is all the data they are sneakily extracting from the device while displaying the ads. Why wasn't that part announced in the product description?
"Supported by selling your personal and location information to advertisers while displaying Ads!" and "New Feature: We'll let X Analytics company track you while you play so that all major advertisers may target you with even more ads outside this app!" just doesn't have the same innocuous ring as "Ad Supported", right?
-dZ.
There's a problem with that rationale: When I go to the App Store, free apps typically say "Ad Supported" or something like that. At that point I make the decision to download it and use it. Fine, your point is well taken.
However, what the description didn't tell me was, "We'll-scrape-all-the-info-we-can-get-to-off-your-device-while-displaying-Ads Supported".
Why is that? Is it because there is a tacit understanding among developers that the user may decline such wholesale disregard to his privacy? Then they are admitting that their business model is dependent on being sneaky with regards to their customers.
Is this what you are defending?
-dZ.
I ran out of mod points yesterday, so I hope someone else mods you up.
-dZ.
There is an allegation that the prototype was taken from that Apple punkass' bag, and not just "left at a bar" as is being claimed. Either way, I do not have the full facts of the case, so I'll wait for the court to decide.
-dZ.
I prefer .NET to Java, but I prefer Objective-C to both.
-dZ.
Yes, and it tries to replicate the CLI and the .NET framework, both of which I think suck.
-dZ.
I find Objective-C a superior language than other crap I have to deal with at work. C# is a wonderful language, in my opinion, but its ties to the .NET framework limits its platform scope and, to me at least, its appeal.
-dZ.
Via GMail, or Wave, like everyone else.
-dZ.
I think they mean Intelligent Design of the universe, not of the iPad.
-dZ.
Except that, no matter what you say, I do believe in Froot Loops.
-dZ.
That's like saying that the combination you get by throwing a couple of dice is not truly random because the outcome is constrained by the values depicted in the faces.
-dZ.
I agree, people should be better educated. I disagree with the premise that such understanding is obvious to begin with.
-dZ.
I'm sure that the users of telephone systems were as bewildered by the communications networks at the turn of the 19th century as users are today by computer networks. Over 100 years of the technology permeating our society in many facets has allowed the technology to be demystified, and its concerns to be understood. Computer networks--specifically, end-to-end user communications such Wi-Fi networks--are fairly new.
You can be sure that the common man will not understand, say, the privacy implications of using VOIP communications and how they differ from using a POTS telephone service, yet to you these may be obvious.
That said, people are able to appreciate the privacy concerns when explained in detail, these are just not obvious to the general lay person. To insist that it should be is rather unreasonable.
-dZ.
Isn't the whole point to use to in order to identify someone? Presumably, that hash code is associated with your personal record in the library's database.
As the name implies, NO2ID is against personally identifying and tracking individuals across our society, their concerns are much more broader than specifically biometrics or ID cards. These are mere tools to reach that goal.
-dZ.
I'll bite.
Because the general public does not understand the underlying technology that makes computer networks work, and so may not understand the difference between connecting two computers by wire or by radio. Thus, it should be reasonable to expect them to not automatically equate the latter to broadcasting using CB radio.
-dZ.
Opera Mini does not render HTML nor processes JavaScript. This is done on Opera's servers, and streamed down to the client for display using the native framework.
-dZ.
Sure, ask the Mozilla Dev Team to write iFirefox to use WebKit instead of Gecko. There are other browsers for the iPhone, you know, but Apple requires them to use WebKit as the sole rendering layer.
-dZ.
It's perfectly understandable. Most Apple-bashing zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody, for some irrational control-freakery bout they have attained. So it may seem surprising when their entrenched, biased opinions are rattled by an otherwise business-savvy move that seems too rational.
-dZ.
With your first supposition, I agree. However, with your second comment,
>> That, or journalists who know what they are doing, but can't find work in the old school places will end up forming a startup and succeeding in bringing first tier news where the AP and the paywall sites fail.
I disagree. They could do this right now, however nobody has found a way to sustainably make money off of it, which is the predicament we are in right now.
If they find a way to make money without a paywall, then more power to them. But offering content for free and depending on Internet advertising has not been enough so far.
-dZ.
That argument would be valid, except for the fact that he is actually wanting Google to stop indexing his pages. That he didn't do this immediately on the very day that he spoke about the problems with aggregators is just incidental. Deals have to be made, technology has to be put in place, and business models have to be analysed and prepared.
On the one hand, this could be the earliest that he could get his web sites ready for this. On the other, he could have just been reading Slashdot and decided last night that, "well, they asked for it, so I'll show them."
I'd go with the first hand.
-dZ.
I believe this is what he is currently planning on doing. It shows that he is putting his money where his mouth is, for all those, in Slashdot or elsewhere, who demanded that he do this in order to prove that it wasn't just the loud musings of a crazy old fart.
He may be crazy, but he is showing that he really believes in what he is saying, and is willing to explore non-traditional means in order to find a viable business model for web publication.
Even if this proves successful, it is still A Good Thing; he is not decrying the advent of the Internet and claiming that newspapers have a right to exist (he could just get out of the Internet completely and try to survive off-line, but he is not doing this). He is actually embracing the Internet, or trying to. In essence, he is confirming with his actions that traditional print media may be obsolete and that the Internet is the new medium to exploit; it is just a matter of finding the proper, sustainable business model.
We have not yet, and this may not be it, but I am positive that whatever model arises eventualy, it will not be free-for-all, come-as-you-go, user-generated, hippie-lovey content.
-dZ.
So the "web news" will cease to be the traditional, journalistic news, and will be replaced by casual "bloggers"?
I think there is a chance that this strategy will work. Considering that Mr. Murdoch has traditionally been a smart and cunning business man, I think he expects this too.
However, nothing remains the same forever, and better models may evolve. Therefore, to think that this would spell the end of the free Interwebs or society or anything like that is just plain stupid. For instance, it may come to pass that some publishers would like to expand their market share, so they may make deals with aggregators to offer "teasers" and deep-link to their content as loss-leaders--but this time at more reasonable terms for them, so that both sides make money out of it.
>> People want something to read on the Internet in the morning,
You forget one thing, there was a time when people didn't have "something to read on the Internet in the morning," yet the world turned, the sun rose and set, and people purchased subscriptions of bought their newspapers at the corner newsstand. The fact that there was always a guy at the traffic light giving out his self-published periodical for free did not much sway those that wanted more substantive and professional publications.
People only want something to read on the Internet in the morning for free, because currently it is free; they are just used to this. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is not sustainable, so it may change soon. People will adapt and the world will continue turning, the sun rising and setting, and someone will make money.
-dZ.
*Whoosh!*
-dZ.