I don't think it is so soon. It's already almost been a year since the original came out.
This isn't Apple's other electronic markets, cell phones are updated almost the time, and usually it's not just a "slap a stick of bigger memory on it and call it a day" sort of revision. They need and should be adding more features to compete with the rest of the market.
With that said, I don't understand why the hell people keep begging for GPS, I just feel that there are so many other better self GPS only products that get the job done that Apple shouldn't bother with that market. Besides, if you're shelling out hundreds on an iPhone, I have a feeling you may have a GPS system of some sorts already.
Give everyone that doesn't download music a $5 discount? They already charge most of us up the ass and throttle d/l and u/l speeds as it is. Why should we pay anything additional?
Woz also states in the same interview that he's tired of reporters taking his comments out of context and making him look like an Apple-hater.
Quote: "[Jobs] calls me and he says he doesn't like something that I was reputed to have said. But he gets it out of context. A reporter's seized on a comment and strung along with that. I'm very positive on Apple, but I'll also point out things that could be better, or aren't the way I'd like them to be."
Well, IAALS, and I'm pretty damn sure this will not pass muster.
First off, like all corporations, Yahoo is incorporated in Delaware, which is very corporation friendly (hence the proliferation of most companies incorporating there, regardless.
Second of all, courts will normally give the board of directors the initial benefit of the doubt by utilizing something called the Business Judgment Rule (it's on wikipedia), which basically says that the courts will very rarely second-guess the actions of the board providing that the actions taken were 1. In good faith. 2. Done with the minimal care that an ordinary person in the board's shoes would have done and 3. Done with a reasonable belief that it was in the best interest of the company.
In other words, short term investors simply being pissed off for not making money is not a good enough reason to bring this suit passed the initial phase.
Finally I know I'm probably wrong since I didn't get a good grade in business associations, but real law folk feel free to correct if needed.
Why does every one insist on giving the same old tired arguments every time an update comes out? Doesn't anyone remember that an SDK is coming out in a month (or less?) Everyone will be able to get their crappy Notepad++++ programs that way as well, and with Apple's approval no less.
The issue with the unlocking is a different however. But, until the US people stand up and actually say that they want universal unlocking for all phones e.t.c. exclusive deals like the iPhone will continue. (Speaking of which, there have been exclusive phones in the past, and there will be more in the future, why is the iPhone always singled out for this?
Yeah that's what I was thinking. I should have said that I hope that a court would find the C&D lacking proper notice (coupled with the lack of any actual pleading) to such an effect that they would immediately grant summary judgment on an injunction hearing for the defendant.
No court in a million years would honor a C&D sent to a news site covering a news story in good faith. This is what Fair Use is all about, regardless of which Intellectual Property we're talking about.
In fact, this is the kind of shit I want to see taken to court in the hopes that a judge will give punitive damages to the company that abused the C&D.
It's not merely an accusation, think of it more as a preliminary injunction.
In Copyright terms, a preliminary injunction can be granted by the courts for Copyright owners if they can prove 1. A substantial likelihood of copyright infringement and 2. "irreparable harm" should the alleged infringement continues to persist (while the court case is going on). Hell, the injunction hearing can be heard through an ex parte motion, which means that the other side doesn't even have to be there.
I'm thinking this new Agency is going to need at least SOME evidence to adhere to a standard similar to the substantial likelihood one in order to take away someone's computers. Personally, I don't think the court is going to stand for it either way. There's always enough remedies in place for Copyright infringement including the injunctions mentioned above, actual damages (and profits), statutory damages, and other non-damage remedies such as the right to destroy the alleged infringing copies of work (which sort of seems like what's at issue here, theoretically the owner of a copyright can ask the court to seize and destroy any and all of the infringing works, which could conceivably be a computer in this situation, although the main issue is that the majority of these remedies are available AFTER a court trial).
Well I do agree with you in theory, I hope you realize this ISN'T how it all markets work. The bottom line is, as of right now, locking a phone is not against the law. Some circles would argue that the act of unlocking the phone violated the DMCA as not falling within one of the very few 'fair use' exceptions codified in that chapter.
What does this mean? It means that companies CAN control what you do past the point of sale (or at the very least, the government can control what you do and can pass off that control to the companies that want it).
Here's an example, albeit a very poor one. I buy a lighter at a store. It's mine, right? I can do whatever I want with it? Well, I can certainly light a cigar with it or a candle, and if I wanted to I could burn my personal property. But can I burn random shit outside of my home? Most likely not, because a law prohibits it. Can I take it on a plane? Only if you want to be branded a terrorist and god knows what else happens to you. "But wait a minute, this is mine, and I should be be able to do whatever the hell I want with it, and any one that says otherwise can fuck off and die." Well, sorry, there are rules that restrict what you can do, even after you buy something.
Now, I know what you're thinking. "That was a horrible analogy and it's not the same thing because A. it's the government imposing restrictions and not a private corporation and B. on the whole, those restrictions on what you can do are for the safety of others." Well, as I mentioned earlier, by allowing companies like Apple to impose these restrictions without any moderating or control, the government is effectively giving these companies the ability to legally do what they are doing. As for the restrictions for the safety of others? Well, these restrictions are done for the financial safety of Apple and AT&T. And, at least in the current regime, they count just as much as any individual or entity.
I can understand a lot of the hate sent towards Apple, because this locking/unlocking fiasco is very ridiculous. But if you really want to change this, stop it where it starts -- and that's at Congress and legislation such as the DMCA.
There is a way to prove that judges make mistakes. It's called appealing to a higher court. However, there's a lot of reasons not to even bother, with the most significant hurdle being the cost of appealing the case coupled with the fact that even if the higher circuit reversed, you wouldn't get nearly enough money to cover the attorney fees that you'll need to get that far. (Unlike a lower district court, most appeals courts hear the facts solely on the record generated by the lower court, with the only new material being briefs submitted on both sides to argue why the lower judge either correctly or incorrectly applied the law at hand.
I agree. I took a Digital Journalism course under the Communication Department at Stanford two years ago with a Professor named Howard Rheingold. He assigned us a ton of these "pedagogical experiments" including both creating a Wiki article and making a legit contribution to an already existing page. It was some interesting fun, especially when we had to monitor afterwards whether or not our pages/edits actually survived the hordes of Wiki moderators.
EDU customers can still get Leopard for the traditional $69 price point. However, they have to purchase it from their INSTITUTION now, rather than flashing an EDU ID at Apple Stores.
At least this is according to the MacRumors Article on Leopard Pricing options.
You don't see juries in civil trial cases say, "We find the defendant liable on all charges." They say guilty. Whether or not it's the form of guilt that you're equating the word with. A defendant in a civil case is still guilty of the tort alleged. Of course, this form of guilt doesn't make them a criminal, it just makes them a tortfeasor.
IAALS (I Am A Law Student), specializing in Intellectual Property no less, although Jury Nullification is more of something that you randomly learn in one of the first year classes.
Other than that, I think considering the worst criticism I've gotten is calling the California Supreme Court a "significant" one, I think I've done my job. Besides, all I wrote was what other legal entities have written (hence my case citations).
Sorry, but Jury Nullification, while having deeply entrenched common law roots, is not as cut and dry as you may think it is. Many court cases, including some from notable power courts such as the Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law." People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 463
Also, just from browsing the Wiki article you linked there are many examples of court cases in which Jury Nullification has either been criticized or not been held to be a viable option for juries. See U.S. v. Krzyske 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (Upholding on appeal a judge's answer to a juror that jury nullification "didn't exist") and U.S. v. Thomas 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they are planning on utilizing jury nullification)
Now, I'm in no way advocating the removal of the concept of jury nullification from our system, but I'm simply stating that to just throw out such a blanket action as the answer to this question doesn't help much because the action itself is under attack by significant powers in the legal realm. At least IMO, it seems like it would make much more sense to focus on electing a decent legislative body to reject these rules, rather than holding out for jury nullification that really only works as a one shot deal to begin with.
If you look at the comments that Phil Schiller made yesterday, Apple's taking the position that they don't "mean" to brick it, but it just "might happen" anyways, which of course is total bullshit. At least they're not shooting themselves in the foot immediately by saying that they're deliberately trying to brick 'em.
Now my question is, what exactly do they need to update that would cause such brickage.
I do agree with your suggestion, although the only thing I'd say is that every other phone seems to call their radio disable mode "Airplane Mode," and I'm sure Apple (for once) was just trying to abide by the norms in the industry.
Of course this would all have been avoided with a quick look at a manual, but I digress.
The whole article is FUD. The iPhone wasn't "OFF" -- it was just asleep. If users want to be stupid and pretend that sleep is off, then they pay the consequences.
Besides, there's three legitimate ways they could have avoided the charges, you can just turn it off, but that wouldn't make much sense since you couldn't use it as an iPod. You can also go into the email settings and turn off auto-check, but since you obviously don't want any roaming charges, it wouldn't make much sense to keep the radio on. That's why there's the airplane mode which will shut off the radio and everything that has to do with it.
Seriously, what else does Apple need to do. Does Airplane mode need to be in big bold letters on the main menu with a note that says, "Hey! USE THIS IF YOU GO OVERSEAS." I would hope that if you buy an iPhone you're knowledgeable enough to look up the airplane mode.
I dont mind buttons at all. In fact I think the biggest mistake with the ipod is the lack of buttons. A quick and easy way to switch tracks AND volume should be required on all mp3 devices. Having to go through a menu system to change volume is silly. (not to mention the lack of FM)
I can't decide whether you're a troll or not. On an iPod you just move your hand around the click wheel to change the volume; no going through "a menu system" to change the volume.
As for a quick and easy way to switch tracks, it's called the forward button, and it's right smack in front of your face when you're looking at an iPod.
Of course, if you're referring to the iPhone, I suppose you have a beef about changing tracks when it's locked. But geeze, lay off the pipe.
Probably not the best solution, but there is a third-party solution available that allows people to use any PS2 controller on the PS3. I know I picked mine up specifically for the GH game coming out tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it is so soon. It's already almost been a year since the original came out.
This isn't Apple's other electronic markets, cell phones are updated almost the time, and usually it's not just a "slap a stick of bigger memory on it and call it a day" sort of revision. They need and should be adding more features to compete with the rest of the market.
With that said, I don't understand why the hell people keep begging for GPS, I just feel that there are so many other better self GPS only products that get the job done that Apple shouldn't bother with that market. Besides, if you're shelling out hundreds on an iPhone, I have a feeling you may have a GPS system of some sorts already.
....that we don't build any robots that can read lips.
Give everyone that doesn't download music a $5 discount? They already charge most of us up the ass and throttle d/l and u/l speeds as it is. Why should we pay anything additional?
Point your browser to the Apple Developer website in order to download a beta SDK (seems to be down right now because of web server poundage).
A few other notes:
1. SDK is free to download, but you'll have to pay $99 to be able to submit your App (regardless of how much it'll cost).
2. App Store seems to be the only way you can get Apps on the phone (you can download straight from the phone, or through computer).
3. VOIP will be allowed but only WiFi VOIP.
4. Spore for iPhone? Fuck yeah!
I voted for Kodos.
Woz also states in the same interview that he's tired of reporters taking his comments out of context and making him look like an Apple-hater.
Quote: "[Jobs] calls me and he says he doesn't like something that I was reputed to have said. But he gets it out of context. A reporter's seized on a comment and strung along with that. I'm very positive on Apple, but I'll also point out things that could be better, or aren't the way I'd like them to be."
Hmmm that's pretty interesting. My prof didn't cover that in our BA class, but I guess something like that is reserved more for the Advanced course.
In any case, I'm going to remember this just in case I need to recite in the future. Thanks a bunch!
Well, IAALS, and I'm pretty damn sure this will not pass muster.
First off, like all corporations, Yahoo is incorporated in Delaware, which is very corporation friendly (hence the proliferation of most companies incorporating there, regardless.
Second of all, courts will normally give the board of directors the initial benefit of the doubt by utilizing something called the Business Judgment Rule (it's on wikipedia), which basically says that the courts will very rarely second-guess the actions of the board providing that the actions taken were 1. In good faith. 2. Done with the minimal care that an ordinary person in the board's shoes would have done and 3. Done with a reasonable belief that it was in the best interest of the company.
In other words, short term investors simply being pissed off for not making money is not a good enough reason to bring this suit passed the initial phase.
Finally I know I'm probably wrong since I didn't get a good grade in business associations, but real law folk feel free to correct if needed.
Why does every one insist on giving the same old tired arguments every time an update comes out? Doesn't anyone remember that an SDK is coming out in a month (or less?) Everyone will be able to get their crappy Notepad++++ programs that way as well, and with Apple's approval no less.
The issue with the unlocking is a different however. But, until the US people stand up and actually say that they want universal unlocking for all phones e.t.c. exclusive deals like the iPhone will continue. (Speaking of which, there have been exclusive phones in the past, and there will be more in the future, why is the iPhone always singled out for this?
Yeah that's what I was thinking. I should have said that I hope that a court would find the C&D lacking proper notice (coupled with the lack of any actual pleading) to such an effect that they would immediately grant summary judgment on an injunction hearing for the defendant.
No court in a million years would honor a C&D sent to a news site covering a news story in good faith. This is what Fair Use is all about, regardless of which Intellectual Property we're talking about.
In fact, this is the kind of shit I want to see taken to court in the hopes that a judge will give punitive damages to the company that abused the C&D.
It's not merely an accusation, think of it more as a preliminary injunction.
In Copyright terms, a preliminary injunction can be granted by the courts for Copyright owners if they can prove 1. A substantial likelihood of copyright infringement and 2. "irreparable harm" should the alleged infringement continues to persist (while the court case is going on). Hell, the injunction hearing can be heard through an ex parte motion, which means that the other side doesn't even have to be there.
I'm thinking this new Agency is going to need at least SOME evidence to adhere to a standard similar to the substantial likelihood one in order to take away someone's computers. Personally, I don't think the court is going to stand for it either way. There's always enough remedies in place for Copyright infringement including the injunctions mentioned above, actual damages (and profits), statutory damages, and other non-damage remedies such as the right to destroy the alleged infringing copies of work (which sort of seems like what's at issue here, theoretically the owner of a copyright can ask the court to seize and destroy any and all of the infringing works, which could conceivably be a computer in this situation, although the main issue is that the majority of these remedies are available AFTER a court trial).
-E
Well I do agree with you in theory, I hope you realize this ISN'T how it all markets work. The bottom line is, as of right now, locking a phone is not against the law. Some circles would argue that the act of unlocking the phone violated the DMCA as not falling within one of the very few 'fair use' exceptions codified in that chapter.
What does this mean? It means that companies CAN control what you do past the point of sale (or at the very least, the government can control what you do and can pass off that control to the companies that want it).
Here's an example, albeit a very poor one. I buy a lighter at a store. It's mine, right? I can do whatever I want with it? Well, I can certainly light a cigar with it or a candle, and if I wanted to I could burn my personal property. But can I burn random shit outside of my home? Most likely not, because a law prohibits it. Can I take it on a plane? Only if you want to be branded a terrorist and god knows what else happens to you. "But wait a minute, this is mine, and I should be be able to do whatever the hell I want with it, and any one that says otherwise can fuck off and die." Well, sorry, there are rules that restrict what you can do, even after you buy something.
Now, I know what you're thinking. "That was a horrible analogy and it's not the same thing because A. it's the government imposing restrictions and not a private corporation and B. on the whole, those restrictions on what you can do are for the safety of others." Well, as I mentioned earlier, by allowing companies like Apple to impose these restrictions without any moderating or control, the government is effectively giving these companies the ability to legally do what they are doing. As for the restrictions for the safety of others? Well, these restrictions are done for the financial safety of Apple and AT&T. And, at least in the current regime, they count just as much as any individual or entity.
I can understand a lot of the hate sent towards Apple, because this locking/unlocking fiasco is very ridiculous. But if you really want to change this, stop it where it starts -- and that's at Congress and legislation such as the DMCA.
There is a way to prove that judges make mistakes. It's called appealing to a higher court. However, there's a lot of reasons not to even bother, with the most significant hurdle being the cost of appealing the case coupled with the fact that even if the higher circuit reversed, you wouldn't get nearly enough money to cover the attorney fees that you'll need to get that far. (Unlike a lower district court, most appeals courts hear the facts solely on the record generated by the lower court, with the only new material being briefs submitted on both sides to argue why the lower judge either correctly or incorrectly applied the law at hand.
Agreed. As far as I'm concerned if I don't get the damn day off from law school, then I don't give a shit if Google makes a logo for it.
In any case, it's not a bad design. Looks like Google is gearing up for the trenches against whatever next week's "Google is evil" topic will be.
I agree. I took a Digital Journalism course under the Communication Department at Stanford two years ago with a Professor named Howard Rheingold. He assigned us a ton of these "pedagogical experiments" including both creating a Wiki article and making a legit contribution to an already existing page. It was some interesting fun, especially when we had to monitor afterwards whether or not our pages/edits actually survived the hordes of Wiki moderators.
EDU customers can still get Leopard for the traditional $69 price point. However, they have to purchase it from their INSTITUTION now, rather than flashing an EDU ID at Apple Stores.
At least this is according to the MacRumors Article on Leopard Pricing options.
You don't see juries in civil trial cases say, "We find the defendant liable on all charges." They say guilty. Whether or not it's the form of guilt that you're equating the word with. A defendant in a civil case is still guilty of the tort alleged. Of course, this form of guilt doesn't make them a criminal, it just makes them a tortfeasor.
IAALS (I Am A Law Student), specializing in Intellectual Property no less, although Jury Nullification is more of something that you randomly learn in one of the first year classes.
Other than that, I think considering the worst criticism I've gotten is calling the California Supreme Court a "significant" one, I think I've done my job. Besides, all I wrote was what other legal entities have written (hence my case citations).
Sorry, but Jury Nullification, while having deeply entrenched common law roots, is not as cut and dry as you may think it is. Many court cases, including some from notable power courts such as the Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law." People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 463
Also, just from browsing the Wiki article you linked there are many examples of court cases in which Jury Nullification has either been criticized or not been held to be a viable option for juries. See U.S. v. Krzyske 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (Upholding on appeal a judge's answer to a juror that jury nullification "didn't exist") and U.S. v. Thomas 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they are planning on utilizing jury nullification)
Now, I'm in no way advocating the removal of the concept of jury nullification from our system, but I'm simply stating that to just throw out such a blanket action as the answer to this question doesn't help much because the action itself is under attack by significant powers in the legal realm. At least IMO, it seems like it would make much more sense to focus on electing a decent legislative body to reject these rules, rather than holding out for jury nullification that really only works as a one shot deal to begin with.
If you look at the comments that Phil Schiller made yesterday, Apple's taking the position that they don't "mean" to brick it, but it just "might happen" anyways, which of course is total bullshit. At least they're not shooting themselves in the foot immediately by saying that they're deliberately trying to brick 'em.
Now my question is, what exactly do they need to update that would cause such brickage.
I do agree with your suggestion, although the only thing I'd say is that every other phone seems to call their radio disable mode "Airplane Mode," and I'm sure Apple (for once) was just trying to abide by the norms in the industry.
Of course this would all have been avoided with a quick look at a manual, but I digress.
The whole article is FUD. The iPhone wasn't "OFF" -- it was just asleep. If users want to be stupid and pretend that sleep is off, then they pay the consequences.
Besides, there's three legitimate ways they could have avoided the charges, you can just turn it off, but that wouldn't make much sense since you couldn't use it as an iPod. You can also go into the email settings and turn off auto-check, but since you obviously don't want any roaming charges, it wouldn't make much sense to keep the radio on. That's why there's the airplane mode which will shut off the radio and everything that has to do with it.
Seriously, what else does Apple need to do. Does Airplane mode need to be in big bold letters on the main menu with a note that says, "Hey! USE THIS IF YOU GO OVERSEAS." I would hope that if you buy an iPhone you're knowledgeable enough to look up the airplane mode.
Sheesh.
I can't decide whether you're a troll or not. On an iPod you just move your hand around the click wheel to change the volume; no going through "a menu system" to change the volume.
As for a quick and easy way to switch tracks, it's called the forward button, and it's right smack in front of your face when you're looking at an iPod.
Of course, if you're referring to the iPhone, I suppose you have a beef about changing tracks when it's locked. But geeze, lay off the pipe.
Probably not the best solution, but there is a third-party solution available that allows people to use any PS2 controller on the PS3. I know I picked mine up specifically for the GH game coming out tomorrow.