While I can appreciate the irony in this situation, I find the tech community's reaction to this a bit baffling. Any company using their muscle in one market (in this case web videos) to stifle competition in another market (mobile phones) should be called out for doing so. While I can certainly see the humor in the fact that the victim in this case has historically been one of the bigger perpetrators of this type of behavior, I still feel that Google should not be getting a pass here. Microsoft may have wrongly implemented the new youtube app, but it was only after begging Google to work with them on a legit one, and being snubbed that they chose to do so at the behest of their customers. We give this company a metric ton of our data, and we trust them to do the right thing, but behavior like this should remind us all that no for-profit company can be trusted to act appropriately when there is money or market share at stake. I, like many, have been a big user/proponent of Google's products and services over the years, but they have gotten big and powerful, and are starting to act a lot like the MS of the 90's.
I got an iPad (original) from my work about a year ago. I used it quite a bit at first, but eventually wound up using my laptop more often. When I saw the Galaxy Tab 10.1 I really thought I'd give the tablet thing another try. I picked one up at Best Buy now that they have the no-questions-asked return policy. I truly believe it's the first iPad contender. It has the power, the battery life, the form factor, etc. All in all it's a great device. Also, I truly liked Honeycomb. Then, a few days later, I read that Samsung had ported their touchwiz UI to the Galaxy Tab, and were going to be pushing it out in an update in August. I promptly returned the device, and bought an iPad 2. Until Google puts their foot down and stops these manufacturers from bastardizing the very capable OS they have developed it's never going to be able to stand on equal footing with a device built by a company like Apple who controls everything from hardware to software. I decided to check out a Droid X2 a couple weeks ago, and after about 10 minutes gave it back in disgust. The thing had so much crapware bundled on it that it reminded me of 90s era PCs. Unfortunately you can't remove any of it without voiding your warranty. Google HAS to do something about this. I like Android, and I think some of these devices have a real chance at making a dent in the market, but they will not get a dime of my money until I get the OS as it was intended and the manufacturer leaves any modifications up to me.
Say what you will about Apple's "walled garden", but I'm kinda happy I'm inside it. That's not to say that iOS is not exploitable because it most certainly is, but it's much less likely something I purchase off the app store will contain malware like this.
That analogy doesn't work here. It's not like them putting the gas cap on the same side of the car (that'd be the two things doing the same function thing I mentioned in my OP). This is like them putting the EXACT same body on their chassis and slapping their logo on it. At least the specific apps I am referring to (Mail jumps to mind).
FTA:
In the latest intellectual property suit to hit the smartphone industry, Apple is suing Samsung, alleging the Galaxy line of phones and tablets infringe on a number of the company’s patents and trademarks.
I cannot speak to the patent thing all I can say is that the UI widgets, etc. looked EXACTLY like the iPhone in the custom mail app in particular. They specifically mention trademark so...
When my boss bought a galaxy tab I was curious to check it out. I spent about 5 minutes playing with it, handed it back to him, and said, "They're gonna wind up in court over this thing". I'm indifferent when it comes to android vs. ios. I have both a Droid X and an iPhone 4, and I use both every day. I find things about both platforms that are unique and that I prefer to the other. However, when you look at what Samsung did with their UI... It's pretty pathetic to be honest. They literally copied entire app UIs wholesale (even icons). There is no question that you can argue that all mail apps look similar, but this was almost pixel for pixel. They went so far as to make their own UI widgets (instead of the stock android ones) that looked JUST like the Apple ones. I'm not a huge fan of software patents, but there's a difference between similarities in programs that do the same function and literally just ripping off EXACTLY what another company does.
I'm sure this is a bug and not by design as the OP's argument doesn't make much sense. Most native app versions of services that also offer webapps are free anyways. Apple gets to eat the distribution overhead for no 30% cut. Just sayin.
Neither do I want the inevitable yearly charge for constant upgrades to the latest Cloud software. I bought MS Office *once* for ~$80 and have been using it for thirteen years. (Likewise I bought Final Fantasy 10 for $20 and have been playing it for ten years. In contrast Final Fantasy 11 requires a ~$5 per month constant fee.) No thanks. I want to OWN my software not rent it.
You do not own your software. What you own is a license to use it under specific terms, and the media it came on. Also, it's not really fair to draw a comparison between a boxed game that, while it has re-playability, has a set amount of play time to completion vs. an MMO which, while it has a monthly fee, you are getting a constant stream of new content for that subscription fee. Not saying that I don't understand your position about wanting to not pay a monthly fee for a game, but it's not as simple as owning vs. renting.
I am sorry if I worded that wrong. You're right, it's not COMMON for them to do it, but they do it a LOT with bigger bands. And you're right, $250,000 - $500,000 is a more accurate budget for your average band on a major, but even that is WAY beyond what an artist can afford to come up with.
It's absolutely not BS. Go price out what it costs to record 10 songs in a studio with a Producer. You CAN build quite a nice recording studio for under 20,000 I agree. However, recording in itself is an art as is mixing and mastering. To say that the average musician can record something equal to what a studio puts out or what you buy on a CD in a garage is presumptious. I am not saying that you can't, but the question was directed at "artists" in general. As far as the foo fighters go, after you make it big you can afford to drop big bucks on a studio equipment and record it in your basement. The average musician who aspires to turn it into a career is scraping by on hourly low pay jobs simply to make enough to live so they can put their effort into their music.
The simple fact is it's not as easy as you'd think. I work for an indie record label, and we plan to start offering DRM-free downloads through artist websites in addition to more common practices such as CD sales, and even other download services such as iTunes. However, the cost of professional recording is damn near outrageous. You are looking at MINIMUM $20,000, and more realistically somewhere in the 30 - 50 thousand dollar range to get the quality you get in a CD you buy at a store today. It's not uncommon for majors to pay $150,000 per SONG to put out a CD. People can use the argument that with Pro Tools and other computer-based recording solutions that it shouldn't cost that much, and you can do it on your own. But if you record it in a garage it's gonna sound like a garage recording. Studios are built for sound, and they have very high end equipment and people who know how to use it as fluently as you type on a keyboard. THAT is what makes a recording sound good. Unfortunately without the backing of a label it's really hard for a band to make it big. Usually if anything they make one of their garage recordings, guerilla-market themselves to the point where they are well known in their area and then get a label to pick them up so they can make a "real" recording. I will probably get flamed for saying all this, but it's the sad truth. Not ALL labels are evil. The majors are, and unfortunately a lot of the little labels are tied in with majors for distribution among other things. The problem is unless you target a niche market like we are it's nearly impossible to compete, and I can't imagine an artist pulling all that off on their own. That's not to say it CAN'T be done... but I've never seen it.
searched for 10.4 tiger resulted in:
MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.
Please try again in a few minutes.
EID: f:618926422 - 1041:1041:10004:1059
HC: 71d61b13
I'm sure it had nothing to do with what I was searching for, but still not exactly a good first impression.
Slashdot Mirror
While I can appreciate the irony in this situation, I find the tech community's reaction to this a bit baffling. Any company using their muscle in one market (in this case web videos) to stifle competition in another market (mobile phones) should be called out for doing so. While I can certainly see the humor in the fact that the victim in this case has historically been one of the bigger perpetrators of this type of behavior, I still feel that Google should not be getting a pass here. Microsoft may have wrongly implemented the new youtube app, but it was only after begging Google to work with them on a legit one, and being snubbed that they chose to do so at the behest of their customers. We give this company a metric ton of our data, and we trust them to do the right thing, but behavior like this should remind us all that no for-profit company can be trusted to act appropriately when there is money or market share at stake. I, like many, have been a big user/proponent of Google's products and services over the years, but they have gotten big and powerful, and are starting to act a lot like the MS of the 90's.
I got an iPad (original) from my work about a year ago. I used it quite a bit at first, but eventually wound up using my laptop more often. When I saw the Galaxy Tab 10.1 I really thought I'd give the tablet thing another try. I picked one up at Best Buy now that they have the no-questions-asked return policy. I truly believe it's the first iPad contender. It has the power, the battery life, the form factor, etc. All in all it's a great device. Also, I truly liked Honeycomb. Then, a few days later, I read that Samsung had ported their touchwiz UI to the Galaxy Tab, and were going to be pushing it out in an update in August. I promptly returned the device, and bought an iPad 2. Until Google puts their foot down and stops these manufacturers from bastardizing the very capable OS they have developed it's never going to be able to stand on equal footing with a device built by a company like Apple who controls everything from hardware to software. I decided to check out a Droid X2 a couple weeks ago, and after about 10 minutes gave it back in disgust. The thing had so much crapware bundled on it that it reminded me of 90s era PCs. Unfortunately you can't remove any of it without voiding your warranty. Google HAS to do something about this. I like Android, and I think some of these devices have a real chance at making a dent in the market, but they will not get a dime of my money until I get the OS as it was intended and the manufacturer leaves any modifications up to me.
Say what you will about Apple's "walled garden", but I'm kinda happy I'm inside it. That's not to say that iOS is not exploitable because it most certainly is, but it's much less likely something I purchase off the app store will contain malware like this.
That analogy doesn't work here. It's not like them putting the gas cap on the same side of the car (that'd be the two things doing the same function thing I mentioned in my OP). This is like them putting the EXACT same body on their chassis and slapping their logo on it. At least the specific apps I am referring to (Mail jumps to mind).
FTA: In the latest intellectual property suit to hit the smartphone industry, Apple is suing Samsung, alleging the Galaxy line of phones and tablets infringe on a number of the company’s patents and trademarks. I cannot speak to the patent thing all I can say is that the UI widgets, etc. looked EXACTLY like the iPhone in the custom mail app in particular. They specifically mention trademark so...
Fair enough. I was just pointing out how far they went.
I didn't mean the shape and arrangement. I meant the icons themselves. As in the artwork.
When my boss bought a galaxy tab I was curious to check it out. I spent about 5 minutes playing with it, handed it back to him, and said, "They're gonna wind up in court over this thing". I'm indifferent when it comes to android vs. ios. I have both a Droid X and an iPhone 4, and I use both every day. I find things about both platforms that are unique and that I prefer to the other. However, when you look at what Samsung did with their UI... It's pretty pathetic to be honest. They literally copied entire app UIs wholesale (even icons). There is no question that you can argue that all mail apps look similar, but this was almost pixel for pixel. They went so far as to make their own UI widgets (instead of the stock android ones) that looked JUST like the Apple ones. I'm not a huge fan of software patents, but there's a difference between similarities in programs that do the same function and literally just ripping off EXACTLY what another company does.
I'm sure this is a bug and not by design as the OP's argument doesn't make much sense. Most native app versions of services that also offer webapps are free anyways. Apple gets to eat the distribution overhead for no 30% cut. Just sayin.
I don't want my information in the cloud.
Neither do I want the inevitable yearly charge for constant upgrades to the latest Cloud software. I bought MS Office *once* for ~$80 and have been using it for thirteen years. (Likewise I bought Final Fantasy 10 for $20 and have been playing it for ten years. In contrast Final Fantasy 11 requires a ~$5 per month constant fee.) No thanks. I want to OWN my software not rent it.
You do not own your software. What you own is a license to use it under specific terms, and the media it came on. Also, it's not really fair to draw a comparison between a boxed game that, while it has re-playability, has a set amount of play time to completion vs. an MMO which, while it has a monthly fee, you are getting a constant stream of new content for that subscription fee. Not saying that I don't understand your position about wanting to not pay a monthly fee for a game, but it's not as simple as owning vs. renting.
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070618/en_nm/moore_si cko_dc;_ylt=AlCwA3Q_lgqYCdEP6.QZgqLMWM0F
Separately, Moore said he would not prosecute those already circulating bootleg copies of the still-unreleased documentary on the Internet. "I'm happy for people to see my movie. I'm not a big fan of the copyright laws in this country," he said.
Must suck to have to deal with 20,000 legitimate e-mails every day ;)
I am sorry if I worded that wrong. You're right, it's not COMMON for them to do it, but they do it a LOT with bigger bands. And you're right, $250,000 - $500,000 is a more accurate budget for your average band on a major, but even that is WAY beyond what an artist can afford to come up with.
It's absolutely not BS. Go price out what it costs to record 10 songs in a studio with a Producer. You CAN build quite a nice recording studio for under 20,000 I agree. However, recording in itself is an art as is mixing and mastering. To say that the average musician can record something equal to what a studio puts out or what you buy on a CD in a garage is presumptious. I am not saying that you can't, but the question was directed at "artists" in general. As far as the foo fighters go, after you make it big you can afford to drop big bucks on a studio equipment and record it in your basement. The average musician who aspires to turn it into a career is scraping by on hourly low pay jobs simply to make enough to live so they can put their effort into their music.
The simple fact is it's not as easy as you'd think. I work for an indie record label, and we plan to start offering DRM-free downloads through artist websites in addition to more common practices such as CD sales, and even other download services such as iTunes. However, the cost of professional recording is damn near outrageous. You are looking at MINIMUM $20,000, and more realistically somewhere in the 30 - 50 thousand dollar range to get the quality you get in a CD you buy at a store today. It's not uncommon for majors to pay $150,000 per SONG to put out a CD. People can use the argument that with Pro Tools and other computer-based recording solutions that it shouldn't cost that much, and you can do it on your own. But if you record it in a garage it's gonna sound like a garage recording. Studios are built for sound, and they have very high end equipment and people who know how to use it as fluently as you type on a keyboard. THAT is what makes a recording sound good. Unfortunately without the backing of a label it's really hard for a band to make it big. Usually if anything they make one of their garage recordings, guerilla-market themselves to the point where they are well known in their area and then get a label to pick them up so they can make a "real" recording. I will probably get flamed for saying all this, but it's the sad truth. Not ALL labels are evil. The majors are, and unfortunately a lot of the little labels are tied in with majors for distribution among other things. The problem is unless you target a niche market like we are it's nearly impossible to compete, and I can't imagine an artist pulling all that off on their own. That's not to say it CAN'T be done... but I've never seen it.
searched for 10.4 tiger resulted in: MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request. Please try again in a few minutes. EID: f:618926422 - 1041:1041:10004:1059 HC: 71d61b13 I'm sure it had nothing to do with what I was searching for, but still not exactly a good first impression.