Going through your list we have: 1) proof of concept never in the wild and no threat; 2) failed virus that doesn't actually work, requires a user to untar and run the app, then fails to propagate except on the local LAN if the users is an admin with specific changes to their configuration and which by all accounts never went anywhere after being posted to a forum; 3) trojan; 4) trojan.
I'm sure there are more, but I think I've answered your request.
None of those are current viruses. Only two of them are viruses at all, the first a proof of concept never released and without a payload and the second barely a virus at all, usually called a trojan and a complete failure. Neither are ever likely to be seen by a user.
Umm okay reading the list I see: proof of concept trojan never in the wild, keylogger, password cracker, five more keyloggers, demo trojan, then a bunch more keyloggers and legitimate remote management apps. Can you be a little more specific as to where on that giant list the in the wild virus is? I searched for "virus" on the page but of the first 20 or 30 results none were viruses, except for a few that applied only to MacOS 6, which predates OS X.
I disagree. People don't value individual freedom on the internet, they just haven't come up with a workable method of censoring it.
Unfortunately, that crazy idea does not fly well with Jobs
That idea doesn't fly with pretty much any major business in the US, because they capitulate to the values of our society as a way to make money. I don't blame them really for making the smart business move. I do blame society for failing to value individual freedom.
No, but the point is the banning is completely arbitrary. They *claim* it is based on one thing, but the reality is something else. Just annoyed at the whole thing right now.
What makes you think that, other than misleading summary that makes it seem like this is an app that is approved instead of a mobile optimized Website?
Stop pretending that a corporate business decision is the same thing as government censorship
Stop making straw man arguments. You're conflating the two, not I. I use the term "censorship" i it's general meaning, not in it's legalese meaning. I never once mentioned any legal requirements, violations of the constitution, or calls to legal action, just my observations about our countries values with regard to personal choice.
Ahem. Freedom is also having the right to sell or not sell what you please.
Absolutely, as I originally stated, I support their freedom to choose, I just wish they were being pressured by society to choose not to censor instead of to censor.
You always have other alternatives and always will unless the government bans them.
Maybe not always, but often. That doesn't make their emphasis on removing individual choice any less distasteful.
Self censorship is and should always be allowed, without it we may as well have the government force a christian book store to sell playboy or a doughnut shop to sell salads.
Why does everyone focus on this point? I never once mention legally requiring companies to not censor (which I don't support) but that is all anyone brings up. As I said, I find it sad that American's don't value personal choice enough to criticize and avoid doing business with companies that interfere with individual freedom, but rather pressure companies to interfere with the individual freedom of others. What I'm talking about are ethics, a personal belief that everyone should be free to make stupid and distasteful choices without interference of others, provided those choices do not infringe anyone else's rights. It's just like the homosexual rights movement. I might not want to have sex with another man, but I bloody well will fight to make sure other people have the right to fuck whatever gender of people they prefer. Lots of people agree with me on this last bit, but just as many disagree and very few are making that stand because they believe in freedom itself, just a particular action.
I'm guessing, because you don't state it explicitly, that (1) you are an American and (2) you think that Apple, Amazon, et al are censoring. Rubbish. Bullshit. Poppycock.
Please, I can do without the nonsensical rambling. The aforementioned corporations are censoring, although they are not violating the freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution no legally infringing upon the rights of others.
If you don't understand the concept that companies are allowed to make choices...
I understand that concept perfectly and I support it. I never made any mention of making it illegal for these companies to censor the content they offer. I just said I was sad that most people supported it to an extent that it is the most profitable way to run a business. Just as I support the right of neo-nazi politicians to operate and spew hateful rhetoric and exploit people's ignorance, even though I wish society was better such that no one would listen to them.
Just because Walmart is conveniently located near you doesn't mean that they are obligated to carry every little thing that you and your neighbors desire.
It goes much further than that. They have the legal right to remove swearwords they find appropriate from the music they sell and to remove copies of books they disagree with from their shelves. I just wish our society looked at such actions on their part as repugnant.
...my local supermarket does not carry lactose-free chocolate milk. So have they "censored" something?
No. Choosing not to carry something is not censorship. Modifying or removing content being sold, however is... although not in the legal sense of the term.
You have the freedom to move to a more permissive locality...
This is just off topic. Because black people have the freedom to move out of the south would it be okay for people to value white power or something?
You have the freedom to legally connect to the vast majority of Web sites on the planet. Apple is not obligated to help you. Walmart is not obligated to help you.
Belabor the point much? No, they aren't obligated by law. But I find it distasteful and opposed to value of personal freedom for them to intentionally interfere with personal choice in order to cater to people who don't want content easily available. It's about freedom, the concept and value, not some legal requirement.
In short, get off your ass and get what you want and STFU about censorship, you don't even know what the word means...
Apparently you don't know what the word means and make incorrect assumptions about the opinions of others. Look it up in a dictionary already.
I suppose you're waiting for Walmart to tell you what it means...
I don't ever shop there, but maybe they censor part of the definition and that's where you were misled.
The crappiness of Netflix streaming is grossly overstated. Apple fanboys screaming sour grapes perhaps?
Umm, wouldn't that be the screaming of Linux users, who can't even get a functional, native Silverlight plug-in? Apple users can view the content on their Mac or iPhone (although the relative quality of Silverlight compared to Windows is an interesting question).
Where am I saying that individuals can't make choices? If I don't want a corporation to push certain material for whatever reason, be it too violent, immoral, or what not, then I don't support it.
I guess that depends upon what you mean by "don't support it". Does that mean you don't buy it, or that you pressure companies not to sell it so others don't have as easy of a time getting it? By saying you're in favor of "social censorship" to "control corporations" I inferred the latter, and that certainly does remove choices from people by making it harder for them to get things, taking the choice of them buying it at the vendor away from the individual and putting it in the hands of the corporation and the society pressuring that corporation.
I also notice your interesting choice of words "push certain material" as if offering something for sale was pushing it on others.
If we as a society realized this power, no government official would be free to take such action, and no evil corporation would be able to lobby to gain such control.
Theoretically we can just vote out the politicians now. Realistically, people don't care enough, are too distracted, and are too misinformed by people with a lot of money for marketing campaigns.
Rather than fighting an impossible battle that we're currently fighting, we should be pushing for people to wake up and realize their power as consumers.
Our best hope of controlling corporations isn't massive boycotts as those are too difficult to organize on a large scale especially when there aren't many choices for consumers in a locality. Our best hope is government as influenced by the democratic process. There is lots of room for a selfish politician or group to jump on the "ban lobbying; ban legalized bribes; and legislate that corporations are not people, don't have rights, and exist only for the common good" train. I suspect such a political movement would gain a lot of supporters in a hurry. Republican or Democrat, the vast majority of people would like to see lobbying made illegal and some day someone will capitalize upon that to get elected as a reform candidate for the people.
Netflix has a market cap bigger than some studios.
Not bigger than a lot of studios' parent corporations. There is a lot of consolidation there. Also, market cap and available cash are not exactly synonymous. Market cap is a good indicator of how much it would cost to buy Netflix, not how much buying power Netflix has. To date Netflix has acquired one, very, very small studio.
Who is going to stop them? Blockbuster?
Apple, Disney, Comcast/ABC, Newcorp... they're all in the game and all have a lot more cash on hand. Heck, many have suggested Apple buy Netflix outright, as it would only take something like 10% of Apple's reserve cash and would be a good way to give themselves a market boost in streaming, more bargaining power with the media companies, and kill the only major Silverlight customer.
While that is true, I understand most big rental companies get their DVDs at a fraction of the cost, in exchange for giving the movie companies a cut of each rental.
This is often the case, but the maximum price for any given rental is set by the price in the consumer DVD/DVD resale market. Thus prices are pushed down dramatically. "What you don't want to give us a break, okay, we'll just buy a couple from Ebay on the cheap." With streaming, there is no maximum so media producers push a lot harder. Netflix's rental by mail business is all that gives them leverage to push back, because they can't be "banned" by any media company until they comply with absurd licensing fees.
Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship.
I find the lack of respect for individual choice reflected by such censorship deeply saddening. Individuals should be given the right to make their own choices, even if the majority disagrees. That belief is the foundation of the concept of "freedom" which is often mentioned in political speeches but not valued by society, yourself included apparently.
But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.
This isn't really true, since corporations can legally lobby congress and spend money on media to get their puppets elected. Those politicians then pass laws that restrict our choices. When there is only one or two companies you can buy a needed service from, and both use the same behavior, your voting with your dollar is useless; your strategy wholly impotent. We voted with our dollars against the incompetent expensive mess that is domestic car manufacture, look how well that worked out.
...wouldn't they still need some special license to rent out the DVDs?
No, the media companies lost that battle long ago.Legally you can rent out movies you own, so long as you have the physical media, aren't copying that media, and aren't renting them for public viewing.
or in other words.. If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general
Sadly, no. Apple and the other big companies censor content because that makes them the most money, in their estimation. Heck, Walmart censors music they sell in the states, but not in most of the EU. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they're doing what the public wants because that makes them the most money.
No, my post was lamenting that what makes the most money, what the public demands is some level of censorship, because they don't value individual choice as much as they value making sure their kids and parents and random people, are not free to make choices that run counter to their beliefs. The US does not value free expression and individual choice, which is why big companies are doing what they're doing.
This article seems to be missing something important. How much does Netflix pay to the content provider for a license per movie played? Last I saw, estimates for most big players were something like $.50 to $.80 per view. For DVD's Netflix has to maintain a huge network of warehouses, staff, and buy replacements for what is broken, and the shipping, but in many cases that still seems to be cheaper than getting a license to stream the same film.
I really wish Americans valued the freedom of others to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones they wish others would not make. I really wish there were more people that hated white power literature, but would raise hell when big companies presumed to refuse to let them make an individual choice about buying it or not. I really wish it wasn't good business for Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to censor and limit the content they sell in order to cater to busybodies that don't want other people to have the opportunity to make choices the majority does not like. I wish we were living in the freedom loving, individual rights valuing country a subset of our founding fathers envisioned.
It's great that people have decided playboy isn't so bad or something, but I don't really care. I wish, instead, people were pressuring Apple to become common carriers of content, dedicated to being neutral and letting users choose for themselves.
Intelligent Design is pseudo science, an attempt to use science, logic, and reason to suggest the existence of God.
How does intelligent design use science? I cites the results of other science (mostly to attack them), but as far as I've seen never "uses" science. Rather, intelligent design presupposes an answer then tries to attack scientific results they don't like without using the scientific method to demonstrate anything, but while misleadingly calling their assertions "science".
It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.
It's a very clever idea, and executives are all falling over themselves to give away their corporation's best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits and the individual profits and advancement, they don't care they're shooting the corporation they work for (but don't give a rat's ass about) in the foot, long term.
It's the mercenary attitude with which employees are treated and the reciprocal mercenary attitude of said employees that is responsible for this type of "short term is all that matters" strategy by multinationals.
"Malcontents" are bred and created through bad, illegal, immoral or otherwise questionable behavior of players in government industry.
Actually, I'd disagree. There doesn't actually have to be anything illegal or immoral happening, simply things that conflict with an employee's world view. Hiring gays? That will get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Not hiring gays? That will also get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Quite likely in most government departments you will have employees pissed off on both ends of the spectrum about perceived behaviors of their bosses. That's just one example.
That's why we call them "whistle blowers" when the public needs to know.
True, and we have some pretty decent whistleblower protection laws on the books already.
This is and will be a witch hunt, however. Well meaning people who believe in the function and purpose of our government who haven't yet accepted that there is corruption beyond repair, are now to be pursued, persecuted and ejected from public service to better ensure that their dirty games can continue uninterrupted.
I doubt it will be anything of the sort. Rather, there will probably be some of the usual psych profiles and some touchy-feely meetings where people are encouraged to express themselves but won't because most of us are trained from a young age that it is better to lie to those in authority and hide from them our real selves. Maybe this will do some good and get some people with real problems help and maybe it will weed a few dangerous lunatics out of the ranks of bureaucrats. Mostly, however, I suspect it will be a huge waste of time and money.
Flash video (ie, the only problem HTML5/h.264 attempts to solve) has already been solved ages ago.
And you don't think a "lite" Flash player that only does video and breaks for other sites would be a problem for anyone? Sure.
HTML5/h.264 is barely used outside of a few clips on Youtube
You mean except for all the movies rented via iTunes and a dozen other, smaller online rental places, oh and all the natively recorded video from everyone's phones, like the ones people automatically upload to social networking sites. h246 is quite popular and huge number of sites have to it from flash in just the last year, momentum that was good for all of us since they were moving away from Flash and in a smaller number of cases away from WMV.
...you ain't gonna be watching the movie you just recorded on a freakin' web browser unless you're a tech-obsessed nerd.
Yeah, because no one uses a camcorder that is also a phone and which automatically uploads to web sites. Absolutely no one.
No it isn't. Flash is free to use and redistribute, (other) h.264 encoders and decoders are not. . HTML5/h.264 is a much larger threat to the future of the internet than Flash...
Seriously, that's your belief? You haven't seen any of the dozens of major security vulnerabilities resulting from Flash, nor the sites locked into using tools from a single vendor, nor Adobe's refusal to support Linux or other OS's, nor the huge number of browser and even OS crashes directly resulting from their crappy coding, nor the abysmal performance of Flash on many platforms including mobile? None of that is a problem for you and being locked into a single vendor product is better than being locked into an open standard where tools can be made by anyone? You are so hopelessly biased it is pathetic.
Everyone *but* Apple already supports Flash...
If by "supports" you mean it runs on some phones and runs a limited version on other phones and all of them end up having really, really lousy performance and drain your battery. Flash is a pile of crap on mobile devices and it's a pile of crap because it's locked down by a single vendor, so until they lose market share on the Web, they don't care that is sucks for users.
...so by the same argument Google can't be using it as a differentiator either.
Put down the crack pipe and pick up a dictionary. A differentiator is a feature you have and a competitor does not that you use in marketing to try to convince consumers. Google has absolutely been using Flash support (support for a closed standard) as a differentiator. I provided an example of their marketing already. Really, are you so absurdly biased in favor of Google that you truly believe they never do anything shady? Pull your head out of the sand. Google does a lot of good things. They're a fairly respectable company. I have friends that work there, good people dedicated to open standards. That doesn't mean Google doesn't occasionally do something greedy or harmful in the name of profit. It helps when the tech community points this out and calls on them to reverse their decision. It gives those people at Google who want a better choice on behalf of the community leverage to make changes. Your blind support for a harmful decision just makes things worse.
HTML5/h.264 however is not, therefore they can kill it off right now rather than having to wait a few years until WebM is mature enough to replace it.
And in the process they make all those Websites that were switching away from Flash switch BACK to Flash with no reason to ever move to WebM because it has the same performance penalties as Flash (which they will evaluate now, not in a few years). I don't know if Chrome will be enough to make a difference, but it's just another thing pushing people to Flash and that hurts us all.
...are just the first three links I clicked. All of them have people saying that the app was wiped from their iDevice as well as people who say it wasn't on theirs.
So my question is, how would the "kill switch" which actually revokes the signature for the app making it "disappear" even on existing phones remove it from some phones but not others? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless Apple has serious bugs in their implementation. In any case, after those initial reports over a year ago, no one followed up and none of the major tech news felt it worthy of investigation?
Apple doesn't have a history of giving details about stories like this.
Reports have asked Apple several times if there was a way to disable apps (and asked Google and MS) and Apple responded that there is but it had not been used. What makes you think if they asked again Apple would not answer?
I would suggest with the multitude of iPhone users saying the app disappeared from their phone (avforums for exampple), and Apple's lack of comment other than the app was removed from the app store, that it's exactly what happened.
I looked into the issue because I'm curious. There were a few informal news articles about it being pulled from the store and some isolated reports it was being wiped from phones. One vendor asked people to comment if they use the app and the status. About 75% of users said they still had it and it was working fine even after a synch. Some users, a significant number reported that it had vanished from their phone. One claimed to have contacted Apple who denied that it was being wiped. I've seen no formal news that even asked Apple if they had wiped it, but several from a while back where Apple said they had not yet remotely disabled any apps. One commenter claimed to work for TomTom said they had complained to Apple about NDrive because the company was buying software from competing GPS software makers and posting fake bad reviews.
Flash is likewise not supported by hardware decoders on many platforms and worse, since there is only one implementation of note, it is slow, crashy, and resource intensive.
Adobe's Flash implementation, there's nothing stopping Apple et al from writing their own.
That's your solution? No one has managed to write a compatible Flash implementation with Adobe's. It's a huge monster of spaghetti code that is bloated far beyond anything needed for a video playing codec. Moreover, it's a closed standard with more patent issues that h264. What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve here? This is about Google supporting Flash and not supporting h264, thus pushing the closed Flash over the open h264.
Why Flash at all?
Because Flash is already here and in place on all major platforms.
So is h264! Except H264 is already here and has good performance and stability on mobile devices, while Flash is a turd on mobile platforms. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The real problem here isn't Flash...
Yes it is. Google would like you to think it isn't, but Flash is still the dominant video player and Google is supporting it by building it into Chrome and promoting it on Android as a differentiator. Buy an Android mobile device and you can have "all the Web" including Flash (even though it will suck). Google makes money by Flash being dominant because it sells their mobile OS which gets them more advertising bucks. If Google was honest about wanting to support open standards, they'd drop Flash way faster than h264.
You really expect Google to agree to a so-called "standard" that forces anyone making tools even remotely related to internet video to pay a fee to an oligopoly or risk bankrupcy in a patent lawsuit?
No, I expect them to agree to support multiple codecs in their browser, until there is proper hardware support for WebM. Instead they're forcing everyone to use Flash, which is a closed standard run by a single vendor with a history of security and stability problems. Gee, that sure is better. Entrepreneurs don't have to pay to play or encode things with h264 because the codecs are built into Windows, OS X, and Linux (nor Android nor iOS) and exposed via APIs. It's already paid for by the OS makers
You're so focused on your illogical hatred for Flash that you're willing to hand over the free market to an oligopoly just to see it dissapear a couple years sooner.
My hatred of Flash is very logical. They've been screwing us all over for years and are still dominant in the market. I'm more than willing to put up with an open standard that might be patent encumbered for a few years, especially with a scheduled transition to a non-patent encumbered open standard. In fact, that's a much better solution than an immediate switch to WebM, because a switch today would leave everyone with an existing mobile device stuck with shitty battery performance. I don't really see the drawback to eliminating Flash NOW and scheduling the elimination of h264 in 2 or 4 or 6 years when enough phones have moved through the market to make hardware support fairly standard.
Apple can easily broker a better solution, one that benefits customers, but they won't and this is because they are intentionally promoting h.264 and using HTML5 h.264 support as a differentiating feature to try to gain market share in the mobile OS market... at the expense of open standards and users.
Umm, great and all, except it doesn't make sense. Apple isn't using h264 support as a differentiator because almost everyone already supports it including YouTube and Chrome and Android. Rather, Google is pulling support for it to create a differentiator. What Apple isn't doing is supporting a single vendor locked in system called "Flash" and despite your rampant Google fanboyism you haven't been able to justify a good reason why Google who claims they're acting for the good of the people with open standards is pushing Flash other than to make money.
The only problem with Apple's App Store is that Apple makes it impossible to have other app stores on your iPhone or iPad. In the physical world, we don't allow that kind of monopolistic behavior (at least in the USA).
You're misusing the term "monopoly" and yeah in the US we do allow that kind of thing in the physical world.
Want to have a brush guard with a killer winch on the front of your Jeep? You can buy them from lots of places, even though the manufacturer won't sell you one and (most) dealers won't install one.
Want to have a non-approved app on your iPhone, jailbreak it (legal) or take it to a third party, or install Android on your iPhone and download anything... even though Apple won't ship it preinstalled and won't sell the app through Apple's online store.
You can even pay someone else to install it for you, without Jeep's permission or approval.
You can pay someone to put a non-approved app on your iPhone too, if you lack the expertise. It's just that Apple, like Jeep, isn't required to make it easy for you. They don't have to put mounts where you want, not use standard bolts, nor honor your warranty if problems result relating to your modification.
Slashdot Mirror
Going through your list we have: 1) proof of concept never in the wild and no threat; 2) failed virus that doesn't actually work, requires a user to untar and run the app, then fails to propagate except on the local LAN if the users is an admin with specific changes to their configuration and which by all accounts never went anywhere after being posted to a forum; 3) trojan; 4) trojan.
I'm sure there are more, but I think I've answered your request.
None of those are current viruses. Only two of them are viruses at all, the first a proof of concept never released and without a payload and the second barely a virus at all, usually called a trojan and a complete failure. Neither are ever likely to be seen by a user.
Please see list: http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/
Umm okay reading the list I see: proof of concept trojan never in the wild, keylogger, password cracker, five more keyloggers, demo trojan, then a bunch more keyloggers and legitimate remote management apps. Can you be a little more specific as to where on that giant list the in the wild virus is? I searched for "virus" on the page but of the first 20 or 30 results none were viruses, except for a few that applied only to MacOS 6, which predates OS X.
You sir, just described the internet.
I disagree. People don't value individual freedom on the internet, they just haven't come up with a workable method of censoring it.
Unfortunately, that crazy idea does not fly well with Jobs
That idea doesn't fly with pretty much any major business in the US, because they capitulate to the values of our society as a way to make money. I don't blame them really for making the smart business move. I do blame society for failing to value individual freedom.
No, but the point is the banning is completely arbitrary. They *claim* it is based on one thing, but the reality is something else. Just annoyed at the whole thing right now.
What makes you think that, other than misleading summary that makes it seem like this is an app that is approved instead of a mobile optimized Website?
Even more likely he has only signed a contract with the developers, and hasn't a clue whether it will get approved.
He doesn't need it to be approved, it's a web page optimized for mobile/iPhone/iPad use. People just jumped to the conclusion it would be an app.
Stop pretending that a corporate business decision is the same thing as government censorship
Stop making straw man arguments. You're conflating the two, not I. I use the term "censorship" i it's general meaning, not in it's legalese meaning. I never once mentioned any legal requirements, violations of the constitution, or calls to legal action, just my observations about our countries values with regard to personal choice.
Ahem. Freedom is also having the right to sell or not sell what you please.
Absolutely, as I originally stated, I support their freedom to choose, I just wish they were being pressured by society to choose not to censor instead of to censor.
You always have other alternatives and always will unless the government bans them.
Maybe not always, but often. That doesn't make their emphasis on removing individual choice any less distasteful.
Self censorship is and should always be allowed, without it we may as well have the government force a christian book store to sell playboy or a doughnut shop to sell salads.
Why does everyone focus on this point? I never once mention legally requiring companies to not censor (which I don't support) but that is all anyone brings up. As I said, I find it sad that American's don't value personal choice enough to criticize and avoid doing business with companies that interfere with individual freedom, but rather pressure companies to interfere with the individual freedom of others. What I'm talking about are ethics, a personal belief that everyone should be free to make stupid and distasteful choices without interference of others, provided those choices do not infringe anyone else's rights. It's just like the homosexual rights movement. I might not want to have sex with another man, but I bloody well will fight to make sure other people have the right to fuck whatever gender of people they prefer. Lots of people agree with me on this last bit, but just as many disagree and very few are making that stand because they believe in freedom itself, just a particular action.
I'm guessing, because you don't state it explicitly, that (1) you are an American and (2) you think that Apple, Amazon, et al are censoring. Rubbish. Bullshit. Poppycock.
Please, I can do without the nonsensical rambling. The aforementioned corporations are censoring, although they are not violating the freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution no legally infringing upon the rights of others.
If you don't understand the concept that companies are allowed to make choices...
I understand that concept perfectly and I support it. I never made any mention of making it illegal for these companies to censor the content they offer. I just said I was sad that most people supported it to an extent that it is the most profitable way to run a business. Just as I support the right of neo-nazi politicians to operate and spew hateful rhetoric and exploit people's ignorance, even though I wish society was better such that no one would listen to them.
Just because Walmart is conveniently located near you doesn't mean that they are obligated to carry every little thing that you and your neighbors desire.
It goes much further than that. They have the legal right to remove swearwords they find appropriate from the music they sell and to remove copies of books they disagree with from their shelves. I just wish our society looked at such actions on their part as repugnant.
...my local supermarket does not carry lactose-free chocolate milk. So have they "censored" something?
No. Choosing not to carry something is not censorship. Modifying or removing content being sold, however is... although not in the legal sense of the term.
You have the freedom to move to a more permissive locality...
This is just off topic. Because black people have the freedom to move out of the south would it be okay for people to value white power or something?
You have the freedom to legally connect to the vast majority of Web sites on the planet. Apple is not obligated to help you. Walmart is not obligated to help you.
Belabor the point much? No, they aren't obligated by law. But I find it distasteful and opposed to value of personal freedom for them to intentionally interfere with personal choice in order to cater to people who don't want content easily available. It's about freedom, the concept and value, not some legal requirement.
In short, get off your ass and get what you want and STFU about censorship, you don't even know what the word means...
Apparently you don't know what the word means and make incorrect assumptions about the opinions of others. Look it up in a dictionary already.
I suppose you're waiting for Walmart to tell you what it means...
I don't ever shop there, but maybe they censor part of the definition and that's where you were misled.
The crappiness of Netflix streaming is grossly overstated. Apple fanboys screaming sour grapes perhaps?
Umm, wouldn't that be the screaming of Linux users, who can't even get a functional, native Silverlight plug-in? Apple users can view the content on their Mac or iPhone (although the relative quality of Silverlight compared to Windows is an interesting question).
Where am I saying that individuals can't make choices? If I don't want a corporation to push certain material for whatever reason, be it too violent, immoral, or what not, then I don't support it.
I guess that depends upon what you mean by "don't support it". Does that mean you don't buy it, or that you pressure companies not to sell it so others don't have as easy of a time getting it? By saying you're in favor of "social censorship" to "control corporations" I inferred the latter, and that certainly does remove choices from people by making it harder for them to get things, taking the choice of them buying it at the vendor away from the individual and putting it in the hands of the corporation and the society pressuring that corporation.
I also notice your interesting choice of words "push certain material" as if offering something for sale was pushing it on others.
If we as a society realized this power, no government official would be free to take such action, and no evil corporation would be able to lobby to gain such control.
Theoretically we can just vote out the politicians now. Realistically, people don't care enough, are too distracted, and are too misinformed by people with a lot of money for marketing campaigns.
Rather than fighting an impossible battle that we're currently fighting, we should be pushing for people to wake up and realize their power as consumers.
Our best hope of controlling corporations isn't massive boycotts as those are too difficult to organize on a large scale especially when there aren't many choices for consumers in a locality. Our best hope is government as influenced by the democratic process. There is lots of room for a selfish politician or group to jump on the "ban lobbying; ban legalized bribes; and legislate that corporations are not people, don't have rights, and exist only for the common good" train. I suspect such a political movement would gain a lot of supporters in a hurry. Republican or Democrat, the vast majority of people would like to see lobbying made illegal and some day someone will capitalize upon that to get elected as a reform candidate for the people.
Netflix has a market cap bigger than some studios.
Not bigger than a lot of studios' parent corporations. There is a lot of consolidation there. Also, market cap and available cash are not exactly synonymous. Market cap is a good indicator of how much it would cost to buy Netflix, not how much buying power Netflix has. To date Netflix has acquired one, very, very small studio.
Who is going to stop them? Blockbuster?
Apple, Disney, Comcast/ABC, Newcorp... they're all in the game and all have a lot more cash on hand. Heck, many have suggested Apple buy Netflix outright, as it would only take something like 10% of Apple's reserve cash and would be a good way to give themselves a market boost in streaming, more bargaining power with the media companies, and kill the only major Silverlight customer.
While that is true, I understand most big rental companies get their DVDs at a fraction of the cost, in exchange for giving the movie companies a cut of each rental.
This is often the case, but the maximum price for any given rental is set by the price in the consumer DVD/DVD resale market. Thus prices are pushed down dramatically. "What you don't want to give us a break, okay, we'll just buy a couple from Ebay on the cheap." With streaming, there is no maximum so media producers push a lot harder. Netflix's rental by mail business is all that gives them leverage to push back, because they can't be "banned" by any media company until they comply with absurd licensing fees.
Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship.
I find the lack of respect for individual choice reflected by such censorship deeply saddening. Individuals should be given the right to make their own choices, even if the majority disagrees. That belief is the foundation of the concept of "freedom" which is often mentioned in political speeches but not valued by society, yourself included apparently.
But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.
This isn't really true, since corporations can legally lobby congress and spend money on media to get their puppets elected. Those politicians then pass laws that restrict our choices. When there is only one or two companies you can buy a needed service from, and both use the same behavior, your voting with your dollar is useless; your strategy wholly impotent. We voted with our dollars against the incompetent expensive mess that is domestic car manufacture, look how well that worked out.
...wouldn't they still need some special license to rent out the DVDs?
No, the media companies lost that battle long ago.Legally you can rent out movies you own, so long as you have the physical media, aren't copying that media, and aren't renting them for public viewing.
or in other words.. If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general
Sadly, no. Apple and the other big companies censor content because that makes them the most money, in their estimation. Heck, Walmart censors music they sell in the states, but not in most of the EU. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they're doing what the public wants because that makes them the most money.
No, my post was lamenting that what makes the most money, what the public demands is some level of censorship, because they don't value individual choice as much as they value making sure their kids and parents and random people, are not free to make choices that run counter to their beliefs. The US does not value free expression and individual choice, which is why big companies are doing what they're doing.
This article seems to be missing something important. How much does Netflix pay to the content provider for a license per movie played? Last I saw, estimates for most big players were something like $.50 to $.80 per view. For DVD's Netflix has to maintain a huge network of warehouses, staff, and buy replacements for what is broken, and the shipping, but in many cases that still seems to be cheaper than getting a license to stream the same film.
I really wish Americans valued the freedom of others to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones they wish others would not make. I really wish there were more people that hated white power literature, but would raise hell when big companies presumed to refuse to let them make an individual choice about buying it or not. I really wish it wasn't good business for Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to censor and limit the content they sell in order to cater to busybodies that don't want other people to have the opportunity to make choices the majority does not like. I wish we were living in the freedom loving, individual rights valuing country a subset of our founding fathers envisioned.
It's great that people have decided playboy isn't so bad or something, but I don't really care. I wish, instead, people were pressuring Apple to become common carriers of content, dedicated to being neutral and letting users choose for themselves.
Intelligent Design is pseudo science, an attempt to use science, logic, and reason to suggest the existence of God.
How does intelligent design use science? I cites the results of other science (mostly to attack them), but as far as I've seen never "uses" science. Rather, intelligent design presupposes an answer then tries to attack scientific results they don't like without using the scientific method to demonstrate anything, but while misleadingly calling their assertions "science".
It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.
It's a very clever idea, and executives are all falling over themselves to give away their corporation's best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits and the individual profits and advancement, they don't care they're shooting the corporation they work for (but don't give a rat's ass about) in the foot, long term.
It's the mercenary attitude with which employees are treated and the reciprocal mercenary attitude of said employees that is responsible for this type of "short term is all that matters" strategy by multinationals.
"Malcontents" are bred and created through bad, illegal, immoral or otherwise questionable behavior of players in government industry.
Actually, I'd disagree. There doesn't actually have to be anything illegal or immoral happening, simply things that conflict with an employee's world view. Hiring gays? That will get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Not hiring gays? That will also get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Quite likely in most government departments you will have employees pissed off on both ends of the spectrum about perceived behaviors of their bosses. That's just one example.
That's why we call them "whistle blowers" when the public needs to know.
True, and we have some pretty decent whistleblower protection laws on the books already.
This is and will be a witch hunt, however. Well meaning people who believe in the function and purpose of our government who haven't yet accepted that there is corruption beyond repair, are now to be pursued, persecuted and ejected from public service to better ensure that their dirty games can continue uninterrupted.
I doubt it will be anything of the sort. Rather, there will probably be some of the usual psych profiles and some touchy-feely meetings where people are encouraged to express themselves but won't because most of us are trained from a young age that it is better to lie to those in authority and hide from them our real selves. Maybe this will do some good and get some people with real problems help and maybe it will weed a few dangerous lunatics out of the ranks of bureaucrats. Mostly, however, I suspect it will be a huge waste of time and money.
Flash video (ie, the only problem HTML5/h.264 attempts to solve) has already been solved ages ago.
And you don't think a "lite" Flash player that only does video and breaks for other sites would be a problem for anyone? Sure.
HTML5/h.264 is barely used outside of a few clips on Youtube
You mean except for all the movies rented via iTunes and a dozen other, smaller online rental places, oh and all the natively recorded video from everyone's phones, like the ones people automatically upload to social networking sites. h246 is quite popular and huge number of sites have to it from flash in just the last year, momentum that was good for all of us since they were moving away from Flash and in a smaller number of cases away from WMV.
...you ain't gonna be watching the movie you just recorded on a freakin' web browser unless you're a tech-obsessed nerd.
Yeah, because no one uses a camcorder that is also a phone and which automatically uploads to web sites. Absolutely no one.
No it isn't. Flash is free to use and redistribute, (other) h.264 encoders and decoders are not. . HTML5/h.264 is a much larger threat to the future of the internet than Flash...
Seriously, that's your belief? You haven't seen any of the dozens of major security vulnerabilities resulting from Flash, nor the sites locked into using tools from a single vendor, nor Adobe's refusal to support Linux or other OS's, nor the huge number of browser and even OS crashes directly resulting from their crappy coding, nor the abysmal performance of Flash on many platforms including mobile? None of that is a problem for you and being locked into a single vendor product is better than being locked into an open standard where tools can be made by anyone? You are so hopelessly biased it is pathetic.
Everyone *but* Apple already supports Flash...
If by "supports" you mean it runs on some phones and runs a limited version on other phones and all of them end up having really, really lousy performance and drain your battery. Flash is a pile of crap on mobile devices and it's a pile of crap because it's locked down by a single vendor, so until they lose market share on the Web, they don't care that is sucks for users.
...so by the same argument Google can't be using it as a differentiator either.
Put down the crack pipe and pick up a dictionary. A differentiator is a feature you have and a competitor does not that you use in marketing to try to convince consumers. Google has absolutely been using Flash support (support for a closed standard) as a differentiator. I provided an example of their marketing already. Really, are you so absurdly biased in favor of Google that you truly believe they never do anything shady? Pull your head out of the sand. Google does a lot of good things. They're a fairly respectable company. I have friends that work there, good people dedicated to open standards. That doesn't mean Google doesn't occasionally do something greedy or harmful in the name of profit. It helps when the tech community points this out and calls on them to reverse their decision. It gives those people at Google who want a better choice on behalf of the community leverage to make changes. Your blind support for a harmful decision just makes things worse.
HTML5/h.264 however is not, therefore they can kill it off right now rather than having to wait a few years until WebM is mature enough to replace it.
And in the process they make all those Websites that were switching away from Flash switch BACK to Flash with no reason to ever move to WebM because it has the same performance penalties as Flash (which they will evaluate now, not in a few years). I don't know if Chrome will be enough to make a difference, but it's just another thing pushing people to Flash and that hurts us all.
...are just the first three links I clicked. All of them have people saying that the app was wiped from their iDevice as well as people who say it wasn't on theirs.
So my question is, how would the "kill switch" which actually revokes the signature for the app making it "disappear" even on existing phones remove it from some phones but not others? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless Apple has serious bugs in their implementation. In any case, after those initial reports over a year ago, no one followed up and none of the major tech news felt it worthy of investigation?
Apple doesn't have a history of giving details about stories like this.
Reports have asked Apple several times if there was a way to disable apps (and asked Google and MS) and Apple responded that there is but it had not been used. What makes you think if they asked again Apple would not answer?
I would suggest with the multitude of iPhone users saying the app disappeared from their phone (avforums for exampple), and Apple's lack of comment other than the app was removed from the app store, that it's exactly what happened.
I looked into the issue because I'm curious. There were a few informal news articles about it being pulled from the store and some isolated reports it was being wiped from phones. One vendor asked people to comment if they use the app and the status. About 75% of users said they still had it and it was working fine even after a synch. Some users, a significant number reported that it had vanished from their phone. One claimed to have contacted Apple who denied that it was being wiped. I've seen no formal news that even asked Apple if they had wiped it, but several from a while back where Apple said they had not yet remotely disabled any apps. One commenter claimed to work for TomTom said they had complained to Apple about NDrive because the company was buying software from competing GPS software makers and posting fake bad reviews.
So I guess the topic is still in question.
Flash is likewise not supported by hardware decoders on many platforms and worse, since there is only one implementation of note, it is slow, crashy, and resource intensive.
Adobe's Flash implementation, there's nothing stopping Apple et al from writing their own.
That's your solution? No one has managed to write a compatible Flash implementation with Adobe's. It's a huge monster of spaghetti code that is bloated far beyond anything needed for a video playing codec. Moreover, it's a closed standard with more patent issues that h264. What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve here? This is about Google supporting Flash and not supporting h264, thus pushing the closed Flash over the open h264.
Why Flash at all?
Because Flash is already here and in place on all major platforms.
So is h264! Except H264 is already here and has good performance and stability on mobile devices, while Flash is a turd on mobile platforms. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The real problem here isn't Flash...
Yes it is. Google would like you to think it isn't, but Flash is still the dominant video player and Google is supporting it by building it into Chrome and promoting it on Android as a differentiator. Buy an Android mobile device and you can have "all the Web" including Flash (even though it will suck). Google makes money by Flash being dominant because it sells their mobile OS which gets them more advertising bucks. If Google was honest about wanting to support open standards, they'd drop Flash way faster than h264.
You really expect Google to agree to a so-called "standard" that forces anyone making tools even remotely related to internet video to pay a fee to an oligopoly or risk bankrupcy in a patent lawsuit?
No, I expect them to agree to support multiple codecs in their browser, until there is proper hardware support for WebM. Instead they're forcing everyone to use Flash, which is a closed standard run by a single vendor with a history of security and stability problems. Gee, that sure is better. Entrepreneurs don't have to pay to play or encode things with h264 because the codecs are built into Windows, OS X, and Linux (nor Android nor iOS) and exposed via APIs. It's already paid for by the OS makers
You're so focused on your illogical hatred for Flash that you're willing to hand over the free market to an oligopoly just to see it dissapear a couple years sooner.
My hatred of Flash is very logical. They've been screwing us all over for years and are still dominant in the market. I'm more than willing to put up with an open standard that might be patent encumbered for a few years, especially with a scheduled transition to a non-patent encumbered open standard. In fact, that's a much better solution than an immediate switch to WebM, because a switch today would leave everyone with an existing mobile device stuck with shitty battery performance. I don't really see the drawback to eliminating Flash NOW and scheduling the elimination of h264 in 2 or 4 or 6 years when enough phones have moved through the market to make hardware support fairly standard.
Apple can easily broker a better solution, one that benefits customers, but they won't and this is because they are intentionally promoting h.264 and using HTML5 h.264 support as a differentiating feature to try to gain market share in the mobile OS market... at the expense of open standards and users.
Umm, great and all, except it doesn't make sense. Apple isn't using h264 support as a differentiator because almost everyone already supports it including YouTube and Chrome and Android. Rather, Google is pulling support for it to create a differentiator. What Apple isn't doing is supporting a single vendor locked in system called "Flash" and despite your rampant Google fanboyism you haven't been able to justify a good reason why Google who claims they're acting for the good of the people with open standards is pushing Flash other than to make money.
The only problem with Apple's App Store is that Apple makes it impossible to have other app stores on your iPhone or iPad. In the physical world, we don't allow that kind of monopolistic behavior (at least in the USA).
You're misusing the term "monopoly" and yeah in the US we do allow that kind of thing in the physical world.
Want to have a brush guard with a killer winch on the front of your Jeep? You can buy them from lots of places, even though the manufacturer won't sell you one and (most) dealers won't install one.
Want to have a non-approved app on your iPhone, jailbreak it (legal) or take it to a third party, or install Android on your iPhone and download anything... even though Apple won't ship it preinstalled and won't sell the app through Apple's online store.
You can even pay someone else to install it for you, without Jeep's permission or approval.
You can pay someone to put a non-approved app on your iPhone too, if you lack the expertise. It's just that Apple, like Jeep, isn't required to make it easy for you. They don't have to put mounts where you want, not use standard bolts, nor honor your warranty if problems result relating to your modification.