Oh, I'd like to be one of those people you offered the twenty bucks to. Yes, please give me twenty bucks to go in and buy that iPad, along with the 600 bucks I need to pay for it... nice knowing you, sucker.;)
That sounds like a good way to get your kneecaps busted. You know those Apple stores only have the one way in and out for normal customers. It's especially bad for you if you're one of the many homeless of illegal immigrant community I'm probably picking, since you can't really go to the cops and 90% of the time if I call a cop over and say you grabbed $600 from my hand, they're going to frisk you, find the cash, hand it over, and haul your ass to jail for the night. But maybe you live in a different world than I do.
no one is making you look at anything - you can disable Flash on Android 2.2 and continue your flashless experience
One could say the same thing about IE only sites. No one is making you look at them on Windows. You can disable IE and continue the cross-platform experience. This, of course, ignores that your having access to IE influences Web developers and results in more IE only pages being created.
Now don't get me wrong. I fully support Google's choice to support Flash and to let users install anything they want. I just wish they made a different choice and would exclude it by default from Android and Chrome as a way of trying to push it out of the market and provide incentive for a more rapid move towards open standards. As it is, Apple is carrying the ball, clearly because it is in their own best interests moving forward, but they're taking a lot of flack for a move that in the long term helps all of us.
but they do go after people attempting to disseminate information about how to use something other than iTunes to load music onto an iPod (BluWiki)
A valid point, although, again, not them trying to control what people do with their hardware, per se. It was with regard to the copy control mechanisms for their software service. There already exists public domain code for the non-copy-protected parts needed to interface with the iPod.
...they recently won a case against Pystar who were buying OS-X and loading it onto non-Apple hardware in contravention of the EULA
True, but that's just defending their copyright and trademark and again, not regarding them stopping you from doing what you want with products they sold you.
...you can't get flash on your iP(o|a)d, etc.
Sure you can. Jailbreak it or install Android OS on it. Apple just doesn't offer Flash via the software service they provide.
but when it comes to attempting to use it for or slightly beyond it's purpose you hit limits and they are strictly controlled by Apple.
You can use it however you like and Apple can't stop you. They just aren't obligated to help you either, especially by altering the software or services they provide.
Maybe you have a different lifestyle but, I don't go to news sites that discuss TV, or bother to read other people's analysis of TV.
The front page of Yahoo and the front page of MSN both had tomorrow's American Idol's result prominently displayed a week and a half ago.
I don't frequent either site, but then, I don't know how much money it would take for me to care about who is winning on American Idol:) I generally look at hard news sites, or customizable sites that consolidate news of interest to me (NYT, BBC, Google News).
Just to check, CNN and Fox News both have the results up as well. But I guess you don't go to either of those either.
Actually, no. Fox is absurdly biased and untrustworthy (went to court to defend firing reporters who won't lie about health risks to the public from an advertiser's product) and CNN is a mix of soft news and sensationalism... not that it's that much worse than many other programs, just not somewhere I'd go as a primary source most of the time.
Since you don't go to news sites that report anything about any TV show ever, you must not go to any news site.
I'm sure some of the sites I go to occasionally report something about a TV show, just usually in the entertainment section (which I never bother to check) and usually about some pop culture show I could not care less about. But I don't know why you're belaboring this point. I acknowledged that it could be an issue for some people who follow popular TV shows promptly and find in culturally important.
Otherwise, it just shows how myopic and out of touch with reality you are.
Well, if you're really that interested, I just looked at my top 3 news sites. No TV shows on the front page of the BBC or NYT today, Google News doesn't have an entertainment section because I banished it years ago. My other two, top news sites are local, and while they mention local theater and what movie is being made in town, again nothing about TV shows (I'll refrain from mentioning the names since anonymity here can be useful upon occasion).
You have your way, and it's good, anyone else's way is bad...
Going off the deep end with a strawman there aren't you? I don't recall saying anything about good or bad. Perhaps you'd like to quote what part of my previous post(s) gave you that impression?
...ideas like "real news sites don't discuss TV" and such.
Maybe you're getting defensive. I didn't write anything about "real" news sites. I mentioned my experience and then wrote about how other people might have different experiences if they had lifestyles more similar to yours. For the most part I agreed with your last post. You never did, however, get around to mentioning where you heard that the Google service is providing suggestions based upon multiple video services.
This would do something like seamlessly integrate Hulu (and the like) and OTA TV and Satellite in one place. Does your computer recommend TV programs based on what you watch on Netflix?
I watched the demo of GoogleTV. While my computer recommends more Netflix based on other Netflix, and My DVR app recommends shows based on what I record/watch/like, they don't cross pollinate. But I didn't see that GoogleTV will do that either. It will play from multiple sources, but I saw nothing about it collating recommendations.
If you don't know when something is on or care, then you obviously don't follow any regular TV shows. Otherwise, you like to at least watch them before the next one is out, as they are topics of conversation or make it on news sites.
I watch regular TV shows. They queue up until I get around to seeing them. Maybe you have a different lifestyle but, I don't go to news sites that discuss TV, or bother to read other people's analysis of TV.
So knowing when something comes on makes a difference to many, even if you are above such worries.
I suppose that is the case, for people who have TV as water cooler talk or such. They still don't need to know the specific time or channel though.
And if you abandoned cable TV, how does your current system integrate to make recommendations
Different content providers make recommendations (ala Netflix and Hulu) individually. It's not clear to me that Google is going to do any differently, but if so that would be nice.
Part of GoogleTV is that its recommendations will be integrated across a much wider variety of sources than the previous methods of recommendation I've seen.
Do you have a link/citation for information on this?
If you think the prices charged by content providers don't effect those charged to end users... you're a loony. They raise the prices by demanding a toll to get it onto a channel and then a distribution network. Those costs get passed on to the end user. I saw some great numbers a while back that figured out the actual cost of creating all the shows on cable TV, burning DVDs of them, and mailing them to individuals without commercials. For subscriber bases much, much smaller than current TV viewership it was shockingly low compared to the price most people pay for cable or satellite. I wish I'd saved a copy of the maths.
But only for over the air. If you try to tune in any digital channels...
I've never had digital cable partly because I saw no value in it to justify it making my tuner no longer work properly. I had analogue cable right up until I dropped my subscription about a year ago.
Apple.com and the Apple retail stores are sales to end users only. That means no buying for resale.
So what if that is Apple's sales policy? They can't stop you from buying and reselling and to knowledge they have never tried. I asked for evidence of them trying to control what you do with something after you've bought it to support the assertion previously made. Where are these "plenty of occasions" mentioned?
In fact, the only thing that's "hard" about my setup is that most people don't know you can even do that. They don't know that you can hook a computer to a TV, they don't know WMC exists, and they don't know that you can get a remote for the computer.
Well not knowing you can do it, not having an extra computer, not knowing where to buy a cheap computer that can hook up to the TV, not knowing how to configure the computer to display on the TV, etc. If you know what you're doing and are a geek, of course you integrate your computer and TV. For everyone else there needs to be a plug and play pre-configured system for them, like what Google is offering.
Well, googletv is able to do more things than what I do with my computer hooked up to my TV.
Really?
You can google for tv shows, choose the best choice, press a button, and googletv will sintonize the channel automatically (or show a GUI to record the show in the future).
I don't know what "sintonize" means. Are you reverting to a native tongue? Anyway, guessing by the context, there are a number of applications for computers that do exactly that sort of thing, especially if you're using your computer with a tuner card.
Goodbye, channel numbers!
I said "goodbye" to both channel numbers and channel names many years ago. My computer has long recommended TV programs and others I searched for or just added to my regular rotation. Who knows when something is on, or what channel and who cares? Although lately, I've abandoned cable TV altogether. Between Netflix (with watch it now piped to the TV) and online TV from the network, Hulu, and independent creators, there is plenty to watch without paying an extra bill.
Define "a computer." Most DVRs contain pretty much all the components of a modern day computer... even those distributed by Cox or Comcast.
Computer - Noun: Not an abacus or a calculator or Data from Star Trek. A PC type device that allows normal people to surf the Web as well as some other generic functions. Not an appliance specifically locked down by your cable company to make sure you can't use any other devices with it or do anything really useful they don't approve of.
So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads. Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.
Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.
This isn't some lock-down method or they're be requiring your SSN or driver's license number. It's just a way to make it harder and less common so it is not a big problem for normal people. This isn't even an unusual business practice, it's only getting press because anything having to do with the iPad gets readers right now. Next there will be an article about how iPads can't be modded to run radio stations or "Apple" will send the FCC to arrest you.
Probably 90% of people on Slashdot have a computer hooked up to their TV, one way or another. But more mainstream options are still limited to things like AppleTV. Hopefully this Google offering helps make the usability level low enough that the technologically challenges masses will start to get some of the same benefits. Maybe it will hurt the entrenched content providers enough and provide enough of a market that we will be able to purchase shows ala carte at reasonable prices over the internet; without all the middle men taking our money.
Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?
Umm, because Apple won't sell you 10 fully loaded iPads with your gold Amex, just two. That doesn't stop you from buying two and reselling them, but it makes it a lot less worth your while.
Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.
Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.
Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?
They do not control if you can sell your iPad. They limit sales to two per customer, just like hundreds of other companies have done when they have constricted supplies. Heck, Nintendo will only sell you one Wii Fit per customer right now, but I don't see any press about how they're trying to stop you from reselling them.
Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people?
Easy, people aren't buying hundreds of them, then reselling them at a markup resulting in higher prices siphoned off by a middle man.
You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.
No, but you haven't shown how this is bad for customers, either or how it abuses them. If you're an early adopter and are buying while supplies are very limited, you have to use a credit card, but no more than two, or wait a few weeks. Oh, the poor customers.
Also taken into account that Apple and Mac have already paid those license costs for the OS. Why not use them?
That's not the only argument for this model. From a simple engineering perspective, I think it makes sense for the OS to handle codecs. The browser is certainly not the only application that needs to access them so if we use a model where apps pay, users will be paying multiple times needlessly. Apple already uses this model. Long ago I installed Ogg codecs, so when Apple introduced the HTML5 "video" tag in Safari, poof magically all those demo videos work for me in Safari. That the same is not true for running Firefox is sad to me and reflects their development philosophy. They seem to focus on cross-platform as their primary attribute. If it doesn't work on Windows, they won't make it work on Linux or OS X either, thus we're all held back by the worst common denominator. The results of this philosophy are the main thing keeping me away from Firefox. I like the plug-ins. I hate that it can't use all the cool native features of my OS and insists on re-implementing other features their own way that makes them incompatible with my other apps.
I believe you're purposely misinterpreting my sentiments. The Gamestop analogy would only be true if Gamestop sold you a game console which can only play games sold by Gamestop, and also they refuse to sell any game which is available for multiple platforms.
So if you're buying from the Sony, MS, or Nintendo Web site directly, that's exactly the case.
My contention is that software trust has already been solved in a manner which doesn't require tying a consumer's hand
Except you haven't cited an example that offers commercial software, for sale, in such a manner.
App Store doesn't offer any advantage over existing models, and has a number of disadvantages unique to itself.
Actually it does, which is why the Google app marketplace has distributed malware, but the Apple store does not seem to have as yet. The Apple App store does have an advantage, not one that can't be recreated without the lock-in but one no one has recreated yet without that lock-in.
I've always wondered why deliberate exploits hadn't been included in seemingly safe app store apps that allowed access to forbidden api's and did naughty things always sorta amazed me.
Well, for the iPhone app store, where's your motivation? How do you profit from it? You have to come up with fake credentials while submitting the app, you have to be sneaky enough the screeners don't notice, your app has to bust out of a fairly tight sandbox, then it has to do something that benefits you more than the risk of getting caught and the effort of development, and you can't count on it persisting since as soon as anyone notices, Apple pulls it not only from the store but also pulls the keys so it won't run on iPhones anymore unless they're jailbroken.
So the long and short of it is, it takes a crapload for work for less payoff than just writing a worm for Windows, or even a trojan for other mobile platforms.
But that isn't so useful as Apple's walled garden approach has forgone local security in favour of gateway only security, once you've gotten past the censors you have a free reign.
Don't you think it would be better to, you know, do any research on a topic before making such assertive and blatantly wrong statements? If anything, Apple's sandboxing is more restrictive than Google's.
There have already been data miners for the Iphone that have gotten past Apple's ever watchful censors including at least one fake banking application (BOA, IIRC).
Citation please. I've seen only trojans distributed to jailbroken iPhones, not through the store. Additionally, having a central store allows Apple the option of revoking the ability of such applications to function on all non-jailbroken iPhones everywhere.
Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and countless other community-maintained repositories have historically sustained a commendable level of security in their vast software collections.
Actually they've had numerous problems and failed to provide a viable option to extend that functionality to commercial software offerings. Canonical, in fact, is working on cloning the Apple store by adding a similar feature to the new Ubuntu package manager, due in the next release.
I don't agree. Sure, it's acceptable to have a walled garden, and to even make it the case that by default you can only wander the carefully groomed paths in that space. But if you want to peek over the wall, or even exit the garden, you should be permitted to.
Okay, take that argument apply it to any other store, like Gamestop. Sure it's acceptable that Gamestop only carries certain products, but you should be able to break out of that walled garden. What does that mean? That Gamestop and Apple should be forced to carry other products in their stores? That OS developers like Sony, Nintendo, and Apple should be forced to modify their OS's to support other ways to install and run software?
If you don't want to be locked into Apple approved apps, don't buy an iPhone. Or do buy and iPhone but install a more open OS on it. Or buy and iPhone and leave the OS and jailbreak it. I don't see what people are complaining about here. People have choices.
For especially sensitive apps (eg, banking), most people will generally understand that you should stick to the official app store.
But will they know the app they downloading thinking it was a game jailbroke their phone and is now uploading their banking info somewhere?
...in a way that locks down consumer property against their will.
I agree trust and software installations can be done much better than the iPhone app store, but I don't see any company that has done it. That people choosing the iPhone are being forced to do something against their will is your assumption.
but there always seems to be a pretty good selection of it available to spend my hard-earned pennies on pretty much wherever I go in the UK...
The UK is one of the countries with less dominance by one vendor, but have you tried going to local restaurants or ordering from local distributors? Now you can do so and get a variety of products. Five years ago, you could not. You could get Coke products or you could get the selection of all their competitors, but not both. The competition law action against Coca Cola has solved said problem.
Only the 95% of people who have no understanding of antitrust law, competition, and economics.
Antitrust law isn't applicable, because people are describing what they would like changed.
Antitrust law is applicable because it shows why these actions are different legally and economically than previous cases.
Economics, to which I will fold in competition, makes it quite clear that oligopolies can be just as bad as monopolies.
You are mistaken. It shows cartels can be just as bad, which is not the same as an oligarchy, as a cartel requires collusion between members. We don't have that. We have competition between Google and Apple and MS and RIM and Symbian and several others. I sure don't see the pace of innovation being slowed in this case. Do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'd like to be one of those people you offered the twenty bucks to. Yes, please give me twenty bucks to go in and buy that iPad, along with the 600 bucks I need to pay for it... nice knowing you, sucker. ;)
That sounds like a good way to get your kneecaps busted. You know those Apple stores only have the one way in and out for normal customers. It's especially bad for you if you're one of the many homeless of illegal immigrant community I'm probably picking, since you can't really go to the cops and 90% of the time if I call a cop over and say you grabbed $600 from my hand, they're going to frisk you, find the cash, hand it over, and haul your ass to jail for the night. But maybe you live in a different world than I do.
no one is making you look at anything - you can disable Flash on Android 2.2 and continue your flashless experience
One could say the same thing about IE only sites. No one is making you look at them on Windows. You can disable IE and continue the cross-platform experience. This, of course, ignores that your having access to IE influences Web developers and results in more IE only pages being created.
Now don't get me wrong. I fully support Google's choice to support Flash and to let users install anything they want. I just wish they made a different choice and would exclude it by default from Android and Chrome as a way of trying to push it out of the market and provide incentive for a more rapid move towards open standards. As it is, Apple is carrying the ball, clearly because it is in their own best interests moving forward, but they're taking a lot of flack for a move that in the long term helps all of us.
but they do go after people attempting to disseminate information about how to use something other than iTunes to load music onto an iPod (BluWiki)
A valid point, although, again, not them trying to control what people do with their hardware, per se. It was with regard to the copy control mechanisms for their software service. There already exists public domain code for the non-copy-protected parts needed to interface with the iPod.
...they recently won a case against Pystar who were buying OS-X and loading it onto non-Apple hardware in contravention of the EULA
True, but that's just defending their copyright and trademark and again, not regarding them stopping you from doing what you want with products they sold you.
...you can't get flash on your iP(o|a)d, etc.
Sure you can. Jailbreak it or install Android OS on it. Apple just doesn't offer Flash via the software service they provide.
but when it comes to attempting to use it for or slightly beyond it's purpose you hit limits and they are strictly controlled by Apple.
You can use it however you like and Apple can't stop you. They just aren't obligated to help you either, especially by altering the software or services they provide.
Maybe you have a different lifestyle but, I don't go to news sites that discuss TV, or bother to read other people's analysis of TV.
The front page of Yahoo and the front page of MSN both had tomorrow's American Idol's result prominently displayed a week and a half ago.
I don't frequent either site, but then, I don't know how much money it would take for me to care about who is winning on American Idol :) I generally look at hard news sites, or customizable sites that consolidate news of interest to me (NYT, BBC, Google News).
Just to check, CNN and Fox News both have the results up as well. But I guess you don't go to either of those either.
Actually, no. Fox is absurdly biased and untrustworthy (went to court to defend firing reporters who won't lie about health risks to the public from an advertiser's product) and CNN is a mix of soft news and sensationalism... not that it's that much worse than many other programs, just not somewhere I'd go as a primary source most of the time.
Since you don't go to news sites that report anything about any TV show ever, you must not go to any news site.
I'm sure some of the sites I go to occasionally report something about a TV show, just usually in the entertainment section (which I never bother to check) and usually about some pop culture show I could not care less about. But I don't know why you're belaboring this point. I acknowledged that it could be an issue for some people who follow popular TV shows promptly and find in culturally important.
Otherwise, it just shows how myopic and out of touch with reality you are.
Well, if you're really that interested, I just looked at my top 3 news sites. No TV shows on the front page of the BBC or NYT today, Google News doesn't have an entertainment section because I banished it years ago. My other two, top news sites are local, and while they mention local theater and what movie is being made in town, again nothing about TV shows (I'll refrain from mentioning the names since anonymity here can be useful upon occasion).
You have your way, and it's good, anyone else's way is bad...
Going off the deep end with a strawman there aren't you? I don't recall saying anything about good or bad. Perhaps you'd like to quote what part of my previous post(s) gave you that impression?
...ideas like "real news sites don't discuss TV" and such.
Maybe you're getting defensive. I didn't write anything about "real" news sites. I mentioned my experience and then wrote about how other people might have different experiences if they had lifestyles more similar to yours. For the most part I agreed with your last post. You never did, however, get around to mentioning where you heard that the Google service is providing suggestions based upon multiple video services.
This would do something like seamlessly integrate Hulu (and the like) and OTA TV and Satellite in one place. Does your computer recommend TV programs based on what you watch on Netflix?
I watched the demo of GoogleTV. While my computer recommends more Netflix based on other Netflix, and My DVR app recommends shows based on what I record/watch/like, they don't cross pollinate. But I didn't see that GoogleTV will do that either. It will play from multiple sources, but I saw nothing about it collating recommendations.
If you don't know when something is on or care, then you obviously don't follow any regular TV shows. Otherwise, you like to at least watch them before the next one is out, as they are topics of conversation or make it on news sites.
I watch regular TV shows. They queue up until I get around to seeing them. Maybe you have a different lifestyle but, I don't go to news sites that discuss TV, or bother to read other people's analysis of TV.
So knowing when something comes on makes a difference to many, even if you are above such worries.
I suppose that is the case, for people who have TV as water cooler talk or such. They still don't need to know the specific time or channel though.
And if you abandoned cable TV, how does your current system integrate to make recommendations
Different content providers make recommendations (ala Netflix and Hulu) individually. It's not clear to me that Google is going to do any differently, but if so that would be nice.
Part of GoogleTV is that its recommendations will be integrated across a much wider variety of sources than the previous methods of recommendation I've seen.
Do you have a link/citation for information on this?
If you think the prices charged by content providers don't effect those charged to end users... you're a loony. They raise the prices by demanding a toll to get it onto a channel and then a distribution network. Those costs get passed on to the end user. I saw some great numbers a while back that figured out the actual cost of creating all the shows on cable TV, burning DVDs of them, and mailing them to individuals without commercials. For subscriber bases much, much smaller than current TV viewership it was shockingly low compared to the price most people pay for cable or satellite. I wish I'd saved a copy of the maths.
But only for over the air. If you try to tune in any digital channels...
I've never had digital cable partly because I saw no value in it to justify it making my tuner no longer work properly. I had analogue cable right up until I dropped my subscription about a year ago.
Apple.com and the Apple retail stores are sales to end users only. That means no buying for resale.
So what if that is Apple's sales policy? They can't stop you from buying and reselling and to knowledge they have never tried. I asked for evidence of them trying to control what you do with something after you've bought it to support the assertion previously made. Where are these "plenty of occasions" mentioned?
In fact, the only thing that's "hard" about my setup is that most people don't know you can even do that. They don't know that you can hook a computer to a TV, they don't know WMC exists, and they don't know that you can get a remote for the computer.
Well not knowing you can do it, not having an extra computer, not knowing where to buy a cheap computer that can hook up to the TV, not knowing how to configure the computer to display on the TV, etc. If you know what you're doing and are a geek, of course you integrate your computer and TV. For everyone else there needs to be a plug and play pre-configured system for them, like what Google is offering.
Well, googletv is able to do more things than what I do with my computer hooked up to my TV.
Really?
You can google for tv shows, choose the best choice, press a button, and googletv will sintonize the channel automatically (or show a GUI to record the show in the future).
I don't know what "sintonize" means. Are you reverting to a native tongue? Anyway, guessing by the context, there are a number of applications for computers that do exactly that sort of thing, especially if you're using your computer with a tuner card.
Goodbye, channel numbers!
I said "goodbye" to both channel numbers and channel names many years ago. My computer has long recommended TV programs and others I searched for or just added to my regular rotation. Who knows when something is on, or what channel and who cares? Although lately, I've abandoned cable TV altogether. Between Netflix (with watch it now piped to the TV) and online TV from the network, Hulu, and independent creators, there is plenty to watch without paying an extra bill.
Define "a computer." Most DVRs contain pretty much all the components of a modern day computer ... even those distributed by Cox or Comcast.
Computer - Noun: Not an abacus or a calculator or Data from Star Trek. A PC type device that allows normal people to surf the Web as well as some other generic functions. Not an appliance specifically locked down by your cable company to make sure you can't use any other devices with it or do anything really useful they don't approve of.
They limit sales to two per customer,
So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads. Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.
Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.
This isn't some lock-down method or they're be requiring your SSN or driver's license number. It's just a way to make it harder and less common so it is not a big problem for normal people. This isn't even an unusual business practice, it's only getting press because anything having to do with the iPad gets readers right now. Next there will be an article about how iPads can't be modded to run radio stations or "Apple" will send the FCC to arrest you.
Probably 90% of people on Slashdot have a computer hooked up to their TV, one way or another. But more mainstream options are still limited to things like AppleTV. Hopefully this Google offering helps make the usability level low enough that the technologically challenges masses will start to get some of the same benefits. Maybe it will hurt the entrenched content providers enough and provide enough of a market that we will be able to purchase shows ala carte at reasonable prices over the internet; without all the middle men taking our money.
Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?
Umm, because Apple won't sell you 10 fully loaded iPads with your gold Amex, just two. That doesn't stop you from buying two and reselling them, but it makes it a lot less worth your while.
Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.
Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.
Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?
They do not control if you can sell your iPad. They limit sales to two per customer, just like hundreds of other companies have done when they have constricted supplies. Heck, Nintendo will only sell you one Wii Fit per customer right now, but I don't see any press about how they're trying to stop you from reselling them.
Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people?
Easy, people aren't buying hundreds of them, then reselling them at a markup resulting in higher prices siphoned off by a middle man.
You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.
No, but you haven't shown how this is bad for customers, either or how it abuses them. If you're an early adopter and are buying while supplies are very limited, you have to use a credit card, but no more than two, or wait a few weeks. Oh, the poor customers.
Also taken into account that Apple and Mac have already paid those license costs for the OS. Why not use them?
That's not the only argument for this model. From a simple engineering perspective, I think it makes sense for the OS to handle codecs. The browser is certainly not the only application that needs to access them so if we use a model where apps pay, users will be paying multiple times needlessly. Apple already uses this model. Long ago I installed Ogg codecs, so when Apple introduced the HTML5 "video" tag in Safari, poof magically all those demo videos work for me in Safari. That the same is not true for running Firefox is sad to me and reflects their development philosophy. They seem to focus on cross-platform as their primary attribute. If it doesn't work on Windows, they won't make it work on Linux or OS X either, thus we're all held back by the worst common denominator. The results of this philosophy are the main thing keeping me away from Firefox. I like the plug-ins. I hate that it can't use all the cool native features of my OS and insists on re-implementing other features their own way that makes them incompatible with my other apps.
Some apps blatantly steal your info on the iPhone.
Example, citation?
I believe you're purposely misinterpreting my sentiments. The Gamestop analogy would only be true if Gamestop sold you a game console which can only play games sold by Gamestop, and also they refuse to sell any game which is available for multiple platforms.
So if you're buying from the Sony, MS, or Nintendo Web site directly, that's exactly the case.
My contention is that software trust has already been solved in a manner which doesn't require tying a consumer's hand
Except you haven't cited an example that offers commercial software, for sale, in such a manner.
App Store doesn't offer any advantage over existing models, and has a number of disadvantages unique to itself.
Actually it does, which is why the Google app marketplace has distributed malware, but the Apple store does not seem to have as yet. The Apple App store does have an advantage, not one that can't be recreated without the lock-in but one no one has recreated yet without that lock-in.
I've always wondered why deliberate exploits hadn't been included in seemingly safe app store apps that allowed access to forbidden api's and did naughty things always sorta amazed me.
Well, for the iPhone app store, where's your motivation? How do you profit from it? You have to come up with fake credentials while submitting the app, you have to be sneaky enough the screeners don't notice, your app has to bust out of a fairly tight sandbox, then it has to do something that benefits you more than the risk of getting caught and the effort of development, and you can't count on it persisting since as soon as anyone notices, Apple pulls it not only from the store but also pulls the keys so it won't run on iPhones anymore unless they're jailbroken.
So the long and short of it is, it takes a crapload for work for less payoff than just writing a worm for Windows, or even a trojan for other mobile platforms.
But that isn't so useful as Apple's walled garden approach has forgone local security in favour of gateway only security, once you've gotten past the censors you have a free reign.
Don't you think it would be better to, you know, do any research on a topic before making such assertive and blatantly wrong statements? If anything, Apple's sandboxing is more restrictive than Google's.
There have already been data miners for the Iphone that have gotten past Apple's ever watchful censors including at least one fake banking application (BOA, IIRC).
Citation please. I've seen only trojans distributed to jailbroken iPhones, not through the store. Additionally, having a central store allows Apple the option of revoking the ability of such applications to function on all non-jailbroken iPhones everywhere.
Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and countless other community-maintained repositories have historically sustained a commendable level of security in their vast software collections.
Actually they've had numerous problems and failed to provide a viable option to extend that functionality to commercial software offerings. Canonical, in fact, is working on cloning the Apple store by adding a similar feature to the new Ubuntu package manager, due in the next release.
I don't agree. Sure, it's acceptable to have a walled garden, and to even make it the case that by default you can only wander the carefully groomed paths in that space. But if you want to peek over the wall, or even exit the garden, you should be permitted to.
Okay, take that argument apply it to any other store, like Gamestop. Sure it's acceptable that Gamestop only carries certain products, but you should be able to break out of that walled garden. What does that mean? That Gamestop and Apple should be forced to carry other products in their stores? That OS developers like Sony, Nintendo, and Apple should be forced to modify their OS's to support other ways to install and run software?
If you don't want to be locked into Apple approved apps, don't buy an iPhone. Or do buy and iPhone but install a more open OS on it. Or buy and iPhone and leave the OS and jailbreak it. I don't see what people are complaining about here. People have choices.
For especially sensitive apps (eg, banking), most people will generally understand that you should stick to the official app store.
But will they know the app they downloading thinking it was a game jailbroke their phone and is now uploading their banking info somewhere?
...in a way that locks down consumer property against their will.
I agree trust and software installations can be done much better than the iPhone app store, but I don't see any company that has done it. That people choosing the iPhone are being forced to do something against their will is your assumption.
but there always seems to be a pretty good selection of it available to spend my hard-earned pennies on pretty much wherever I go in the UK...
The UK is one of the countries with less dominance by one vendor, but have you tried going to local restaurants or ordering from local distributors? Now you can do so and get a variety of products. Five years ago, you could not. You could get Coke products or you could get the selection of all their competitors, but not both. The competition law action against Coca Cola has solved said problem.
Only the 95% of people who have no understanding of antitrust law, competition, and economics.
Antitrust law isn't applicable, because people are describing what they would like changed.
Antitrust law is applicable because it shows why these actions are different legally and economically than previous cases.
Economics, to which I will fold in competition, makes it quite clear that oligopolies can be just as bad as monopolies.
You are mistaken. It shows cartels can be just as bad, which is not the same as an oligarchy, as a cartel requires collusion between members. We don't have that. We have competition between Google and Apple and MS and RIM and Symbian and several others. I sure don't see the pace of innovation being slowed in this case. Do you?