However, looking at statute there are exceptions to first sale. One is rental of music: Ever notice how you can get a movie from Netflix but not a CD?
I don't think this has anything to do with the 'first sale doctrine.' Rather, Netflix is in the business of renting movies, not renting music. There's no law stopping them from renting music CDs if they wanted to. That's just not the market they are going after. If they were after that market, then they'd probably be called "Netmusic" instead of "Netflix." Does anybody really want the CD rental market,anyway?
Yeah, but I think you may be using a different definition of "update" - i think Apple's idea that it "keeps you up-to-date" on available Apple software. After all, it's called "Apple Software Update," not "Update My Existing Apple Software." When you watch a "News Update" on TV, it's not just updating the existing news you already know about. It's often introducing news you haven't heard before.
Anyway, I think the semantic point is way overblown. There is no strict separation in functionality between an an installer and an updater. They are just slight variants on the "installer." trying to enforce an artificially rigid semantic separation between the two does no good - it just leads to outmoded thinking, and mistakes in understanding how software works.
But isn't the obfuscation of installing Safari on Windows with iTunes therefore a complete contradiction to that ethic?
What obfuscation are you talking about? It all seems pretty clear to me. It's not hidden in any way, it tells you exactly what is being installed, and what Safari is. Gives you the option to decline. Gives you a link for more information. So, what's being hidden?
"Apple software installer" and offer to install other software like Safari through it - the way Linux package managers do it.
So, is all this fuss just over the name of the application? What if they made absolutely no changes to the software, but changed the name to "Apple Software Installer." Would that make you happy? After all, it does exactly what it is describing. Updating software is also installing software, so that name covers both uses. Amazing how much outrage there is simply over one word in the name of an application.
Of course, if Apple did release a separate "installer" application, I'm sure there would be just as much shining about Apple pushing more bloat on people, and complaints that it should be integrated into Software Update.
the way Linux package managers do it.
Wait. I can both update existing software, and install new packages from my Linux package manager. Exactly the same way Apple does. I don't really see the problem. Why is it evil when Apple does something, but OK under Linux?
Which I guess must be why there is a clear description in Apple Software Update of exactly what Safari is. They don't just label it "Safari" and say no more. Which, I suppose you would have known if you had actually done any research or used the product in question at all.
How does the name "Firefox" or "Safari" relate to web surfing? Your average safari is held pretty far from the ocean.
I don't know about Firefox, but "Safari" is a play on "Internet Explorer" - you see, the explorer is discovering new territory, kind of like going on Safari to a remote place. I don't know of any web browsers that are named after surfing. Hell, I don't know anybody who still uses the term "surfing" to describe web browsing. That seems so unfashionably 90s. Much like "Internet Explorer" has always been an unfashionably lame name. It's actually kind of amazing that MS didn't end up calling Excel "Spreadsheet Program."
Update systems should not become installers for new software.
Why not? that's how it works on Linux, and I don't see any outrage over that on slashdot. Also, how can an updater NOT be an installer for new software? That's exactly what an updater does - install new software. If it were installing old software, it wouldn't exactly be an updater, would it? It would be a downgrader.
But nowhere does it say that the software is an update to existing software installed on the system. The button to initiate the process says "Install." The text describing Safari is not describing an update - it's describing what Safari is, in the way you would upon the installing of a new product to an uninitiated user.
Is it a software updater or a software installer? Because the two are different
I heard this earlier up-thread, and I'm not sure why people have this idea. Software updaters and installers are essentially the same thing. Most installers also do updates, and most updaters also do installs. There is significant cross-over in functionality, and the difference is only a very minor semantic one.
Nope, it's never been the way you describe, where you had to go "hunting". I know, because I've heard this complaint over many years, and I constantly go back to check, whenever this complaint comes up. The link to the standalone Quicktime installer has always been on the same page. I think the problem is that too many people are so eager to complain or see fault, that I think it affects their ability to read a simple web page. It's as if they have a blind spot or something.
The updater tells you explicitly what Safari is. It doesn't actually label it as an update or "lie" to you. The dialog box says you are installing, not updating. Would it be too much to ask slashdotters to get even some basic facts correct? Sounds more like you are the one who is lying, seeing as exactly nothing you have written is true, and you could easily have researched the facts.
No, it's not. The text at the top says "New software is available from Apple" - the description of Safari tells the user exactly what Safari is, and doesn't call it an update. The button at the bottom that you click to start the process is labeled "Install," not "Update" - how is any of that labeling Safari installation as an "update"?
Windows has and still is creating a diverse cheap hardware platform that many other computer systems take advantage of,
WTF? Windows did not, and does not create cheap, generic hardware. You have it backwards. Microsoft takes advantage of cheap, generic hardware to sell an expensive OS. The cheap hardware platform would exist without Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft makes it more expensive, especially with all their bullshit "hardware certification" schemes like "Vista Ready" - and also the fact that a Windows tax is added to almost every PC sold.
Actually, more often than not, they are. Most installers include updater functionality - they check if an existing version is installed, often check for more recent updates. Likewise, most "updaters" include installer functionality - well that's what an updater is, a type of installer. Updaters will often install new packages or modules, or helper applications that didn't exist before.
So, would it make any difference if Apple renamed their app as "Apple Software Installer" rather than "software update"?
I don't use thunderbird, so I don't know. Firefox, on the other hand, does not bundle thunderbird,
Not true. When I downloaded Firefox, I was also offered Thunderbird.
But "updating" iTunes with Safari is a gross kind of nonsense.
But the updater doesn't claim it's updating iTunes with Safari. It's offering Safari as a separate download, just like Mozilla does with Firefox/Thunderbird. You'll not that the application is called "Apple Software Update" - not "iTunes Updater."
So it's the user's fault for not choosing which security updates to install because everyone knows companies will try to sneak in their bloat as "security updates", so it's the user's fault? Right
Wait. Where does Apple Software Update say that the installation of Safari is a "security update"? Or are you just making stuff up?
so it's the user's fault? Right.
Is it the user's fault when they sign up for a website, and don't uncheck the box that says "we will send you promotional email" and then they receive promotional email?
That makes no sense. If a copy of Office 2008 for OSX installed Windows Media Player to fight off iTunes then slashdot would melt from the outrage. When Apple does it, slashdotters bend over bankwards to rationalize it.
Complete horseshit, of course. As you can see from this thread, most of slashdot is responding to it with some form of outrage, not trying to rationalize Apple's actions. And if Microsoft did, I think most people would shrug and say "business as usual."
If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits.
I think you're living in an alternate universe. Microsoft does dodgy stuff all the time, and few people even notice, let alone complain. Meanwhile Apple gets tarred and feathered in the press, over the smallest, most insignificant issues. Because it's trendy to bash Apple.
Please, spare me this false victim mentality. Oh, poor Microsoft, they never get away with anything.
Yes, but you are talking about Color Temperature. The story just mentions temperature, without the color bit. A very different beast. Of course, the story is probably mistaken. Which is what this sub-thread is all about.
Econet... a good example of why you shouldn't design a network with zero security for use by schoolchildren.
HERESY! That's what made the BBC so awesome in schools. Think of all the fun and creativity that would have been lost if it were secure and locked down. The hackability is what made Econet great.
Although, perhaps this explains why so many humorless, anal-retentive people are in "IT security" or "corporate IT" - they just couldn't stand the other kids having fun and outsmarting them.
They were using Flash before, so did Adobe pay them to do that? Your conspiracy theory is pretty ridiculous. If Apple were paying for it, they would announce a "partnership" and promote it, not just secretly give them money. Also, the BBC would advertise that they'd been given money, so as to alleviate the concerns of taxpayers about what a money sink this whole farce has been. The idea of shady backroom dealings has very little credibility in the light of the common sense explanation - the iPhone is a trendy product with a lot of buzz, and a nice screen for playing video. The BBC opened up a "loophole" simply because that was the easiest way to do it, and they were lazy. And if you read the article, it's not just a loophole for the iPhone, it works on a variety of different platforms.
Think about this: why does everybody make iPod accessories, and not Zune accessories? Did Apple pay them? No, they pay Apple for the privilege of being in the official accessory program. It's just that Apple is leading the market and attracting significant buzz, and companies want a piece of that. Similarly, Apple doesn't pay for product placement in films and TV shows, but directors put Apples there because they look good on the set. But I know that some people just can't fathom these simple concepts, so anybody supporting Apple products must have been bribed to do so.
What do you mean by the "Nokia N810 can do it"? I'm pretty sure I could create a Flash animation that would make it choke. Sure, it might be able to play a limited subset of flash files, but the key word there is "limited". And how long do your batteries last playing those files?
That's absolutely retarded. Apple paid off the BBC because they are using MP4? That's not an Apple format, it's a freaking standard! It's supported everywhere, not just in Quicktime.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this has anything to do with the 'first sale doctrine.' Rather, Netflix is in the business of renting movies, not renting music. There's no law stopping them from renting music CDs if they wanted to. That's just not the market they are going after. If they were after that market, then they'd probably be called "Netmusic" instead of "Netflix." Does anybody really want the CD rental market,anyway?
Yeah, but I think you may be using a different definition of "update" - i think Apple's idea that it "keeps you up-to-date" on available Apple software. After all, it's called "Apple Software Update," not "Update My Existing Apple Software." When you watch a "News Update" on TV, it's not just updating the existing news you already know about. It's often introducing news you haven't heard before.
Anyway, I think the semantic point is way overblown. There is no strict separation in functionality between an an installer and an updater. They are just slight variants on the "installer." trying to enforce an artificially rigid semantic separation between the two does no good - it just leads to outmoded thinking, and mistakes in understanding how software works.
What obfuscation are you talking about? It all seems pretty clear to me. It's not hidden in any way, it tells you exactly what is being installed, and what Safari is. Gives you the option to decline. Gives you a link for more information. So, what's being hidden?
So, is all this fuss just over the name of the application? What if they made absolutely no changes to the software, but changed the name to "Apple Software Installer." Would that make you happy? After all, it does exactly what it is describing. Updating software is also installing software, so that name covers both uses. Amazing how much outrage there is simply over one word in the name of an application.
Of course, if Apple did release a separate "installer" application, I'm sure there would be just as much shining about Apple pushing more bloat on people, and complaints that it should be integrated into Software Update.
the way Linux package managers do it.Wait. I can both update existing software, and install new packages from my Linux package manager. Exactly the same way Apple does. I don't really see the problem. Why is it evil when Apple does something, but OK under Linux?
Which I guess must be why there is a clear description in Apple Software Update of exactly what Safari is. They don't just label it "Safari" and say no more. Which, I suppose you would have known if you had actually done any research or used the product in question at all.
How does the name "Firefox" or "Safari" relate to web surfing? Your average safari is held pretty far from the ocean.I don't know about Firefox, but "Safari" is a play on "Internet Explorer" - you see, the explorer is discovering new territory, kind of like going on Safari to a remote place. I don't know of any web browsers that are named after surfing. Hell, I don't know anybody who still uses the term "surfing" to describe web browsing. That seems so unfashionably 90s. Much like "Internet Explorer" has always been an unfashionably lame name. It's actually kind of amazing that MS didn't end up calling Excel "Spreadsheet Program."
Why not? that's how it works on Linux, and I don't see any outrage over that on slashdot. Also, how can an updater NOT be an installer for new software? That's exactly what an updater does - install new software. If it were installing old software, it wouldn't exactly be an updater, would it? It would be a downgrader.
But nowhere does it say that the software is an update to existing software installed on the system. The button to initiate the process says "Install." The text describing Safari is not describing an update - it's describing what Safari is, in the way you would upon the installing of a new product to an uninitiated user.
Is it a software updater or a software installer? Because the two are differentI heard this earlier up-thread, and I'm not sure why people have this idea. Software updaters and installers are essentially the same thing. Most installers also do updates, and most updaters also do installs. There is significant cross-over in functionality, and the difference is only a very minor semantic one.
Nope, it's never been the way you describe, where you had to go "hunting". I know, because I've heard this complaint over many years, and I constantly go back to check, whenever this complaint comes up. The link to the standalone Quicktime installer has always been on the same page. I think the problem is that too many people are so eager to complain or see fault, that I think it affects their ability to read a simple web page. It's as if they have a blind spot or something.
The updater tells you explicitly what Safari is. It doesn't actually label it as an update or "lie" to you. The dialog box says you are installing, not updating. Would it be too much to ask slashdotters to get even some basic facts correct? Sounds more like you are the one who is lying, seeing as exactly nothing you have written is true, and you could easily have researched the facts.
No, it's not. The text at the top says "New software is available from Apple" - the description of Safari tells the user exactly what Safari is, and doesn't call it an update. The button at the bottom that you click to start the process is labeled "Install," not "Update" - how is any of that labeling Safari installation as an "update"?
WTF? Windows did not, and does not create cheap, generic hardware. You have it backwards. Microsoft takes advantage of cheap, generic hardware to sell an expensive OS. The cheap hardware platform would exist without Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft makes it more expensive, especially with all their bullshit "hardware certification" schemes like "Vista Ready" - and also the fact that a Windows tax is added to almost every PC sold.
Actually, more often than not, they are. Most installers include updater functionality - they check if an existing version is installed, often check for more recent updates. Likewise, most "updaters" include installer functionality - well that's what an updater is, a type of installer. Updaters will often install new packages or modules, or helper applications that didn't exist before.
So, would it make any difference if Apple renamed their app as "Apple Software Installer" rather than "software update"?
Not true. When I downloaded Firefox, I was also offered Thunderbird.
But "updating" iTunes with Safari is a gross kind of nonsense.But the updater doesn't claim it's updating iTunes with Safari. It's offering Safari as a separate download, just like Mozilla does with Firefox/Thunderbird. You'll not that the application is called "Apple Software Update" - not "iTunes Updater."
Wait. Where does Apple Software Update say that the installation of Safari is a "security update"? Or are you just making stuff up?
so it's the user's fault? Right.Is it the user's fault when they sign up for a website, and don't uncheck the box that says "we will send you promotional email" and then they receive promotional email?
Complete horseshit, of course. As you can see from this thread, most of slashdot is responding to it with some form of outrage, not trying to rationalize Apple's actions. And if Microsoft did, I think most people would shrug and say "business as usual."
I think you're living in an alternate universe. Microsoft does dodgy stuff all the time, and few people even notice, let alone complain. Meanwhile Apple gets tarred and feathered in the press, over the smallest, most insignificant issues. Because it's trendy to bash Apple.
Please, spare me this false victim mentality. Oh, poor Microsoft, they never get away with anything.
Yes, but you are talking about Color Temperature. The story just mentions temperature, without the color bit. A very different beast. Of course, the story is probably mistaken. Which is what this sub-thread is all about.
Your Mom?
HERESY! That's what made the BBC so awesome in schools. Think of all the fun and creativity that would have been lost if it were secure and locked down. The hackability is what made Econet great.
Although, perhaps this explains why so many humorless, anal-retentive people are in "IT security" or "corporate IT" - they just couldn't stand the other kids having fun and outsmarting them.
Yeah, now we feed them to Dick Cheney.
They were using Flash before, so did Adobe pay them to do that? Your conspiracy theory is pretty ridiculous. If Apple were paying for it, they would announce a "partnership" and promote it, not just secretly give them money. Also, the BBC would advertise that they'd been given money, so as to alleviate the concerns of taxpayers about what a money sink this whole farce has been. The idea of shady backroom dealings has very little credibility in the light of the common sense explanation - the iPhone is a trendy product with a lot of buzz, and a nice screen for playing video. The BBC opened up a "loophole" simply because that was the easiest way to do it, and they were lazy. And if you read the article, it's not just a loophole for the iPhone, it works on a variety of different platforms.
Think about this: why does everybody make iPod accessories, and not Zune accessories? Did Apple pay them? No, they pay Apple for the privilege of being in the official accessory program. It's just that Apple is leading the market and attracting significant buzz, and companies want a piece of that. Similarly, Apple doesn't pay for product placement in films and TV shows, but directors put Apples there because they look good on the set. But I know that some people just can't fathom these simple concepts, so anybody supporting Apple products must have been bribed to do so.
What is your comment supposed to mean? I've never heard of anybody being forced to use a phone. What are you implying?
In other words, it doesn't fully support Flash, and you don't like that being pointed out, so you pretend that's as far as the discussion goes.
What do you mean by the "Nokia N810 can do it"? I'm pretty sure I could create a Flash animation that would make it choke. Sure, it might be able to play a limited subset of flash files, but the key word there is "limited". And how long do your batteries last playing those files?
That's absolutely retarded. Apple paid off the BBC because they are using MP4? That's not an Apple format, it's a freaking standard! It's supported everywhere, not just in Quicktime.