One of the reasons given was that NBC Universal wanted to add more restrictive DRM to the shows and Apple said no.
If Universal would win that battle, then WE ALL lose out. Remember, this is the same network that f*cked with its time schedule so shows ended at 8:31 and such to try and f*ck Tivo owners. That shows you just what they think about the viewer. I'm sure the new DRM ideas would have us in mind, as in how can we make this experience more painful for the content viewer.
This will just make it more likely that I won't watch NBC shows. I am personally tired of networks dictating what time and where I should be watching their content. That's so last century thinking. Yeah, you can go to NBC.com, if you don't mind being tethered to streaming content, which sucks if you're not on the net when you have time/want to watch a show.
should go into the general federal fund just like federal taxes
I would argue that if the state officials are unwilling to admit that most of the tickets are for raising revenue, the money should not have a way to funnel back to the police. Unfortunately, that is exactly what would happen if the money were to go into some general fund.
It seems to me that some townships set some speed limits artificially low just so they can cash in on those who violate these limits.
I know this for a fact. There was a town that set the limits 10mph lower to "force people to drive slower". Even the police knew the speed was too low, but they continued to write the tickets.
As for Comcast, I would not be surprised to see someone file a lawsuit against their misleading claims. It's bad enough that they cannot even give you near the speeds they promise, but then to have some secret cap (which they are clearly unwilling to admit to) is outlandish. There, I made this reply on topic.:-)
As much as I dislike authority figures harassing me the truth is that the object is to protect people and if they are tied up in court with traffic offenses they can't stop violent offenders so it usually isn't worth fighting over 5MPH.
Sadly "PROTECTING PEOPLE" is the last thing on most traffic police officers' minds.
The police have become nothing more than thugs shaking down the population for "revenue".
If it truly is about safety, then I say all "revenue" generated by speeding tickets should go to a charity that is not affiliated with the police department. Guess what the likelihood of that would be. I'm betting ZERO.
Sorry, I was trying to make a more generic argument, and clearly flubbed that. My original point is that we will likely to more long term damage if all we do is bully companies. Believe it or not, there is more going on that just folks sitting waiting to fix bug reports that comes in for some random guy. And with smaller companies, they don't have a team that is on the attack for vulnerabilities found.
I didn't see the original email he sent to the company. Nor did I see mention of followups to try and push them. That makes a difference as well, because I've seen plenty of "your stuff doesn't work" bug reports from folks.
What fully disclosing probably did was put the company in fire mode. They had to stop everything else to attend this. This can really hurt smaller companies long term. Most can't afford teams that sit around waiting to attack these flaws.
I do think full disclosure can be an important tool when you've tried again and again to get an important security issue addressed. But it should never come as a surprise to the company. There should be communication with the company throughout the process from the first report to the alert that you will be making this public in a month's time.
I think it more harmful than not to try and play "gotcha" with companies.
Now mind you, I'm not sure their one time fee model will last all that long -- but that's a separate issue.
There seem to be some false assumptions here. It is assumed the company did not look at the bug and potential fixes until after it was "fully disclosed". If they released a fix a couple days later, the more likely scenario is that they've been looking at the problem and assessing what options they had to address the problem.
Ironically, the full disclosure probably forced them to put out the solution before it was ready, leaving the risk of new bugs. IMHO, forcing a company to rush a fix is not the answer. If you work for a real software company, you know that today's commercial software often has thousands of bugs lurking, although many are very edge case and are often more dangerous to fix than not fix (esp if there is a workaround).
There should be enough time given to a company to address the issue. Some can argue whether or not 5 months is enough time, but that's a different argument. I think forcing companies to constantly drop everything for threat of full disclosure will end up doing more harm than good.
I tried both TimeWarner and Comcast's DVR options (mainly for the HD options). Both sucked so bad that it was extremely frustrating to watch TV. I didn't think it was possible to make TV more annoying, but these two cable companies with their partners managed to find a way.
Yes, it has all the checkboxed features, but using them is a real pain in the ass. The DVR constantly fell behind and didn't respond to remote actions (instead queuing them up -- which means you spend the next few minutes trying to undo the queued commands mess). It froze up constantly and apparently didn't store listings locally as it took a couple hours for the guide to show listings on all channels after a restart (if I want to constantly restart, I'll run Windows). It has skipped recording shows (with no warning) that were scheduled. And once, it recorded 20 hours worth because it crossed the midnight hour (11pm-1am). Navigating 20 hours of recording to watch the last 3 hours was miserable.
The cable companies couldn't care less about the experience you and I are having. They figure we'll be happy fighting with our cable box because we think everyone does it. Well, not everyone does. Some of us have used Tivo before and can directly compare the miserable experience that is Cable DVR with Tivo.
Recently, Comcast raised its price from $9.95 to $12.95 AND interjected more advertisement. But not just any advertisement, they stuck it in the middle of the guide, so it actually impedes usage. So I was paying even more money for an even crappier experience.
Screw the HD. Screw the PPV, I turned in my Cable DVR and told them it was the buggiest piece of crap I've ever seen with the most miserable user experience ever. The result was absolute indifference, not even a fake apology.
I'm now using a DT Tivo Series-2 in the living room and will likely jump on the Tivo HD when they allow me to move my lifetime box over.
I figure life is too short to pay companies to provide a miserable experiences to you. I enjoy watching TV with my Tivo (something I could *never* say about my Cable DVR).
True, it is more cost effective to roll out the technology in higher density areas -- but there are plenty of high density areas (West Coast: California, Portland, Seattle ; the whole East Coast) that should have better speeds, but they don't.
Ultimately it goes back to what I was saying, companies are looking for how they can put forth the smallest amount of capital for the highest return. Since they have a virtual monopoly (at max a dualopoly), there is no need to put forth anything but the minimal effort because you know you'll get that customer if he/she wants any kind of bandwidth.
While that may be true geographically. Population wise, *new* Europe represents about 2x the size of the US.
Actually, the difference is that European officials mandated interoperability and pushed for 3G. Here, our Congress pushes for whatever is in the best interest of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. And those companies are looking to maximize profits with as small of an investment as possible.
Since most folks don't have a lot of choice: be it cable where you choices are between Cable and uh, nothing if you're not close enough to DSL ; or wireless where you are locked into a contract for 2 years and the contract is automatically extended anytime you make ANY change. The result is there is no driving force behind getting end users true broadband. Also, it doesn't help that our gov't defines broadband as something like 200Kbps.
Don't forget, AT&T also claimed it would:
>>>..inhibit the growth of wireless broadband n the country.
I think AT&T (and ALL the other wireless carriers) have done a great job of that already.
Considering that the US is pathetically behind in broadband connections (both wired and wireless) compared with most other industrialized nations, it is time for our Gov't to start acting on behalf of the people and not just the corporations. We pay the most money for the least amount of bandwidth. Instead, we have a disjointed high-speed connection (that is most often capped and limited), the broadband that is available isn't compatible with other carriers, so they duplicate the same work to lock us in. Europeans have an open-access 3G connection that doesn't lock you into one carrier AND they only charge you from outgoing calls (meaning you don't pay twice).
If competition alone would have us at the same point, I say let it rule -- but the fact is that we, the end consumer, suffer because it's about maximizing short term profits. These are our airwaves and to keep them locked up like AT&T would like will only insure that our nation will fall far behind in today's information age.
The competition (and many others) keep looking at the iPhone as a set of check box features. It doesn't do this, doesn't have this, etc. It isn't what it does, it is how it does it that makes the iPhone a breakthrough product.
In addition, a lot of the functionality is easily upgraded (via software updates). A look at the financial data tells you they are recognizing the revenue from each sale over 24-months. That allows them to offer software upgrades with new features without any accounting worries (avoiding the $1.99 upgrade issue). I would expect a lot of new software-based functionality to come to the iPhone over the next two years. That's part of the genius of it. Upgrading your iPhone apps is as easy as syncing.
Will some people opt for a iPhone 2.0 instead of just replacing the battery, sure.
and finally, I love how the price has ballooned to $120. $79 + $.6.95 = $85.95. The $29 is only if you cannot be without your cell phone for 3 days -- and I suspect that could change to be even shorter (as it take it to a local shop and get it back in an hour) in the next two years. Whenever there is a niche to fill, someone will usually fill it.
Agreed. GPL is much more dictatorial than almost any other open-source license. Much like a certain President, their attitude is "You're either with us or you're our enemy [sic]".
FSF makes a groundless claim that Apple must be using GPL software. I'm sure Apple takes extreme care to avoid it (much as I do myself). Apple has given plenty back to the open-source community (Darwin, KHTML) without being forced to do so via the dictators of GPL licensing. I am more than willing to give back to the community, but much as I don't like my gov't telling me how I should think, I don't like the FSF telling me how I should code.
The goal of GPL license appears to be to pollute all code with it and thus "force" it to be disclosed. Because of the viral nature of GPL, it is best avoided for anyone but the purists who live and breathe nothing but GPL. And I am tired of the FSF folks thinking that my refusing to join their particular religion means I'm somehow evil.
Letting a guy obstruct justice is not "finding the leak" as he promissed.
This would be the same President that lied to Americans to take us into Iraq, lied to Americans about his warrantless wiretaps on citizens, lied about pretty much everything.
And you really think he'd actually do anything about the 'leak' that the vice president authorized?
More importantly, why is Clinton's bad behavior justification for Bush's bad behavior?
Do we have to revert to the childish "Two wrongs don't make a right!" ?
I was never a fan of Clinton either, but if you want to really play that game, I say that if Congress felt a blowjob was worthy of impeachment, then surely lying to America to create a war, or stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights and holding them indefinitely without trial, or perhaps the spying on American citizens without warrants should warrant a real impeachment. And it shouldn't stop at Bush. Cheney has done plenty to be worthy of impeachment as well, especially since the bar is set at "lying about a blowjob". We'd get our first woman President and we wouldn't have to vote for Hilary (who has yet to do anything to inspire me -- other than not being Bush or the crazy Republicans who have sold their souls to follow in his path).
Or how about just not allowing the President to pardon a crime committed by his administration, especially when the act was likely directed by either himself or the vice president?
This is definitely an abuse of power on the part of this President (surprise!) as his administration has a vested interest in seeing that Libby doesn't spend time in Prison. I suspect a full pardon will be handed out on January 20th, 2009. This is about absolving anyone in this administration of any accountability.
First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware,"
Nice opinion -- although based on my own experiences, my Macs have much longer life than my PCs.
And anyone who bases their OS on BSD will have something solid (even though OS X still has more unpatched vulnerabilities than *BSD).
I love how you absolutely refuse to give any credit for Apple's efforts and as a bonus claim they're just riddled with security holes beyond anything *BSD has - all without real evidence.
ut their competitors should have access to the iPod/iPhone interface specs.
Apple does give access to specs to create iPod/iPhone accessories, via licensing. It is a reasonable approach. In fact, it created a whole new market for accessories.
Why do people only seem to complain when a company in a monopoly position doesn't release technical information? Apple should be held to the same standard
Again, your facts are a bit off. Microsoft was found to be illegally using its monopoly to get into new markets. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. Second point - Apple does not have a monopoly and is actively pursuing efforts to open iTunes music to all players (by removing DRM). Effectively, they're opening up to more competition.
I sense a "All software should be free" mentality here.
Of course, Apple has never been very developer friendly and they have always tried to hide technical details.
Except for the FREE development tools (Xcode, IB) that come with EVERY copy of OS X. And the tons of API specifications that show you how to write for OS X. So developer unfriendly! How dare they not expose every single line of code.
Your comments speak of ignorance of Apple's actions or just plain contempt (which means no amount of reasoning will change your mind). Either way, you're off base in your assessments.
Come on, does anyone really call Windows 64 mainstream at this point in time? If I was running a 64-bit OS, I would -- at the very least -- ask an Apple rep to look up the requirements and see if it runs on your specific OS.
That said, I believe the manual can actually be downloaded from Apple's site. Nowhere in the specs (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html) does it say it supports Windows 64, it mentions Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later. No manual reading even necessary.
Next up: complaints that iPhone won't sync with Sun, Amiga, Atari and Coleco systems.
Relatively speaking, how many users do you think really are using Windows 64 vs. Windows 32? Maybe.5%. 64-bit is great for certain types of applications and is seriously overkill for others (like iTunes).
Windows 64-bit is not mainstream AT all. And Microsoft has insured it never will be -- at least until such time as they follow Apple's lead and create a Vista 32-bit/64-bit combo that allows 32-bit apps to run alongside 64-bit apps with no compatibility issues. At that point, it won't matter than iTunes is 32-bit.
Perhaps the real problem is that Microsoft priced its Vista products at such a premium price, that folks don't find the features worthwhile. Now, they feel forced to drive the higher priced products by not allowing the Basic to be virtualized. I don't need all the bells and whistles of Premium, I just want to run some software in a VM environment.
MS is once again flexing its monopoly muscles to force end customers to pay higher prices to get stuff they don't really need/want.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the reasons given was that NBC Universal wanted to add more restrictive DRM to the shows and Apple said no.
If Universal would win that battle, then WE ALL lose out. Remember, this is the same network that f*cked with its time schedule so shows ended at 8:31 and such to try and f*ck Tivo owners. That shows you just what they think about the viewer. I'm sure the new DRM ideas would have us in mind, as in how can we make this experience more painful for the content viewer.
This will just make it more likely that I won't watch NBC shows. I am personally tired of networks dictating what time and where I should be watching their content. That's so last century thinking. Yeah, you can go to NBC.com, if you don't mind being tethered to streaming content, which sucks if you're not on the net when you have time/want to watch a show.
should go into the general federal fund just like federal taxes
I would argue that if the state officials are unwilling to admit that most of the tickets are for raising revenue, the money should not have a way to funnel back to the police. Unfortunately, that is exactly what would happen if the money were to go into some general fund.
It seems to me that some townships set some speed limits artificially low just so they can cash in on those who violate these limits.
I know this for a fact. There was a town that set the limits 10mph lower to "force people to drive slower". Even the police knew the speed was too low, but they continued to write the tickets.
As for Comcast, I would not be surprised to see someone file a lawsuit against their misleading claims. It's bad enough that they cannot even give you near the speeds they promise, but then to have some secret cap (which they are clearly unwilling to admit to) is outlandish. There, I made this reply on topic. :-)
As much as I dislike authority figures harassing me the truth is that the object is to protect people and if they are tied up in court with traffic offenses they can't stop violent offenders so it usually isn't worth fighting over 5MPH.
Sadly "PROTECTING PEOPLE" is the last thing on most traffic police officers' minds.
The police have become nothing more than thugs shaking down the population for "revenue".
If it truly is about safety, then I say all "revenue" generated by speeding tickets should go to a charity that is not affiliated with the police department. Guess what the likelihood of that would be. I'm betting ZERO.
Sorry, I was trying to make a more generic argument, and clearly flubbed that. My original point is that we will likely to more long term damage if all we do is bully companies. Believe it or not, there is more going on that just folks sitting waiting to fix bug reports that comes in for some random guy. And with smaller companies, they don't have a team that is on the attack for vulnerabilities found.
I didn't see the original email he sent to the company. Nor did I see mention of followups to try and push them. That makes a difference as well, because I've seen plenty of "your stuff doesn't work" bug reports from folks.
What fully disclosing probably did was put the company in fire mode. They had to stop everything else to attend this. This can really hurt smaller companies long term. Most can't afford teams that sit around waiting to attack these flaws.
I do think full disclosure can be an important tool when you've tried again and again to get an important security issue addressed. But it should never come as a surprise to the company. There should be communication with the company throughout the process from the first report to the alert that you will be making this public in a month's time.
I think it more harmful than not to try and play "gotcha" with companies.
Now mind you, I'm not sure their one time fee model will last all that long -- but that's a separate issue.
There seem to be some false assumptions here. It is assumed the company did not look at the bug and potential fixes until after it was "fully disclosed". If they released a fix a couple days later, the more likely scenario is that they've been looking at the problem and assessing what options they had to address the problem.
Ironically, the full disclosure probably forced them to put out the solution before it was ready, leaving the risk of new bugs. IMHO, forcing a company to rush a fix is not the answer. If you work for a real software company, you know that today's commercial software often has thousands of bugs lurking, although many are very edge case and are often more dangerous to fix than not fix (esp if there is a workaround).
There should be enough time given to a company to address the issue. Some can argue whether or not 5 months is enough time, but that's a different argument. I think forcing companies to constantly drop everything for threat of full disclosure will end up doing more harm than good.
I tried both TimeWarner and Comcast's DVR options (mainly for the HD options). Both sucked so bad that it was extremely frustrating to watch TV. I didn't think it was possible to make TV more annoying, but these two cable companies with their partners managed to find a way.
Yes, it has all the checkboxed features, but using them is a real pain in the ass. The DVR constantly fell behind and didn't respond to remote actions (instead queuing them up -- which means you spend the next few minutes trying to undo the queued commands mess). It froze up constantly and apparently didn't store listings locally as it took a couple hours for the guide to show listings on all channels after a restart (if I want to constantly restart, I'll run Windows). It has skipped recording shows (with no warning) that were scheduled. And once, it recorded 20 hours worth because it crossed the midnight hour (11pm-1am). Navigating 20 hours of recording to watch the last 3 hours was miserable.
The cable companies couldn't care less about the experience you and I are having. They figure we'll be happy fighting with our cable box because we think everyone does it. Well, not everyone does. Some of us have used Tivo before and can directly compare the miserable experience that is Cable DVR with Tivo.
Recently, Comcast raised its price from $9.95 to $12.95 AND interjected more advertisement. But not just any advertisement, they stuck it in the middle of the guide, so it actually impedes usage. So I was paying even more money for an even crappier experience.
Screw the HD. Screw the PPV, I turned in my Cable DVR and told them it was the buggiest piece of crap I've ever seen with the most miserable user experience ever. The result was absolute indifference, not even a fake apology.
I'm now using a DT Tivo Series-2 in the living room and will likely jump on the Tivo HD when they allow me to move my lifetime box over.
I figure life is too short to pay companies to provide a miserable experiences to you. I enjoy watching TV with my Tivo (something I could *never* say about my Cable DVR).
Goddamn, motherfucking, hypocritical asshole Senators can go fuck themselves!
>> From what I'm reading, it looks like this only applies to device-to-device transfer, a la the Zune's "squirt" feature.
So, effectively, only about a dozen Zune owners will even run into this thing.
In all seriousness -- we need LESS, NOT MORE DRM.
True, it is more cost effective to roll out the technology in higher density areas -- but there are plenty of high density areas (West Coast: California, Portland, Seattle ; the whole East Coast) that should have better speeds, but they don't.
Ultimately it goes back to what I was saying, companies are looking for how they can put forth the smallest amount of capital for the highest return. Since they have a virtual monopoly (at max a dualopoly), there is no need to put forth anything but the minimal effort because you know you'll get that customer if he/she wants any kind of bandwidth.
While that may be true geographically. Population wise, *new* Europe represents about 2x the size of the US.
Actually, the difference is that European officials mandated interoperability and pushed for 3G. Here, our Congress pushes for whatever is in the best interest of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. And those companies are looking to maximize profits with as small of an investment as possible.
Since most folks don't have a lot of choice: be it cable where you choices are between Cable and uh, nothing if you're not close enough to DSL ; or wireless where you are locked into a contract for 2 years and the contract is automatically extended anytime you make ANY change. The result is there is no driving force behind getting end users true broadband. Also, it doesn't help that our gov't defines broadband as something like 200Kbps.
Don't forget, AT&T also claimed it would: >>> ..inhibit the growth of wireless broadband n the country.
I think AT&T (and ALL the other wireless carriers) have done a great job of that already.
Considering that the US is pathetically behind in broadband connections (both wired and wireless) compared with most other industrialized nations, it is time for our Gov't to start acting on behalf of the people and not just the corporations. We pay the most money for the least amount of bandwidth. Instead, we have a disjointed high-speed connection (that is most often capped and limited), the broadband that is available isn't compatible with other carriers, so they duplicate the same work to lock us in. Europeans have an open-access 3G connection that doesn't lock you into one carrier AND they only charge you from outgoing calls (meaning you don't pay twice).
If competition alone would have us at the same point, I say let it rule -- but the fact is that we, the end consumer, suffer because it's about maximizing short term profits. These are our airwaves and to keep them locked up like AT&T would like will only insure that our nation will fall far behind in today's information age.
So we go from one meaningless measuring metric to another meaningless metric.
It comes as no surprise that it would be Nielsen to do this to the web, after all -- they've done such a great job with their TV ratings. </sarcasm>
The competition (and many others) keep looking at the iPhone as a set of check box features. It doesn't do this, doesn't have this, etc.
It isn't what it does, it is how it does it that makes the iPhone a breakthrough product.
In addition, a lot of the functionality is easily upgraded (via software updates). A look at the financial data tells you they are recognizing the revenue from each sale over 24-months. That allows them to offer software upgrades with new features without any accounting worries (avoiding the $1.99 upgrade issue). I would expect a lot of new software-based functionality to come to the iPhone over the next two years. That's part of the genius of it. Upgrading your iPhone apps is as easy as syncing.
Will some people opt for a iPhone 2.0 instead of just replacing the battery, sure.
and finally, I love how the price has ballooned to $120. $79 + $.6.95 = $85.95. The $29 is only if you cannot be without your cell phone for 3 days -- and I suspect that could change to be even shorter (as it take it to a local shop and get it back in an hour) in the next two years. Whenever there is a niche to fill, someone will usually fill it.
Agreed. GPL is much more dictatorial than almost any other open-source license. Much like a certain President, their attitude is "You're either with us or you're our enemy [sic]".
FSF makes a groundless claim that Apple must be using GPL software. I'm sure Apple takes extreme care to avoid it (much as I do myself). Apple has given plenty back to the open-source community (Darwin, KHTML) without being forced to do so via the dictators of GPL licensing. I am more than willing to give back to the community, but much as I don't like my gov't telling me how I should think, I don't like the FSF telling me how I should code.
The goal of GPL license appears to be to pollute all code with it and thus "force" it to be disclosed. Because of the viral nature of GPL, it is best avoided for anyone but the purists who live and breathe nothing but GPL. And I am tired of the FSF folks thinking that my refusing to join their particular religion means I'm somehow evil.
Letting a guy obstruct justice is not "finding the leak" as he promissed.
This would be the same President that lied to Americans to take us into Iraq, lied to Americans about his warrantless wiretaps on citizens, lied about pretty much everything.
And you really think he'd actually do anything about the 'leak' that the vice president authorized?
More importantly, why is Clinton's bad behavior justification for Bush's bad behavior?
Do we have to revert to the childish "Two wrongs don't make a right!" ?
I was never a fan of Clinton either, but if you want to really play that game, I say that if Congress felt a blowjob was worthy of impeachment, then surely lying to America to create a war, or stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights and holding them indefinitely without trial, or perhaps the spying on American citizens without warrants should warrant a real impeachment. And it shouldn't stop at Bush. Cheney has done plenty to be worthy of impeachment as well, especially since the bar is set at "lying about a blowjob". We'd get our first woman President and we wouldn't have to vote for Hilary (who has yet to do anything to inspire me -- other than not being Bush or the crazy Republicans who have sold their souls to follow in his path).
Or how about just not allowing the President to pardon a crime committed by his administration, especially when the act was likely directed by either himself or the vice president?
This is definitely an abuse of power on the part of this President (surprise!) as his administration has a vested interest in seeing that Libby doesn't spend time in Prison. I suspect a full pardon will be handed out on January 20th, 2009. This is about absolving anyone in this administration of any accountability.
First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware,"
Nice opinion -- although based on my own experiences, my Macs have much longer life than my PCs.
And anyone who bases their OS on BSD will have something solid (even though OS X still has more unpatched vulnerabilities than *BSD).
I love how you absolutely refuse to give any credit for Apple's efforts and as a bonus claim they're just riddled with security holes beyond anything *BSD has - all without real evidence.
ut their competitors should have access to the iPod/iPhone interface specs.
Apple does give access to specs to create iPod/iPhone accessories, via licensing. It is a reasonable approach. In fact, it created a whole new market for accessories.
Why do people only seem to complain when a company in a monopoly position doesn't release technical information? Apple should be held to the same standard
Again, your facts are a bit off. Microsoft was found to be illegally using its monopoly to get into new markets. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. Second point - Apple does not have a monopoly and is actively pursuing efforts to open iTunes music to all players (by removing DRM). Effectively, they're opening up to more competition.
I sense a "All software should be free" mentality here.
Of course, Apple has never been very developer friendly and they have always tried to hide technical details.
Except for the FREE development tools (Xcode, IB) that come with EVERY copy of OS X. And the tons of API specifications that show you how to write for OS X. So developer unfriendly! How dare they not expose every single line of code.
Your comments speak of ignorance of Apple's actions or just plain contempt (which means no amount of reasoning will change your mind). Either way, you're off base in your assessments.
Come on, does anyone really call Windows 64 mainstream at this point in time?
If I was running a 64-bit OS, I would -- at the very least -- ask an Apple rep to look up the requirements and see if it runs on your specific OS.
That said, I believe the manual can actually be downloaded from Apple's site. Nowhere in the specs (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html) does it say it supports Windows 64, it mentions Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later. No manual reading even necessary.
Next up: complaints that iPhone won't sync with Sun, Amiga, Atari and Coleco systems.
.5%. 64-bit is great for certain types of applications and is seriously overkill for others (like iTunes).
Relatively speaking, how many users do you think really are using Windows 64 vs. Windows 32? Maybe
Windows 64-bit is not mainstream AT all. And Microsoft has insured it never will be -- at least until such time as they follow Apple's lead and create a Vista 32-bit/64-bit combo that allows 32-bit apps to run alongside 64-bit apps with no compatibility issues. At that point, it won't matter than iTunes is 32-bit.
Newsflash - the iPhone is a computer. In fact, it's running a trimmed down OS X.
That fact alone is almost worth the cost of the iPhone.
Also, they make it super easy to transfer an existing number. Bravo Apple!!
Perhaps the real problem is that Microsoft priced its Vista products at such a premium price, that folks don't find the features worthwhile. Now, they feel forced to drive the higher priced products by not allowing the Basic to be virtualized. I don't need all the bells and whistles of Premium, I just want to run some software in a VM environment.
MS is once again flexing its monopoly muscles to force end customers to pay higher prices to get stuff they don't really need/want.
You just need to pick up a genuine Apple gadget sash. Keys, Wallets, iPhone, MacBook -- no problem, just strap it on!! :-)
Please replace all prior references of "communism" with "terrorism", "communist" with "terrorist" .
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-- George Santayana