What, you mean, MONTH/DAY/YEAR bothers you? It's just a convention. Say, "April first, 2010," and then write it out. Do the British say, "One April 2010?"
If it really bothers you, change your control panel or System Preferences or whatever they call it in Linux.
Interesting concepts that you pulled out of your ass there. Hmm, Apple would have to release all patents free of charge to all competitors or men on the street in order to be 'not a monopoly."
No, they don't, by any real world law whatsoever. They made a phone that works very well. The OPENED the platform to tens of thousands of developers, and they came rushing in. There's been no huge flight from the platform. Apple provides the developers with a software kit that makes developing these apps a snap, relatively speaking. They take 30% of the sales, exactly as they do with music, because of their cost structure, but in turn, a developer who makes an app that gets millions of downloads, and millions in profit, doesn't have to deal with the expenses of making sales on his website and paying for the massive bandwidth that millions of downloaders would make them pay. In return, they get advertising and some pretty valuable shelf space in iTunes.
You're basically using the Psystar arguments, which a federal judge rejected as, well, stupid. Want to try for two? Yes, Apple has the right to proprietary software. And no, refusing clone makers the "right" to resell their software in a way they don't want is not monopolistic or anti-competitive. Lose, lose, lose. Read some law on the Sherman Act. To say otherwise actually takes the right of innovation away from companies. Why innovate when you'll have to give up the secrets immediately anyway? Oh, some guy on/. won't like it. Okay, here's all the code.
If some company invents a device that is a genuine advance in the market, and that sells very well, they are entitled to those sales. There's nothing "anti-competitive" about making a product that becomes popular. Yes, they have a monopoly on manufacturing their own product, of their design, with their OS on it. Monopoly law in NO WAY dictates that we all have to run linux on generic boxes, or that OSes HAVE to be open. You may disagree about "closed" OSes, and maybe it won't be popular and won't sell. Only there's zero evidence of that so far.
All you have to do is make something that is an iPhone killer by investing great heaping gobs of money and work at developing your own stuff. If someone made a phone that took commands from your thought waves and sold for $50, the iPhone would disappear. Until then...
Coca-cola has a secret formula, a logo that is their property, and so on. They sell a lot of coke. They don't have to give up their logo or their formula to stop being a monopoly, which they aren't anyway, because they don't sell like 90% of the soft drinks in the world. A lot of people prefer Pepsi. Coke doesn't threaten merchants that they'll lose their Coke sales if they dare to stock Pepsi. Apple certainly isn't selling their product below the cost of development in order to keep others from the market.
You SAY the update had little to do with anything but bricking jailbroken phones. Prove it. Which one?
Jailbreaking depends on finding a way to crash the phone, so you can circumvent it and install other code. Those are called vulnerabilities. Naturally Apple will fix these security holes, because if a benign jailbreaker can get in, a nasty guy will.
I hope you change the password on your ssh software that came with the jailbreak.
Though Jobs is more closed that Woz, hell, the whole world is. The "openness" of the various colored water salesmen who ran Apple nearly drove it into the ground. Jobs made a huge success by OPENING it. He apparently learned from his mistakes.
Who the hell are the majority of sales of iPods to? To Windows users! They made a Windows version of iTunes and Quicktime. They even switched to the crummy USB interface, so Windows users wouldn't have the tsuris of buying a 1394 card.
Hey, I want to try out a Zune. Where the Apple software for that? None? Well, how about the Linux hardware and software? Well, wait a minute. Let me get my compiler fired up and write a few scraps of python.
And the clones were sucking money from the platform without any benefits to the mothership. They got a minute amount of marketshare at the cost of a huge cut in profits. What the hell was that about? Dunderhead accountants were running the company. They had essentially stopped the development of the Mac, going for a profusion of lackluster models that had nothing much going for them.
When Jobs came back, within 6 months it was a going concern.
But they immediately, on the return of Jobs, began opening the platform. They adopted USB, which was Intel's, and Wi-Fi, and they phased out proprietary protocols like Appletalk and so on. The "i-Mac" was the "Internet Mac," so hooking up with other computers became a priority. I worked an Intel Mac on an all-Windows network, and it worked, straight out of the box, and did all the basic communications. The Exchange interoperability on the iPhone is serious, though still limited to MS's licensing. The root layer of the OS is Darwin, which is an open source variant of Berkeley UNIX. They regularly release the newest versions of that, and the CUPS printing project, and WebKit, etc. Their OS has no serial numbers, and you can practically install it a million times, and though they ask you to pay a premium for multiple installations, there's no tattling to the Apple servers.
And yet, those who are dead set on seeing Apple is "closed" can always settle on one detail or other.
Look, the formerly close partnership between Apple and Google is getting a little sharp, no? It's inevitable, because Google was deciding not only to compete with Windows with an OS and Google Gears and so on, but with Apple in phones. Great, more competition makes for better phones.
Can I install my Mac software on that Google phone? No? Hey, it's not open! Google is a tyrant! I've already paid for my seven screens of iApps! Why does Google want to FORCE me to buy their software...
I guess I'm an old coot, because I sure as hell DON'T want Latitude on my iPhone. Why the hell would anyone want this privacy-sucking monstrosity? I tried the web app, and cleared it off in minutes.
They're not closed. Anybody can submit apps to the store. I'd say you have a better chance getting noticed BECAUSE of the fact that every iPhone owner plugs in his phone to the App store for charging every night. They carry the advertising, the bandwidth, etc. All they've got is a flavor of Unix, and their software development tools are pretty great. If you know your stuff, you can make an app very quickly.
And the iPhone, well, it connects to the 3G network, to Wi-Fi, to Bluetooth, and keeps on expanding its ways of connecting with other things. But you focus on one thing, the App Store, and of that, the highly-publicized cases, a tiny minority, where their judgment is open to question.
Is Microsoft open? No. They have a larger share of the market, so sometimes it SEEMS open. To other Windows users.
Is Linux open? Even though it's free, its market share is miniscule. Yes, it's open, but the open-source nature of it seems to need some work done on it until it becomes "open" to the great unwashed.
In this free country, you are free not to buy an Apple product. You might try one sometime, though. You'll probably like it more than you allow yourself to.
Obviously, the Droid has a pretty cool, free navigation app cooked in with its Google Maps. Are they offering that to other platforms? Just askin'. I'm thinking they might, eventually, after they use their competitive advantage to wipe out Tom Tom and Garmin and Magellan... or "take money away from" these companies. In the old days, giving something that cool away for free (under the cost of production, that's for sure) would have been called "unfair competition." Oh, but Google never does anything like that. They are NOT EVIL. They are OPEN.
"Apple makes money on the iPhones when selling it to AT&T or unlocked, a forced 30% cut on all software soft for it and a ~$17 kickback from AT&T from every iPhone user every month. This is one of the reasons they don't want people going to websites and downloading programs."
Yes, Apple makes money selling iPhones. It is a business. If it's part of a subscription, much of the real cost is picked up by AT&T and they paid back by the subscriber. If you buy the phone unlocked, you pay the whole cost yourself. Now, AT&T won't give you a cheaper, non-subsidized fee, so take that up with them.
If it's so horrible that a Apple takes a 30% cut, please tell me why people have flocked to the platform? Do they love slavery? Or are a sizable minority making a decent amount of MONEY, and 30% to Apple pays for all your marketing expenses, freeing you to just develop?
As for the last, I'm sure it's true that part of the reason they don't want people going to websites to buy apps is because they don't get a cut. Oh, terrible crime. I think that the 30% probably works about like the music store, where profits are thin. A lot of that is eaten up by bandwidth -- I wonder what Apple paid for those billion downloads? -- and credit card fees.
Another thing I'm sure Steve-o wants is a lot fewer Russian web sites selling Trojans mixed in with their neat app. I bring your attention to the hack of jailbroken iPhones, which went from practical joke to a real-live Trojan gathering up your banking passwords, etc. Sure, it only happened with people who didn't reset their ssh password. But good luck with the free as a bird buying of software from the web.
No. Definitions of words change. Maxims don't, though perhaps with the end of literacy, people just find it too laborious to understand what the saying means.
All three definitions are essentially the same thing. The "obvious question" you invite in the first definition is the assumption that something is true when you're trying to prove that it is. It's a way of evading the issue of the question you're begging by raising a question you have not dealt with.
It's the most basic form of logical fallacy in political discourse today. If they couldn't beg questions, the GOP would collapse.
Quick, you go ahead and make something you call an "iPhone." The legal system will take you apart in seconds, leaving your bones for the sharks. That's not "monopoly," that's IP.
The only monopoly that Apple has is the monopoly they have on ownership rights of their own production, and they have every right to that. They've decided to go this way. Are they using "market power" to control the market? I don't see how they do. They aren't even the top-selling smartphone, and they don't dominate the cell phone market in any way. Is their "market power" crowding out competitors by coercion? No, the only monopoly they have is with all those who buy iPhones VOLUNTARILY. Are they forcing cell phone manufacturers to keep only iPhones in stock? No.
Your definition of "monopoly" is legally incompetent. Psystar had just this definition, and they lost, big-time.
By the way, how many suits has Apple launched against jailbreakers? Um, none. Against hobbyist cloners of the Mac OS X to run on generic Windows machines? I believe the answer is, uh, none. They have forced some takedowns which were a little too obvious. But there's no suits against piraters of OS X hacked for Windows. Hell, they don't even put serial numbers on their OS.
They brought it to market, and their executives (Jobs) decide the way things can go. If you want something else, get a Blackberry/Drobo/whatever. There will be lots of choice for those who feel offended easily.
I don't quite understand the outrage at an iPhone store that has 100,000 apps and whose costs range from free to pretty cheap, and which has lacked a few dozen well-publicized apps, most of which are rejected due to mistakes and errors.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's simple.
Usually, the dominant mood in these forums is anti-patent. Not so when it's Apple, another favorite bugaboo, getting sued.
They're countersuing, alleging Nokia infringes.
And of course, there's the old saw that when you're competing well, you sell your product; when things are not going so well, and you're losing marketshare, you sue.
No, nobody made you say it. You wanted to say it, and it's meaningless bullshit.
There are lots of companies with designers, but please explain the worthless crap so many of them put out. The ultimate authority is Steve. Designers make a design, Steve throws it against the wall and tells them to do it again, only this time with no buttons. Programmers put things together, and if Steve doesn't like it, they do it again.
He then approves the ads, which have also won many awards and have sold a lot of stuff. He gives fantastic keynotes, and everyone has heard of the Distortion Field.
Look, like Apple or not -- I'm guessing you don't -- but give the man his props. It was close to bankruptcy. It now is one of the great American corporate stories. Design is at the center of it.
Oh, and his best choice of all was making OS X run on Intel, the most dominant chip in the market. Apple, and Jobs, had resisted that for years, but he recognized finally that he was wrong, and then the company produced a very graceful transition to the Intel world. It's when you could run Linux and Windows on Macs as well as OS X that the computers really took off.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you mean, MONTH/DAY/YEAR bothers you? It's just a convention. Say, "April first, 2010," and then write it out. Do the British say, "One April 2010?"
If it really bothers you, change your control panel or System Preferences or whatever they call it in Linux.
Yes, but it's something you can get mad about Apple for, so the burden of truth no longer applies!!!
It's kind of like Glenn Beck that way.
Interesting concepts that you pulled out of your ass there. Hmm, Apple would have to release all patents free of charge to all competitors or men on the street in order to be 'not a monopoly."
No, they don't, by any real world law whatsoever. They made a phone that works very well. The OPENED the platform to tens of thousands of developers, and they came rushing in. There's been no huge flight from the platform. Apple provides the developers with a software kit that makes developing these apps a snap, relatively speaking. They take 30% of the sales, exactly as they do with music, because of their cost structure, but in turn, a developer who makes an app that gets millions of downloads, and millions in profit, doesn't have to deal with the expenses of making sales on his website and paying for the massive bandwidth that millions of downloaders would make them pay. In return, they get advertising and some pretty valuable shelf space in iTunes.
You're basically using the Psystar arguments, which a federal judge rejected as, well, stupid. Want to try for two? Yes, Apple has the right to proprietary software. And no, refusing clone makers the "right" to resell their software in a way they don't want is not monopolistic or anti-competitive. Lose, lose, lose. Read some law on the Sherman Act. To say otherwise actually takes the right of innovation away from companies. Why innovate when you'll have to give up the secrets immediately anyway? Oh, some guy on /. won't like it. Okay, here's all the code.
If some company invents a device that is a genuine advance in the market, and that sells very well, they are entitled to those sales. There's nothing "anti-competitive" about making a product that becomes popular. Yes, they have a monopoly on manufacturing their own product, of their design, with their OS on it. Monopoly law in NO WAY dictates that we all have to run linux on generic boxes, or that OSes HAVE to be open. You may disagree about "closed" OSes, and maybe it won't be popular and won't sell. Only there's zero evidence of that so far.
All you have to do is make something that is an iPhone killer by investing great heaping gobs of money and work at developing your own stuff. If someone made a phone that took commands from your thought waves and sold for $50, the iPhone would disappear. Until then...
Coca-cola has a secret formula, a logo that is their property, and so on. They sell a lot of coke. They don't have to give up their logo or their formula to stop being a monopoly, which they aren't anyway, because they don't sell like 90% of the soft drinks in the world. A lot of people prefer Pepsi. Coke doesn't threaten merchants that they'll lose their Coke sales if they dare to stock Pepsi. Apple certainly isn't selling their product below the cost of development in order to keep others from the market.
Good luck on keeping any American tech corporation in business.
You realize that legally, that puts a virus on a legal footing.
Oh, so that's what's wrong with you. Libertarianism is a brain disease.
To compare apple with the czar? You gotta be joking.
If they're bad, they will sell fewer phones, I guess. We'll see.
Ah, the martyr.
You SAY the update had little to do with anything but bricking jailbroken phones. Prove it. Which one?
Jailbreaking depends on finding a way to crash the phone, so you can circumvent it and install other code. Those are called vulnerabilities. Naturally Apple will fix these security holes, because if a benign jailbreaker can get in, a nasty guy will.
I hope you change the password on your ssh software that came with the jailbreak.
Though Jobs is more closed that Woz, hell, the whole world is. The "openness" of the various colored water salesmen who ran Apple nearly drove it into the ground. Jobs made a huge success by OPENING it. He apparently learned from his mistakes.
Yeah, "assheadedness", right. CEO of the Decade.
Note: just because other problems existed doesn't mean the ones you're seeking to discredit didn't contribute.
Who the hell are the majority of sales of iPods to? To Windows users! They made a Windows version of iTunes and Quicktime. They even switched to the crummy USB interface, so Windows users wouldn't have the tsuris of buying a 1394 card.
Hey, I want to try out a Zune. Where the Apple software for that? None? Well, how about the Linux hardware and software? Well, wait a minute. Let me get my compiler fired up and write a few scraps of python.
And the clones were sucking money from the platform without any benefits to the mothership. They got a minute amount of marketshare at the cost of a huge cut in profits. What the hell was that about? Dunderhead accountants were running the company. They had essentially stopped the development of the Mac, going for a profusion of lackluster models that had nothing much going for them.
When Jobs came back, within 6 months it was a going concern.
But they immediately, on the return of Jobs, began opening the platform. They adopted USB, which was Intel's, and Wi-Fi, and they phased out proprietary protocols like Appletalk and so on. The "i-Mac" was the "Internet Mac," so hooking up with other computers became a priority. I worked an Intel Mac on an all-Windows network, and it worked, straight out of the box, and did all the basic communications. The Exchange interoperability on the iPhone is serious, though still limited to MS's licensing. The root layer of the OS is Darwin, which is an open source variant of Berkeley UNIX. They regularly release the newest versions of that, and the CUPS printing project, and WebKit, etc. Their OS has no serial numbers, and you can practically install it a million times, and though they ask you to pay a premium for multiple installations, there's no tattling to the Apple servers.
And yet, those who are dead set on seeing Apple is "closed" can always settle on one detail or other.
Look, the formerly close partnership between Apple and Google is getting a little sharp, no? It's inevitable, because Google was deciding not only to compete with Windows with an OS and Google Gears and so on, but with Apple in phones. Great, more competition makes for better phones.
Can I install my Mac software on that Google phone? No? Hey, it's not open! Google is a tyrant! I've already paid for my seven screens of iApps! Why does Google want to FORCE me to buy their software...
I guess I'm an old coot, because I sure as hell DON'T want Latitude on my iPhone. Why the hell would anyone want this privacy-sucking monstrosity? I tried the web app, and cleared it off in minutes.
They're not closed. Anybody can submit apps to the store. I'd say you have a better chance getting noticed BECAUSE of the fact that every iPhone owner plugs in his phone to the App store for charging every night. They carry the advertising, the bandwidth, etc. All they've got is a flavor of Unix, and their software development tools are pretty great. If you know your stuff, you can make an app very quickly.
And the iPhone, well, it connects to the 3G network, to Wi-Fi, to Bluetooth, and keeps on expanding its ways of connecting with other things. But you focus on one thing, the App Store, and of that, the highly-publicized cases, a tiny minority, where their judgment is open to question.
Is Microsoft open? No. They have a larger share of the market, so sometimes it SEEMS open. To other Windows users.
Is Linux open? Even though it's free, its market share is miniscule. Yes, it's open, but the open-source nature of it seems to need some work done on it until it becomes "open" to the great unwashed.
In this free country, you are free not to buy an Apple product. You might try one sometime, though. You'll probably like it more than you allow yourself to.
And that is evil because...?
Obviously, the Droid has a pretty cool, free navigation app cooked in with its Google Maps. Are they offering that to other platforms? Just askin'. I'm thinking they might, eventually, after they use their competitive advantage to wipe out Tom Tom and Garmin and Magellan... or "take money away from" these companies. In the old days, giving something that cool away for free (under the cost of production, that's for sure) would have been called "unfair competition." Oh, but Google never does anything like that. They are NOT EVIL. They are OPEN.
"Apple makes money on the iPhones when selling it to AT&T or unlocked, a forced 30% cut on all software soft for it and a ~$17 kickback from AT&T from every iPhone user every month. This is one of the reasons they don't want people going to websites and downloading programs."
Yes, Apple makes money selling iPhones. It is a business. If it's part of a subscription, much of the real cost is picked up by AT&T and they paid back by the subscriber. If you buy the phone unlocked, you pay the whole cost yourself. Now, AT&T won't give you a cheaper, non-subsidized fee, so take that up with them.
If it's so horrible that a Apple takes a 30% cut, please tell me why people have flocked to the platform? Do they love slavery? Or are a sizable minority making a decent amount of MONEY, and 30% to Apple pays for all your marketing expenses, freeing you to just develop?
As for the last, I'm sure it's true that part of the reason they don't want people going to websites to buy apps is because they don't get a cut. Oh, terrible crime. I think that the 30% probably works about like the music store, where profits are thin. A lot of that is eaten up by bandwidth -- I wonder what Apple paid for those billion downloads? -- and credit card fees.
Another thing I'm sure Steve-o wants is a lot fewer Russian web sites selling Trojans mixed in with their neat app. I bring your attention to the hack of jailbroken iPhones, which went from practical joke to a real-live Trojan gathering up your banking passwords, etc. Sure, it only happened with people who didn't reset their ssh password. But good luck with the free as a bird buying of software from the web.
No. Definitions of words change. Maxims don't, though perhaps with the end of literacy, people just find it too laborious to understand what the saying means.
All three definitions are essentially the same thing. The "obvious question" you invite in the first definition is the assumption that something is true when you're trying to prove that it is. It's a way of evading the issue of the question you're begging by raising a question you have not dealt with.
It's the most basic form of logical fallacy in political discourse today. If they couldn't beg questions, the GOP would collapse.
Quick, you go ahead and make something you call an "iPhone." The legal system will take you apart in seconds, leaving your bones for the sharks. That's not "monopoly," that's IP.
The only monopoly that Apple has is the monopoly they have on ownership rights of their own production, and they have every right to that. They've decided to go this way. Are they using "market power" to control the market? I don't see how they do. They aren't even the top-selling smartphone, and they don't dominate the cell phone market in any way. Is their "market power" crowding out competitors by coercion? No, the only monopoly they have is with all those who buy iPhones VOLUNTARILY. Are they forcing cell phone manufacturers to keep only iPhones in stock? No.
Your definition of "monopoly" is legally incompetent. Psystar had just this definition, and they lost, big-time.
By the way, how many suits has Apple launched against jailbreakers? Um, none. Against hobbyist cloners of the Mac OS X to run on generic Windows machines? I believe the answer is, uh, none. They have forced some takedowns which were a little too obvious. But there's no suits against piraters of OS X hacked for Windows. Hell, they don't even put serial numbers on their OS.
They brought it to market, and their executives (Jobs) decide the way things can go. If you want something else, get a Blackberry/Drobo/whatever. There will be lots of choice for those who feel offended easily.
Buy what you want. That's the American way.
I don't quite understand the outrage at an iPhone store that has 100,000 apps and whose costs range from free to pretty cheap, and which has lacked a few dozen well-publicized apps, most of which are rejected due to mistakes and errors.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's simple.
Usually, the dominant mood in these forums is anti-patent. Not so when it's Apple, another favorite bugaboo, getting sued.
They're countersuing, alleging Nokia infringes.
And of course, there's the old saw that when you're competing well, you sell your product; when things are not going so well, and you're losing marketshare, you sue.
No, nobody made you say it. You wanted to say it, and it's meaningless bullshit.
There are lots of companies with designers, but please explain the worthless crap so many of them put out. The ultimate authority is Steve. Designers make a design, Steve throws it against the wall and tells them to do it again, only this time with no buttons. Programmers put things together, and if Steve doesn't like it, they do it again.
He then approves the ads, which have also won many awards and have sold a lot of stuff. He gives fantastic keynotes, and everyone has heard of the Distortion Field.
Look, like Apple or not -- I'm guessing you don't -- but give the man his props. It was close to bankruptcy. It now is one of the great American corporate stories. Design is at the center of it.
Oh, and his best choice of all was making OS X run on Intel, the most dominant chip in the market. Apple, and Jobs, had resisted that for years, but he recognized finally that he was wrong, and then the company produced a very graceful transition to the Intel world. It's when you could run Linux and Windows on Macs as well as OS X that the computers really took off.
I'm writing this on a 27" iMac quad. Fantastic.