Most of the closed-source Linux apps link against LGPL'ed libraries and headers, NOT GPL like you say. If you link against a GPL'ed library, your program has to be GPL'ed.
See Linus' take on the GPL'ed kernel headers below. He's absolutely against your point:
Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
You don't say.
Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.
It's been an year since Jobs posted a big rambling rant on how HTML5 was the future and that Flash sucks. In such a long time, all the issues haven't been fixed. So was Jobs' wrong then?
You seem confused by the term "DRM". It has nothing to do with Apple's app-approval process or their policies requiring a cut of the revenue. Go ahead and complain about those all you want (because you have a good point there), but don't confuse them with DRM.
An example of Apple's DRM are the restrictions on how many devices you can load one of the music files or app bundles onto, and the restrictions on moving files from an iPod to a computer rather than the other way 'round. By allowing users to play a music file on 5 different computers/iPods, they undercut the user's motivation to go to the torrents for DRM-free MP3s. That's what "somewhat-loosely-restrictive DRM" means.
What it the mechanism by which the App-Store policies and revenue cuts are enforced? Isn't that DRM? What would you call it?
"Apple proved you can cut down on piracy with DRM with their App store for the iPhone and iPad."
No they didn't; they did it with pricing and convenience. The somewhat-loosely-restrictive DRM on Apple's wares is easily broken. What the iTunes and App stores have shown is that if the prices are perceived as reasonable, and the DRM doesn't get in their way (much), people will not bother with piracy.
They also claimed that jailbreaking is a criminal offense. Their users are none the wiser anyway. But the upcoming forced 30% cut of all subscriptions and possible ban on Netlix and Kindle may result in users finally noticing if their prices go up or if their apps are pulled by Apple.
Apple proved you can cut down on piracy with DRM with their App store for the iPhone and iPad.
That's why the copyright moguls are pushing ACTA and son-of-ACTA.
>How about we take SunSpider from Anandtech's review of the iPad 2
Umm... maybe the article was written before the iPad 2 came out?
Again, with the lack of any data or benchmarks... OK, I'll give you the fact that iOS canvas performance is slow. So is Android's: neither iOS or Android have fully hardware accelerated browsers. But barely usable? A bit of an exaggeration, I think. So let's put this one as "Sure, but that's about the same for most mobile browsers."
If HTML5 was pushed a replacement for Flash, and if it fails at the very basic tag to create Flash like content that's not possible in HTML5. See Jobs' rant against Flash about a year ago. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
If Apple is unable to get HTML5 even close to Flash in a whole year, I don't know what that says. Maybe they don't want HTML5 apps which will perfrom equally well on Android and the upcoming IE9 mobile and want native apps instead so that the user is locked in and where developers are forced to give up 30% of both their revenue from selling it AND any subscription fees that the user pays?
>>Don’t believe in keynotes, even better, don’t watch them
What does this have to do with the point at hand?
Maybe HTML5 was hyped up in some keynotes?
Sure, I'll agree to that. Maybe the problem here isn't iOS or the iPad, but HTML5 itself.
Ah. Then maybe Jobs shouldn't have waxed eloquent on it in that blog post above because back then HTML5 was even more immature? Re-read it once again.
You don't need a subscription for the Kindle app. There are tons of free Kindle ebooks too. But Apple wants 30% of the cost of any ebooks that Amazon sells through the Kindle app.
As I said, that's not my opinion, so no need to attack me. Feel free to attack the author of that article instead.
BTW: Using webkit doesn't automagically make things better. Maybe you should address the points raised in that article instead of handwaving with some mumbojumbo about OSS and monopolies thrown in?
I don't know, it's kind of too similar to MS dragging its feet after it won the browser wars with IE6, leaving things unfixed and broken while Office went through a few revisions and great sales.
>Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.
Not anymore if it involves any money exchanged between the user and the app provider. Now Apple is forcing (users of) subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to pay up 30%. ( an extra 43% to the user). It's curtains from June.
And there we have Slashdotters actually defending ancient business models. Unlike paper subscriptions, there is almost no cost per unit, apart from actually managing payment - and that is taken care of by Apple. All while you can get many more subscribers to buy your stuff. The only thing you don't get is the data form your subscribers to sell to your actual customers, the advertisers.And you know what that means: if the publisher dinosaurs don't get their way, they will use Apple's IAS and still make more money than without the iDevices.
That's true except in the case of Netflix, or Kindle.. or Readability... or......
The new business model is the same as the old one... except for the 30% fee that must come out of users' or producers' or service providers' pocket.. all for what?
And it's funny how hosting the Apps is a big deal and cost to Apple that it must charge for 30% for app downloads but now hosting and serving files comes at 'almost no cost'.
BTW, I still don't see you whining about Amazons subscription rules on the Kindle - why is that?
That's because of atleast 2 things: 1) Amazon sells Kindle at a loss or close to zero profit so the user is getting a good deal on them. iDevices come with a 100%to 200% markup . 2) Amazon pays for network access for Kindle, and they have to pay for downloads too. With the iDevices you're left to AT&T or Verizon's mercy. 3) Pundits don't hail Kindle as replacements for PCs, if you believe the hype around, iDevices are replacing PCs, netbooks, Macbooks, Mac minis (on which there is no forced 30% toll.)
So, are you okay with Comcast charging 30% to for access to Netflix? Or Apple doing the same for Macbook Air or Mac Mini?
>That makes no damned sense. You even contradict yourself, if I'm reading you right, that they will raise their prices to cover the cost, but then they can't afford to pay that extra cost?
>Those that can't afford it will raise rates, those that can won't. But clearly you have some examples in mind, and aren't just completely making shit up, right?
Examples are Readability, Netflix and Kindle. Go look them up? Why should producers and/or users pay an extra 30%? Will you be okay with your ISP skimming 30% of your Netflix subscription fee?
>It's those anti-Apple blinders you are wearing. I already told you why it's great for the customer. It brings more options to me, easier, and with less privacy concerns.
How will one get more options? Is it opposite day today? Readability's app being rejected results in LESS options. If it's better for customers, they will prefer apps that use IAP. Why does Apple have to foce it?
I don't see how a forced extra 30% is 'win win win'.
>But as long as it proves to be a great service, like the App Store has, and the other iTunes stores before it, I don't see why they shouldn't make money from it. That's how things work.
There is a difference between providing a service and forcing yourself as a middleman while providing no value.
What's this obsession with shouting "OMG PAID SHILL" when it's MS (Apple fans shill/whore for free or what?).
Anyway, look at devx' posts on other articles too, there are many unrelated articles where he/she/it has first (kinda) relevant posts within a minute. My best guess is that a different subscriber account is used to see upcoming stories and post on them.
The best price is 30% more than it would be otherwise. There are apps and businesses who can't just can't afford 30% and will pull out because this is a forced thing and not an opt-in for the app developers. I don't see how this is great for the customer.
And because this is Apple, iFans will come out of the woodwork to do some absurd rationalizations about how it's good for the users and how it's not about filling the company coffers at any cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the closed-source Linux apps link against LGPL'ed libraries and headers, NOT GPL like you say. If you link against a GPL'ed library, your program has to be GPL'ed.
See Linus' take on the GPL'ed kernel headers below. He's absolutely against your point:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/13
That's nice.
Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
You don't say.
Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.
This story would be a lot more interesting with a link to an article where we could see some of these things.
http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/
As if Apple would ever make or ever has made such a statement. Geez.
How are the app store policies enforced? Due to what feature are people unable to installing programs off the web like they do on Macs?
It's been an year since Jobs posted a big rambling rant on how HTML5 was the future and that Flash sucks. In such a long time, all the issues haven't been fixed. So was Jobs' wrong then?
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ [apple.com]
Were you asleep when IE7/E8 were pushed as automatic updates to XP and were included in SP2/SP3?
You seem confused by the term "DRM". It has nothing to do with Apple's app-approval process or their policies requiring a cut of the revenue. Go ahead and complain about those all you want (because you have a good point there), but don't confuse them with DRM.
An example of Apple's DRM are the restrictions on how many devices you can load one of the music files or app bundles onto, and the restrictions on moving files from an iPod to a computer rather than the other way 'round. By allowing users to play a music file on 5 different computers/iPods, they undercut the user's motivation to go to the torrents for DRM-free MP3s. That's what "somewhat-loosely-restrictive DRM" means.
What it the mechanism by which the App-Store policies and revenue cuts are enforced? Isn't that DRM? What would you call it?
"Apple proved you can cut down on piracy with DRM with their App store for the iPhone and iPad."
No they didn't; they did it with pricing and convenience. The somewhat-loosely-restrictive DRM on Apple's wares is easily broken. What the iTunes and App stores have shown is that if the prices are perceived as reasonable, and the DRM doesn't get in their way (much), people will not bother with piracy.
The somewhat-loosely-restrictive DRM? How?
They reject perfectly good apps for capricious, inconsistent reasons.
See one among many http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1633249/Apple-Bans-Android-Magazine-App-From-App-Store?from=rss
They also claimed that jailbreaking is a criminal offense. Their users are none the wiser anyway. But the upcoming forced 30% cut of all subscriptions and possible ban on Netlix and Kindle may result in users finally noticing if their prices go up or if their apps are pulled by Apple.
Dead on right. Absolutely. Apple didin't even like DRM... they had to do it.
Is that why they were claiming jailbreaking was highly illegal and it would crash the phone towers?
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/1440233/Apple-Says-iPhone-Jailbreaking-Could-Hurt-Cell-Towers
Apple proved you can cut down on piracy with DRM with their App store for the iPhone and iPad.
That's why the copyright moguls are pushing ACTA and son-of-ACTA.
>How about we take SunSpider from Anandtech's review of the iPad 2
Umm... maybe the article was written before the iPad 2 came out?
Again, with the lack of any data or benchmarks... OK, I'll give you the fact that iOS canvas performance is slow. So is Android's: neither iOS or Android have fully hardware accelerated browsers. But barely usable? A bit of an exaggeration, I think. So let's put this one as "Sure, but that's about the same for most mobile browsers."
If HTML5 was pushed a replacement for Flash, and if it fails at the very basic tag to create Flash like content that's not possible in HTML5. See Jobs' rant against Flash about a year ago. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
If Apple is unable to get HTML5 even close to Flash in a whole year, I don't know what that says. Maybe they don't want HTML5 apps which will perfrom equally well on Android and the upcoming IE9 mobile and want native apps instead so that the user is locked in and where developers are forced to give up 30% of both their revenue from selling it AND any subscription fees that the user pays?
>>Don’t believe in keynotes, even better, don’t watch them
What does this have to do with the point at hand?
Maybe HTML5 was hyped up in some keynotes?
Sure, I'll agree to that. Maybe the problem here isn't iOS or the iPad, but HTML5 itself.
Ah. Then maybe Jobs shouldn't have waxed eloquent on it in that blog post above because back then HTML5 was even more immature? Re-read it once again.
You don't need a subscription for the Kindle app. There are tons of free Kindle ebooks too. But Apple wants 30% of the cost of any ebooks that Amazon sells through the Kindle app.
Doesn't iOS have backends that needs tending, like I don't know, being able to receive calls and mail?
If that's a gay Apple joke you're making, I am sure most are not getting it. /joke.
Mr. Coward,
As I said, that's not my opinion, so no need to attack me. Feel free to attack the author of that article instead.
BTW: Using webkit doesn't automagically make things better. Maybe you should address the points raised in that article instead of handwaving with some mumbojumbo about OSS and monopolies thrown in?
Lets assume you're right, then what's your take on this: http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/
I don't know, it's kind of too similar to MS dragging its feet after it won the browser wars with IE6, leaving things unfixed and broken while Office went through a few revisions and great sales.
This is the opinion(not mine, I know this will be downvoted regardless) of this very interesting and detailed article which I wanted to post.
http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/
>Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.
Not anymore if it involves any money exchanged between the user and the app provider. Now Apple is forcing (users of) subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to pay up 30%. ( an extra 43% to the user). It's curtains from June.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html
Free app Readability already got banned for this.
http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/
Free Sony e-reader app banned:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/02/apple_bans_sony_e-reader_app_a.html
I replied to your parent post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2030168&cid=35467582
And there we have Slashdotters actually defending ancient business models. Unlike paper subscriptions, there is almost no cost per unit, apart from actually managing payment - and that is taken care of by Apple. All while you can get many more subscribers to buy your stuff. The only thing you don't get is the data form your subscribers to sell to your actual customers, the advertisers.And you know what that means: if the publisher dinosaurs don't get their way, they will use Apple's IAS and still make more money than without the iDevices.
That's true except in the case of Netflix, or Kindle.. or Readability... or......
The new business model is the same as the old one... except for the 30% fee that must come out of users' or producers' or service providers' pocket.. all for what?
And it's funny how hosting the Apps is a big deal and cost to Apple that it must charge for 30% for app downloads but now hosting and serving files comes at 'almost no cost'.
BTW, I still don't see you whining about Amazons subscription rules on the Kindle - why is that?
That's because of atleast 2 things:
1) Amazon sells Kindle at a loss or close to zero profit so the user is getting a good deal on them. iDevices come with a 100%to 200% markup .
2) Amazon pays for network access for Kindle, and they have to pay for downloads too. With the iDevices you're left to AT&T or Verizon's mercy.
3) Pundits don't hail Kindle as replacements for PCs, if you believe the hype around, iDevices are replacing PCs, netbooks, Macbooks, Mac minis (on which there is no forced 30% toll.)
So, are you okay with Comcast charging 30% to for access to Netflix? Or Apple doing the same for Macbook Air or Mac Mini?
>That makes no damned sense. You even contradict yourself, if I'm reading you right, that they will raise their prices to cover the cost, but then they can't afford to pay that extra cost?
>Those that can't afford it will raise rates, those that can won't. But clearly you have some examples in mind, and aren't just completely making shit up, right?
Examples are Readability, Netflix and Kindle. Go look them up?
Why should producers and/or users pay an extra 30%? Will you be okay with your ISP skimming 30% of your Netflix subscription fee?
>It's those anti-Apple blinders you are wearing. I already told you why it's great for the customer. It brings more options to me, easier, and with less privacy concerns.
How will one get more options? Is it opposite day today? Readability's app being rejected results in LESS options. If it's better for customers, they will prefer apps that use IAP. Why does Apple have to foce it?
I don't see how a forced extra 30% is 'win win win'.
>But as long as it proves to be a great service, like the App Store has, and the other iTunes stores before it, I don't see why they shouldn't make money from it. That's how things work.
There is a difference between providing a service and forcing yourself as a middleman while providing no value.
What's this obsession with shouting "OMG PAID SHILL" when it's MS (Apple fans shill/whore for free or what?).
Anyway, look at devx' posts on other articles too, there are many unrelated articles where he/she/it has first (kinda) relevant posts within a minute. My best guess is that a different subscriber account is used to see upcoming stories and post on them.
Eg. http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/03/08/1424243/Why-Do-Videogames-Struggle-With-Sex
Such a LONG post in the same MINUTE.
It sure is strange, but I don't see how it fits a pattern or makes any kind of sense.
PS: If it's really a paid shill post and if anyone from MS is reading this, I want to get in on the action too! Message me for details. /joke
The best price is 30% more than it would be otherwise. There are apps and businesses who can't just can't afford 30% and will pull out because this is a forced thing and not an opt-in for the app developers.
I don't see how this is great for the customer.
And because this is Apple, iFans will come out of the woodwork to do some absurd rationalizations about how it's good for the users and how it's not about filling the company coffers at any cost.
That happened after this post was submitted.
It's called "Pwn2Own": the hackers win the machines they hack.
Everyone wants Macs. They hack them first. The other computers come down minutes later.
That's just weak, the prizes were $15,000 even for IE8 and Google was offering $20K.
How many Macbooks can you get for $15K or $20K ?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207939/Google_bets_2...
The easiest way to get a lot of Macbooks would be to exploit the easy software to hack and just buy them from the store.