>Oh yeah, that's right, you didn't invent, market and distribute a mobile device platform and ecosystem, thus creating the market of customers for electronic written works.
That doesn't mean they can demand the first-born child of the publishers. This is similar to the Net Neutrality debate. Do you want Youtube, Facebook etc. to be forced to pay your ISP for allowing access to a paying subscriber like you?
The difference is that Apple is already making billions by selling hardware and software to iBuyers many of who are motivated to buy iDevices because of Apps(Jobs makes it a big point in his presentations) and services such as Netflix/Kindle. Those services already add value to subscribers. If Netflix/Kindle/etc. were pulled tomorrow, won't it reduce the attractiveness of the iDevice? This similar to Net Neutrality, where Comcast etc. were trying to set up virtual toll booths while providing nothing of value except a dumb pipe for which they were already charging subscribers and upstream hosting providers like Akamai.
How can this be equivalent to Readability's business model?
Readability uses Amazon Payments. I am not sure how much personal info is transmitted to Readability from Amazon. But is that worth squeezing 30% from the (dev+subscriber) ?
>No, but they collect membership fees and revert 70% of these to the writers. 30% agency fees, for doing exactly squat besides rebranding and reformatting the content, would be considered exorbitant and unconscionable in just about any other business.
Really? Then why don't you make a free clone and just give it away? Huh? Why not?
They're providing a needed service and enabling micropayments from people who don't want to see ads but don't want content producers to die due to lack of revenue.
It is Apple that doesn't do anything for subscriptions except payment processing for which 30% is just BS. Unlike the App store downloads,the content is hosted by the developer/publisher and sent through AT&T/Verizon.
You think iUsers will take it kindly if their Kindle books and Netflix movies are just yanked off one fine day? Guess Apple's just extorting on the small fish for now.
iPad 3.5 will probably come with Palladium 3.5, where even sites like Youtube will be charged for streaming to iDevice users.
Already, Netflix, Kindle, etc. are on the chopping block on the App Store unless they pay up 30% of the user's fees to Apple. Want to read your Kindle books or Netflix movies on the iPad? Be forced to pay up to cover Apple's tax. The best thing is that according to Apple's rules, the price has to be same for other devices too, so even if you don't use the iDevices, expect your prices to go up because of Apple's policies.
No need to crib, there's no retina display in the new one. And most Apps will try to be compatible with the speeds of the 15 million iPads. Doubt you will see exclusives soon. So what are you missing out on?
Looks like mostly a hardware bump and some minor functionality improvements. But will lot of apps emerge that will take advantage of the big increase in speed(at the cost of alienating the 15 million existing iPad 1 owners)?
Start something that promotes open software, open ideas, and open standards. Take on Microsoft and other companies head on. Show people what quality software and open standards do for everyone.
That's what I'd do.
Then maybe actually donate enough money so that it doesn't have to clamber for revenue? It's easy to write Slashdot comments espousing openness while things suffer to due to lack of revenue in the real world.
Is this like a autogenerated comment by something like the IBM Watson? Maybe it studies the upmodded comments in previous articles and comes up with this tripe. But the best thing is that it will work with the moderators on here.
That's gobbledygook. I don't see anything but speculation in TFA. Hell, if we are speculating, here's something that's better and a lot more believable to be Windows 8:
If anyone who is skeptical of evolution is deemed to be "anti-science", then this conversation is over before it has even begun. Can't we do better?
The problem is that genuine criticism (like maybe yours) is hard to come by. What comes out is drivel funded by some religious types trying to push creationism and intelligent design, so I guess you have a barrier to cross but once you do, people genuinely think about it. It happens in biological science circles all the time.
It is something like geeks calling techsupport, they check everything and know what the problem is, but the person on the other end goes through an annoying checklist(starting with 'reboot your computer') because there were a thousand people who called with just your problem, thought they had a clue but did not.
Life forms are constructed of systems-of-systems (e.g., the "eye" is not just a single thing, it is part of an entire system of sight), and "survival of the fittest" is obviously not up to the task of explaining how these systems came to be. You can't select on something that does't exist yet.
That seems suspiciously like the irreducible complexity argument. For a rational non-scientist there are LOTS of places on the internet where you can get information from real scientists about how they think it happened.
Science ought to have nothing to fear from skepticism. Kids are plenty smart enough to tell religion from science (remember when you were a kid?), so we should have nothing to fear on that front, either.
I don't see how things like the Creation museum that shows men coexisting with dinosaurs is 'skepticism'. It's just about indoctrinating people with falsehoods. Kids are smart, but if you wrap them in an environment that tells falsehoods, they are vulnerable too. It's like keeping a program in a VM, it can never(almost) know that it's running in a VM, if you bring up a child in a bubble (homeschooled etc.) they grow up with strong false beliefs.
Actually I would say reasonably intelligent people could be fooled by Confirmation Bias. http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html Almost everyone is susceptible to Confirmation Bias and intelligent people tend to rationalize even more.
While I do agree with you regarding the article commentary, there are indeed people who are trying to get creationism(disguised as Intelligent Design) taught as science in schools. Eg. http://www.discovery.org/ A nicer list of the papers written etc. are here --> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php
There will be at least four app stores with Android, which users much search among. This is going to be a mess for users and developers. Compare this with Apple's integrated app store."
That's probably going to be a big piece of evidence for app store being generic.
Slashdot Mirror
Examples or references about D?
Ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :)
>Oh yeah, that's right, you didn't invent, market and distribute a mobile device platform and ecosystem, thus creating the market of customers for electronic written works.
That doesn't mean they can demand the first-born child of the publishers. This is similar to the Net Neutrality debate. Do you want Youtube, Facebook etc. to be forced to pay your ISP for allowing access to a paying subscriber like you?
The difference is that Apple is already making billions by selling hardware and software to iBuyers many of who are motivated to buy iDevices because of Apps(Jobs makes it a big point in his presentations) and services such as Netflix/Kindle. Those services already add value to subscribers. If Netflix/Kindle/etc. were pulled tomorrow, won't it reduce the attractiveness of the iDevice? This similar to Net Neutrality, where Comcast etc. were trying to set up virtual toll booths while providing nothing of value except a dumb pipe for which they were already charging subscribers and upstream hosting providers like Akamai.
How can this be equivalent to Readability's business model?
Readability uses Amazon Payments. I am not sure how much personal info is transmitted to Readability from Amazon. But is that worth squeezing 30% from the (dev+subscriber) ?
I guess his/her point is that Apple will be collecting 100% of the money from iSubscribers and then PAYing the Dev(Readability in this case) 70%.
>No, but they collect membership fees and revert 70% of these to the writers. 30% agency fees, for doing exactly squat besides rebranding and reformatting the content, would be considered exorbitant and unconscionable in just about any other business.
Really? Then why don't you make a free clone and just give it away? Huh? Why not?
They're providing a needed service and enabling micropayments from people who don't want to see ads but don't want content producers to die due to lack of revenue.
It is Apple that doesn't do anything for subscriptions except payment processing for which 30% is just BS. Unlike the App store downloads,the content is hosted by the developer/publisher and sent through AT&T/Verizon.
You think iUsers will take it kindly if their Kindle books and Netflix movies are just yanked off one fine day? Guess Apple's just extorting on the small fish for now.
iPad 3.5 will probably come with Palladium 3.5, where even sites like Youtube will be charged for streaming to iDevice users.
Already, Netflix, Kindle, etc. are on the chopping block on the App Store unless they pay up 30% of the user's fees to Apple. Want to read your Kindle books or Netflix movies on the iPad? Be forced to pay up to cover Apple's tax. The best thing is that according to Apple's rules, the price has to be same for other devices too, so even if you don't use the iDevices, expect your prices to go up because of Apple's policies.
Readability was kicked off the App Store for failing to pay up http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/21/apples_rejection_of_readability_ios_app_stirs_subscription_controversy.html
Before you mod me overrated/flamebait/troll etc. maybe reply to tell me why you're doing so?
No need to crib, there's no retina display in the new one. And most Apps will try to be compatible with the speeds of the 15 million iPads. Doubt you will see exclusives soon. So what are you missing out on?
How about one with a extra 10% thickness/weight and having around 15 hours battery life?
Didn't Jobs say that 1024x768 ought to be enough for everyone! /joke
Looks like mostly a hardware bump and some minor functionality improvements. But will lot of apps emerge that will take advantage of the big increase in speed(at the cost of alienating the 15 million existing iPad 1 owners)?
Start something that promotes open software, open ideas, and open standards. Take on Microsoft and other companies head on. Show people what quality software and open standards do for everyone.
That's what I'd do.
Then maybe actually donate enough money so that it doesn't have to clamber for revenue? It's easy to write Slashdot comments espousing openness while things suffer to due to lack of revenue in the real world.
Maybe you should actually wait till its confirmed beyond a super speculative Slashdot post(any other news source calling this possibly Windows 8)?
Is this like a autogenerated comment by something like the IBM Watson? Maybe it studies the upmodded comments in previous articles and comes up with this tripe. But the best thing is that it will work with the moderators on here.
It's cool to be snarky, but haven't seen many outlandish ideas as the main UI of Windows in any version, so how is this proof?
I didn't see anything interesting. The promo-video was a waste of time. Someone could have said the same things 10 yrs ago.
promo-video? Err, even MS wouldn't make such a promo video. It's just a research tech preview demo.
That's gobbledygook.
I don't see anything but speculation in TFA. Hell, if we are speculating, here's something that's better and a lot more believable to be Windows 8:
http://www.vimeo.com/13580196
If anyone who is skeptical of evolution is deemed to be "anti-science", then this conversation is over before it has even begun. Can't we do better?
The problem is that genuine criticism (like maybe yours) is hard to come by. What comes out is drivel funded by some religious types trying to push creationism and intelligent design, so I guess you have a barrier to cross but once you do, people genuinely think about it. It happens in biological science circles all the time.
It is something like geeks calling techsupport, they check everything and know what the problem is, but the person on the other end goes through an annoying checklist(starting with 'reboot your computer') because there were a thousand people who called with just your problem, thought they had a clue but did not.
Life forms are constructed of systems-of-systems (e.g., the "eye" is not just a single thing, it is part of an entire system of sight), and "survival of the fittest" is obviously not up to the task of explaining how these systems came to be. You can't select on something that does't exist yet.
That seems suspiciously like the irreducible complexity argument. For a rational non-scientist there are LOTS of places on the internet where you can get information from real scientists about how they think it happened.
I don't want to repeat everything here again, but can you take a look at this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4742301713635559854# and then tell us what do you think the problem is?
Science ought to have nothing to fear from skepticism. Kids are plenty smart enough to tell religion from science (remember when you were a kid?), so we should have nothing to fear on that front, either.
I don't see how things like the Creation museum that shows men coexisting with dinosaurs is 'skepticism'. It's just about indoctrinating people with falsehoods. Kids are smart, but if you wrap them in an environment that tells falsehoods, they are vulnerable too. It's like keeping a program in a VM, it can never(almost) know that it's running in a VM, if you bring up a child in a bubble (homeschooled etc.) they grow up with strong false beliefs.
Because they will kill the new site's referrer requests ASAP.
Actually I would say reasonably intelligent people could be fooled by Confirmation Bias. http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Almost everyone is susceptible to Confirmation Bias and intelligent people tend to rationalize even more.
While I do agree with you regarding the article commentary, there are indeed people who are trying to get creationism(disguised as Intelligent Design) taught as science in schools. Eg. http://www.discovery.org/
A nicer list of the papers written etc. are here --> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php
OMG. I suppose you have to give IE credit for even being able to load all that.
Firefox does seem to have trouble doing that. http://i.imgur.com/qD2OV.png
From Jobs' anti-Android rant: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/18/apples-q4-earnings-are-out-records-set-for-revenue-earnings/
There will be at least four app stores with Android, which users much search among. This is going to be a mess for users and developers. Compare this with Apple's integrated app store."
That's probably going to be a big piece of evidence for app store being generic.