Why stop with your example, let's apply it to other things.
1. Why can't I buy MS-Windows from Apple's App Store? OMG its not net-neutral!
2. Why Can't I buy non-software items, such a Nike Shoes from the App Store? OMG its not net-neutral!
3. Why do I have to pay for my PS3 games, it's connected to the internet. OMG its not net-neutral!
4. Why do I have to make house payments, I have an internet connection? OMG its not net-neutral!
I could keep going with these analogies, but they are just about as stupid as the examples given in the article.
The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices...
The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned to lock our customers into a DRM system, so that we can squeeze every penny out of them...
I'm not sure how it is for the rest of you, but 15 years ago I had about 3 companies (Covad, Birch, AT&T, etc) that I could choose from to get a 1.5M SDSL line for roughly $60/month. Fast forward to today and I have a 768K for $60. Upgrade options? Sure I got em, I can get a 1M ADSL for $79 or a 1.5M fiber line with forced TV and Phone for over a $100. It's pathetic that over a 15 year period, not only do I lose speed, but I also have to pay more for essentially the same service. I hear about FiOS, but it's not offered where I'm at. I have one option and that's AT&T.
I remember when the government removed the requirement that the telco's offer market rates to competitors and immediately I knew that this was a bad thing. I'm sure that the telco's cried about increased bandwidth, greases the right pockets, etc. But what it really boils down to is greed. So over a 15 year period, they CHOOSE not to upgrade the backbone, but instead they choose to put more restrictions on the customers.
I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. I hope the government bitch slaps them for what they have done. I keep hearing that the telco's received around $300 Billion to improve the system, but I don't see it. Where did that money go? How come this question isn't being persued. If AT&T, Verizon or whoever, starts bitching about being forced to offer this, then I hope the FCC opens up a probe into where this money went and start demanding that they pay it back.
The "Open" Screen Project is a big push to extend the life of a closed source
And we'll call it "Open" so we can fool some of the people... Glad you saw that too. I pray that html5 takes off and I never have to deal with Flash (or any adobe web products) ever again
Except Apple has not once threatened any kind of legal action (this is all hear-say and FUD on your part). So far they are only trying to block the Pre. Palm was the first one to go the legal route when they formally complained to the USB-IF. And even they questioned Palm's actions.
And keep in mind, a record or mp3 does not involve storing data which if is "synced" improperly, could possibly be erased or damaged. People like you who keep saying this is like a blue-tooth mouse or keyboard or just a simple device are over simplifying things to an extreme. The new bread of phones are like mini computers. They are complicated and if handled wrong, bad things can happen. Who get's blamed for this, Apple or Palm at this point.
A better analogy might be Apple spoofing Mac OS X to Windows Update, just so they can obtain some kind of update to some data. Sure MS might offer a documented way for you do this with a simple XML file, but you choose to spoof who you are so you don't have to bother with making your own program to do it correctly. Sounds silly doesn't it, but that is basically what the Palm is doing.
Ok, So Palm's doing this and you want Apple to let them. Tell me this then, what happens if a Pre user sync's up to iTunes and accidentally bricks or erases data on the Pre. Who do you think the customer is going to blame? Who's at fault? There's legal issues with what you are stating and Apple IS providing an approved way of interacting with iTunes. Palm has chosen not to go this route.
Also, how do you know that Apple is not under some contractual obligation to the record and film industries to NOT allow 3rd party devices access to their content? My guess this has something to do with this.
I'm not sure if Palm is just doing this for publicity or if they really just don't have the cash or talent to develop something on their own. Either way, Palm is going about this the wrong way. But if it helps you sleep better at night, you keep on believing that they are in the right thing here.
You are missing the point completely. If you don't want to play by the rules, then don't be a member. Again, plain and simple.
It has nothing to do with Iran posing a THREAT or NOT. It has to do with playing by the rules of the treaty. If they did this, then their wouldn't be a problem. Unless of course it is determined that they are not following the treaty guidelines. LIKE THEY ARE DOING NOW.
If Iran doesn't want to follow these rules, then why are they still a member of the treaty? Would you care to enlighten me on that?
P.S. Did you not get the part about how when you make threats of war and death and then talk about how you are pursuing nuclear technology for "peaceful" use, it's hard to take you seriously? Obviously you are either Iranian or a paid shill from the MS Iranian branch.
The problem is that Iran signed the "Non-Proliferation Treaty".
They have consistently broke this treaty by persuing their nuclear ambitions. Wether it's for peaceful uses as they say or for weapons, is irrelevant. The treaty specifically states that if you do this, you allow inspectors in to check things out. If it's proven that you are going the weapons route, then you will receive sanctions, finiancial pressure and perhaps other very bad things if you do not comply. Plain and simple.
If you really want to build weapons or "power plants" without the watchful eye of the other members. Then go for it. Just be sure to withdrawl yourself from the treaty. Sure you won't get all the perks they come with being a member and perhaps your country will be attacked, but at least your country won't look like a two-faced Iblis to the world.
And as a side note, you probably shouldn't talk about wiping someone off the face of the earth while building your "power-plants". This gives the impression that perhaps you are a little bit unstable and perhaps are really telling the truth about your "power-plany" ambitions.
My bad, that was a quick reply. I'm neither democrat or republican. What I was trying to imply is that these guys are presenting a bill that seems good for the people, but it would have been better if it was a bi-partisan bill. i.e. if they could have found a republican to co-sign the bill with them then it has a BETTER chance to go through, more so than when just one side presents a bill.
My main point is that I want people to start realizing who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Remember there names, at least they are trying to do some good. Even if what they are trying to do has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
Remember the names Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) come election time. They seem to be some of the good guys, but they didn't find a republic to co-sign the bill, so this has little chance to go anywhere.
I agree, but at the time my solutions weren't all that great. As for the research, I did. Albeit, it probably wasn't as extensive as you would like, but if I recall the big boy at the time was Palm's Trio. Which, from what I gathered from people who had one, was a big POS. It seemed no matter what my options were all the manufacturers treated the Apple platform as a second rate citizen. The only real software options were Apple's iSync. Using it never guaranteed to sync everything and what it would sync with was always spotty.
And to clarify something, when I finally was at a point were I could afford my very own smartphone (i.e. when I could justify dropping $600) the iPhone rumors were running rampant. So I held off. This was a good year and a half prior to my purchase.
"I believe that the typical iphone customer is a "look at me, I have a cool iphone" idiot."
I'm a typical iPhone user and I would like to give you another perspective. Let me take you back in time to the pre-iPhone days. I was a Verizon customer and I was constantly pissed off because every single phone I had with them would not allow me to sync ANYTHING with my Apple computer. I couldn't sync my contact, my music, my ringtones, nothing. I constantly saw all these neat little tools that allowed Windows users do this, but I was left out in the cold. I don't know if you ever had re-enter all your contacts in your phone manually, but I had to do this about 3 times and it sucked.
When the iPhone came out, I willing dumped Verizon and switched to AT&T. Not because their service is better, but because the iPhone actually allowed me to use the phone like I wanted to. Is Apple perfect? No. I think a lot of what they do is great, but things like this (disabling tethering) sucks. I'm not sure if it's completely Apple's fault. My guess is that they receive pressure from the carriers to do certain things. That's just a guess. But either way, my experience using a "phone" is about 1000% times better than what it was prior to the iPhone. Not sure if that makes me "cool" or not.
Awesome! Way to go new administration, hand the legal system over to the corporations. I'm sure they have my best interest in mind.
"Change you will be forced to believe in"
Does anyone else find it odd that MS is just now trying to get involved? Did they just join the HTML5 group? If so, this is pathetic. I think the real reason they are starting to make some noise is because Google just announced that they are hard at work making Chrome HTML5 compliant.
The reason you have to use "tricks" as you call them, is because some browsers have not implemented the standards properly. The reason you don't have to deal with that in Flex and Silverlight is because they are proprietary environments running within the browser. These plug-ins handle the rendering, not the browser. I understand what you are saying, and I agree that JavaScript could be more robust, but I think the reason it's not there now is because a few companies (or one) have been holding it back for awhile. It's been a good 10 years since we've seen major advances in HTML and Javscript. I'm excited that there's a chance that people are finally starting to take notice again. Hopefully this means that it will start to evolve more and perhaps take care of some of your concerns.
I'm no trying to be a smart-ass, but you obviously have a case and the proof. I think you will most likely be able to counter sue for lost profits, maybe damages and all that other fun stuff. They are not playing nice, so you need to protect yourself.
Hulu.com is a joint venture between NBC and Fox. So the "content providers" is code name for "the people who own and pay me". So the hulu guys saying, "we feel real bad about this" is BS.
If you remember this, ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay, you might start to understand what's going on here. The content providers want to get paid to have their content on the internet. They are trying use the same cable/satellite business model with ISP's. How else can the make someone buy unpopular content Y when they want to show their popular content X. It's about greed on the content providers end. They have no control if us people can watch whatever they want, whenever they want to.
I was under the impression that Apple only takes 30% for the App Store, not the music. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought on the music side of things, they were only getting 10% or so.
Slashdot Mirror
"So this is how democracy dies...with thunderous applause".
This is exactly what I was thinking when Biden got into the White House.
Why stop with your example, let's apply it to other things.
1. Why can't I buy MS-Windows from Apple's App Store? OMG its not net-neutral!
2. Why Can't I buy non-software items, such a Nike Shoes from the App Store? OMG its not net-neutral!
3. Why do I have to pay for my PS3 games, it's connected to the internet. OMG its not net-neutral!
4. Why do I have to make house payments, I have an internet connection? OMG its not net-neutral!
I could keep going with these analogies, but they are just about as stupid as the examples given in the article.
The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned to lock our customers into a DRM system, so that we can squeeze every penny out of them...
There, fixed that for you Disney.
I'm not sure how it is for the rest of you, but 15 years ago I had about 3 companies (Covad, Birch, AT&T, etc) that I could choose from to get a 1.5M SDSL line for roughly $60/month. Fast forward to today and I have a 768K for $60. Upgrade options? Sure I got em, I can get a 1M ADSL for $79 or a 1.5M fiber line with forced TV and Phone for over a $100. It's pathetic that over a 15 year period, not only do I lose speed, but I also have to pay more for essentially the same service. I hear about FiOS, but it's not offered where I'm at. I have one option and that's AT&T.
I remember when the government removed the requirement that the telco's offer market rates to competitors and immediately I knew that this was a bad thing. I'm sure that the telco's cried about increased bandwidth, greases the right pockets, etc. But what it really boils down to is greed. So over a 15 year period, they CHOOSE not to upgrade the backbone, but instead they choose to put more restrictions on the customers.
I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. I hope the government bitch slaps them for what they have done. I keep hearing that the telco's received around $300 Billion to improve the system, but I don't see it. Where did that money go? How come this question isn't being persued. If AT&T, Verizon or whoever, starts bitching about being forced to offer this, then I hope the FCC opens up a probe into where this money went and start demanding that they pay it back.
And we'll call it "Open" so we can fool some of the people... Glad you saw that too. I pray that html5 takes off and I never have to deal with Flash (or any adobe web products) ever again
Copper indium gallium diselenide, that's like so yesterday. We all know that human hair is the future.
Teenager Invents Cheap Solar Panel From Human Hair
Except Apple has not once threatened any kind of legal action (this is all hear-say and FUD on your part). So far they are only trying to block the Pre. Palm was the first one to go the legal route when they formally complained to the USB-IF. And even they questioned Palm's actions.
And keep in mind, a record or mp3 does not involve storing data which if is "synced" improperly, could possibly be erased or damaged. People like you who keep saying this is like a blue-tooth mouse or keyboard or just a simple device are over simplifying things to an extreme. The new bread of phones are like mini computers. They are complicated and if handled wrong, bad things can happen. Who get's blamed for this, Apple or Palm at this point.
A better analogy might be Apple spoofing Mac OS X to Windows Update, just so they can obtain some kind of update to some data. Sure MS might offer a documented way for you do this with a simple XML file, but you choose to spoof who you are so you don't have to bother with making your own program to do it correctly. Sounds silly doesn't it, but that is basically what the Palm is doing.
Ok, So Palm's doing this and you want Apple to let them. Tell me this then, what happens if a Pre user sync's up to iTunes and accidentally bricks or erases data on the Pre. Who do you think the customer is going to blame? Who's at fault? There's legal issues with what you are stating and Apple IS providing an approved way of interacting with iTunes. Palm has chosen not to go this route.
Also, how do you know that Apple is not under some contractual obligation to the record and film industries to NOT allow 3rd party devices access to their content? My guess this has something to do with this.
I'm not sure if Palm is just doing this for publicity or if they really just don't have the cash or talent to develop something on their own. Either way, Palm is going about this the wrong way. But if it helps you sleep better at night, you keep on believing that they are in the right thing here.
"There is no evidence that they are NOT following the rules."
Um... you do realize that building a SECRET uranium enrichment plant is NOT following the rules, right?
You are missing the point completely. If you don't want to play by the rules, then don't be a member. Again, plain and simple.
It has nothing to do with Iran posing a THREAT or NOT. It has to do with playing by the rules of the treaty. If they did this, then their wouldn't be a problem. Unless of course it is determined that they are not following the treaty guidelines. LIKE THEY ARE DOING NOW.
If Iran doesn't want to follow these rules, then why are they still a member of the treaty? Would you care to enlighten me on that?
P.S. Did you not get the part about how when you make threats of war and death and then talk about how you are pursuing nuclear technology for "peaceful" use, it's hard to take you seriously? Obviously you are either Iranian or a paid shill from the MS Iranian branch.
The problem is that Iran signed the "Non-Proliferation Treaty".
They have consistently broke this treaty by persuing their nuclear ambitions. Wether it's for peaceful uses as they say or for weapons, is irrelevant. The treaty specifically states that if you do this, you allow inspectors in to check things out. If it's proven that you are going the weapons route, then you will receive sanctions, finiancial pressure and perhaps other very bad things if you do not comply. Plain and simple.
If you really want to build weapons or "power plants" without the watchful eye of the other members. Then go for it. Just be sure to withdrawl yourself from the treaty. Sure you won't get all the perks they come with being a member and perhaps your country will be attacked, but at least your country won't look like a two-faced Iblis to the world.
And as a side note, you probably shouldn't talk about wiping someone off the face of the earth while building your "power-plants". This gives the impression that perhaps you are a little bit unstable and perhaps are really telling the truth about your "power-plany" ambitions.
My bad, that was a quick reply. I'm neither democrat or republican. What I was trying to imply is that these guys are presenting a bill that seems good for the people, but it would have been better if it was a bi-partisan bill. i.e. if they could have found a republican to co-sign the bill with them then it has a BETTER chance to go through, more so than when just one side presents a bill.
My main point is that I want people to start realizing who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Remember there names, at least they are trying to do some good. Even if what they are trying to do has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
That make more sense? It's friday, be gentle.
Remember the names Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) come election time. They seem to be some of the good guys, but they didn't find a republic to co-sign the bill, so this has little chance to go anywhere.
I agree, but at the time my solutions weren't all that great. As for the research, I did. Albeit, it probably wasn't as extensive as you would like, but if I recall the big boy at the time was Palm's Trio. Which, from what I gathered from people who had one, was a big POS. It seemed no matter what my options were all the manufacturers treated the Apple platform as a second rate citizen. The only real software options were Apple's iSync. Using it never guaranteed to sync everything and what it would sync with was always spotty.
And to clarify something, when I finally was at a point were I could afford my very own smartphone (i.e. when I could justify dropping $600) the iPhone rumors were running rampant. So I held off. This was a good year and a half prior to my purchase.
"I believe that the typical iphone customer is a "look at me, I have a cool iphone" idiot."
I'm a typical iPhone user and I would like to give you another perspective. Let me take you back in time to the pre-iPhone days. I was a Verizon customer and I was constantly pissed off because every single phone I had with them would not allow me to sync ANYTHING with my Apple computer. I couldn't sync my contact, my music, my ringtones, nothing. I constantly saw all these neat little tools that allowed Windows users do this, but I was left out in the cold. I don't know if you ever had re-enter all your contacts in your phone manually, but I had to do this about 3 times and it sucked.
When the iPhone came out, I willing dumped Verizon and switched to AT&T. Not because their service is better, but because the iPhone actually allowed me to use the phone like I wanted to. Is Apple perfect? No. I think a lot of what they do is great, but things like this (disabling tethering) sucks. I'm not sure if it's completely Apple's fault. My guess is that they receive pressure from the carriers to do certain things. That's just a guess. But either way, my experience using a "phone" is about 1000% times better than what it was prior to the iPhone. Not sure if that makes me "cool" or not.
Obviously one of their interns is also a /. sumitter.
Awesome! Way to go new administration, hand the legal system over to the corporations. I'm sure they have my best interest in mind. "Change you will be forced to believe in"
What the article fails to mention is that the original code model was based off of Microsofts's "Clippy".
Sorry... it's already been done. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Bumblebee_Man
Does anyone else find it odd that MS is just now trying to get involved? Did they just join the HTML5 group? If so, this is pathetic. I think the real reason they are starting to make some noise is because Google just announced that they are hard at work making Chrome HTML5 compliant.
So by your philosophy I should be mad because I can't play PS3 games on my XBOX? or visa versa? Remember monopolies ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Abusing one is.
The reason you have to use "tricks" as you call them, is because some browsers have not implemented the standards properly. The reason you don't have to deal with that in Flex and Silverlight is because they are proprietary environments running within the browser. These plug-ins handle the rendering, not the browser. I understand what you are saying, and I agree that JavaScript could be more robust, but I think the reason it's not there now is because a few companies (or one) have been holding it back for awhile. It's been a good 10 years since we've seen major advances in HTML and Javscript. I'm excited that there's a chance that people are finally starting to take notice again. Hopefully this means that it will start to evolve more and perhaps take care of some of your concerns.
BTW: Have you checked out http://www.sproutcore.com/?
This one seems like a no brainer. Hire a LAWYER.
I'm no trying to be a smart-ass, but you obviously have a case and the proof. I think you will most likely be able to counter sue for lost profits, maybe damages and all that other fun stuff. They are not playing nice, so you need to protect yourself.
Hulu.com is a joint venture between NBC and Fox. So the "content providers" is code name for "the people who own and pay me". So the hulu guys saying, "we feel real bad about this" is BS.
If you remember this, ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay, you might start to understand what's going on here. The content providers want to get paid to have their content on the internet. They are trying use the same cable/satellite business model with ISP's. How else can the make someone buy unpopular content Y when they want to show their popular content X. It's about greed on the content providers end. They have no control if us people can watch whatever they want, whenever they want to.
I was under the impression that Apple only takes 30% for the App Store, not the music. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought on the music side of things, they were only getting 10% or so.