I'm a photographer and I disagree. If you're just taking a straight up shot to reproduce a picture then it is no different than using a photocopier (much more manual and difficult of course) and is not "artistic". Technical skills is involved for sure, but just because you have to make decisions during the process doesn't make it artistic. If the photographer used the paintings to create a unique arrangement or collage then I can see your point, but a straight up reproduction should be in the public domain.
Your statement that "not many people really like iTunes" smacks a bit more of your dislike of iTunes than anyone else's. Following that up with "opens Apple up to more anti-trust suits" leads me to believe you are making stuff up completely. Apple is not facing any anti-trust suits at all.
No. I want to see these submissions from NYCL. If it wasn't for his submissions I wouldn't hear much about these cases at all and I wouldn't even know he had a blog (negating your first point). Keep it up NYCL, people need to be reminded of the crap the RIAA is trying to pull.
Except that Apple hasn't had a monopoly and abused that monopoly power in the OS market, as the courts have ruled. Other than that your argument makes some sort of sense.
"No, Apple deliberately designed the syncing protocol to lock out third-party software on the iPhone and iPod Touch, and have put in the effort to keep it that way."
- Do you have any proof of this? Anything that shows they deliberately designed the protocol to lock out others? It may very well be true, but I'd like some concrete evidence that they have done what you said in order to specifically lock out third party software for the purposes of music management. Seems to me your statement can also be equally ascribed to the fact that Apple is trying to avoid jailbreaking of the phone and the installation of unauthorized apps and that would explain their aversion to letting any piece of software synch to it. While I can understand some folks desire to jailbreak their phone, I can also see Apple's and AT&T's desire to avoid that scenario because it can cause THEM problems.
First of all, MS has had a monopoly in the OS arena. It's a well established fact that even the court systems have stated as true. Second, you seem to contradict yourself when talking about browsers. You first say you are never forced to use their browser and then argue that if they didn't supply a browser there'd be no way to get another one. Sooooo, basically you ARE forced to use their browser, whether to surf or to get another browser, aren't you?
Your statement "I do not have to pay for features when they are released " leads me to think you are inferring that iPhone owners do have to pay? That is not true. It is free. Look it up in the dictionary.
You can certainly put all the ringtones you want on there without jailbreaking. Not sure where this piece of disinformation came from, but 3rd party ringtones are easy to do, there are tons of articles on how to do it.
"Well no actually, it's not if you can sell items for the prestige factor"
- But since they didn't buy it for the prestige factor, but rather by reputation as being a solid machine with nothing but good reviews from other they knew who owned them. So your argument doesn't hold water. Even your argument that someone might have originally bought it for prestige doesn't mean they will give it such high customer satisfaction ratings. They'd be more likely to tell the truth about whether they are happy with their purchase since they already bought it.
" That doesn't stop Armani making millions though now does it? "
- So according to your argument those same people must have naturally bought Armani jeans too, right? Because all they buy for is prestige? Yet no one I know has bought one pair of Armani jeans. Your argument makes no sense.
"The fact is, you think no one you know bought it for prestige because no one ever admits to buying anything for prestige. "
- While no one may ever admit they bought something for prestige it doesn't naturally follow that must be the reason they bought it. That's so full of holes it's ridiculous.
" It's not as if people buy Apple kit for the quality of it or the cost "
- Well that is exactly why they bought it. The quality and the reputation of quality, and first hand testimonials of other people they know who told them how satisfied they were. You need to wake up and face reality. Apple fans aren't fans because of prestige. They are fans because they love Apple's products and they don't care what the "majority of people use". Most owners of Apple products have owned or used Windows machines and have made a conscious choice to go to Apple. They've seen and used both options and they like Apple more and THAT is why they lead customer satisfaction surveys and why the fans are so vocal when they hear BS like you're trying to pass off. Most Windows users have NOT used both Apple and Windows and made a conscious choice for Windows. They foolishly bought only based on the lowest price or used the logic that "the majority of people use it". And as for cost, no, they didn't make that their number one factor. Only a fool would. They paid slightly more for a better integrated experience. And by slightly I mean slightly. Numerous studies have shown Apple is usually within $100 of a similarly spec'd Windows machine, and sometimes even cheaper.
I disagree. While it MAY have something to do with incompetence on the part of IT, the fact is this Windows malware cycle is part of the TCO so it should be counted. Why should IT even have to be competent in patching a sinking ship like Windows. It's the swiss cheese of security in Windows that caused this issue in the first place.
Exactly. Obviously you paid a little extra to get the premier smartphone, so you want to ensure you don't lose it. What better way than fusing it to your body?
Hey, thanks, I just checked this site out. I assume you linked to it for comedic affect because it seems to be a site based completely on false stories and disinformation. I'll see if they allow my corrections to their inaccuracies to stand. I doubt they will.
"The fact is, all you pay for with Apple is the prestige factor"
- Bull. NO ONE I know bought any Apple device for prestige. They bought it because they liked the usability and simplicity. And as for your shoddy as hell argument, it's hard to be shoddy as hell and top the customer satisfaction surveys year after year.
Stop wasting everyone's time with these tired old BS arguments.
Nice try to circumvent his question, but he asked what rechargeable MP3 players allowed the user to replace the batteries. You know what he was asking, so you didn't have much of a victory there did you?
Void the warranty because they used a non-Panasonic battery? That's a bit extreme I think. Maybe a better route would be to certify a battery manufacturer so their batteries are acceptable by the firmware update. That way you protect the camera (which is supposedly their justification) and you don't stifle competition for your over-priced batteries either.
I'm sorry, but this smacks more of lining their pockets and stifling competition than it does losing money in warranty repairs.
You're right, it is not fixing their broken OS. The OS remains broken and now they will try to capitalize off that and make more money off the illusion of protecting their broken OS.
Are you a retard or a MS apologist? . . . . Oh ok... Thought so.
I think you make his point for him with the quote you supplied. "The Americans formed an alliance with France " Note that France did not invade, but the Americans worked with the French to form an Alliance. Also note that the conflict you reference there is not quite the same thing. Separatists in England trying to secede from England or overthrow the English gov't would be a closer analogy. A remote colony seeking independence might be philosophically the same (freedom) but not geo-politically the same because it's a separate, distant geographical region seeking independence/gov't overthrow.
I know where you were going on this but you analogy doesn't seem to quite fit. I think the poster has a good point in that the people of Iran must be fed up enough to lay their lives on the line in the interests of freedom before any intervention/support from us will be welcome or useful. I say we try to ensure that people have access to information, but otherwise keep out of it. The US has done enough nation building (or destroying) in the last few decades, and I think we should take some time off from "promoting freedom" (or whatever the current political catchphrase designed to pacify the blindly patriotic and weak-minded) and turn our resources to fixing/restoring some freedoms here at home that seem to have been eroded lately. Sort of a "physician heal thyself" approach before we meddle any more.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a photographer and I disagree. If you're just taking a straight up shot to reproduce a picture then it is no different than using a photocopier (much more manual and difficult of course) and is not "artistic". Technical skills is involved for sure, but just because you have to make decisions during the process doesn't make it artistic. If the photographer used the paintings to create a unique arrangement or collage then I can see your point, but a straight up reproduction should be in the public domain.
Your statement that "not many people really like iTunes" smacks a bit more of your dislike of iTunes than anyone else's. Following that up with "opens Apple up to more anti-trust suits" leads me to believe you are making stuff up completely. Apple is not facing any anti-trust suits at all.
Or your hyperbole of milliseconds.
It took over a second. My point is made.
If you don't have a real answer to the question then why do you waste everyone's time with your stupid off topic post?
Milliseconds? I'm afraid I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that statement.
Like it or not, they ARE $99. The rest of those costs are part of your contract. Same with ANY other phone.
No. I want to see these submissions from NYCL. If it wasn't for his submissions I wouldn't hear much about these cases at all and I wouldn't even know he had a blog (negating your first point). Keep it up NYCL, people need to be reminded of the crap the RIAA is trying to pull.
Weather? What is this "weather" you speak of?
Except that Apple hasn't had a monopoly and abused that monopoly power in the OS market, as the courts have ruled. Other than that your argument makes some sort of sense.
"No, Apple deliberately designed the syncing protocol to lock out third-party software on the iPhone and iPod Touch, and have put in the effort to keep it that way." - Do you have any proof of this? Anything that shows they deliberately designed the protocol to lock out others? It may very well be true, but I'd like some concrete evidence that they have done what you said in order to specifically lock out third party software for the purposes of music management. Seems to me your statement can also be equally ascribed to the fact that Apple is trying to avoid jailbreaking of the phone and the installation of unauthorized apps and that would explain their aversion to letting any piece of software synch to it. While I can understand some folks desire to jailbreak their phone, I can also see Apple's and AT&T's desire to avoid that scenario because it can cause THEM problems.
First of all, MS has had a monopoly in the OS arena. It's a well established fact that even the court systems have stated as true. Second, you seem to contradict yourself when talking about browsers. You first say you are never forced to use their browser and then argue that if they didn't supply a browser there'd be no way to get another one. Sooooo, basically you ARE forced to use their browser, whether to surf or to get another browser, aren't you?
Your statement "I do not have to pay for features when they are released " leads me to think you are inferring that iPhone owners do have to pay? That is not true. It is free. Look it up in the dictionary.
You can certainly put all the ringtones you want on there without jailbreaking. Not sure where this piece of disinformation came from, but 3rd party ringtones are easy to do, there are tons of articles on how to do it.
"Well no actually, it's not if you can sell items for the prestige factor"
- But since they didn't buy it for the prestige factor, but rather by reputation as being a solid machine with nothing but good reviews from other they knew who owned them. So your argument doesn't hold water. Even your argument that someone might have originally bought it for prestige doesn't mean they will give it such high customer satisfaction ratings. They'd be more likely to tell the truth about whether they are happy with their purchase since they already bought it.
" That doesn't stop Armani making millions though now does it? "
- So according to your argument those same people must have naturally bought Armani jeans too, right? Because all they buy for is prestige? Yet no one I know has bought one pair of Armani jeans. Your argument makes no sense.
"The fact is, you think no one you know bought it for prestige because no one ever admits to buying anything for prestige. "
- While no one may ever admit they bought something for prestige it doesn't naturally follow that must be the reason they bought it. That's so full of holes it's ridiculous.
" It's not as if people buy Apple kit for the quality of it or the cost "
- Well that is exactly why they bought it. The quality and the reputation of quality, and first hand testimonials of other people they know who told them how satisfied they were. You need to wake up and face reality. Apple fans aren't fans because of prestige. They are fans because they love Apple's products and they don't care what the "majority of people use". Most owners of Apple products have owned or used Windows machines and have made a conscious choice to go to Apple. They've seen and used both options and they like Apple more and THAT is why they lead customer satisfaction surveys and why the fans are so vocal when they hear BS like you're trying to pass off. Most Windows users have NOT used both Apple and Windows and made a conscious choice for Windows. They foolishly bought only based on the lowest price or used the logic that "the majority of people use it". And as for cost, no, they didn't make that their number one factor. Only a fool would. They paid slightly more for a better integrated experience. And by slightly I mean slightly. Numerous studies have shown Apple is usually within $100 of a similarly spec'd Windows machine, and sometimes even cheaper.
I think you might have missed something, but my post wasn't a joke.
I disagree. While it MAY have something to do with incompetence on the part of IT, the fact is this Windows malware cycle is part of the TCO so it should be counted. Why should IT even have to be competent in patching a sinking ship like Windows. It's the swiss cheese of security in Windows that caused this issue in the first place.
Well then they suck c@ck in my opinion!
Exactly. Obviously you paid a little extra to get the premier smartphone, so you want to ensure you don't lose it. What better way than fusing it to your body?
Hey, thanks, I just checked this site out. I assume you linked to it for comedic affect because it seems to be a site based completely on false stories and disinformation. I'll see if they allow my corrections to their inaccuracies to stand. I doubt they will.
"The fact is, all you pay for with Apple is the prestige factor"
- Bull. NO ONE I know bought any Apple device for prestige. They bought it because they liked the usability and simplicity. And as for your shoddy as hell argument, it's hard to be shoddy as hell and top the customer satisfaction surveys year after year.
Stop wasting everyone's time with these tired old BS arguments.
Nice try to circumvent his question, but he asked what rechargeable MP3 players allowed the user to replace the batteries. You know what he was asking, so you didn't have much of a victory there did you?
Cheers!
Void the warranty because they used a non-Panasonic battery? That's a bit extreme I think. Maybe a better route would be to certify a battery manufacturer so their batteries are acceptable by the firmware update. That way you protect the camera (which is supposedly their justification) and you don't stifle competition for your over-priced batteries either.
I'm sorry, but this smacks more of lining their pockets and stifling competition than it does losing money in warranty repairs.
You're right, it is not fixing their broken OS. The OS remains broken and now they will try to capitalize off that and make more money off the illusion of protecting their broken OS.
Are you a retard or a MS apologist? . . . .
Oh ok... Thought so.
I think you make his point for him with the quote you supplied. "The Americans formed an alliance with France " Note that France did not invade, but the Americans worked with the French to form an Alliance. Also note that the conflict you reference there is not quite the same thing. Separatists in England trying to secede from England or overthrow the English gov't would be a closer analogy. A remote colony seeking independence might be philosophically the same (freedom) but not geo-politically the same because it's a separate, distant geographical region seeking independence/gov't overthrow.
I know where you were going on this but you analogy doesn't seem to quite fit. I think the poster has a good point in that the people of Iran must be fed up enough to lay their lives on the line in the interests of freedom before any intervention/support from us will be welcome or useful. I say we try to ensure that people have access to information, but otherwise keep out of it. The US has done enough nation building (or destroying) in the last few decades, and I think we should take some time off from "promoting freedom" (or whatever the current political catchphrase designed to pacify the blindly patriotic and weak-minded) and turn our resources to fixing/restoring some freedoms here at home that seem to have been eroded lately. Sort of a "physician heal thyself" approach before we meddle any more.