"No, you have made a copy. You can't have taken it since the owner is still in possession of theirs."
-Wrong. If I have a piece of paper and you copy it and take the copy with you then you've (ready this carefully) TAKEN A COPY!!! Not one of those definitions that you or I supplied said anything about the owner not being in possession of their copy and you know it.
"The dictionary definitions and the legal definitions all disagree with you."
-The dictionary definitions that both you and I supplied supported my argument. Stealing is taking something without permission. And again this was never a legal argument, it was a common sense definition of stealing.
"No, you have made a copy of a copyrighted work without permission. "
-Right, and then you TOOK that copy without permission from the owners. The copy didn't walk out the door itself did it? No, you TOOK it out the door! Ta da!!! . . . STEALING.
"I would think that the person disagreeing with the legal definition of the illegal act they are talking about is the one looking like a fool."
-Well, you're also the person who would think that taking a copy of something without permission is not taking something, so your opinion means little to me. You're backed into a corner on this and despite all 3 dictionary defintions you're still trying not to lose. Rather than wasting time on a losing argument you'd be better served re-working your web page. It looks like your 8 year old nephew put it up. If this is the extent of your coding expertise then I'm not surprised that you can't read and understand a simple definition from a dictionary.
You've lost, plain and simple. You know you've lost this one and it must really burn you. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You've taken a copy. You're wrong and you know it. Just give it up already. The definitions you supplied both support my argument. And as for the legal definition, we're not giving a law school dissertation here. This was a common sense argument that you've stolen something without permission. You stole a copy without permission. It's stealing. Trying to argue you way out of this one makes you look like more of a fool.
dictionary.com: steal 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
you'll notice it never said someone has to be deprived of it.
"Having and expressing a personal opinion does not constitute "making stuff up"."
-Saying that Apple "forces" people to do something or that people "suffer" at the hands of Apple is a bit beyond personal opinion. Your hyperbole makes Chicken Little look conservative in comparison.
"My point is that your "Apple needs exclusive contracts" argument doesn't really hold water when they go about using them in places where they quite blatantly don't need them."
-I know why Apple chose to deal with the devil in the US. As to other markets I don't know if it's purely financial or if it involves network changes (visual voicemail), pricing plans (unlimited data), etc. I know that carriers don't just make changes like that unless it benefits them (being the exclusive carrier of the most anticipated phone) and that's probably why the exclusive contracts.
"No, as I have been saying from the start, they need to either allow the use of standard protocols or freely publish their proprietary protocols."
-As I said before, proprietary protocols are not necessarily bad and they don't have to "freely" do anything. I don't understand your insistence that it be free. The protocols are available since accessory makers use them all the time, but there's no law, moral or statutory, that saws they have to give it away.
"No, it isn't. Stealing is taking from their possession something that someone owns. They do not own the money until it has been given to them, thus if they are never given the money no theft has occurred. This is quite a clear legal construct I'm afraid - just because certain organisations choose to promote the idea that copyright infringement is stealing doesn't make it true."
-If the money for your paycheck was stolen from your employer before it had been given to you then you'd darn well change your tune. You can quote a legal construct left and right, but you'd feel (and rightly so) that your paycheck had been stolen from you even though you never received it. I'm not a fan of the MPAA/RIAA either, they suck and I hope they wither and die, but their shitty licensing schemes aside, not paying for a copyrighted work is still stealing. I don't care how the law might separate them, my example above is a perfect illustration of how anyone would feel if their paycheck was stolen before it was given to them.
"A copyright infringer is no more stealing content than someone taking a photo of your car is stealing your car."
-Not really the same is it? I see where you try to go with this, but it just isn't valid. Just because they original person doesn't lose the original item doesn't mean you're not morally stealing by copying. You know you are morally obligated to pay for that item because the people who own it (yes, the shitty media cartels) have not given you permission to take it for free. Because of that it is stealing. I don't care about the law on this, it is stealing because you haven't paid for something that you should have. Or, conversely, you have something your shouldnt' have. You can't rationalize your way out of that reality.
"Please point me at the official website where I can download the protocol specs."
-I suggest going to the Apple Developer network or contact Apple. You know they're available just as much as I do. Just because I can't supply you with a particular page URL doesn't mean that they aren't available and that tons of 3rd parties aren't using them already. If they're not free well then they're not free, but price should not be confused with availability.
"they put out a warning that an update would brick hacked phones"
-No no no, they put out a warning that an update MAY brick hacked phones. Not the same as it will. They were just letting folks know that if you hacked your phone you run the risk of it being bricked by future iPhone updates and that Apple is not responsible.
"Not once have I said that Apple lock people out of their desktop OS."
-Okay, maybe you can clarify. If that you claim people are locked into Apple services/products or locked out or what. Because your complaint has been Apple and the perception that they lock you in or out or up or down or something. The whole point I'm making is that the lack of an SDK from day 1 does not mean they never intended to lock people out of 3rd party apps. Apple knows the value of the SDK and 3rd party apps and they just didn't want to delay the iPhone release because an SDK was not ready from day one. Unfortunately they tried a delay tactic that was a bit insulting the developers (the Web 2.0 apps) and that didn't go down well. But I don't doubt for a second an SDK was always planned because they have too much experience with an OS and 3rd party apps to not understand the benefits.
"the tone of the question quite clearly indicated that you thought the very idea laughable."
-Not so much laughable as laughable that such a small user segment had to be represented on day 1. What percentage of users will utilize stuff like this. Less than 1%? So although it may be nice to do it certainly is not reason enough to delay a launch simply because an SDK is not ready from day 1.
"I get over 18 hours from my phone "
-I find it hard to believe you can get 18 hours of USE out of a phone battery. Your phone battery must be the size of a car battery?
-You have and you know it. You've been saying things like Apple locks people in. Not true. You said people are "forced" by Apple to do something. Not true. You say people "suffered" because of no 3rd party apps. Not true. You've been making stuff up left and right and you know it.
"However, they are also doing it in the European market where it is illegal."
-Then it sounds like Europe needs to enforce it's laws. Write to them instead.
"People who do not use Windows or OS X certainly do not "choose" not to use iTunes - they are unable to do so."
-So Apple has to make a version of iTunes (which you complain you don't like) for every also-ran OS? That doesn't make economic sense for them to do.
"I'm pretty sure that over 1% of people would use it were it available."
-Then why don't you develop something for that huge market?
"No, it isn't their property until it has been given to them. And it is entirely possible that the infringer would just plain not have purchased the content if they hadn't infringed the copyright."
-You're not giving them money that's due to them. That's stealing. Wrap it up any way you want but you've taken something that belongs to them. And your other argument is ridiculous! That's like saying it's entirely possible the jewel thief wouldn't have paid for the jewels if he wouldn't have stolen the jewels first. It's stealing.
"it should be their responsibility to publish the protocols required to do so, so as to allow interoperability."
-Use the same protocols 3rd party accessory makers use which Apple provides them. Not so tough.
"Who have either had to reverse engineer the protocol, or (more likely) have had to pay Apple a licence for the specs (no doubt under NDA)."
-I realize that someone like yourself who splits hairs to justify stealing has a tough time understanding this, but that's called commerce. You don't get everything for free. And since the specs are available then you just made my point that you could use them if you want.
"And they have a phone without an SDK and have publicly said that they aren't happy about people hacking it to allow third party applications."
-The SDK is coming in Feb. so your argument is moot in less one month. Will you suddenly stop whining about the SDK and admit the iPhone is a smartphone then? I doubt it. You just don't like Apple. And as for hacking it, I don't recall seeing anywhere that they said they aren't happy about people hacking it, they just have said they won't support the phone if someone hacks it, and that is not surprising. If someone hacks it they can mess it up and Apple should not support it then.
"Despite your false claims.. ..When did I say they did?"
You said they lock people out. I'm citing plenty of examples that refute your statement. The desktop OS and the available SDK is one example. Your claims of Apple lockout are what I was addressing and you know it. Please stop trying to change the argument when you know what I meant.
"How else would you interpret that?"
Asking "who the F uses SSH on their phone" does NOT imply that NO ONE uses it. It doesn't. It's a question. Note the question mark when I originally asked it? Do you understand punctuation?
"No, I don't believe I did."
-yes, you did.
"when you're wildcamping at the top of a mountain"
-I backpack a lot and I don't use my phone when I'm out there. It kind of defeats the purpose of going there in the first place. I turn my phone off completely when I'm out because I'm usually so far away from civilization that there isn't even cell coverage. When I am back in range of cell coverage then I turn my phone back on. No sockets, no battery problems. Issue solved.
"Sony quote a standby time of 480 hours for the P900, and whilst I will agree that this is a massive overestimate, I do get well in excess of 100 hours out of it in normal use."
And yet you never stated standby time did you. You compared 8 hours of iPhone battery (NOT the standby time numbers I might add) with standby time in another phone?. I know you don't get 100 hours of USE from that phone, you get 100 hours of standby but not USE, so your whole comparison seems to be apples to oranges and not valid. If you want to compare standby time then compare that. if you want to compare usage then compare that. But you're obviously twisting the comparison to make the iPhone look bad. That is consistent with the rest of your misrepresentations and that is why I call you a liar.
"It's pretty arrogant to assume someone is ignorant or a liar just because they have different views than yourself."
-It's not that you disagree. I'm fine with that. It's that you've been making stuff up to back your arguements. That leads me to believe you're either ignorant or a liar.\
"Sounds like the US market needs better regulation to me, rather than exclusive deals to further restrict customers."
-Then you agree Apple is not to blame for the current state of the US market and they may have had to make an exclusive deal with a carrier to implement the changes they needed as well as having their handset allowed on the carriers network. Thanks. That's the whole point I've been trying to make regarding Apple's deal with AT&T. It has never been about lockout.
"I know a number of people who either choose not to use iTunes because they dislike the interface, or cannot use iTunes because they use Linux. Were it not for people reverse engineering the proprietary protocols then these people would be unable to use an iPod."
-Another admission, thank you. Apple did not "force" anyone. You just stated those people "choose".
"I didn't say that did I? Once again you are putting words into my mouth in an effort to support your flawed arguments."
-I didn't put those words in your mouth. (Please stop lying) I asked a question. Note the question mark at the end of my question. That denotes a question.
"No it isn't - you can do automated file management over the USB Mass Storage protocol,"
-Yes, it's is. It's a pain because I have no playlists. Just shuffling files over via USB does not give you the same experience, and most people do NOT want to manage their sync this way. They like iTunes because it's EASY. If you don't then don't use it. But the ease of iTunes use is what has made it so popular for people to buy content, sync content to their iPods/iPhones, manage playlists, etc. 99% of the people do NOT want, not would they be able to figure out "automated file management". Your views do not represent the mass of consumers that Apple develops for and that is why they do not have a specific solution that caters only to you.
"My computer happens to be my property so I can do with it what the hell I want."
-Right, and Apple has not stopped you from doing anything with your property. You've got YOUR computer locked down (even though you think it's wrong for others to implement some basic security to prevent hassles). Apple has not affected what you can do with your computer. But they have implemented certain features in certain ways on the products they create because it makes it easier for most people to use them. That is THEIR right. You don't like it then don't buy something from Apple. When you make a phone then you can decide on features.
"The act of stealing denies property from the legitimate owner and is a criminal offense. Copyright infringement does no such thing - it _potentially_ denies them licence fees (which the infringer may or may not have paid anyway, even if they chose not to infringe) but it does not deny them their property."
-Right, you've denied them the licensing fee which is money which is their property under the law. Thanks for making my point.
"I am neither stealing, nor infringing copyrights - the only content I share happens to be content which has a Free licence and content that I created."
-I don't believe you. And even if that were true, why is it Apple's job to create a way for you to share your content? If it's your content they YOU figure out how to share it. Don't blame Apple.
"So what was your analogy of using a Ford part in a BMW car all about? It appeared you were comparing the iPod to a car part."
-You complain that Apple doesn't interface the way you want it to with another system, but why is Apple's responsibility to do that for you. They've created an interface for Windows and Macs called iTunes. That is what they created and support. You
"Just because people buy into the hype instead of looking to see what the competition is doing doesn't negate the fact that it is far more expensive than competing phones with superior feature sets."
-People aren't paying for hype. They're paying for a well thought out, easy to use phone that gives most people the features they want. It's not hype that the iPhone has the highest customer satisfaction numbers.
"You're just making an unsubstantiated claim that Apple INTENDED to publish an SDK, because that idea is in step with how you imagine Apple to work."
-Well, I'd say his claim has more credibility than yours because Apple has a desktop OS with an SDK and they obviously understand the importance of 3rd party apps. Despite your false claims they haven't locked people out of their desktop OS have they. But you say they lock everyone one. I'd say it's more likely they didn't want to delay the iPhone rollout simply because the SDK was not ready yet.
"Why do you seem to think that commercial success implies that they must be treating their customers well?"
-Why do you continue to ignore customer satisfaction numbers with iPhone and Apple in general, that lead the industry. Obviously those number DO mean they are treating their customers well or they wouldn't be so high or leading everyone else. Game, set and match!
"The original poster made the implication that no one uses SSH from their phone. "
-I am the original poster and (surprise, you're lying again!) I did NOT imply that "no one uses SSH from their phone". I asked "who the F uses SSH from a phone." That's hardly making the implication you stated. Please stop lying.
"Why will there be plenty of developers? People who use third party software on their phones are not inherently developers "
-Wow, I can't believe you don't understand what he's saying. He's saying that if what you say is true, that EVERYONE you know uses 3rd party apps, then the demand will obviously be there and app developers will flock to the platform. Simple logic. I'm not sure if you really didn't understand this or if you're intentionally twisting the argument because you don't have a leg to stand on again.
"and even fewer are developers for smartphone platforms"
-Well well, you just admitted the iPhone was a smartphone. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
"And a massive amount of use when you're no where near a power socket."
-You're nowhere near a power socket. . . right . ..don't tell me, you're in the middle of the Sahara. No, wait, you're on safari in Africa. No, no, I've got it, you're climbing Everest and you need to SSH into work? Nowhere near a power socket. . . Please stop lying.
"my 4 year old smartphone's battery lasts about a week"
-My non-smartphone won't last that long without doing any of that functionality so I doubt your 4 year old smartphone lasted that long. Please stop lying.
"Certainly not my interpretation of events - the customers had to suffer not being able to run any third party software"
-As we've seen in your past posts your interpretation of events rarely resembles reality. And nobody "suffered". Talk about grandstanding. The launch was successful and the iPhone enjoys the HIGHEST customer satisfaction ratings of any phone. That doesn't sound like suffering to me.
"I beg your pardon? Have you so few valid points that you feel you need to resort to name calling?"
-Well you've demonstrated your ignorance on every post, or you're just a blatant liar, so I figure your experience at a telco that you mentioned earlier had to be in the janitorial department since you obviously have very little understanding of the issues we've talked about.
"I ask how this requires support from the service provider "
-Because service providers in the US habitually disabled functionality like this on handsets. They tried to force sending photos, music, etc. over the network to charge more. Handset makers who didn't disable the features the carriers didn't like would find that their handset was not allowed or supported on a carriers network. To break that cycle Apple had to make an exclusive deal with a carrier. You obviously don't understand the US market and it's history and challenges.
"Feel free to point me at the freely available official specs for these protocols."
-I don't know if they're free, but 3rd party accessory makers seem to have all the knowledge on how to talk with the iPhone and/or iPod. Is that magic or are the protocols available? While we're at it, feel free to point me to someone that Apple "forced" to reverse engineer protocols, or someone who was forced to "suffer". You seem to make grand unsubstantiated claims of suffering and bondage at the hands of Apple yet I've never heard of any of this from anyone.
"Because they chose to implement the iPod so that it couldn't have music/videos loaded onto it through a standard well supported protocol, such as USB Mass Storage."
-And this is a preferable way to load content over iTunes? It's a tedious, manual way to do it. They're designing a consumer product to appeal to a lot of people, not just nerds who use SSH and who want to share files with their friends. They also operate an online store for music and must have reasonable safeguards put in place to prevent filesharing or content providers won't cut deals with them.
"If it happens to be *my* PC I have every right to lock other people out of it."
-If it happens to be their product then they have the right to make the decisions on the best ways to implement features. When you build a phone then you can make those decisions. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You stamp your foot when you don't have complete unfettered access to every feature and yet you wouldn't allow that access on YOUR computer.
"Well, given the choice between watching a video on the phone's screen and watching it on a 24" monitor I know which I would choose."
-Then watch it on the monitor, no one's stopping you. I have music/movies on my computer in iTunes. I can watch them on my monitor, in my living room via AppleTV, on my iPod, and on my iPhone. Look at all the choices. And it's all EASY. So no one is stopping you from watching it.
"By "steal" you presumably mean "infringe copyrights on" - copyright infringement is not stealing, they are completely different laws. Also, why are you assuming I don't have a legal right to copy the content? Maybe I own the copyright, or the content is distributed under a Free licence such as a Creative Commons licence."
-Ahh, the lawyer splitting hairs. Copyright infringement IS stealing. You can wrap it any way you want, but you know it is stealing because you're not paying for the content. And I'm sure you don't have the rights because you just tried to split legal hairs about copyright infringement vs. stealing and your use of the word "maybe" and your cheesy
"So the customers must suffer purchasing an untested product because of Apple's marketing strategy? That sounds like a pretty bad situation."
-Yet the customers didn't suffer and the strategy was successful. That sounds like Apple knew better than you once again.
"Yep, the very same Microsoft - if that's what happens when you actually bother to do product testing I dread to think what happens when you don't."
-Well they didn't do that testing on the iPhone and customers have had glowing reviews on the iPhone, the highest satisfaction rating of any phone. Compare that to Vista's reviews and ratings. It shows how a company focused on quality like Apple can do things that other companies can't and that narrow minded European telco janitors like yourself can't envision.
"I don't consider a marketing strategy to be a good reason for giving customers a potentially sucky experience by doing no serious testing."
-Good thing you don't make multimillion dollar decisions then because it worked for Apple. And they did do "serious testing" ( as opposed to non-serious testing?), but they didn't do a public beta because it was SECRET. Obviously you should read the article again, this time with your eyes open.
"You mentioned syncing data without going over the carrier's network. I presume you must mean 802.11 or Bluetooth unless Apple have found a way to transfer data by magic."
-Yes, iTunes and a dock. That's not magic, although it works so well for consumers they probably think it is magic in comparison to poorly thought out ways of syncing by 3rd party apps.
"So allow the use of a standard protocol instead of forcing people to reverse engineer a proprietary one."
-They do have standard protocols to talk to iPods/iPhones. Tons of 3rd party accessory makers utilize them all the time. Apple hasn't "forced" anyone to reverse engineer anything.
"Installing it is not effort so long as the sysadmin hasn't locked your machine down (e.g. you're at work), or your friend (if you're using a friend's machine) will let you. Frankly, I don't let my friends install random software on my machines."
-And Apple is to blame for this in what way? . . . . Since you hate it when you're locked out so much maybe you should be blaming other people for locking you out of their machine rather than erroneously blaming Apple for you friends' (and yours by your own admission) policy of lock out. Funny that you embrace locking people out of things when it's you or your friends making the decision. You sure do seem to find ways to blame Apple for what other people do, don't you? Other people are "forced" by Apple to reverse engineer protocols. And now Apple is somehow to blame for the fact that someone else's machine (and yours too) are locked down. Yes friend, that's right, it's ALL Apple's fault. Can you tell me what else we should blame them for that they've had no involvement in? Maybe China would be free if Apple allowed you to copy your videos to your friends computer? Your lack of logic in your arguments reinforces my opinion that you just hate Apple and are basing your arguments on that instead of reality.
"To copy music or videos onto it when you're not at home?"
-So let me get this straight. You have your dream 3G phone with all the cutting edge features and you want to offload your videos to a friends computer? Either your phone isn't quite so enjoyable to watch a video on or you're sharing files. If it's the former then you should blame your phone's manufacturer and not Apple. If it's the latter then you shouldn't blame Apple when they don't help you steal content. And if you just want to use the music/videos on your friends system you can use a 3rd party accessory to play it. I don't see why you blame Apple for the fact that you can't copy content on to your friends machine. It makes as much sense as blaming Ford for not allowing you to install a Ford part on a BMW car.
And as for the 3G thing. The power consumption is still pro
-No, not on an ultra secret project where even the hardware and software engineers didn't know the big picture. Apple goes through great pains to hide what they're doing and then they hand it out to a few thousand? Not too smart.
"Microsoft's beta programs _do_ consist of many tens of thousands of testers"
-Is this the same Microsoft that releases a product that has over 150,000 viruses for it? Not the best example of how to conduct business is it? Oh, and in case you forgot, ultra secret project! Tens of thousands of testers=no secret.
"If Apple didn't bother to test their product properly then that is a serious flaw in their development procedures and needs to be addressed."
-Again, ultra secret project, so the testing was done in the lab. Why don't you go back and read the article and get back to me.
"You don't need an exclusivity deal for this - if they are really great features and the iPhone is a popular platform the telcos would implement the network-side support off their own backs because they could charge more for it."
-If you're right or wrong here you still prove my point. If they don't implement the changes for ONE phone (not likely considering their record on this) then the features are useless. If they do make the changes and then charge more for it then they over-price it. Either way the great features are not used because they're not implemented or overpriced by short sighted carriers. The reality is they would have not made any changes to their business practices to accomodate the iPhone. The carriers in the US routinely crippled the features on phones and still do so you're wrong on this one. And yes, I know there are other markets besides the US, but you mentioned AT&T so that's what I'm addressing.
"I'm unclear on how making data transfers over 802.11 requires any support from AT&T."
-I'm unclear on why you're mentioning 802.11 since I said nothing about that in my post. Seems like you're arguing with yourself on this one.
1. Because some people think iTunes sucks and want a choice of different applications to do the job - Then use another one or blame someone else because they haven't developed something else. Don't blame Apple for someone else not developing anything. The reason nothing has been developed is there is little to no market for it. The slice of the market that thumb their nose at iTunes is so slim to make the market not worth it. 2. Because last time I checked there wasn't a version of iTunes that ran under Linux -Because I use Macs in my business I understand how this can be a frustration. If an application is not made for your OS it's frustrating, but again, the Linux desktop market is dwarfed even by Apple so the it just isn't worth the effort. Not to mention which flavor of the ton of Linux versions do you concentrate on? There are bound to be incompatabilities between versions of Linux so that's another reason to avoid that market. 3. Not every computer has iTunes installed - installing it is effort if you just want to access your device from someone else's machine as a 1-off thing." -Installing it is not effort. Talk about making stuff up here. Click a button, it downloads. Click a button, it installs. Why do you need to access your device from someone else's computer?
"The iPhone is not a US-only phone. If Apple only consider the US market when producing their products they are nuts."
-They're nuts of they don't make a phone that works in the broadest number of markets possible. 3G would have been the incorrect choice right now. To hamper the iPhones appeal in the US by releasing a phone that didn't have coverage in many markets would have been nuts.
"I have worked in the telephony networking and applications sector for a good few years"
-Again, what are your qualifications in phone development? Because I still don't see your experience in creating a phone project from the ground up and deciding on what
-No, you were just replying to a specific post about Apple so you were obviously referring to Apple in your post.
"You're saying that Apple released a product without doing significant consumer testing on it?"
-Yes, that's what I'm saying. No company does "widespread consumer testing". Duh. They do testing in a small way, but no company releases their product to 100,000+ consumers to test it. And if you'd RTFA you'd see that Apple's development process on the iPhone was probably more secret than most. Hence, they give it a little while to work through the inevitable minor bugs and then when you've stabilized the platform you worry about allowing 3rd party apps to become installed.
"Funny, Palm (or US Robotics as it was then), Symbian (Psion) and Microsoft have all allowed 3rd party apps from from the release of their platforms. Were they asking for trouble? "
-Funny, all the phone UIs you just mentioned SUCK. So yes, they obviously were asking for trouble because they didn't get the UI right FIRST. You just made my point for me. Thanks.
"Because they realised that locking people out wasn't going to work"
-No, YOU said they lock people out so they have all the control and make all the money. So, they obviously don't care what people want and they'd still be locking people out. Face it, the SDK was planned all the time. Apple knows software and operating system development and they know 3rd party apps are crucial. They just didn't want to delay the iPhone for 8 more months for an SDK that was not immediately crucial to its success. And guess what, it turns out they were right. Folks are camping out to get the things, even without the SDK that you think is so crucial. Turns out reality has proved your fantasy logic wrong again.
"We're not talking about the desktop platforms here"
-Yes, we're talking about your mistaken assumption that Apple locks people in to their devices and Apple makes desktops, ipods, and phones. So looking at all those products that you said Apple locks me into I asked you where the lock was? If AT&T is the only lock you can think of then congratulations, you've made the exception prove the rule.
"So you're happilly using your iPhone on a service provider of your choice (i.e. not AT&T if you're in the states), using third party applications on your iPhone, updating the music library on your iPod without needing iTunes, etc?"
The AT&T exclusive deal was necessary not to lock people in, but to get a carrier to work with Apple who would allow Apple to implement all the great ideas it has. Visual voicemail? Downloading music from iTunes, syncing from the computer, allowing photos to be synced to the computer rather than charging them to send them over the network, etc. Maybe these are not limitations in other markets, but in the US the carriers had so much control and no vision that Apple had to ink a deal like this to start to open the door to a better experience. And look what has happened. Verizon, the king of lock down carriers is now opening their networks, along with other carriers. Apple has once again made the experience better, but they had to sign a 5 year deal to get the leverage they wanted.
As for the 3rd party apps, big deal they're coming and your argument dies a quick death. Updating the music without iTunes? You can on iPods and as for either iPhones or iPods, why would you want to? It's easier to do it via iTunes. Face it, they built a better mousetrap, a great end to end experience. Updating without iTunes would be a step backward. If you want to update your phone by dragging individual tunes over to the phone connected as a USB device then have at it! Welcome back to the dark ages.
"Funny how other phones manage it just fine."
-3G chipsets affect battery life. Period. The lower talk time on the phones you refer to isn't acceptable on an iPhone because you end up using it so much more. Web browsing
"Please point at any other non-smartphone which is as pricey and bulky as the iPhone."
-I can fit it in my pocket just fine. It's thinner than my Razr, which I hate I might add because the UI SUCKS. Pricey? I'll happily pay that price for a phone that is easy to use. I could give this phone to my wife or my daughter and they would be able to use all the functionality instantly. If you want a Ford then buy a cheap Ford. If you want a Mercedes then you need to pay for it.
"What makes it qualify as a smartphone? It won't let you run 3rd party applications - as far as I'm concerned that pretty much defines the main feature of a smartphone. Ok, so it does calendaring, web browsing and video playing, but so do most other non-smartphones too."
-Okay, that's YOUR definition of a smart phone. It was instantly called a smartphone by journalists on the day of the unveiling in Jan '07 because it allows you to surf the web (the real web), calendaring, email, music, video, pictures, etc. and contrary to your belief most non-smartphones DON'T do that. They do a poor attempt at one or two things, but they don't roll it up into one big easy to use product that is essentially a computer in your hand. The fact that you didn't have an SDK from day 1 doesn't mean it's not a smartphone. If the SDK was released today would it suddenly qualify as a smartphone? You just don't like the device or Apple so you're trying to tear them down.
"You'll note I never said Apple _won't_ do this"
-I'll note that you found a slippery way out of being wrong, but you were replying to the other person when they mentioned new features on the iPhone via software updates so it's a natural assumption that you WERE referring to Apple in your reply.
"Apple initially designed the iPhone to prevent third party software from being run on it "
-It's a brand new phone, with a brand new OS, with no widespread consumer testing behind it. Anyone who would immediately allow 3rd party apps to be installed would be asking for trouble. If Apple really was trying to lock everyone out then why are the about to let everyone in via the SDK? Why is there an SDK for desktop OS X? Your argument doesn't hold water. They know very well the value of 3rd party apps and an SDK. They just were busy developing the most revolutionary UI on the planet for a mobile phone that they didn't have time or resources to have an SDK ready from day 1 for the less than 1% of people who want to SSH into another machine.
"My only problem with Apple is their repeated efforts to lock customers into products and services."
-What specific efforts are you referring to here? I have a Mac and an iPhone and an iPod and I'm not locked into anything. Duh!
"I don't have to result to these sorts of petty insults to make my points."
-You haven't made a point yet so we'll never know, now will we?
"3G support."
-Please see Jobs reasons for no initial 3G support which have been published for well over 6 months. BATTERY LIFE!
"People are buying the iPhone because it has been hyped up and is considered "cool" "
-It is hyped up and it is "cool" I guess, especially in comparison to other crappy phones. But don't waste my time with the "cool" argument. People are buying it because it is the mix of features they want and the UI is head and shoulders above anything else. The "cool" argument is just sticking your head in the sand.
Are you kidding me? Apple was the only thing between you and the RIAA's desire to force you to subscription pricing or $3.99 digital singles, or forcing you to buy the WHOLE digital album!! The only reason there is a viable digital market right now is that Apple "gets it". They created a store that was very easy to use, and they were the only vendor who stood up to the RIAA and other media companies. Apple worked hard to create a viable digital market, store, and portable devices, and they knew the media companies demands would result in disaster so they resisted.
Apple is not a saint by any stretch, but I think your analysis is way off. Rather than arrogant they were smart enough to create a market the way consumers wanted it to be and they tried hard to protect that market from disastrous media company meddling. Now the media companies are once again trying to screw up the digital market by excluding the one partner who made the market viable. I don't think Jobs is perfect, but he's a hell of a lot smarter than the media rubes and he'll have an answer for them. I for one howpe the rumor of Apple creating its own record label is true. They need to shake up big media's control and corrupt business practices.
As for the Amazon thing. I welcome any DRM free tracks. That's a positive step. But beware of the media companies motives. If they manage to break Apple I have no doubt that DRM will be back in a big way because the RIAA does not care about consumer needs one bit.
"It is pretty bulky and is really expensive - kind of like a smartphone. Certainly not the same market as "consumer" phones such as the Razr, etc."
-In what way is it bulky? Nice try. And it's not "really" expensive. It's more expensive than the Razr and all of the other shitty user interface laden, give away phones out there, yes. But it's far from the most expensive phone so let's not be too disingenuous.
"But you just said it wasn't targetting the smartphone market, so why are you comparing iPhone sales with smartphone sales?"
-I'd say it's in a class by itself. It doesn't have every feature yet, but I would say it qualifies as a smartphone. Yet, it's not designed for the geek crowd who want to SSH into their computer (who the F does something like that anyway?). It's a very consumer oriented phone at the same time.
"If you buy something based on what a company says they will do in the future you are crazy "
-I'd say you already lost this argument. Apple has already updated the phone several times and added new functionality, and another update is coming in Jan. They're already delivering on their promise of updating the functionality via software updates. Face it champ, you got this one wrong.
"And they have embraced third party developers from the start rather than giving them the finger and then deciding later on that maybe they should allow third party development after all."
-I think you're pathetically ignorant if you think that is really what happened here. It's a brand new platform that pulled developer assets from their computer OS upgrade to finish the iPhone. Apple knows full well the advantage of an SDK and I don't doubt they had one planned all along. I firmly believe that they were more concerned about getting the product released and selling and THEN they can work on immediate bug fixes and release an SDK, which I might add is only an issue to a VERY SMALL sliver of the buying public.
"it's far too expensive, massively lacks most of the features I need from a phone and Apple have repeatedly shown that they are more interested in locking devices down and trying to control the whole market"
-Again, not too expensive. It's not designed to be a throwaway cheap phone like the crappy ones you favor. If you want an $800 video camera that can also make phone calls and has a crappy user interface then go buy an N95, or buy a Blackberry and enjoy their crappy interface. . . And where do you get the idea that Apple locks devices down to control the whole market? That's definitely a jaded slant. I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple follows a different product strategy. Rather than just selling their software to run poorly on every crappy piece of hardware (ala Microsoft) they try to create a well integrated experience that works great and is easy to use. They have succeeded in the Mac, the iPod, and the iPhone.
Face it, you just don't like Apple and the press the iPhone has received irks you. You've got a case of sour graphes, and that's fine, but your arguments don't hold water.
"I've watched mac users try and run executables... they just happen to be built for windows so they are safe(that's called obscurity, not superior engineering)."
No, that has NOTHING to do with obscurity, nor security. If the USER actively runs an app then that strikes me as ignorance on the users part, or a Trojan with a well crafted hook to entice the user. No OS can protect against that kind of attack unless it disallows any 3rd party apps or disables the ability of all apps to write to the hard disk. Both solutions make the OS worthless so it's a balancing act.
"I have to watch carefully for windows because it's the only system with the install base to actually allow a virus to propagate."
You obviously don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Security through obscurity is a MYTH.
The only problem is that other manufacturers haven't been able to come up with a device that works as easily and intuitively as the iPhone in 20 years so why are people making the assumption that they can pull their collective heads out now and get it right? I wish the iPhone wasn't tethered to AT&T too, but Jobs made that deal to get the functionality concessions he wanted so he can drive a wedge into the crappy US wireless industry. Less than 6 months after the iPhone's release and it appears the first cracks are appearing in the old business model.
"Reports are that Apple's phone managed to successfully establish itself a niche in the mobile phone world, but that they failed to sell as many as they had hoped."
Whose expectations are not being met? Apples? The iPhone is meeting Apple's stated expectations just fine so far. It's the hype analysts who are "reporting" (if you could call it that with a straight face) that it is not meeting expectations, but those are expectations the analysts have set, not Apple.
I think the iPhone has more potential than you're giving it credit for in your post. I don't think it's a well designed product for "a few people". It's a well designed product for a lot of people. People in the US market are just not used to actually buying a phone so on the surface this appears to be a luxury phone for the rich. They're used to getting cheap, barely usable phones for free and not using 80% of the features because it's so annoying to use (and another 10% of the features that carriers disable). I think the iPhone is going to slowly change public expectations of how a phone should operate and how it should be free of carrier imposed disabled features. People are going to be more open to paying more for a phone that is easy to use and works the way they want it to work.
Maybe Android will turn out some nice stuff, but will the carriers allow it to be enabled? The iPhone is not tethered to AT&T solely for revenue. It's tied to them because Apple had to find a way to loosen the carriers grip on allowable features. When the 5 year contracts are up people will be more used to having enabled phones because of the iPhone's influence. My question is whether Android will convince the carriers to allow the currently locked down features the way the iPhone has opened AT&T's grip on those? I predict that fear of the iPhone's success will motivate carriers more than any of Android's merits.
"The iPhone is not great because it is such a great thing, it is great because the OS and software on other phones sucks that much. Change that and the iPhone is just a proprietary, expensive brick."
Yeah, you're right, the iPhone isn't the technology equivalent of cold fusion. But, the OS, the software, the interface, the experience, the ability to sync with your computer easily, etc., THOSE functions are what make the phone great. It's not an expensive brick because it works so well, while other phones are cheap bricks because they have horrible interfaces. What other aspect were you expecting on the phone to make it great? Some of the hardware complaints about the technology not being cutting edge are valid, but I don't need cutting edge technology to be happy. I need a phone that is easy to use, combines most of the functionality I want, and doesn't limit me to buying overpriced games/music/etc. from the service provider. The iPhone is THE FIRST phone I've seen that gives me the features I want and made them easy to use and that is why it is great and why it will continue to build tons of market share.
Sorry to those who disagree, but the iPhone has redefined mobile phones and right now there is no device in its league.
I agree with your posting, ask the boss what's in it for you! Make yourself a thorn in their side throughout this, but do it with professionalism.
IANAL, but from the experience I've had dealing with this I've been told that there is a night and day difference between asking you to sign an agreement like this as a condition of your initial hiring as opposed to asking you to sign it after you've been hired. They can ask you to sign before you're hired as a condition of employment. Whether the legalese is enforceable is a side issue. But, once they've hired you they can not legally turn around and FORCE you to sign another under threat of termination. You have a few choices:
1. Refuse to sign and run the risk of being unlawfully terminated. Maybe they're bluffing, maybe they'll actually fire you. If they're bluffing you win, but you run the risk of being terminated for some other mild infraction (coming in 2 minutes late) as their way to get rid of you. If they just out and fire you for not signing then I believe that is unlawful and you would have a legal case. Of course you'd have to foot the bill for a lawyer to get satisfaction there too so you're kind of screwed either way.
2. Sign it and tell them to stuff it when they try to enforce it. Obviously you're hoping they don't come after you on some invention, and if they did the courts would slap them down. Who the heck knows how this would turn out, they've obviously got the deeper pockets to harass you with so you're screwed here too.
3. Tell them you must consult an attorney first and also tell them you'd like them to pay the attorney's fees since they are the ones who've forced you into this situation. Good luck getting them to pay.
In short, I'd drag this out as long as possible as you search for another job and then just quit without notice when you're ready. They don't give employees 2 weeks notice when firing them and you don't have to give the company 2 weeks notice if you're firing the company. Unfortunately this company sucks and unless you have some reservoir of cash you'll come out on the short end of the stick. Good luck, I feel for you.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, you have made a copy. You can't have taken it since the owner is still in possession of theirs."
-Wrong. If I have a piece of paper and you copy it and take the copy with you then you've (ready this carefully) TAKEN A COPY!!! Not one of those definitions that you or I supplied said anything about the owner not being in possession of their copy and you know it.
"The dictionary definitions and the legal definitions all disagree with you."
-The dictionary definitions that both you and I supplied supported my argument. Stealing is taking something without permission. And again this was never a legal argument, it was a common sense definition of stealing.
"No, you have made a copy of a copyrighted work without permission. "
-Right, and then you TOOK that copy without permission from the owners. The copy didn't walk out the door itself did it? No, you TOOK it out the door! Ta da!!! . . . STEALING.
"I would think that the person disagreeing with the legal definition of the illegal act they are talking about is the one looking like a fool."
-Well, you're also the person who would think that taking a copy of something without permission is not taking something, so your opinion means little to me. You're backed into a corner on this and despite all 3 dictionary defintions you're still trying not to lose. Rather than wasting time on a losing argument you'd be better served re-working your web page. It looks like your 8 year old nephew put it up. If this is the extent of your coding expertise then I'm not surprised that you can't read and understand a simple definition from a dictionary.
You've lost, plain and simple. You know you've lost this one and it must really burn you. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You've taken a copy. You're wrong and you know it. Just give it up already. The definitions you supplied both support my argument. And as for the legal definition, we're not giving a law school dissertation here. This was a common sense argument that you've stolen something without permission. You stole a copy without permission. It's stealing. Trying to argue you way out of this one makes you look like more of a fool.
dictionary.com: steal
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
you'll notice it never said someone has to be deprived of it.
You Lose!
"Having and expressing a personal opinion does not constitute "making stuff up"."
-Saying that Apple "forces" people to do something or that people "suffer" at the hands of Apple is a bit beyond personal opinion. Your hyperbole makes Chicken Little look conservative in comparison.
"My point is that your "Apple needs exclusive contracts" argument doesn't really hold water when they go about using them in places where they quite blatantly don't need them."
-I know why Apple chose to deal with the devil in the US. As to other markets I don't know if it's purely financial or if it involves network changes (visual voicemail), pricing plans (unlimited data), etc. I know that carriers don't just make changes like that unless it benefits them (being the exclusive carrier of the most anticipated phone) and that's probably why the exclusive contracts.
"No, as I have been saying from the start, they need to either allow the use of standard protocols or freely publish their proprietary protocols."
-As I said before, proprietary protocols are not necessarily bad and they don't have to "freely" do anything. I don't understand your insistence that it be free. The protocols are available since accessory makers use them all the time, but there's no law, moral or statutory, that saws they have to give it away.
"No, it isn't. Stealing is taking from their possession something that someone owns. They do not own the money until it has been given to them, thus if they are never given the money no theft has occurred. This is quite a clear legal construct I'm afraid - just because certain organisations choose to promote the idea that copyright infringement is stealing doesn't make it true."
-If the money for your paycheck was stolen from your employer before it had been given to you then you'd darn well change your tune. You can quote a legal construct left and right, but you'd feel (and rightly so) that your paycheck had been stolen from you even though you never received it. I'm not a fan of the MPAA/RIAA either, they suck and I hope they wither and die, but their shitty licensing schemes aside, not paying for a copyrighted work is still stealing. I don't care how the law might separate them, my example above is a perfect illustration of how anyone would feel if their paycheck was stolen before it was given to them.
"A copyright infringer is no more stealing content than someone taking a photo of your car is stealing your car."
-Not really the same is it? I see where you try to go with this, but it just isn't valid. Just because they original person doesn't lose the original item doesn't mean you're not morally stealing by copying. You know you are morally obligated to pay for that item because the people who own it (yes, the shitty media cartels) have not given you permission to take it for free. Because of that it is stealing. I don't care about the law on this, it is stealing because you haven't paid for something that you should have. Or, conversely, you have something your shouldnt' have. You can't rationalize your way out of that reality.
"Please point me at the official website where I can download the protocol specs."
-I suggest going to the Apple Developer network or contact Apple. You know they're available just as much as I do. Just because I can't supply you with a particular page URL doesn't mean that they aren't available and that tons of 3rd parties aren't using them already. If they're not free well then they're not free, but price should not be confused with availability.
"they put out a warning that an update would brick hacked phones"
-No no no, they put out a warning that an update MAY brick hacked phones. Not the same as it will. They were just letting folks know that if you hacked your phone you run the risk of it being bricked by future iPhone updates and that Apple is not responsible.
"Not once have I said that Apple lock people out of their desktop OS."
-Okay, maybe you can clarify. If that you claim people are locked into Apple services/products or locked out or what. Because your complaint has been Apple and the perception that they lock you in or out or up or down or something. The whole point I'm making is that the lack of an SDK from day 1 does not mean they never intended to lock people out of 3rd party apps. Apple knows the value of the SDK and 3rd party apps and they just didn't want to delay the iPhone release because an SDK was not ready from day one. Unfortunately they tried a delay tactic that was a bit insulting the developers (the Web 2.0 apps) and that didn't go down well. But I don't doubt for a second an SDK was always planned because they have too much experience with an OS and 3rd party apps to not understand the benefits.
"the tone of the question quite clearly indicated that you thought the very idea laughable."
-Not so much laughable as laughable that such a small user segment had to be represented on day 1. What percentage of users will utilize stuff like this. Less than 1%? So although it may be nice to do it certainly is not reason enough to delay a launch simply because an SDK is not ready from day 1.
"I get over 18 hours from my phone "
-I find it hard to believe you can get 18 hours of USE out of a phone battery. Your phone battery must be the size of a car battery?
"I've been doing no such thing."
-You have and you know it. You've been saying things like Apple locks people in. Not true. You said people are "forced" by Apple to do something. Not true. You say people "suffered" because of no 3rd party apps. Not true. You've been making stuff up left and right and you know it.
"However, they are also doing it in the European market where it is illegal."
-Then it sounds like Europe needs to enforce it's laws. Write to them instead.
"People who do not use Windows or OS X certainly do not "choose" not to use iTunes - they are unable to do so."
-So Apple has to make a version of iTunes (which you complain you don't like) for every also-ran OS? That doesn't make economic sense for them to do.
"I'm pretty sure that over 1% of people would use it were it available."
-Then why don't you develop something for that huge market?
"No, it isn't their property until it has been given to them. And it is entirely possible that the infringer would just plain not have purchased the content if they hadn't infringed the copyright."
-You're not giving them money that's due to them. That's stealing. Wrap it up any way you want but you've taken something that belongs to them. And your other argument is ridiculous! That's like saying it's entirely possible the jewel thief wouldn't have paid for the jewels if he wouldn't have stolen the jewels first. It's stealing.
"it should be their responsibility to publish the protocols required to do so, so as to allow interoperability."
-Use the same protocols 3rd party accessory makers use which Apple provides them. Not so tough.
"Who have either had to reverse engineer the protocol, or (more likely) have had to pay Apple a licence for the specs (no doubt under NDA)."
-I realize that someone like yourself who splits hairs to justify stealing has a tough time understanding this, but that's called commerce. You don't get everything for free. And since the specs are available then you just made my point that you could use them if you want.
"And they have a phone without an SDK and have publicly said that they aren't happy about people hacking it to allow third party applications."
.. . .When did I say they did?"
-The SDK is coming in Feb. so your argument is moot in less one month. Will you suddenly stop whining about the SDK and admit the iPhone is a smartphone then? I doubt it. You just don't like Apple. And as for hacking it, I don't recall seeing anywhere that they said they aren't happy about people hacking it, they just have said they won't support the phone if someone hacks it, and that is not surprising. If someone hacks it they can mess it up and Apple should not support it then.
"Despite your false claims
You said they lock people out. I'm citing plenty of examples that refute your statement. The desktop OS and the available SDK is one example. Your claims of Apple lockout are what I was addressing and you know it. Please stop trying to change the argument when you know what I meant.
"How else would you interpret that?"
Asking "who the F uses SSH on their phone" does NOT imply that NO ONE uses it. It doesn't. It's a question. Note the question mark when I originally asked it? Do you understand punctuation?
"No, I don't believe I did."
-yes, you did.
"when you're wildcamping at the top of a mountain"
-I backpack a lot and I don't use my phone when I'm out there. It kind of defeats the purpose of going there in the first place. I turn my phone off completely when I'm out because I'm usually so far away from civilization that there isn't even cell coverage. When I am back in range of cell coverage then I turn my phone back on. No sockets, no battery problems. Issue solved.
"Sony quote a standby time of 480 hours for the P900, and whilst I will agree that this is a massive overestimate, I do get well in excess of 100 hours out of it in normal use."
And yet you never stated standby time did you. You compared 8 hours of iPhone battery (NOT the standby time numbers I might add) with standby time in another phone?. I know you don't get 100 hours of USE from that phone, you get 100 hours of standby but not USE, so your whole comparison seems to be apples to oranges and not valid. If you want to compare standby time then compare that. if you want to compare usage then compare that. But you're obviously twisting the comparison to make the iPhone look bad. That is consistent with the rest of your misrepresentations and that is why I call you a liar.
"It's pretty arrogant to assume someone is ignorant or a liar just because they have different views than yourself."
-It's not that you disagree. I'm fine with that. It's that you've been making stuff up to back your arguements. That leads me to believe you're either ignorant or a liar.\
"Sounds like the US market needs better regulation to me, rather than exclusive deals to further restrict customers."
-Then you agree Apple is not to blame for the current state of the US market and they may have had to make an exclusive deal with a carrier to implement the changes they needed as well as having their handset allowed on the carriers network. Thanks. That's the whole point I've been trying to make regarding Apple's deal with AT&T. It has never been about lockout.
"I know a number of people who either choose not to use iTunes because they dislike the interface, or cannot use iTunes because they use Linux. Were it not for people reverse engineering the proprietary protocols then these people would be unable to use an iPod."
-Another admission, thank you. Apple did not "force" anyone. You just stated those people "choose".
"I didn't say that did I? Once again you are putting words into my mouth in an effort to support your flawed arguments."
-I didn't put those words in your mouth. (Please stop lying) I asked a question. Note the question mark at the end of my question. That denotes a question.
"No it isn't - you can do automated file management over the USB Mass Storage protocol,"
-Yes, it's is. It's a pain because I have no playlists. Just shuffling files over via USB does not give you the same experience, and most people do NOT want to manage their sync this way. They like iTunes because it's EASY. If you don't then don't use it. But the ease of iTunes use is what has made it so popular for people to buy content, sync content to their iPods/iPhones, manage playlists, etc. 99% of the people do NOT want, not would they be able to figure out "automated file management". Your views do not represent the mass of consumers that Apple develops for and that is why they do not have a specific solution that caters only to you.
"My computer happens to be my property so I can do with it what the hell I want."
-Right, and Apple has not stopped you from doing anything with your property. You've got YOUR computer locked down (even though you think it's wrong for others to implement some basic security to prevent hassles). Apple has not affected what you can do with your computer. But they have implemented certain features in certain ways on the products they create because it makes it easier for most people to use them. That is THEIR right. You don't like it then don't buy something from Apple. When you make a phone then you can decide on features.
"The act of stealing denies property from the legitimate owner and is a criminal offense. Copyright infringement does no such thing - it _potentially_ denies them licence fees (which the infringer may or may not have paid anyway, even if they chose not to infringe) but it does not deny them their property."
-Right, you've denied them the licensing fee which is money which is their property under the law. Thanks for making my point.
"I am neither stealing, nor infringing copyrights - the only content I share happens to be content which has a Free licence and content that I created."
-I don't believe you. And even if that were true, why is it Apple's job to create a way for you to share your content? If it's your content they YOU figure out how to share it. Don't blame Apple.
"So what was your analogy of using a Ford part in a BMW car all about? It appeared you were comparing the iPod to a car part."
-You complain that Apple doesn't interface the way you want it to with another system, but why is Apple's responsibility to do that for you. They've created an interface for Windows and Macs called iTunes. That is what they created and support. You
"Just because people buy into the hype instead of looking to see what the competition is doing doesn't negate the fact that it is far more expensive than competing phones with superior feature sets."
.don't tell me, you're in the middle of the Sahara. No, wait, you're on safari in Africa. No, no, I've got it, you're climbing Everest and you need to SSH into work? Nowhere near a power socket. . . Please stop lying.
-People aren't paying for hype. They're paying for a well thought out, easy to use phone that gives most people the features they want. It's not hype that the iPhone has the highest customer satisfaction numbers.
"You're just making an unsubstantiated claim that Apple INTENDED to publish an SDK, because that idea is in step with how you imagine Apple to work."
-Well, I'd say his claim has more credibility than yours because Apple has a desktop OS with an SDK and they obviously understand the importance of 3rd party apps. Despite your false claims they haven't locked people out of their desktop OS have they. But you say they lock everyone one. I'd say it's more likely they didn't want to delay the iPhone rollout simply because the SDK was not ready yet.
"Why do you seem to think that commercial success implies that they must be treating their customers well?"
-Why do you continue to ignore customer satisfaction numbers with iPhone and Apple in general, that lead the industry. Obviously those number DO mean they are treating their customers well or they wouldn't be so high or leading everyone else. Game, set and match!
"The original poster made the implication that no one uses SSH from their phone. "
-I am the original poster and (surprise, you're lying again!) I did NOT imply that "no one uses SSH from their phone". I asked "who the F uses SSH from a phone." That's hardly making the implication you stated. Please stop lying.
"Why will there be plenty of developers? People who use third party software on their phones are not inherently developers "
-Wow, I can't believe you don't understand what he's saying. He's saying that if what you say is true, that EVERYONE you know uses 3rd party apps, then the demand will obviously be there and app developers will flock to the platform. Simple logic. I'm not sure if you really didn't understand this or if you're intentionally twisting the argument because you don't have a leg to stand on again.
"and even fewer are developers for smartphone platforms"
-Well well, you just admitted the iPhone was a smartphone. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
"And a massive amount of use when you're no where near a power socket."
-You're nowhere near a power socket. . . right . .
"my 4 year old smartphone's battery lasts about a week"
-My non-smartphone won't last that long without doing any of that functionality so I doubt your 4 year old smartphone lasted that long. Please stop lying.
"Certainly not my interpretation of events - the customers had to suffer not being able to run any third party software"
-As we've seen in your past posts your interpretation of events rarely resembles reality. And nobody "suffered". Talk about grandstanding. The launch was successful and the iPhone enjoys the HIGHEST customer satisfaction ratings of any phone. That doesn't sound like suffering to me.
"I beg your pardon? Have you so few valid points that you feel you need to resort to name calling?"
-Well you've demonstrated your ignorance on every post, or you're just a blatant liar, so I figure your experience at a telco that you mentioned earlier had to be in the janitorial department since you obviously have very little understanding of the issues we've talked about.
"I ask how this requires support from the service provider "
-Because service providers in the US habitually disabled functionality like this on handsets. They tried to force sending photos, music, etc. over the network to charge more. Handset makers who didn't disable the features the carriers didn't like would find that their handset was not allowed or supported on a carriers network. To break that cycle Apple had to make an exclusive deal with a carrier. You obviously don't understand the US market and it's history and challenges.
"Feel free to point me at the freely available official specs for these protocols."
-I don't know if they're free, but 3rd party accessory makers seem to have all the knowledge on how to talk with the iPhone and/or iPod. Is that magic or are the protocols available? While we're at it, feel free to point me to someone that Apple "forced" to reverse engineer protocols, or someone who was forced to "suffer". You seem to make grand unsubstantiated claims of suffering and bondage at the hands of Apple yet I've never heard of any of this from anyone.
"Because they chose to implement the iPod so that it couldn't have music/videos loaded onto it through a standard well supported protocol, such as USB Mass Storage."
-And this is a preferable way to load content over iTunes? It's a tedious, manual way to do it. They're designing a consumer product to appeal to a lot of people, not just nerds who use SSH and who want to share files with their friends. They also operate an online store for music and must have reasonable safeguards put in place to prevent filesharing or content providers won't cut deals with them.
"If it happens to be *my* PC I have every right to lock other people out of it."
-If it happens to be their product then they have the right to make the decisions on the best ways to implement features. When you build a phone then you can make those decisions. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You stamp your foot when you don't have complete unfettered access to every feature and yet you wouldn't allow that access on YOUR computer.
"Well, given the choice between watching a video on the phone's screen and watching it on a 24" monitor I know which I would choose."
-Then watch it on the monitor, no one's stopping you. I have music/movies on my computer in iTunes. I can watch them on my monitor, in my living room via AppleTV, on my iPod, and on my iPhone. Look at all the choices. And it's all EASY. So no one is stopping you from watching it.
"By "steal" you presumably mean "infringe copyrights on" - copyright infringement is not stealing, they are completely different laws. Also, why are you assuming I don't have a legal right to copy the content? Maybe I own the copyright, or the content is distributed under a Free licence such as a Creative Commons licence."
-Ahh, the lawyer splitting hairs. Copyright infringement IS stealing. You can wrap it any way you want, but you know it is stealing because you're not paying for the content. And I'm sure you don't have the rights because you just tried to split legal hairs about copyright infringement vs. stealing and your use of the word "maybe" and your cheesy
Boy you sure did get a beat down by Garote!! Hahahahaha!
"So the customers must suffer purchasing an untested product because of Apple's marketing strategy? That sounds like a pretty bad situation."
-Yet the customers didn't suffer and the strategy was successful. That sounds like Apple knew better than you once again.
"Yep, the very same Microsoft - if that's what happens when you actually bother to do product testing I dread to think what happens when you don't."
-Well they didn't do that testing on the iPhone and customers have had glowing reviews on the iPhone, the highest satisfaction rating of any phone. Compare that to Vista's reviews and ratings. It shows how a company focused on quality like Apple can do things that other companies can't and that narrow minded European telco janitors like yourself can't envision.
"I don't consider a marketing strategy to be a good reason for giving customers a potentially sucky experience by doing no serious testing."
-Good thing you don't make multimillion dollar decisions then because it worked for Apple. And they did do "serious testing" ( as opposed to non-serious testing?), but they didn't do a public beta because it was SECRET. Obviously you should read the article again, this time with your eyes open.
"You mentioned syncing data without going over the carrier's network. I presume you must mean 802.11 or Bluetooth unless Apple have found a way to transfer data by magic."
-Yes, iTunes and a dock. That's not magic, although it works so well for consumers they probably think it is magic in comparison to poorly thought out ways of syncing by 3rd party apps.
"So allow the use of a standard protocol instead of forcing people to reverse engineer a proprietary one."
-They do have standard protocols to talk to iPods/iPhones. Tons of 3rd party accessory makers utilize them all the time. Apple hasn't "forced" anyone to reverse engineer anything.
"Installing it is not effort so long as the sysadmin hasn't locked your machine down (e.g. you're at work), or your friend (if you're using a friend's machine) will let you. Frankly, I don't let my friends install random software on my machines."
-And Apple is to blame for this in what way? . . . . Since you hate it when you're locked out so much maybe you should be blaming other people for locking you out of their machine rather than erroneously blaming Apple for you friends' (and yours by your own admission) policy of lock out. Funny that you embrace locking people out of things when it's you or your friends making the decision. You sure do seem to find ways to blame Apple for what other people do, don't you? Other people are "forced" by Apple to reverse engineer protocols. And now Apple is somehow to blame for the fact that someone else's machine (and yours too) are locked down. Yes friend, that's right, it's ALL Apple's fault. Can you tell me what else we should blame them for that they've had no involvement in? Maybe China would be free if Apple allowed you to copy your videos to your friends computer? Your lack of logic in your arguments reinforces my opinion that you just hate Apple and are basing your arguments on that instead of reality.
"To copy music or videos onto it when you're not at home?"
-So let me get this straight. You have your dream 3G phone with all the cutting edge features and you want to offload your videos to a friends computer? Either your phone isn't quite so enjoyable to watch a video on or you're sharing files. If it's the former then you should blame your phone's manufacturer and not Apple. If it's the latter then you shouldn't blame Apple when they don't help you steal content. And if you just want to use the music/videos on your friends system you can use a 3rd party accessory to play it. I don't see why you blame Apple for the fact that you can't copy content on to your friends machine. It makes as much sense as blaming Ford for not allowing you to install a Ford part on a BMW car.
And as for the 3G thing. The power consumption is still pro
"A few thousand would do fine"
-No, not on an ultra secret project where even the hardware and software engineers didn't know the big picture. Apple goes through great pains to hide what they're doing and then they hand it out to a few thousand? Not too smart.
"Microsoft's beta programs _do_ consist of many tens of thousands of testers"
-Is this the same Microsoft that releases a product that has over 150,000 viruses for it? Not the best example of how to conduct business is it? Oh, and in case you forgot, ultra secret project! Tens of thousands of testers=no secret.
"If Apple didn't bother to test their product properly then that is a serious flaw in their development procedures and needs to be addressed."
-Again, ultra secret project, so the testing was done in the lab. Why don't you go back and read the article and get back to me.
"You don't need an exclusivity deal for this - if they are really great features and the iPhone is a popular platform the telcos would implement the network-side support off their own backs because they could charge more for it."
-If you're right or wrong here you still prove my point. If they don't implement the changes for ONE phone (not likely considering their record on this) then the features are useless. If they do make the changes and then charge more for it then they over-price it. Either way the great features are not used because they're not implemented or overpriced by short sighted carriers. The reality is they would have not made any changes to their business practices to accomodate the iPhone. The carriers in the US routinely crippled the features on phones and still do so you're wrong on this one. And yes, I know there are other markets besides the US, but you mentioned AT&T so that's what I'm addressing.
"I'm unclear on how making data transfers over 802.11 requires any support from AT&T."
-I'm unclear on why you're mentioning 802.11 since I said nothing about that in my post. Seems like you're arguing with yourself on this one.
1. Because some people think iTunes sucks and want a choice of different applications to do the job
- Then use another one or blame someone else because they haven't developed something else. Don't blame Apple for someone else not developing anything. The reason nothing has been developed is there is little to no market for it. The slice of the market that thumb their nose at iTunes is so slim to make the market not worth it.
2. Because last time I checked there wasn't a version of iTunes that ran under Linux
-Because I use Macs in my business I understand how this can be a frustration. If an application is not made for your OS it's frustrating, but again, the Linux desktop market is dwarfed even by Apple so the it just isn't worth the effort. Not to mention which flavor of the ton of Linux versions do you concentrate on? There are bound to be incompatabilities between versions of Linux so that's another reason to avoid that market.
3. Not every computer has iTunes installed - installing it is effort if you just want to access your device from someone else's machine as a 1-off thing."
-Installing it is not effort. Talk about making stuff up here. Click a button, it downloads. Click a button, it installs. Why do you need to access your device from someone else's computer?
"The iPhone is not a US-only phone. If Apple only consider the US market when producing their products they are nuts."
-They're nuts of they don't make a phone that works in the broadest number of markets possible. 3G would have been the incorrect choice right now. To hamper the iPhones appeal in the US by releasing a phone that didn't have coverage in many markets would have been nuts.
"I have worked in the telephony networking and applications sector for a good few years"
-Again, what are your qualifications in phone development? Because I still don't see your experience in creating a phone project from the ground up and deciding on what
"I quite clearly did not mention Apple at all."
-No, you were just replying to a specific post about Apple so you were obviously referring to Apple in your post.
"You're saying that Apple released a product without doing significant consumer testing on it?"
-Yes, that's what I'm saying. No company does "widespread consumer testing". Duh. They do testing in a small way, but no company releases their product to 100,000+ consumers to test it. And if you'd RTFA you'd see that Apple's development process on the iPhone was probably more secret than most. Hence, they give it a little while to work through the inevitable minor bugs and then when you've stabilized the platform you worry about allowing 3rd party apps to become installed.
"Funny, Palm (or US Robotics as it was then), Symbian (Psion) and Microsoft have all allowed 3rd party apps from from the release of their platforms. Were they asking for trouble? "
-Funny, all the phone UIs you just mentioned SUCK. So yes, they obviously were asking for trouble because they didn't get the UI right FIRST. You just made my point for me. Thanks.
"Because they realised that locking people out wasn't going to work"
-No, YOU said they lock people out so they have all the control and make all the money. So, they obviously don't care what people want and they'd still be locking people out. Face it, the SDK was planned all the time. Apple knows software and operating system development and they know 3rd party apps are crucial. They just didn't want to delay the iPhone for 8 more months for an SDK that was not immediately crucial to its success. And guess what, it turns out they were right. Folks are camping out to get the things, even without the SDK that you think is so crucial. Turns out reality has proved your fantasy logic wrong again.
"We're not talking about the desktop platforms here"
-Yes, we're talking about your mistaken assumption that Apple locks people in to their devices and Apple makes desktops, ipods, and phones. So looking at all those products that you said Apple locks me into I asked you where the lock was? If AT&T is the only lock you can think of then congratulations, you've made the exception prove the rule.
"So you're happilly using your iPhone on a service provider of your choice (i.e. not AT&T if you're in the states), using third party applications on your iPhone, updating the music library on your iPod without needing iTunes, etc?"
The AT&T exclusive deal was necessary not to lock people in, but to get a carrier to work with Apple who would allow Apple to implement all the great ideas it has. Visual voicemail? Downloading music from iTunes, syncing from the computer, allowing photos to be synced to the computer rather than charging them to send them over the network, etc. Maybe these are not limitations in other markets, but in the US the carriers had so much control and no vision that Apple had to ink a deal like this to start to open the door to a better experience. And look what has happened. Verizon, the king of lock down carriers is now opening their networks, along with other carriers. Apple has once again made the experience better, but they had to sign a 5 year deal to get the leverage they wanted.
As for the 3rd party apps, big deal they're coming and your argument dies a quick death. Updating the music without iTunes? You can on iPods and as for either iPhones or iPods, why would you want to? It's easier to do it via iTunes. Face it, they built a better mousetrap, a great end to end experience. Updating without iTunes would be a step backward. If you want to update your phone by dragging individual tunes over to the phone connected as a USB device then have at it! Welcome back to the dark ages.
"Funny how other phones manage it just fine."
-3G chipsets affect battery life. Period. The lower talk time on the phones you refer to isn't acceptable on an iPhone because you end up using it so much more. Web browsing
"Please point at any other non-smartphone which is as pricey and bulky as the iPhone."
-I can fit it in my pocket just fine. It's thinner than my Razr, which I hate I might add because the UI SUCKS. Pricey? I'll happily pay that price for a phone that is easy to use. I could give this phone to my wife or my daughter and they would be able to use all the functionality instantly. If you want a Ford then buy a cheap Ford. If you want a Mercedes then you need to pay for it.
"What makes it qualify as a smartphone? It won't let you run 3rd party applications - as far as I'm concerned that pretty much defines the main feature of a smartphone. Ok, so it does calendaring, web browsing and video playing, but so do most other non-smartphones too."
-Okay, that's YOUR definition of a smart phone. It was instantly called a smartphone by journalists on the day of the unveiling in Jan '07 because it allows you to surf the web (the real web), calendaring, email, music, video, pictures, etc. and contrary to your belief most non-smartphones DON'T do that. They do a poor attempt at one or two things, but they don't roll it up into one big easy to use product that is essentially a computer in your hand. The fact that you didn't have an SDK from day 1 doesn't mean it's not a smartphone. If the SDK was released today would it suddenly qualify as a smartphone? You just don't like the device or Apple so you're trying to tear them down.
"You'll note I never said Apple _won't_ do this"
-I'll note that you found a slippery way out of being wrong, but you were replying to the other person when they mentioned new features on the iPhone via software updates so it's a natural assumption that you WERE referring to Apple in your reply.
"Apple initially designed the iPhone to prevent third party software from being run on it "
-It's a brand new phone, with a brand new OS, with no widespread consumer testing behind it. Anyone who would immediately allow 3rd party apps to be installed would be asking for trouble. If Apple really was trying to lock everyone out then why are the about to let everyone in via the SDK? Why is there an SDK for desktop OS X? Your argument doesn't hold water. They know very well the value of 3rd party apps and an SDK. They just were busy developing the most revolutionary UI on the planet for a mobile phone that they didn't have time or resources to have an SDK ready from day 1 for the less than 1% of people who want to SSH into another machine.
"My only problem with Apple is their repeated efforts to lock customers into products and services."
-What specific efforts are you referring to here? I have a Mac and an iPhone and an iPod and I'm not locked into anything. Duh!
"I don't have to result to these sorts of petty insults to make my points."
-You haven't made a point yet so we'll never know, now will we?
"3G support."
-Please see Jobs reasons for no initial 3G support which have been published for well over 6 months. BATTERY LIFE!
"People are buying the iPhone because it has been hyped up and is considered "cool" "
-It is hyped up and it is "cool" I guess, especially in comparison to other crappy phones. But don't waste my time with the "cool" argument. People are buying it because it is the mix of features they want and the UI is head and shoulders above anything else. The "cool" argument is just sticking your head in the sand.
Are you kidding me? Apple was the only thing between you and the RIAA's desire to force you to subscription pricing or $3.99 digital singles, or forcing you to buy the WHOLE digital album!! The only reason there is a viable digital market right now is that Apple "gets it". They created a store that was very easy to use, and they were the only vendor who stood up to the RIAA and other media companies. Apple worked hard to create a viable digital market, store, and portable devices, and they knew the media companies demands would result in disaster so they resisted.
Apple is not a saint by any stretch, but I think your analysis is way off. Rather than arrogant they were smart enough to create a market the way consumers wanted it to be and they tried hard to protect that market from disastrous media company meddling. Now the media companies are once again trying to screw up the digital market by excluding the one partner who made the market viable. I don't think Jobs is perfect, but he's a hell of a lot smarter than the media rubes and he'll have an answer for them. I for one howpe the rumor of Apple creating its own record label is true. They need to shake up big media's control and corrupt business practices.
As for the Amazon thing. I welcome any DRM free tracks. That's a positive step. But beware of the media companies motives. If they manage to break Apple I have no doubt that DRM will be back in a big way because the RIAA does not care about consumer needs one bit.
"It is pretty bulky and is really expensive - kind of like a smartphone. Certainly not the same market as "consumer" phones such as the Razr, etc."
-In what way is it bulky? Nice try. And it's not "really" expensive. It's more expensive than the Razr and all of the other shitty user interface laden, give away phones out there, yes. But it's far from the most expensive phone so let's not be too disingenuous.
"But you just said it wasn't targetting the smartphone market, so why are you comparing iPhone sales with smartphone sales?"
-I'd say it's in a class by itself. It doesn't have every feature yet, but I would say it qualifies as a smartphone. Yet, it's not designed for the geek crowd who want to SSH into their computer (who the F does something like that anyway?). It's a very consumer oriented phone at the same time.
"If you buy something based on what a company says they will do in the future you are crazy "
-I'd say you already lost this argument. Apple has already updated the phone several times and added new functionality, and another update is coming in Jan. They're already delivering on their promise of updating the functionality via software updates. Face it champ, you got this one wrong.
"And they have embraced third party developers from the start rather than giving them the finger and then deciding later on that maybe they should allow third party development after all."
-I think you're pathetically ignorant if you think that is really what happened here. It's a brand new platform that pulled developer assets from their computer OS upgrade to finish the iPhone. Apple knows full well the advantage of an SDK and I don't doubt they had one planned all along. I firmly believe that they were more concerned about getting the product released and selling and THEN they can work on immediate bug fixes and release an SDK, which I might add is only an issue to a VERY SMALL sliver of the buying public.
"it's far too expensive, massively lacks most of the features I need from a phone and Apple have repeatedly shown that they are more interested in locking devices down and trying to control the whole market"
-Again, not too expensive. It's not designed to be a throwaway cheap phone like the crappy ones you favor. If you want an $800 video camera that can also make phone calls and has a crappy user interface then go buy an N95, or buy a Blackberry and enjoy their crappy interface. . . And where do you get the idea that Apple locks devices down to control the whole market? That's definitely a jaded slant. I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple follows a different product strategy. Rather than just selling their software to run poorly on every crappy piece of hardware (ala Microsoft) they try to create a well integrated experience that works great and is easy to use. They have succeeded in the Mac, the iPod, and the iPhone.
Face it, you just don't like Apple and the press the iPhone has received irks you. You've got a case of sour graphes, and that's fine, but your arguments don't hold water.
"I've watched mac users try and run executables... they just happen to be built for windows so they are safe(that's called obscurity, not superior engineering)."
No, that has NOTHING to do with obscurity, nor security. If the USER actively runs an app then that strikes me as ignorance on the users part, or a Trojan with a well crafted hook to entice the user. No OS can protect against that kind of attack unless it disallows any 3rd party apps or disables the ability of all apps to write to the hard disk. Both solutions make the OS worthless so it's a balancing act.
"I have to watch carefully for windows because it's the only system with the install base to actually allow a virus to propagate."
You obviously don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Security through obscurity is a MYTH.
The only problem is that other manufacturers haven't been able to come up with a device that works as easily and intuitively as the iPhone in 20 years so why are people making the assumption that they can pull their collective heads out now and get it right? I wish the iPhone wasn't tethered to AT&T too, but Jobs made that deal to get the functionality concessions he wanted so he can drive a wedge into the crappy US wireless industry. Less than 6 months after the iPhone's release and it appears the first cracks are appearing in the old business model.
It's impressive when you realize that it achieved those numbers in less than 6 months.
He blasphemes against us. Let us put him to the sword.
"Reports are that Apple's phone managed to successfully establish itself a niche in the mobile phone world, but that they failed to sell as many as they had hoped."
Whose expectations are not being met? Apples? The iPhone is meeting Apple's stated expectations just fine so far. It's the hype analysts who are "reporting" (if you could call it that with a straight face) that it is not meeting expectations, but those are expectations the analysts have set, not Apple.
I think the iPhone has more potential than you're giving it credit for in your post. I don't think it's a well designed product for "a few people". It's a well designed product for a lot of people. People in the US market are just not used to actually buying a phone so on the surface this appears to be a luxury phone for the rich. They're used to getting cheap, barely usable phones for free and not using 80% of the features because it's so annoying to use (and another 10% of the features that carriers disable). I think the iPhone is going to slowly change public expectations of how a phone should operate and how it should be free of carrier imposed disabled features. People are going to be more open to paying more for a phone that is easy to use and works the way they want it to work.
Maybe Android will turn out some nice stuff, but will the carriers allow it to be enabled? The iPhone is not tethered to AT&T solely for revenue. It's tied to them because Apple had to find a way to loosen the carriers grip on allowable features. When the 5 year contracts are up people will be more used to having enabled phones because of the iPhone's influence. My question is whether Android will convince the carriers to allow the currently locked down features the way the iPhone has opened AT&T's grip on those? I predict that fear of the iPhone's success will motivate carriers more than any of Android's merits.
"The iPhone is not great because it is such a great thing, it is great because the OS and software on other phones sucks that much. Change that and the iPhone is just a proprietary, expensive brick."
Yeah, you're right, the iPhone isn't the technology equivalent of cold fusion. But, the OS, the software, the interface, the experience, the ability to sync with your computer easily, etc., THOSE functions are what make the phone great. It's not an expensive brick because it works so well, while other phones are cheap bricks because they have horrible interfaces. What other aspect were you expecting on the phone to make it great? Some of the hardware complaints about the technology not being cutting edge are valid, but I don't need cutting edge technology to be happy. I need a phone that is easy to use, combines most of the functionality I want, and doesn't limit me to buying overpriced games/music/etc. from the service provider. The iPhone is THE FIRST phone I've seen that gives me the features I want and made them easy to use and that is why it is great and why it will continue to build tons of market share.
Sorry to those who disagree, but the iPhone has redefined mobile phones and right now there is no device in its league.
I agree with your posting, ask the boss what's in it for you! Make yourself a thorn in their side throughout this, but do it with professionalism.
IANAL, but from the experience I've had dealing with this I've been told that there is a night and day difference between asking you to sign an agreement like this as a condition of your initial hiring as opposed to asking you to sign it after you've been hired. They can ask you to sign before you're hired as a condition of employment. Whether the legalese is enforceable is a side issue. But, once they've hired you they can not legally turn around and FORCE you to sign another under threat of termination. You have a few choices:
1. Refuse to sign and run the risk of being unlawfully terminated. Maybe they're bluffing, maybe they'll actually fire you. If they're bluffing you win, but you run the risk of being terminated for some other mild infraction (coming in 2 minutes late) as their way to get rid of you. If they just out and fire you for not signing then I believe that is unlawful and you would have a legal case. Of course you'd have to foot the bill for a lawyer to get satisfaction there too so you're kind of screwed either way.
2. Sign it and tell them to stuff it when they try to enforce it. Obviously you're hoping they don't come after you on some invention, and if they did the courts would slap them down. Who the heck knows how this would turn out, they've obviously got the deeper pockets to harass you with so you're screwed here too.
3. Tell them you must consult an attorney first and also tell them you'd like them to pay the attorney's fees since they are the ones who've forced you into this situation. Good luck getting them to pay.
In short, I'd drag this out as long as possible as you search for another job and then just quit without notice when you're ready. They don't give employees 2 weeks notice when firing them and you don't have to give the company 2 weeks notice if you're firing the company. Unfortunately this company sucks and unless you have some reservoir of cash you'll come out on the short end of the stick. Good luck, I feel for you.
"Why are blog posts of people who don't know what they're talking about ending up on the slashdot front page?"
Because if this weren't allowed on Slashdot then NO ONE could post anything.