Again, read the fucking posts you're replying to, the issue here isn't that they have to pay Apple but that they can't pass on the savings to customers who shop elsewhere. Just because you hipster nerds choose to pay through your nose on the iToy store doesn't mean I should pay 30% extra for my books.
Did you even read the thread before posting your smart-ass reply? the AC's point was that, for those looking to market on Apple's iToys, they were forced to raise their prices 30% across the board. You can't avoid participating in Apple's iToy market while participating in Apple's iToy market, so your "choice" is completely out of context.
All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app
Or if you prefer:
However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
So basically publishers have the choice of either paying Apple's fee out of their own pockets, or raising the prices 30% across the board so that they still make money on iToy sales but don't run afoul of Your Holiness Stevie's terms, and since going with the first option would be the corporate equivalent of a shotgun blast to the head, the latter it is for anyone looking to develop apps for the iToys.
Android is not going to ever be a coherent, lucrative market. Very few people buy an Android phone specifically for Android. They buy it because it's the best phone on their carrier (Verizon), or because it's the cheapest option that provides an app phone.
That is not a good foundation upon which to build a thriving market.
Microsoft would disagree.
Really, your entire post is almost word-for-word a rehash of the same arguments MacOS lovers used against MS-DOS and later Windows, with the results we're all aware of.
Keep telling yourself only geeks care for Android and that sooner or later the iPhone will rule the world and we'll all bask in Stevie's glory, who cares about this 'reality' thing people are talking about, right? we've got Stevie and we've got his iPhone.
Nope. An incomplete standard would lead into incompatible extensions by each browser, which would lead into the same fragmentation we've got right now except the devs document their extensions properly in hopes they'd eventually get adopted as the official standard, incentive they'd lack if said standard were 'final'.
And btw, what we've got to entertain us in the meantime isn't LiveJournal, but Flash;)
Just because your native language isn't English doesn't mean your post isn't unreadable, and I can't see why pointing that out would make the GP an "angsty teenager spewing hatred".
And if you care, my native language is Spanish and I'm certainly neither 'angsty' nor a 'teenager'.
By body count alone, DEFCON is undoubtedly the winner.
One would believe that the simple, vector graphics would make committing genocide easier, but in fact the game's almost clinical treatment of it, coupled with its incredible soundtrack makes it much worse, in fact.
I wonder what Jack Thompson and company would think of it. On one hand, it's a game about mass genocide, but on the other it makes it downright scary rather than the more typical glorification of violence.
If JPEG wasn't free of patents or so widespread back then, it'd likely *have* been standardized eventually. Free access to and free publishing of information are the two most important aspects of the web, it's obvious then that the standard organizations overlooking it should concern themselves with every technology necessary to preserve that freedom.
And keeping the video tag codec-independant sounds all nice and shiny, until you notice that it'd boil down to the same thing we had with the object tag in the pre-Flash era, which was so terrible it drove people to Flash in a way that resulted in our current situation.
So if you want buy a car, and price isn't a big object, and you want to look at Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, and Audio you could be looking at comparing 80-100 cars just to get a sedan, and thats without the individual option packages.
Or you could do as most people do, walk in their favorite dealership and have the sales guy deal with all that for you and narrow it down to two or three models.
Exactly as normal people do with cellphones, by the way, and is how Nokia maintains a healthy share of the cellphone market in spite of uppity Apple and their glorious lack of choice.
Honestly, this near-religious worship of Apple and everything they do is getting ridicuous.
The VideoLAN project in general seems to follow a "screw software patents and screw anyone in the US" policy in general. They are, after all, the main host for the libdvdcss2 package, which is highly illegal over there.
I agree living in the US is already doing it wrong, for the most part, but some people have families there and may not want to abandon them just to move to a country with saner patent laws.
Or what, did you forget that h.264 is patented to hell and back and that just because an implementation is open source it isn't free of that?
It isn't. The fact that its specs are published is what makes it a standard in the first place as there's no such thing as an "unpublished standard", it has no relevance whatsoever in its openness or lack thereof.
It is not the place of HTML to enforce stifling rules regarding data formats.
It is.
The real issue is DRM and hiding content from the end user.
HTML5 video does NOTHING AT ALL to address that issue.
Sure it does, by promoting a standard that's able to be freely implemented by anyone willing, they make it less desireable to use plugins that support DRM instead. Which is all they can do, honestly.
We shouldn't be stuck with the built-in video decoder. That's just as bad as being stuck with Flash.
We shouldn't be stuck with the system decoder, either, which is why we need the aforementioned free format.
You don't remember Lori Drew, do you? here in Slashdot, the policy is "I'll defend your right to say anything, as long as you don't say anything I dislike".
Because their claim is obviously idiotic, but people's bias against rape prevents them from making a rational analysis of it and instead act on a simple knee-jerk response, that being "rape is evil, so videogames must be evil too!".
Compare it with legislators and child porn, for instance.
A teacher's obligation is to help her students learn, is it not?
Yeah. In school. Not 24 hours a day, every day of the year, and certainly not during her personal time that she uses to write her personal blog that has absolutely no relation whatsoever to said school other than it being a frequent subject of her rants.
Being a teacher is a job, not some mystical position that only the most pure can aspire to.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, read the fucking posts you're replying to, the issue here isn't that they have to pay Apple but that they can't pass on the savings to customers who shop elsewhere. Just because you hipster nerds choose to pay through your nose on the iToy store doesn't mean I should pay 30% extra for my books.
Did you even read the thread before posting your smart-ass reply? the AC's point was that, for those looking to market on Apple's iToys, they were forced to raise their prices 30% across the board. You can't avoid participating in Apple's iToy market while participating in Apple's iToy market, so your "choice" is completely out of context.
Of course not, he's a Freedom Fighter (tm).
Remember, it's not terrorism if the US or its allies does it.
Yeah, except mobile apps *also* suck so really, it's a native desktop app or nothing.
Subjectivity, don't you just love it?
From the link (and TFA, and TFS):
All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app
Or if you prefer:
However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
So basically publishers have the choice of either paying Apple's fee out of their own pockets, or raising the prices 30% across the board so that they still make money on iToy sales but don't run afoul of Your Holiness Stevie's terms, and since going with the first option would be the corporate equivalent of a shotgun blast to the head, the latter it is for anyone looking to develop apps for the iToys.
Android is not going to ever be a coherent, lucrative market. Very few people buy an Android phone specifically for Android. They buy it because it's the best phone on their carrier (Verizon), or because it's the cheapest option that provides an app phone.
That is not a good foundation upon which to build a thriving market.
Microsoft would disagree.
Really, your entire post is almost word-for-word a rehash of the same arguments MacOS lovers used against MS-DOS and later Windows, with the results we're all aware of.
Keep telling yourself only geeks care for Android and that sooner or later the iPhone will rule the world and we'll all bask in Stevie's glory, who cares about this 'reality' thing people are talking about, right? we've got Stevie and we've got his iPhone.
Nope. An incomplete standard would lead into incompatible extensions by each browser, which would lead into the same fragmentation we've got right now except the devs document their extensions properly in hopes they'd eventually get adopted as the official standard, incentive they'd lack if said standard were 'final'.
And btw, what we've got to entertain us in the meantime isn't LiveJournal, but Flash ;)
Just because your native language isn't English doesn't mean your post isn't unreadable, and I can't see why pointing that out would make the GP an "angsty teenager spewing hatred".
And if you care, my native language is Spanish and I'm certainly neither 'angsty' nor a 'teenager'.
Most likely as a form of protection rather than to 'hide' anything.
Today, a Facebook group. Tomorrow, the world!
I believe there's more steps missing in your world domination plan than that of the underpants gnomes.
This is Slashdot, mingling of any kind is utterly alien to us so it's natural we'd fear it to the point of freaking out.
By body count alone, DEFCON is undoubtedly the winner.
One would believe that the simple, vector graphics would make committing genocide easier, but in fact the game's almost clinical treatment of it, coupled with its incredible soundtrack makes it much worse, in fact.
I wonder what Jack Thompson and company would think of it. On one hand, it's a game about mass genocide, but on the other it makes it downright scary rather than the more typical glorification of violence.
I have never understood people that believe they must impose there beliefs and supposed morals on others.
Because that's what society is all about.
If JPEG wasn't free of patents or so widespread back then, it'd likely *have* been standardized eventually. Free access to and free publishing of information are the two most important aspects of the web, it's obvious then that the standard organizations overlooking it should concern themselves with every technology necessary to preserve that freedom.
And keeping the video tag codec-independant sounds all nice and shiny, until you notice that it'd boil down to the same thing we had with the object tag in the pre-Flash era, which was so terrible it drove people to Flash in a way that resulted in our current situation.
So if you want buy a car, and price isn't a big object, and you want to look at Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, and Audio you could be looking at comparing 80-100 cars just to get a sedan, and thats without the individual option packages.
Or you could do as most people do, walk in their favorite dealership and have the sales guy deal with all that for you and narrow it down to two or three models.
Exactly as normal people do with cellphones, by the way, and is how Nokia maintains a healthy share of the cellphone market in spite of uppity Apple and their glorious lack of choice.
Honestly, this near-religious worship of Apple and everything they do is getting ridicuous.
When the status quo is freedom, you can always count on Microsoft and Apple to jump in and give you an alternative.
The VideoLAN project in general seems to follow a "screw software patents and screw anyone in the US" policy in general. They are, after all, the main host for the libdvdcss2 package, which is highly illegal over there.
I agree living in the US is already doing it wrong, for the most part, but some people have families there and may not want to abandon them just to move to a country with saner patent laws.
Or what, did you forget that h.264 is patented to hell and back and that just because an implementation is open source it isn't free of that?
h.264 is an OPEN STANDARD.
It isn't. The fact that its specs are published is what makes it a standard in the first place as there's no such thing as an "unpublished standard", it has no relevance whatsoever in its openness or lack thereof.
It is not the place of HTML to enforce stifling rules regarding data formats.
It is.
The real issue is DRM and hiding content from the end user.
HTML5 video does NOTHING AT ALL to address that issue.
Sure it does, by promoting a standard that's able to be freely implemented by anyone willing, they make it less desireable to use plugins that support DRM instead. Which is all they can do, honestly.
We shouldn't be stuck with the built-in video decoder. That's just as bad as being stuck with Flash.
We shouldn't be stuck with the system decoder, either, which is why we need the aforementioned free format.
Particular implementations are covered by copyright, not patents.
Why? most other kinds of math aren't patentable, I don't see why this one should.
You don't remember Lori Drew, do you? here in Slashdot, the policy is "I'll defend your right to say anything, as long as you don't say anything I dislike".
Because their claim is obviously idiotic, but people's bias against rape prevents them from making a rational analysis of it and instead act on a simple knee-jerk response, that being "rape is evil, so videogames must be evil too!".
Compare it with legislators and child porn, for instance.
A teacher's obligation is to help her students learn, is it not?
Yeah. In school. Not 24 hours a day, every day of the year, and certainly not during her personal time that she uses to write her personal blog that has absolutely no relation whatsoever to said school other than it being a frequent subject of her rants.
Being a teacher is a job, not some mystical position that only the most pure can aspire to.