if they do it on the iPhone it will be expected/demanded/hacked onto the ipod Touch,
How are they going to hack BT onto an iPod Touch in a way that they aren't able to now? I don't even want to imagine the trouble you'd have to go through and how ugly that'd look.
and people would then use an iPod Touch with a cheapo bluetooth phone rather than paying the premium for an iPhone
Two problems:
1.) Apple still makes money.
2.) There's no way this would be widespread adopted enough to give Apple much to worry about, especially considering the first point.
No you aren't. No money comes out of your pocket until ISPs start charging you based on bandwidth usage.
Uh, no, you are viewing ads. They are profiting from that. That makes you a customer and gives you the right to bitch. If we were talking about Wikipedia, you'd be right. Here? No. Wrongsville, Wrongsylvania.
Meanwhile, the alternative is...nothing.
The alternative is to use another service. When you do that, the ad revenue you were generating disappears. If they want it back, they respond. There's a whole lot of monetary motivation going on here for a free service.
It's ad-supported, therefore the advertisers are paying for it. May they never go bankrupt. But the advertisers are making money from people who buy advertised products, right? So they are the ones really paying. No, wait, those people earn wages with which to buy stuff. So it's their employers who are actually paying for the service. You can go on and on and on if you want, the bottom line is this: the service can accurately be described as "free", since the user is not required to pay in order to use the service.
Google is making a profit from your use of it, you are seeing ads/referrals, therefore it is not free to use the service.
To prove my point, I get modded down as flamebait. This is halarious.
To disprove your point: Skip the tags and read the comments in the "Android Kill Switch" thread. Then head on over to any iPhone related thread and read the Apple bitching there.
Apple gets beat up all the time, here. Settle down.
A while back I was watching Saving Private Ryan on TV, and I actually thought it was kind of funny that they would show people stopping to pick up missing limbs, people holding innards in, etc, but when they were just walking through a field they censored out the curse words. Kind of doesn't make sense to me...
If you think about the generation that was around when the FCC was started, it's not so non-sensical. Teaching kids to swear is easy, but violence? Those peeps grew up on Three Stooges, Tom and Jerry, and Wile E. Coyote. Few, if any, have any stories to tell about how their best friend poked out his brother's eyes when he was 6. Sex? Well, you go back in time, and sex was very taboo. The romanticized theory was man and woman (or at least woman, heh) wait until marriage. A single mom was labled and shunned. Films back then were 'clean'. You couldn't even say 'pregnant'. Then as time went by, people relaxed on the topic... well, not everybody, but enough that we were seeing more and more female independence. As the barriers broke down in movies, it was starting to happen on TV. Before you know it, the world looks like it's gone to heck and TV's correlated to it. Fun, huh? Teen pregnancy was virtually unheard of, now it's common, and at the same time TV's all 'smutty', as they'd call it.
I'm not saying they are right or wrong. But I can kind of see where they're coming from. I think they're got their causes mixed up, but I can see why sex and swearing are of bigger concerns than violence.
Suppose you have a PC that's infested with all sorts of malware. Your first instinct is to just format and reinstall, right?
ok, with that in mind, who's to say that the staff at yahoo saw the thousands (millions?) of spam profiles with links to porn/malware sites and decided "you know what, fuck it, we can just start with a clean slate. The users who aren't bots can always get their data back anyway."
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, you know?
In my opinion, you're not wrong, but you're missing an important detail. It happened suddenly. I mean, is there a reason that they couldn't have made it clear like a week in advance that they were doing it? It'd still be obnoxious, but skimming the thread so far, I think the big issue here is distrust over blackouts.
Some friends and I were discussing general utility questions and the issue of what we'd be willing to pay for Google (the search engine) and Gmail (the email service) if we had to.
The consensus opinion was $50/year for search, $20/year for email. Take that for what you will: it's a water cooler discussion.
I have a similar feeling. I'd be willing to go higher, though, considering how useful Google Docs has become. I'd happily pay something like $50 a year for exactly the service I have now (including ads) with GMail just for the guarantee that if they had to shut down, they'd bank the money to keep things operational so I'd get like a month's notice to transition. Going dark is fine. Going dark suddenly, that's what scares me.
I know these companies make a buck from advertising revenue, or whatever. But YOU don't pay them a penny, unless you want to. Most people don't want to.
If you're complaining because the least part of a large service that you have been using for free, perhaps since the dawn of the commerical internet, has made an unexpected change... well, really, you need to have a long think about whether or not that makes you an ass.
Small nitpick here: You are paying for ad-sponsored services.
I read that terrorists, and by terrorists I'm going to go with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists since the/. article is about Al-Qaeda, are using child porn to hide their coded messages. I can't shake that this is both utterly stupid and utterly brilliant at the same time.
I agree, it is brilliant. I mean, think of it, if they bust these guys, they'd have to arrest themselves!!
Nintendo should be forced to license their IPs out to their arch-nemeses? (I mean, aside from Sega;) Companies should be forced to release ports even for systems that can't handle the load?
I think he already addressed that when he said PC and not console.
If you love OS X so much, then why the fuck you are complaining about lack of options in hardware? That's what you pay when you sell your soul to lock-ins.
If you're not using what you want to use in the first place, you're not magically in a better place. Not being able to do what you want is not being able to do what you want, regardless of whether or not you call it 'lock-in'.
Yeah, but the Mac fans are all on the edge of their seats! Gotta know in advance of the announcement! Of course, true Mac fans will all be watching the actual announcement live on podcast tomorrow because The Great and Mighty Steve may actually say something important!
The true Mac fan will, of course, be meditating on all The Great Steve has to say....ooooohhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm......must achieve enlightenment.....oooooohhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm......
Yeah, gee, if only I could get excited about OOv3 being released I could sit with the cool kids at lunch.
The videos are still encoded to 480x360 at the most. That's hardly "better than TV".
-uso.
It's at a point where with most shows it really doesn't matter. It's not like TV was the lowest point you could possibly go to make out what's going on.
This conversation is academic anyway. If YouTube is going to compete with Hulu AND with its users, chances are the quality will be higher than what they have right now. You're better off waiting-and-seeing than saying you don't like the numbers and never checking it out.
If enough people watch them, so be it, no one is making me watch TV.
The reason the gov't is behind getting you broadcast Television for free is for the news. That's why there are FCC mandates about how much a television station has to air News, PSAs, and so on. It has become a fundamental service of the gov't and that's why they keep the barrier to entry pretty low. It's not just about sitting in front of a couch potato and drooling like an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Guess I'll just pack my 360 up and put it away...
uh.. Yeah, because dual-booting your 360 with OSX must have been a real pain up to this point, mmm?
if they do it on the iPhone it will be expected/demanded/hacked onto the ipod Touch,
How are they going to hack BT onto an iPod Touch in a way that they aren't able to now? I don't even want to imagine the trouble you'd have to go through and how ugly that'd look.
and people would then use an iPod Touch with a cheapo bluetooth phone rather than paying the premium for an iPhone
Two problems:
1.) Apple still makes money.
2.) There's no way this would be widespread adopted enough to give Apple much to worry about, especially considering the first point.
Doesn't sound a lot but I bet the majority of iphone apps never get near that.
I think the idea is that they'd get enough people after that prize to set records with sales.
(And I'm only working between 10pm and 1am from now on!)
Because I'll be more productive, I can get away with only working for 3 hours.
Lunch time!!! Cya.
No you aren't. No money comes out of your pocket until ISPs start charging you based on bandwidth usage.
Uh, no, you are viewing ads. They are profiting from that. That makes you a customer and gives you the right to bitch. If we were talking about Wikipedia, you'd be right. Here? No. Wrongsville, Wrongsylvania.
Meanwhile, the alternative is...nothing.
The alternative is to use another service. When you do that, the ad revenue you were generating disappears. If they want it back, they respond. There's a whole lot of monetary motivation going on here for a free service.
It's ad-supported, therefore the advertisers are paying for it. May they never go bankrupt. But the advertisers are making money from people who buy advertised products, right? So they are the ones really paying. No, wait, those people earn wages with which to buy stuff. So it's their employers who are actually paying for the service. You can go on and on and on if you want, the bottom line is this: the service can accurately be described as "free", since the user is not required to pay in order to use the service.
Google is making a profit from your use of it, you are seeing ads/referrals, therefore it is not free to use the service.
not on iGoogle page, no.
If you go to a fresh iGoogle page, the first thing it does is refer you to Youtube, CNN, and GMail.
As bonus, they don't have ads on the gmail applet, either.
Okay. So what do you suppose keeps GMail funded?
It's a free service. You get what you pay for.
It's ad-supported, you are paying for it.
To prove my point, I get modded down as flamebait. This is halarious.
To disprove your point: Skip the tags and read the comments in the "Android Kill Switch" thread. Then head on over to any iPhone related thread and read the Apple bitching there.
Apple gets beat up all the time, here. Settle down.
A while back I was watching Saving Private Ryan on TV, and I actually thought it was kind of funny that they would show people stopping to pick up missing limbs, people holding innards in, etc, but when they were just walking through a field they censored out the curse words. Kind of doesn't make sense to me...
If you think about the generation that was around when the FCC was started, it's not so non-sensical. Teaching kids to swear is easy, but violence? Those peeps grew up on Three Stooges, Tom and Jerry, and Wile E. Coyote. Few, if any, have any stories to tell about how their best friend poked out his brother's eyes when he was 6. Sex? Well, you go back in time, and sex was very taboo. The romanticized theory was man and woman (or at least woman, heh) wait until marriage. A single mom was labled and shunned. Films back then were 'clean'. You couldn't even say 'pregnant'. Then as time went by, people relaxed on the topic... well, not everybody, but enough that we were seeing more and more female independence. As the barriers broke down in movies, it was starting to happen on TV. Before you know it, the world looks like it's gone to heck and TV's correlated to it. Fun, huh? Teen pregnancy was virtually unheard of, now it's common, and at the same time TV's all 'smutty', as they'd call it.
I'm not saying they are right or wrong. But I can kind of see where they're coming from. I think they're got their causes mixed up, but I can see why sex and swearing are of bigger concerns than violence.
Suppose you have a PC that's infested with all sorts of malware. Your first instinct is to just format and reinstall, right?
ok, with that in mind, who's to say that the staff at yahoo saw the thousands (millions?) of spam profiles with links to porn/malware sites and decided "you know what, fuck it, we can just start with a clean slate. The users who aren't bots can always get their data back anyway."
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, you know?
In my opinion, you're not wrong, but you're missing an important detail. It happened suddenly. I mean, is there a reason that they couldn't have made it clear like a week in advance that they were doing it? It'd still be obnoxious, but skimming the thread so far, I think the big issue here is distrust over blackouts.
Some friends and I were discussing general utility questions and the issue of what we'd be willing to pay for Google (the search engine) and Gmail (the email service) if we had to.
The consensus opinion was $50/year for search, $20/year for email. Take that for what you will: it's a water cooler discussion.
I have a similar feeling. I'd be willing to go higher, though, considering how useful Google Docs has become. I'd happily pay something like $50 a year for exactly the service I have now (including ads) with GMail just for the guarantee that if they had to shut down, they'd bank the money to keep things operational so I'd get like a month's notice to transition. Going dark is fine. Going dark suddenly, that's what scares me.
I know these companies make a buck from advertising revenue, or whatever. But YOU don't pay them a penny, unless you want to. Most people don't want to.
If you're complaining because the least part of a large service that you have been using for free, perhaps since the dawn of the commerical internet, has made an unexpected change... well, really, you need to have a long think about whether or not that makes you an ass.
Small nitpick here: You are paying for ad-sponsored services.
Ooh, let me guess... is it... an iPhone?
He meant an iPod Touch, Scooby.
"It came out this week that Google's Android phone OS, like the iPhone, has a kill switch that lets Android Market applications be disabled remotely.
This is an outrage! I was taught in school that the Three Laws would protect us!!!
I read that terrorists, and by terrorists I'm going to go with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists since the /. article is about Al-Qaeda, are using child porn to hide their coded messages. I can't shake that this is both utterly stupid and utterly brilliant at the same time.
I agree, it is brilliant. I mean, think of it, if they bust these guys, they'd have to arrest themselves!!
I sucked CmdrTaco's 2 inch penis for a nickel last night!
Oh.. that reminds me, I owe yo mama a nickel.
How about a version that only works at night then?
Geez guys, just put tape over the ambient light sensor.
Nintendo should be forced to license their IPs out to their arch-nemeses? (I mean, aside from Sega ;) Companies should be forced to release ports even for systems that can't handle the load?
I think he already addressed that when he said PC and not console.
If you love OS X so much, then why the fuck you are complaining about lack of options in hardware? That's what you pay when you sell your soul to lock-ins.
If you're not using what you want to use in the first place, you're not magically in a better place. Not being able to do what you want is not being able to do what you want, regardless of whether or not you call it 'lock-in'.
Huh, I thought that my 15" MacBook Pro (purchased 11/06) had three USB ports, but I just counted only two plus two never-used Firewire ports.
My bad, I have a 17". Bigger laptop == more room for USB ports. Hehe.
Sorry, I shouldn't have chimed in.
I had 3 USB ports I seem to recall, my MacBook Pro only has two.
What version is that? My Macbook Pro purchased last May has 3 USB ports, plus it has bluetooth that you could run a mouse or KB through.
Yeah, but the Mac fans are all on the edge of their seats! Gotta know in advance of the announcement! Of course, true Mac fans will all be watching the actual announcement live on podcast tomorrow because The Great and Mighty Steve may actually say something important!
The true Mac fan will, of course, be meditating on all The Great Steve has to say....ooooohhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm......must achieve enlightenment.....oooooohhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm......
Yeah, gee, if only I could get excited about OOv3 being released I could sit with the cool kids at lunch.
The videos are still encoded to 480x360 at the most. That's hardly "better than TV".
-uso.
It's at a point where with most shows it really doesn't matter. It's not like TV was the lowest point you could possibly go to make out what's going on.
This conversation is academic anyway. If YouTube is going to compete with Hulu AND with its users, chances are the quality will be higher than what they have right now. You're better off waiting-and-seeing than saying you don't like the numbers and never checking it out.
If enough people watch them, so be it, no one is making me watch TV.
The reason the gov't is behind getting you broadcast Television for free is for the news. That's why there are FCC mandates about how much a television station has to air News, PSAs, and so on. It has become a fundamental service of the gov't and that's why they keep the barrier to entry pretty low. It's not just about sitting in front of a couch potato and drooling like an idiot.