So, you're saying the first 2 of them aren't an issue because you personally don't care about them, thereby missing the point that lots of people do care about them or they wouldn't complain.
The next one is only an issue because people are poor, which is just a beautiful stance to take. Congratulations, you don't sound like an asshole at all.
The next two are issues but people have hacked around them so they're not a problem, which makes me wonder if you actually read the article that you're commenting on.
The last point - I will concede multitouch, but I've been using Opera Mini/Mobile on a variety of phones for a very, very long time, and I've never had a problem navigating any page or GUI that they've presented to me.
Well done, you pointed out a spelling mistake in GP's post. However, that barely qualifies it as a troll, unless you figure telling the truth is deliberately aggravating.
Did you want to at least try to respond to the rest of his criticism? Here, I'll summarise it for you, make it a little easier:
- No FM radio - No Java support - Very expensive - Apple have a poor reputation for actively restricting users from doing what they want with their product - The much-hyped 'SDK' should have been available from the start - iPhones are advertised as feature-rich but compared to other phones available, especially on the European market, they do nothing new
Unless, of course, you want to label me as a troll too.
well... you were wrong. I was wrong, as you suggest. I wasn't the first to say it, of course, but I'm fine with that because I'm actually out of town at the moment with little to no access to the internet.
I'm not holding my breath for you to stand up, though. I think you missed this, but I'll just make sure you understand: you have no idea what the fuck I will do because you don't know me.
Can you actually pay attention to what I write? In the very first post I wrote I said I'd consider it if it worked on any x86 box but I doubt that I would bother.
The rest of your post is a whole lot of supposition based on things I didn't actually say. I remember saying buying for the sake of a brand name is stupid and shallow, then you post this tirade where you accuse me of saying the opposite and then tell me that I should buy a computer which is good regardless of the brand name, which is exactly what I said.
Is the fact that you can't fucking read down to the fact that you are 'speaking other languages with far more interesting people'? If I'm so boring to you, why are you even bothering to reply?
No, because Wierd Al actually asks the artists he lampoons before he sells the albums.
In the case of his James Blunt parody, "You're Pitiful", the record company that represents James refused to give him express permission, so he released it for free online.
He actually says that he would probably have been okay to release it, but he respects the wishes of the artist, and that's what Penguin should have done here with respect to ol' Chuck.
They don't have any history whatsoever of suing satirical sites Emphasis mine. Tell me, why did you narrow the definition unnecessarily? Could you not have pulled off that spectacular rant if you'd had to use 'website' or 'blog'?
Of course you couldn't, because there's plenty of sites and blogs Apple have sued for releasing 'trade secrets', which is what Lyons is claiming here.
Honestly, the line I'm taking here is "don't dismiss it until you know it's false", but a good portion of the people commenting here are willing to dismiss this out of hand, despite the fact that Apple have a history of pulling this kind of shit.
Regarding the EFF comment, I have no idea whether it's true or not, hence why I'm not willing to draw a line under it until I get confirmation either way. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll be the first person to stand up and say it. Until that time, stop pretending this is as clear-cut as you're trying to make it look.
I'm not sure how you think Occam's Razor applies here. It's nothing to do with 'simplest solution that fits the facts' because we have two equally simple solutions - either Lyons is lying or Jobs is. The rest of the story unfolds from there.
I'm also not sure how this is a 'tinfoil hat' moment. This is nothing to do with conspiracy theories of any kind, nor paranoia. This certainly isn't "I think Apple may be after me, I saw a van with an Apple on it outside my house and my phone calls are being tapped". This is a relay of an alleged plain-sight communication from Apple to Lyons.
Did you wake up this morning and fall into a dictionary of buzzwords, and just decide to throw a couple in just to sound like you know something?
And of course, Apple are such an open company and Steve is such a frigging nice guy that there's absolutely no way he'd lie about it to make the company look good?
Your like the people who buy nockoff brand-name clothing, and wonder why no-one takes them seriously. Actually, I'm one of those people who thinks that buying brand-name for the sake of it being brand-name is pathetic. Computers are for computing and clothes are for keeping your body protected and comfortable. If you're buying a Mac just for the image, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of you - you are an incredible tool. You should use something you like, not something that makes you look good.
Oh, and just for the record, 'knock-off' starts with a k. So, not only are you incredibly shallow, you're also stupid.
Thanks twitter! I see you haven't stopped following me around.
You might want to hold your horses on the insults though, seeing as I made the second light bulb joke on this thread, but people without a sense of humour decided to mod it down.
The only problem is you seem to be replying to someone else's post, because I don't remember saying that Apple shouldn't do any of those things. I said I won't go to Mac because there's no point in me changing everything I do, especially when the reason I can't do it is a forced restriction on an OS that I'm not sure I even want to use.
Look, I'm done with this conversation, since apologists will never accept anything that goes against their POV. You've yet to even provide a shred of proof that what you say is happening even exists save Google links that show a completely different issue. I'm pretty sure you were 'done' before you started typing your first response.
Well, there are technical limitations, yes. You can't run a PPC version of Linux on an Intel processor, for example, nor can you run Windows on a PPC Mac.
The very existence of OSx86 shows that it's not a technical limitation that prevents OS X working on any machine you like.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying the first 2 of them aren't an issue because you personally don't care about them, thereby missing the point that lots of people do care about them or they wouldn't complain.
The next one is only an issue because people are poor, which is just a beautiful stance to take. Congratulations, you don't sound like an asshole at all.
The next two are issues but people have hacked around them so they're not a problem, which makes me wonder if you actually read the article that you're commenting on.
The last point - I will concede multitouch, but I've been using Opera Mini/Mobile on a variety of phones for a very, very long time, and I've never had a problem navigating any page or GUI that they've presented to me.
Well done, you pointed out a spelling mistake in GP's post. However, that barely qualifies it as a troll, unless you figure telling the truth is deliberately aggravating.
Did you want to at least try to respond to the rest of his criticism? Here, I'll summarise it for you, make it a little easier:
- No FM radio
- No Java support
- Very expensive
- Apple have a poor reputation for actively restricting users from doing what they want with their product
- The much-hyped 'SDK' should have been available from the start
- iPhones are advertised as feature-rich but compared to other phones available, especially on the European market, they do nothing new
Unless, of course, you want to label me as a troll too.
Nice try at stopping people reading them though - I assume you couldn't come up with anything real to say.
I hope that's clear enough for you.
You can see how they've held back on reporting on the recent issues regarding the data that the government lost.
They didn't report much about that, did they?
Yes, the government are incompetent, but to claim the BBC "wouldn't report much" is false and can be demonstrated as such.
Can you actually pay attention to what I write? In the very first post I wrote I said I'd consider it if it worked on any x86 box but I doubt that I would bother.
The rest of your post is a whole lot of supposition based on things I didn't actually say. I remember saying buying for the sake of a brand name is stupid and shallow, then you post this tirade where you accuse me of saying the opposite and then tell me that I should buy a computer which is good regardless of the brand name, which is exactly what I said.
Is the fact that you can't fucking read down to the fact that you are 'speaking other languages with far more interesting people'? If I'm so boring to you, why are you even bothering to reply?
No, because Wierd Al actually asks the artists he lampoons before he sells the albums.
In the case of his James Blunt parody, "You're Pitiful", the record company that represents James refused to give him express permission, so he released it for free online.
He actually says that he would probably have been okay to release it, but he respects the wishes of the artist, and that's what Penguin should have done here with respect to ol' Chuck.
Of course you couldn't, because there's plenty of sites and blogs Apple have sued for releasing 'trade secrets', which is what Lyons is claiming here.
Nice try, though.
I'm sorry, were you going to provide some proof?
Honestly, the line I'm taking here is "don't dismiss it until you know it's false", but a good portion of the people commenting here are willing to dismiss this out of hand, despite the fact that Apple have a history of pulling this kind of shit.
Regarding the EFF comment, I have no idea whether it's true or not, hence why I'm not willing to draw a line under it until I get confirmation either way. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll be the first person to stand up and say it. Until that time, stop pretending this is as clear-cut as you're trying to make it look.
No, I'm saying it was a joke and that some people might want to lighten up a bit ;)
Thank you. I was actually searching for a way to say exactly that but my brain failed me.
I always do, because I don't trust the Slashdot userbase to mod up comments that I'm interested in.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I'm not sure how you think Occam's Razor applies here. It's nothing to do with 'simplest solution that fits the facts' because we have two equally simple solutions - either Lyons is lying or Jobs is. The rest of the story unfolds from there.
I'm also not sure how this is a 'tinfoil hat' moment. This is nothing to do with conspiracy theories of any kind, nor paranoia. This certainly isn't "I think Apple may be after me, I saw a van with an Apple on it outside my house and my phone calls are being tapped". This is a relay of an alleged plain-sight communication from Apple to Lyons.
Did you wake up this morning and fall into a dictionary of buzzwords, and just decide to throw a couple in just to sound like you know something?
Lyons hasn't confirmed that he's joking yet, and the fact that Steve Jobs says "I think it's a joke" doesn't make it automatically untrue.
How about we wait until we actually get solid evidence either way before we start throwing words like 'unconscionable' around?
(Good word though, I like it)
And of course, Apple are such an open company and Steve is such a frigging nice guy that there's absolutely no way he'd lie about it to make the company look good?
Oh, and just for the record, 'knock-off' starts with a k. So, not only are you incredibly shallow, you're also stupid.
Thanks twitter! I see you haven't stopped following me around.
You might want to hold your horses on the insults though, seeing as I made the second light bulb joke on this thread, but people without a sense of humour decided to mod it down.
As the gentleman above me notes, you are right.
The only problem is you seem to be replying to someone else's post, because I don't remember saying that Apple shouldn't do any of those things. I said I won't go to Mac because there's no point in me changing everything I do, especially when the reason I can't do it is a forced restriction on an OS that I'm not sure I even want to use.
Yeah, I just realised my maths are way off.
I'm going to give up on commenting any further today...
Well, there are technical limitations, yes. You can't run a PPC version of Linux on an Intel processor, for example, nor can you run Windows on a PPC Mac.
The very existence of OSx86 shows that it's not a technical limitation that prevents OS X working on any machine you like.
I already admitted fault on this one :)
Apologies for the misconception.
I still think you might be overreacting a tad, but I understand what you mean.