And the fact that the major media outlets will make WAY more money if they are able to cover the released information as a number of stories over a longer period rather than all at once has nothing to do with it.
Attacking the U.S. government was dangerous enough, but with the amount of collective money behind the banks, pharma and energy, I sure wouldn't want to be anyone associated with WikiLeaks right now. A ten-million dollar per head contract for these people would be chump change for the companies involved.
As a cable company, you offer TWO completely *different* and separate services. You offer TV programming, and you offer internet access. The fact that NetFlix uses your internet access IN NO WAY impedes on your ability to provide TV programming. There is no direct competition, save for literal eyes, and that has to do with the actual content provided, which you have little or no control over from the networks. So sorry your pay-per-view service isn't working out for you. If you don't have the resources to 'compete' with services like NetFlix, then maybe you should stick to just providing the pipe, yes? Cable companies need to stop trying to be 'content providers' and remember that they are really just 'access providers'.
No, the guy using his ISP connection for just email wouldn't be paying enough to cover the cost of the pipe and the connection in the first place. It would also completely remove the ISP's incentive to increase their infrastructure. More so, how long do you really think it will be before content goes completely on-demand? I ditched my cable TV service months ago, using only NetFlix and other sources for my entertainment needs, and I'm not alone. Knowing that it's all going to be about pipe size (actual use is almost meaningless to the provider from a cost standpoint - save for how it impacts THEIR network), the ISP's will immediately start double dipping. They'll charge you for usage AND a "base" infrastructure fee. They may even triple dip by adding on special 'access fees' for services like NetFlix or VoIP.
I see. Hulu says you can't play their content on Google TV... nor an iPhone... UNLESS you pay them for it. Hulu Plus. But the very same content can be had for free if I happen to have my laptop with me. So, is their plan to slowly pick and choose who they want to have to pay? I predict Hulu Plus for Google TV any day now.
Yeah, except that if this was anyone other than Apple, this would be a non-story. I've owned maybe twenty mobile phones in my day (god, is it really that many? Shit I'm old...) and ALL of them had issues or defects or annoying peculiarities that meant you couldn't use the thing as a football or bury it in the sand at the beach or whatever. NEWSFLASH - Treating your $300 smartphone like an indestructible brick may cause it to break!
The only reason this is a story at all is because we have come to expect better quality products from Apple. To me, it says more about the rest of the industry, producing cheaper, disposable crap.
Personally, as a designer, I'm completely sick of Adobe's bloated crap. Between Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, and Dreamweaver, you would think they could produce an integrated product that could easily design and build a website. You would be wrong. It USED to be easy, before CS. Now it's crap. They keep adding features, but they completely fail to address even the most basic levels of the production process.
I would LOVE to see some of Apple's UI mojo thrown on a project like that.
Is that really how you think people will look for apps they need, by going to the Amazon App store? I know no one who works this way. When I need an app, I hit Google. Any developer worth anything is going to have a product page on the web. They might have a link to Amazon (or wherever) to actually buy the app, but it's just a place to put in my credit card. Why restrict your search to one storefront?
The fact that Amazon wants to set the price is insane. Even Apple isn't that stupid. Imagine the uproar in the publishing industry if Amazon decided paper book prices. There's been huge fallout even over the pricing of e-books, which I personally still feel was a mistake by the industry, especially Apple. All products are not created equal, and shouldn't be priced that way just because they happen to be digital.
Screw the reason for the censoring. ISP's shouldn't be making decisions on content AT ALL. Today it's online pharmaceuticals. Tomorrow it'll be sites pertaining to Islam, or in opposition of the government. How long do you think it will take our leaders to demand a system by which THEY can add sites or domains to the blacklist directly?
If you want to seriously reduce the freeloaders then just simply remove or lock the electrical plugs around the shop. Whenever I'm in a coffeehouse and someone comes in for a serious session on their laptop, the first thing they do is look for a table near an electrical outlet and plug in. Most laptops will get between 2-4 hours of battery life doing mundane stuff, and less for anything more serious. No plug = self imposed time limit.
Better yet, put all the plugs over on one side or a specific section of your coffeehouse to keep the geeks away from your [cough] premium customers.
Good grief, when will Microsoft learn that fragmenting your own market is NOT a good thing. How many flavors of windows-based OS do we have floating out there now? Yes, by all means, let's introduce yet ANOTHER crippled variation to piss off and confuse our customers.
Hey Balmer, you want to know Apple's secret? Simple. No, that's it. They keep their product line simple enough that you can grasp it intuitively at a single glance. Basically they have OSX and iOS, and lots of fun, productive, well designed gizmos to run them.
I don't see how this is going to change anything as far as teachers or students are concerned. A teacher is still going to have to grade on a curve, even if that curve only has four points instead of five. All it does is change the *perception* that the school is actually doing better than other schools ("see, more of our students get a C or better than any other school in the state!"), which means more money for the school. That's a pretty sick way to game the system by the administration.
In short, Apple cannot legally void the warranty for a mere jailbreak, but could void the warranty for an unlock that goes wrong and bricks the phone by damaging the baseband or boot loader.
Actually, yes, Apple (and any other company) can and does void the warranty for a mere jailbreak. You agreed to the terms of the warrantee when you bought the product, and those terms state that you shall not jailbreak your device. The fact that you can now do so without being criminally prosecuted according to the law does not absolve you from your contractual obligations.
I'm still not sure this would prevent them from doing this. You sign a contract when you buy one of their phones that says you won't modify it (jailbreak). It doesn't matter if the act of doing so is no longer a punishable crime according to the law, it's still in the contract. Apple can 'punish' you in any way they want (cancel your warrantee, refuse to service the device, even brick it). It pretty much makes them look like assholes, but that's a different issue.
I suppose, but if Apple has to do ANYTHING with the phone (possibly internal checks or something, who knows) to determine how the screen was broken (ie: unusual exposure to high heat or humidity), and they see that the phone has been modified, then they can claim that the phone was out of warrantee when the damage occurred. The fact that the warrantee cancelation had nothing to do with the broken screen is irrelevant.
All the law say is that it's not illegal *for you* to jailbreak your phone. It does NOT say that Apple has to provide warrantee coverage for your *modified* phone. Nothing has really changed here.
Well, there could be case for 'maliciously' attacking those who jailbreak their phones, as almost happened with Apple. It may not be technically illegal, but it sure makes you look like a shit. Personally, I think Apple is a little different from other companies in that its products *are* a closed system. Like them or not, they work because it's Apple from top to bottom. The second you put a third party app or hardware add-on into the mix, support and product development are going to take a HUGE hit. Just ask Microsoft.
Ah yes, was this the same Consumer Reports that initially called the iPhone 4 the 'best phone in the world'? So much for their 'extensive testing' if they couldn't even spot a major flaw in the device that was pointed out not fifteen minutes after release by the general public.
After some reflection, it even makes more sense for a company like Wacom to take the display technology like that used in the iPad, and put it under their pressure sensitive matrix as a display hooked up to a stand-alone system. I know they did this with the cintiq, but at $2,000, the price point is just too high for all but the most serious of artists. To be viable in the current market, I'd say they need to cut their price point by half at least. A display with pressure input that was say, 20-30% more than a similarly sized display would be a no-brainer for almost any serious artist.
I would agree with you, but not so specifically. Any pressure-sensitive tablet capable of running Photoshop would be an instant winner in the art community, especially if it were priced around that of the iPad. The trend into digital illustration is huge, and not just in the comic industry, but frankly, working on a split screen/tablet format sucks. It's certainly doable (as I can personally attest) but it's a FAR cry from working directly on a medium.
The problem with this is that it's self defeating. The moment you bring ANY form of input device (other than your fingers, which most of us always have with us) back to the tablet, it completely changes the user experience to the point that the device risks falling back out of the "tablet" definition altogether. Would the "stylus" be required for input? It is on any Wacom device.
While such a device is a pipe-dream for artists (and has been for a LONG time), I seriously doubt the public wants to give up the versatility of finger gestures in favor of a pen, even a pressure-sensitive one.
Slashdot Mirror
And the fact that the major media outlets will make WAY more money if they are able to cover the released information as a number of stories over a longer period rather than all at once has nothing to do with it.
The majority of large corporations are still using XP and IE6.
Attacking the U.S. government was dangerous enough, but with the amount of collective money behind the banks, pharma and energy, I sure wouldn't want to be anyone associated with WikiLeaks right now. A ten-million dollar per head contract for these people would be chump change for the companies involved.
As a cable company, you offer TWO completely *different* and separate services. You offer TV programming, and you offer internet access. The fact that NetFlix uses your internet access IN NO WAY impedes on your ability to provide TV programming. There is no direct competition, save for literal eyes, and that has to do with the actual content provided, which you have little or no control over from the networks. So sorry your pay-per-view service isn't working out for you. If you don't have the resources to 'compete' with services like NetFlix, then maybe you should stick to just providing the pipe, yes? Cable companies need to stop trying to be 'content providers' and remember that they are really just 'access providers'.
No, the guy using his ISP connection for just email wouldn't be paying enough to cover the cost of the pipe and the connection in the first place. It would also completely remove the ISP's incentive to increase their infrastructure. More so, how long do you really think it will be before content goes completely on-demand? I ditched my cable TV service months ago, using only NetFlix and other sources for my entertainment needs, and I'm not alone. Knowing that it's all going to be about pipe size (actual use is almost meaningless to the provider from a cost standpoint - save for how it impacts THEIR network), the ISP's will immediately start double dipping. They'll charge you for usage AND a "base" infrastructure fee. They may even triple dip by adding on special 'access fees' for services like NetFlix or VoIP.
Is it possible they are restricting the airspace AFTER the fact in order to do an investigation?
I see. Hulu says you can't play their content on Google TV... nor an iPhone... UNLESS you pay them for it. Hulu Plus. But the very same content can be had for free if I happen to have my laptop with me. So, is their plan to slowly pick and choose who they want to have to pay? I predict Hulu Plus for Google TV any day now.
God, I hate Flash.
Yeah, except that if this was anyone other than Apple, this would be a non-story. I've owned maybe twenty mobile phones in my day (god, is it really that many? Shit I'm old...) and ALL of them had issues or defects or annoying peculiarities that meant you couldn't use the thing as a football or bury it in the sand at the beach or whatever. NEWSFLASH - Treating your $300 smartphone like an indestructible brick may cause it to break!
The only reason this is a story at all is because we have come to expect better quality products from Apple. To me, it says more about the rest of the industry, producing cheaper, disposable crap.
Personally, as a designer, I'm completely sick of Adobe's bloated crap. Between Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, and Dreamweaver, you would think they could produce an integrated product that could easily design and build a website. You would be wrong. It USED to be easy, before CS. Now it's crap. They keep adding features, but they completely fail to address even the most basic levels of the production process.
I would LOVE to see some of Apple's UI mojo thrown on a project like that.
Is that really how you think people will look for apps they need, by going to the Amazon App store? I know no one who works this way. When I need an app, I hit Google. Any developer worth anything is going to have a product page on the web. They might have a link to Amazon (or wherever) to actually buy the app, but it's just a place to put in my credit card. Why restrict your search to one storefront?
The fact that Amazon wants to set the price is insane. Even Apple isn't that stupid. Imagine the uproar in the publishing industry if Amazon decided paper book prices. There's been huge fallout even over the pricing of e-books, which I personally still feel was a mistake by the industry, especially Apple. All products are not created equal, and shouldn't be priced that way just because they happen to be digital.
Screw the reason for the censoring. ISP's shouldn't be making decisions on content AT ALL. Today it's online pharmaceuticals. Tomorrow it'll be sites pertaining to Islam, or in opposition of the government. How long do you think it will take our leaders to demand a system by which THEY can add sites or domains to the blacklist directly?
JohnQP has checked in at Mo's Gun Emporium. - "Stocking up on some shotgun shells, then off to Jay's Alarms for even MORE motion sensors."
If you want to seriously reduce the freeloaders then just simply remove or lock the electrical plugs around the shop. Whenever I'm in a coffeehouse and someone comes in for a serious session on their laptop, the first thing they do is look for a table near an electrical outlet and plug in. Most laptops will get between 2-4 hours of battery life doing mundane stuff, and less for anything more serious. No plug = self imposed time limit.
Better yet, put all the plugs over on one side or a specific section of your coffeehouse to keep the geeks away from your [cough] premium customers.
Good grief, when will Microsoft learn that fragmenting your own market is NOT a good thing. How many flavors of windows-based OS do we have floating out there now? Yes, by all means, let's introduce yet ANOTHER crippled variation to piss off and confuse our customers.
Hey Balmer, you want to know Apple's secret? Simple. No, that's it. They keep their product line simple enough that you can grasp it intuitively at a single glance. Basically they have OSX and iOS, and lots of fun, productive, well designed gizmos to run them.
I don't see how this is going to change anything as far as teachers or students are concerned. A teacher is still going to have to grade on a curve, even if that curve only has four points instead of five. All it does is change the *perception* that the school is actually doing better than other schools ("see, more of our students get a C or better than any other school in the state!"), which means more money for the school. That's a pretty sick way to game the system by the administration.
In short, Apple cannot legally void the warranty for a mere jailbreak, but could void the warranty for an unlock that goes wrong and bricks the phone by damaging the baseband or boot loader.
Actually, yes, Apple (and any other company) can and does void the warranty for a mere jailbreak. You agreed to the terms of the warrantee when you bought the product, and those terms state that you shall not jailbreak your device. The fact that you can now do so without being criminally prosecuted according to the law does not absolve you from your contractual obligations.
I'm still not sure this would prevent them from doing this. You sign a contract when you buy one of their phones that says you won't modify it (jailbreak). It doesn't matter if the act of doing so is no longer a punishable crime according to the law, it's still in the contract. Apple can 'punish' you in any way they want (cancel your warrantee, refuse to service the device, even brick it). It pretty much makes them look like assholes, but that's a different issue.
I suppose, but if Apple has to do ANYTHING with the phone (possibly internal checks or something, who knows) to determine how the screen was broken (ie: unusual exposure to high heat or humidity), and they see that the phone has been modified, then they can claim that the phone was out of warrantee when the damage occurred. The fact that the warrantee cancelation had nothing to do with the broken screen is irrelevant.
All the law say is that it's not illegal *for you* to jailbreak your phone. It does NOT say that Apple has to provide warrantee coverage for your *modified* phone. Nothing has really changed here.
Well, there could be case for 'maliciously' attacking those who jailbreak their phones, as almost happened with Apple. It may not be technically illegal, but it sure makes you look like a shit. Personally, I think Apple is a little different from other companies in that its products *are* a closed system. Like them or not, they work because it's Apple from top to bottom. The second you put a third party app or hardware add-on into the mix, support and product development are going to take a HUGE hit. Just ask Microsoft.
What it doesn't say is that Apple (or others) have to make it easy to do, or that they can't "unintentionally" brick your phone if you do.
Ah yes, was this the same Consumer Reports that initially called the iPhone 4 the 'best phone in the world'? So much for their 'extensive testing' if they couldn't even spot a major flaw in the device that was pointed out not fifteen minutes after release by the general public.
And of course, AT&T has nothing to do with any of Apple's problems.
After some reflection, it even makes more sense for a company like Wacom to take the display technology like that used in the iPad, and put it under their pressure sensitive matrix as a display hooked up to a stand-alone system. I know they did this with the cintiq, but at $2,000, the price point is just too high for all but the most serious of artists. To be viable in the current market, I'd say they need to cut their price point by half at least. A display with pressure input that was say, 20-30% more than a similarly sized display would be a no-brainer for almost any serious artist.
I would agree with you, but not so specifically. Any pressure-sensitive tablet capable of running Photoshop would be an instant winner in the art community, especially if it were priced around that of the iPad. The trend into digital illustration is huge, and not just in the comic industry, but frankly, working on a split screen/tablet format sucks. It's certainly doable (as I can personally attest) but it's a FAR cry from working directly on a medium.
The problem with this is that it's self defeating. The moment you bring ANY form of input device (other than your fingers, which most of us always have with us) back to the tablet, it completely changes the user experience to the point that the device risks falling back out of the "tablet" definition altogether. Would the "stylus" be required for input? It is on any Wacom device.
While such a device is a pipe-dream for artists (and has been for a LONG time), I seriously doubt the public wants to give up the versatility of finger gestures in favor of a pen, even a pressure-sensitive one.