Imagine if Mac ever released a 2 clicker mouse, the amounts of confusion and hysteria that would cause for the poor bastards would be huge.
OS X has had support for right click since the beginning, and MacOS has had support for it even before then. In addition to Apple's current mice supporting right click, and the trackpad having right click support built in as well.
I get annoyed from the fact that I'd love to be able to create iPhone apps that work in tandem with the systems I develop for my business, having proper business worthy apps that can be easily used in the palm of your hand is a great means to sell.
What's stopping you from doing this? There are several ERP and CRM apps on the iPhone already. As long as you actually read the dev agreement, and know what's good and bad, you should be able to make an app that falls within the guidelines.
Yeah, but the seller's innocence in the matter ended when he was willing to sell it to Giz for $5k. The proper thing to do would be to turn it in somewhere, either to the bar's lost & found, or to the police. Hell, since they were able to find out who the guy is that lost the phone, he could have contacted that guy directly, on Facebook or something, to return it.
Citation Please. They bought the prototype phone. They happened to get numerous stories out of it, which happened to drive traffic to their site and increase revenues, but they still bought the phone.
People bought a PS3 to play PS3 games, and in some cases, because they could install Linux on it. This update causes them to decide, do they want to continue to play PS3 games, or do they want to install Linux? Whereas when they bought the console, they didn't know they were going to have to make a choice like that.
The other thing would be the delay of broadcast. Shows in the US often has their broadcast in other countries delayed by weeks or even months. I honestly don't know if this is dictated by the content creators, that a station can only air the program after X date, or if the station decides to delay it themselves. I don't care for either excuse, but if it is the broadcasters imposing it on themselves, then having the show available online way before makes the broadcast rights much less valuable.
To be fair, it was mostly the Bush Administration simply not caring about anti-trust. Most regulatory agencies kinda had their teeth removed, so they couldn't really do anything anyway.
No, they can't, because the developer kit has conditions on what apps you are allowed to develop and install in the license, which you must explicitly agree to before you can download it.
This only applies to things you develop for distribution in their store. If you're going to just put it on your phone for you, or a few of your friends, it doesn't matter.
I'm guessing they feel the licensing fees they get from the regional station for rebroadcast is more than they project they'd get from Hulu ad viewing (and presumably paid subscriptions). If they were to exclude internet broadcast, and bring Hulu to those countries, the amount they'd get from those regional stations would go way down.
For me, at least, its faster to watch something over Hulu than it is to wait however long for it to download from TPB or wherever. It may not be in pure HD, but its usually good enough for me. Now if I could pay $10, get access to the back catalog, and get higher quality streaming? I would be happy.
This is a good start, but it needs to go further. I probably wouldn't be interested in paying for every baseball game, but I would be interested in paying less just to receive the games of the teams I care about. Same thing with football. I'd be interested in DirecTV Sunday Ticket, but not if I have to pay however much it is for every team, when I only really care about Green Bay.
Perhaps. However, an ISP does have the right to change their terms of service and service offerings, like any other provider of a service. If you don't like the change, you find an alternative.
Why should they have this right? Why should any provider have this right?
On MP3 players. That's not smartphones. And they haven't abused their monopoly position like MS did. Microsoft told OEMs, "You can NOT install any other browser on this machine but ours." You can buy MP3s from anywhere and play them on the iPod as long as they don't have DRM.
That's because Microsoft abused their OS monopoly position to gain another monopoly in the browser market. Apple has yet to do so with using their iPod monopoly in the music sales market.
Or they could not use Flash. Any web designer worth their salt will realize that not everyone has Flash, and as such should gracefully degrade their site so it can still be usable without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if Mac ever released a 2 clicker mouse, the amounts of confusion and hysteria that would cause for the poor bastards would be huge.
OS X has had support for right click since the beginning, and MacOS has had support for it even before then. In addition to Apple's current mice supporting right click, and the trackpad having right click support built in as well.
I get annoyed from the fact that I'd love to be able to create iPhone apps that work in tandem with the systems I develop for my business, having proper business worthy apps that can be easily used in the palm of your hand is a great means to sell.
What's stopping you from doing this? There are several ERP and CRM apps on the iPhone already. As long as you actually read the dev agreement, and know what's good and bad, you should be able to make an app that falls within the guidelines.
Yeah, but the seller's innocence in the matter ended when he was willing to sell it to Giz for $5k. The proper thing to do would be to turn it in somewhere, either to the bar's lost & found, or to the police. Hell, since they were able to find out who the guy is that lost the phone, he could have contacted that guy directly, on Facebook or something, to return it.
Citation Please. They bought the prototype phone. They happened to get numerous stories out of it, which happened to drive traffic to their site and increase revenues, but they still bought the phone.
You keep saying that word, heavy. Is there something wrong with the Earth's gravitational field in the future?
And you don't think they'd make you agree to the EULA to install the update anyway?
People bought a PS3 to play PS3 games, and in some cases, because they could install Linux on it. This update causes them to decide, do they want to continue to play PS3 games, or do they want to install Linux? Whereas when they bought the console, they didn't know they were going to have to make a choice like that.
The other thing would be the delay of broadcast. Shows in the US often has their broadcast in other countries delayed by weeks or even months. I honestly don't know if this is dictated by the content creators, that a station can only air the program after X date, or if the station decides to delay it themselves. I don't care for either excuse, but if it is the broadcasters imposing it on themselves, then having the show available online way before makes the broadcast rights much less valuable.
To be fair, it was mostly the Bush Administration simply not caring about anti-trust. Most regulatory agencies kinda had their teeth removed, so they couldn't really do anything anyway.
No, they can't, because the developer kit has conditions on what apps you are allowed to develop and install in the license, which you must explicitly agree to before you can download it.
This only applies to things you develop for distribution in their store. If you're going to just put it on your phone for you, or a few of your friends, it doesn't matter.
Because usually the assertion that, "Apple isn't very open" is accompanied by the assertion that MSFT is more open than Apple.
(Steve Jobs current mojo level in 1/2 litre units)
Also known as 1 Jobso.
I'm guessing they feel the licensing fees they get from the regional station for rebroadcast is more than they project they'd get from Hulu ad viewing (and presumably paid subscriptions). If they were to exclude internet broadcast, and bring Hulu to those countries, the amount they'd get from those regional stations would go way down.
For me, at least, its faster to watch something over Hulu than it is to wait however long for it to download from TPB or wherever. It may not be in pure HD, but its usually good enough for me. Now if I could pay $10, get access to the back catalog, and get higher quality streaming? I would be happy.
This is a good start, but it needs to go further. I probably wouldn't be interested in paying for every baseball game, but I would be interested in paying less just to receive the games of the teams I care about. Same thing with football. I'd be interested in DirecTV Sunday Ticket, but not if I have to pay however much it is for every team, when I only really care about Green Bay.
Perhaps. However, an ISP does have the right to change their terms of service and service offerings, like any other provider of a service. If you don't like the change, you find an alternative.
Why should they have this right? Why should any provider have this right?
So nobody should buy an iPad, even though they may feel that it's right for them, just so you can save $100?
Have a company provided phone? Odds are they can do this too. This is no different.
They don't have a monopoly over what gets sold on the iTunes store? They don't have a monopoly over iPads? iPhones?
By that vein, then Best Buy has a monopoly over what gets sold in Best Buy. And Microsoft has a monopoly over the Xbox.
On MP3 players. That's not smartphones. And they haven't abused their monopoly position like MS did. Microsoft told OEMs, "You can NOT install any other browser on this machine but ours." You can buy MP3s from anywhere and play them on the iPod as long as they don't have DRM.
That's because Microsoft abused their OS monopoly position to gain another monopoly in the browser market. Apple has yet to do so with using their iPod monopoly in the music sales market.
The dev agreement from day one has said no on political satire apps.
Or they could not use Flash. Any web designer worth their salt will realize that not everyone has Flash, and as such should gracefully degrade their site so it can still be usable without it.
Its been in the dev agreement from day one that apps like this are forbidden. Maybe if he'd have actually read the agreement, he would know that.
So wouldn't they just say, "It sucks" to every cartoon they didn't want to publish?
Their servers and distribution platform, for one.