Why not sue the developer, you know, the one that made the app, created a (presumably) deceptive money making scheme and made all of the actual money from these purchases.
Apple reviews the apps, takes a 30% cut from the purchases, and took until IOS 4.3 to add an option not to cache a password for 15 minutes. Apple also chose to enable in-app purchases (with the cached password) by defaut. Why not sue both?
Since iOS 3.1 was released on September 9, 2009, parents had the ability to turn OFF in-app purchases completely, and since iTunes 10 was released on September 1, 2010, parents could set up a separate "iTunes Allowance" account to allow children to learn about money, while not letting them (or game devs.) get their grubby little hands on more than $10-$50 PER MONTH.
So sorry, this suit is utterly and totally frivolous.
Isn't Apple effectively a partner with every developer on every app? Don't they get something like 30% of the app's price? Don't they have final say over which apps get sold?
No, they are, at best, a "retailer". That is a MUCH looser association than "Partner". Although I agree that when naming Respondents on a lawsuit, you generally name everyone.
But on that note, is/are the actual DEVELOPER of the game(s) named?
If NOT, then the attorneys are just going after the "deep pockets", and, considering that this person reportedly already had their in-app purchases refunded by Apple, this can be nothing other than lawyers making money for themselves, because the real winners in ANY Class Action lawsuit are the attorneys; not the actual "victims" (who usually get something like a $10 iTunes gift card).
I am just amazed that this was certified as a Class Action. Hopefully, it won't survive the first round of dispositive motions (Motions to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment).
So these days the world is full of these fremium apps and yet somehow that is apple's fault and not the fault of the people making the apps?
Why not sue the developer, you know, the one that made the app, created a (presumably) deceptive money making scheme and made all of the actual money from these purchases.
While I agree with you in principle, the Developer (like Apple) would (will) simply point to the many tools that the Parent had at his disposal to prevent or minimize his losses (iOS Parental Restrictions, iTunes Allowances), and that would pretty much be the end of that.
Douchebags like that need to be humiliated (if that is even possible) into shame for total lack of parental skills.
Wow, this is how an Apple fanboy thinks?
No, it's how a responsible adult thinks.
Only children naively think that there is someone there to protect them.
But wait! Apple actually DID put the tools in the PARENT's hands to "protect" them, and even better, to teach them about how "money" works. These tools were in place LONG before the little darling clicked her way to $200 of In-App purchases (in 15 minutes!!!) The kid knew EXACTLY what she was doing. It was the PARENT that CHOSE not to use the tools that Apple provided to prevent the "damages" from occurring in the first place.
That, my friend, is the very definition of "bad parenting".
Prior to the iOS 4.3 update in March 2011, there was a 15-minute grace period after you entered your password where you didn't have to enter it again. Following some complaints that were similar to this plaintiff's, Apple changed it so that there was an option to make passwords mandatory every time, rather than having a grace period. And if you did choose to keep the grace period enabled, they made it so that your first in-app purchase in that grace period would require you to re-enter the password.
Effectively, this closed the "hole" that the plaintiff's daughter used (well, to be fair, Apple can't fix bad parenting), wherein the parent downloaded an app, entered their password, and the child managed to ring up $200 worth of in-app purchases in 15 minutes or less. The plaintiff here filed suit in April 2011, shortly after the issue came to light in the press and after it had already been fixed by Apple.
April 2011??? Apple has allowed the restriction of In-App Purchases since iOS 3.1, which was released on September 9, 2009.
Not to mention that Apple also allows parents to actually TEACH kids something by having the PARENT set up an "iTunes Allowance" account. That has been allowed since iTunes 10 was released on September 1, 2010. These don't even have to be attached to ANY credit card (you "fill them up" with iTunes Gift Cards, IIRC). So, all of this is just asinine.
The parent is just LAZY and LITIGIOUS. Kinda par for the course these days, unfortunately...
By default, you only need to enter your password every 15 minutes in the iTunes app for purchases. This is convenient if you're buying a lot of apps (you don't have to keep entering your password over and over), but if you buy your kid the Smurf's Village app and then immediately hand him or her your phone, that kid has a 10-15 minute window to buy up all the Smurfberries he can click without having to enter in your password! And Smurfberries are surprisingly expensive.
Yeah, it stays logged in for about 15mins. This is probably a bodge to make it easier to re-try downloads that fail when, for example, Apple change the T+Cs on the App Store (every few weeks) and force you to accept new ones before you can download/update anything....
Apple released iOS 3.0 on June 17, 2009. iOS 3.1 (with had the in-app purchase restrictions) debuted on September 9, 2009. So, we're talking about THREE MONTHS, TOPS that Parents ONLY had the ability to hide their iOS Password from their kids.
Hell, Apple even allows a less-draconian option called "iTunes Allowance", which allows you, THE PARENT, to teach fiscal responsibility by allowing LIMITED iTunes purchases (there are also "content" restrictions to control this further).
Honestly, I really don't see how Apple could have been more responsible. They identified that perhaps some additional controls would be a good thing (over and above a Parent simply NOT GIVING THEIR PASSWORD OUT), and had a solution in PARENT'S hands in under three months. I think that is pretty damned good!
But that don't change the fact they shouldn't have been pushing these apps for kids. Do they think little Suzy has her own CC? If adults want to buy invisible property in some game? More power to 'em I say, I have a boy that pays $15 a month to be a fricking Bounty Hunter in that new Star Wars MMO. But these things are aimed at little kids and that just isn't right. if you want to sell them a game? Fine and dandy but the whole "bait apps" description sounds pretty right on to me. And if Apple wants to push iOS to the masses then maybe they should be a little more careful at what's aimed at kids huh?
Apple placed more than simply adequate Parental Controls into iOS. The parent(s) were just TOO FUCKING LAZY to use 'em. Period.
Have you no concept of adults, actual grown skilled professionals scamming children for their pocket, a beating is required but you are utterly wrong about the target.
This is no excuse adults setting out purposely to scam children. Reality here due to the cost of purchases credit card details should be required to be entered every time with emphasis on the amount of money being spent. Not euphemisms, buy bullshit berries with pretend credits (only those pretend credits are really pretend they are direct deductions from your parents credit card and in turn the loss of all your pocket money).
This is sick stuff, professional stealing children's lollipops in real life. It is mind boggling, can you imagine the meetings were psychologists, accounts, coders get togethor to create games to scam the pocket money from ten year olds. Each plotting more enticing, psychological manipulations to get the kids to press the pocket money wiping out button. "Yeah add that, that'll suck in the little rats","Oh Yeah, that'll get the little beggars competing","We need that to feed the little suckers egos so they spend big","We all gonna get rich scamming dumb kids pocket money, what a bunch of suckers, yuck, yuck ".
Seriously wake the fuck up to yourself, "ADULTS SCAMMING CHILDREN'S POCKET MONEY", what the fuck is the matter with you.
Welcome to the REAL world, bub. I think that this sort of conduct is reprehensible, too; but that doesn't automatically make it Apple's fault (which is the point of the lawsuit).
I trust that Apple's lawyers will be able to quickly demonstrate that iOS has measures in-place to stop this, but the parent simply didn't bother.
To use a gruesome car analogy: If you don't put your child in the safety seat and make sure the seatbelt is used, is it the car-makers' fault if your kid flies out the window in a crash?
And does it rise to the level of a "Class-Action" if a thousand parents refuse to use the seatbelts that the manufacturer supplies, and all have children that fly out the window in car accidents? Should the manufacturer simply remove all windows from every one of their vehicles?
The game does not have to tell you that it is going to charge your account. It simply asks for a password.
1. I have never seen an iOS in-app purchase confirm dialog that wasn't quite explicit about charges.
2. Perhaps this is a chance for the child to learn that you don't just enter your password without thinking.
3. Perhaps this is a chance for the parent to learn a little about iOS security; which, if the parent had bothered to become familiar with their device, has completely adequate security measures to avoid this sort of thing, including, but certainly not limited to, restricting in-app purchases, and even adjusting the "password timeout".
At some point, the parent has to act like a responsible adult, and not just blame poor parenting and willful ignorance on a company who has instituted measures to prevent children from racking up bills on the parent's credit card.
This lawsuit is entirely frivolous. If this had happened on Android, slashdotters would have said "Well, the app said it wanted permissions to allow in-app purchases when it installed..." or some such.
More Slashdot Click-bait. Bad Slashdot! Bad! No, No, No!
it feels drastically different and alien to my US way of thinking. As terjeber points out, making it easy to fire someone makes it easier to hire someone and the 'creative destruction' is beneficial for an economy.
As the victim of a wholly unjust "lay off" in January, 2009, that put me out of work until re-hired by another former employer in June, 2011 (three months AFTER the last of my unemployment insurance was depleted), I couldn't agree less.
I was absolutely not a "do-nothing" employee; but simply because the company I worked for hired a Director of Engineering who just happened to be a church-mate and personal friend of the President of the Corp., and because that new Dir. of Engineering did not like embedded designs in general (mind you, this was an industrial-controls company whose product line was over HALF embedded designs), I got laid-off. And because the President of the Corp. was buddies with the Dir. of Eng., he just stood back and let it happen.
I might add that a look at their website since I was laid-off shows not ONE new embedded product has made it to market since my departure, so I wonder how this ultimately even benefitted the corporation's owners, either...
So, because I went from being a productive member of society, to being a $400 a week DRAIN on the state, then federal, government, please tell me how that is in ANY way "Beneficial for[sic] an economy."?
This is different from most countries in Europe, where the law basically assumes that the employer-employee is in a exploitative relationship with the employer exploiting the employee.
Or, in other words, like the way it really is...
I am with you that some laws in Europe are pretty silly (and, BTW, Europe certainly isn't alone in that regard. All one has to do is examine U.S. drug policy for some real knee-slappers); and that some of the European employee-protection law go a little far; but "employment at will", which ignores the inherent inequity of the employer-employee relationship, is certainly not grounded in "reality" or "adulthood" or even that illusory "freedom" we Americans used to be so proud of, either...
The ease of firing someone also increases the risk you are willing to take in hiring someone since they are easier to get rid of. If when you hire someone it is made very difficult to fire them then you are less likely to hire them in the first place thus leading to higher unemployment.
Hahahahaha!
It might make it more difficult for an individual with borderline credentials to get a job, but it would NOT lead to more unemployment. If a company decides it needs to "staff a position", that need doesn't go away just because they have to be more careful in hiring. Afterall, even in states where employment-at-will is (wisely) NOT in play, a worker can still be fired for cause.
What we REALLY need is a "deputy" who performs the same job that the person who decides if you were "fired for just cause" (and thus ineligible to receive unemployment compensation), but instead of THAT decision, that "deputy" (what they are called here in Indiana; you can substitute a more generic term, like Ombudsman) would be able to force the corporation to keep from firing you in the first place.
This would also further the people's goal of keeping unemployment down, and the monetary and staffing burden to the state and federal unemployment insurance programs.
Not many changes that can bring a WIN-WIN-WIN, but THAT would.
This is a government job. If it was private sector, there's whistleblower laws and the likes to make employers at least try to find another excuse to fire people.
AFAIK, "Whistleblower" laws apply to government jobs, and ESPECIALLY government contractor jobs, like most of the TSA worker jobs.
This person has a pretty good lawsuit against the fuckface contractor she worked for, employment-at-will or not.
I can believe that, take something as simple as the iPad Smart Cover... it's a very simple folding cover with a couple magnets, yet they want $40/70 for that, buying an extra official cable or charger is also hilariously expensive. Or just look up the prices on the 16/32/64 GB versions of an iPad and compare with the hardware costs, you don't pay $100 for another 16GB anywhere but Apple. Nor to you pay $130 to add a 3G/4G connection, you get complete 3G/4G routers for less than $100. Personally I bought the iPad 16GB wifi-only for $399 recently and I think it was worth it for the excellent display, but all my accessories are 3rd party. Compared to what I've seen with friends that's where they rake in the big bucks.
So, I guess it's just an accident that no one can sell a tablet with equivalent features to an iPad (I notice you bought one, too) for less than an iPad? Apple must really be gouging, then!
Oh, and it's a newsflash that companies make insane profits on "accessories"? How many HP laptops come with a power supply that will cost $70 to replace from HP? My old Nokia phone's car charger cost me $30 from the AT&T store, just because Nokia used a proprietary connector. Yet there weren't hand-wringing Slashdot articles complaining about those insane profits...
I, too, use third-party Chinese junk accessories whenever possible; but don't single-out Apple for doing what every single manufacturer does with "Accessory" sales.
What I'm incredulous about is the fact that Apple users spend an average of more than $600 on apps & markup.
You should be incredulous. Because it simply cannot be true.
I have nearly 2/3 of my 32GB iPhone's memory full of apps. Real apps. And I would be quite surprised to find that I had spent even $100 on those apps. Most apps are in the free to $5 range, with the average far closer to the "free" end. I think I have one app I paid $10 for, and another that I paid $15 for.
As far as "markup" goes, you do realize, of course, that no one actually sells phones at a loss, right? But especially in the U.S., it is nearly impossible to figure out what you are REALLY paying to any particular cellphone; so talk of "markup" are speculative, at best. Again, regardless of platform, manufacturer, or carrier.
So, that mythical $600 figure is just that: Mythical.
Morse is still the most reliable modulation. Especially through interference. It's also the simplest to build a transmitter/receiver for. As a such it's great in emergency situations which is why Morse operators are still somewhat sought after.
The whole idea of Android is provide Google with access to a market from which it would otherwise be excluded.
Furthermore, as a user, if I care at all about the profits that those companies providing technologies make, my interests lie much more in one that does not make 575$ in profit on a phone it sells me.
That is the whole idea of "opening" technologies, and actively investing markets that are on the verge of closing them.
On this one, I would hope that Google makes more than 2$ on each phone it sells, so that I am not left at the whims of Apple.
No, instead you'd rather be left at the whims of Google and your carrier.
And rooting/jailbreaking doesn't count. What counts is what ships on the phone; because not 1 user in 10,000 has the interest, or the ability, to root/jailbreak their phones, regardless of platform.
Considering that microsoft makes $5 per device on andriod google is getting screwed.
Also how is apple doubling their money on devices? Carrier subsidies shouldnt be paying that much to the manufactuerer.
Well, the main way that the article is claiming a doubling of money on Apple's part is to be based on ANOTHER Slashdot article (from 2007, no less), that utterly ignored the cost of the iPhone itself.
No they don't. That's a Samung phone. Google don't manufacture it, contract it for manufacturing, handle it nor sell it. The only thing they make on it is the standard licensing fees for Android that they make from any other phone that carries the Android trademark.
Google just used it as a flagship for a particular version of Android. That's why it' singled out on the Google site.
Got a copy of the contract between Google and Samsung? If not, you're talking out your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple reviews the apps, takes a 30% cut from the purchases, and took until IOS 4.3 to add an option not to cache a password for 15 minutes. Apple also chose to enable in-app purchases (with the cached password) by defaut. Why not sue both?
Since iOS 3.1 was released on September 9, 2009, parents had the ability to turn OFF in-app purchases completely, and since iTunes 10 was released on September 1, 2010, parents could set up a separate "iTunes Allowance" account to allow children to learn about money, while not letting them (or game devs.) get their grubby little hands on more than $10-$50 PER MONTH.
So sorry, this suit is utterly and totally frivolous.
Isn't Apple effectively a partner with every developer on every app? Don't they get something like 30% of the app's price? Don't they have final say over which apps get sold?
No, they are, at best, a "retailer". That is a MUCH looser association than "Partner". Although I agree that when naming Respondents on a lawsuit, you generally name everyone.
But on that note, is/are the actual DEVELOPER of the game(s) named?
If NOT, then the attorneys are just going after the "deep pockets", and, considering that this person reportedly already had their in-app purchases refunded by Apple, this can be nothing other than lawyers making money for themselves, because the real winners in ANY Class Action lawsuit are the attorneys; not the actual "victims" (who usually get something like a $10 iTunes gift card).
I am just amazed that this was certified as a Class Action. Hopefully, it won't survive the first round of dispositive motions (Motions to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment).
So these days the world is full of these fremium apps and yet somehow that is apple's fault and not the fault of the people making the apps?
Why not sue the developer, you know, the one that made the app, created a (presumably) deceptive money making scheme and made all of the actual money from these purchases.
While I agree with you in principle, the Developer (like Apple) would (will) simply point to the many tools that the Parent had at his disposal to prevent or minimize his losses (iOS Parental Restrictions, iTunes Allowances), and that would pretty much be the end of that.
My iPhone will not run the 4.3 "fix". Apple abandoned older models for "security" updates, but claims the fix is available.
Nice try. The update in 4.3 just made it more CONVENIENT for the PARENT. Apple has allowed the PARENT to restrict In-App purchases since iOS 3.1 was released on September 9, 2009. And iTunes 10, which was released on September 1, 2010, has allowed , which don't even have to be attached to ANY Credit Card, and are ADDITIONALLY restricted to a PARENTALLY-SET maximum of $10 to $50 per month.
So, STFU. You have PLENTY of tools at your disposal to prevent this. The fact that you can't update to use one MORE tool is of absolutely no moment.
Douchebags like that need to be humiliated (if that is even possible) into shame for total lack of parental skills.
Wow, this is how an Apple fanboy thinks?
No, it's how a responsible adult thinks.
Only children naively think that there is someone there to protect them.
But wait! Apple actually DID put the tools in the PARENT's hands to "protect" them, and even better, to teach them about how "money" works. These tools were in place LONG before the little darling clicked her way to $200 of In-App purchases (in 15 minutes!!!) The kid knew EXACTLY what she was doing. It was the PARENT that CHOSE not to use the tools that Apple provided to prevent the "damages" from occurring in the first place.
That, my friend, is the very definition of "bad parenting".
Prior to the iOS 4.3 update in March 2011, there was a 15-minute grace period after you entered your password where you didn't have to enter it again. Following some complaints that were similar to this plaintiff's, Apple changed it so that there was an option to make passwords mandatory every time, rather than having a grace period. And if you did choose to keep the grace period enabled, they made it so that your first in-app purchase in that grace period would require you to re-enter the password.
Effectively, this closed the "hole" that the plaintiff's daughter used (well, to be fair, Apple can't fix bad parenting), wherein the parent downloaded an app, entered their password, and the child managed to ring up $200 worth of in-app purchases in 15 minutes or less. The plaintiff here filed suit in April 2011, shortly after the issue came to light in the press and after it had already been fixed by Apple.
April 2011??? Apple has allowed the restriction of In-App Purchases since iOS 3.1, which was released on September 9, 2009.
Not to mention that Apple also allows parents to actually TEACH kids something by having the PARENT set up an "iTunes Allowance" account. That has been allowed since iTunes 10 was released on September 1, 2010. These don't even have to be attached to ANY credit card (you "fill them up" with iTunes Gift Cards, IIRC). So, all of this is just asinine. The parent is just LAZY and LITIGIOUS. Kinda par for the course these days, unfortunately...
Yes and no.
By default, you only need to enter your password every 15 minutes in the iTunes app for purchases. This is convenient if you're buying a lot of apps (you don't have to keep entering your password over and over), but if you buy your kid the Smurf's Village app and then immediately hand him or her your phone, that kid has a 10-15 minute window to buy up all the Smurfberries he can click without having to enter in your password! And Smurfberries are surprisingly expensive.
That's YOUR fault for not changing the DEFAULT (which is more like 2 minutes, not 15, anyway).
Yeah, it stays logged in for about 15mins. This is probably a bodge to make it easier to re-try downloads that fail when, for example, Apple change the T+Cs on the App Store (every few weeks) and force you to accept new ones before you can download/update anything....
You can change that timeout, ya know...
It does so... now. It didn't in the past, which is presumably when this occurred.
How far back? iOS has had Parental Restrictions on In-App Purchases nearly from the beginning.
iOS 3.0 introduced In-App Purchases. These still required a Password, but there might have been no other "Restriction".
iOS 3.1 introduced In-App Purchase Restrictions. (See pg. 146 of the user manual PDF).
Apple released iOS 3.0 on June 17, 2009. iOS 3.1 (with had the in-app purchase restrictions) debuted on September 9, 2009. So, we're talking about THREE MONTHS, TOPS that Parents ONLY had the ability to hide their iOS Password from their kids. Hell, Apple even allows a less-draconian option called "iTunes Allowance", which allows you, THE PARENT, to teach fiscal responsibility by allowing LIMITED iTunes purchases (there are also "content" restrictions to control this further).
Honestly, I really don't see how Apple could have been more responsible. They identified that perhaps some additional controls would be a good thing (over and above a Parent simply NOT GIVING THEIR PASSWORD OUT), and had a solution in PARENT'S hands in under three months. I think that is pretty damned good!
There should be an easy way in settings to ban all in-ap purchases (not a new password, but just flat ban them),
You mean like THIS?
But that don't change the fact they shouldn't have been pushing these apps for kids. Do they think little Suzy has her own CC? If adults want to buy invisible property in some game? More power to 'em I say, I have a boy that pays $15 a month to be a fricking Bounty Hunter in that new Star Wars MMO. But these things are aimed at little kids and that just isn't right. if you want to sell them a game? Fine and dandy but the whole "bait apps" description sounds pretty right on to me. And if Apple wants to push iOS to the masses then maybe they should be a little more careful at what's aimed at kids huh?
Apple placed more than simply adequate Parental Controls into iOS. The parent(s) were just TOO FUCKING LAZY to use 'em. Period.
Have you no concept of adults, actual grown skilled professionals scamming children for their pocket, a beating is required but you are utterly wrong about the target.
This is no excuse adults setting out purposely to scam children. Reality here due to the cost of purchases credit card details should be required to be entered every time with emphasis on the amount of money being spent. Not euphemisms, buy bullshit berries with pretend credits (only those pretend credits are really pretend they are direct deductions from your parents credit card and in turn the loss of all your pocket money).
This is sick stuff, professional stealing children's lollipops in real life. It is mind boggling, can you imagine the meetings were psychologists, accounts, coders get togethor to create games to scam the pocket money from ten year olds. Each plotting more enticing, psychological manipulations to get the kids to press the pocket money wiping out button. "Yeah add that, that'll suck in the little rats","Oh Yeah, that'll get the little beggars competing","We need that to feed the little suckers egos so they spend big","We all gonna get rich scamming dumb kids pocket money, what a bunch of suckers, yuck, yuck ".
Seriously wake the fuck up to yourself, "ADULTS SCAMMING CHILDREN'S POCKET MONEY", what the fuck is the matter with you.
Welcome to the REAL world, bub. I think that this sort of conduct is reprehensible, too; but that doesn't automatically make it Apple's fault (which is the point of the lawsuit).
Apple gave the PARENT the tools to completely and effectively prevent this from happening, but the PARENT utterly failed in their PARENTAL responsibility. There is no other answer that comports with reality.
I trust that Apple's lawyers will be able to quickly demonstrate that iOS has measures in-place to stop this, but the parent simply didn't bother.
To use a gruesome car analogy: If you don't put your child in the safety seat and make sure the seatbelt is used, is it the car-makers' fault if your kid flies out the window in a crash?
And does it rise to the level of a "Class-Action" if a thousand parents refuse to use the seatbelts that the manufacturer supplies, and all have children that fly out the window in car accidents? Should the manufacturer simply remove all windows from every one of their vehicles?
The game does not have to tell you that it is going to charge your account. It simply asks for a password.
1. I have never seen an iOS in-app purchase confirm dialog that wasn't quite explicit about charges.
2. Perhaps this is a chance for the child to learn that you don't just enter your password without thinking.
3. Perhaps this is a chance for the parent to learn a little about iOS security; which, if the parent had bothered to become familiar with their device, has completely adequate security measures to avoid this sort of thing, including, but certainly not limited to, restricting in-app purchases, and even adjusting the "password timeout".
At some point, the parent has to act like a responsible adult, and not just blame poor parenting and willful ignorance on a company who has instituted measures to prevent children from racking up bills on the parent's credit card.
This lawsuit is entirely frivolous. If this had happened on Android, slashdotters would have said "Well, the app said it wanted permissions to allow in-app purchases when it installed..." or some such.
More Slashdot Click-bait. Bad Slashdot! Bad! No, No, No!
Just saying...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Chertoff,_official_DHS_photo_portrait,_2007.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1968-101-20A,_Joseph_Goebbels.jpg
I dunno about Goebbels, but I DO think he looks like a Bald Eagle. Seriously.
it feels drastically different and alien to my US way of thinking. As terjeber points out, making it easy to fire someone makes it easier to hire someone and the 'creative destruction' is beneficial for an economy.
As the victim of a wholly unjust "lay off" in January, 2009, that put me out of work until re-hired by another former employer in June, 2011 (three months AFTER the last of my unemployment insurance was depleted), I couldn't agree less.
I was absolutely not a "do-nothing" employee; but simply because the company I worked for hired a Director of Engineering who just happened to be a church-mate and personal friend of the President of the Corp., and because that new Dir. of Engineering did not like embedded designs in general (mind you, this was an industrial-controls company whose product line was over HALF embedded designs), I got laid-off. And because the President of the Corp. was buddies with the Dir. of Eng., he just stood back and let it happen.
I might add that a look at their website since I was laid-off shows not ONE new embedded product has made it to market since my departure, so I wonder how this ultimately even benefitted the corporation's owners, either...
So, because I went from being a productive member of society, to being a $400 a week DRAIN on the state, then federal, government, please tell me how that is in ANY way "Beneficial for[sic] an economy."?
This is different from most countries in Europe, where the law basically assumes that the employer-employee is in a exploitative relationship with the employer exploiting the employee.
Or, in other words, like the way it really is...
I am with you that some laws in Europe are pretty silly (and, BTW, Europe certainly isn't alone in that regard. All one has to do is examine U.S. drug policy for some real knee-slappers); and that some of the European employee-protection law go a little far; but "employment at will", which ignores the inherent inequity of the employer-employee relationship, is certainly not grounded in "reality" or "adulthood" or even that illusory "freedom" we Americans used to be so proud of, either...
The ease of firing someone also increases the risk you are willing to take in hiring someone since they are easier to get rid of. If when you hire someone it is made very difficult to fire them then you are less likely to hire them in the first place thus leading to higher unemployment.
Hahahahaha!
It might make it more difficult for an individual with borderline credentials to get a job, but it would NOT lead to more unemployment. If a company decides it needs to "staff a position", that need doesn't go away just because they have to be more careful in hiring. Afterall, even in states where employment-at-will is (wisely) NOT in play, a worker can still be fired for cause.
What we REALLY need is a "deputy" who performs the same job that the person who decides if you were "fired for just cause" (and thus ineligible to receive unemployment compensation), but instead of THAT decision, that "deputy" (what they are called here in Indiana; you can substitute a more generic term, like Ombudsman) would be able to force the corporation to keep from firing you in the first place.
This would also further the people's goal of keeping unemployment down, and the monetary and staffing burden to the state and federal unemployment insurance programs.
Not many changes that can bring a WIN-WIN-WIN, but THAT would.
This is a government job. If it was private sector, there's whistleblower laws and the likes to make employers at least try to find another excuse to fire people.
AFAIK, "Whistleblower" laws apply to government jobs, and ESPECIALLY government contractor jobs, like most of the TSA worker jobs.
This person has a pretty good lawsuit against the fuckface contractor she worked for, employment-at-will or not.
This article compares Apple, a hardware maker, with Google and Android, who provides software to hardware makers? How is that a fair comparison?
It isn't. But when all you're doing is click-whoring, who needs "fair"?
I can believe that, take something as simple as the iPad Smart Cover... it's a very simple folding cover with a couple magnets, yet they want $40/70 for that, buying an extra official cable or charger is also hilariously expensive. Or just look up the prices on the 16/32/64 GB versions of an iPad and compare with the hardware costs, you don't pay $100 for another 16GB anywhere but Apple. Nor to you pay $130 to add a 3G/4G connection, you get complete 3G/4G routers for less than $100. Personally I bought the iPad 16GB wifi-only for $399 recently and I think it was worth it for the excellent display, but all my accessories are 3rd party. Compared to what I've seen with friends that's where they rake in the big bucks.
So, I guess it's just an accident that no one can sell a tablet with equivalent features to an iPad (I notice you bought one, too) for less than an iPad? Apple must really be gouging, then!
Oh, and it's a newsflash that companies make insane profits on "accessories"? How many HP laptops come with a power supply that will cost $70 to replace from HP? My old Nokia phone's car charger cost me $30 from the AT&T store, just because Nokia used a proprietary connector. Yet there weren't hand-wringing Slashdot articles complaining about those insane profits...
I, too, use third-party Chinese junk accessories whenever possible; but don't single-out Apple for doing what every single manufacturer does with "Accessory" sales.
What I'm incredulous about is the fact that Apple users spend an average of more than $600 on apps & markup.
You should be incredulous. Because it simply cannot be true.
I have nearly 2/3 of my 32GB iPhone's memory full of apps. Real apps. And I would be quite surprised to find that I had spent even $100 on those apps. Most apps are in the free to $5 range, with the average far closer to the "free" end. I think I have one app I paid $10 for, and another that I paid $15 for.
As far as "markup" goes, you do realize, of course, that no one actually sells phones at a loss, right? But especially in the U.S., it is nearly impossible to figure out what you are REALLY paying to any particular cellphone; so talk of "markup" are speculative, at best. Again, regardless of platform, manufacturer, or carrier.
So, that mythical $600 figure is just that: Mythical.
Morse is still the most reliable modulation. Especially through interference. It's also the simplest to build a transmitter/receiver for. As a such it's great in emergency situations which is why Morse operators are still somewhat sought after.
Not to mention when the aliens invade!
The whole idea of Android is provide Google with access to a market from which it would otherwise be excluded.
Furthermore, as a user, if I care at all about the profits that those companies providing technologies make, my interests lie much more in one that does not make 575$ in profit on a phone it sells me.
That is the whole idea of "opening" technologies, and actively investing markets that are on the verge of closing them.
On this one, I would hope that Google makes more than 2$ on each phone it sells, so that I am not left at the whims of Apple.
No, instead you'd rather be left at the whims of Google and your carrier.
And rooting/jailbreaking doesn't count. What counts is what ships on the phone; because not 1 user in 10,000 has the interest, or the ability, to root/jailbreak their phones, regardless of platform.
Considering that microsoft makes $5 per device on andriod google is getting screwed.
Also how is apple doubling their money on devices? Carrier subsidies shouldnt be paying that much to the manufactuerer.
Well, the main way that the article is claiming a doubling of money on Apple's part is to be based on ANOTHER Slashdot article (from 2007, no less), that utterly ignored the cost of the iPhone itself.
No they don't. That's a Samung phone. Google don't manufacture it, contract it for manufacturing, handle it nor sell it. The only thing they make on it is the standard licensing fees for Android that they make from any other phone that carries the Android trademark.
Google just used it as a flagship for a particular version of Android. That's why it' singled out on the Google site.
Got a copy of the contract between Google and Samsung? If not, you're talking out your ass.