Planetfurry BBS Forum Index Planetfurry BBS
Forums for Planetfurry Site Members and more
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   DonateDonate   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HAAAA!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Planetfurry BBS Forum Index -> Everyday blither-blather
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ryan Fox
Registered User


Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: Cape Town South Africa

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote




Hmmm iPod's are supposed to last 2yrs at most 3 ... still have my 3rg gen and its still alive! Holds a good charge for an 'ancient' iPod.... Now to get that iPad everyone's talking about ^^

If you want evil you should bark up Sun Microsystems tree


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger Skype Name
Hawke
Registered User


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 175
Location: Hickory Hills, IL (Near Chicago)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anything in particular wrong with Java?
_________________
"It's kind of like if you combined The Wizard of Oz and Reign of Fire...and Jonathan Livingston Seagull."

"^HuK'D aWN FoNYCs WuRKD 4 MEEEEEE!!!!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Xaqtly
Registered User


Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 442
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
Why does Apple get away with behavior that not even the Evil Microsoft would think of?


Let's put a stop to this before it gets out of hand. First of all that article you linked came from Cracked magazine. In case you don't know what Cracked is, their header says it all: "America's only humor and video site since 1958", which in itself is supposed to be funny. If you take any of their articles seriously, you're not getting it.

As to the article itself:

#5: " Apple sells iPods and iPhones that play music purchased in their iTunes store."

No. Apple sells iPods and iPhones that CAN play music purchased in the iTunes store. They can also play music purchased from any OTHER store, as well as music ripped from your own CDs or any other source you choose. Additionally, music you buy from iTunes is in standard non-DRM AAC format, which can be played by any other player that supports AAC - which is a lot of them. Including the Zune.

Funny how that article didn't mention any of that.

"Say you want to buy an iPhone. If your town isn't on one of the postcards Luke Wilson reads in the AT&T wireless commercials, you're going to have to "jailbreak" your new gadget."

No. The wireless commercials, as everybody is probably aware by now, is only referring to 3G coverage specifically. iPhones also work on EDGE, which is available across something in the high 90th percentile of the US. Just like Verizon, Cracked is trying to make it sound like if you're not in a 3G area, the phone stops working.

"Again, manufacturers of other cell phones and gadgets generally don't care what customers do once they've paid for their products with good, honest credit card debt. But Apple goes beyond complaining. They will actively break your shit for disobeying their arbitrary rules."

Also wrong, and misleading. We're not talking about cell phone manufacturers here, we're talking about carriers. In fact the same exact thing goes for the Motorola Droid, which is only available on Verizon. And the Palm Pre, which is only available on Sprint. And pretty much every other smartphone in the US. People just love to make it sound like the iPhone is the only one in this situation.

Let's not forget that the iPhone is actually available on dozens of carriers around the world - just not in the US. Exactly the same as almost every other smartphone in the US. That's because the carriers here enjoy monopolies, and that is something that has nothing to do with Apple or the iPhone. As far as breaking jailbroken phones, the reasoning is pretty simple. When the iPhone gets an update, the update replaces the firmware in the phone. The whole thing. That's why jailbroken phones break.

They have to replace the whole thing because that's the nature of firmware. There is absolutely nothing sinister about it.

#4: Yes, Apple cracked down on a leak. They've always done that. People sign NDAs, you know what those are, right? They exist for a reason. Have you seen what happened to the smartphone market after the iPhone came out? Does anybody remember what smartphones were like before the iPhone came out? They were terrible. Apple protects their inside information carefully for a good reason, and it's to prevent leaks like that.

Every other company in the segment also has NDAs that people have to sign. Why is Apple different? Why is Apple ostracized for protecting their inside info? Oh right, because nobody cares what Dell is coming out with next.

#3: Ah yes, the Chinese worker. Once again Apple is being blamed for Foxconn's policies. Do people just not get that Foxconn is a Chinese company, and that Apple has nothing to do with their internal policies? I'm not sure how it's possible to make the leap in logic required to blame Apple for what happened there. "But Apple buys stuff from them!" Yes, and so do hundreds of other companies.

Insinuating Apple was directly responsible for that is... well, it's mind-bogglingly stupid. Seriously.

#2: And now we come to the part where it's implied that Apple shouldn't be allowed to set policies for their own app store. I don't think anybody is perfect, least of all Apple - but this is ridiculous. Just as with everything else Apple or any other company owns, if you own it you can set policy on it. So why is Apple being singled out for it? Well that's easy. People love to hate Apple. It's not because of any actual good reasons.

It's their device and infrastructure, they can set the policy. The end. Why is that simple concept so hard for people to understand? Sure, their policy isn't perfect, but for the vast, VAST majority of the time, it's fine. It seems like people forget why Apple does the app store the way they do - until you go to the Android store and see what a complete mess it is. People also like to conveniently forget that Apple weeds out all the spam apps for you so you don't have to deal with them. There are a lot of advantages to doing it the way Apple does it - and clearly you can be successful with it - but people only like to remember the few incidents where it backfired.

And then harp on it for years.

#1: "Apple stuck a copy of Safari into a routine update for iTunes". Which they later rescinded. All the complaining about that was pretty ridiculous, considering using Safari is and always was completely optional, and that like every other normal application, it's entirely inactive until you open it. It's just a web browser people, get over it.

Calling it malware is frankly bordering on retardation. You would literally have to be brain damaged or in some way mentally incapacitated to call Safari "malware". Well either that or you would have to just be completely ignorant as to what malware actually is. I'm not sure which the author of this article is, but it's got to be one or the other.

And the patent about the unskippable ads - Oh you mean like the ones that run on Zune apps? Yeah. It's just a patent application. It hasn't been awarded, and it obviously hasn't been implemented. And if unskippable ads were such a big deal, why isn't anybody complaining about them on DVDs? Or in movie theaters? Or on Zune apps, or in shareware/freeware, or in any of the hundreds of places you're going to see unskippable ads?

Well once again, I'd have to say that it's because the word "Apple" was mentioned. The hypocrisy and double standards are shocking, but not unexpected. I mean does it even need to be pointed out that Apple not only is not running unskippable ads anywhere, but doesn't have a patent on them either? While those same ads are already out there in dozens of other places, and you see them every day but they're not a big deal somehow?

I mean not a big deal until the word Apple is mentioned. THEN they're a big deal. Right?

The bottom line is this: If you're taking an article from a humor magazine as absolute truth, you should probably reconsider.

As far as the rest of the comments in this thread, come on. The App store is open to any developer who wants to pay the $99 fee to get in. How is that stifling competition? How can you possibly be preventing competition by allowing anybody to join up?

Regarding touchscreen patents, these patents don't just say "touchscreens" - it's specific implementations that are patented, not touchscreen technology in general. Furthermore, Apple is not the only company who has touchscreen patents; obviously they don't think they "own" touchscreen technology.

Then there's this: "Oh, and remember that kerfuffle back then when Microsoft shoved IE in Windows in an effort to squash competing browsers? Apple is sticking Safari in I-Tunes. Whether you like it or not. "

There was a lot more to it than that. Microsoft integrated IE into the OPERATING SYSTEM, literally meaning that if you removed IE, your operating system would BREAK. THAT is why they were successfully sued for anti-competition. Try removing Safari and see if your OS breaks.

And finally, the whole "Apple is evil" thing - I don't really have to comment on that, do I?

Again, I don't think Apple is perfect. I think some of their policies could be a lot better, but at the same time I know for a fact they're not as bad as some people seem to think they are. All of these accusations are easily debunked using facts, and that should tell you something about the nature of this bizarre Apple hate.

I come here to set things straight because Apple is one of the things I know very well. I've been working with Apple stuff for about 25 years now, and in fact it is my actual job to know this stuff these days. And no, I don't work for Apple. I'm not interested in having a flame war about it though, because I consider you guys my friends and this just isn't important enough to get all worked up about. They're just a computer company, and nobody is forcing you to buy their stuff.

_________________
Changed my name to Kantaro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Rifts980
Registered User


Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 200
Location: Orbiting around a point just to left of four seconds in the future

PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apple is for people who cannot compute.
_________________
The Banana is in the Package. Irish need not apply for winter solstice, we are full. I'm in your operations, changing your views.

CW4adfrw A+ C- D+ H+++ M--- P+++ R++ T+++ W Sm- RLLW a- cn++ e+ f h* iw+++ p+++ sm-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While it's true the story on Cracked.com is kind of outdated, it's actually some serious insight. And it was supposed to be a serious one. Otherwise they would have made up impossible factoids. It's a rant.

For example:

Music: Cracked.com never said that the Iphone and Ipod *ONLY* play music purchased from the I-Tunes store. They are saying that Apple/AT&T actively hunts down and deactivates hardware that doesn't play the way they want it, even if they don't own that hardware.

Companies cracking down on leaks? Fine. Microsoft suing or shutting down a website that is handing out copies or keys of Win7 is reasonable. Someone reporting on a simple firewire box, through a source, does NOT warrant getting slapped with a lawsuit. Instead of finding out and getting whoever leaked the info, from within them, they go and shoot the reporter who got that info. ("No Freedom of the press for you! Talk, or face us in court!"). It's always been like that, and it will keep on being like that. That's what investigative journalism has always been about. But Apple is crying foul and throwing a tantrum on what other manufacturers simply roll their eyes on and sigh. Heard of Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, Verizon, Sony, Panasonic, Microsoft, Sega or Nintendo pulling one of those, recently? Or is Apple the only one that gets stuff (A firewire breakout box, for crying out loud) leaked? It's not like everyone and their grandma went and designed their own version of that firewire box, after the leak. It doesn't seem that the reporter was the one who signed the NDA. Otherwise he would have been in hot water when it got to litigation. And rightfully so.

The update breaking the phone:

Okay, if installing the new update made a jailbroken Iphone go back to it's locked-to-AT&T status, I'd shut up. But actually *BRICKING* the hardware? Overkill. (Apple and AT&T trying to do vendor/carrier lock-in? Naaaah. No. Never. Them? Nope. No sir. No. Nah-ah.)


I'll give you the Chinese worker shenanigans. Fully agreed: It was Foxconn's policy, not Apple's. Good to see that the unethical and inhumane treatment of a person hasn't gotten in the way of their relationship with them. (Sarcasm. And I myself don't buy Foxconn stuff anymore, after hearing of such treatment. When I first heard it, I was unaware it was related to the Apple leak, to be fair.)

Policies for the Application Store. (I refuse to call them "Apps". It's marketing and it's probably because it's the first letters of their company name.) By the same token, why should I have to use what Apple thinks is right for me to use, on the hardware that I bought and own? It's my hardware, I decide what I run on it, even if it means having to jailbreak my phone, and not using their store. Apple? Vendor lock-in? Naaaaaaaaaah. Im-possible.

On the other hand, I have to be grateful they police the store so horrid things like the Kama-Sutra don't distract me from getting my Baby Shaker fix. (They only had to get called out in order to remove it... after they obviously reviewed and approved it in the first place.) And we all know that the applications like Google Voice are just downright EVIL, and are powered by the cries of a thousand tortured innocent souls. unjustly murdered in their very birthdays, and that's why Apple banned it. The fact that it did something better than their own programs (which is exactly what competition is about) had absolutely nothing to do with it. ("Dey took er jebs!"). Does Microsoft send out updates that disable Thunderbird in favor of Outlook? Or Winamp in favor of WMP? Do they deny developers of those programs access to their developer kits because they "duplicate the functionality of an already existing one"? Apple has. When it comes to someone out-performing Apple's own stuff, and them blocking such program from being released, it's "quality control", not "stiffling competition". And me playing hooky from work was "refocusing my priorities". Not "being lazy". (Or maybe Google didn't want to pay the 99-dollar entry fee.) I don't think the FCC is being involved in an investigation just because Apple won't let Google play on their hopscotch grid.

Agreed. Going as far as calling Safari "malware" was retarded. And so was shoving it on every installation of I-tunes. If it had been optional, fine. Sony got heat for putting the XCP rootkit in some of their audio CDs (google this so you get an idea what the issue was.). They argued it was to make sure that their Intellectual (*snicker*) rights were protected. They complied after they got ridiculed all over the net. Apple had to get called out in a similar way to come to their senses. Now. Until they recanted, was there any way to get Itunes without Safari? They were guilty of the same sin as MS, though at a lesser extent. (I admit I had my facts partially wrong. They are not doing it anymore.)

Unskippable ads: Any wonder why the Zune isn't selling like hotcakes? However, I can rip out the prohibited user operations of any DVD I own and legally copy. But even if I left them, no ad is going to stop my movie and force me to acknowledge having seen it, lest my DVD/Blu Ray or feature presentation stops or shuts down if I don't comply. Apple's implementation borders on Orwellian. (Which is probably why it won't fly.)

In a word, it's not who they are, but what they do, and how they do it. And then they dare to advertise themselves as being better than Microsoft (Yes, they are evil and I'd have a hard time wanting to pull their personnel out of the rubble if their headquarters crumbled in a quake.), while they do *exactly* the same things that have gotten Microsoft and other companies in legal trouble, expecting that the loyalty of their customers will blind them to the fact.

I've called out Sony (longtime die-hard Minidisc fan) on the Sony Insider forums I mod at, as did many other people around the Net. They learned their lesson and stopped imposing unrealistic DRM restrictions on our digital recordings (Not claiming it was because of me.). I bitched at Sega for forcing players of the Phantasy Star Online series to pay a monthly fee on a network that had embedded artificial lag code, implanted from the start for test purposes, but later couldn't remove. Refused to support them with money for something that had less content than AdventureQuest or NeoPets. I've hacked my PSP to run emulators and buying and downloading games off the PSN store hasn't turned it into a brick. I'd cry the same foul for any other company that did the same.

So what makes Apple think they can or should pull that kind of stuff? What legs do they have to stand on to stake their claim, when they are guilty of the same, or similar stuff?

(It's a humor site, but the content was aimed at serious issues. With facts and quotable sources.)

Sorry for getting so verbose, and I also don't want to start a war. But I had to back up my claim with facts and logic.

Now if you excuse me, I am going to torrent some anime on my computer running a cracked copy of Win7. Razz

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Kellan Meig'h
Administrator


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 2044
Location: Just East of Indianapolis, Indiana

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to chime in with this:

(Directed at Sony Consumer Products)

I own a Sony mini-DVD camcorder. You know, it works great except for one thing; if I use Sony-branded DVD-RW's, it's happier that a pig in fresh mud.

Use a high quality DVD-RW by Memorex, and you lose a few formatting functions and the camera complains that it would be much happier using a (more expensive and hard to find in the bay area) Genuine Sony Disc on each startup or after each video review. Very annoying.

I have a Sony-branded MS Pro Duo memory stick in it but it makes me wonder if it would complain about a Sandisk stick.

Kellan, the old warhorse.

_________________
"Старый боевой конь, Кeллан"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Rifts980
Registered User


Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 200
Location: Orbiting around a point just to left of four seconds in the future

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
So what makes Apple think they can or should pull that kind of stuff? What legs do they have to stand on to stake their claim, when they are guilty of the same, or similar stuff?

Now if you excuse me, I am going to torrent some anime on my computer running a cracked copy of Win7. Razz



*applauds*

_________________
The Banana is in the Package. Irish need not apply for winter solstice, we are full. I'm in your operations, changing your views.

CW4adfrw A+ C- D+ H+++ M--- P+++ R++ T+++ W Sm- RLLW a- cn++ e+ f h* iw+++ p+++ sm-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Benleopard
Registered User


Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 390
Location: Finally free from D-land

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got a little article from my aunt about something interesting... would like any one's take on it.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

_________________
Fortune Cookie that I keep in my walet say's "Knowledge is the only good and Ignorance is the only evil."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Xaqtly
Registered User


Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 442
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Cracked.com never said that the Iphone and Ipod *ONLY* play music purchased from the I-Tunes store."

Actually by not telling the rest of the story, that is what they're saying. The Cracked article was massively slanted against Apple, so everything they said in it was worded carefully enough to make it sound as bad as it could possibly sound. Even if it disregarded the actual truth of the situation or conveniently left some facts out.

Why would they specifically say the iPhones and iPods play music from the iTunes store? Why wouldn't they say they play music from any source? Because it would defeat their argument, that's why. The entire article is like that.

"They are saying that Apple/AT&T actively hunts down and deactivates hardware that doesn't play the way they want it"

Which, as I said, is 100% wrong. AT&T doesn't hunt down anybody, and Apple has to replace the firmware in the iPhone when it has updates. That's how firmware WORKS. There is absolutely zero intentional breaking of jailbroken iPhones.

" Or is Apple the only one that gets stuff (A firewire breakout box, for crying out loud) leaked?"

The product in question is 100% irrelevant. It could be a piece of plastic, it could be a million dollar supercomputer. The NDA was broken, end of story. As far as Apple going after the guy, if that case had no merit it would have been thrown out. But it wasn't thrown out, they eventually settled it. That should prove right there that Apple had some ground to stand on. It would have been tossed out of court otherwise.

"But actually *BRICKING* the hardware? Overkill. "

Who said updating a jailbroken iPhone bricked it? Oh right. Cracked did. What did I tell you about using that article as your source? Updating a jailbroken iPhone does NOT, I repeat does NOT brick the phone. You have to restore it to its defaults, but it does NOT brick it.

There have been a few bricking cases, but ask anybody who is jailbreaking right now if updates have been bricking their phones. The answer will be no.

"why should I have to use what Apple thinks is right for me to use, on the hardware that I bought and own? It's my hardware, I decide what I run on it"

This is what we call a misplaced sense of entitlement. Apple has every - and let's be absolutely clear about this - EVERY right to set policy however they like on their hardware which runs their software. That is all there is to it. Period, the end. You have the choice to not buy an iPhone if you don't like it.

The right they have is called "we created the hardware and the software and own both of them 100%". When you create every part of a widget, you can do whatever you want with it. That's how things work.

Also what vendor lock-in are you talking about? Almost all the apps on the app store are 3rd party apps. You are not restricted to iTunes music. You are not restricted to iTunes movies. Apple uses all open standards (MP4, H.264, PDF, JPG, PNG etc.). If you want to jailbreak it that's your choice, but Apple isn't going to support it.

But let's be very clear about something else here while we're at it. Apple is doing nothing to prevent jailbreaking. NOTHING. All the tools you need to jailbreak it are freely available. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice Apple has not ever gone after the people who make it possible - even though Apple knows who they are and where to find them.

Hasn't that ever occurred to you? Don't you think if Apple were so dead set on preventing jailbreaking that they would do something about it? And no, updates don't count. They're just updates. Come on, apply some common sense to this situation. If Apple wanted to prevent it, they could. But they're not.

Your complaining about Apple's app store policies are typical. Again, Apple has the right to do whatever they want, and you have the right to not buy Apple products. That's really all there is to it. You can complain about them removing those two apps or missing those other two all you want, but you're not acknowledging the hundreds and hundreds of spam apps that didn't make it though. It's always one sided, isn't it? There are big advantages to doing it the way Apple does it, but people only focus on the negative.

As far as Safari, tell me you didn't compare that to a rootkit. In what way is a rootkit the same thing as a browser? I get what you're saying, but you ask if there was a way to get iTunes without Safari; you could always just delete Safari. Did nobody ever think of that? Or were they too busy complaining about it?

Unskippable ads - Again, this was a patent application, nothing more. Not only has it not been implemented anywhere, in any shape or form, but the patent hasn't been granted either. This is some serious Chicken Little you've got going on here.

As far as evil, don't start with that again. They're a computer company, not a nazi regime. Go look up the difference if you have to, if that's what it takes to stop calling them evil, as if they were in any way comparable.

They don't do *exactly* the same thing as Microsoft does, obviously. If they did, then you wouldn't be able to delete Safari without breaking the OS. Right? That is specifically what got Microsoft into legal trouble. Apple has never done anything even close to that.

You can't just lay out vague claims like "Apple is bad" and ask why they're not getting legal punishment. You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Apple is not guilty of monopolizing, collusion, anti-competition, or any of the things people who hate Apple generally believe about them.

Whatever "stuff" you think Apple is "pulling", I guarantee you it comes down to you just not liking how they operate - not Apple actually doing anything wrong or illegal. I'll end this by reiterating that I don't think Apple is perfect either; I think their policies could use some work. But they are not nearly as bad as you or Cracked make them out to be, and that is a fact not an opinion.

_________________
Changed my name to Kantaro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
ScottyDM
Registered User


Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 1142
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fascinating that Apple is the new bad boy. But wasn't Bill Gates supposed to be the Antichrist? Or perhaps that's Steve Balmer and Bill is just his prophet.

Well, I'm working on weening myself off of Redmond fare and jumping over to Theo de Raadt's OS camp. Obscurity and security. Wink

S~

_________________
Kantaro wrote:
Almost real enough to be considered non-fiction, if it weren't made up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You realize we are creating here the exact kind of environment we didn't want to, right?

Xaqtly wrote:
"Cracked.com never said that the Iphone and Ipod *ONLY* play music purchased from the I-Tunes store."

Actually by not telling the rest of the story, that is what they're saying. The Cracked article was massively slanted against Apple, so everything they said in it was worded carefully enough to make it sound as bad as it could possibly sound. Even if it disregarded the actual truth of the situation or conveniently left some facts out.


I don't see why "Iphones and I-pods play music from I-Tunes" would equal "I-phones will never, ever under any circumstance play music from another source, and will only play what you get from Apple." Slanted against Apple, yes. Spreading false information, no.



Xaqtly wrote:
Why would they specifically say the iPhones and iPods play music from the iTunes store? Why wouldn't they say they play music from any source? Because it would defeat their argument, that's why. The entire article is like that.


Because if they said that they play music from the Zune store, or Rhapsody, or the new Napster, (which comes in DRM WMA format), that would be inaccurate, false and misleading information. Ergo, Ipods do NOT play music from ANY source. Again, "Plays music from Itunes store" does not equal "It won't play anything else. Ever." Potatoe, potato. But fine. Let's pretend they said this in their article: "To be fair, you can play music obtained from other means that are not DRM-ed. Like CDs or MP3s." Does that defeat their points? I don't see how. And anyone who has an Ipod and has used Itunes, knows it won't only play stuff from their store.

Xaqtly wrote:
"They are saying that Apple/AT&T actively hunts down and deactivates hardware that doesn't play the way they want it"

Which, as I said, is 100% wrong. AT&T doesn't hunt down anybody, and Apple has to replace the firmware in the iPhone when it has updates. That's how firmware WORKS. There is absolutely zero intentional breaking of jailbroken iPhones.


Oh, snap: http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean

Granted. There is nothing that says they did it on purpose. But until I see evidence to the contrary, I stand by my claim. However, it wouldn't take them too much work to make sure an unlocked Iphone returns to their virgin status *without* bricking it after an update, either.

Xaqtly wrote:
" Or is Apple the only one that gets stuff (A firewire breakout box, for crying out loud) leaked?"

The product in question is 100% irrelevant. It could be a piece of plastic, it could be a million dollar supercomputer. The NDA was broken, end of story. As far as Apple going after the guy, if that case had no merit it would have been thrown out. But it wasn't thrown out, they eventually settled it. That should prove right there that Apple had some ground to stand on. It would have been tossed out of court otherwise.


Broken by whom? The reporter who did not sign such NDA? Also, Freedom of the press>>>>NDAs that have nothing to do with the reporter in question. And here's the clincher: The case didn't need to be thrown out, or settled. Apple lost: http://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does/ (Yes, that's the reporter Cracked was talking about.)

Sony has done that and lost. (Sony VS Immersion Technologies, though it was a case of Sony being the infringing party, to be honest.) Microsoft did that and lost. Apple tried the same, and lost. They are no different in this regard than the other companies. Or are we to believe that their attorneys didn't know about the statutes that protected the reporter(s) and made them prevail? How can such action not be called reprobable, at least? Shouldn't they know who signed the NDAs to begin with, and therefore go after them?

Xaqtly wrote:
"But actually *BRICKING* the hardware? Overkill. "

Who said updating a jailbroken iPhone bricked it? Oh right. Cracked did. What did I tell you about using that article as your source? Updating a jailbroken iPhone does NOT, I repeat does NOT brick the phone. You have to restore it to its defaults, but it does NOT brick it.


No need to resort to ad-hominem attacks. The fact that the article was posted on a satire or humor site does not detract from the veracity of its points. Especially when they can be confirmed with a simple search. For my retort, look at the link I posted earlier. Ten bricked phones is more than enough evidence that updating is at least *capable* of bricking a phone. Or are the accounts of the many unlocked-then-bricked phones nothing but hearsay? (No, I am not saying that they do it on purpose, but if they can update without bricking, why did the bricks happen? http://gizmodo.com/303459/apples-iphone-bricking-is-legal-and-technical-bs) It may not brick them now, but it actually has happened in the past.

Xaqtly wrote:
There have been a few bricking cases, but ask anybody who is jailbreaking right now if updates have been bricking their phones. The answer will be no.


Just conceded that.

Xaqtly wrote:
"why should I have to use what Apple thinks is right for me to use, on the hardware that I bought and own? It's my hardware, I decide what I run on it"

This is what we call a misplaced sense of entitlement. Apple has every - and let's be absolutely clear about this - EVERY right to set policy however they like on their hardware which runs their software. That is all there is to it. Period, the end. You have the choice to not buy an iPhone if you don't like it.


Then explain to me how I can run Linux on this very same laptop (Which says on the front that is "Designed for Windows XP Professional") that I am typing my reply on, and how MS or Gateway or Intel can't do a thing about it. Or how I can use refilled cartridges on my printer and Lexmark can't do a thing about it. Or Rockbox on a Sansa player (Or an Ipod) and Sandisk can't do anything about it. (Other than denying me service, of course.) Their rights end where mine begin. Especially if I am not running their software. Which is the point of jailbreaking (and the one I was trying to make), in the case of the Iphone.

My accusation, however, was launched at the fact that Apple has banned from the store programs that outdo their own. Because obviously it's going to cost them money when someone presents a better product, they block it. Google Voice being the prime example. What can we call that? "Exercising their rights", okay. But we have to append a "for the sake of snuffing out competition" to it. And it's only evil when Microsoft does that. Nokia or Verizon haven't killed my brother's phone because he has installed Skype on it to avoid nasty roaming charges. Nor have they blocked Skype from running on their (gasp) official firmware, even though it technically is competition against themselves. It has earned them loyalty, actually. (And he still uses his minutes.)

Xaqtly wrote:
The right they have is called "we created the hardware and the software and own both of them 100%". When you create every part of a widget, you can do whatever you want with it. That's how things work.


When I buy the hardware, and pay them full money for it, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the base of free enterprise. Like using it with another provider. Or running open source software, and not theirs. (Granted, I'd have to be very stupid and greedy and hypocritical to get an update from Apple fully knowing it may cause a brick, for whatever reason, and then crying about it.) My point is, again, their rights end where mine begin. I paid them money for the hardware (not the right to use it) and they gave me hardware for the money. By their logic, it's only free enterprise until I start to stick my freedom into their enterprise.

Xaqtly wrote:
Also what vendor lock-in are you talking about? Almost all the apps on the app store are 3rd party apps. You are not restricted to iTunes music. You are not restricted to iTunes movies. Apple uses all open standards (MP4, H.264, PDF, JPG, PNG etc.). If you want to jailbreak it that's your choice, but Apple isn't going to support it.


The fact they will not let you use the I-phone with any other provider (The way Google is doing with the Nexus), is enough to call it Vendor Lock-in. I was referring to that. Legal, yes. The right thing to do, not so much.

Xaqtly wrote:
But let's be very clear about something else here while we're at it. Apple is doing nothing to prevent jailbreaking. NOTHING. All the tools you need to jailbreak it are freely available. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice Apple has not ever gone after the people who make it possible - even though Apple knows who they are and where to find them.

Hasn't that ever occurred to you? Don't you think if Apple were so dead set on preventing jailbreaking that they would do something about it? And no, updates don't count. They're just updates. Come on, apply some common sense to this situation. If Apple wanted to prevent it, they could. But they're not.


Of course not. Nobody is accusing them of pre-emptive action. (They'd get hell for that. Which is the reason Sony or Nintendo aren't doing anything against the sites that teach anyone to hack their PSP or Wii.) Only of punitive, reactive ones. And why the Ad-hominem attacks? I never said that Apple is evil for keeping people from unlocking their phones. I said (and agree with Cracked, and the many other examples I just posted) that they are reprobable for the evil reactions they take against people after the deeds are done. Phone, court or software-wise.

Xaqtly wrote:
Your complaining about Apple's app store policies are typical. Again, Apple has the right to do whatever they want, and you have the right to not buy Apple products. That's really all there is to it. You can complain about them removing those two apps or missing those other two all you want, but you're not acknowledging the hundreds and hundreds of spam apps that didn't make it though. It's always one sided, isn't it? There are big advantages to doing it the way Apple does it, but people only focus on the negative.


The fact they take care of the spam ones doesn't detract from them removing several applications better than their own for no reason. The right not to buy Apple products applies here as well, and that's why they blocked it. Because people could have gone for something better. (If the other applications were spam, people weren't going to buy them anyway.) Yes. One-sided indeed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Xaqtly wrote:
As far as Safari, tell me you didn't compare that to a rootkit. In what way is a rootkit the same thing as a browser? I get what you're saying, but you ask if there was a way to get iTunes without Safari; you could always just delete Safari. Did nobody ever think of that? Or were they too busy complaining about it?


The practice I was decrying was the forced bundling of unwanted software. It can be deleted, yes. So I ask again. Was there a way to get the I-tunes without the Safari when that happened? (I've also acknowledged they don't do it anymore, and that calling it "malware" was retarded.)

Xaqtly wrote:
Unskippable ads - Again, this was a patent application, nothing more. Not only has it not been implemented anywhere, in any shape or form, but the patent hasn't been granted either. This is some serious Chicken Little you've got going on here.


Please drop the ad-hominem. I never said they are already doing it. Just that compared to the examples you quoted (DVD User prohibited operations, ads in movies and the like) the idea seems Orwellian, and that that's why it wasn't going to fly. Concern stems from the fact they went as far as applying for a patent.

Xaqtly wrote:
As far as evil, don't start with that again. They're a computer company, not a nazi regime. Go look up the difference if you have to, if that's what it takes to stop calling them evil, as if they were in any way comparable.

They don't do *exactly* the same thing as Microsoft does, obviously. If they did, then you wouldn't be able to delete Safari without breaking the OS. Right? That is specifically what got Microsoft into legal trouble. Apple has never done anything even close to that.

You can't just lay out vague claims like "Apple is bad" and ask why they're not getting legal punishment. You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Apple is not guilty of monopolizing, collusion, anti-competition, or any of the things people who hate Apple generally believe about them.


That's why I posted facts, links and comparisons. It's not hearsay. If that O'Grady ruling or the ongoing FCC investigation is not enough to at least say their actions are wrong (Just like MS', Sony's, and Nintendo's have been in the past) then I don't know what is.

Xaqtly wrote:
Whatever "stuff" you think Apple is "pulling", I guarantee you it comes down to you just not liking how they operate - not Apple actually doing anything wrong or illegal. I'll end this by reiterating that I don't think Apple is perfect either; I think their policies could use some work. But they are not nearly as bad as you or Cracked make them out to be, and that is a fact not an opinion.


Again, the ad-hominems do not detract from the facts. I myself would be royally upset if they set their legal hounds after me for getting some info from someone else who broke an NDA, or banning my applications that are more competitive than theirs after I play by their rules. If that is not liking how they operate, then, yes. I don't like it. And neither did the EFF (which took them on in court and won), or the FCC, which is investigating them. I work for a telecomms provider and getting them to take action on something is a monumental effort. But to be fair in that regard, it would be good to wait until they find something reprobable in their way of doing things.

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Styx
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 25 Dec 2002
Posts: 3176
Location: West Covina, California

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First let me say DAAAAMN what the hell did I start here?
Xaq wrote:
"why should I have to use what Apple thinks is right for me to use, on the hardware that I bought and own? It's my hardware, I decide what I run on it"

This is what we call a misplaced sense of entitlement. Apple has every - and let's be absolutely clear about this - EVERY right to set policy however they like on their hardware which runs their software. That is all there is to it. Period, the end. You have the choice to not buy an iPhone if you don't like it.

The right they have is called "we created the hardware and the software and own both of them 100%". When you create every part of a widget, you can do whatever you want with it. That's how things work.


Sorry Xaq I don't I agree with that. When I buy something it's mine it's no longer Apple's and can do what I like with it, otherwise there would have to be a lease agreement saying that apple still retains ownership of the phone and can demand it's return at any time. I work for a computer company and some times we get customers who call in wanting help to install a different OS because they don't care for the one that was preloaded on it. We don't tell them "No you can't it's our stuff and you'll run what we tell you on it". No we tell them that they can run what ever they like but that we would not help them change the OS and that they would have no software support until the original OS was restored. quite frankly I can't see why phone makers would limit there sales it's very clear to me that if Apple weren't such Nazis (please lets not start any drama over that word) they would own the smart phone market.

Syrius wrote:
Ten bricked phones is more than enough evidence that updating is at least *capable* of bricking a phone.


To be fair this can happen whenever you update the firmware on any device, I can't tell you how many times a week I get cases at work where a motherboard or notebook was killed by a firmware update. It's basically brain surgery for the device and sometimes the surgery doesn't go well Confused It wouldn't surprise me to hear that "legit" iphones some times get bricked by firmware updates too.

_________________
"Political Correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston



Last edited by Styx on Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's time I added my 2'whatever' in the discussion...

I own not one, but 3 iPods...
(Started with a 4Gen 20GB, addded a 1Gen 5GB because it was a neat thing to have in my collection, and finally, after the 20GB got water damage, I got a Classic 120GB)
At NO TIME EVER has any of those 'crashed' or malfunctioned.
(The 1Gen one was used for a while after the 4Gen was water damaged.)

The Creative Zen 4GB I picked up in the hope that it could do the job, though...
'Supports .ACC' it said on the box...
Yeah... right... They included a Winblows program for converting .AAC to .MP3. Very useful for me as I had my itunes library on my G4 PowerMac...
Did I mention that it doesn't even show up as a removable disk on ANY of my Macs?

iTunes.
Sure, there's a few niggles with it, such as its tendency to stop subscribing to podcasts if I don't listen to them in a while, but other than that it does exactly what I want.
(Yes, I know its crap on a PC, but then again, I couldn't care less)
I load a CD into my Mac Mini(moved the iTunes library to a new computer recently. Big job... 60GB... ) and it rips the music, automatically adds the songs to my smart playlists and spits out the CD again.
When I plug in one of my iPods, it synches the podcasts and playlists I want to that exact iPod. ('Everything' to the Classic, and just 'recently added' and a couple of 'funky' playlists to the 20GB)

Bonus:
The iTunes library is plain files with a standard .XML file indexing everything.
This means that anyone can build apps that acceses it.
(Something Palm seems to have missed... )
And yes, the specifications are available online, for free.

iTMS?
Haven't used it.

DRM?
Actually, St. Steve didn't want to use DRM on iTMS, but the big music corporations insisted.
(Incidentally, there's no problem playing any 'copy protected' CDs on a Mac... )

Macs are for people who doesn't want to learn about computers?
No.
They're for people who are tired of having to deal with all the crap in the PC world. (I've been working with PCs and servers since 1993.)

'Apple should let people install OS X on any PC'...
No, thank you!
OS X is designed to work with Apple HW. This means that it's NOT tested with Motherboards from other manufaturers.
This means that if you buy a Mac and doesn't 'tinker' with it, the SW is pretty darn well optimized for it.
Incidentally, Apple has had plenty of opportunity to disable or otherwise mess with OS X installs on non-Apple HW, but they've yet to do so.

The Safari snaffle...
(Yes, it was a stupid thing to do)
How many of the users who got the 'update' ever noticed that it was an optional install, and that they could just decline it by removing a checkmark?
Most Windooze users are in a coma and just clicks on 'Accept' any time an update dialog comes along.

Maybe Apple doesn't always play entirely nice with what apps can be installed in a JesusPhone, but... At least Apple doesn't deny it.

How many of you use MSN?
How many remembers the Opera Borked Edition browser?
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/

I could mention the MS DOS 5.0 CHKDISK, the 'interesting' changes between WfW3.1 and WfW3.11, the DR DOS 'error message', and probably a dozen others.

Frankly, I prefer a company that says, 'no you can't do that because we don't like those apps,' rather than, 'No you can't do that, but we don't know why and we have no idea what is happening, but we think it's that other piece of SW you're trying to use that's at fault'...

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ryan Fox
Registered User


Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: Cape Town South Africa

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rifts980 wrote:
Apple is for people who cannot compute.




Actually its pretty complex under the hood ^^ Ever tried bash scripting or compiling software under Windows?
Its just got a really 'friendly' user interface.. and *.app folders that contain all the required libraries (or most) for that application. Apart from searching under //lib.
Besides I prefer it above Windows... even though I use Ubuntu Linux, SunOS5.10u8, IRX etc. I can even dual boot Ubuntu Linux on my older PPC G5 quad Razz

I dunno -shrugs-... OSX does have its own issues, but at least its stable and 'irritation' free ^^

As for the iPhone.. got one... loving it ^^ , got the Nokia n97 too... just stay away from Windows mobile... My Samsung Omnia met a rather unusual end not too long ago.. >=)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger Skype Name
Ryan Fox
Registered User


Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: Cape Town South Africa

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawke wrote:
Anything in particular wrong with Java?




No.. but being suddenly forced to purchase an expensive SUN care plan for just a few updates on a 'free' OS is mind-numbingly ludicrous, especially after you purchased a SPARK based machine with a legit software library and suddenly need to download OS patches.. now they're owned by Oracle... bye bye SUN workstations.. uh oh's for MySQL...


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger Skype Name
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Planetfurry BBS Forum Index -> Everyday blither-blather All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group