6 posts • joined Thursday 22nd May 2008 14:59 GMT
There's nothing new under the sun. Historically, a merchant would sell an item based on what it was worth to the buyer, and outside of the grocery store this is basically still the case - an item (or service, whatever) is only worth as much as somebody is prepared to pay for it. It's also still basically de rigueur in developing markets. Dynamic pricing basically predates the fixed price market, but perhaps they have come up with some clever non-obvious way of implementing it. Sure, it's exploitative by its very design - so take your money elsewhere. The merits of the patent application are actually small beer though; I think we've been here often enough to expect that it will be awarded regardless, haven't we?
Well, I was expecting the power issue and I wasn't complaining about it - I was just saying it was odd it didn't even get a mention given that it seems to get a regular airing elsewhere. I could have wittered on about how people seem to want a 20W PSU with the thing instead of a 10W one and how some USB ports seem to provide just enough power to trickle charge the thing, and others don't. But I didn't, because it's boring. My point about the dock connector is a genuine gripe though - I just know it's going to get damaged sometime by leaving it plugged in and picking it up, or something dumb like that. By the way, try replying to a post instead of creating a new one - makes it easier to spot.
Beer because my local opens in 90 minutes.
No mention of the increased difficulties in charging the thing over the iPad 2? That seems to be a bit of a bugbear. And my personal gripe: how fragile the dock connector feels; this really could benefit from a magnetic connector now, or at least curly kettle-type lead which would be a bit more forgiving than the one supplied. The screen is nice (read: gorgeous), but I can't help feeling the nagging doubt I maybe should have held off until the next one, when I hope these issues would be resolved (I seem to skip every other upgrade)
Redistributing GPL v2 under GPL v3
I quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
Er, doesn't this mean anybody can redistribute any piece of GPL v2-distributed software under the v3 licence if they so desire? I think that was the intention. In which case, no need to contact all the authors at all.
But this is a non-story isn't it?