title
Hang on Jim, I thought the whole point of astroturfing is that you are supposed to look like a normal punter...
188 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2009
Sean Baggaley...
You are one of the most prolific of Apple apologists on the Reg comments board but you do at least normally make a coherent, if somewhat puzzling case for Apple's behaviour. So please answer my original question...
The statement quoted *is* true. If you want to sell a subscription that works with an iOS app, you must use the App Store and you cannot make it cheaper anywhere else. That does not mean you are *only* allowed to use the App Store since if that were the case the second part of that sentence would be redundant , wouldn't it? Just to be absolutely clear, let's rephrase it as "you must enable the App Store subscription function" instead so there's absolutely no "confusion".
Please tell me how such an arrangement can be to the benefit of anyone other than Apple.
This reply is really to all the Apple apologists who, deliberately or not are completely ignoring the point.
Nobody is complaining if Apple want to charge 30% for subscriptions via the App Store. It is the fact that Apple insist that you *must* use the App Store and that you *cannot* make it cheaper anywhere else.
Please tell me how that can possibly be good for consumers or any business other than Apple.
"an awesome phone OS that's smoother than Android " by using modern hardware to power an OS with the same capabilities as the iPhone Version 1.0. I'd be very worried if it wasn't smooth.
"more open than iOS" - come again? I mean, it's actually very hard *not* to be more open than iOS but it looks to me like Microsoft are trying very hard.
And a quick note to the Reg - if both the MS and Apple fans think you're out to get them, you must be doing something right :-)
I'm confused by this. Unless I'm mistaken, the cost to the manufacturer for Gingerbread or Honeycomb are the same, i.e. zero. And I've not seen anything that suggests that the hardware requirements are significantly different for the 2.
So, how do they think they will be able to justify this "Premium"?
Nice to see a review that is positive towards DAB on the move. I've been using a Roberts robi for a couple of years now plugged into my iPhone and the convenience and flexibility of listening to DAB on the train almost makes the commute bearable.
I must admit the ability to control the readio from the phone like this Nokia device would be nice as the robi is completely self-contained, drawing only power from the iDevice.
Shame it's only for those Nokias though, and the robi only for iPods etc. Whatever happened to the nanoDAB (http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/10/nanodab-portable-dab-meets-bluetooth/) or something similar?
And why can't they increase the DAB levels so that they're a reasonable fraction of the FM levels? Or use DAB+ etc etc. One feels there is a concerted effort to get people to NOT listen to DAB for some reason.
Huh? Not another Cade Google rant article already? I really can't be bothered to comment...
Oh go on then! In addition to the comments already made about their "copying" Google do not claim to have originated the copied material, only the algorithms and data returned by their searches. Bing on the other hand seem to make the same claim for data generated by Google.
"Perhaps this figure shows it's time to put DAB out to pasture and encourage folk to upgrade to net-connected 'tuners' instead."
Try getting a consistent net connection on the move....
I know people moan about DAB (and with good reason sometimes) but if you want something other than Radio 1-4 on a train or car journey DAB is the only game in town.
(Well, to be honest I listen to FM for the first 15 mins of my daily train journey and then DAB for the remaining 30 mins due to coverage... ah what the hell...)
I am surprised that people seem to accept these Windows Phone 7 performance claims so readily.
I have not used one and am happy to accept that it is fluid and smooth etc. as you say. But if I'm not mistaken, it is running an OS with the capabilities of the original iPhone (i.e. no app data sharing or multi-tasking) on hardware similar to an iPhone 4. Under these circumstances I would be shocked if it didn't fly.
I'll reserve judgement on whether MS have learned from their mistakes until they release a fully functional Phone OS.
I'm not picking on you specifically Charles since this whole article seems to be muddled.
Surely the FCC are saying the opposite - because of Open Source software (i.e. Android) they are allowing the mobile operators to *opt out* of Net Neutrality?
So the real headline here should be
"FCC says open Source Threatens Net Neutrality"
But where's the Google angle in that?
Because this is a Cade Metz article about Google. Having said that, I have noticed other Reg writers becoming more and more tabloid in their approach which, as a long-time reader I find disappointing. I like my irreverence as much as the next geek, but only if it's got some intelligence to it. Anyway can call people names and make unsubstantiated accusations.
2 points - how can the Reg (including Cade himself) complain about the use of the word "Open"
by e.g. Google and then carry on using their own arbitrary definition?
Secondly, as I see it the FCC are being consistent here (although I'm not saying they're right).
Prior to Android, all mobile OSes were closed, meaning the poor wireless operators could rely (to some extent) on the providers of those OSes to restrict those data-hungry applications for them. Now that Android is around (and popular!) anyone can distribute an application or even modify the OS itself to slurp up huge amounts of mobile data and there's nothing the Telcos can do about it. At least until now.
I know WinMo, Symbian etc were around before but their take-up was probably limited enough not to really worry them.
As I say, most right-minded people can see the many flaws in this regarding the facts, but it is a consistent argument at least.
Scorchio,
I always wonder about people when I see them replying to a number of posts in a thread repeating essentially the same thing.
However, you seem to be saying two things - there is no conspiracy theory and if there is it's exactly what you would expect a state to do.
Well firstly regarding conspiracies, would a normal suspect for sexual assault (as I don't believe those charges correspond to the British definition of rape) be kept in solitary confinement and have limited access to their legal team and others?
Secondly, whilst it may be what we expect of states, nevertheless they must be held to higher standards. Even in war there are laws that must be followed. Just because the enemy engages in illegal conduct does not justify us doing the same.
When I refer to "new" requirements I meant for example when Vista came out.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be a legal case because I'm sure somebody somewhere will have dropped a hat.
But if Microsoft state the prereqs for the new OS and these are clear and available for all vendors then I don't believe there would be a case to answer.
And I am very much not a MS supporter, but even I would have sympathy in that case!
"Legal liabilities of legacy software"? Are you sure about that?
I don't believe anyone could take issue with MS if they were transparent about the new security requirements and provided an even playing field to all developers.
They choose to support legacy software for other reasons than legal responsibility.
Ok, let's try a syllogism instead then...
Premise 1 - Using a proxy for Internet banking is a bad thing
Premise 2 - Opera uses a proxy
Conclusion - Therefore using Opera TO SURF THE INTERNET is a bad thing
Nah, you were right in the first place. Let's stick with non sequiturs
Could someone please enlighten me as to the motivation for using services like this?
You don't like Google, so why not just use Bing, Yahoo or whoever you *do* like?
Or, maybe you like Google but don't like the idea that they are retaining information about you to be used for future ad targetting etc? Surely that is the contract that you enter with Google - you get to use their search engine and information about you is the cost of entry. After all, everyone knows there's no such thing as a free lunch.
In either case I'm afraid I don't have any sympathy for Scrooglers.
On a higher note, using Kant's Categorical Imperative, if everyone used Scroogle then Google's search service would die, meaning nobody could use Scroogle. Ergo using Scroogle is ethically bad :-)
I don't like the idea of an App store for Macs just like I don't like the fact that my iPhone is tied down to one. Having said that, this article really was nothing more than a tin-foil hat special since as long as you have the choice about installing applications then the App Store police can take the proverbial flying....
Having said *that* however, the worrying thing is that even though we non-tinfoil hatters can see no clear and present danger, it is a concern that, if things continue as they seem to be, Apple would be in a position where they *could* do this. Imagine 3 years from now when say 95% of consumer applications are bought from the Store for example.
Having recently bought into the Mac world, the possibilty that a company would even be in a position to be able to achieve this is a concern. Sadly Apple's form in this area is also not encouraging...
Is there some alternative London Underground that you all go to while I have to use this crappy one every week day?
London Bridge Jubilee Line at 8:00 in the morning. 80% of people are reading Blackberry/iPhone/etc screens, books, Metroes or real newspapers.
Please remind me again why this is a uniquely bad idea?
It only says "indecent images of children". Are we absolutely sure they weren't just pictures of his kids playing in the bath? It's just knowing how plod seems to operate these days...
Granted 5 years is too short but when it happened to a friend of mine the killer lorry driver didn't even get fined.
In fact, Microsoft originally only created a JVM for Windows NT. IBM actually created one for the Win 98 line as well as for Win NT.
I may be wrong but I think they still do them for Win and Linux as well as AIX, iSeries and zSeries machines.
So really, Stevie J is very very wrong.
Although not an iPad fan, I think they are doing one thing right that nobody else is, including HP here.
Why does everyone but Apple feel that these things need to be 16:9/10 format? Although fine for watching film and TV, the widescreen format is not optimal for everything else. Web pages, documents, books etc are all better in the 4:3 ratio. And when you use them in portrait mode they look even more ridiculous.
Of course this follows on from the current trend for laptops/netbooks to sport widescreen format as well, despite it being particularly inappropriate but don't get me started on that!
If you're referring to Sky+ boxes, why on earth would Sky be interested in making updates like this? That costs money and it's not like there's any competition amongst box manufacturers.
Personally I'd be happy if they could manage to get a 4:3 picture displayed in the correct format when using HDMI upscaling or stop showing channels in the EPG that I haven't subscribed to...
And it's already happening with Amazon and others getting ready to unveil their Android stores. But Steve J thinks this is a bad thing for some reason.
Look, let's use the man's own definitions. If he thinks Windows is open then for exactly the same reasons so is Android:
- they run any application you want to load onto them
- you are not restricted as to where you get software
- they run on whatever hardware the manufacturer has provided etc etc
All of which (except for the hardware bit) is also true of OS X so I see a bit of a contradiction here. And even within Apple's own hardware range there is enough variation in size and capability to mirror the fragmentation (or shall we call it "variety"?) of Android hardware.
All OSes have their particular strengths (and weaknesses). For things like VMS I would suggest that a particular problem can be the availability of software packages for that platform. Certainly the commercial software systems that I work with are very back-level on their VMS support. The vendors just don't put the effort in for the "minority" systems.
Truth is with Linux (and Solaris etc) you are generally going to be able to get the software you need.
You get this time and time again from Reg commentards....
This is about servers, not desktops. With the level of confusion between the 2 expressed here ("Linux will never take over from Windows - it can't [play my fave game] etc") I truly wonder about who The Reg's audience are.
I always thought this site was read by mainly people in the tech industries but I'm coming to the conclusion that most commentards are arm-chair Sysadmins without a clue about how computers are used in real businesses.
And for the record, my company (one of the largest banks in the world) is going exactly this way too. Of course I don't expect Windows to be gone in 18 months... but there is a very definite trend.
Although I don't disagree with the key points of this, bear in mind that all of the examples you've given where JS doesn't cut it are graphically intensive and other than certain genres of games, most common apps are not that demanding.
I doubt anyone is planning on replacing their video editing software with a web-based application any time soon (although I believe they *do* exist) but that doesn't mean it isn't good enough to make serious inroads into the most commonly used software.