14 posts • joined Thursday 9th June 2011 14:00 GMT
I don't use iTunes (or similar sites) for that very reason. I don't think Willis has a leg to stand on from a legal point of view as the terms are pretty clear and he presumably agreed to them when he signed up. But if he does take action I hope he succeeds.
The whole "digital legacy" issue is becoming more and more important to consumers and the big tech companies should stop brushing it under the carpet.
Well said that man. One of the most annoying things I've heard said about Steve Jobs over the last few days was that he was a "pioneer". That's cobblers. The Macintosh was not the first PC, the iPod was not the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn't the first smart phone, the iPad wasn't the first tablet PC, the Newton wasn't the first electronic organiser... have I missed any? Oh yes, Pixar wasn't the first animation studio.
That's to take nothing away from his achievements - he took existing concepts, tarted them up a bit and sold them for a fortune. Bully for him.
"If you haven't returned in a week, you may want to see a summary of top stories first."
Not if I've been keeping up to date via the Facebook app on my phone, and via Tweetdeck (other social network consolidation tools are available). Nice idea, but it's half-baked.
Being "a third ecosystem" just means that there are two other ecosystems. It doesn't place them in order. It is not "a third-placed ecosystem". This is a complete non story.
ILLEGAL? It's a dictionary
It's not a statute book. Dictionaries are lists of words in common usage, they are not legally binding in any way shape or form. Usage dictates what goes in the dictionary, not the other way around.
If you give someone your phone number, they will probably store it somewhere. In the olden days that used to be in a paper address book. A decade or two ago it might have been an electronic address book on a desktop computer, perhaps as part of email software. Think Outlook. Nowadays, people use more than one "device" (home computer, work computer, phone, perhaps they have both a desktop and tablet PC at home, etc.) and want to access their information (including your phone number) from all of them, and so store that information in the cloud. I don't understand why that comes as such a shock to people who are, presumably (since they read El Reg), reasonably tech savvy.
Equally Facebook does not pull your phone data without your permission. Nobody will get to see your phone number on Facebook except for those people you've already shared it with. If you put your phone number on Facebook and share it with your friends, then it's no surprise that it appears in their Facebook contacts list (which has been a feature of the site for many years now) - and not only is it no surprise, it's no big deal. You put your phone number on Facebook, you make it available to all your friends, you make someone your Facebook friend, they can see your phone number. That is not new, shocking or surprising in any way.
We don't all have the same contract
I've gone for a package with unlimited data and unlimited SMS messaging - but I very nearly went for one with unlimited data and just 100 SMS messages per month. So meh to you too.
... read this: http://www.reghardware.com/2011/02/02/review_smartphone_motorola_defy/
Ok so it fails on the Linux-as-operating-system criterion but it's there on the waterproof and drop-proof fronts, and battery life too.
And no, I don't work for Motorola.
It's not just the features
Yes the features of Google+ are all, individually, better than their Facebook counterparts. But there's more to it than that. Google's famous argument with Facebook over the ownership of data should mean that, once Google+ is properly up and running, it should integrate with my Gmail contacts. Properly. So if a friend of mine changes his mobile phone number, BAM, it's updated in my contacts.
Facebook insist that, although my friends have all made conscious decisions to share their phone numbers, email addresses etc. with me on Facebook, I'm not allowed to download that information. Google have long been arguing for portability, and Facebook have long refused. So features aside, Google+ is a winner simply because when you share information on it, you really do share information on it, and when you want to keep things limited to a certain group, you can do so easily. That's not just a matter of a feature that's missing from Facebook, it's a whole philosophical difference, and it's why I for one am looking forward to leaving Facebook behind.
Yes, they do work. They may not be easy to find, or as user friendly as they should be, but they do work.
I dislike facebook for a number of reasons but I can't deny that their offering does what it says on the tin.
re Open up the DNS
So what you're suggesting is, if ICANN can, I can too. So I can can ICANN. Uncanny.
LAN not IAN
as in "local area network"
I trust Google a lot more than I do Facebook. I'd happily switch to Google+ when it becomes available, but (a) unless my friends on Facebook also make the switch there would be no point and (b) there are still some things that Facebook has got right that Google aren't offering - tagging people in images being one that springs to mind.
Ultimately the hardest thing about moving away from Facebook is the whole reason we all hate it so much - you can't download all the stuff you have access to on there and take it with you to a different application - Facebook keeps its customers not by attracting repeat business but by locking them in.
Still, I'll give G+ a try and see where it leads...
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Special Report How Britain could have invented the iPhone: And how the Quangocracy cocked it up
- Massive! Yahoo! Mail! outage! going! on! FOURTH! straight! day!