Agree, I do the same. I suspect it won't though.
78 posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
... Maybe, but Amazon's model hasn't hitherto been about hardware really has it? Witness Prime Instant Video app on iPads. Prime is a wide offering, video being just one part of it and not having to have yet another box coule make prime more appealing. I suspect there are plenty of people on Prime already without Fire TV. Having an app on other platforms, in that scenario, makes sense.
The sticking point, no doubt, is in app purchases. I can't see Amazon ever giving up on their own billing relationship and paying Apple a cut of any rental or sale outside of Prime video.
Prime instant video app on my iPad works fine to my Apple TV on AirPlay. I'd bet that they will be on Apple TV. I'm hoping the other VOD apps on iPad (iPlayer, ITV Player, all4 and Demand 5) make it onto the new Apple TV along with nowtv (which is already there). Then I can use the old Apple TV for Hulu and the U.S. iTunes Store, the fire TV for the U.S. Prime video and the new Apple TV for all things UK. Maybe even RTE player will make it onto Apple TV.
Apple TV, in the uk at least, is good but not good enough. Loads of shows stop being available for rent quite quickly (I don't buy movies as I only watch once). They frequently have 'previews' that are literally a random 30 seconds of the movie even when that same movie has a proper trailer in the US store. These niggles, along with Apple's suggestion that Apple TV is just a hobby for Apple, are enough to encourage me to give the new entrant a shot (I'm already a prime member).
I'll probably use Amazon Instant Video and netflix on the amazon box and use the Apple TV box for the US iTunes Store and Hulu Plus so I don't have to faff around changing the DNS anymore.
Either way this is all good and exciting stuff if you ask me; competition is a good thing and should hopefully result in better products all round. It would be nice to think that one day there would be one open box to rule them all. But until then I'm quite happy to have a toe in each camp.
Yes, it's the commentards who must surely be wrong!
After all, we're only referring to Apple's own documentation
"With Activation Lock, your Apple ID and password are required before anyone can:
Turn off Find My iPhone on your device
Sign out of iCloud on your device
Erase and reactivate your device"
The duration of any technical or systemic problems is hardly of concern to those who have been affected. Call it what you will, but there was a >4 day loss of service to many retail clients. Trying to argue otherwise flies in the face of any argument here about IT people not being listened to.
Yes, I don't think that's what they have in mind, but it would be nice. Bookshops could become show-rooms, with coffee shops and friendly helpful staff. I doubt it would make sense financially though.
You know you can get a sample of most books for Kindle, right? Which can often help with the decision. That's in addition to the look inside feature...
I am not an Apple hater (I love my iPhone and iPad and my better half loves the MacBook Air I bought them). I can both respect what Apple does well and be critical when they get things wrong. Like most companies. And most consumers.
However, there are definitely some people who are shockingly defensive of Apple in a way I have not noticed for other companies. Fanboys is not an altogether incorrect description for some of these people. Their response is similar to that of a sports fan.
That's not to say there are not haters out there, but there are haters of all companies and I don't think the Apple haters are any greater in number. Though the Micro$oft critics seem to be less vocal these days. (I am using the $ to indicate the type of MS critic I am talking about, I don't usually do so).
Probably the most sensible comment on here. Their current position is on top (whether people think they deserve it or not doesn't matter). History should make it obvious that few stay on top for very long. Hard to see how they could head to absolute oblivion anytime soon. Though even that is uncertain (for all firms).
Whatever about movies, hasn't the price of music singles and albums been declining constantly over the last few years? Ten years ago a single cost ~£4, now you can often buy the single for <£2 and the title track for <£1. If not a function of competition, where is the price pressure coming from?
I will be using Holiday Phone in future. Previously I have done the local PAYG sim deal but it's a bit of a faff. Hopefully the networks will realise that people aren't forking over silly money for tiny bits of foreign data and start to offer decent packages of roaming SMS, MMS, Voice & Data. Orange's effort is a start but how far is 10 fricking minutes of talk time going to take you?
BB by all accounts were quite efficient at moving bits about. Current smart phones and their many apps seem to care less about that. I'm not sure the technology has moved on so much as to warrant such a blasé attitude.
I'd really like iOS to tell me which apps are the worst offenders. (no doubt lot's of android users will tell me that android does just that, but I actually quite like my iPhone, the many apps I have bought and the huge amount of digital media that works on my iPhone so please don't bother).
"You usually see people about to die with an altruist view of life, forgiving, forgetting, trying to make the world a little better... not this guy"
How do you know? Haven't we all said similar things at different times in our life? I hate you, I'll never forgive you, I'll kill you etc... etc... Usually uttered in anger and seldom carried through to our last week, never mind our last breath.
Unless I am mistaken, this article is reporting about something he said long before he died. I haven't seen a report to say that he was still doggedly pursuing this goal for this reason to the day he died. He might have, but I haven't see any such reports. I think it's a bit harsh to pass judgement so absolutely on a man who has, in fairness, very recently died.
Don't get me wrong, I detest Apple's business practises and I strongly believe they came from Steve so I am not a big ol fan boy jumping to the defence of my hero. I just think your post has a little too much unfounded vitriol for a dead man who hardly sought the oppositive of a better world.
I switched from O2 to Vodafone, believing that it would be more reliable. At best, it is no better but it is more expensive and the "customer service" is truly shocking. And as someone already mentioned, Vodafone don't bother with premium services like visual voice-mail - they fob you off on third party apps.
I received a call from an unknown number one Saturday morning. The chap on the phone said he was calling about my Natwest Credit Card and that he needed to ask me some security questions. I explained that he had called me on the number registered to my account and that I had no way to know who he was. He outright ARGUED back with me and when I made it clear I would not reveal security information to a stranger on the phone, he said; "if you're going to be a dick about it, call the number on the back of your credit card" and then he hung up, no reference, no apology for call his customer an arse. It was Natwest, and I never did get round to complaining that their business practises seemed to contradict the security advice they had on their website (or the fact that they had been so rude to me). I have closed that card account now and I am very happy with the way my new credit card company confirm who they are in the manner for their automated security quesioning.
I certainly don't trust operators in payment space at all. Banks are bad enough, but they do tend to sort things much easier when it goes wrong. Every time I have had to complain to an operator re billing it has involved a great deal of time and effort and in some cases expense before they recognise their error and put it right. They are a pipe, and that's all I want from them.
I can never understand how groups who have been oppressed (such as lesbian and gay people) can be so quick to become the oppressor. Christianity too - oppressed in its infancy only to become a violent aggressor. I was once a member of a minority Christian movement (that many call a cult) that was very much oppressed in its early years and as a result explicitly stated a belief in the separation of church and state, only to cozy up to US Gov once it grew a bit in order to lobby for laws consistent with it’s conservative theology.
You are right, there needs to be balance and responsibility. The example you give is clearly an incitement to cause a breach of the peace (at the least, I am no solicitor/policeman). Similarly, it is not acceptable to incite violence or (usually) riot (I say usually because I believe there may be times when inciting a popular uprising of the people against their government can be justified, even if illegal).
I too oppose laws banning extreme pornography made with consenting adults. I don’t however think it in any way incongruous with freedom of expression to favour the criminalisation of child pornography because that moves from the realms of personal expression to the physical and sexual abuse of another. In summary, I don’t think abusing a child (or indeed anyone) has anything to do with freedom of expression.
Exodus (or whatever they are called) is preaching their take on god and sexuality. Adults have the choice to listen and try their “medicine” if they choose. It may be damaging but we let adults do things that can be damaging to them all the time and I don’t think we should try to stop that. If this organisation was rounding people up and forcing them to be subjected to their “cure,” that would be an entirely different matter. You might argue that the adults who will voluntarily subject themselves to Exodus’ methods are vulnerable or that they are being exploited after years of indoctrination. Going back to the porn issue; there are plenty (not all, but definitely plenty) of people in the porn industry who are being exploited and are left very damaged by it. You, and I, are not calling for porn to be banned because, whether we agree or like it or not, adults are choosing to work in that industry. Similarly, adults should be allowed to hear what Exodus has to say and accept or reject it for themselves.
My analogy was not about the value of the content of any given argument but about our response. I am suggesting we should eschew the response of the church in the dark ages (silence the heretic) in our response to any idea with which we disagree (even if it is patent nonsense). As P. Lee suggests above, to show people how they are wrong, you have to let them speak and be heard. Some of the comments on this article suggest that all religious belief and/or behaviour should be criminalised; that’s where your argument leads – they are loonies they should be banned for the public good/health/sanity etc… I think that’s a slippery slope.
Grinning Duck – I am talking about freedom of speech/expression in the context of Graham’s first reply. I don’t think there is anything wrong with an article sparking a discussion that is wider in scope than original article. Of course Apple can do what they like with their walled garden. Their uber closed approach is something I detest about them – I am hopeful and personally believe that their model will not be the dominant mobile platform model in a few years time. Was the cake nice? I like cake (as anyone who saw a picture of me would very quickly figure out).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019