Re: I wonder if they'll have a new product range for the Jocks!
It's prone to rain up here - you might want to wear a Mac.
(thank you, thank you, I'm here all week, try the deep-fried Mars Bar)
38 posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
SoundHound claims it can do this...but given how atrocious most people are at humming, I can only assume it uses some kind of witchcraft to show any kind of accuracy.
(goes and tests)
Apparently, I was either humming Celine Dion's classic My Heart Will Go On, or the equally classic 'N Sync number, Tearing Up My Heart. Go figure.
Just think, technology that can transmit information to and receive information from a handheld electronic device. Whatever will these crazy computer geeks think of next?
(hint: if you turn BlueTooth off, then the iBeacon technology is useless to track you atall)
Having never seen the gecko adverts, I can't possibly comment on their artistic merit. However, I'm willing to bet that it's about a million times better than (not even dignifying them with a name) having an opera singer as their mascot, then trying to make up for it by repeatedly killing him.
Right, so, the news site that "Bites that hand that feeds IT" is now reprinting stuff it read in The Sun. Whatever next - Fortean Times? National Enquirer? The Watchtower? Honest John's Blog o' Ill-Informed Bile?
IIRC, the standing argument about music ownership is that the various retailers were forced to apply DRM by the music industry. Maybe, if Mr Willis wanted to give a true "yippee-ki-yay Mr Falco", he might want to take on the RIAA and their industry mates and ask about why they only let him rent music.
Meanwhile, all the major music retail sites are DRM-free, so you could happily leave your files to whosoever you wanted. Admittedly, if you bought old iTunes tracks, they still have the FairPlay DRM on them, but it's trivial to 'upgrade' and have that removed.
Alas, amusing as though your proposal is, lawyers do occasionally manage to display the faintest glimmer of intelligence. I know, a crazy notion.
Anyway, you're far more likely to hear the Apple lawyers holding forth on how "Samsung has copied design elements from the Apple iPad, but have succeeded only in delivering a Steaming Turd."
Much better to shut all the legal teams in a room with some lengths of 2x4.
I assume you mean the "Never a lawyer around when you need one" comment? No idea why it went.
Anyway, although I'm an Apple fan, I'm pretty baffled by the lawsuits, based on pure gut instinct - it's no way to conduct business. However, I don't really know enough about the technicalities of the cases or underlying law to condemn the results of all of these. So, best to maintain the ol' El Reg tradition of mocking everyone else.
@AC, @DrXym, @TheBigYin, @Naughtyhorse
Loving the internal logic: if Apple can't make free apps pay, they should force the customers and/or the publisher to pay money. Presumably, you're setting yourselves up for further comments here about how Apple is abusing its position to force people to give them money.
If you ever bothered to stop reading propaganda, you'd see that Apple requires the developer to include the option to subscribe through iTunes *in addition to* the option to subscribe through an external service. Either option is available to the customer. The same price is payable in both locations.
The difference is that, if Apple do the subscription, the developer no longer has to pay for hosting, bandwidth, availability, payment control, security and all those other things that happen when you start selling content through a website.
I've had these buggers twice - the first time, I managed four-and-a-half minutes before revealing I was using a Mac, at which point they couldn't hang up fast enough. However, as the article points out, they decided to try again and pointed me to a (legitimate) remote access software site.
Worryingly, they were very defensive when I told them that I knew what they were up to; clearly they want to take it to the bitter end. One sniff of possible cash and they won't give up.
Similarly, I have no beef with the jailbreak community, as long as they remember they take all responsibility for whatever they do to their device.
However, I would assume that any jailbreaker with half a braincell would remember not to automatically hit the "update" button in iTunes as soon as they receive notification from the Death Star...er, Cupertino.
Good point - Freeview boxes are an excellent example of external functionality that has eventually been incorporated into the TV itself.
However, that doesn't stop set-top boxes being sold for various purposes - just look at Tesco selling their Freeview HD boxes for £70.
In any case, by the time "eventually" comes around, all the functionality of the Apple TV will be integrated into the TV itself?
There's a lot of hate in here, for something that looks like an experiment on the other side of the planet.
But then again, the mere suggestion of anything Apple-flavoured does seem to stir the haters in the El Reg forums into shooting their mouths off without reading (or understanding) the original article.
Perhaps some of the experts on here might like to try asking questions about the horrific IT kludge that's being forced on the NHS, rather than worry about how our antipodean cousins are choosing to invest/waste their cash.
Thoughtfully, some bright spark has already started labelling various suggestions (using the term in the losest possible sense) with the "daily mail" tag:
Makes it a lot easier to identify the people with rabid mouth froth.
Interesting just how many involve the word "immigrant". I think I can already hear the strains of Tomorrow Belongs To Me...
I know I'll still be on O2, for all intents and purposes, but I'll be paying less for the privilege. Plus, in my dreams, I'd like to think that O2 will weep and wail at the loss of any customer.
In any case, based on the crazy queues in the centre of town, I don't think I've got any chance of upgrading anytime soon.
I suppose I can see why O2 have done it - got to keep the big spenders happy - but the slightly insulting attitude towards the rest of us customers means that I'll be asking for my PAC and moving to those very, very attractive tariffs with Tesco Mobile - complete with a contract that's only twelve months.
Meanwhile, I think I can probably wait for the beta testers to sort out the glitches in the new hardware.
Yes, how dare they name it after a part of the human body. There's no rods or cones in there, and what about a blood supply to let it function? And it's not actually attached to the inside of an eye. It's marketing gone mad, I tell you.
Meanwhile, here's some science:
iAds can be used in iPhone/iPod touch apps only. Developers of apps can choose to use them, if they wish. General internet browsing is entirely subject to whatever advertising the advertiser the site's owner has chosen to use.
But, y'know, don't let research or facts get in the way of your anti-Apple rant.
Now, if you happened to be Google, then you might have something to say...
The original Billboard article is a little fuzzy on what Apple has threatened - the only thing that Apple is specified as doing is "withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals". Which, I will agree, is a pretty sly thing to do with a brand new release, but not the same as banning anything from iTunes.
Still, you make a good point about the DoJ getting in now, learning the market and (hopefully) reminding the players to behave themselves. Thank you for making shrewd observation without the random anti-Apple mentality that seems to haunt these forums so often.
Not apologising, just trying to understand. Feel free to explain what is going on, based on the facts presented. Please try not to resort to shouting, a spurious example selected from "Hating Apple for Dummies" and vague, unsubstantiated references to "other anti-competitive practices".
My interpretation of an "exclusive" is that nobody else can buy the product except from an approved supplier. It may only be for 24 hours, it may be for two years. The principle is exactly the same.
I don't disagree that Apple's business practices are biased in their favour, but nobody forces you buy an iPhone, get your music from iTunes, run Mac OS X on your iMac or even have anything to do with Apple in the first place.
If you want to argue with Apple apologists, go and comment on Roughly Drafted. I'd just like a little clarity here.
So, Amazon wants to corner the market with an exclusive track/album (i.e. prevent any other retailer from selling the track until 24 hours after Amazon creamed the early customers).
Apple appear to be using their (not inconsiderable) influence the make the same deal available to all customers at the same time (i.e. iTunes, Amazon, 7digital and so on), and subject to each retailers individual pricing and promotional methods.
Right. Obviously, Apple are evil monopolists and want to crush customer choice. Aren't we lucky that Amazon sending forth its winged monkeys...er, I mean, that the DoJ is standing up for the little guy.
Paris, because she knows all about letting people have exclusive access twenty four hours before allowing everyone to see the goods.
"but it doesn't have any kiddie filtering software"
Oh, apart from the passcode-protected "Restrictions"?
"I spent some time investigating it"
Yeah, that took 0.12 seconds to find on Google.
That said, never underestimate the resourcefulness of kids on a quest for pr0n. There isn't a system in the world that will stop a determined teenager...
"Just wondering what will be the optimum use of this ?? Lemme think."
Apparently, your alternative consists of an N97, a "decent camera", a photoframe and a BlackBerry, all gaffa-taped into one big lump of uncommunicative uselessness.
While the iPad may not appear to be the sleekest or best equipped device in the world, it certainly sounds a lot more attactive than watching you rummaging through your pockets, looking for the gadget you need for whatever task is at hand...
It's taken about two weeks, but here is a reasoned discussion about the iPad and what it actually means.
I'm sure that El Reg has enjoyed the many, many pageviews for the umpteen stories about the latest shiny Apple tech, not to mention the earnest (and pointless) comment wars by people quoting specifications and dogma at each other.
This article started to steer the debate in the right direction: Apple are selling an appliance for people who want to passively consume small segments of the internet, along with their own content (or anything else they choose to buy). They are not the sole supplier of music, video, apps and books; while they may seek to set a standard, they will never manage to take over the world.
Perhaps the clue is in the older Apple adverts: "For the rest of us". Those users who want to do more complex things will buy the device that best suits them.
Unfortunately, the world is full of people who will take advantage of the lazy, gullible or inattentive. The closed marketplace (especially for big names staking their reputation, such as Google or, say, Apple) is unavoidable, unless you somehow magically expect everyone to just be nice.
Paris, because she doesn't intend to be tight, opaque or closed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019