yesyes · HackerTrans

14 lat temudiscuss

That reason makes Apple look worse. The example of PGP is silly. PGP is an open protocol. The user can control their own encryption. Apple like Adobe wants to take an open protocol for streaming, in Apple's case RTSP, and make it proprietary. And like Adobe they are finding this is not so easy. The more they seek to exert unreasonable control over how people use devices they have already paid for, the more motivation they give for people to find workarounds. There are benefits to everyone in having open protocols, as the thousands of examples in the RFC's demonstrate, but the only benefit of the "AirPlay" protocol is to Apple. Making devices that can only communicate with other devices you make is dubious business where networking is concerned. It just make everyone's life more difficult- except Apple's. You can't blame people for trying to get devices and accessories made by different manufacturers to work together. RA should not even have to jump through these hoops. These devices that Apple makes should be able to network with devices from other manufacturers. We do not need an "AirPlay" protocol controlled by one company.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

Yes. All lot of judges are complicit in patent trolling. They are not like Posner. The Eastern District of Texas is one example. Patent trolls have to shop around for venues because not all judges are going to welcome these type of suits. You could say Posner might not be well versed in patent law, but to see what these companies are doing does not require such knowledge. These are needless lawsuits that are used as a means of (i.e. a substitute for) negotiation. This comes from the lack the maturity to negotiate like professionals. And the lack of professionalism to use the patent system as a means of protecting a developing or existing business and not as a means extortion^W"capital allocation".

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

Agreed. I simply wanted to point out that the car manufacturer does not actively try to prevent the car owner or the installation shop from installing a stereo. However Apple does this with their devices. Everything must pass through Apple even after the sale is complete and the user owns the device, and that is just absurd. I can't imagine what older Macs that we used for audio applications would have been like if all software had to be approved by Apple. Apple does not have the expertise to write all that software. When I say Apple's strategy will backfire I mean that the more tightly they try to exercise control, the easier jailbreaking is going to get. The auto manufacturers may have made it very difficult to do stereo installations on newer models but they are not actively trying to interfere with stereo makers and installers after the car is sold. And why should they? The buyer made his choice when he bought the car whether he wanted any factory installed audio options or not. If after the sale the buyer wants to buy parts, or get service from an authorized dealer, she can do so. But the manufacturer does not try to interfere with her choice to get service (e.g. stereo installation) elsewhere. Imagine if every car stereo maker had to get approval from car manufacturers and could only sell their products in the manufacturer's distribution centers.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

What hoops? If the purchaser wants to install a stereo he can choose to do it himself or take the car to a shop that installs stereos. What's happening in this case is, roughly, by analogy, the car manufacturer is trying to exercise control over a shop that is selling stereos that can be installed in the car. Is that overreaching? Would consumers complain if a car manufacturer actually tried to do that? The factory installed stereo better be very good.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

Is the warranty the issue here? Isn't it the right to add some functionality to the device? I could see your point if there was an argument between Amoeba and Apple about voiding warranties. But I don't see that being the issue.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

http://bikeshed.org

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

This is going to backfire on Apple. It is absurd the lengths they are going to. Imagine if when you bought a car the manufacturer tried to control what stereo you could install. "We made this car, and you have to play by our rules." Insane.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

Actually you can test two at a time by using an alias in /etc/hosts.

In /etc/hosts:

1.2.3.4 site1.com site2.com

Then you have to edit /etc/hosts to try two more sites.

The idea that the user cannot access /etc/hosts on the iPhone is reason enough to jailbreak it. Denying access to /etc/hosts means the iPhone cannot connect to the any website that requires a hostname, even when the iPhone can connect to the internet, unless the iPhone can access some DNS server (which of course Apple probably wants to control). That is a ridiculous limitation. The internet nor the web requires DNS to work, but the iPhone requires DNS to access the web.[1]

1. assuming the website is using virtual hosts or otherwise requires a hostname

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

Users told us they would rather have tactile buttons as on a PC keyboard or Blackberry. We're working on a small "smartphone keyboard" for fast "two thumbs" typing like on a Blackberry. The user can plug it into the smartphone when the user wants to type quickly and detach it when they are done and want to store the device.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

"OK, kids, time to stop squabbling in the sandbox and go home."

The problem is that these kids have weekly allowances in the hundreds of thousands. And most lawyers do not discriminate among potential clients by maturity level, they discriminate by net worth. They are happy to become instruments of a sandbox squabble, for a price. The kids don't do the squabbling. They pay lawyers to do it for them.

yesyes

14 lat temudiscuss

Hallelujah.

"I also disagree that it is not believable that the vast majority of programmers have been boneheaded for 40 years."

http://paulgraham.com/icadmore.html

The "success" of a language is determined by what the language can do, not what programmers manage to do with it.

It is entirely possible there is a language that exists that can do more and do it faster than any other language in existence, but "most programmers", the ones who make a language "popular", either don't know about it or don't want to learn it.

comments