archgrove

Because Google and you are not setting out explicitly to build a set of links to copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder. It's all about intent. If I go to a high-street store called "Kitchen Goods" and buy a knife, that store's fine. If I go to a store called "Jay's back-alley shivs" run out of the inside breast of his raincoat between 02:00 and 04:00, he's probably not fine.

The law recognises intent in most situations, and the Pirate Bay exists to provide access to expensive-to-create content without compensating the people who made it. Hence, they have problems (and justifiably so).

Or, someone just prefers the iPhone. One can "hack" without all the "requirements" posted by you. Do you drive a car you didn't build yourself? Then you're no hacker! Read books you didn't bind in the cover your prefer? Not a hacker! Write software in languages other than Brainf*ck? Sorry, turn in your hacker badge.

Any time you feel the temptation to claim that someone is "not an X" based on your own private criteria, I'd suggest rethinking it. Some labels have well defined requirements (a Baseball player is someone who plays baseball). However, many labels are entirely in the eye of the beholder, and pronouncing to someone "Hah! You're not an X" generally makes one look bitter and insecure.

No university in the UK has a "paper requirement" that I'm aware of. You're encouraged to publish, but it's not mandatory. Published work does increase the odds of successfully completing the process, because it pre-vets the work, but I've known people to finish with only one paper (or even zero). I'm writing up my thesis now, and have only 1 paper (a workshop, so really only 1/2). I hope that most of my work will be published post-thesis.

Of course, UK PhDs are very different to the US - here, 3 years is a normal timescale to completion, and 4 years is the maximum my department allows. Frankly, in any "deep" subject, that's barely enough time to work out what the state of the art is, let alone advance it.

They work just fine. The signing check is performed exactly once for new software. Once allowed, it's never checked again. As nothing on an upgraded system is "new", it works without ever showing a Gatekeeper prompt.

It's basically identical to the "You just downloaded this file from the web, are you sure you want to run it?" check built into Safari - the file quarantine system http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3662?viewlocale=en_US&loca.... However, this defaults to "No" for unsigned code, and "Yes" for signed code.

I didn't expect them to, but then I assumed that Google would stay clear of the hardware market. Now that they're essentially shipping phones at very low margins, they're a direct competitor to Samsung. Why buy an S3 when you can get a NX4 for hundreds of dollars cheaper, and get essentially better hardware (modulo LTE)?

To respond to this will require care. They can go with the razor-margins approach, and have their margins eaten away to virtually 0 (i.e. Dell etc). However, this only props up an ecosystem that benefits Google. They could, I suppose, find a way to out-build the entire rest of the market and get decent margins at the very low end of price (but I find that unlikely). Alternatively, they find a way to differentiate, which is most cheaply done at the software level.

Anyone picking path #1 is basically going to have to own the market to make any money in the long term, but will keep decent balance sheets in the short until commoditisation is completed. Anyone picking path #2 has more risk in the short term, but a lot more to gain in the long (e.g. as Apple has).

I think any answer to this will have to hinge on why, given the sales disparity, app revenue and "usage" metrics (i.e. mobile browsing) is still either in favour of iOS or tied. My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door and say "I need a phone". These people don't really know what they're getting in terms of an ecosystem, and seem to use very little smart functionality.

iPhone users (and "high end" Android users), on the other hand, probably know exactly what they're buying into. These are the users that will determine developer targeting. Two ways I see for Android to decisively win this: either these "low-end" users start to participate in the eco-system, or the rise of low income countries (much of Asia, Africa etc) makes the weight of numbers so far in Android's favour that even with a much lower engagement rate, the money's there. Apple could counter this with "iPhone Nano", I guess, but it would require them to sacrifice a lot of margin.

Outside tip: Samsung are becoming the Apple of Android smartphones, selling the preponderance of the high end handsets. Within 18 months, I suspect we'll see them fork Android to differentiate themselves from the "sell at near cost, make it up on ecosystem" strategy that Google's pursuing now with the Nexus (that reduce Samsung to basically a hardware supplier on razor-thin margins). Either that, or they'll use carrier relationships to ensure these cheap, high-end handsets don't ever really get in front of non-geeky consumers.

This only seems to occur on apple.com. The resizing behaviour happens on all country specific sites I've tried.

So anything, any time, that alters the vertical spacing of the Apple homepage around the world, even if it's only 2 days before a major product roll-out is related to an 15pt font paragraph at the bottom of their UK homepage that no-one except the lawyers will even click on? Moreover, given that they've pissed off the judge once, their own lawyers won't have signed off on 5 times over?

I find that rather implausible, though I guess it's not impossible.

This behaviour is the same on apple.de or apple.jp, so it's not just the UK site. Moreover, it was added only 2 days after the judgement was upheld:

    HEAD /v/home/n/scripts/hero_resize.js HTTP/1.1
    Host: www.apple.com
    
    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Server: Apache
    **Last-Modified: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:31:51 GMT**
    Accept-Ranges: bytes
    Content-Length: 632
    Content-Type: application/x-javascript
    Cache-Control: max-age=600
    Expires: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:04:23 GMT
    Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:54:23 GMT
    Connection: keep-alive

I believe this was before the homepage was altered to display the ruling. Moreover, this was also just 2 days before the iPad mini was announced. Far more likely this is just related to new product announcements than any nefarious scheme.

Anyone who A) likes Apple and B) has ever been in a Dixons store in the UK will be overjoyed with the other departure, Browett (head of retail and previous Dixons CEO) who is leaving immediately (compared to Forstall's year long "transition" departure). Dixons is everything that Apple should never be; terrible customer service, clueless minimum wage staff, horrible retail experience, and generally used only by people who desperately need something immediately or are too naive to find another store.

Recent news out of Apple regarding "cutbacks" at retail suggested he was nudging them in the same direction. Given that he got his first stock disbursement last week and was due $58 million over the next few years if he hung around, I'm guessing he was pushed. Great decision from Cook if that was the case.

You'd think that, but I've notice precisely 0 more non-Valve games being released for Mac since Steam came to OS X. The only releases seem to be from companies who already did Mac ports, and indies (who are generally multi-platform).

I really can't see the value for Twitter in limiting 3rd party clients to slivers of the user base. I'm guessing it's because they're going to (shortly) stuff ads and other unwanted junk into peoples feeds, and 3rd party clients could easily just filter that out. Forcing people into their clients ensures the crap gets in front of eyeballs.

However, 3rd party clients were the route into Twitter for a huge amount of early adopters (and even later adopters). Most Twitter "features" (including the retweet concept, hashtags an even the word "tweet") were from the open community they started with. Moreover, their own clients are falling behind even simple 3rd party experiences. Twitter for Mac has, essentially, been abandoned. How many users will swallow an inferior experience, just for the privilege of getting adverts thrust in?

For my 2p, I certainly won't - to me, the value of Twitter has been decreasing over time, not increasing. As it moves towards "mass market", it seems to be seeking a broadcast model, where billions of users subscribe to feeds of a few celebrities. It's becoming a "send only" service - the total amount of micro-conversions I've had in the last year is much lower than even 2 years ago.

Perhaps this will work out for them as a company - a real time newswire for companies and celebs to send 140 character press releases, interspersed with adverts. Or maybe I'm wrong, and mass adoption of their web and iffy mobile/desktop clients is coming. I just can't see it, yet.

I think the point of copyright is that this is the system that came into effect from the chaos that previously existed. Patronage, trade guilds, etc have all been tried. The world eventually settled on government enforced temporary monopolies in the form of copyright.

Now, we can argue that the temporary monopoly is too long now, but to suggest that we go back to square one is silly. Why throw away hundreds of years of progress on this issue?

Fair point, they did rather neuter spaces (I guess to get more people using it, but at the expense of power users). All other options still work. I'm not at my machine to lookup settings, but ML added a "Don't group windows" to Mission Control that pretty much replicates Expose from SL (just ignore the Spaces view at the top).

That's true of every computational device in the world. Windows, Ubuntu, Android, etc. Everyone could flip that switch, and lockout non-jailbreakers (or Kernel recompilers). It's not an argument for it happening.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions, but

"Next up is the OS. Have you noticed that OSX releases of late, well, to be blunt, suck? It’s not that they suck as a stand alone OS, but they take away a lot of the freedoms and flexibility that the Mac desktop OS user has come to expect. Bit by bit Apple is removing all of the parts that make OSX something other than a phone class OS"

Is nonsense. "Suck" is a matter of opinion, but there's nothing you can do on a 5 year old Mac that you can't do on a new Mac (and several things more). People keep confusing attempts to make the OS easier to use with "closing" it. When I can't run my own software, and drop to a terminal with the standard UNIX tool chain, I'll but the argument. But there's no sign of this so far.

It's just about not allowing 3rd party code to have writable code pages. In principle, this is good - most programs don't write code to memory, unless they're suffering a security problem. It's just unfortunate that the few legitimate uses of this are also culled.

I'm not certain if a single handset has outsold the flagship iPhone previously (certainly Android as a whole has). However, I believe this is the first time a flagship quality handset from a competitor that is basically eating the Android market has come out in the few months preceding an iPhone.

"The overwhelming success of Apple’s iPhone 4S has finally hit a lull" - about 2 weeks before it's due to be replaced as the flagship iPhone. The iPhone purchasing cycle is very cyclical - huge sales after the new model is introduced, gradually declining up to the next model (which repeats the cycle). It would surprise me if the S3 hadn't taken the lead over the summer.

"I am happy to describe to you something I own so that you can make a copy of it"

Fantastic - your comment history indicates you're a programmer of some kind, running a company. I'm sure you've got some interesting insights into this field. If you could just write them up into a decent book, edit it properly so I can understand it, make it pithy, smart and worth reading so I can get the most of your "description", pay someone to draw some decent diagrams, etc, and then ship it over, that'd be great.

But because it's just "information", and can be replicated freely, I'm not going to pay you to do any of that. I just want the "information" - the production costs are all up to you. So noone's out anything, any this is a perfectly reasoning thing to expect, right?

Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients", and thus start streaming ads down peoples throats (oh, sorry - "Richer stories" is apparently the nuspeak). I'm not sure they're yet in a position to dictate this, especially given how bad their own clients are compared to some other options.

The interesting thing about Twitter compared to e.g. Facebook is that the social graph is very weak. I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. I occasionally send something out, but it's not a strong set of connections. The network effect is thus minimal; migrating over to app.net would be easy, as I'm not that bothered that I have exactly the same followers/followees. When the pain of the service outweighs it's smallish value, I'll just jump ship.

Even more people out there are just passive followers of celebrity names. Facebook or similar could launch a "Flitter" that did everything they wanted, and get a mass migration pretty easily - once people get annoyed enough to start looking around. If Twitter continue on this path, that threshold will be reached much sooner than I originally expected.

The worst thing here is the inconsistency. If the App Store had no "training video" type apps, then one might disagree with the policy, but at least it wouldn't feel so arbitrary. Allowing some, but not others - plus changing their mind half way though - puts Apple in a bad light. They also need to ensure that their "suggestions" are possible. In this, I think their policies in one area are just evolving faster than those in another. I'd hope that anyone could submit video content in the not to distant future, as part of a "Tutorial" category or similar.

In terms of pragmatics, have you considered doing an interactive iBook? Videos, plus diagrams and text would seem to be more useful than just a video anyway, and (IIRC) anyone can submit an iBook.

OS 9 -> OS X was supported by the Classic runtime for years. PPC to Intel was supported by Rosetta for years.

I suppose if the announced that this was the plan, and gave people years to migrate across, it might be something they'd do. But it would kill basically any technical use of the platform (development, scientific computing). I find it much more likely they'll evolve iOS "up" to support users for whom a closed appliance approach is helpful, whilst adding options to OS X to cater for those who want a more traditional computer but need a bit more help.

Which would instantly kill the Mac as a development platform, and render all previously purchased software irrelevant. This just won't happen, though I can see a version of OS X that does this by default (perhaps on all "non-pro" models).

Because they're not a monopoly on smartphones/tablets. Android is doing pretty well, by most accounts. Blackberry still isn't dead (though not for lack of RIM's trying). The IE antitrust case against Microsoft was because they held a monopoly on desktop computers, and tried to use that to build a monopoly on Internet Browsers.

Apple a monopoly on Apple devices, but that's fine. Saying that they have a "monopoly" here is like saying that Coke has a monopoly on the contents of Coke bottles, and they should be forced to fill some with Pepsi. Perhaps less glibly, that things like XBox should be forced to ship Mario, or that Microsoft must release Halo for the PS3. Just because we're used to anything with a CPU being "free for all developers to ship whatever they like onto" doesn't make it a right enforceable by law. If that's your preference, great - buy devices that support this. We do not want the government dictating policy in an area so young, and highly competitive.

If, in a few years, the iPad has become the tablet computer with 99% of the marketshare, there might be an argument for an antitrust case against App Store policies. But that looks very unlikely to be the case.

It's worthwhile looking at a couple of infographics in this case:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/mobile-patent-suits...

Basically, you can't purchase a smartphone without choosing to back someone who's suing someone over patent issues. Do I agree with Apple's patent wars? No. Do I agree with Googles (nee Motarola)? No. But if you want to boycott people over them, you're basically back to a Nokia dumb phone. Oh, wait - they're suing people too. Tin can and a bit of string, anyone?

The entire patent system is broken, both for the speed at which things happen in technology, and for the level of experience needed to see when something is "obvious". However, I can't feel too bad for Samsung in this case, viz: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/09/29/apple-samsung-copyca... (just a few examples of their completely independent "inspiration"). The world does need some mechanism to prevent people from wholesale ripping off other people's work. It's just not the current patent situation.

The argument doesn't really hold up, as we're only given two choices: Upgradable, or amazing screen. If there was a third, "Upgradable and amazing screen" with the applicable price/weight tradeoffs, then the "we can choose" view would be more tenable.

Regardless, the lack of upgradability isn't something that bugs me. My last two Apple laptops were "upgradable", but all I ever did was throw some RAM in there. The subset of people who want to really tinker inside their machines is vastly outweighed by people who want a very lightweight machine, so offering the "lightweight" option is a no-brainer. The lack of a upgradable machines as an option is presumably beause they've done the maths and realised that the number of people who choose that won't warrant the costs of maintaining the product line; viz. the death of the 17" Macbook LapCrusher(tm).

There was a comment (I think here) yesterday that said, effectively, "Upgradability was a defect of technology not being 'good enough' for long periods". These days, the stock specs of the Macbook Retina will be fine for even power users for years; almost certainly the life of a laptop. The tiny group of "super power users" are those likely to just upgrade their laptops every couple of years anyway.

Whilst I'm not qualified to comment on the science, I can certainly agree with the conclusion. In Diablo 2, the hunt for loot was part of feeling the "hero" - keep digging for treasure, keep dismembering those skeletons; somewhere, there's that Epic Item with which you can win the day!

I've played Diablo 3 through to "Hell" difficulty, and I've not been using my own looted gear since the middle of the "Normal" mode - there's just no competition between drops, and what you can buy on the AH for very little money. The "sensible" play style is just to farm gold, and buy AH kit. Found an item? Sell it for gold (or, very occasionally, AH) - don't use it!

It's hard to feel like a hero when you're popping off to Macy's every few hours to grab a new +1 Sword of Wounding. Your quest to save the world - sponsored by Nike?

That's fine if a) you're willing to maintain two image sets and, b) the only two resolution images you need are "normal" and "2 x normal". The advantage of a progressive quality system is it scales to arbitrary requirements in a single resource. One file provides 1x, 2x, 3x, 3.14x etc.

It would need an extra HTTP request, yes. In practice for the PNG solution, one would be better off with sending the DPI in the request headers, so that the "correct" image is the only one sent.

For JPEG 2000, the network characteristics are important, but I don't think it would be too bad on a mobile network. Low DPI devices might get a bit "too much", but it wouldn't be a problem - they can just throw it out (or incorporate more detail).