Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Antitrust? (Score:3, Insightful)
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Informative)
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
You can't have a successful antitrust suit against someone with a minuscule marketshare.
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aha, but market share of what? The browser market? The mobile browser market? The iPhone browser market?
Parent
not minuscule, 20-30%. (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the same thing (minuscule market share), until I saw that in Q4 2007, the iPhone had a 30% market share of smartphones.
It's since dropped [cnet.com], but I have no idea what's happened since the 3G model came out. Point is...it's not remotely minuscule; they're second or third.
The other point: the market is pretty diversified between Palm, Windows Smartphones, Palm OS, Symbian, and others (like the Sidekick, running Hiptop OS.) If several companies colluded and blocked Opera, THAT would be an anti-trus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Informative)
Usually, linksys routers such as yours are incapable of running a standard linux router distribution.
It's like saying, "It's antitrust that I can't run Safari on my VIC-20."
It's a technical limitation, not a political/strategic one... which is the case with Opera on the iPhone.
I'm glad I bought an Android phone. :)
Parent
not Antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
Jesus, no. Please go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:not Antitrust (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no. If I wanted to RTFA I wouldn't be posting on Slashdot. I'm here to make wildly speculative statements on issues on which I have no expertise.
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Informative)
At least on Nokia's S60 (Symbian) devices you can run what ever you like.
Parent
No, S60 is DRM'ed as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
No you can't. All software that wants to do something "dangerous" on you S60-mobile, like setting the clock, or accessing contact data, MUST be digitally signed. That's great (really, I do like the platform security), but the only Certificate Authority for this is... Symbian. So in the end SYMBIAN decides what may and may not run on YOUR phone.
Yes, Symbian has "open signed", a cheezy web-interface where you can sign unsigned freeware, so it can be installed on YOUR phone, but alas, Symbian is in control here as well.
Don't let the claims of "openess" and "open source" fool you!
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody ever suggested you could run anything on an iPhone, and that makes it no different that most of the other cellular phone devices out there.
No, but the fact that Apple has both the capability and the will to control what they let their customers put on their phones doesn't mean that this isn't a very, very user-hostile move by Apple.
On every phone I've ever owned, I could run any compatible software I wanted.
Iphone is the only phone I've seen where the manufacturer say "Sorry. We will not allow you to run this software on your phone, even though it is compatible, useful and does no harm."
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: Arbitrary? (Score:4, Interesting)
We're talking about Apple's rejection of applications which are deemed to "compete" with Apple's own functionality, or even planned functionality. Here's a (probably incomplete) list [boredzo.org] of higher profile apps that have been rejected by Apple, for various reasons.
Regarding Opera's rejection -- if Microsoft could have locked users into using only Internet Explorer on Windows, they would have. Once IE had killed Netscape, most internet-savvy people were even okay with using IE. Just because most of us are okay with Apple, and Safari doesn't suck, doesn't mean that Apple is justified in locking its users into its choice of software.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? On my Sprint phones the only software available was what Sprint approved. If they didn't like it (say it competed with their wannabe-MP3 service or TV service) they wouldn't approve it.
Cell phone applications having to be approved is quite routine. Smartphones may be different, but with most phones the companies like to lock them down to prevent people from messing with their revenue streams. This is no different.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never had any problems installing any apps I wanted on any of my Sprint phones, regardless of where I was getting them from. Sure, they're not in the Sprint App Store but hitting Google and then putting a URL into your cell browser isn't too tough.
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
that's the carrier locking you in, not the handset manufacturer. this kind of blatantly anti-consumer policy may be routine in the cellular service industry, but Apple is setting a new precedent for it in the handset manufacturing industry. so now consumers have to put up with, not just being screwed over by their cell phone carrier, but also by their handset manufacturer? this seems like a new low in consumer rights/freedom. Apple seems bent on going in the exact opposite direction with the iPhone as Google is going with the Android platform.
hopefully with the rising popularity of municipal WiFi & WiMax, the growing movement behind open spectrums/networks, and the increased focus on wireless broadband technology, we'll eventually see closed/proprietary cellular networks replaced with VoIP over open wireless networks.
when ubiquitous open wifi access becomes a reality we'll start seeing wireless VoIP handsets replace conventional cell phones that have to be approved (and locked down) by cellular carriers. when that happens it'll only be handset makers who are able to deny users the freedom to install/run the applications that they want on their handsets. so if manufacturers go the Android route, users will have complete freedom & control over how they use their phones, whereas if Apple's attitude catches on user will be stuck in the same situation as before.
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? On what grounds could Apple be sued if a user modified their product in a way not approved by Apple?
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody ever suggested you could run anything on Windows, and that makes it no different than most of the other OSes out there. It comes down to the simplest of playground rules:
My ball, my game.
There's a reason we're reminded of the 90's and Microsoft vs Netscape. But hey, at least Microsoft didn't stop Netscape from happening, they just competed unfairly. Apple is doing both -- they're bundling Safari (just like Microsoft bundled IE), and they're actively working to prevent Opera from even being sold on that platform.
The only reason I like Macs is that they tend to work. Apple has been more closed and more anticompetitive than Microsoft ever was -- and I'm not just talking about the iPhone.
Parent
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Opera is free. Apple are preventing a free and arguably better browser from appearing on their gadget. They bigger the market share apple pick up, particularly real people and not apple zealots, the more shit like this is going to come to ahead. Many people already regard apple as the new MS bastards.
Parent
The high cost forced data plan + vioce plan is a.. (Score:4, Informative)
The high cost forced data plan + voice plan is a trun off me. I want to get S60 based phone running Symbian OS with WIFI and just use WIFI I have ATT DSL so I can use there hotspots for free as well as not being forced to use 1 app store I can get apps from any one with out the app lock in.
No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... ComScore found that iPhone purchases grew fastest among people with annual household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000.
Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money. If or when the Democrats get control next week, we can see more money going down the poor people money pit: sales of consumer electronics, junk food, fast food, Walmart junk, etc... will all increase. But yet, when something that would reduce conspicuous consumption among folks who really need to save and develop some sort of fiscal discipline, it is shot down as helping the "rich". By the way, most middle and upper class folks need to develop s
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to be smart with money when you have a lot of it, you have more choices. Compare the price per ounce of orange soda vs orange juice sometime. Healthy food costs more than unhealthy food, that's why you see all those slender affluent women in the suburbs (plus they have the money and time to excercise) but when you head down to less affluent areas you see more overweight women. No money for healthy food, no money or time for regular pilates and yoga.
Did you know that the government requires "food stamp" (they're now debit cards though) recipients to take a class in how to spend their food dollars before they get their benefit? They say things like "buy healthy food, buy fresh fruits and vegetables, don't buy junk." but every recipient knows that if they followed that advice their benefit wouldn't last the month.
It's folks like you that cause politicians to talk about helping the forgotten middle class? How can the middle class be forgotten when everyone talks about them and wants to cater to them. It's the poor and lower class that are truly forgotten. When's the last time you ever heard a politician say, "hey let's index the minimum wage to inflation and the CPI and make it retroactive to 1980" or "Let's increase the "food stamp" benefit so that people can actually afford to follow the food buying advice we give them." or "Hey lets tighten up labor laws so we don't have grocery chains hiring teenagers because they can: pay them less, know they're less likely to unionize and are less likely to complain about sexual harassment or bad workplace conditions."
Parent
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no problem eating well when I was a poor college student. For me it was easier to eat well when I was poor because all the pre-made frozen/boxed/canned meals were unaffordable. Now I have to work quite a bit harder to avoid the temptation to simply let Tombstone and friends do all my cooking for me.
The poor people I know who eat like crap don't do it because they can't afford better. They do it because they have no willpower. They not only eat junk food, they eat out for junk food. Nobody who can afford to eat regularly at McDonald's is going to have problems affording healthy food.
And really, I don't buy your argument at all. Eating healthy is harder if you're a lazy poor person. But potatoes, beans, and in-season vegetables are all cheaper than junk food.
Oh, and food stamps? I don't live in an area with a lot of food-stamp recipients. But the last time I saw someone use food stamps at my local grocery store, she was buying two large bottles of Odwalla juice, clocking in at something like $15 total for perhaps half a gallon of juice. Obviously she's having no trouble affording healthy food!
Parent
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Funny)
My sister, her baby and her baby's daddy used to live with me back when I was first out of college. I asked her to help out by paying some rent and she told me that she was so broke that she had to eat at McDonalds. That statement almost caused me to choke on my ramen.
Parent
One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:5, Insightful)
Horrible decisions made from the financial standpoint.
Still I am curious, how many of these people in the income brackets live at home, did not list their spouse's income as part of it, or share a house/apartment which could minimize their income needs?
I know it seems heartless to some but a lot of people just don't get ahead because of their own actions. Go by an apartment complex and your bound to see many cars that make you shake your head. A great example is where I work. In our own support staff we have two guys with expensive cars, like a fairly current Mercedes or year old BMW 5 series. Throw in the cool cell phone and I just sigh and walk away when they bitch about not having sufficient money to do things other people do. Yet these same clueless individuals will buy into whatever politicians tell them, specifically that somehow its not their fault and its not fair. They really believe this to be true!
An article in the AJC earlier in the year was showing the plight of the homeless in Atlanta, the impact of the story fell on its face as all but two of those pictured had a cell phone - a few were using them when the picture was taken.
What it comes down to is that people fail to set proper priorities. They refuse to understand that they just can't have everything unless they have the real means to do so. Yet instead of spending that very same wasted money on improving their means they squander it forever setting themselves back. We used to be a society which tried to help each other out but that fell by the wayside when many began to demand that help without making any sacrifice themselves.
Parent
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen.
I heard an Ad Council ad on the radio a few years ago that dramatized a "Savers Anonymous" meeting.
"Hello, my name is Dave... and... I drive a car... that's SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! (*sob*)"
"Hi, I'm Dana, and last week... I couldn't help myself! I CLIPPED A COUPON!"
Etc.
The whole point was that in this world it is almost politically incorrect to be financially responsible.
Parent
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a job, I work as a PA to the disabled. I made less than $16000 last year. Do you know why it pays so low? Because the majority of people who do it in the cities are african american women. And thusly the work is devalued.
No. The pay is so low because there's a greater supply of would-be PAs there there is a demand for them. Contrast with, say, an accountant: it's hard to become one, so the supply stays relatively low and they get more pay.
Drop the wanna-be victim crap. You chose to work in a low-skill job and can't expect to get paid a lot for it. I won't bother replying to your failed logic tying lesbians to social work.
Parent
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The pay is so low because there's a greater supply of would-be PAs there there is a demand for them. Contrast with, say, an accountant: it's hard to become one, so the supply stays relatively low and they get more pay.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Group homes for disabled folk are constantly understaffed because they can't hire people for the wages they pay, same goes for nursing homes. CIL's (Centers for indepentent living, agencies that advocate for disabled folks) are constantly trying to recruit PA's and match them to people who need them, and there aren't enough because it pays crap and the work is hard. Accountants sit in an air conditioned office all day hitting numbers on a keyboard and reading. Folks like me wipe your grannies or your relative with cerebral palsy's ass, lift them in and out of wheelchairs and keep them company so they don't get depressed. The job is a-fucking stressful, but it needs to be done.
It's not low skill, I have to keep an eye out for all sorts of medical issues, know about medications and keep track of all sorts of information. I don't see why what I do should be valued less. We as a society should be judged on how we treat our weakest and vulnerable members. As for lesbians and social work, you don't know too many social service types do you. Go visit social service agencies, you'll see. I know one thing you won't see much of, straight men.
Parent
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:4, Insightful)
And who ever considered the iPhone to be a necessity?
I have a wireless device. It cost me $1 when it came with my plan.
Parent
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally, I'd wait for a non-AC to make the point, but since you're probably going to get modded up, I'll just have to snuff it out right here:
Are you retiring in the next year to two? If not, them you have nothing to worry about.
Right, because I wasn't planning on using the money in my savings account until I turn 65, is that it?
Okay, so let's just look at the "long-term" savings accounts. Given the recent downturn and the still-pathetic earnings yields, the stock market over -- yes, the long term -- will probably return 5% nominal, since it first has to make up the ~40% downturn. (The 10-year S&P fund return was 4.5%/year *before* the recent downturn, and even that isn't enough to cover the taxes+inflation+volatility. Even in a tax-advantaged account, that's not a good deal.)
So, in exchange for giving up most of my wealth when it's most valuable to me (at a young age), I get to have a whopping 1% inflation/tax/volatility-adjusted return by investing till 65.
If your personal time discount rate is more than 1% -- which it is for almost everyone -- it just doesn't make sense to save, I am now sadly forced to admit. So frankly, I can't really criticize people who took advantage of way-underprice interested rates to buy durable consumer items. Show me risk-free interest rates (money markets) of 8% real, and I will change my mind.
Btw, anyone notice how the reasoning I'm responding to is sounding more and more these days like, "oh, don't worry man, the roulette wheel can be kinda mean, just keep playing, you'll make up your losses, totally, the guys in suits have it all figured out."
Now before you get really down on the system, keep in mind, you'd be worse off (less money, less control, watching much of your money paying for shit you don't want, and money going to the politicians' buddies) if the Government took care of everything for you.
Relevance to what I actually posted, please?
Parent
Moderation test (Score:3, Funny)
The iPhone crowd is still dominated by affluent males between the ages of 18 and 35
Those of us who don't bask in the glow of all things Apple might say they're afflicted as well as affluent.
bling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bling (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. It's the same reason low-income people drive Beamers, Benzes, etc., especially amongst the low-income African Americans and hispanics. They might be livin' in da hood, but they wear more diamonds than anyone in the 'burbs.
Parent
Re:bling (Score:5, Funny)
'Black' is not a skin color, it's a state of mind. I grew up in Detroit -- the "D".
Parent
Re:bling (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why Jump To (Racist) Conclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
"Fastest Growing" (Score:4, Insightful)
Similarly, it could be the fastest growing because it 'grew' from 100 people to 148 people. Still a meager total, but explosive growth.
Low income means a lot of things (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a first year graduate student in physics, and about 1/3 of my class have iPhones. We're definitely low-income -- Teaching Assistant pay is ~$14k/year.
Usually when the phrase "low income" comes up, people think poor people in the inner city or whatnot. Here, I bet low income mostly means students and the likes. I think owning an iPhone is silly on our pay, but at least we have decent future income potential (better than most low income people), so it may not really be beyond our means.
Re:Low income means a lot of things (Score:4, Insightful)
And how many of you have some expenses subsidized by affluent parents?
Parent
Low income? (Score:5, Funny)
Opera on the iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
I was asked about Opera not being allowed on the iPhone yesterday. My immediate gut reaction was that Apple was being a douche. All my instincts cry out that programmers should be able to put anything they want out there and let the market decide.
I got to thinking about it though. To the best of my knowledge, there is no global preference in place to set which apps respond to which data sources. What I mean is, when I click on a link in an email, Safari opens the page. When I click on a phone number in google maps, an email or a web page, the phone app opens it. Same thing for music, podcasts, videos, etc. You get the idea.
This keeps the phone simple, intuitive and predictable. All the other apps I install are all for doing some *other* specific task than what is provided by the core applications/functionality. What would happen then if I loaded Opera, Konqueror, Firefox, etc. on the phone. Which one would open my web links? Obviously the one specified in my preferences (which don't exist). What if I wanted to open this particular link with FireFox this time? I can't right-click and say open link with. Do I have to quit the program, open preferences and temporarily select Firefox?
I realize that it would be rather simple for Apple to address these issues and add this functionality, but once that camel's nose is under the tent you are now dealing with people demanding a preference and underlying mechanism for modifying the behavior of all the core functionalities. I want Skype to open when I touch a phone number in an email or on a web page (or in my address book), but I only want it to come up when I'm not connected to wireless. When I'm on wireless I want MyVOIP to make the calls. This also applies to which app you want sending emails, text messages, etc.
While the geek in me can get into this sort of configurability, I've already seen the whole other level of complexity added to the preference system with just the addition of push and Exchange connectivity. If users had to go through page after page of preferences just to find the right place to indicate which app they wanted to store their contacts in and have that tie into their Exchange push connection, it would be a nightmare.
I don't think the masses are ready for that or even really want it. That sort of complexity will make the iPhone just like every other smart phone out there. My coworker was bragging up his WinMobile-based smartphone at lunch the other day. He was saying it could do so much more than the iPhone. I don't doubt it, but my god, the gyrations he had to go through to tweak a setting to get it to do things. Just setting up a new wireless connection or a new IMAP email account seemed ridiculously complex. He said it was just due to the fact that he'd downloaded other email apps and tools and that each one had a different place to set up some of the preferences.
Is there a place for a mobile device that lets a geek configure every possible thing and choose exactly which software performed what tasks? Absolutely. That place should rightly be filled by Android and matched with the particular hardware design that that geek has chosen for their particular needs/fetish. I don't think the iPhone is where it belongs.
It may be the height of irony but I can see the iPhone becoming the phone people refer to when they say "Dammit, all I want in my smart-phone is to be able to make calls, surf the web, email, mapping, music, games and movies! I don't want to have to mess with all that other crap." in the same way purists today say "I just want a phone that makes calls."
I want just a Phone= jPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but technology doesn't always make life easier; don't need fluff I won't use.
"jPhone" or iPhone shuffle??
1 button phone: answer/hangup; hold for power
1 slide switch: silent mode; during conversation it turns on speaker mode
Voice recognition: RECITE numbers to dial them
Speaking interface: like voice mail menus- I never want to mess with options so its no big deal to wait for a talking interface whenever I want to setup speed dial or see the last call's number (it does have a tiny screen.)
simple ring sound; if custom just have it record your own with it's mic
Water resistant: sound quality often sucks anyhow
Simple small B&W display; wrist watch like; callerID
2 AAA NiMH batteries: new batteries shouldn't cost more than the phone! (I don't care if I have to swap batteries it doesn't have to charge them; I'm not that lazy...) /. is the wrong place to talk simple but I'm shocked nobody has made a phone that doesn't go in this direction.
At least this is more Star Trek: push button, speak name of person to speak to - and it calls them; perhaps using other people's tracking info you can ask it where somebody is and have it speak an answer as well? It could speak their name when they call (known people only.)
Parent
status symbol (Score:4, Interesting)
This story concurs with my own observation; I take the Broad Street line in Philly from Center City and go pretty far north every day; there are many apparently low-income people with iPhones and iPod Touches. It actually amazes me.
But unlike the article, I never thought the iPhone/Touch were chosen based on frugality; rather, I think they are status symbols, vulgar displays of wealth like knock-off designer clothes and cheap bling. There are much cheaper devices, or combination of devices, available.
The article is more like industrial cheer-leading, which apparently concludes that the iPhone has become a necessity. Please!
That's Medium, Not Low, Income (Score:5, Informative)
$25-50,000 annual income isn't "low income". It's middle income, since real median income is about $25-50,000 [wikipedia.org].
Re:Opera (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worked for bullshit vehicles like the Escalade, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for a bullshit smartphone.
Re:INTERIOR CROCODILE THEATRE (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always one of you in every argument. Honestly, do you actually see racism in that comment?
Parent
Re:How can they afford the monthly charges? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps they don't have all of the costs you describe because they live within their means. $25k per year is over $2k per month. In my case, for example, I make $1900 per month, spend $850 on {mortgage, utilities, property taxes, maintenance} (I live in an expensive area), $400 on food, nothing on a car, nothing on gas, nothing on tuition, next to nothing on clothes, and minimal amounts on entertainment.
Which means each month of my $1900, I have $650 of overhead that either goes to savings, or electronics projects.
We don't all have your expenses. If I wanted to afford $70/month for a phone (I already pay $30/month for just a regular cell phone, so only a $40/month marginal increase, btw).
Parent