China's Official Newspaper Pans iPad — Too Locked Down 319
Posted
by
timothy
from the ironing-is-delicious dept.
from the ironing-is-delicious dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The People's Daily newspaper, which is the official news organ of the ruling Communist party in China, apparently recently posted a review of the iPad, where it complained about the locked down nature of the device, noting that 'There are many disadvantages. For example you cannot install pirate software on them, you cannot download [free] music, and you need to pay for movies you watch on them.' You would think a country that is in favor of locking down the internet so much would like a locked up device ..."
Or pirate music and sync it with iTunes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The answer is, of course... CONFUSING OR UNTRUE (Score:4, Informative)
filetype:torrent Iron Man 2
Seems like that works just fine.
Mods, +1 parent (Score:5, Informative)
After sifting through the anal discharge that people call comments to this story, here's one that is actually worthwhile. I really wish people wouldn't post these stories, because the typical /.er--while knowing a good bit about technology--is ignorant in topics of Asian politics/culture and just spews trash they think is somehow relevant and/or funny. Because of this, I'm grateful for the refreshing comment that shows a deeper understanding. If only I had a few more mod points...
In addition to what Tweenk said, when something the Chinese gov't dislikes becomes popular, China generates their own homegrown option very rapidly. Since they block social networking sites and blogs, they offer things like RenRen Wang [renren.com] ("People-People-Net"; formerly known as XiaoNei, or "Within Campus"), YouKu [youku.com] ("Exceptionally Cool", video posting site), QQ zones (Tencent QQ [imqq.com] being the most popular instant messaging platform in China, and zones host blogs and pictures), and Sina Blogs [sina.com.cn].
To reiterate: these are all built inside the country specifically so that China can control them. Access to the popular global networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are blocked. (Which, by the way, Western media seems blind to that and continually cites Chinese twitterers as the voice of the common Chinese person. This clearly isn't true, as the common Chinese citizen either doesn't know or doesn't care about the Great Firewall. The ones we see on twitter are the ones who are willing to risk everything to bypass the Firewall and are somewhat radical)
"China"? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The answer is, of course... (Score:5, Informative)
For the record, I do hold US and Chinese patents (I am a US citizen living half-time in Shanghai). I've never been able to come close to enforcing any US patent inside of China (but have in the US); however, I have successfully enforced my own Chinese patents a half-dozen times, including against some of the larger still-partially-State-owned companies.
Moral of the story: if you want your shit respected in a given country, make sure you properly declare and define your shit in the country of interest.
Re:Original article??? (Score:5, Informative)
The article can be found (in Chinese) here http://news.sina.com.cn/m/2010-10-08/092021231740.shtml [sina.com.cn], which directly attributes to People's Daily at the top, with the link to original, (but which need paid subscription to read) http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2010-10/08/nw.D110000renmrb_20101008_2-23.htm?div=-1 [people.com.cn] This is the top result when searching for People's Daily (in Chinese) + "ipad" from Baidu.
Searching for the same thing in Google gives you Xinhuanet http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/internet/2010-10/08/c_12637650.htm [xinhuanet.com] in the 4th link. While the top 2 results are iTunes link to People's Daily app.
The 5th paragraph is the portion quoted in the article, running it through Google translate give you this:
On the price, "Apple" thing is not cheap, and some even more expensive, but also a lot of inconvenience. For example, can not install pirated software, download music, movies, to pay, and so on. However, when these new gadgets become fashionable to beyond the "useful or useless," and the limitations of cheap, consumers can not help but get your wallet out.
BUT, the article's is misrepresenting the piece. The subject of the FA is roughly "People use iPad just because of chasing fashion", which, surprise(!) is what most /.ers here think. The disadvantages listed above actually made sense when you consider the alternatives available in China, where people routinely copies software, music and movies. Why would you buy a machine that restricts what you do most often, if not for chasing fashion?
Please mod this article -1 Flamebait.
Now, please mod me +5 Informative. Thanks.
Re:Original article??? (Score:1, Informative)
The original article is only available in Chinese: http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/09/c_12640540.htm
In case if you are still wondering, Xin Hua Net is the offical China news agency.
Re:NO history of civil code in China (Score:4, Informative)
There was no civil code separate from the criminal code, which led to the now discredited belief that traditional Chinese law had no civil law. More recent studies have demonstrated that most of the magistrates' legal work was in civil disputes, and that there was an elaborate system of civil law which used the criminal code to establish torts.
Who do I trust more, a Slashdot-poster or wikipedia? There's a coin around here somewhere...
Re:"China"? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:PwnageTool (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"China"? (Score:3, Informative)
You would think that Slashdot could tell the difference between "China" and the person who reviewed the iPad for The People's Daily.
I can't find the part in the summary where they said "China" panned the iPad. It says China's Official Newspaper Pans iPad, but that's basically accurate. It's fairly typical to speak of a publication taking the stance of its individual reviewers, as in "I wanted to see that new Scorcese movie, until the Times panned it."
Newspaper censorship in the PRC is much more intense than in much of the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean that individuals are mouthpieces for certain sectors of their government.
The newspaper in question [wikipedia.org] isn't just some independent paper subject to censorship; it's actually published by the CCP as the party's "mouthpiece" which "generally provides direct information on the policies and viewpoints of the Party." So yeah, that kinda does mean what you just said it doesn't mean.
It's usually legit to criticize Slashdot summaries, but you appear to be the first to criticize one for actually getting it right.