Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
That's a very interesting point, and one which deserves discussing in greater length by people with influence.
Lot's of people have issues with the app store, and the pain falls on the developers the most, who are the lifeblood of the whole ecosystem. Putting up with all the issues and problems that there are with getting your apps approved and following the rules would probably be easier, if Apple could say "Look guys, I know it's a hassle, but doing it this way stops piracy full stop". I can see numerous ways for Apple to do more than it currently does, and for one I would be pleased to see them take a step up and be a bit *more* militant when it comes to policing the whole thing.
Problem is, the store is way more successful than they every thought it could be. And as it was never meant to be a huge money earner, just a draw to get people to buy into the hardware, it's hard to see if they can turn around the mindset to see the store as a revenue source to be protected in itself, rather than just a loss-leader to sell iPods.
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Devils advocate, but you want Apple to assume additional costs to police copyright infringement. Would the developer community be willing to give up additional profits for them to do so?
You're asking Apple to get between the developer and the Apple customer. You in essence want Apple to punish their customers, granted 'customer' might be a bit too friendly a term
I think it behooves developers to write in some protections into their applications, just as most software developers do these days on the Windows side. I know if I was developing, I certainly would. Apple could also implement some changes to make it more difficult to initially pirate the apps and even with that, I think there would be cost involved for Apple. In any case, it's going to be bad PR for apple to start prosecuting their user base.
The developer could always prevent the app running if it wasn't registered, or they could use checksums, or whatever clever methods they come up with. Bad as it sounds, I think it's the developers responsibility to police pirated apps, not Apples.
Not sure how it would play out, but given the 30%, it's in Apples interest for every developer to eek out a further 5-10% in sales (guesswork!) by preventing piracy. Because every extra dollar earned by johnny developer, is 30 cents for Apple, which should nicely offset the cost of any extra policing. At the moment, I think they are weighing the benefits of this, against the benefits of keeping the thing consumer friendly and building up a huge customer base. And by consumer/customer, I mean of hardware, not apps.
The easiest way for them to do this would be to provide iPhone OS 4.0 free to everyone (including touch owners, which they might be able to do now they have changed the accounting practices) with features that are so compelling that everyone wants it, and whilst making it impossible to jailbreak - this would keep the pirates on an ever more out of date OS, which would eventually not be compatible with newer apps.
OK, prevention mechanisms always get cracked eventually, but I believe it's possible - the PS3 is (I believe) still uncracked.
Well when i spend $50 on an iTunes card but then find out that Canadian customers can only buy apps with a credit card, YES I FLIPPIN FEEL LIKE PIRATING. Waste of my $50.
Apple is screwing over their legit customers, effectively turning their customers against them.
What apps are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge if it's in the app store you can buy it with iTunes card. I have purchased iPhone apps, music, tv shows and movies all with iTunes card .... not sure what your complaint is ... can you be more specific re: apps?
Not sure how it would play out, but given the 30%, it's in Apples interest for every developer to eek out a further 5-10% in sales (guesswork!) by preventing piracy. Because every extra dollar earned by johnny developer, is 30 cents for Apple, which should nicely offset the cost of any extra policing. At the moment, I think they are weighing the benefits of this, against the benefits of keeping the thing consumer friendly and building up a huge customer base. And by consumer/customer, I mean of hardware, not apps.
The easiest way for them to do this would be to provide iPhone OS 4.0 free to everyone (including touch owners, which they might be able to do now they have changed the accounting practices) with features that are so compelling that everyone wants it, and whilst making it impossible to jailbreak - this would keep the pirates on an ever more out of date OS, which would eventually not be compatible with newer apps.
OK, prevention mechanisms always get cracked eventually, but I believe it's possible - the PS3 is (I believe) still uncracked.
Already cracked. There are no 'safe' methods. They are always cracked without fail. I'm not sure why giving 4.0 away for free would affect copyright infringement of software though.
I could see Apple possibly putting up some sort of registration interface for developers to utilize. One that lets them authenticate their app purchases against user executions of those apps. Such infrastructure would still cost Apple money to deploy and maintain however. Simply stating Apple will get more money for more apps sold isn't a certainty, where as under the current system, the profits are known and certain.
Apple hasn't sent out invites to the supposed event yet. What would be the drop-dead date for invites?
There still hasn't been confirmation that Apple is the company that has booked the YB.
a rational thinker.
i would imagine that they can't send out anything later than next wednesday if they want more than local press. because folks need time to make arrangements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmondo
- I think many tabloids would pay even more for a pict, but until Jan. 27th could be difficult to prove it's not fake.
which is why VW won't pay out a dime until after the product is announced. probably the only smart thing they are doing.
but the whole offer is not smart. there are laws (civil but still) against inducing breach of contract and a NDA is a form of contract. they could be sued for this offer and they will lose.
Also, while no one would have jail time, the offender could be sued, would likely be fired, the employing company possibly fined or at the least would be at risk for reducing profit sharing and/or loss of further contracts. perhaps even all 3.
Quote:
- someone from those Asian firms that produce it, could risk it, but one of them already committed suicide after having lost a next gen iphone, right?
nothing definitive has ever been said.
we don't know that it was a phone or someone else, that the lost was the only factor etc. there has been talk that the gentleman in question was already depressed etc and that unbased fear that he would lose his job and shame his family caused him to decide to 'honorably' kill himself rather than let the whole thing drag out. but even that was just talk.
Quote:
- so what? c'mon, this is only for free publicity to that website, and thanks to AI and others, they've just got that already.
yep. can't argue that. Valleywag is looking for more hits so they can get more money from those banner ads.
Already cracked. There are no 'safe' methods. They are always cracked without fail. I'm not sure why giving 4.0 away for free would affect copyright infringement of software though.
I'll check the link when I'm at home - cheers.
The giving it away comment was a way of increasing the adoption rate of the new OS, as touch rather than phone owners are more likely to stay on older versions for longer, possibly because they need to stump up the $10. If they can add more protection into 4.0, it's of no use when nobody upgrades to use it. I'll read the PS3 article with interest, as if they have finally done it, it took a good few years.
I'll throw in a little: There are no "losses" due to piracy. The balance sheet and the profit/loss statement of a company are each identical before and after an act of piracy. The company is in exactly the same financial position before and after an act of piracy.
The estimates rely on an assumption that "if not pirated, the app would have been bought", which is often a defective assumption. Piggybacking on that assumption is the conclusion that if the app had been purchased, we would have grossed $x.xx. So the "loss" is really "foregone revenue", a different concept altogether, and the reality is that the revenue is foregone ONLY if the pirate would have purchased the app if he had not pirated it.
Think of it this way: Do movie theaters "lose money" every time you watch TV? Of course not. Do developers "lose money" every time some kid downloads their app? Of course not.
A lost sale is lost income no matter what the reason. If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free via piracy .... that is lost income and to argue against that premise is only done to justify stealing .... IMHO.
The giving it away comment was a way of increasing the adoption rate of the new OS, as touch rather than phone owners are more likely to stay on older versions for longer, possibly because they need to stump up the $10. If they can add more protection into 4.0, it's of no use when nobody upgrades to use it. I'll read the PS3 article with interest, as if they have finally done it, it took a good few years.
Good point. The SL update certainly went much faster at it's low price. I didn't make the connection from your post. Thanks
A lost sale is lost income no matter what the reason. If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free via piracy .... that is lost income and to argue against that premise is only done to justify stealing .... IMHO.
You assume the person who infringed was going to buy it, which is not the case. I would think it's more the exception.
It is not stealing, or it would be prosecuted as such. It is copyright infringement.
If Apple allowed iPhones open to all networks to start with, the crack hysteria probably wouldn't have boomed as it has, and they probably would have managed to keep piracy on low levels. Only people with dedicated interest would jailbreak their phones and run pirated games. Now, anyone who favours another carrier and doesn't wanna pay the unlock fee is ready to be a pirate. Those are MANY.
you are talking (pardon the pun) apples and oranges.
you can unlock without jailbreaking and jailbreak without unlocking.
unlocking is removing the carrier sim lock to use the phone on an unauthorized network.
jailbreaking is removing the app installer lock to add unauthorized apps.
Agreed. Apple could make it more difficult to pirate these apps, but legally their hands are tied. They can't assume guilt on the part of the user and take action. They are limited in what they can do. I think their only good option is prevention, rather than policing.
I'm not 100% on their policies but I know they can pull apps off devices if its suspected spyware or something because it had happened before but people were pissed cause they didn't know why it happened.
I think they could assume guilt based on who's itunes account is active on the phone at the time. Maybe someone bought the phone off someone used and put their itunes info in there, and all the apps got deleted off that weren't related to the account. Even though that person didn't pirate it, those applications are not associated with that account so they go bye bye (think xbox live) because they don't own them because they didn't buy the rights to them.
If it were like this now people would expect it, and that in my opinion is fair
I'm not 100% on their policies but I know they can pull apps off devices if its suspected spyware or something because it had happened before but people were pissed cause they didn't know why it happened.
I think they could assume guilt based on who's itunes account is active on the phone at the time. Maybe someone bought the phone off someone used and put their itunes info in there, and all the apps got deleted off that weren't related to the account. Even though that person didn't pirate it, those applications are not associated with that account so they go bye bye (think xbox live) because they don't own them because they didn't buy the rights to them.
If it were like this now people would expect it, and that in my opinion is fair
They can remove malware, although I don't know of any cases where they have actually done so.
So what if your wife gave you her iPhone before the divorce. She gets pissed and claims you stole the phone. Apple deletes all your apps.
See the problem? Apple cannot simply step in and become judge, jury, and executioner. If an app is known to be malware, and it could disrupt the stability of the infrastructure, or is known to be dangerous to it's users, I think it would be justified.
For copyright infringement, you have to go through he courts.
If you read my post carefully you would have noticed the following info: If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free
That seems self explanatory to me .... but then I'm not trying my hardest to justify stealing.
Newbee, stop trolling. No one here is 'justifying stealing'. Calling it something it's not is all your doing. You can't steel money from an account if it was never there to begin with. We don't prosecute people for 'future crimes', or 'might have happened' crimes, which is why they can't prosecute these as theft. Unless the person purchased the app, and then stole the money from the account, it's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Do I think it's ok to infringe? Absolutely not.
What apps are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge if it's in the app store you can buy it with iTunes card. I have purchased iPhone apps, music, tv shows and movies all with iTunes card .... not sure what your complaint is ... can you be more specific re: apps?
due to various banking and legal issues, itunes cards don't work across borders. ie I can't buy a card in the US and use it in the UK, Canadian etc store. Even if the store is in 'dollars' because it is not the same as US Dollars.
and in some countries, they don't allow the kind of prepaid system that the itunes cards run.
that's what the complaint was about.
also, on the whole 'there's no loss with piracy' I wonder how many of you would change that tune if you were the one that didn't get your rightful money from the 10k 'free' copies of your work that were out there.
due to various banking and legal issues, itunes cards don't work across borders. ie I can't buy a card in the US and use it in the UK, Canadian etc store. Even if the store is in 'dollars' because it is not the same as US Dollars.
Indeed you can't, but why would you expect them to?
If I cut a coupon for a free cup of Starbucks coffee out of the local paper in Paris, I wouldn't expect it to be honoured by a Starbucks in San Francisco. I doubt I'll get loyalty points on my UK Tesco Clubcard if I make a purchase from Tesco's in Thailand. And a friend of mine nearly got arrested once when he tried to use his NatWest bank card at a branch of NatWest in New York, they'd never seen one before and thought it must be a fake!
They can remove malware, although I don't know of any cases where they have actually done so.
So what if your wife gave you her iPhone before the divorce. She gets pissed and claims you stole the phone. Apple deletes all your apps.
See the problem? Apple cannot simply step in and become judge, jury, and executioner. If an app is known to be malware, and it could disrupt the stability of the infrastructure, or is known to be dangerous to it's users, I think it would be justified.
For copyright infringement, you have to go through he courts.
Well we already know Apple doesn't do anything for stolen property (although that woman got her phone back after she emailed steve jobs, but that wasn't posted here on AI).
Apple has the only method of obtaining Apps on the iPhone legally. While Apple can't control what's beyond them like Cydia, they can control what comes from them.
Direct association of Apps to iTunes account is pretty much what it boils down to. I'm not sure if owning an iPhone forces you to have an iTunes account, if it doesn't then it should even if you plan on using any Apple services or not.
With this every time you download an App its associated with your account and when you move devices your able to redownload your apps for free because you do own them (how it is now). Now your phone is taken or sold and they pop in their sim it should ask for your itunes info then and there, if they don't have your info, or put their info in it only will allow what YOU BOUGHT, not the previous owner. If the apps get deleted or blocked so they can't be launched that is fair BECAUSE THAT SOFTWARE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOU.
That in my opinion well within Apples power without overstepping its bounds or the law.
Newbee, stop trolling. No one here is 'justifying stealing'. Calling it something it's not is all your doing. You can't steel money from an account if it was never there to begin with. We don't prosecute people for 'future crimes', or 'might have happened' crimes, which is why they can't prosecute these as theft. Unless the person purchased the app, and then stole the money from the account, it's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Do I think it's ok to infringe? Absolutely not.
Stop implying that I do.
While it may sound nicer to call it "copyright infringement" rather than "stealing" .... it may even be more technically correct... but when a person's actions (piracy) causes someone else to lose future income that is, IMHO, stealing , pure and simple. Just because a person doesn't reach into my pocket and take $$$$ out.... does not mean they haven't cheated/stolen from me.
PS .. I'm not blaming anyone specifically ... just saying .... piracy=stealing.
Comments
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
That's a very interesting point, and one which deserves discussing in greater length by people with influence.
Lot's of people have issues with the app store, and the pain falls on the developers the most, who are the lifeblood of the whole ecosystem. Putting up with all the issues and problems that there are with getting your apps approved and following the rules would probably be easier, if Apple could say "Look guys, I know it's a hassle, but doing it this way stops piracy full stop". I can see numerous ways for Apple to do more than it currently does, and for one I would be pleased to see them take a step up and be a bit *more* militant when it comes to policing the whole thing.
Problem is, the store is way more successful than they every thought it could be. And as it was never meant to be a huge money earner, just a draw to get people to buy into the hardware, it's hard to see if they can turn around the mindset to see the store as a revenue source to be protected in itself, rather than just a loss-leader to sell iPods.
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Devils advocate, but you want Apple to assume additional costs to police copyright infringement. Would the developer community be willing to give up additional profits for them to do so?
You're asking Apple to get between the developer and the Apple customer. You in essence want Apple to punish their customers, granted 'customer' might be a bit too friendly a term
I think it behooves developers to write in some protections into their applications, just as most software developers do these days on the Windows side. I know if I was developing, I certainly would. Apple could also implement some changes to make it more difficult to initially pirate the apps and even with that, I think there would be cost involved for Apple. In any case, it's going to be bad PR for apple to start prosecuting their user base.
The developer could always prevent the app running if it wasn't registered, or they could use checksums, or whatever clever methods they come up with. Bad as it sounds, I think it's the developers responsibility to police pirated apps, not Apples.
The easiest way for them to do this would be to provide iPhone OS 4.0 free to everyone (including touch owners, which they might be able to do now they have changed the accounting practices) with features that are so compelling that everyone wants it, and whilst making it impossible to jailbreak - this would keep the pirates on an ever more out of date OS, which would eventually not be compatible with newer apps.
OK, prevention mechanisms always get cracked eventually, but I believe it's possible - the PS3 is (I believe) still uncracked.
You wanna talk about app store piracy?
Well when i spend $50 on an iTunes card but then find out that Canadian customers can only buy apps with a credit card, YES I FLIPPIN FEEL LIKE PIRATING. Waste of my $50.
Apple is screwing over their legit customers, effectively turning their customers against them.
What apps are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge if it's in the app store you can buy it with iTunes card. I have purchased iPhone apps, music, tv shows and movies all with iTunes card .... not sure what your complaint is ... can you be more specific re: apps?
Not sure how it would play out, but given the 30%, it's in Apples interest for every developer to eek out a further 5-10% in sales (guesswork!) by preventing piracy. Because every extra dollar earned by johnny developer, is 30 cents for Apple, which should nicely offset the cost of any extra policing. At the moment, I think they are weighing the benefits of this, against the benefits of keeping the thing consumer friendly and building up a huge customer base. And by consumer/customer, I mean of hardware, not apps.
The easiest way for them to do this would be to provide iPhone OS 4.0 free to everyone (including touch owners, which they might be able to do now they have changed the accounting practices) with features that are so compelling that everyone wants it, and whilst making it impossible to jailbreak - this would keep the pirates on an ever more out of date OS, which would eventually not be compatible with newer apps.
OK, prevention mechanisms always get cracked eventually, but I believe it's possible - the PS3 is (I believe) still uncracked.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=165699
Already cracked. There are no 'safe' methods. They are always cracked without fail. I'm not sure why giving 4.0 away for free would affect copyright infringement of software though.
I could see Apple possibly putting up some sort of registration interface for developers to utilize. One that lets them authenticate their app purchases against user executions of those apps. Such infrastructure would still cost Apple money to deploy and maintain however. Simply stating Apple will get more money for more apps sold isn't a certainty, where as under the current system, the profits are known and certain.
Apple hasn't sent out invites to the supposed event yet. What would be the drop-dead date for invites?
There still hasn't been confirmation that Apple is the company that has booked the YB.
a rational thinker.
i would imagine that they can't send out anything later than next wednesday if they want more than local press. because folks need time to make arrangements.
- I think many tabloids would pay even more for a pict, but until Jan. 27th could be difficult to prove it's not fake.
which is why VW won't pay out a dime until after the product is announced. probably the only smart thing they are doing.
but the whole offer is not smart. there are laws (civil but still) against inducing breach of contract and a NDA is a form of contract. they could be sued for this offer and they will lose.
Also, while no one would have jail time, the offender could be sued, would likely be fired, the employing company possibly fined or at the least would be at risk for reducing profit sharing and/or loss of further contracts. perhaps even all 3.
- someone from those Asian firms that produce it, could risk it, but one of them already committed suicide after having lost a next gen iphone, right?
nothing definitive has ever been said.
we don't know that it was a phone or someone else, that the lost was the only factor etc. there has been talk that the gentleman in question was already depressed etc and that unbased fear that he would lose his job and shame his family caused him to decide to 'honorably' kill himself rather than let the whole thing drag out. but even that was just talk.
- so what? c'mon, this is only for free publicity to that website, and thanks to AI and others, they've just got that already.
yep. can't argue that. Valleywag is looking for more hits so they can get more money from those banner ads.
...
Already cracked. There are no 'safe' methods. They are always cracked without fail. I'm not sure why giving 4.0 away for free would affect copyright infringement of software though.
I'll check the link when I'm at home - cheers.
The giving it away comment was a way of increasing the adoption rate of the new OS, as touch rather than phone owners are more likely to stay on older versions for longer, possibly because they need to stump up the $10. If they can add more protection into 4.0, it's of no use when nobody upgrades to use it. I'll read the PS3 article with interest, as if they have finally done it, it took a good few years.
I'll throw in a little: There are no "losses" due to piracy. The balance sheet and the profit/loss statement of a company are each identical before and after an act of piracy. The company is in exactly the same financial position before and after an act of piracy.
The estimates rely on an assumption that "if not pirated, the app would have been bought", which is often a defective assumption. Piggybacking on that assumption is the conclusion that if the app had been purchased, we would have grossed $x.xx. So the "loss" is really "foregone revenue", a different concept altogether, and the reality is that the revenue is foregone ONLY if the pirate would have purchased the app if he had not pirated it.
Think of it this way: Do movie theaters "lose money" every time you watch TV? Of course not. Do developers "lose money" every time some kid downloads their app? Of course not.
A lost sale is lost income no matter what the reason. If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free via piracy .... that is lost income and to argue against that premise is only done to justify stealing .... IMHO.
I'll check the link when I'm at home - cheers.
The giving it away comment was a way of increasing the adoption rate of the new OS, as touch rather than phone owners are more likely to stay on older versions for longer, possibly because they need to stump up the $10. If they can add more protection into 4.0, it's of no use when nobody upgrades to use it. I'll read the PS3 article with interest, as if they have finally done it, it took a good few years.
Good point. The SL update certainly went much faster at it's low price. I didn't make the connection from your post. Thanks
The PS3 crack was 6 months after it was released.
A lost sale is lost income no matter what the reason. If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free via piracy .... that is lost income and to argue against that premise is only done to justify stealing .... IMHO.
You assume the person who infringed was going to buy it, which is not the case. I would think it's more the exception.
It is not stealing, or it would be prosecuted as such. It is copyright infringement.
If Apple allowed iPhones open to all networks to start with, the crack hysteria probably wouldn't have boomed as it has, and they probably would have managed to keep piracy on low levels. Only people with dedicated interest would jailbreak their phones and run pirated games. Now, anyone who favours another carrier and doesn't wanna pay the unlock fee is ready to be a pirate. Those are MANY.
you are talking (pardon the pun) apples and oranges.
you can unlock without jailbreaking and jailbreak without unlocking.
unlocking is removing the carrier sim lock to use the phone on an unauthorized network.
jailbreaking is removing the app installer lock to add unauthorized apps.
Agreed. Apple could make it more difficult to pirate these apps, but legally their hands are tied. They can't assume guilt on the part of the user and take action. They are limited in what they can do. I think their only good option is prevention, rather than policing.
I'm not 100% on their policies but I know they can pull apps off devices if its suspected spyware or something because it had happened before but people were pissed cause they didn't know why it happened.
I think they could assume guilt based on who's itunes account is active on the phone at the time. Maybe someone bought the phone off someone used and put their itunes info in there, and all the apps got deleted off that weren't related to the account. Even though that person didn't pirate it, those applications are not associated with that account so they go bye bye (think xbox live) because they don't own them because they didn't buy the rights to them.
If it were like this now people would expect it, and that in my opinion is fair
You assume the person who infringed was going to buy it, which is not the case. I would think it's more the exception.
It is not stealing, or it would be prosecuted as such. It is copyright infringement.
If you read my post carefully you would have noticed the following info: If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free
That seems self explanatory to me .... but then I'm not trying my hardest to justify stealing.
I'm not 100% on their policies but I know they can pull apps off devices if its suspected spyware or something because it had happened before but people were pissed cause they didn't know why it happened.
I think they could assume guilt based on who's itunes account is active on the phone at the time. Maybe someone bought the phone off someone used and put their itunes info in there, and all the apps got deleted off that weren't related to the account. Even though that person didn't pirate it, those applications are not associated with that account so they go bye bye (think xbox live) because they don't own them because they didn't buy the rights to them.
If it were like this now people would expect it, and that in my opinion is fair
They can remove malware, although I don't know of any cases where they have actually done so.
So what if your wife gave you her iPhone before the divorce. She gets pissed and claims you stole the phone. Apple deletes all your apps.
See the problem? Apple cannot simply step in and become judge, jury, and executioner. If an app is known to be malware, and it could disrupt the stability of the infrastructure, or is known to be dangerous to it's users, I think it would be justified.
For copyright infringement, you have to go through he courts.
If you read my post carefully you would have noticed the following info: If I was going to buy something but instead "acquired" it for free
That seems self explanatory to me .... but then I'm not trying my hardest to justify stealing.
Newbee, stop trolling. No one here is 'justifying stealing'. Calling it something it's not is all your doing. You can't steel money from an account if it was never there to begin with. We don't prosecute people for 'future crimes', or 'might have happened' crimes, which is why they can't prosecute these as theft. Unless the person purchased the app, and then stole the money from the account, it's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Do I think it's ok to infringe? Absolutely not.
Stop implying that I do.
What apps are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge if it's in the app store you can buy it with iTunes card. I have purchased iPhone apps, music, tv shows and movies all with iTunes card .... not sure what your complaint is ... can you be more specific re: apps?
due to various banking and legal issues, itunes cards don't work across borders. ie I can't buy a card in the US and use it in the UK, Canadian etc store. Even if the store is in 'dollars' because it is not the same as US Dollars.
and in some countries, they don't allow the kind of prepaid system that the itunes cards run.
that's what the complaint was about.
also, on the whole 'there's no loss with piracy' I wonder how many of you would change that tune if you were the one that didn't get your rightful money from the 10k 'free' copies of your work that were out there.
due to various banking and legal issues, itunes cards don't work across borders. ie I can't buy a card in the US and use it in the UK, Canadian etc store. Even if the store is in 'dollars' because it is not the same as US Dollars.
Indeed you can't, but why would you expect them to?
If I cut a coupon for a free cup of Starbucks coffee out of the local paper in Paris, I wouldn't expect it to be honoured by a Starbucks in San Francisco. I doubt I'll get loyalty points on my UK Tesco Clubcard if I make a purchase from Tesco's in Thailand. And a friend of mine nearly got arrested once when he tried to use his NatWest bank card at a branch of NatWest in New York, they'd never seen one before and thought it must be a fake!
They can remove malware, although I don't know of any cases where they have actually done so.
So what if your wife gave you her iPhone before the divorce. She gets pissed and claims you stole the phone. Apple deletes all your apps.
See the problem? Apple cannot simply step in and become judge, jury, and executioner. If an app is known to be malware, and it could disrupt the stability of the infrastructure, or is known to be dangerous to it's users, I think it would be justified.
For copyright infringement, you have to go through he courts.
Well we already know Apple doesn't do anything for stolen property (although that woman got her phone back after she emailed steve jobs, but that wasn't posted here on AI).
Apple has the only method of obtaining Apps on the iPhone legally. While Apple can't control what's beyond them like Cydia, they can control what comes from them.
Direct association of Apps to iTunes account is pretty much what it boils down to. I'm not sure if owning an iPhone forces you to have an iTunes account, if it doesn't then it should even if you plan on using any Apple services or not.
With this every time you download an App its associated with your account and when you move devices your able to redownload your apps for free because you do own them (how it is now). Now your phone is taken or sold and they pop in their sim it should ask for your itunes info then and there, if they don't have your info, or put their info in it only will allow what YOU BOUGHT, not the previous owner. If the apps get deleted or blocked so they can't be launched that is fair BECAUSE THAT SOFTWARE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOU.
That in my opinion well within Apples power without overstepping its bounds or the law.
Newbee, stop trolling. No one here is 'justifying stealing'. Calling it something it's not is all your doing. You can't steel money from an account if it was never there to begin with. We don't prosecute people for 'future crimes', or 'might have happened' crimes, which is why they can't prosecute these as theft. Unless the person purchased the app, and then stole the money from the account, it's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Do I think it's ok to infringe? Absolutely not.
Stop implying that I do.
While it may sound nicer to call it "copyright infringement" rather than "stealing" .... it may even be more technically correct... but when a person's actions (piracy) causes someone else to lose future income that is, IMHO, stealing , pure and simple. Just because a person doesn't reach into my pocket and take $$$$ out.... does not mean they haven't cheated/stolen from me.
PS .. I'm not blaming anyone specifically ... just saying .... piracy=stealing.