I understand that and I may have been overly loose with my translation. From the angle of a software platform I take those statements to relate to burdensome technical implementation (though I suppose that may not have been the case), thus complicated. In retrospect that wouldn't apply if Steve Job's disapproval had nothing to do with technical feasibility (e.g. simple unreasonable demands, such as payment).
I disagree that 'onerous' must be taken as a pejorative term.
Perhaps Steve Jobs was actually being sincere?
Which is to say, using the term as defined.
Nowhere is it defined as "complicated". Sorry.
This one has run its course. Let's just use a dictionary and agree with what the words mean.
This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
Apple never announced Facebook for Ping.
Kara Swisher asked Steve point blank "Why no Facebook integration." He gave the answer that the terms Facebook demanded were onerous to Apple. This is a fair negotiation tactic. It certainly is no less fair than Facebook blocking the API access to Ping in the eleventh hour so that Apple was forced to either cave in to the demands or change their plans last minute. Apple chose the latter, which is why you have all of the evidence out there about Facebook in Ping (and why you look at this as if Apple ANNOUNCED anything). The screenshots and documentation are simply overcome by events because Facebook shut down the API access and Apple didn't cave.
All is fair in love, war, and negotiation, and it seems to me that Apple and Facebook are simply playing hardball with each other. In terms of social networking, Apple is in a new position: it is not the Gorilla in the room. Facebook is. So don't look at this like an example of Apple running roughshod over the little guy.
Onerous to me suggests overwhelmingly stifling at worst, pedantic at best.
What it suggests to you seems somewhat different from what it suggests to folks who write dictionaries. Close, but neither stifling nor pedantic are generally listed as synonyms. Maybe two degrees of separation in the Thesaurus? I dunno.
This one has run its course. Let's just use a dictionary and agree with what the words mean.
Folks like you are so predictable. Don't even bother reading what I wrote. In short, you were acting as if Steve Jobs was urinating in the direction of Facebook when, in fact, he was probably simply expressing Apple's circumstance, using words in the dictionary, as they were written in the dictionary. At this point you're just being obtuse—probably deliberately so.
Kara Swisher asked Steve point blank "Why no Facebook integration." He gave the answer that the terms Facebook demanded were onerous to Apple. This is a fair negotiation tactic. It certainly is no less fair than Facebook blocking the API access to Ping in the eleventh hour so that Apple was forced to either cave in to the demands or change their plans last minute. Apple chose the latter, which is why you have all of the evidence out there about Facebook in Ping (and why you look at this as if Apple ANNOUNCED anything). The screenshots and documentation are simply overcome by events because Facebook shut down the API access and Apple didn't cave.
All is fair in love, war, and negotiation, and it seems to me that Apple and Facebook are simply playing hardball with each other. In terms of social networking, Apple is in a new position: it is not the Gorilla in the room. Facebook is. So don't look at this like an example of Apple running roughshod over the little guy.
Thompson
it's not just facebook
there is no button in ping to scan your address book and find people on the site. who is really going to try all their contacts one at a time?
And my point is you're criticising the unknown as fact. There is spam prevention in place - there is no such thing as spam proofing. Databases of offendors, IP addresses take time, and no matter what is in place it keeps coming. It happens on facebook, it happens on my POP accounts, so why should PING be immune? Odd logic.
This we both agree on that it will have eventually happened. I'm not saying Ping should be 100% immune (where you got that from my posts, I don't know). I'm just saying that if Ping really had zero spam filtering of any sort, that's a big mis-step on Apple's part.
It's like getting an immunization shot. It'll protect you to a good degree from what's already out there, limiting the attacks to brand-new germs. We know how to reduce the amount of spam we get to a good degree, otherwise our inboxes would still be overrun with spam like they were in the 90s. If Apple did have stuff running in the background, then chalk this up to brand-new spam software, as you imply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
The ethical thing for Schmidt to do would have been to resign from Apple's board as soon as Google started thinking about developing Android.
Nobody's saying Google should not have developed Android - they just shouldn't have sat on Apple's board gathering inside information while developing a competitive product. There was a LOT of information Apple had that should not have been shared with a competitor - Apple's analysis of the mobile market, Apple's plans in future phone development and advertising, etc.
Without Apple's analysis of the market, Google may not have realized it could be so lucrative. Remember, everyone outside of Apple was saying the iPhone would fail. Google might have thought that as well, and delayed or stopped developing Android altogether if they hadn't seen Apple's internal numbers. That would have given Apple probably 2 more years of a head start.
To me, Schmidt's actions border on industrial espionage.
When I think industrial espionage, I think of data being stolen that couldn't have been gathered in any other way. The iPhone being a success can clearly be concluded upon by data from outside of their meetings. In other words, you and I are not on Apple's board, but we both can still see and extrapolate the same general trends (iPhone-like devices are really popular) and ideas (mobile market is very lucative for ads). That's in addition to all the reports the third-party data analysis companies make public.
I also think that the issue is a double-edged sword. If the rest of the board thought Android would become as viable of a competitor as it has become, why didn't they call for his resignation? I'm sure they all knew through him that Android was in the works and could become a danger to Apple, yet they continued to let him stay on the board.
Nonsense. The iPod is a niche market? Apple do take security seriously and from what I've seen are quicker to react that microsoft - I'm aware of issues publicly known in XP that are still not addressed. The worse I've seen from apple is a fortnight for the PDF issue last month.
You brought it up before I could. I have a first generation iPod touch and I was totally left out of the loop for the latest security updates. If this is an example of how Apple takes security seriously, they need a kick in the pants.
I wont defend Microsoft. I remember a time when their attitude was that security was not their responsibility. Billions of complaints later they finally got the message and have really stepped up.
The argument that "small market share == small risk" is ridiculous. There are a LOT of people who like to damage apple with a very public virus - there hasn't been one for a reason, and that reason has nothing to with having their "head in their butt".
I repeat there has NOT been a virus in the wild on Mac, there have been proof of concepts and bugs, there has even been spyware and malware through third-party software but NO viruses. At ALL, EVER.
It's a good thing.
Now this time I have you right where I want you my friend. The "security by obscurity" expression was coined by none other than Mr. Jobs himself. Your leader. Your God. I wish I could remember where I heard that. I think it was a video of an older interview with Walt Mossberg on the Wall Street Journal Site. I can try to find it for you later or maybe someone else here can remember.
I don't just pull everything out of my fat ass Mr. nkhm. I really listen to Steve, I think I have seen every interview with him on the web and I even read a few books about him. He was a brilliant leader and visionary once. But lately I just can't figure him out. I just downloaded the new iTunes with the black and white icons and the small album art in list view and I shake my head with disbelief. Why would they do this? It's horrid looking!
I can't seem to understand ANYTHING Apple has done lately. And I don't believe for a minute I am the only one on this forum who feels this way. There must be someone here who doesn't drink Apple Juice and eat Apple Pie at every meal.
Have not registered will not register for Ping. Facebook is enough craziness for me, and I use it infrequently. I think the loss of facebook cooperation deal is gonna make it difficult for apple. Keeping up with privacy, new features, spammers, hackers etc is a full time job, that would have been better done outsourced then in-house. Especially for hardware/software company like Apple.
Right, because FaceBook have such an awesome track record with privacy and keeping scammers out...
I'm sure Apple can be a difficult partner... it's either their way, or no way. But FaceBook is run by a bunch of crooks (IMO) and I wouldn't be surprised if the sticking point was about information access (i.e. Apple said 'no way Jose' to giving up customer information). FaceBook is just basically one big garage sale for personal information.
Spammers are like trolls, you take them all in stride and learn the Art of simultaneously focusing on the essential and controlling your heartbeat.
On Ping, on Apple Insider, in Life, they pop up as naturally as bacteria on a kitchen countertop. And they tend to grow exponentially from the get go. They grow merrily on a Spill and left-over break down. A little hygienic common sense and a healthy fatalism take the drama out of a naturally occurring phenomenon.
No one follows me that I don't want, I only follow artists I'm interested in. No spam here.
Plagued? After 48 hours?! More FUD from a "security" company trying to boost their profile/revenue.
I signed up for Ping and got nothing. It's like a ghost town right now. Can't find any other musicians beyond the 10 or so suggested by Apple. I tried the Facebook connect before it got pulled, but it came up empty too. I guess it will take time to build up some momentum.
If this was "totally expected," then why wasn't the issue dealt with proactively?
Agreed, I'm seeing a lot about Ping that could have been better thought through. One of the things that I like about Facebook is that it actually does a pretty good job targeting my interests, Ping on the other hand seems to just recommend I follow the same people it recommends to anyone else. I know Lady Gaga is big stuff right now but for me personally I could give a crap. I'm not likely to use Ping unless it brings more relevant content and features that fit with my tastes & preferences.
I think Ping will ultimately be a success but it's sad to see Apple starting to become a Microsoft, jumping into new ideas without really giving it enough thought. Ultimately they have enough money & man power that they'll get this turkey off the ground but it doesn't bode well for Apple's reputation for them to start acting like Microsoft.
If inexperience is not the reason, then what excuse do they have?
They don't need an 'excuse', once again this is a non-issue overstated by the media.
This happens every hour on Facebook - where is that news story?
For the record, still no spam here on mine or my partner's account.
Oh and just to clear up some other cack doing the rounds, you do NOT have to use your real name when signing up and you do NOT need to provide credit card details.
The media make an accusation and the party concerned have to prove their innocence? That's messed up.
I signed up for Ping and got nothing. It's like a ghost town right now. Can't find any other musicians beyond the 10 or so suggested by Apple. I tried the Facebook connect before it got pulled, but it came up empty too. I guess it will take time to build up some momentum.
Yup, cause it's day two and nothing is 'drowning'. Everyone seems to think systems are born fully populated, with large user bases and drowning in relevant content.
Comments
Apple has huge experience moderating the discussion forums and iTunes reviews and ratings.
If inexperience is not the reason, then what excuse do they have?
But you're making it hard for yourself. Your prices are too stiff.
You just had to slide that in, didn't you?
I understand that and I may have been overly loose with my translation. From the angle of a software platform I take those statements to relate to burdensome technical implementation (though I suppose that may not have been the case), thus complicated. In retrospect that wouldn't apply if Steve Job's disapproval had nothing to do with technical feasibility (e.g. simple unreasonable demands, such as payment).
I disagree that 'onerous' must be taken as a pejorative term.
Perhaps Steve Jobs was actually being sincere?
Which is to say, using the term as defined.
Nowhere is it defined as "complicated". Sorry.
This one has run its course. Let's just use a dictionary and agree with what the words mean.
This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
Apple never announced Facebook for Ping.
Kara Swisher asked Steve point blank "Why no Facebook integration." He gave the answer that the terms Facebook demanded were onerous to Apple. This is a fair negotiation tactic. It certainly is no less fair than Facebook blocking the API access to Ping in the eleventh hour so that Apple was forced to either cave in to the demands or change their plans last minute. Apple chose the latter, which is why you have all of the evidence out there about Facebook in Ping (and why you look at this as if Apple ANNOUNCED anything). The screenshots and documentation are simply overcome by events because Facebook shut down the API access and Apple didn't cave.
All is fair in love, war, and negotiation, and it seems to me that Apple and Facebook are simply playing hardball with each other. In terms of social networking, Apple is in a new position: it is not the Gorilla in the room. Facebook is. So don't look at this like an example of Apple running roughshod over the little guy.
Thompson
Onerous to me suggests overwhelmingly stifling at worst, pedantic at best.
What it suggests to you seems somewhat different from what it suggests to folks who write dictionaries. Close, but neither stifling nor pedantic are generally listed as synonyms. Maybe two degrees of separation in the Thesaurus? I dunno.
Nowhere is it defined as "complicated". Sorry.
This one has run its course. Let's just use a dictionary and agree with what the words mean.
Folks like you are so predictable. Don't even bother reading what I wrote. In short, you were acting as if Steve Jobs was urinating in the direction of Facebook when, in fact, he was probably simply expressing Apple's circumstance, using words in the dictionary, as they were written in the dictionary. At this point you're just being obtuse—probably deliberately so.
Apple never announced Facebook for Ping.
Kara Swisher asked Steve point blank "Why no Facebook integration." He gave the answer that the terms Facebook demanded were onerous to Apple. This is a fair negotiation tactic. It certainly is no less fair than Facebook blocking the API access to Ping in the eleventh hour so that Apple was forced to either cave in to the demands or change their plans last minute. Apple chose the latter, which is why you have all of the evidence out there about Facebook in Ping (and why you look at this as if Apple ANNOUNCED anything). The screenshots and documentation are simply overcome by events because Facebook shut down the API access and Apple didn't cave.
All is fair in love, war, and negotiation, and it seems to me that Apple and Facebook are simply playing hardball with each other. In terms of social networking, Apple is in a new position: it is not the Gorilla in the room. Facebook is. So don't look at this like an example of Apple running roughshod over the little guy.
Thompson
it's not just facebook
there is no button in ping to scan your address book and find people on the site. who is really going to try all their contacts one at a time?
And my point is you're criticising the unknown as fact. There is spam prevention in place - there is no such thing as spam proofing. Databases of offendors, IP addresses take time, and no matter what is in place it keeps coming. It happens on facebook, it happens on my POP accounts, so why should PING be immune? Odd logic.
This we both agree on that it will have eventually happened. I'm not saying Ping should be 100% immune (where you got that from my posts, I don't know). I'm just saying that if Ping really had zero spam filtering of any sort, that's a big mis-step on Apple's part.
It's like getting an immunization shot. It'll protect you to a good degree from what's already out there, limiting the attacks to brand-new germs. We know how to reduce the amount of spam we get to a good degree, otherwise our inboxes would still be overrun with spam like they were in the 90s. If Apple did have stuff running in the background, then chalk this up to brand-new spam software, as you imply.
The ethical thing for Schmidt to do would have been to resign from Apple's board as soon as Google started thinking about developing Android.
Nobody's saying Google should not have developed Android - they just shouldn't have sat on Apple's board gathering inside information while developing a competitive product. There was a LOT of information Apple had that should not have been shared with a competitor - Apple's analysis of the mobile market, Apple's plans in future phone development and advertising, etc.
Without Apple's analysis of the market, Google may not have realized it could be so lucrative. Remember, everyone outside of Apple was saying the iPhone would fail. Google might have thought that as well, and delayed or stopped developing Android altogether if they hadn't seen Apple's internal numbers. That would have given Apple probably 2 more years of a head start.
To me, Schmidt's actions border on industrial espionage.
When I think industrial espionage, I think of data being stolen that couldn't have been gathered in any other way. The iPhone being a success can clearly be concluded upon by data from outside of their meetings. In other words, you and I are not on Apple's board, but we both can still see and extrapolate the same general trends (iPhone-like devices are really popular) and ideas (mobile market is very lucative for ads). That's in addition to all the reports the third-party data analysis companies make public.
I also think that the issue is a double-edged sword. If the rest of the board thought Android would become as viable of a competitor as it has become, why didn't they call for his resignation? I'm sure they all knew through him that Android was in the works and could become a danger to Apple, yet they continued to let him stay on the board.
Nonsense. The iPod is a niche market? Apple do take security seriously and from what I've seen are quicker to react that microsoft - I'm aware of issues publicly known in XP that are still not addressed. The worse I've seen from apple is a fortnight for the PDF issue last month.
You brought it up before I could. I have a first generation iPod touch and I was totally left out of the loop for the latest security updates. If this is an example of how Apple takes security seriously, they need a kick in the pants.
I wont defend Microsoft. I remember a time when their attitude was that security was not their responsibility. Billions of complaints later they finally got the message and have really stepped up.
Nonsense.
The argument that "small market share == small risk" is ridiculous. There are a LOT of people who like to damage apple with a very public virus - there hasn't been one for a reason, and that reason has nothing to with having their "head in their butt".
I repeat there has NOT been a virus in the wild on Mac, there have been proof of concepts and bugs, there has even been spyware and malware through third-party software but NO viruses. At ALL, EVER.
It's a good thing.
Now this time I have you right where I want you my friend. The "security by obscurity" expression was coined by none other than Mr. Jobs himself. Your leader. Your God. I wish I could remember where I heard that. I think it was a video of an older interview with Walt Mossberg on the Wall Street Journal Site. I can try to find it for you later or maybe someone else here can remember.
I don't just pull everything out of my fat ass Mr. nkhm. I really listen to Steve, I think I have seen every interview with him on the web and I even read a few books about him. He was a brilliant leader and visionary once. But lately I just can't figure him out. I just downloaded the new iTunes with the black and white icons and the small album art in list view and I shake my head with disbelief. Why would they do this? It's horrid looking!
I can't seem to understand ANYTHING Apple has done lately. And I don't believe for a minute I am the only one on this forum who feels this way. There must be someone here who doesn't drink Apple Juice and eat Apple Pie at every meal.
you were acting as if Steve Jobs was urinating in the direction of Facebook
<plonk>
Have not registered will not register for Ping. Facebook is enough craziness for me, and I use it infrequently. I think the loss of facebook cooperation deal is gonna make it difficult for apple. Keeping up with privacy, new features, spammers, hackers etc is a full time job, that would have been better done outsourced then in-house. Especially for hardware/software company like Apple.
Right, because FaceBook have such an awesome track record with privacy and keeping scammers out...
I'm sure Apple can be a difficult partner... it's either their way, or no way. But FaceBook is run by a bunch of crooks (IMO) and I wouldn't be surprised if the sticking point was about information access (i.e. Apple said 'no way Jose' to giving up customer information). FaceBook is just basically one big garage sale for personal information.
On Ping, on Apple Insider, in Life, they pop up as naturally as bacteria on a kitchen countertop. And they tend to grow exponentially from the get go. They grow merrily on a Spill and left-over break down. A little hygienic common sense and a healthy fatalism take the drama out of a naturally occurring phenomenon.
They spring eternal, ...just like Hope actually.
Seemingly, you think it is too difficult for Apple to implement.
If they can do cut and paste in only three years, this shouldn't be beyond their abilities.
Come on, it was cut copy and paste and it was in two years... don't exhaggerate!
Has anyone here received any spam on Ping?
No one follows me that I don't want, I only follow artists I'm interested in. No spam here.
Plagued? After 48 hours?! More FUD from a "security" company trying to boost their profile/revenue.
I signed up for Ping and got nothing. It's like a ghost town right now. Can't find any other musicians beyond the 10 or so suggested by Apple. I tried the Facebook connect before it got pulled, but it came up empty too. I guess it will take time to build up some momentum.
If this was "totally expected," then why wasn't the issue dealt with proactively?
Agreed, I'm seeing a lot about Ping that could have been better thought through. One of the things that I like about Facebook is that it actually does a pretty good job targeting my interests, Ping on the other hand seems to just recommend I follow the same people it recommends to anyone else. I know Lady Gaga is big stuff right now but for me personally I could give a crap. I'm not likely to use Ping unless it brings more relevant content and features that fit with my tastes & preferences.
I think Ping will ultimately be a success but it's sad to see Apple starting to become a Microsoft, jumping into new ideas without really giving it enough thought. Ultimately they have enough money & man power that they'll get this turkey off the ground but it doesn't bode well for Apple's reputation for them to start acting like Microsoft.
Everything by SOPHOS is in quotes.
The fact I repeated was not a quote.
You restated sophos' supposition as fact, when it is no such thing.
If this was "totally expected," then why wasn't the issue dealt with proactively?
Because Apple doesn't have the authority to implement the correct solution - death penalty for spammers.
If inexperience is not the reason, then what excuse do they have?
They don't need an 'excuse', once again this is a non-issue overstated by the media.
This happens every hour on Facebook - where is that news story?
For the record, still no spam here on mine or my partner's account.
Oh and just to clear up some other cack doing the rounds, you do NOT have to use your real name when signing up and you do NOT need to provide credit card details.
The media make an accusation and the party concerned have to prove their innocence? That's messed up.
I signed up for Ping and got nothing. It's like a ghost town right now. Can't find any other musicians beyond the 10 or so suggested by Apple. I tried the Facebook connect before it got pulled, but it came up empty too. I guess it will take time to build up some momentum.
Yup, cause it's day two and nothing is 'drowning'. Everyone seems to think systems are born fully populated, with large user bases and drowning in relevant content.
Odd, impatient attitude.