Instead Google has set the standard at 10% and helped monetized what hadn't been monetized before. I'd almost claim collusion if I were the cynical type.
10% screws Amazon even worse than 30% if content producers moved the agent cut from 30% to 10%. For both Google and Apple this is secondary income. For Amazon that's their primary income. 10% still screws resellers as content direct from producers (via Google eBookstore and Apple iBookstore) is still less. It's a slow death as opposed to instant death.
Google's system isn't a one stop shop for their android devices though. It's an option presented to anyone who wants it for a payment method if those companies don't want to set up their own payment system. Google's not using the 90/10 split in their bookstore for example, but if Randomhouse wanted to sell books direct to consumers, they could setup a system through Google checkout.
I really don't know why people are comparing Google's payment system to Apple's here. They're two totally different systems targeted at different markets for different purposes.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple.
Too bad that isn't actually the scenario. You have to deliberately make an in app purchase for them to get a cut. Did Apple somehow deprive you of free will? Orbital mind control lasers I suppose?
No, they did not deprive me of my free will. That was my point. My response was to Long On Apple's claim which is based on the idea that Apple somehow did take away my free will. Read it for yourself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long On Apple
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
I resent you distorting my words and arguments.
Quote:
Then simply don't purchase from within the app. OMG! What a concept. Apple may not have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller (eeww) but they do have the right to decide how their app store works.
Yes, they have a general right to control their own store. However, they do not have the right to control other companies' stores or pricing, which is what they are trying to do.
I do not intend to buy anything through In App Purchasing, but how do I keep from paying more for the exact same content when prices everywhere go up due to Apple's policies? I cannot. Period.
Think this through:
- Apple has arranged things so that the easiest method (by far!) to purchase content is via an In App Purchase. They have done so by requiring that IAP be part of content applications, AND that content sellers Are Not Permitted to include active links to their own sites to handle purchases.
AND
- Apple requires that IAP prices be equal to or lower than non-IAP prices. In other words, the price on the content seller's site may not be lower than the IAP price or Apple will pull the app.
AND
- In App Purchases have a significantly higher cost (30% of retail) than at the content seller's own site. Without Apple's pricing equality requirements, IAP prices should be 43% higher due to the cost difference imposed by Apple. But because of the price equality requirements, content sellers will be FORCED to raise prices on their own site to make sure they don't lose money due to IAP sales. (I ran through the math here.)
There are ONLY two ways pricing won't be raised for everyone:
1) Content sellers pull their app from iOS devices.
2) Almost no one buys content via IAP. Remember, something like 99% of iOS users will have no idea about this issue. (You basically said this.) All they will see is that you have to manually open a browser and type in a site name then do searching to purchase from the content seller's site, and the price will be no better anyway. Can you seriously argue that this is even a remote possibility of this happening?
Quote:
More likely nobody but geeks and trolls have noticed and the impact outside a couple apps get pulled is zero.
I have a couple thousand dollars tied up in content which is made available on iOS devices only due to the availability of apps. If those apps get pulled, I lose access to that content. Wouldn't you consider that to be a Big. Fricken'. Deal?!?
I also have plans to add another $650 of content to one of them. Seeing those prices increase by the kind of percentages needed to cover Apple's greed (up to 43%, something like 25% is far more likely) even right on the seller's site is also a Big Fricken' Deal. Can you give me a legitimate reason why I should not be bothered by such numbers?
Too bad that isn't actually the scenario. You have to deliberately make an in app purchase for them to get a cut. Did Apple somehow deprive you of free will? Orbital mind control lasers I suppose?
Right, but in the app itself. The ONLY option is to purchase using apple's system. The developer can't even provide a LINK to a payment system outside of the app. They also can't provide any incentive for a customer to use a different payment system.
Convenience always wins. Apple knows this, which is why they had the strict "only our option" stipulation. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if apple rejected any app that even TOLD customers the preferred way was to sign up online.
Quote:
Then simply don't purchase from within the app. OMG! What a concept. Apple may not have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller (eeww) but they do have the right to decide how their app store works. You then have the right to buy something else if it pisses you off so much.
Again, that's not the issue here. Apple's made it so that your ONLY option if you want a book on your phone is to buy it on the phone, unless you somehow decide to wait until you get home and buy it there for some reason (no incentive to do so). It's that convenience that app developers will have to build into the cost of happing an app on the iphone. They'll either need to increase the prices everywhere (bad), not have an iOS app (bad), or accept the loss (fatal)
Quote:
eBay has an easy tech item buying program for your iDevices. If you resent it that much voice your resentment in the best way a consumer can. By voting with your wallet.
And what about the people who don't. And then decide they hate it later only to find out all of those books (possibly hundreds of dollars) are locked so they ONLY work on idevices.
Quote:
However, based on the interesting ways you describe Apple's actions (resent, abhorrent, privilege, slave, yada yada yada) I'm guessing you're more troll than indignant. It's a freaking tech toy. M'kay? Abhorrent? Rly?
Sorry, but anyone trying to dictate what I do with my media earns my resentment. Kindle has DRM, that's true, but they don't limit you to hardware. DRM for media is a necessary evil, but at least they TRY to get on as many platforms as they can so you're not locked.
Quote:
Maybe if that was vaguely in the realm of reality they might resent that. More likely nobody but geeks and trolls have noticed and the impact outside a couple apps get pulled is zero.
companies are most likely trying to get Apple to back down, they're not going to pull right away. And people will notice if apps do get pulled or if prices increase. Companies won't just eat these costs.
The iOS market is NOT WORTH IT if they're not making a profit. And no, volume doesn't mean Jack if someone is charging you PER SALE and each sale has a negative value (as it does with Kindle right now for 5 of the 6 top publishing groups)
Apple's made it so that your ONLY option if you want a book on your phone is to buy it on the phone, unless you somehow decide to wait until you get home and buy it there for some reason (no incentive to do so).
It seems to me that you should still be able to use Safari on the iDevice to handle the purchase without having to wait until you get home. Even so, it would still be a much more significant pain than simply tapping a button or three within the app.
It seems to me that you should still be able to use Safari on the iDevice to handle the purchase without having to wait until you get home. Even so, it would still be a much more significant pain than simply tapping a button or three within the app.
Otherwise, very well said.
you technically can, but you'll need to remember to bookmark the kindle site, or the'll have to redesign the mobile site to make it more obvious. As it is now, you click a button in app and it takes you right where you want it to.
Should be interesting to see if Apple will even let "Purchase this via the web using your creditcard/paypal or purchase via itunes" (with only itunes link active) through their approval. Somehow I doubt it though.
Apple's built their entire product, and marketed to consumers that convenience trumps nearly all. They know that this requirement will bring them a ton of money. Sure, you can still go through the web, but most users won't do that, especially when there is no incentive to do so.
I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple. They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
Then you will have to suffer with Android. Your choice.
Can you give me a legitimate reason why I should not be bothered by such numbers?
You agreed to all of that when you bought your iPhone. A wise man once said that education is what you get when you read the fine print, and experience is what you get when you don't.
I think that most all of Apple's real customer base knows why Apple is doing this, and they agree with the policy wholeheartedly.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple. I am perfectly willing to pay Apple for products and services which I have decided are valuable to me. I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple. They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
Non-Apple customers should resent Apple even more for attempting to force content resellers to raise prices on their products just because someone, somewhere is experiencing the "privilege" of using some content from that reseller on an iDevice, in effect charging them for the "privilege" of someone else using one of their products.
You've gone to a pretty irrational place there. Do you resent your credit card company because they assume they have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller every time you use your card just because they issued you one? (And, not using your card is like not using your iPhone, your choice.) Yes, we should all hate Apple because their attempt to create a better experience for customers is creating utter misery and despair for non-customers.
The question is, are you an astroturfer, a fandroid, a deluded Apple hater or just generally angry at the world. You remind me of someone trying to explain why evolution is "just a theory".
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
The latest incarnation of the troll previously known as iLuv, I think.
... Apple's made it so that your ONLY option if you want a book on your phone is to buy it on the phone, unless you somehow decide to wait until you get home and buy it there for some reason (no incentive to do so). ...
... Sorry, but anyone trying to dictate what I do with my media earns my resentment. Kindle has DRM, that's true, but they don't limit you to hardware. DRM for media is a necessary evil, but at least they TRY to get on as many platforms as they can so you're not locked. ...
... And no, volume doesn't mean Jack if someone is charging you PER SALE and each sale has a negative value (as it does with Kindle right now for 5 of the 6 top publishing groups)
Well, let's see, at least you recognize your hypocrisy regarding DRM, Amazon and Apple, but a clumsy attempt to explain it away. Besides that, it is extremely unlikely that anyone buying Kindle books will ONLY buy books through in-app purchases on iOS and, consequently, the cost to Amazone won't be 30% of their total sales. The per sale amount is meaningless. All that matters is will they make more money being on iOS or not being on iOS and the answer, I assure you, is the former.
Interesting how we have so many posters who are so concerned about Amazon, though.
The words you typed were tracked by Tribal Fusion, Google Analytics, Google AdSense, Quantcast, Federated Media, OpenX, Crowd Science, Advertising.com, ValueClick Media, AdHere and Doubleclick, courtesy of AI. AI sells you to all of these advertisers, and more. They know who you are. They know what you write. They know what makes you click.
That is no different from anything that Apple and Google are doing together. These companies need to make money. You think they should provide content and services to you for free?
Carnivore - well actually its newer versions
Carnivore was an Internet surveillance system developed for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) so that they could monitor the electronic transmissions of criminal suspects. Critics, however, charged that Carnivore did not include appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse and might violate the constitutional rights of the individual. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) reported in early 2005 that the FBI had replaced Carnivore with other, unspecified surveillance software from commercial sources. Such software usually includes a packet sniffer.
EPIC, a public interest group dedicated to emerging civil liberties issues, was the chief critic of Carnivore and continues to be concerned about violations of privacy rights. The group sued and got the FBI to release background information on the system, although the Bureau refused to turn over Carnivore's source code. A private study conducted by the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, which was commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department, found several shortcomings in Carnivore. For example, the system did not keep track of individual users, so any operator defaulted to "administrator," leaving no audit trail. Also, the system lacked a feature that would require users to confirm that a court order was granted.
well its not used for making money unfortunately, its used to control you, I don't worry about commece knowing stuff about me, I'm more worried about the government knowing stuff about me and what I read for political purposes
Do you resent your credit card company because they assume they have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller every time you use your card just because they issued you one?
Ever heard of cash? Checks? PayPal? They're called payment OPTIONS for a reason.
Quote:
The question is, are you an astroturfer, a fandroid, a deluded Apple hater or just generally angry at the world. You remind me of someone trying to explain why evolution is "just a theory".
Let's see. My first computer was an Apple IIe. My first Mac was a Mac Plus. I currently have a PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro sitting under my desk, three other Mac notebooks in the house, 5 or 6 iPods in the house, 2 iPhones, and one Windows computer I had to have for work (which never gets turned on anymore 'cause I can now do that work on the Mac Pro). Therefore, I must be an Apple hater.
I'm just irritated by irrational assertions which ignore relevant facts and distinctions. What's your excuse?
I don't worry about commece knowing stuff about me, I'm more worried about the government knowing stuff about me and what I read for political purposes
If "commerce" knows "stuff" about you and what you read, you're only a national security letter away from the government knowing it too.
Ever heard of cash? Checks? PayPal? They're called payment OPTIONS for a reason.
Let's see. My first computer was an Apple IIe. My first Mac was a Mac Plus. I currently have a PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro sitting under my desk, three other Mac notebooks in the house, 5 or 6 iPods in the house, 2 iPhones, and one Windows computer I had to have for work (which never gets turned on anymore 'cause I can now do that work on the Mac Pro). Therefore, I must be an Apple hater.
I'm just irritated by irrational assertions which ignore relevant facts and distinctions. What's your excuse?
Yeah, you have the option not to use an iOS device too. But let's stop pretending that Apple's enforcement of these policies is going to cause consumer harm, that's just bullshit. It might be a negative for Amazon, but Apple isn't under any obligation to tailor its business practices to suit every other company's business model. That they are is an absurd proposition, and exactly what you are arguing.
As for what you own, a) you could be lying, b) you could be astroturfing for Amazon, or c) you could simply be irrationally upset.
Comments
Instead Google has set the standard at 10% and helped monetized what hadn't been monetized before. I'd almost claim collusion if I were the cynical type.
10% screws Amazon even worse than 30% if content producers moved the agent cut from 30% to 10%. For both Google and Apple this is secondary income. For Amazon that's their primary income. 10% still screws resellers as content direct from producers (via Google eBookstore and Apple iBookstore) is still less. It's a slow death as opposed to instant death.
Google's system isn't a one stop shop for their android devices though. It's an option presented to anyone who wants it for a payment method if those companies don't want to set up their own payment system. Google's not using the 90/10 split in their bookstore for example, but if Randomhouse wanted to sell books direct to consumers, they could setup a system through Google checkout.
I really don't know why people are comparing Google's payment system to Apple's here. They're two totally different systems targeted at different markets for different purposes.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple.
Too bad that isn't actually the scenario. You have to deliberately make an in app purchase for them to get a cut. Did Apple somehow deprive you of free will? Orbital mind control lasers I suppose?
No, they did not deprive me of my free will. That was my point. My response was to Long On Apple's claim which is based on the idea that Apple somehow did take away my free will. Read it for yourself:
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
I resent you distorting my words and arguments.
Then simply don't purchase from within the app. OMG! What a concept. Apple may not have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller (eeww) but they do have the right to decide how their app store works.
Yes, they have a general right to control their own store. However, they do not have the right to control other companies' stores or pricing, which is what they are trying to do.
I do not intend to buy anything through In App Purchasing, but how do I keep from paying more for the exact same content when prices everywhere go up due to Apple's policies? I cannot. Period.
Think this through:
- Apple has arranged things so that the easiest method (by far!) to purchase content is via an In App Purchase. They have done so by requiring that IAP be part of content applications, AND that content sellers Are Not Permitted to include active links to their own sites to handle purchases.
AND
- Apple requires that IAP prices be equal to or lower than non-IAP prices. In other words, the price on the content seller's site may not be lower than the IAP price or Apple will pull the app.
AND
- In App Purchases have a significantly higher cost (30% of retail) than at the content seller's own site. Without Apple's pricing equality requirements, IAP prices should be 43% higher due to the cost difference imposed by Apple. But because of the price equality requirements, content sellers will be FORCED to raise prices on their own site to make sure they don't lose money due to IAP sales. (I ran through the math here.)
There are ONLY two ways pricing won't be raised for everyone:
1) Content sellers pull their app from iOS devices.
2) Almost no one buys content via IAP. Remember, something like 99% of iOS users will have no idea about this issue. (You basically said this.) All they will see is that you have to manually open a browser and type in a site name then do searching to purchase from the content seller's site, and the price will be no better anyway. Can you seriously argue that this is even a remote possibility of this happening?
More likely nobody but geeks and trolls have noticed and the impact outside a couple apps get pulled is zero.
I have a couple thousand dollars tied up in content which is made available on iOS devices only due to the availability of apps. If those apps get pulled, I lose access to that content. Wouldn't you consider that to be a Big. Fricken'. Deal?!?
I also have plans to add another $650 of content to one of them. Seeing those prices increase by the kind of percentages needed to cover Apple's greed (up to 43%, something like 25% is far more likely) even right on the seller's site is also a Big Fricken' Deal. Can you give me a legitimate reason why I should not be bothered by such numbers?
Too bad that isn't actually the scenario. You have to deliberately make an in app purchase for them to get a cut. Did Apple somehow deprive you of free will? Orbital mind control lasers I suppose?
Right, but in the app itself. The ONLY option is to purchase using apple's system. The developer can't even provide a LINK to a payment system outside of the app. They also can't provide any incentive for a customer to use a different payment system.
Convenience always wins. Apple knows this, which is why they had the strict "only our option" stipulation. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if apple rejected any app that even TOLD customers the preferred way was to sign up online.
Then simply don't purchase from within the app. OMG! What a concept. Apple may not have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller (eeww) but they do have the right to decide how their app store works. You then have the right to buy something else if it pisses you off so much.
Again, that's not the issue here. Apple's made it so that your ONLY option if you want a book on your phone is to buy it on the phone, unless you somehow decide to wait until you get home and buy it there for some reason (no incentive to do so). It's that convenience that app developers will have to build into the cost of happing an app on the iphone. They'll either need to increase the prices everywhere (bad), not have an iOS app (bad), or accept the loss (fatal)
eBay has an easy tech item buying program for your iDevices. If you resent it that much voice your resentment in the best way a consumer can. By voting with your wallet.
And what about the people who don't. And then decide they hate it later only to find out all of those books (possibly hundreds of dollars) are locked so they ONLY work on idevices.
However, based on the interesting ways you describe Apple's actions (resent, abhorrent, privilege, slave, yada yada yada) I'm guessing you're more troll than indignant. It's a freaking tech toy. M'kay? Abhorrent? Rly?
Sorry, but anyone trying to dictate what I do with my media earns my resentment. Kindle has DRM, that's true, but they don't limit you to hardware. DRM for media is a necessary evil, but at least they TRY to get on as many platforms as they can so you're not locked.
Maybe if that was vaguely in the realm of reality they might resent that. More likely nobody but geeks and trolls have noticed and the impact outside a couple apps get pulled is zero.
companies are most likely trying to get Apple to back down, they're not going to pull right away. And people will notice if apps do get pulled or if prices increase. Companies won't just eat these costs.
The iOS market is NOT WORTH IT if they're not making a profit. And no, volume doesn't mean Jack if someone is charging you PER SALE and each sale has a negative value (as it does with Kindle right now for 5 of the 6 top publishing groups)
Apple's made it so that your ONLY option if you want a book on your phone is to buy it on the phone, unless you somehow decide to wait until you get home and buy it there for some reason (no incentive to do so).
It seems to me that you should still be able to use Safari on the iDevice to handle the purchase without having to wait until you get home. Even so, it would still be a much more significant pain than simply tapping a button or three within the app.
Otherwise, very well said.
It seems to me that you should still be able to use Safari on the iDevice to handle the purchase without having to wait until you get home. Even so, it would still be a much more significant pain than simply tapping a button or three within the app.
Otherwise, very well said.
you technically can, but you'll need to remember to bookmark the kindle site, or the'll have to redesign the mobile site to make it more obvious. As it is now, you click a button in app and it takes you right where you want it to.
Should be interesting to see if Apple will even let "Purchase this via the web using your creditcard/paypal or purchase via itunes" (with only itunes link active) through their approval. Somehow I doubt it though.
Apple's built their entire product, and marketed to consumers that convenience trumps nearly all. They know that this requirement will bring them a ton of money. Sure, you can still go through the web, but most users won't do that, especially when there is no incentive to do so.
I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple. They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
Then you will have to suffer with Android. Your choice.
Can you give me a legitimate reason why I should not be bothered by such numbers?
You agreed to all of that when you bought your iPhone. A wise man once said that education is what you get when you read the fine print, and experience is what you get when you don't.
I think that most all of Apple's real customer base knows why Apple is doing this, and they agree with the policy wholeheartedly.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple. I am perfectly willing to pay Apple for products and services which I have decided are valuable to me. I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple. They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
Non-Apple customers should resent Apple even more for attempting to force content resellers to raise prices on their products just because someone, somewhere is experiencing the "privilege" of using some content from that reseller on an iDevice, in effect charging them for the "privilege" of someone else using one of their products.
You've gone to a pretty irrational place there. Do you resent your credit card company because they assume they have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller every time you use your card just because they issued you one? (And, not using your card is like not using your iPhone, your choice.) Yes, we should all hate Apple because their attempt to create a better experience for customers is creating utter misery and despair for non-customers.
The question is, are you an astroturfer, a fandroid, a deluded Apple hater or just generally angry at the world. You remind me of someone trying to explain why evolution is "just a theory".
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
The latest incarnation of the troll previously known as iLuv, I think.
... Apple's made it so that your ONLY option if you want a book on your phone is to buy it on the phone, unless you somehow decide to wait until you get home and buy it there for some reason (no incentive to do so). ...
... Sorry, but anyone trying to dictate what I do with my media earns my resentment. Kindle has DRM, that's true, but they don't limit you to hardware. DRM for media is a necessary evil, but at least they TRY to get on as many platforms as they can so you're not locked. ...
... And no, volume doesn't mean Jack if someone is charging you PER SALE and each sale has a negative value (as it does with Kindle right now for 5 of the 6 top publishing groups)
Well, let's see, at least you recognize your hypocrisy regarding DRM, Amazon and Apple, but a clumsy attempt to explain it away. Besides that, it is extremely unlikely that anyone buying Kindle books will ONLY buy books through in-app purchases on iOS and, consequently, the cost to Amazone won't be 30% of their total sales. The per sale amount is meaningless. All that matters is will they make more money being on iOS or not being on iOS and the answer, I assure you, is the former.
Interesting how we have so many posters who are so concerned about Amazon, though.
The words you typed were tracked by Tribal Fusion, Google Analytics, Google AdSense, Quantcast, Federated Media, OpenX, Crowd Science, Advertising.com, ValueClick Media, AdHere and Doubleclick, courtesy of AI. AI sells you to all of these advertisers, and more. They know who you are. They know what you write. They know what makes you click.
That is no different from anything that Apple and Google are doing together. These companies need to make money. You think they should provide content and services to you for free?
Carnivore - well actually its newer versions
Carnivore was an Internet surveillance system developed for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) so that they could monitor the electronic transmissions of criminal suspects. Critics, however, charged that Carnivore did not include appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse and might violate the constitutional rights of the individual. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) reported in early 2005 that the FBI had replaced Carnivore with other, unspecified surveillance software from commercial sources. Such software usually includes a packet sniffer.
EPIC, a public interest group dedicated to emerging civil liberties issues, was the chief critic of Carnivore and continues to be concerned about violations of privacy rights. The group sued and got the FBI to release background information on the system, although the Bureau refused to turn over Carnivore's source code. A private study conducted by the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, which was commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department, found several shortcomings in Carnivore. For example, the system did not keep track of individual users, so any operator defaulted to "administrator," leaving no audit trail. Also, the system lacked a feature that would require users to confirm that a court order was granted.
well its not used for making money unfortunately, its used to control you, I don't worry about commece knowing stuff about me, I'm more worried about the government knowing stuff about me and what I read for political purposes
Then you will have to suffer with Android. Your choice.
No. It's not. It's a choice which is being made by Apple if their new policy drives the apps off iOS.
Neither is the higher prices.
A wise man once said that education is what you get when you read the fine print, and experience is what you get when you don't.
Did you miss the part about it being a CHANGE in Apple's policies?
Do you resent your credit card company because they assume they have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller every time you use your card just because they issued you one?
Ever heard of cash? Checks? PayPal? They're called payment OPTIONS for a reason.
The question is, are you an astroturfer, a fandroid, a deluded Apple hater or just generally angry at the world. You remind me of someone trying to explain why evolution is "just a theory".
Let's see. My first computer was an Apple IIe. My first Mac was a Mac Plus. I currently have a PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro sitting under my desk, three other Mac notebooks in the house, 5 or 6 iPods in the house, 2 iPhones, and one Windows computer I had to have for work (which never gets turned on anymore 'cause I can now do that work on the Mac Pro). Therefore, I must be an Apple hater.
I'm just irritated by irrational assertions which ignore relevant facts and distinctions. What's your excuse?
I don't worry about commece knowing stuff about me, I'm more worried about the government knowing stuff about me and what I read for political purposes
If "commerce" knows "stuff" about you and what you read, you're only a national security letter away from the government knowing it too.
Ever heard of cash? Checks? PayPal? They're called payment OPTIONS for a reason.
Let's see. My first computer was an Apple IIe. My first Mac was a Mac Plus. I currently have a PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro sitting under my desk, three other Mac notebooks in the house, 5 or 6 iPods in the house, 2 iPhones, and one Windows computer I had to have for work (which never gets turned on anymore 'cause I can now do that work on the Mac Pro). Therefore, I must be an Apple hater.
I'm just irritated by irrational assertions which ignore relevant facts and distinctions. What's your excuse?
Yeah, you have the option not to use an iOS device too. But let's stop pretending that Apple's enforcement of these policies is going to cause consumer harm, that's just bullshit. It might be a negative for Amazon, but Apple isn't under any obligation to tailor its business practices to suit every other company's business model. That they are is an absurd proposition, and exactly what you are arguing.
As for what you own, a) you could be lying, b) you could be astroturfing for Amazon, or c) you could simply be irrationally upset.
You must irritate yourself a lot.
The latest incarnation of the troll previously known as iLuv, I think.
Fraid so. When you see those report them (already have this time). The mods are pretty good about banning his various incarnations, once alerted.
But let's stop pretending that Apple's enforcement of these policies is going to cause consumer harm, that's just bullshit.
It's called math. Ever heard of it?
It's called math. Ever heard of it?
That's called making up numbers.