As an Englishman, I'm embarrassed by people like pete borota. The strength of anti-Apple sentiment in England is one of the worst traits of my nationality.
I had gotten the impression from the frequency of anti-Apple sentiments posted in these forums from people who identify themselves as from the UK as evidence that forum members in that country do not like Apple and/or are Microsoft fans. Is that what it looks like on the ground?
I had gotten the impression from the frequency of anti-Apple sentiments posted in these forums from people who identify themselves as from the UK as evidence that forum members in that country do not like Apple and/or are Microsoft fans. Is that what it looks like on the ground?
Oh, there are plenty of Apple fans here in the UK too. But historically, there has been an anti-Apple ideology for a long time. I think someone else here went into greater detail as to why. I think there are many reasons why, but overall, I feel it's a general anti-elitist sentiment. Also anti-American. We English tend to be very suspicious of successful companies. Still, the iPhone and iPad are hugely popular here; in London, they're everywhere.
I think it's very damning to Great Britain that, despite its deserved reputation as a world-leader for invention, that hasn't translated into the success it should have done. We seem to be good at small, cutting edge outfits, but not world-dominating triumphs. A combination of something in the water plus a defeatist political mentality.
If I were American, I would be hugely proud of Apple. As it is, I love Apple and enjoy the close ties forged by Sir Jonathan Ive and the late Steve Jobs between USA and UK.
Oh, there are plenty of Apple fans here in the UK too. But historically, there has been an anti-Apple ideology for a long time. I think someone else here went into greater detail as to why. I think there are many reasons why, but overall, I feel it's a general anti-elitist sentiment. Also anti-American. We English tend to be very suspicious of successful companies.
I get the anti-elitist sentiment, there's something to that, though even just a neutral statement of "my computer doesn't have that problem" can seem elitist to someone suffering with a device that has X problem.
How do some of those sentiments work when Microsoft, Intel & AMD are companies of a very US origin? Do people just ignore that? At least the first two companies are also very successful as well.
I get the anti-elitist sentiment, there's something to that, though even just a neutral statement of "my computer doesn't have that problem" can seem elitist to someone suffering with a device that has X problem.
How do some of those sentiments work when Microsoft, Intel & AMD are companies of a very US origin? Do people just ignore that? At least the first two companies are also very successful as well.
Well now you're getting into another level. Microsoft is the establishment as far as business goes, so it has an ingrained advantage in sentiment amongst a lot of the media. So in addition to being elitist, Apple was anti-establishment!
I guess we're in the middle of a seismic shift now, though. Although I don't see Microsoft going anywhere in the enterprise, consumer is another matter. And the establishment isn't doing so well here in just about any field.
So I think it's less important that Microsoft, Intel and AMD are successful than that they aren't elitist.
Well now you're getting into another level. Microsoft is the establishment as far as business goes, so it has an ingrained advantage in sentiment amongst a lot of the media. So in addition to being elitist, Apple was anti-establishment!
Huh. Pro-establishment but otherwise anti-success. They weren't always the establishment, if I recall, they beat out some home-grown players in the UK market getting to that status.
I thought Apple was all about groundbreaking innovation.
Bitcoin is the largest innovation in personal finance since the credit card. It is NOT illegal, and therefore claims that Apple removed it because it's currently not legal are just unjustified.
As for the claims that it's only used for drugs - less than 5% of bitcoin passed through the Silk Road. Yet nearly all US$100 bills have trace amounts of cocaine on them, HSBC laundered hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, and I go buy heroin in any city using untraceable cash....
My theory is Apple has no problem with Bitcoin, they have a problem with hosting apps that are insecure and may result in liabilities for Apple that they do not need.
Rightly or wrongly, governments are banning Bitcoin and prosecuting Bitcoin exchange operators, among other things. It's more likely that Apple is trying to stay on the right side of the law(s).
Where have governments banned bitcoin? As for prosecuting exchange operators, this is another area where you need to do your research.
And which law(s) are they trying to stay on the right side of? Oh that's right - there's nothing questionable going on here. Except Apple's hypocrisy.
Fourth Mr Satoshi and his generals who own 30% of all the bitcoins need to make a pledge that they will not sell their holdings for 10 years. This will give the price stability.
Fifth Mr Satoshi needs to come out to the public. How can people (or Apple) trust a shadowy figure that does not want his identity to be know?
Again, you just have no idea do you. There is no 'Mr. Satoshi' and this doesn't matter. Do you fly because you know Frank Whittle invented the jet engine? Do you drive because Mr. Daimler invented the first car? Do people buy bitcoin because Mr. Satoshi invented them?
Furthermore, If I held 30% of the gold in the world, I'd be sitting on a few trillion dollars - in theory. If I wanted to dump it all at once, do you think I'd get a fraction of its price? No - I'd be flooding the market and prices would collapse. I'd lose, the market would gain.
Same with bitcoin - if I tried to sell 30% of all coins I'd crash out my price and barely see a fraction of their book value if I didn't actually collapse the entire currency by causing extreme bad faith.
Now, you have no idea how much gold is being moved around the world right now. Nobody actually knows how much China has, India has, the USA has, Germany has etc. They all claim certain amounts but these aren't verified. And even more worryingly it's all moved and stored in secret, at great expense.
'Mr. Satoshi's' bitcoins however are entirely out in the open. People even have trackers placed on the addresses to watch for any movement. And you can bet that if they did move in large amounts, the market would respond accordingly. Your theoretical 'dump' of 30% of all bitcoins is just that - theoretical. It couldn't happen under current conditions.
How do you think the markets would react if the USA promised not to move any gold for 10 years? Or China? Or India? It'd be an absolute nonsense to suggest such a thing.
tl;dr - you're talking at length about a topic you only know the lightest surface details of. Please read a little more before making such bold pronouncements in the future.
Russia banned the use if bitcoin. It sounds like Germany's making steps to regulate.
There's been a few arrests for Bitcoin exchange operators, the most high profile being the operator of Silk Road.
If it's really hypocrisy, are PayPal & Square still on the App Store?
Perhaps what I meant to say was 'double standards' - perfectly exemplified by the existence of PayPal & Square on the App Store, whilst bitcoin is banned. Has PayPal never been used for fraud or drugs? Has Square never processed a fraudulent credit card? To suggest they haven't is just wishful thinking.
Silk Road was not a bitcoin exchange. Drug marketplace does not equal exchange, or do you not understand that? An exchange is where people buy and sell bitcoins for other currencies. The other exchange operator who was arrested was Charlie Shrem, but there's more to that case than meets the eye.
Russia has banned bitcoin. *clap* *clap* - one country. 'Making steps to' 'thinking of' 'planning to' does not mean the same as 'have actually made it illegal'. To claim so is truly dishonest.
Why not just ban bitcoin apps in the Russian app store, like they did with Grindr? Double standards.
Perhaps what I meant to say was 'double standards' - perfectly exemplified by the existence of PayPal & Square on the App Store, whilst bitcoin is banned. Has PayPal never been used for fraud or drugs? Has Square never processed a fraudulent credit card? To suggest they haven't is just wishful thinking.
Silk Road was not a bitcoin exchange. Drug marketplace does not equal exchange, or do you not understand that? An exchange is where people buy and sell bitcoins for other currencies. The other exchange operator who was arrested was Charlie Shrem, but there's more to that case than meets the eye.
Russia has banned bitcoin. *clap* *clap* - one country. 'Making steps to' 'thinking of' 'planning to' does not mean the same as 'have actually made it illegal'. To claim so is truly dishonest.
Why not just ban bitcoin apps in the Russian app store, like they did with Grindr? Double standards.
1) PayPal and Square use legal tender and report their transactions to the appropriate bodies. I can also get off a plane in Russia or Thailand and have my US currency converted to Rubles or Baht right at the airport. I can't do this with bitcoins so stop pretending that legal tender and bitcoins are all the same thing.
2) You or the other anti-Apple person on this thread said that Apple removed all apps that allow payments because they are trying to corner the market on iOS payments. Is this no longer the case?
1) PayPal and Square use legal tender and report their transactions to the appropriate bodies. I can also get off a plane in Russia or Thailand and have my US currency converted to Rubles or Baht right at the airport. I can't do this with bitcoins so stop pretending that legal tender and bitcoins are all the same thing.
2) You or the other anti-Apple person on this thread said that Apple removed all apps that allow payments because they are trying to corner the market on iOS payments. Is this no longer the case?
Well done on moving the goalposts. First it's the claim that keeping PayPal and Square on the app store but banning bitcoin is not hypocritical, but then you change it to 'well, bitcoin and legal tender are not the same thing'. Nice shift there. By the way, bitcoin is legal tender. As in, it's not illegal and it's a form of tender.
And then you ignore the rest of my reply and try to put words into my mouth regarding a previous claim as to Apple's motives behind all of this. Good dodge. Yes, I still think Apple has ulterior motives regarding digital payment plans that are influencing their bitcoin move.
Well done on moving the goalposts. First it's the claim that keeping PayPal and Square on the app store but banning bitcoin is not hypocritical, but then you change it to 'well, bitcoin and legal tender are not the same thing'. Nice shift there. By the way, bitcoin is legal tender. As in, it's not illegal and it's a form of tender.
And then you ignore the rest of my reply and try to put words into my mouth regarding a previous claim as to Apple's motives behind all of this. Good dodge. Yes, I still think Apple has ulterior motives regarding digital payment plans that are influencing their bitcoin move.
1) The only goal posts that have been moved are by you and the other poster. You even wrote, " What I did say is that these are all doing the same as bitcoin apps - enabling electronic transfer of value between individuals and businesses. So why are these allowed when bitcoin apps aren't?" to suggest the the problem is because it's electronic, which is what ATM, CC and Debit card payments, and pretty much all banking is today. You moved the goal posts.
2) You've now shifted the posts at least a 3rd time. First to say it's legal simply because it exists, a second to say it's the same as any other financial transaction that is electronic and therefore must be legal, and now to say bitcoins are "coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt."
PS: As I've stated before I'm very much in favour of bitcoin as a concept and think that in my lifetime we'll likely have a (somewhat) universal, decentralized currency, but Bitcoin isn't it even though some of its code will likely still be utilized and the name may stick as a generic term
PPS: Your position here isn't rational or logical, but emotional, which means you aren't likely to make a valid argument and the harder you try the less likely you are to succeed. You need to come at this from an objective viewpoint which, unfortunately for you, means to stop looking for some odious reason why Apple would no longer support bitcoin now that it's gaining in notority and start looking at the facts.
Perhaps what I meant to say was 'double standards' - perfectly exemplified by the existence of PayPal & Square on the App Store, whilst bitcoin is banned. Has PayPal never been used for fraud or drugs? Has Square never processed a fraudulent credit card? To suggest they haven't is just wishful thinking.
Silk Road was not a bitcoin exchange. Drug marketplace does not equal exchange, or do you not understand that? An exchange is where people buy and sell bitcoins for other currencies. The other exchange operator who was arrested was Charlie Shrem, but there's more to that case than meets the eye.
Russia has banned bitcoin. *clap* *clap* - one country. 'Making steps to' 'thinking of' 'planning to' does not mean the same as 'have actually made it illegal'. To claim so is truly dishonest.
Why not just ban bitcoin apps in the Russian app store, like they did with Grindr? Double standards.
Do you honestly think that banning (or attempts to ban) the use of bitcoin is going to stop at Russia? I'm sorry, but it's almost certainly going to get worse before it gets better.
Germany has deemed it worthy of regulation and taxation, but it will be legitimized as part of the process. I don't think attempts to regulatie & tax it will stop at just Germany, either.
And that might be just the key. I don't know if any bit coin exchanges are licensed to operate as such. If it's unlicensed, why should Apple have anything to do with it?
1) PayPal and Square use legal tender and report their transactions to the appropriate bodies. I can also get off a plane in Russia or Thailand and have my US currency converted to Rubles or Baht right at the airport. I can't do this with bitcoins so stop pretending that legal tender and bitcoins are all the same thing.
2) You or the other anti-Apple person on this thread said that Apple removed all apps that allow payments because they are trying to corner the market on iOS payments. Is this no longer the case?
Using LocalBitcoins.com one can find in-person buyers and sellers of Bitcoin anywhere in the world.
Buying and selling Bitcoin wasn't the problem, this was: "A law enforcement officer contacted Michelhack and said he wanted to use bitcoins to purchase stolen credit cards online."
The idiot should've avoided the obvious entrapment.
Buying and selling Bitcoin wasn't the problem, this was: "A law enforcement officer contacted Michelhack and said he wanted to use bitcoins to purchase stolen credit cards online."
The idiot should've avoided the obvious entrapment.
That's what raised flags but not what they were charged with. Their use of the site violated laws against unlicensed money transmitters.
Comments
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-06/unlocked-iphones-are-hard-currency-in-brazil-italy-other-countries
Even more is a iPhone with Flappy Bird installed.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79243872/
I had gotten the impression from the frequency of anti-Apple sentiments posted in these forums from people who identify themselves as from the UK as evidence that forum members in that country do not like Apple and/or are Microsoft fans. Is that what it looks like on the ground?
Oh, there are plenty of Apple fans here in the UK too. But historically, there has been an anti-Apple ideology for a long time. I think someone else here went into greater detail as to why. I think there are many reasons why, but overall, I feel it's a general anti-elitist sentiment. Also anti-American. We English tend to be very suspicious of successful companies. Still, the iPhone and iPad are hugely popular here; in London, they're everywhere.
I think it's very damning to Great Britain that, despite its deserved reputation as a world-leader for invention, that hasn't translated into the success it should have done. We seem to be good at small, cutting edge outfits, but not world-dominating triumphs. A combination of something in the water plus a defeatist political mentality.
If I were American, I would be hugely proud of Apple. As it is, I love Apple and enjoy the close ties forged by Sir Jonathan Ive and the late Steve Jobs between USA and UK.
I get the anti-elitist sentiment, there's something to that, though even just a neutral statement of "my computer doesn't have that problem" can seem elitist to someone suffering with a device that has X problem.
How do some of those sentiments work when Microsoft, Intel & AMD are companies of a very US origin? Do people just ignore that? At least the first two companies are also very successful as well.
Well now you're getting into another level. Microsoft is the establishment as far as business goes, so it has an ingrained advantage in sentiment amongst a lot of the media. So in addition to being elitist, Apple was anti-establishment!
I guess we're in the middle of a seismic shift now, though. Although I don't see Microsoft going anywhere in the enterprise, consumer is another matter. And the establishment isn't doing so well here in just about any field.
So I think it's less important that Microsoft, Intel and AMD are successful than that they aren't elitist.
Huh. Pro-establishment but otherwise anti-success. They weren't always the establishment, if I recall, they beat out some home-grown players in the UK market getting to that status.
My theory is Apple has no problem with Bitcoin, they have a problem with hosting apps that are insecure and may result in liabilities for Apple that they do not need.
Rightly or wrongly, governments are banning Bitcoin and prosecuting Bitcoin exchange operators, among other things. It's more likely that Apple is trying to stay on the right side of the law(s).
Where have governments banned bitcoin? As for prosecuting exchange operators, this is another area where you need to do your research.
And which law(s) are they trying to stay on the right side of? Oh that's right - there's nothing questionable going on here. Except Apple's hypocrisy.
Huh? I didn't think it was obscure information.
Russia banned the use if bitcoin. It sounds like Germany's making steps to regulate.
There's been a few arrests for Bitcoin exchange operators, the most high profile being the operator of Silk Road.
If it's really hypocrisy, are PayPal & Square still on the App Store?
Fourth Mr Satoshi and his generals who own 30% of all the bitcoins need to make a pledge that they will not sell their holdings for 10 years. This will give the price stability.
Fifth Mr Satoshi needs to come out to the public. How can people (or Apple) trust a shadowy figure that does not want his identity to be know?
Again, you just have no idea do you. There is no 'Mr. Satoshi' and this doesn't matter. Do you fly because you know Frank Whittle invented the jet engine? Do you drive because Mr. Daimler invented the first car? Do people buy bitcoin because Mr. Satoshi invented them?
Furthermore, If I held 30% of the gold in the world, I'd be sitting on a few trillion dollars - in theory. If I wanted to dump it all at once, do you think I'd get a fraction of its price? No - I'd be flooding the market and prices would collapse. I'd lose, the market would gain.
Same with bitcoin - if I tried to sell 30% of all coins I'd crash out my price and barely see a fraction of their book value if I didn't actually collapse the entire currency by causing extreme bad faith.
Now, you have no idea how much gold is being moved around the world right now. Nobody actually knows how much China has, India has, the USA has, Germany has etc. They all claim certain amounts but these aren't verified. And even more worryingly it's all moved and stored in secret, at great expense.
'Mr. Satoshi's' bitcoins however are entirely out in the open. People even have trackers placed on the addresses to watch for any movement. And you can bet that if they did move in large amounts, the market would respond accordingly. Your theoretical 'dump' of 30% of all bitcoins is just that - theoretical. It couldn't happen under current conditions.
How do you think the markets would react if the USA promised not to move any gold for 10 years? Or China? Or India? It'd be an absolute nonsense to suggest such a thing.
tl;dr - you're talking at length about a topic you only know the lightest surface details of. Please read a little more before making such bold pronouncements in the future.
Huh? I didn't think it was obscure information.
Russia banned the use if bitcoin. It sounds like Germany's making steps to regulate.
There's been a few arrests for Bitcoin exchange operators, the most high profile being the operator of Silk Road.
If it's really hypocrisy, are PayPal & Square still on the App Store?
Perhaps what I meant to say was 'double standards' - perfectly exemplified by the existence of PayPal & Square on the App Store, whilst bitcoin is banned. Has PayPal never been used for fraud or drugs? Has Square never processed a fraudulent credit card? To suggest they haven't is just wishful thinking.
Silk Road was not a bitcoin exchange. Drug marketplace does not equal exchange, or do you not understand that? An exchange is where people buy and sell bitcoins for other currencies. The other exchange operator who was arrested was Charlie Shrem, but there's more to that case than meets the eye.
Russia has banned bitcoin. *clap* *clap* - one country. 'Making steps to' 'thinking of' 'planning to' does not mean the same as 'have actually made it illegal'. To claim so is truly dishonest.
Why not just ban bitcoin apps in the Russian app store, like they did with Grindr? Double standards.
1) PayPal and Square use legal tender and report their transactions to the appropriate bodies. I can also get off a plane in Russia or Thailand and have my US currency converted to Rubles or Baht right at the airport. I can't do this with bitcoins so stop pretending that legal tender and bitcoins are all the same thing.
2) You or the other anti-Apple person on this thread said that Apple removed all apps that allow payments because they are trying to corner the market on iOS payments. Is this no longer the case?
1) PayPal and Square use legal tender and report their transactions to the appropriate bodies. I can also get off a plane in Russia or Thailand and have my US currency converted to Rubles or Baht right at the airport. I can't do this with bitcoins so stop pretending that legal tender and bitcoins are all the same thing.
2) You or the other anti-Apple person on this thread said that Apple removed all apps that allow payments because they are trying to corner the market on iOS payments. Is this no longer the case?
Well done on moving the goalposts. First it's the claim that keeping PayPal and Square on the app store but banning bitcoin is not hypocritical, but then you change it to 'well, bitcoin and legal tender are not the same thing'. Nice shift there. By the way, bitcoin is legal tender. As in, it's not illegal and it's a form of tender.
And then you ignore the rest of my reply and try to put words into my mouth regarding a previous claim as to Apple's motives behind all of this. Good dodge. Yes, I still think Apple has ulterior motives regarding digital payment plans that are influencing their bitcoin move.
1) The only goal posts that have been moved are by you and the other poster. You even wrote, " What I did say is that these are all doing the same as bitcoin apps - enabling electronic transfer of value between individuals and businesses. So why are these allowed when bitcoin apps aren't?" to suggest the the problem is because it's electronic, which is what ATM, CC and Debit card payments, and pretty much all banking is today. You moved the goal posts.
2) You've now shifted the posts at least a 3rd time. First to say it's legal simply because it exists, a second to say it's the same as any other financial transaction that is electronic and therefore must be legal, and now to say bitcoins are "coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt."
PS: As I've stated before I'm very much in favour of bitcoin as a concept and think that in my lifetime we'll likely have a (somewhat) universal, decentralized currency, but Bitcoin isn't it even though some of its code will likely still be utilized and the name may stick as a generic term
PPS: Your position here isn't rational or logical, but emotional, which means you aren't likely to make a valid argument and the harder you try the less likely you are to succeed. You need to come at this from an objective viewpoint which, unfortunately for you, means to stop looking for some odious reason why Apple would no longer support bitcoin now that it's gaining in notority and start looking at the facts.
Do you honestly think that banning (or attempts to ban) the use of bitcoin is going to stop at Russia? I'm sorry, but it's almost certainly going to get worse before it gets better.
Germany has deemed it worthy of regulation and taxation, but it will be legitimized as part of the process. I don't think attempts to regulatie & tax it will stop at just Germany, either.
Also: US regarded at least *this* Bitcoin exchange being regarded as an unlicensed money transmitting business:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/bitcoin-ceo-arrest_n_4674148.html
And that might be just the key. I don't know if any bit coin exchanges are licensed to operate as such. If it's unlicensed, why should Apple have anything to do with it?
Using LocalBitcoins.com one can find in-person buyers and sellers of Bitcoin anywhere in the world.
And maybe find yourself under indictment if you use it.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/florida-prosecutors-file-legal-charges-against-heavy-bitcoin-traders/
Buying and selling Bitcoin wasn't the problem, this was: "A law enforcement officer contacted Michelhack and said he wanted to use bitcoins to purchase stolen credit cards online."
The idiot should've avoided the obvious entrapment.
That's what raised flags but not what they were charged with. Their use of the site violated laws against unlicensed money transmitters.