Since you have taken classes on rules of evidence, then you should be aware that technology doesn't change the facts of how our system works.
It may change how that system USES it, but the reasons for those rules are still valid.
Juries are still composed of humans, who may be biased and who may still have hidden reasons for that bias. Lawyers are still human, as are judges, and outside parties related to the defendant or victim still have reasons for wanting to taint that process.
The government is still a more powerful entity that the rules are designed to prevent from wielding too much power over any one defendant, so the playing field can be at least somewhat level.
Technology doesn't change ANY of that.
Your reasoning in allowing juries to independently obtain information is flawed because it short-circuits the system, and allows possibly tainted, incorrect or even planted information to skew how a jury would view a defendant, which would be totally out of the control of the court.
But then, you know that. So this post is pretty much a waste of time as presented.
Instead, it should have explored ways to use modern tech to enhance the courtroom instead of undermining the process.
Oh, come on, this is readily available information, any dolt off the street can take classes to obtain this same knowledge. In fact, ALL citizens should know how the legal system works, and should by the time they are Juniors in high school.
The issue is that evidence presented AT TRIAL is what the jury is supposed to consider.
The ONLY evidence the government can present is that which is LEGALLY obtained by the police and the prosecutor's office. There are limits to the government's ability to obtain evidence for a reason, and that is to protect YOUR rights.
The only rebuttal to the government's case allowed is that presented to the jury AT TRIAL.
This two stage process is to allow both sides to be able to view the opposing side's evidence BEFORE it is presented in the courtroom so each can vet the information to be presented, for, among other things, validity and admissibility.
This assures a fair, balanced trial with few surprises, most of the time.
The jury isn't allowed to present evidence or dig for more evidence. It must go to the judge for explanations of matters at law and for the possible re-viewing of evidence already presented (which is not always allowed).
If the jury were allowed to dig for its own information, there is no control over either validity or credibility and whether that information may be unduly prejudicial to either side.
Plus, no record would be madeof what was viewed, where it was obtained, or who may have compiled it, so the appeals court has nothing to see in order to determine how the appeal should be settled.
In other words, a cluster f**k.
No thanks, I'll take my chances with the current legal structure, thankyouverymuch.
But the problem with allowing a jury to access information from outside is that there is then no record of what information influenced the jury's decision for the trial record, which is what appeals courts use to decide appeals.
Another problem is that when information is accessed outside of court channels, there is no way for the court to ensure that the information accessed is correct. You KNOW that there is a lot of misinformation on the internet or from some idiot reporter's un-fact-checked-story?
Do YOU want your future to rest on what some idiot on your jury finds on some other idiot's site that may be more full of holes than swiss cheese?
Apple charges a 30% fee on every download, which beats every other music store out there, except the ones that have met that same price (see amazon, recently). Obviously, the iTunes store has physical costs associated with it, and this fee is meant to offset that cost.
ALL music now sold on iTunes is DRM free. You can buy it and transfer it to any other music player on the market, since you can convert it from the open AAC they sell to an MP3 format, and there are third party converters that can convert to other formats as well.
So please tell me how their music is crippled?
Movies are a different story, but then is there ANY online store that sells DRM-free movies?
The content (ebooks, newspapers, magazines, etc.) on the iPad won't be free, because it will cost content providers to put it there. People will pay to view that content because it is convenient, and it will be the convenience they are paying for, not the content per se. (Added value, huh, Mike?)
Those that say the iPad will "save" the print industry are wrong in that it will not "save" the current business model - but it may help them transition to a new one that will, in time.
If the iPad is embraced by the public, its way of embracing digital content will change the way printed content is seen and accessed by the public. With such things as "subscriptions" to technical books to update to new information, videos embedded in digital "newspapers" to bring in depth visual reporting to what used to be flat two dimensional stories, and who knows what new ways of viewing what we now call "books", the iPad (and soon to be seen competitors) can well change how information is accessed and referenced.
All this is the "added value" that Mike is always talking about, you know, the "reason to buy"??. I'm surprised he hasn't noticed. Maybe he just missed the event this afternoon.
Smack Apple down however you wish, but when they introduce something like this that innovates how people see and do things, the public sits up and notices.
Sure, Apple has had their share of less than successful products and outright failures. What tech company hasn't? Companies are only measured by their failures if those failures are what makes a company go out of business or lose in a previously successful market. Apple's failures have done neither, to the chagrin of its critics.
Instead, it is making money hand over fist, with a growth rate twice that of the general PC market, and a quarter behind them that blew away all expectations and all previous records. Over half of the folks buying Macs in the Apple stores are NEW Mac customers. They have a majority stake in the market segment of over $1000 PCs, and over half of the profits in the PC market are going into Apple, Inc. coffers.
Hardly a record to sneer at.
They've sold over 250 million iPods and over 75 million iPhones and iPod Touches. Most of those were hardly mac fanboys!
I'd say Apple is shattering more than a few past myths about itself, as the American public (and many around the world) are definitely paying attention and beginning to buy Apple products. The trend is for that to continue to grow, and not the other way around.
Oh, please, not that "income tax is illegal" crap again.
Cite your source, in the Federal Code of Regulations, where it is voluntary.
You can't, because it ISN'T. Paying income tax is REQUIRED, by law, and if you don't pay it and refuse to cooperate with the IRS, you'll find out VERY fast which section of that code requires it, because the indictment will cite it, chapter and verse, just before they haul you into court and send your a** to prison for failure to pay.
Face it, no matter how much you may dislike government, there IS a need for one - and it DOES take money to run it.
One can (and we do) argue till the cows come home about how honest and efficient it is or isn't, but if you are going to expect people to show up and work for it, they've gotta get paid, they have to have offices to work in, and those buildings have to be protected.
All that takes money. Otherwise, this would be an anarchy, for about six months, before some warlord stepped in and took over.
Then you'd wish you had the old government back, and wouldn't look at taxes as theft - because you'd know the REAL definition of it!
I'd agree with bassmadrigal. Speed cameras aren't designed to slow down traffic on a whole road, but should be used to slow it down at a particular place, such as by a park or a school. There, it works quite well.
In Maryland, that's how they are SUPPOSED to use them, but unfortunately, I've seen them placed in spots where saying it's by a park is questionable, to say the least. They also combine parks and schools in such a way that they can have a series of cameras on a road to try to control the whole road.
But where they are placed to control a school crossing or a park crossing a road, they work fine. As long as they aren't hidden or expected to slow down a whole road's worth of traffic.
I've also seen them drop the speed limit suddenly - some towns have done that, just to get revenue, I think. Shouldn't be allowed.
Re: Re: Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
No, its not. Part of being a parent is watching the TV guide to be certain of what's being broadcast. That's YOUR responsibility, not the government!
Of course, content providers will have a voluntary system of ratings, the market, unregulated as to content type, will begin to demand such a system, for just the reason you mention.
It's easy, and best of all, isn't an imposed restriction based upon a false sense of some mythical national moral standard, which usually works out to be based upon something cooked up by the religious right.
Re: Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
Actually, even if you have no kids, you've hit the nail right on the head.
The ONLY way to protect kids from inappropriate content is to arm them with values and standards to begin with. Teach them what is right and wrong and WHY it is right or wrong.
Once they get into puberty you've lost them anyway if you've not done it till now, so trying to keep that inappropriate content away from that 13 year old is like trying to keep a bird from flying.
But if you've pre-immunized them by instilling them with values and standards, any such bad content will not matter - they'll laugh and titter over the funny stuff and roll their eyes and change the channel when they run into stuff they know violates those standards - all by themselves, without your input. They'll do it of their own volition, too, even if you are not there.
Or if they watch it anyway, it won't harm them, because they now know better, because you taught them right from wrong.
If you don't trust that 13 year old by now - its too late and you've missed the boat!
The whole point here is - it is YOUR place to set the standards for your family - not the government, because the guys in government that set the rules more than likely will never meet your standards.
I think Mike is making the point that the government should not be determining the standard of decency. That is a private function for each individual, and the society as a whole - as determined by the market. If people turn off lewd or less than tasteful programs, content providers will stop making those kinds of shows.
More to the point, they will group those kinds of shows with others on channels where they can be viewed by those that like them, while more "decent" shows are grouped with other "decent" shows - where people that don't like the "indecent" shows can watch stuff they do like.
You know, the free market - where sellers respond to their customers? So, as a customer, vote with your feet - watch stuff you like and turn off stuff you don't - and keep your kids away from stuff you think is bad for them. There ARE tools for that.
One of those tools is parental authority, and is not easy to learn, but once mastered, is a very effective one. More people should try.
Perhaps the Obama DOJ is taking this position in the hopes that the courts overturn the provisions of the Patriot Act that they object to.
If the DOJ just kills these cases, or lets them go through without testing this position, it will never get tested by the courts, and another Administration could continue to use it in the future.
If it gets tested NOW, and ruled unconstitutional by an appeals courts, then it is gone for good, and cannot be reused in the future.
This isn't the first time an Administration has done this by supporting a past Administration's policies in order to get them overturned in court.
I am in IT for a major Federal Agency, and I'd NEVER let something get placed in public that would allow software installation.
That said, even if negligently allowed, Federal law still forbids placing unauthorized software on a Federal system. What has probably kept him from being charged is that the law still requires some form of intent, and since he was accessing what he would have had access to freely anyway, it was most likely felt not worth the effort.
Standard FBI "procedure", just to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". It's what they do, and are trained to do.
Honestly, he probably broke at least two Federal laws in placing an unauthorized piece of software on the computer. I'd bet that the only reason he isn't up on charges is they couldn't prove he had an intent to steal confidential content.
Everywhere you went this last year, in whatever forum Canadians would gather, you heard nothing but complaints about the horrible vice Rogers has their customers in regarding prices. Many of them were most decidedly NOT complimentary towards Apple for partnering with such a vilified company.
My guess is that Apple decided that, now the two other competitors are playing in the same technological sandbox, it is time to goose Rogers in the butt and get them a little bit more amenable to lower prices, the better to boost iPhone sales.
Sure, Apple likes control, but they aren't stupid, and they've got economists on the payroll that can read sales charts. Management, needless to say, seems to have been listening.
As for the US, the only other cell network provider that plays in that sandbox, T-Mobile (as Mike noted), is pretty small, is struggling to make ends meet, and probably wouldn't add much to Apple's bottom line.
Since Verizon, as of today, seems to be counting on Android for the future, and won't have a compatible network until at least the end of 2011, can be counted out now, that doesn't leave many candidates, does it?
Internationally, I'd bet that we will see additional carriers come on board as local market conditions warrant the move. As Mike noted, sometimes exclusivity is not conducive to competition, sometimes it is. But Apple is focusing on the bottom line, and how it will affect sales.
Sometimes the two will coincide, sometimes they won't.
Mike doesn't seem to like Apple much. I don't think I've ever seen him say anything nice about them. Just negative stuff.
This is really just Apple protesting the inclusion of the Woolworth's logo into the consumer electronics market. Mike knows that companies defend similarities to their logos all the time when a potential competitor comes up with one even remotely comparable. Trademark law is not like copyright, which does not have to be defended vigorously to stand up in court.
Apple may not even expect the Aussie government to come down on their side, but this is further proof that Apple takes regular action to defend their trademark.
This action may come in handy someday in a real court action against a real threat, as a reference to Apple's vigor in protecting that trademark.
I think the intent of the rule is for companies/individuals to say "I DID receive payment from the manufacturer of this product". -- not I may or may not have.
This is not to become a "standard" disclaimer unless of course, the blogger in question is accustomed to receiving such payment ALL THE TIME, in which case, it could become standard for that blogger. In which case, folks would begin to ignore his/her review, huh?
Source, please! You can't make a crazy assertion like that without citing a source.
Nothing I've seen or heard in the tech media has mentioned anything like that - any number of developers of iPhone software have developed for Android, WinMo or console games.
Not that Apple might not love to lock them in - but I'd doubt the legality of such a move.
EULAs are of doubtful legality. Recently, a court ruled that contrary to the EULA you "agree" to in installing software, a EULA does not license software to you, but transfers ownership. So I would caution not to assume EULAs are of any automatic value in determining the relative rights of the parties to a sales transaction for a piece of software.
Courts will have the final say on that score, and many States have consumer protection laws that also may impact those rights.
It's popular because it has a better OS that's easier to use, syncs with your email, contacts & calendar, surfs the web better than any other smart phone out there. Plus, it has an iPod built in.
Plus:
It has more memory than any other smart phone built in.
It isn't an HDD, its flash memory.
Has a touch screen that's more responsive than those of competing machines, contrary to your assertion.
The ATT network where I live is not only quite good now, but has improved nicely over the last year since I got my 3G. Sorry your milage is different.
All that said, as tech improves, additional capabilities emerge and new companies appear, naturally, innovation is not dead.
Of course, nothing says that the next innovative product WON'T come from Apple. The article, in its comment about the Gov't supporting the successor, seems to assume that the next innovator after the iPhone will be a competitor of Apples'.
Apple has a record of topping its own products, innovating beyond its own beginnings. This doesn't mean that competitors can't beat Apple - eventually, I'd hope one will, if only to keep Apple on its toes! But don't count them out just because the iPhone now dominates the tech industry, if not market sales.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It may change how that system USES it, but the reasons for those rules are still valid.
Juries are still composed of humans, who may be biased and who may still have hidden reasons for that bias. Lawyers are still human, as are judges, and outside parties related to the defendant or victim still have reasons for wanting to taint that process.
The government is still a more powerful entity that the rules are designed to prevent from wielding too much power over any one defendant, so the playing field can be at least somewhat level.
Technology doesn't change ANY of that.
Your reasoning in allowing juries to independently obtain information is flawed because it short-circuits the system, and allows possibly tainted, incorrect or even planted information to skew how a jury would view a defendant, which would be totally out of the control of the court.
But then, you know that. So this post is pretty much a waste of time as presented.
Instead, it should have explored ways to use modern tech to enhance the courtroom instead of undermining the process.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't rocket science. Grow up.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: (by Ima Fish)
The issue is that evidence presented AT TRIAL is what the jury is supposed to consider.
The ONLY evidence the government can present is that which is LEGALLY obtained by the police and the prosecutor's office. There are limits to the government's ability to obtain evidence for a reason, and that is to protect YOUR rights.
The only rebuttal to the government's case allowed is that presented to the jury AT TRIAL.
This two stage process is to allow both sides to be able to view the opposing side's evidence BEFORE it is presented in the courtroom so each can vet the information to be presented, for, among other things, validity and admissibility.
This assures a fair, balanced trial with few surprises, most of the time.
The jury isn't allowed to present evidence or dig for more evidence. It must go to the judge for explanations of matters at law and for the possible re-viewing of evidence already presented (which is not always allowed).
If the jury were allowed to dig for its own information, there is no control over either validity or credibility and whether that information may be unduly prejudicial to either side.
Plus, no record would be madeof what was viewed, where it was obtained, or who may have compiled it, so the appeals court has nothing to see in order to determine how the appeal should be settled.
In other words, a cluster f**k.
No thanks, I'll take my chances with the current legal structure, thankyouverymuch.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Evidence admissibility
Another problem is that when information is accessed outside of court channels, there is no way for the court to ensure that the information accessed is correct. You KNOW that there is a lot of misinformation on the internet or from some idiot reporter's un-fact-checked-story?
Do YOU want your future to rest on what some idiot on your jury finds on some other idiot's site that may be more full of holes than swiss cheese?
Not me.
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Re: "Apple isn't making 50% profits"
ALL music now sold on iTunes is DRM free. You can buy it and transfer it to any other music player on the market, since you can convert it from the open AAC they sell to an MP3 format, and there are third party converters that can convert to other formats as well.
So please tell me how their music is crippled?
Movies are a different story, but then is there ANY online store that sells DRM-free movies?
On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'
Wrong again
Those that say the iPad will "save" the print industry are wrong in that it will not "save" the current business model - but it may help them transition to a new one that will, in time.
If the iPad is embraced by the public, its way of embracing digital content will change the way printed content is seen and accessed by the public. With such things as "subscriptions" to technical books to update to new information, videos embedded in digital "newspapers" to bring in depth visual reporting to what used to be flat two dimensional stories, and who knows what new ways of viewing what we now call "books", the iPad (and soon to be seen competitors) can well change how information is accessed and referenced.
All this is the "added value" that Mike is always talking about, you know, the "reason to buy"??. I'm surprised he hasn't noticed. Maybe he just missed the event this afternoon.
Smack Apple down however you wish, but when they introduce something like this that innovates how people see and do things, the public sits up and notices.
Sure, Apple has had their share of less than successful products and outright failures. What tech company hasn't? Companies are only measured by their failures if those failures are what makes a company go out of business or lose in a previously successful market. Apple's failures have done neither, to the chagrin of its critics.
Instead, it is making money hand over fist, with a growth rate twice that of the general PC market, and a quarter behind them that blew away all expectations and all previous records. Over half of the folks buying Macs in the Apple stores are NEW Mac customers. They have a majority stake in the market segment of over $1000 PCs, and over half of the profits in the PC market are going into Apple, Inc. coffers.
Hardly a record to sneer at.
They've sold over 250 million iPods and over 75 million iPhones and iPod Touches. Most of those were hardly mac fanboys!
I'd say Apple is shattering more than a few past myths about itself, as the American public (and many around the world) are definitely paying attention and beginning to buy Apple products. The trend is for that to continue to grow, and not the other way around.
On the post: Baltimore Accused Of Stacking The Deck For Speed Cameras
Re: Re: Not plausible but . . .
Cite your source, in the Federal Code of Regulations, where it is voluntary.
You can't, because it ISN'T. Paying income tax is REQUIRED, by law, and if you don't pay it and refuse to cooperate with the IRS, you'll find out VERY fast which section of that code requires it, because the indictment will cite it, chapter and verse, just before they haul you into court and send your a** to prison for failure to pay.
Face it, no matter how much you may dislike government, there IS a need for one - and it DOES take money to run it.
One can (and we do) argue till the cows come home about how honest and efficient it is or isn't, but if you are going to expect people to show up and work for it, they've gotta get paid, they have to have offices to work in, and those buildings have to be protected.
All that takes money. Otherwise, this would be an anarchy, for about six months, before some warlord stepped in and took over.
Then you'd wish you had the old government back, and wouldn't look at taxes as theft - because you'd know the REAL definition of it!
On the post: Baltimore Accused Of Stacking The Deck For Speed Cameras
Re: Re: Cameras can be good
In Maryland, that's how they are SUPPOSED to use them, but unfortunately, I've seen them placed in spots where saying it's by a park is questionable, to say the least. They also combine parks and schools in such a way that they can have a series of cameras on a road to try to control the whole road.
But where they are placed to control a school crossing or a park crossing a road, they work fine. As long as they aren't hidden or expected to slow down a whole road's worth of traffic.
I've also seen them drop the speed limit suddenly - some towns have done that, just to get revenue, I think. Shouldn't be allowed.
On the post: FCC Hires Law Professor Who Believes Broadcast Indecency Laws Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
Of course, content providers will have a voluntary system of ratings, the market, unregulated as to content type, will begin to demand such a system, for just the reason you mention.
It's easy, and best of all, isn't an imposed restriction based upon a false sense of some mythical national moral standard, which usually works out to be based upon something cooked up by the religious right.
On the post: FCC Hires Law Professor Who Believes Broadcast Indecency Laws Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
The ONLY way to protect kids from inappropriate content is to arm them with values and standards to begin with. Teach them what is right and wrong and WHY it is right or wrong.
Once they get into puberty you've lost them anyway if you've not done it till now, so trying to keep that inappropriate content away from that 13 year old is like trying to keep a bird from flying.
But if you've pre-immunized them by instilling them with values and standards, any such bad content will not matter - they'll laugh and titter over the funny stuff and roll their eyes and change the channel when they run into stuff they know violates those standards - all by themselves, without your input. They'll do it of their own volition, too, even if you are not there.
Or if they watch it anyway, it won't harm them, because they now know better, because you taught them right from wrong.
If you don't trust that 13 year old by now - its too late and you've missed the boat!
The whole point here is - it is YOUR place to set the standards for your family - not the government, because the guys in government that set the rules more than likely will never meet your standards.
On the post: FCC Hires Law Professor Who Believes Broadcast Indecency Laws Are Unconstitutional
the point
More to the point, they will group those kinds of shows with others on channels where they can be viewed by those that like them, while more "decent" shows are grouped with other "decent" shows - where people that don't like the "indecent" shows can watch stuff they do like.
You know, the free market - where sellers respond to their customers? So, as a customer, vote with your feet - watch stuff you like and turn off stuff you don't - and keep your kids away from stuff you think is bad for them. There ARE tools for that.
One of those tools is parental authority, and is not easy to learn, but once mastered, is a very effective one. More people should try.
On the post: Obama Administration Uses 'State Secrets' Clause To Try To Block All Warrantless Wiretapping Cases
another possibility
Perhaps the Obama DOJ is taking this position in the hopes that the courts overturn the provisions of the Patriot Act that they object to.
If the DOJ just kills these cases, or lets them go through without testing this position, it will never get tested by the courts, and another Administration could continue to use it in the future.
If it gets tested NOW, and ruled unconstitutional by an appeals courts, then it is gone for good, and cannot be reused in the future.
This isn't the first time an Administration has done this by supporting a past Administration's policies in order to get them overturned in court.
On the post: FBI Investigation Into Programmer For Freeing The Public Domain
Re: Re: When you're a hammer
I am in IT for a major Federal Agency, and I'd NEVER let something get placed in public that would allow software installation.
That said, even if negligently allowed, Federal law still forbids placing unauthorized software on a Federal system. What has probably kept him from being charged is that the law still requires some form of intent, and since he was accessing what he would have had access to freely anyway, it was most likely felt not worth the effort.
On the post: FBI Investigation Into Programmer For Freeing The Public Domain
When you're a hammer
Standard FBI "procedure", just to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". It's what they do, and are trained to do.
Honestly, he probably broke at least two Federal laws in placing an unauthorized piece of software on the computer. I'd bet that the only reason he isn't up on charges is they couldn't prove he had an intent to steal confidential content.
On the post: iPhone To Be Offered From Multiple Carriers, eh
Mike's got it
Everywhere you went this last year, in whatever forum Canadians would gather, you heard nothing but complaints about the horrible vice Rogers has their customers in regarding prices. Many of them were most decidedly NOT complimentary towards Apple for partnering with such a vilified company.
My guess is that Apple decided that, now the two other competitors are playing in the same technological sandbox, it is time to goose Rogers in the butt and get them a little bit more amenable to lower prices, the better to boost iPhone sales.
Sure, Apple likes control, but they aren't stupid, and they've got economists on the payroll that can read sales charts. Management, needless to say, seems to have been listening.
As for the US, the only other cell network provider that plays in that sandbox, T-Mobile (as Mike noted), is pretty small, is struggling to make ends meet, and probably wouldn't add much to Apple's bottom line.
Since Verizon, as of today, seems to be counting on Android for the future, and won't have a compatible network until at least the end of 2011, can be counted out now, that doesn't leave many candidates, does it?
Internationally, I'd bet that we will see additional carriers come on board as local market conditions warrant the move. As Mike noted, sometimes exclusivity is not conducive to competition, sometimes it is. But Apple is focusing on the bottom line, and how it will affect sales.
Sometimes the two will coincide, sometimes they won't.
On the post: Do Morons In A Hurry Shop For iPhones At Woolworths Down Under?
Just another Techdirt hit piece on Apple
This is really just Apple protesting the inclusion of the Woolworth's logo into the consumer electronics market. Mike knows that companies defend similarities to their logos all the time when a potential competitor comes up with one even remotely comparable. Trademark law is not like copyright, which does not have to be defended vigorously to stand up in court.
Apple may not even expect the Aussie government to come down on their side, but this is further proof that Apple takes regular action to defend their trademark.
This action may come in handy someday in a real court action against a real threat, as a reference to Apple's vigor in protecting that trademark.
Come on, Mike, give it a rest.
On the post: Did The FTC's New 'Blogger' Guidelines Just Change The Way All Book/Music Reviews Must Be Conducted?
Re:
This is not to become a "standard" disclaimer unless of course, the blogger in question is accustomed to receiving such payment ALL THE TIME, in which case, it could become standard for that blogger. In which case, folks would begin to ignore his/her review, huh?
So tell me again why this is a bad thing?
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re: Re: It's the apps, stupid
Nothing I've seen or heard in the tech media has mentioned anything like that - any number of developers of iPhone software have developed for Android, WinMo or console games.
Not that Apple might not love to lock them in - but I'd doubt the legality of such a move.
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues
Courts will have the final say on that score, and many States have consumer protection laws that also may impact those rights.
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re:
Plus:
It has more memory than any other smart phone built in.
It isn't an HDD, its flash memory.
Has a touch screen that's more responsive than those of competing machines, contrary to your assertion.
The ATT network where I live is not only quite good now, but has improved nicely over the last year since I got my 3G. Sorry your milage is different.
All that said, as tech improves, additional capabilities emerge and new companies appear, naturally, innovation is not dead.
Of course, nothing says that the next innovative product WON'T come from Apple. The article, in its comment about the Gov't supporting the successor, seems to assume that the next innovator after the iPhone will be a competitor of Apples'.
Apple has a record of topping its own products, innovating beyond its own beginnings. This doesn't mean that competitors can't beat Apple - eventually, I'd hope one will, if only to keep Apple on its toes! But don't count them out just because the iPhone now dominates the tech industry, if not market sales.
Next >>