I, for one, and I am sure a fair number of people, really don't care enough about the stuff produced by Hollywood and the big labels to get into this. If they want to wage war against so called "pirates", that's their problem. My concern, though, is collateral damage. The war on drugs gave us warrantless searches and seizures, and filled prisons with non-violent addicts; the war on terror gave us the TSA and routine spying on US citizens. If this continues, the war on pirates will give us a broken Internet. We should not argue with big content that their approach is stupid, or try to defend the P2P sites, our goal should be to isolate these idiots - both sides - so they only break each others' businesses.
The town of San Mateo (CA) has recently announced that they were ending the red light camera program. That's good, but the funny part is that also said that they stopped it because it was not profitable. When they put the cameras up, the justification is always that it will improve safety at a dangerous intersection. Then, if it is not profitable, it proves that it worked beautifully as a deterrent, so it is a success. Right? What I don't understand is why they are now ending such a successful program.
"what's the fundamental difference between what the malware peddlers and these supposedly legitimate companies are doing?"
The malware peddlers are a lot smarter, they get the victims to do all the work, so they are much more efficient.
Besides the point of the article, which I find very good, I think there is some undervaluation of what that will do to the print media, now that the ad platform has been unveiled. For a magazine, that means the ability to create the content and publish it in an app, reserve some space for ads, then let Apple sell and place them. That eliminates the cost of ad sales, the speculative printing, the tracking of circulation, and all the other costs of getting revenue. For the advertisers, that eliminates the guess work based on (often questionable) circulation numbers, the risk of buying expensive ads that nobody will see, and brings the ability to keep ads fresh and current, or modify a campaign depending on response. That's a lot of value for both sides of the magazine advertising partners, and that's bound to change the business dramatically.
This report comes out days after the European Commission has massively rejected ACTA. I can't imagine that any of the interests behind ACTA could have helped conducting and publishing the "study", because they are not the kind of people who would manipulate public opinion.
Of course, half VGA is a standard. Now. How many HVGA phones were there before the iPhone? The execution of a idea has everything to do with the specs of the product. Engineering is making the right trade-offs, in this case between size, brightness, definition, battery life, and a dozen other factors. And there were hundreds other trade-offs that had to be decided when defining the iPhone. That's what made it successful or could have killed it.
After someone has defined this balance, convinced a large market that it is the right compromise, and demonstrated how to implement the ideas into a successful product, it is no longer about the idea, it is stealing the technology. I am not blindly defending anybody, I just try to correct statements that are obviously wrong when people try to rewrite history and distort concepts because they don't like a company or a CEO.
Try to understand what you read.
Cisco had a Trademark on the word iPhone. Not a patent. Apple's iPhone infringed on Cisco's trademark and Cisco decided - intelligently - not to challenge because there was little risk of confusion (all 5 people who had heard of Cisco's iPhone before Apple announced theirs were able to see the difference), and nothing to gain for them. Apple's iPhone does not infringe an any Cisco iPhone patent.
If you can't understand the difference between a trademark and a patent, refrain from making stupid accusations.
"Stealing" ideas is not the same as stealing technology.
When Steve Jobs saw the graphical interface at PARC, he got the idea. When Apple built the Mac, they built their own technology, from the display - which was black and white, with square pixels - to the graphical software.
In that case, again, Xerox had the ideas but could not execute. I badly wanted one of their Star computers, but they started at over $15K (in 1983). Apple "stole" the ideas, but were able to deliver a product to market, and the Mac did not have a single part that even looked like something in the Star.
HTC stole the idea of the iPhone, the design that makes it usable, the specs - down to the screen size and resolution, and I would bet, reused many of the components.
There is a difference.
Mike, I am surprised you did not see the bigger picture.
This is not about controlling piracy, DRM, or DMCA, it is not a US initiative, and it is not even a negotiation. It is about governments and multinational companies taking control of the Internet. This will be pushed through under the usual pretenses of fighting piracy, controlling pornography, preventing terrorism, and, of course, protecting the children - but it will really be used to monitor free speech and intimidate those who challenge or disagree with governments and big business (that includes churches).
Historically, Governments, the Press, and Business have had opposing interests, and, most times, this has provided some sort of balance. The Internet is special in that it took away power from all of them, and thus united them in finding ways to control it. The Internet is also global, so putting in place the proper controls requires international coordination, that's what ACTA is about.
Chinese rulers saw the Internet threat right away and put in place immediately what restrictions they could; Australia, New Zealand, France, and the UK are busy changing their laws, Italy is trying to interpret their laws differently to take away safe harbor, and now the rest of the world is catching on.
Don't think the Internet is different and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Of course, the Internet can be regulated. Governments only have to regulate the ISPs and force them to implement filters, block urls, or report specific activity. And that's already happening.
The glorious decade of Internet freedom is over.
Thank you, Nicko for understanding what I meant and expressing it better than I could.
Bad Analogy Guy: If you want to be literal, bandwidth is not a unit of measure, it is a dimension just like length or weight. The unit of measure for bandwidth would be bits/second. The term is, however, commonly used to talk about the capacity that is allocated to a user and thus consumed by this user. It is obviously used in this sense when the article talks about "bandwidth bill" because if it was not consumed, there would be no bill.
If I operate a fleet of tankers carrying millions of gallons of oil across oceans, one might expect that I have a huge fuel bill to power my tankers. But I can have a deal with oil producers that allows me to fuel my tankers without charge, in exchange for some additional service or discount that I give them. My fuel bill might be zero, my cost is not, it is the cost of the service I provide in exchange.
Google may not have to pay for the bandwidth it uses on some carriers because it lets them use some of their infrastructure in return. They paid and continue to pay for that infrastructure, so that's not free to them.
Actually, I think this may be a good thing. The music industry as we know it is on a path to self destruction. They are antagonizing their customers, scr**ing their artists, they even want to start a fight with Apple, who has helped them a lot. CD stores will close at an accelerated rate and everybody will have to look for alternatives. Ultimately, that will open the way for new distribution channels and new business models. I, for one, can't wait.
Today, everybody knows and expects that the computers sold today will be replaced by something better, faster, and cheaper very soon. If Apple had announced a G6 processor that will be available in a year, and be faster and cooler, but require some tweaking of the OS and the applications to take advantage of new features (like hyperthreading), today's G4s and G5s would be just as obsolete just as fast. But somehow, that would be OK, because that's what everybody expected?