(a) an Apple employee left an iPhone 4G prototype on a barstool (nobody ever mentioned his blood alcohol level, by the way)
(b) another bar patron found it and took it home
(c) Gizmodo paid $5K for it and wrote about it
(d) Apple wanted it back and Gizmodo gave it back
So what is to be accomplished by this raid on the editor's home? It seems like it has nothing to do with the purchase of stolen merchandise, but instead is Apple flexing its muscle and trying to suppress publication of any more details. Why else would they seize computers? A $5K check was cut. Do they expect to find a QuickBooks journal entry on the PC? I am no lawyer, but it seems like an overreach. Or maybe Apple is just pissed that Gizmodo doesn't use Macs.
A reputation that stinks is difficult to "sully" (nice 10th grade word, BTW). Mendelson, if you bothered to read the history of the Digital Economy Bill, wasn't much of a backer until the entertainment industry started wining and dining him... then he had an epiphany. He figured that, since all those nice people were lining his pockets with their hard-earned Pounds, he needed to do something to thank them. So he let them stick their hands up his butt and work him kike a puppet.
When I started reading your post, the first thing that popped into my mind was Skype's exclusive deal with Verizon, basically cutting off every other mobile carriers' customers from Skype Mobile. What I find even more disingenuous is, when you look at the Skype Mobile site, they actually have a sign-up where they will alert you when your current cell contract is up so you can switch to Verizon Wireless! That takes a lot of balls... and I think it'll just be a matter of time before Skype blocks alternative mobile programs, like Fring and iSkoot, from accessing its network. Great "neutrality"... neutral only if you have Verizon... anyone else, they tell you to get screwed.
Apple's control, of the iPhone ecosystem isn't a new concept; it's been like that since day 1, when Apple locked the iPhone down so only "sanctioned" apps could run (unless you jailbreak, of course). On the opposite side of the aisle, Google not only provides its SDK for both Mac and Windows platforms, but its market is wide open, leaving it up to the users to report whether an app is appropriate or not. Apple is saying "You develop on a Mac, using the iPhone SDK and Xcode, or don't develop for us at all." From that perspective, they are CLEARLY targeting companies like Adobe. But won't this make more people want to jailbreak their phones, especially if a bunch of fantastic, cross-platform apps make their appearance on, say, Cydia? And, ultimately, won't people get so pissed that they'll either move to a different phone or, in the extreme, sue Apple for putting even more restrictions on a device the end-user OWNS? Steve Jobs' ego has finally crossed the line, IMHO.
Oh, yes... I plan to run out immediately and buy a copy of the movie since I'll otherwise have to wait 28 days to rent it from Netflix or get it from Redbox.
It's becoming clear that there is collusion between the Hollywood studios, Blockbuster and the cable companies (who are allowed to put movies on their OnDemand services the same day the DVD is released) to prevent Netflix and Redbox from providing consumers a choice. That doesn't excuse Netflix for being stupid... but you can bet that, in addition to the 28 day window, the agreement forces Netflix to play nice-nice and not berate the frakking studios. I hope Redbox doesn't roll over like Netflix did and sure the studios for as much as they can get from them. It would serve those pompous-assed studio execs right.
I guess since Apple has taken the gloves off and is suing HTC for so-called "infringement", it's just desserts that Apple gets a taste of its own medicine. Not that anything will come of this, but still...
If the so-called "creative community organizations" get their way, the internet here will be no different than that in China... ISPs forced to turn over personal data, acting g as police for the idiots at the MPAA, RIAA and SAG. Maybe we need to classify these thugs as criminal enterprises under the RICO act.
I've read Techdirt enough to know you bristle at articles posted that do not contain attribution, and (at least most of the time) you mention who reported the story... why not this time? I sent in on Sunday, and was thrilled to see that you picked it up... but no mention of who you got the story from. Sigh. Guess I can't get my 15 seconds of fame after all!
Good grief... if 90% of pirated DVDs were from camcorder videos there would be NO market for pirated DVDs at all! I can't imaging someone hand-holding a camcorder for 90-plus minutes to record a movie would create anything with quality worth watching!
No question that Verizon can control its own network... but to ink a deal that specifically states that Skype cannot create clients for any other carriers' phones? That's the anti-competitive nature. It's totally different than the iPhone which is hardware-unique, but if Verizon gets an Android app for its Droid series phones, there should be nothing stopping ANY Android user from getting it. It's also very different because Skype already had a WinMo client in place, and announced full-feature clients for iPhone and Android and has now pulled the plug (Skype Lite is even gone from Android Market). Is this because Skype needs money after being spun off by eBay? Probably. Is this the way to do it, by pissing off a huge community of users? Probably not.
Saying that data is encrypted doesn't make it so. The latest scam being reported by the press is a site called BadCustomer.com, which allows merchants to record customers who have made chargebacks against them. A merchant can use the data there to decline a customer's credit card. The company says that the data is encrypted and "even the IT staff can;t read it". That last statement is pure fanasy... if the IT staff developed the encryption program, they can read the data I used to work (about 6 years ago) for a well known retailer who collected and retained customer data (the nature of which I won't reveal, since it would, most assuredly disclose the company's name). They told all the customers that the data, maintained in an Oracle database, was encrypted and secure. Guess what? At the time, it was not, and all of the IT staff had access to it. So, don't believe it when a company claims encryption and that "nobody can access the data:.