HTC modified the code to work around this ridiculous patent.
By "work around" they mean that they eliminated the menu of choices and instead take you to the default program (dialer for phone #s, maps for addresses, browser for URL's, etc). The defaults can be changed by the user, but its not perfect as there are many cases where you don't want to use the default... such as if you run multiple browsers.
Re: Re: It won't stop until it costs them money...
I agree and disagree. Can I do that?
They definitely want "super heavy users" to use less.
They want everyone else to use less or pay more. There's a reason they set their plan limits the way they do. They know how much a typical user will consume...and they want those users to fall right on the border of plans where they will keep going over and either pay more to upgrade, or use less.
Either way, the carriers THINK they win. Either they get more $ for doing nothing*, or they have to provide less bandwidth so they can avoid expanding/improving their networks.
* They can do nothing being in most cases they aren't actually approaching any real limits on capacity YET. The problem will eventually show up for real as more and more people get smartphones and broadband and the carriers do run into capacity problems - because they decided to play games with caps instead of improving their service ahead of the demand. But that's a lack of competition for you.
A friend of mine recently bought a "the new iPad" with Verizon 4G data. He wanted it to watch shows on Netflix on the train to and from work. He used it for 2 days and loved it, but said he won't be using it any more. 40 minutes each way on Netflix used over 200MB per day. He'd reach his 2GB cap in 2 weeks! No thanks. Data plan canceled.
The carriers think that everyone will just shell out more money for a higher cap, but in reality they won't. Some people won't care and will pay whatever they have to. Others will simply cancel the data plan, and find the content and copy it to their tablet instead of streaming.
Re: i ain't no musician, but i heard music onced...
You do realize that the song in the commercial IS her song which is why it sounds EXACTLY the same right? And that the supposed copy is in a different link because it couldn't be embedded right? This is all some sarcastic post and I'm not in on it right?
Any who. I for one think the songs sound similar. Not copied. Not the same. Similar. Similar to songs I hear just about every year on the radio from some folksy pop-y artist. Recently, as Dave so thoroughly pointed out, names like Colbie Callait and Sara Bareilles come to mind.
There's similar and then there's "the same". I learned the difference in grade school.
So.....its a freely available public radio broadcast. They are 'listener supported' so they don't have commercials that are being skipped. They don't sell their 'podcasts' online so they aren't losing that revenue...in fact, they have them available FREE on their own website.
So, what exactly is being pirated? And more importantly, why do they care?
I mean, of all the cases of "piracy" that have ever been discussed here, this one I get the least. I mean, I just don't get it.
It seems like the only reason is "because we don't want you to".
As I see it, limiting connectivity of the iPad is not the best choice.
I'd like to see the app creators do two things.
1. Release the app on the side and not through iTunes. Then Apple can't block it or remove it. I think the girl's mother would have to jailbreak her iPad to install the app (as would anyone else - but my understanding is this is pretty easy) but this way she doesn't lose all the other usefulness of the tablet.
2. Port the app to Android. Any Android device can sideload apps without even being jailbroken, plus this gives more people access to the app with more affordable options than the iPad.
By doing these two things and making the app available elsewhere from the Apple app store, it pretty much makes it impossible to stop. The app can be mirrored, hosted outside the US, copied and redestributed endlessly, guaranteeing that it will always be available somewhere and even the greatest game of internet whack-a-mole won't stop it.
As Tim pointed out in the article, this makes no sense for anyone. They are showing the same ads that people would be seeing with free OTA broadcasts or with their cable/dish feed. All it does is make it less likely that people will view those ads....and ad views is what pays the bills isn't it?
I for one refused to pay it. Not even a consideration. And I am a guy who played college ball, played in the tournament, and love this time of year. In fact, I take off from work every year to watch games on the first two days. It would've been great to be able to watch riding in the car or outside or on the toilet! But instead I didn't watch when I wasn't near a TV. I didn't watch the games. I didn't watch the ads.
I've never read nor been to the Huffington Post site....until today. My God is it awful. I'm not talking about the content, but the layout and design. What a mess. It reminds me of MySpace. There is crap all over the place. I can't tell what's a story, what's a picture, what's an ad.
OK, maybe its not as bad as MySpace, but it still looks cobbled together and confusing.
I live "on" planet Earth. I know why Zediva operated in the ass-backwards low tech way that they did. I mentioned that it was a clever 'workaround' to a problem caused by the stupidity of the movie studios.
I could come to your house with a DVD player, a DVD and some cables and show you a movie "on demand" for money. It would be legal (in theory) and it would be a workaround to the studio's ridiculous licensing and windowing schemes. But it certainly isn't innovative... not when you are taking technology backwards to accomplish a goal.... and it certainly isn't sustainable or scaleable.
So much like Zediva, my stupid door-to-door movie service avoids the problems of licensing and delay windows... but I don't think that anyone would consider physically transporting digital media as "innovative".
Mike, "an innovative startup"? Really? Clever certainly, but not innovative. Arguably, it was actually ass-backwards....instead of the forward-thinking concepts of storing a digital file on a server and streaming it (ala Netflix streaming) which would theoretically allow unlimited access, they actually housed limited physical copies of the media and limited physical players and had to physically play and transmit each movie individually. I get that it was clever that they found a loophole, and while a reasonable court should have seen that, it still wasn't "innovative".
As someone who was "caught" by one of the Philly traffic cams, I felt I should chime in here so you all understand just what a scam it is.
(Background: it was raining, light turned yellow - I thought it a bad idea to jam on the breaks)
So I get the violation in the mail. It shows a picture of my vehicle (my wife's minivan which is big, heavy and doesn't stop on a dime) nose at the white line at the moment of RED.
Here's where it gets crooked(er). The notice of violation tells you that if you pay the fine now, its only $100 and no points. OR. You can request a hearing.
Hearing requested! Take time off of work - yay!
Fair hearing it isn't. You sit in a room with a Philadelphia Parking Authority employee - yeah, the same people who manage the program and collect a portion of the revenue. Hmm. Seems impartial.
Ruling: The light is red, your car is behind the line. Violation upheld. You can appeal.
Appeal! (out of principal)
Oh, only catch, you have to pay $35 to appeal. Yeah, $35 to appeal a $100 fine. I wonder how many people bother to take ANOTHER day off work and risk paying $135 vs "winning" and saving $65.
And of course, at the appeal, the real "judge" has no interest in hearing any logical arguments, takes 18 seconds to declare the violation upheld. In his defense, at least he has plenty of other traffic cases to deal with besides some guy bitching about a red light camera.
I could appeal again, but at what cost. Time to give up and pay.
Scam. Scam. Scam. I used to love Philly. Born and raised there. Now I hate it and hope the corrupt local government brings the whole town to its knees. They deserve it for re-electing the same crooks year after year.
Can someone tell me why the studios have this kind of clout in DC? I mean, seriously, do they really have the pockets to 'donate' the big bucks like that? I don't have access to the numbers, but I would have to think that at this point google alone has more $ than all the recording studios combined. I have to believe that the combined $'s of all the companies threatened by this legislation have to far exceed those of the movie and music studios who bought this bill. I mean, we are talking about google, ebay, isp's, hosting companies and more.
Unfortunately, I know we are at a time when the government is no longer by the people or for the people, rather by corporations for corporations. So, aside from voting all these career politicians out of office, and banning political contributions, we are left hoping that we get helped out by some other corporations who choose to fight this bill for their own benefit. Writing or calling 'our' representatives is a waste of time. They've already been bought.
Perhaps the advantage of the computer is that it can 'read' thousands of articles whereas a person can read significantly less. Obviously, the more articles read the more valid the conclusions of the reader are. If I read 5 articles about the goings on in Saudi Arabia I may draw different conclusions than a computer that read 65,000 articles about Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying that the computer is going to be a huge asset, but I think its wrong to discount it simply because a person can read articles and draw conclusions too. I can do math too, but a computer is faster and better at it.