Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I'm not sure. ("If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.") :-) -- Peter Peter M. Brigham pmb...@gmail.com http://home.comcast.net/~pmbrig On Jun 9, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > What are you saying? (I speak as a patient...) > > Bob > > > On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

What are you saying? (I speak as a patient...) Bob On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Peter Brigham MD wrote: > On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > >> I never listen to what people say. I only listen to what they mean. ;-) >> >> Bob > > Now, what exactly do you mean by that? (I speak a

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Richmond Mathewson wrote: > Hey; and if I land the role, I promise NOT to wear my leopard-skin posing > briefs . . . > > . . . whoops, wait a minute . . . Leopard is out . . . I meant to say > "lion-skin posing briefs" . . . :) Better not... as we have been hearin

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > I never listen to what people say. I only listen to what they mean. ;-) > > Bob Now, what exactly do you mean by that? (I speak as a psychiatrist...) -- Peter Peter M. Brigham pmb...@gmail.com http://home.comcast.net/~pmbrig

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Now, if I could only do better predicting the NBA finals, I might actually make a few bucks! On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > Chipp's guess was correct, less than four months later: > > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 06/09/2011 08:36 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: Conspiracy upon conspiracy, wheels within wheels eh? Sounds like a Hollywood movie. Oooh; can I have the role of the slightly daft Scotsman who manages to make off-colour remarks and put people's hackles up at critical moments? Hey; and if I land t

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Conspiracy upon conspiracy, wheels within wheels eh? Sounds like a Hollywood movie. Bob On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Nonsanity wrote: > I rather expected this too. By setting draconian price guidelines initially, > they can control the market prices. The other requirement of > must-also-be-li

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 6/9/11 8:02 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Content providers may offer In-App subscriptions at whatever price they wish and they are not required to offer an in-app subscription simply because they sell a subscription outside the App Store as well Sounds to me like a protective action in re

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I never listen to what people say. I only listen to what they mean. ;-) Bob On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > But that's for another time; for now, I just have to apologize for the stupid > pre-coffee typo - obviously "They're" should be "Their": __

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I rather expected this too. By setting draconian price guidelines initially, they can control the market prices. The other requirement of must-also-be-listed makes sure those controlled prices get used. Then a few months later, before legal conflict can come to fruition, Apple revokes these limitat

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Wow, you had an easy boss! Mine would have told me to ask for 90% of the world back and settle for 80%. Pete Molly's Revenge On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Mark Talluto wrote: > > > Apple is pioneering the mobile app market and is pushin

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

John Dixon wrote: lovely... :-) Yeah, I learned a lot from her. One of the best professional experiences I ever had was working in that office. Some day I'll tell the story of how buying a calculator there convinced me of the value and beauty of small business. But that's for another ti

RE: [OT] Apple at it again

lovely... :-) > My boss explained my job like this: > > "They're job is to ask for the world. Your job is to ask for half of it > back." > > Richard Gaskin ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lis

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Mark Talluto wrote: > Apple is pioneering the mobile app market and is pushing hard > initially for as much control as they think possible. Thanks > to competition and market pressure, they are forced to come > back in line with what is reasonable. Reminds me of my last job I had before I start

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Hopefully that won't be soon. On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: > Eventually, once they stop radically innovating new concepts, this will all > settle down and it will all be business as usual. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-liveco

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Apple is pioneering the mobile app market and is pushing hard initially for as much control as they think possible. Thanks to competition and market pressure, they are forced to come back in line with what is reasonable. Eventually, once they stop radically innovating new concepts, this will a

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Hi Colin, Am 09.06.2011 um 17:26 schrieb Colin Holgate: > Here is Richard Dreyfuss reading the EULA: > > http://www.cnet.com/8301-30976_1-20068778-10348864.html LOL! :-D Just wonderful, thanks for the link! My favourite: "Effective until" (with the light "Schweinhundt" accent) :-D Best Klau

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Here is Richard Dreyfuss reading the EULA: http://www.cnet.com/8301-30976_1-20068778-10348864.html ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: ht

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

These changes are probably a mixture of the reaction of publishers to the first agreement, but also an effort to make the iOS 5 Newstand feature be more of a success. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url t

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 06/09/2011 04:02 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Forgive the thread necromancy, but it seems Chipp was right again - back in February he wrote: Surprise, Apple changed their license terms-- again. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Forgive the thread necromancy, but it seems Chipp was right again - back in February he wrote: Surprise, Apple changed their license terms-- again. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle ... My guess is just like the last time, after

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/26/2011 08:25 PM, stephen barncard wrote: Why I pay more: The hardware and quality control is still superior and it's easy to maintain the software and hardware I find that Hewlett-Packard and Ubuntu takes some beating. On 25 February 2011 23:43, Richmond wrote: On 02/25/2011 11:

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Why I pay more: The hardware and quality control is still superior and it's easy to maintain the software and hardware On 25 February 2011 23:43, Richmond wrote: > On 02/25/2011 11:08 PM, Colin Holgate wrote: > >> On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:55 PM, François Chaplais wrote: >> >> oh, and the new c

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/25/2011 11:08 PM, Colin Holgate wrote: On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:55 PM, François Chaplais wrote: oh, and the new camera on the iPad 2 will see through people's clothes. Yes, but unfortunately only the front side camera does that, so you'd be looking at yourself. Well; it does, increasingl

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

But only if you set it up to send a copy of the photo to the TSA screeners at your local airport :-) On Feb 25, 2011, at 2:55 PM, François Chaplais wrote: > oh, and the new camera on the iPad 2 will see through people's clothes. ___ use-livecode mail

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Reminds me of a skit that Conan O'Brian did last night where a gal had hidden a spy camera in the back end of her jeans, recorded everyone looking at her butt, then posted the video on you tube. Afterwards, Conan says, "Well that's bad, but it seems it is much worse than anyone ever thought,"

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

No! I will run in the streets with my iPad facing the crowd! Ha Ha! Le 25 févr. 2011 à 22:08, Colin Holgate a écrit : > > On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:55 PM, François Chaplais wrote: > >>> oh, and the new camera on the iPad 2 will see through people's clothes. > > Yes, but unfortunately only the front

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:55 PM, François Chaplais wrote: > >oh, and the new camera on the iPad 2 will see through people's clothes. Yes, but unfortunately only the front side camera does that, so you'd be looking at yourself. ___ use-livecode mailing lis

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

oh, and the new camera on the iPad 2 will see through people's clothes. Le 25 févr. 2011 à 21:16, Howard Bornstein a écrit : ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your sub

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

This may all be less of an issue when Apple releases the iPad 2 and the iPhone 5 with NFC and uses it for peer-to-peer transactions and later general consumer transactions with Apple taking a percentage of the transaction directly from the consumer (billed through iTunes--omg). We've already seen

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

The real purpose of this may be to chase products that are competitive to Apple's offerings off the iOS platform. Apple bought Lala last year. The companies most impacted by the new subscription rules are subscription based streaming media products (Pandora, Netflix, Rhapsody...). There simply is

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Ouch, Dave! I resemble that remark! (though I don't feel deceived by Steve Jobs, just misled ;-) On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Dave Cragg wrote: > > On 17 Feb 2011, at 18:19, Bob Sneidar wrote: > > > I just know how a country of good people can be deceived > > This making the original poster's

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 17 Feb 2011, at 18:19, Bob Sneidar wrote: > I just know how a country of good people can be deceived This making the original poster's point. :-) And he from Texas, of all places. Sorry Heather. I know you closed it. Cheers Dave ___ use-livecode m

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Sorry just got this. All done. Bob On Feb 17, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Heather Nagey wrote: > Dear List Folks, > > I concur. > > This thread is dead, please do not reply to any further posts on this topic. > > Regards, > > Heather > ___ use-livecode m

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I may have given you the impression that I favored Hitler and what he did. I do not. I just know how a country of good people can be deceived and follow after what seems to be a good thing, because the current situation seems to be improved, but in the end turns out to be a horrible nightmare. M

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Dear List Folks, I concur. This thread is dead, please do not reply to any further posts on this topic. Regards, Heather On 17 Feb 2011, at 18:14, Richmond wrote: Dear Heather Nagey, Please put a cap on this one. Love, Richmond. ___ use-live

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 17 Feb 2011, at 19:12, Andre Garzia wrote: > 2011/2/17 Björnke von Gierke : >> Also, you really don't know when to stop replying (hint: about 10 replies >> ago). Second hint: I have a German passport. > > I have a brazilian and a portuguese passport, are we playing trumphs? :-D I equal your

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Dear Heather Nagey, Please put a cap on this one. Love, Richmond. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/l

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/17/2011 07:47 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: I wonder how the Germans feel about that? ;-) JUST KIDDING! STOP kidding now! Bob On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: Also, there was no "the Germans" (and still isn't) as implied by you.

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Ah but you love to argue so much! If you'd trash every opposing voice, who would you then argue with? Still, probably the wrong place for that. Of course I am not (able of) stopping you, only lambast you at every opportunity. On 17 Feb 2011, at 19:03, Bob Sneidar wrote: > I wonder if you think

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/17/2011 07:23 PM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: On 17 Feb 2011, at 17:36, Bob Sneidar wrote: Heh heh. The Germans loved Hitler! He took Germany from a faltering bankrupt country full of starving people and made them a great nation. No. He destroyed a recouping economy and restarted the war

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

2011/2/17 Björnke von Gierke : > On 17 Feb 2011, at 18:47, Bob Sneidar wrote: > >> I wonder how the Germans feel about that? ;-) JUST KIDDING! > > There's no Germans, Russians, Italian or one of the other human group labels > that where invented for nationalistic state-building purposes shortly be

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I wonder if you think that your terse replies to me obligate me to stop replying? The best way to get me to stop replying is to stop yourself. Okay? I have heard about enough from you. I think I will just create a rule to drop everything you post into my trash where it belongs. Bob On Feb 17

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 17 Feb 2011, at 18:47, Bob Sneidar wrote: > I wonder how the Germans feel about that? ;-) JUST KIDDING! There's no Germans, Russians, Italian or one of the other human group labels that where invented for nationalistic state-building purposes shortly before the great war. Stop implying there

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS POLICE... Where are the political correctness police when you need them? :-) On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > I wonder how the Germans feel about that? ;-) JUST KIDDING! > > Bob > > > On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: > >> Also, th

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I wonder how the Germans feel about that? ;-) JUST KIDDING! Bob On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: > Also, there was no "the Germans" (and still isn't) as implied by you. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.co

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 17 Feb 2011, at 17:36, Bob Sneidar wrote: > Heh heh. The Germans loved Hitler! He took Germany from a faltering bankrupt > country full of starving people and made them a great nation. No. He destroyed a recouping economy and restarted the war that was deemed to be the last one ever needed.

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Heh heh. The Germans loved him! He took Germany from a faltering bankrupt country full of starving people and made them a great nation. It was his methods that were "questionable". So if methods are the issue, who among us is "good"? Sorry I can't help myself. Bob On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:48

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Reread that part. Just for the record, I in now way am comparing Jobs to Hitler! Just thought the Godwin's law thing was sorta funny-- on second read-- not so much. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: > Furthermore, I don't need to personally "know" Hitler to know he was a bad,

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Jacque, Apple has made it clear if you offer goods for sale outside of the app, which can then be loaded into the app, then you HAVE to also allow for them to bought inside the app (giving Apple 30%). This is of course a deal killer for many. I'm actually thinking with the new Android tablets (wit

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

>> But let's not continue this any further. You seem to be very upset >> about all of this. Perhaps I've struck a nerve. My apologies. Heh, no need for apologies, Bob. We have both voiced our points of disagreement, no more, no less. Actually, I'm not too upset in all of it, because I have a very

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Now there's a thought. Also, I wonder how much sway the stockholders and the board of directors have on these decisions. No one seems to think about those guys, but they cannot be silent in all these major decisions. Bob On Feb 16, 2011, at 1:32 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 2/16/11 3:17 PM

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Just once I believe, and if I'm not mistaken, He thought it worth it because of what He got out of the bargain. Not so poor a chap now! Bob On Feb 16, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Richmond wrote: > On 02/16/2011 11:18 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: >> That's what the proto-socialists say. The neo-conservatives

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:54 AM, David C. wrote: > Oh pooh! Anyone old enough to be past the grade school age has had to > deal with such things and your inference to someone else being > cowardly might just be a be cowardly by your own measure. eyes> Except that I am communicating directly wit

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 2/16/11 3:17 PM, David C. wrote: Just doesn't seem fair for Apple to put their vendors or their customers through those kinds of hoops, needlessly. I certainly have to agree with that. I wonder whether Steve's illness has affected his judgement. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | ja

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 11:20 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: Also, a socialist doesn't believe that money that is in your hand is yours to do with as you please. That is contrary to Marxism. Sorry for the politics. It's applicable to the subject. I know what Marxism is, what it is supposed to be, what it was,

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 11:18 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: That's what the proto-socialists say. The neo-conservatives say He's one of them! LOL! At least they seem to want to be on the same side. Poor chap; crucified, recrucified and generally torn apart to serve everybody's agendas. Bob On Feb 16, 201

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Also, a socialist doesn't believe that money that is in your hand is yours to do with as you please. That is contrary to Marxism. Sorry for the politics. It's applicable to the subject. Bob On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Richmond wrote: >> Upon paying the last ones first, and then the first o

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

> > Constantly changing the rules may be intentional. Yes, it can be a governance strategy... Best, > > Best regards, > > Lynn Fredricks > President > Paradigma Software > http://www.paradigmasoft.com > > Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server > > >

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

That's what the proto-socialists say. The neo-conservatives say He's one of them! LOL! At least they seem to want to be on the same side. Bob On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Richmond wrote: > Funnily enough, the man who is supposed to have told that story is also > supposed to have been > some

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

>> I don't yet own an i-thing, so I'm not clear on this, >> but if you already have an app installed, won't it >> continue to work forever? Well one would certainly hope so and I would imagine they will have to at least to some extent. I'm thinking that the class action suits directed toward both

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I never mentioned the word "parable"! ;-) I understand that changing the rules after devs invest is very frustrating. But every week? Bit of an exaggeration. And no it's not wrong to be bothered by it, you are invested, and because of that there may be, as I said room for litigation. It's just

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 2/16/11 2:48 PM, David C. wrote: I do know for certainty that PDF's and e-books of other formats can be emailed to a user account to be converted to work with the Kindle, as long as there isn't any DRM content involved. Unless you are correct, that means folks that own Amazon based e-book co

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 2/16/11 11:57 AM, David C. wrote: > >> What you are overlooking is that vendors like Amazon have already >> invested who knows how much, to build and provide first class >> applications for Apple products and their customers. > > True. Bu

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

personally I thin taking 30 percent if the sale is made trough iStore is decent. Not taking money from sales made other places is also decent. What's indecent in my eyes is _demanding_ that any offer made outside of iStore is also mandatory to be made in the iStore as a mirror offer. The last d

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 2/16/11 11:57 AM, David C. wrote: What you are overlooking is that vendors like Amazon have already invested who knows how much, to build and provide first class applications for Apple products and their customers. True. But as I understand it, it is still possible to purchase content at A

RE: [OT] Apple at it again

> Whatever Apple decides to do is one thing (and certainly open > to debate), but what REALLY frustrates a lot of people is the > constant changing of the rules. Constantly changing the rules may be intentional. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks President Paradigma Software http://www.paradigmasoft

RE: [OT] Apple at it again

> If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the > contract. If users do not like Apple practices, they can > avoid buying the product. Isn't free enterprise grand? We can > vote with our wallets! What will NOT by ANY means change one > daggum thing however, is bashing Apple on a

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 16 Feb 2011, at 19:10, Bob Sneidar wrote: > I guess what I am on the soap box about is the notion so many people have > these days that we are owed some say in what amounts to the private affairs > of other people or corporations and even countries. Because you'd never tell anyone to stop ta

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 08:48 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote: On 16.02.11 at 11:57 -0600 David C. apparently wrote: Bob said: If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the contract. If users do not like Apple practices, they can avoid buying the product. What you are overlooking is that v

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 16.02.11 at 11:57 -0600 David C. apparently wrote: Bob said: If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the contract. If users do not like Apple practices, they can avoid buying the product. What you are overlooking is that vendors like Amazon have already invested who knows

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 08:54 PM, David C. wrote: Oh pooh! Bravo! ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

>> I am reminded of the words of a great man, who was telling a story >> about a landowner who had hired some day laborers, some early, some >> the middle of the day, some late afternoon, and some towards the >> evening. The deal he struck with each was that he would pay them >> one shekel for thei

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 08:29 PM, Andre Garzia wrote: I just want my devices to be mine again... to be able to tinker with them without making myself a target for a lawsuit... :-/ That, my dear, is what the whole cut and thrust of Richard Stallman's critique is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 08:10 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: Yes, not directed at you in particular Richmond. But I should make the point that you paid Apple money for those things didn't you? And in return you got a product, right? Isn't your contract with Apple now ended? (Once the Warranty expires I mean.) C

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Whatever Apple decides to do is one thing (and certainly open to debate), but what REALLY frustrates a lot of people is the constant changing of the rules. If a developer goes to all the work of getting an app compliant, entering into an agreement, then Apple says, "Oh, now we're going to do th

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

I just want my devices to be mine again... to be able to tinker with them without making myself a target for a lawsuit... :-/ On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > You are then saying that Apple has violated some contract or agreement, or at > least a commonly understood "fair

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

You are then saying that Apple has violated some contract or agreement, or at least a commonly understood "fair practices" common law with the vendors. Well and good. There's grounds for a lawsuit then. But character assassinations of people we do not at all know personally, behind the impenet

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Yes, not directed at you in particular Richmond. But I should make the point that you paid Apple money for those things didn't you? And in return you got a product, right? Isn't your contract with Apple now ended? (Once the Warranty expires I mean.) Certainly, it doesn't entitle you to any direc

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Bob said: >> If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the contract. >> If users do not like Apple practices, they can avoid buying the product. What you are overlooking is that vendors like Amazon have already invested who knows how much, to build and provide first class applicatio

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On 02/16/2011 07:37 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the contract. If users do not like Apple practices, they can avoid buying the product. Isn't free enterprise grand? We can vote with our wallets! What will NOT by ANY means change one daggum thi

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the contract. If users do not like Apple practices, they can avoid buying the product. Isn't free enterprise grand? We can vote with our wallets! What will NOT by ANY means change one daggum thing however, is bashing Apple on a list no one

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Lynn Fredricks wrote: >> My dream phone is not an android one, I am a fan of WebOS >> since its start and always wanted a phone running that. > > Last year at OSCON, I saw a demo of the Ares tool set from some engineers at > HP and I have to say, for building web a

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Well . . . Either APPLE are slow learners and they don't realise how this sort of move followed by a retraction makes them look unstable from a policy point of view. Or . . . APPLE knows very well what it is playing at; attracting our attention and then appearing to give way when that is what i

RE: [OT] Apple at it again

> My dream phone is not an android one, I am a fan of WebOS > since its start and always wanted a phone running that. Last year at OSCON, I saw a demo of the Ares tool set from some engineers at HP and I have to say, for building web apps, its really beautiful. They have tablets coming, too. Bes

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

"If it's Tuesday it must be a new iOS license..." ;) Personally, I'm not too concerned about this latest move by Apple. Like Chipp says, Apple will backpedal on this once the implications become clear, just like they did last time:

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

folks, I am a heavy user of the kindle app for both the iPhone and iPad. I don't have a kindle but I read a lot of scifi in english, I can't buy the books here and my place is small to host them, so I buy digital and save some forests. Imports are heavily taxed here in Brazil, if I buy a kindle an

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Hi from Beautiful Britanny, Peter Haworth said : I won't use an iPhone or an iPad because of Apple's attitude. Amen to that Peter, after nearly 30 years of faith in Apple and its products, and the long line of their beautiful machines from the "128" down to the iMac. As long as I can't run "

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

Well said. Apple's behavior in recent months has been ridiculous. If Microsoft tried anything remotely close to this, the Apple lovers would be in an uproar. This isn't just Amazon, it also applies to newspapers and periodicals who offer subscriptions for online reading of their publications

[OT] Apple at it again

Colin, if you read the article I referred to, the key issue is the part that reads,, '"Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish

Re: [OT] Apple at it again

On Feb 15, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: > I suspect Kindle will have to be dropped from the iPad and iPhone. I'm > sure Amazon doesn't have 30% in royalties to cough up to Apple for > books sold. That's not good logic. For one thing, people are making fortunes off their 70%, and I'm

[OT] Apple at it again

Surprise, Apple changed their license terms-- again. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle I suspect Kindle will have to be dropped from the iPad and iPhone. I'm sure Amazon doesn't have 30% in royalties to cough up to Apple for books sol