Are you in the Android clan?0 posts
about 20 hours ago
I don’t disagree — I think E3 is (at least in theory) more “consumer facing” than WWDC is intended to be. That said, WWDC is directly of interest to nearly 300,000 iOS developers and probably a good 50,000 MacOS developers (I don’t have a good cite for MacOS dev numbers) and WWDC has become considerably more “mainstream” as evidenced by the broad coverage given it by media outlets (26.2M results in Google News alone for “WWDC 2013” compared to 108M for E3 2013).
Don’t get me wrong, Even my unscientific example shows a magnitude more coverage for E3 (and deservedly so — I have nothing against E3 coverage, btw, even though I could care less), but again, for a measly “Developer’s Conference” there is an outsized interest in WWDC that belies its long-running trend towards consumer interest.
I only pointed out the discrepancy in user bases to add some facts to the equation. I think there is a misperception as to the size of the console market and if the issue is consumer interest, the five-fold-larger iOS/MacOS market would clearly trump the 140M console market.
However, all of that said, again, I don’t necessarily disagree with your assertion. I don’t think it is an “either or” situation as to coverage. I think there is just a reasonable bit of opinion-voicing as to the seemingly uninspired coverage afforded WWDC on behalf of the readership who were looking forward to more in depth reporting.
I’m sure there are a number of arguably legitimate reasons why the coverage was so “thin” (Nilay, himself mentioned NDAs — and I can confirm that there are a lot of amazing things going on behind the NDAs) and I don’t think The Verge is “biased” or “out to get Apple” by any stretch.
I guess the frustrated voices on this site simply were looking forward to more interesting and in-depth stories about WWDC, presented by a site that they generally hold in high regard for such things and they didn’t get them — no reason to dog pile them, just as there is no reason to dog pile any complaints put forth by any visitor of the Verge looking for in-depth news about the technology they find interesting.
Anyways, I’ve rambled on enough ;)
Not really interested in “arguing,” (and I agree that consoles have cross-platform appeal) but some numbers just for kicks…
“As of September 30, 2012, 70 million Xbox 360 consoles have been sold worldwide. The Xbox 360 was officially unveiled on MTV on May 12, 2005”
“As of November 4, 2012, 70 million PlayStation 3s have been sold worldwide (released in 2006).”
That is 140M in nearly 7 years. In that same time frame, Apple sold approximately 70M Macs and (was it) 600M iOS devices?
I think WWDC has a “technically” bigger audience than the consoles do. But opinions are allowed to differ :)
Seriously, what does that even mean… “totally worse.” I laughed.
The Verge is not “biased.” The original crew has just grown tired of writing about technology because it is actually REALLY BORING TO WRITE ABOUT.
I personally disagree with the general editorial consensus regarding WWDC (I think there were a lot of really interesting things that could have been covered rather than the unarguably negative coverage that was given), but I feel it has fit in with the general downward slide in interest put forth by the writers and editors of the site.
And, to be fair, I can’t really blame them. I think I would kill myself if I had to write about how the RAM was doubled on such-and-such device or how the screen is .3" bigger on the new model of whatever. I’m sure it sucks to do that AND get bombarded with accusations of payola and bias, to boot.
That isn’t what the Verge-ers thought they were getting into when they launched. They likely thought they were leaving “that audience” behind at Engadget. But then all the fanboys and girls slowly migrated and infested the Verge and began complaining about “review scores” and bickering about “who’s winning the smartphone wars.” The Verge-ers couldn’t have cared less. They wanted to talk about what they thought was interesting about technology, not what wasn’t interesting about technology (i.e. spec-wars, platform-dick-wagging).
That demoralizing turn of events, compounded by the inevitable soul-crushing tedium of writing daily missives about marketshare reports and carefully parsing opinions to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of the readership takes its toll.
Josh, Nilay, Ross, Chris, etc… won’t be here much longer. Mark my words. They are passing the torch to a new round of writers who are going to take over alongside the commendable efforts of Mr. Pierce who it seems still actually enjoys writing about hardware — but even he won’t last long.
The sad truth is it is the readership who (on the whole) have sucked the life and enjoyment out of technology and the casualties are the writers who, love-less and brow-beaten, have to slog through another banal article on the technical specs of this quarter’s new handset only to await the recriminations and bickering that inevitably follow.
The Verge is dead. Long live the Verge…
p.s. If not one writer was able to muster up the courage to write a proper, laudatory article on the new Mac Pro (no matter the feared “fallout”), there is no better evidence that there is no love left for technology and design amongst the staff.
4 days ago
It’s not a wallpaper issue so much as an icon/app UI issue – what you’re seeing is “whatever is behind the control center” when you pull the shade up.
8 days ago
You bring up so many interesting points…
When you know where people are, how long they stay there, how fast they move between points, when they turn off their cell phones at night and when they turn them on in the morning, etc. etc. etc. in addition to data transfer, SMS messages in & out, calls placed & received, duration of calls, etc. etc. etc. you have a remarkably clear and detailed picture of a human life without having recorded a single conversation.
This brings up “Jones” the trespassory installation of GPS tracker case. It is illegal for the govt to install a GPS tracker without consent, however the question is “is the individual use of services that broadcast this kind of info essentially consent?”
As to the list of circumstantial data above, none of that necessarily comports with existing 4th protections. One’s comings and goings, patterns of movement and subsequent conclusions as a result of warrantless surveillance of those kinds of physical activities (e.g. the “stake out”) are non-infringing and as you said, do not relate to the “protected” content of the communications. It is an interesting argument.
Most people have a reasonable expectation of location privacy if they do not enable geolocation for their apps, or if they say “No” when a web browser displays a dialog asking to share your location. They do not realize that their location is still being constantly recorded by the phone company
Again, Jones, and is the consumer’s volitional use of broadcasted service data implied or actual consent to the collection of that information? Again, interesting questions.
People who ARE lawyers, like the EFF, have concluded that NSA’s collection of this information is both illegal and unconstitutional.
I’m a l^#%#r. ;) That the EFF have a legal “opinion” means they have a “client.” Nothing more. (Not that I necessarily disagree, just that lawyers are advocates and there are inherently 2 sides and each believes they are “right.”)
Yeah, that “Jardines” case was hotly awaited. We can only attempt to draw parallels to existing 4th cases — Jardines was a warrantless sniff of a suspected grow house. The sniff was used to get the warrant. The sniff was presumed legal prior as dog sniffs for contraband were previously deemed allowable where they targeted contraband. Still the court looked at it as being able to sense something the officers could not have sensed with their own abilities (aside from the existing allowable sensory enhancement devices.) there is also great deference to the home (as you noted in your reply).
The mobile phone example is a sticky one though. While it “lives” in the home, it interacts with the outside world. While the “content” of a conversation might have an expectation of privacy that society deems protectable (specifically looking to Katz), the metadata, being more “public” due to it being “outside the scope of conversation” and a function of the network, might not be afforded such protection. The aggregate-analysis of such “non-infringing” data may be an ultimately “brilliant” way of “least-intrusive” policing and investigation in order to gain probable cause to gain access to the content of the calls “without” blanket snooping of content itself.
Again, food for thought, as I imagine even those of us who recoil at the loss of liberties acknowledge the aforementioned tension between the need for effective law enforcement and the need to be vigilant in the protection of our limited constitutional rights.
I think you have made a number of lucid observations, I just wanted to add a bit of Devil’s advocacy as to your analysis of the 4th…
To be more accurate, (per Katz, et al.) the 4th doesn’t protect “absolute privacy” rather it protects a subjective and objective definition of “privacy.” That is, we don’t have a presumption of “absolute privacy,” rather the 4th protects a “individual’s (subjective) reasonable expectation” of privacy that “society (objectively) deems that expectation worthy of protection.”
This is important because all the hand-wringing about violation is meaningless if our objective conclusion is that there is no expectation of privacy in the matters surveilled.
I think where it gets tricky (and where the healthy “tension” between objectives is) is if one looks at activities of the NSA, etc… in light of dog-sniff searches (another subject that has recently received attention in the last 6 months). Warrantless dog-sniff searches are allowed to identify the presence of contraband “in public” (for the most part) because there is no reasonable expectation in the possession of contraband. It could be said that is the same as “surveillance of private information on people who are not suspected of criminal activity,” however, that is objectively something society deems not worthy of protection. Is there a reasonable expectation, etc… in communications regarding illegal activities? I doubt it, but I agree there is collateral intrusion in the pursuit of such information. Is it similar to “dog-sniff searches” and the impact on those subjected to such who are not in possession of contraband? Maybe.
I don’t disagree with your extensive opinions, I just think it is important to frame the issue in the context it exists in the real world, rather than in an absolute, theoretical manner.
10 days ago
Nagar was the witness and the statement from the email was attributed to him and it was being used to refresh his recollection – a legitimate use – not being admitted as evidence.
The statement from the email was being used to impeach Nagar’s credibility – again, not as evidence.
12 days ago
I’d add that what makes this soooooooooo much worse than ECHELON is that this is government directly spying in its citizens whereas ECHELON at least had the common decency (?) to pretend that America wasn’t spying on Americans by “asking” the Australians to do it for them (or the English, or Germans and vice-versa, don’t forget – for all those who think America is particularly worse than other Western nations).
Not that it makes it less offensive, but you said it… ECHELON has been active and doing this since the ’60s. We tried being outraged near the end of the ’90s but quickly forgot after 9/11…
12 days ago on NSA has been collecting records on every call made in America for the last seven years 1 reply 5 recommends
Not at all. Secondary markets are irrelevant to this discussion as there was already an initial sale. However it is a great example of how unlicensed, illegal copying of content (that is “no sale”) can have tangible effects where those works are passed on in a “virtual secondary market,” but that is a whole ’nother ball of wax ;)
I agree, publishers ‘arbitrarily’ propping prices up is not good, but publishers realigning pricing to adjust for detrimental effects due to the behavior of a dominant retailer that threatens the survival of an industry might be good.
To me, this is conceptually the same argument that has been raging for a good 10 years (digital vs. physical, copying vs. “theft,” etc…). And it is one I have said before I side with creators rather than consumers. I don’t care if a consumer can’t “buy something” because they can’t afford it and I don’t support strong arming creators to bend to consumer wishes (that is the job of service industries, not creators.)
I do wholeheartedly support a creator’s freedom to choose to discount/freely release(CC/GNU/etc…) gift, donate, whatever if they believe it is in their best interest to do so, I just don’t believe in a consumer’s right to demand “more affordable stuff” when those creators have stated that it is not in their best interests.
Consumers still vote with their wallets, and creators that suffer from the effects of higher pricing always have the choice to lower the barrier of entry in the hopes that they can do better selling “more for less,” but if they can do better selling less for more, then good on them.
Cheers, as always, for a discussion devoid of jabs and insults
12 days ago on Apple tries putting Amazon on trial in ebooks antitrust case 1 reply 1 recommend
I care because I don’t want to pay more than I have to for ebooks.
Well maybe this case is about the fact that you do have to pay more, and not simply about how little you want to pay, damn-the-consequences.
I say “maybe” simply because I don’t pretend to know what the “fairest” pricing is to maintain a healthy publishing economy, but my gut is Amazon’s “Walmart-on-steroids” approach to selling everything is detrimental to long term economic prosperity.
12 days ago on Apple tries putting Amazon on trial in ebooks antitrust case 2 replies 1 recommend
If it isn’t offered to prove the fact asserted (I.e. that Amazon wanted to sit down and figure out the agency thing) and is merely offered to show the conversation occurred, it isn’t hearsay.
I understand your point, but disagree. Yes, it is a bit of a chicken and the egg type of situation, but “crappy software patents” wouldn’t be a problem if there weren’t trolls asserting them. Legitimate entities (be they corporate or individual) deserve software patents where they are either utilizing them in a product or properly licensing them to those who will use them in a product. Trolls are a cancer because they neither have the intent to utilize their own intellectual property, nor are they interested in legitimately licensing useful software patents as a mechanism for profit. Instead, they seek to defraud and bully those who actually utilize those technologies.
I would rather err on the side of legislation that seeks to punish trolls ( and thereby places the burden of proving non-trollish conduct on patent holders) rather than legislation that burdens the ability of creators to patent and protect their creations, but I understand that I am in the minority when it comes to supporting strong protections for inventors and content creators.
The problem isn’t “companies who actually manufacture products” asserting patent rights to protect their property. That is the point of patents.
The problem is “patent trolls” who never intend, or could never be able, to utilize after-acquired patents and instead seek to bully and defraud actual “companies who manufacture products” with threats of costly and time-consuming litigation.
Patents, by design, are meant to “limit others.” We just need to punish those trolls who are trying to “limit others” from doing something that the trolls themselves have no intent to do.
13 days ago on The White House v. patent trolls: can Obama finally end harmful tech lawsuits? 1 reply 2 recommends
I actually am an Amazon fan :) I just objectively understand that their “business” model is messed up and unsustainable and therefore inevitably designed to screw-over the entire customer population once they run every type of retailer out of business.
I think this would be less of a threat if they were private and did not have to answer to shareholders. In that scenario, they could simply exist out of altruism and continue to operate at .05% profit margins, but they aren’t…
What sucks, IMHO, is that if it is inevitable that they will return to “realistic” profit margins eventually, it will only result in the destruction of brick and mortar retailers who were the ones originally charging “realistic prices.”
The real answer?
Under the UCC (covering sales of goods) merchants who enter into legally binding contracts where there is only the quantity term specified get the price term “gap-filled” by the courts (not the manufacturer) at an amount deemed fair (i.e. fair market value) at the time of performance.
Here, it would seem that there was no “contract” so it would have to be a remedy in “equity” to avoid unjust enrichment (by Apple) however, the damages (total cost of the benefit received) would still be “fair.”
So, to answer your question, a company that uses a FRAND patent without paying for it should pay the fair value for it as determined by the courts…
Which is kind of the whole point of FRAND patents. They are not supposed to be priced by the manufacturer at variably-free-market competitive prices, else they wouldn’t be adopted by standards groups and thereby blessed as “FRAND” to begin with.
Unarguably, there were “positive earnings” but I was responding more to the claim that there was “large profit.” 82M on 16B is about .05% profit. If that is not evidence in itself of how suspect Amazon’s business model is then I don’t know what else could illustrate that (they are a business right? Not a government non-profit — if they aren’t engaged in actual competition then there is a strong argument that they are unfairly destroying every other retailer in the world)
More than that, they increased revenue by nearly 4B YOY yet profit dropped nearly 40%. Those inverse curves are insane.
Regardless, I’m not arguing in favor of ‘artificially inflating prices’ just pointing out that there is no believable way to defend Amazon’s “business” as being anything other than corrosive.
Recommended aapierce's comment in Apple lawyers put judge in ebook antitrust case on defensive
15 days ago
Are you high?
The company posted revenues of $16.07 billion for the first quarter, a 22 percent increase over the same period last year. But its profit dipped to $82 million, as compared to $130 million in the first quarter of 2012.
No jury on appeal. No questions of fact only questions of law.
15 days ago on Apple lawyers put judge in ebook antitrust case on defensive 13 recommends
CLOSE COMBAT AND CC:A BRIDGE TOO FAR!!!!!
(Sorry for screaming, it is a pavlovian response whenever I am reminded that these games existed and have not survived into the 21st century…)
I would pay top dollar for a simple port of these 2 games to OS X — or better yet, iOS. (I know, boot camp, I’ve been there :) )
But you don’t replace the LCD, you replace the glass/digitizer (at least on an iPhone – not sure about the GS3)
23 days ago on Size matters: how I went from an iPhone to a really big Android phone 2 replies 1 recommend