Google isn't selling said photos.

What's the difference between selling the photos, versus selling advertising on the backs of free photos? It is still about making money.

Hmm, this "phone in the butt" story appeared just after the bar of soap phone story... cue jokes about bending over.

the fact that American consumers (who have the freedom to do so) have been buying these specialized connectors and cables for years proves that consumers want them. That's common sense as well as basic economic theory -- which some Slashdotters seem to understand better than others.

I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.

Suppose that, when you bought a cell phone, you were given a choice between (1) using a power adaptor plug that you already owned and fit other devices you owned, and (2) buying a new power adapter that only worked with this one single new device. Everybody would choose #1. The only reason that Americans have always chosen #2 with cell phones, is because there has never been a choice #1.

(1) Is to help boost stocks by convincing investors the company is growing, even though it's not actually hiring anybody. (2) To claim they searched for U.S. candidates, could not find any, therefore they need to import cheap labor from China or India. Whichever one it is, it was obvious I wasn't getting the job even though I'm only 30 minutes away from the factory.

I once worked for a company that advertised a job that wasn't actually open. Basically, the person in that position was foriegn (Italian) and had just applied for full residency in the U.S. Her employer wanted to keep her on, of course. But apparently they had to prove to the INS that she was most fit for the job, so they had to advertise the job. Not sure what corporate machinations were involved, but they did keep her (and she got residency).

At another place, they had received such a huge number of applications for a specific job, that they decided not to accept any more.

We discussed this issue back in 2006, though for a different continent. But if South Korea and China can do it, why not the rest of the world? Seems like it would be a win-win for manufacturing, if nothing else.

FTA: "We are paying particular attention to style and design; I'm practically obsessed with it," said Patrick Chomet, global director of terminals for Vodafone Group.

Channeling Steve Jobs?

Also: "If the device hits an anticipated price point of between 99 and 199 euros, Ms Milenesi said it would be pitched at the broader phone market. "With that range of prices, it's not aimed at the same audience as, say, the iPhone, it's looking more at a broader appeal for people."

Hmm, how much cheaper than the iPhone is that really? Will people want to save a few euros and miss out on all the cool Apple vibe that iPhone owners magically acquire?

In Soviet Russia, radio beams twist YOU!

Do you actually own an iphone? If so, why did you buy it if the manufacturer has terms you dont like?

"economically unsound and civilly corrupt"

I'd agree with you, except that iPhones are hardly a commodity or a right. It's a prestigious, expensive mobile computing device, and you know its legal limitations before you buy it. If you don't like those limitations, DON'T BUY IT.

Still playing devil's advocate here...

30% is not a bad deal for providing massive visibility, end-to-end distribution, a super-simple installation method, and some kind of C.Y.A. legal protection (?) that your app will work seamlessly on your iPhone (since Apple has authorized/verified your app).

Yes, but in return for Apple's cut, they provide a huge amount of convenience and visibility. That's not a bad thing. Your jailbroken app won't make half as much money if nobody knows about it (or it's complicated to install).

So Apple is doing this to protect its income for apps on the iPhone store. That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store. Sure, they could try to sell apps only for jailbroken phones, but with all the gray areas around it legally (at least in the public's eye) and with the immense ease of use of the iPhone store (click and download right now!), they would much rather go Apple's route. Right? So Apple could be covering its ass, making sure they don't get attacked from iPhone developers who have trekked through the process to make "legit" apps but could be someday losing out to jailbroken competitors.

Or else it's just about the money.