Not the original poster, but I'll offer my story. A couple of days ago, I got an unsigned non-Market app (actually it is on the Market, just not in my territory) via email. Signed it myself using free tools and installed it on the phone. As far as I know, can't be done on iPhone. Also, as I use multiple computers, on any of them I can, using standard USB cable and OS file management, access any file (music/video/apps/whatever) on the phone. And copy anything from the computer to the phone, and use it on the phone. Unlike with iPhone, no extra software necessary, no warranties voided, not subject to approval by 3rd party.

Also, I'm about to start development of an application for Android. No code exists yet, and already I know my app can be published. I couldn't be sure with the iPhone. Google may reject the app from the Android Market, but I can still put it up on the web and have people be able to install and run it. Furthermore, I have a sizable amout of development investment in Adobe Flash. As of this summer (June or so) I will be able to leverage that existing codebase and development process to make Android apps. That just won't happen on iPhone.

I guess the last two things don't mean much to you if you're not a developer, but at least living without market lockdown and file lockdown is something that should be appealing to anyone.

And so I did. Bought myself an Android phone. With a nifty 'Allow instalation of non-Market applications' checkbox. I still use Android market. But I don't have to. And yes, when I connect my phone to any computer, without any additional software, I see all its files. And can copy any file to or from the device wihout it having to be aproved by a third party (iTunes). You know, an open system, freedom and all that. :-)

Well, even if it's only that, at least there is one thing clear. There is a significant demand for a social network where the main motivation of the owner/operator is not vacuuming private data to be sold to advertisers. The fact that everyday people, not VCs, banks or funds, are willing to put up almost $200k on mere promise of such a system is bound to get a lot of people thinking. Even if these guys fail miserably and bever be heard from again, the folks at Facebook should take this as very very bad news. Or very very good news, if you're a user. :-)

Well, maybe in your culture. In mine (I'm from Croatia) it refers generally to people living outside of their homeland, not any particular nationality. We had large emigration in first half of the last century, and those who left the country are usually refered to as 'diaspora'.

But, yeah, it's probably not the best choice for a name. Although I can understand the motivation, with their network being made of dispersed nodes they call 'seeds'.

Yeah, those flash videos really do eat at the battery. What with their h.264 encoded content and all. Things will be so much better once we switch to HTML5 and its h.264 encoded content. So much better. Down with Flash, the electricity vampire!

BTW, the major advancement with the flash 10.1 for mobiles (which is what the article is about) is that it will use native hardvare for decoding video and drawing primitives with GPU.

And, despite that, the old TPB managed to get millions to contribute bandwidth and storage space to their 'cloud', with no monetary compensation whatsoever. So, obviously, it is possible, and it does work.

Nothing. You don't get the files, But, then again, that means the operators of the service are complete dumbasses who didn't think to host at least one complete copy of the data on their servers. Idiots. And the guys that bankrolled them, morons. So, let's hope they actually think about their bussiness plan for more than five minutes, eh?

No, it wouldn't. Says Google. Look it up.

Guess what? Whenever you're seeding a torrent, you're doing exactly that. And thousands upon thousands of people are jumping at a chance to do it. And they usually get absolutely noting in return (except maybe a better ratio somewhere).

What if that 'other peoples data' was a Battlestar Galactica Season 4, that you already have on your disk right now? And, possibly, currently already seeding like mad so you'll get your ratio up on some private tracker?

Indeed.

Pirated torrents wouldn't be better if the new TPB offered the same selection and the same quality. It just wouldn't be free, but I bet a lot of people would trade free for legit, if the pricing is anywhere near reasonable. Throw in a possibility of discount if you seed the files, and it becomes even more interesting.

People buy millions of tracks off of iTunes, and they could all get them for free.

I have no clear idea of their bussiness model, but I can certainly imagine the way it _could_ be done. Have plain old vanilla private torrent site. You can accurately track who DLs and ULs what. Your ratio is a price divider. So, if you UL 4x as much as you DL, you pay 1/4 of the monthly fee. And if the monthly fee is something reasonable to begin with, and they had a library of titles comparable to what TPB today has, I bet a lot of people would just jump at the chance.

Instead? Nope. They want to charge at BOTH ends of the pipe, server AND consumer. That's like charging you for recieving calls on your mobile because lots of people want to talk to you. Why isn't anyone framing the problem like this? Then it becomes crystal clear what kind of idiocy their demand is.

I pay a monthly fee for for my DSL service, which includes flat rate transfers. So, any bytes that come down the pipe, wherever they come from, their transfer is already paid. The ISP isn't providing the BBC a free service. It's providing a paid service to me, the person who watches BBC content.

This alone is a reason for me to avoid it, and recommend you to do so too.

Dude, you forgot to rant about Wolframs ego. C'mon, if you're going to completely ignore the actual merits of the product at hand, at least do it proprely.