MattPat - Slashdot User

Submission + - iPhone to Support Native YouTube Client (apple.com)

Submitted by

MattPat

on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @06:29PM

MattPat writes: "Much like the client currently available on the Apple TV, iPhone users will get a previously-unmentioned piece of functionality when the iPhone ships in 9 days: a native YouTube client.

Apple® today announced that iPhone(TM) users will be able to enjoy YouTube's originally-created content on their iPhones when they begin shipping on June 29. A new Apple-designed application on iPhone will wirelessly stream YouTube's content to iPhone over Wi-Fi or EDGE networks and play it on iPhone's stunning 3.5 inch display. ... "iPhone delivers the best YouTube mobile experience by far," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "Now users can enjoy YouTube wherever they are — on their iPhone, on their Mac or on a widescreen TV in their living room with Apple TV."

Apple already has a QuickTour of the functionality on its website."

Open WAP = Probable Cause? 466

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday April 23, 2007 @11:09AM from the summon-sam-waterston dept.

RockoTDF writes "A court in texas has ruled that an open WAP is not a sufficient defense against child pornography charges, a ruling which could carry over to p2p users. In addition, it appears that an open WAP could be seen as probable cause by law enforcement."

Submission + - Gizmodo calls for RIAA boycott in March

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23, 2007 @04:33PM

An anonymous reader writes: Gadget review site Gizmodo is calling for a boycott of RIAA-signed bands in the month of March: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/putt ing-our-money-where-our-mouths-are-boycott-the-ria a-in-march-239281.php Instead, they suggest spending your greenbacks on indy artists, or attending concerts/buying merchandise from your favorite RIAA artist (which puts money in the artist's pocket), rather than buying recordings (and further enriching the fat cats at the RIAA). All I can say is, "hell yes!"

Consumers Unlikely To Pay $500 for iPhone 412

Posted by Zonk on Friday February 23, 2007 @04:06PM from the that-is-a-mighty-pricey-phone dept.

narramissic writes "A survey by online market research firm Compete Inc. finds that of the 26% of those who said they're likely to buy an iPhone, only 1% said they'd pay $500 for it, while 42% said they'd likely buy the phone for $200 to $299. Sixty percent of likely iPhone buyers would be willing to make the switch to AT&T wireless to get it."

Submission + - Open Letter to Ballmer

Submitted by RelliK on Friday February 23, 2007 @03:53PM

RelliK writes: Hi,

I am tired of Ballmer's BS and I want to send a response. Somebody has to stand up and say something, and so far I have heard nothing from our "leaders". However, a response is necessary and must be circulated far and wide. I can't think of a better forum to place it on.

Mr Ballmer,

Lately you have made a lot of noise with your vague threats against Linux. Indeed you were quite livid in your assertions that Linux infringes on some of Microsoft's unspecified patents. However, no amount of yelling, dancing, or chair throwing can make up for one crucial deficiency in your claims: you have so far failed to specify what it is you are complaining about. So, Mr. Ballmer, if you want to be taken seriously, here is what we, the Linux community, want you to do:

Provide the list of all patents that you believe pertain to Linux.

For each alleged patent, explain why you believe it applies to Linux.

Provide the exact source code coordinates in Linux (file, version, lines of code) that you believe infringe on said patents.

Should any of your claims prove true, we would be happy to remove the offending code from Linux. However, in the absense of the above information, we can only conclude that you are making things up. The strategy of vague, unspecified allegations and innuendo has already failed for your minion, SCO. You, of all people, should know that, Mr. Ballmer. The Linux community shall not be intimidated.

Your assertion that Open Source has no respect for intellectual property rights is baseless. On the contrary, because the code is open for all to see, it is impossible to hide illicit proprietary code in Open Source software. The same cannot be said about proprietary developers who often "borrow" Open Source code. Indeed, Microsoft itself has time and again shown disdain for intellectual property rights of others. Most recent example of that is $1.5 billion judgment against Microsoft in a patent dispute with Alcatel-Lucent. Further, while purporting to assert patents against Linux, Microsoft is at the same time arguing before US Supreme Court that software cannot be patented.

In conclusion, Mr. Ballmer, the moment of truth has arrived: either specify your claims or stop your libelous accusations.

Microsoft Testing "Pay-As-You-Go" Software 202

Posted by Zonk on Friday February 23, 2007 @03:24PM from the not-unless-i-can-hit-level-70-in-office-newb dept.

seriouslywtf writes "Microsoft has quietly rolled out a pay-as-you-go software system in a few countries (South Africa, Mexico, and Romania) to test out how the public reacts to software rentals. Part of the current service includes a ~$15 fee per month to use Office 2003. If the service goes over well, Microsoft is considering extending the program to include other software or other countries. From the article: 'Are we moving towards a rental model for software? Despite the success of programs like Software Assurance, and the FlexGo program, it doesn't seem as if the traditional model of software sales is ever going to go away. Consumers still like the option of buying complete software packages. However, for places where the price of software keeps obtaining legitimate versions out of most people's reach, a rental program may be a useful alternative.'"

Submission + - Why is Microsoft charging $4000 for DST patches?

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23, 2007 @02:48PM

An anonymous reader writes: After a phone call to Microsoft, I was informed that even companies with extended patch support still have to pay $4000 for retired product DST patches. (Keep in mind when you sign up for the extended patch support license, you pay extra.) 1. How did MS figure that $4000 a client would cover the cost of the patch? Are they following the pricing schemes of the oil industry? What is the true cost of such things? 2. Why isn't MS getting more slack for charging this ridiculous amount of money? Is this price gouging? 3. Wouldn't it be in Microsoft's best interest to at least offer the Win2k workstation patch as a free download? Would it have been a chance to help improve the company's image? 4. Since Win2k machines still receive Windows Updates, why are they free yet the DST fix is not?

Submission + - Nyko Unveils Two Wii Controller Grips

Submitted by

njkid1

on Friday February 23, 2007 @02:41PM

njkid1 writes: "Today, Nyko Technologies announced the Classic Controller Grip and Click Grip for the Wii. The Classic Controller Grip adds grips to the Wii Classic Controller along with a "docking fin" to attach the Wii Remote to, and will retail for $14.99. The Click Grip replaces the Wii Remote battery cover with a rubberized, textured grip in either blue, pink and gray for $5.99. http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/news/?id=15331&n cid=AOLGAM000500000000023"

Slashdot Top Deals