one of the smartest and most comprehensive AC posts I've ever seen
Inflammatory though this comment is, I actually have to agree.
Adobe Flex was a steaming pile of crap.
Here's a clue: DON'T pick solutions just because they make your life as a developer easier if it comes at the expense of the user.
And how does TFA make the leap from curved glass (which is nothing new and quite run of the mill in so many other daily applications) to zomg, Samsung is going to have a foldable phone in 18 months? Wtf?
Article smells a bit of sockpuppeted/astroturfed vaporware with the aim of getting people to forego competing purchases they're contemplating in the near term.
The thing is that I never download specialized apps and I'm sure I'm not in the minority. Specialized apps are not nearly as wide-reaching as the free web is. Precisely because it is a free web, I would suggest. Once you enable the web to be locked down, then that is exactly what every single content provider, pro or amateur, will try to do. Then it won't be free anymore and people who want a free web will have no other place to go.
The great thing about enforcing a free web is that it guarantees there will always be a marketplace for consumers and providers of free or creatively subsidized content. Those who wish to provide locked content, if forced to do so outside the free web, are not being stymied in their efforts to do so. And those who wish to enjoy such locked content are similarly not being stymied by the presence of a guaranteed free web.
So why do we need to enable a mechanism that effectively kills most of the free web (and perhaps all of it some day) when people who don't want free already have viable options for that?
The only reason they want to clamp down on the free web is because they are against the presence of any free web at all. It is because consumers prefer the free web and they are having trouble competing and attracting consumers to their locked apps and platforms. To that I say, "too fucking bad."
YouTube will try to monetize your videos even if you don't turn it on.
Actually, youtube would embrace this DRM whole-heartedly. This is why you need specialized browser extensions that force YoutTube to play content sans Flash. A standard built-in DRM solution would allow them to ditch Flash and impose ads and wait times on every video they wanted, or after detecting that you had viewed x minutes of video.
Some of us simply believe that if someone is going to try to impose DRM on us that it should be an inconvenient onus on them and the consuming public to do so. A fragmented non-API solution would mean that content providers choosing to implement DRM would face greater costs and suppressed demand due to the extra hurdles imposed by DRM.
If both any given content provider AND their audience agreed it was worthwhile to install Flash or Silverlight in order to view the content, then that's what they would do.
On the flip side, any content providers that attempt to impose DRM on an audience unwilling to install Flash or Silverlight would find their subscriber base evaporating, forcing them to release the content without DRM and find a different way to earn money. Once it's standardized and part of the browser, any moron on the web will suddenly feel like they can and should protect their content and all users will be forced to comply or stay out of the web.
Bottom line: DRM as a hassle means the onus is on content providers to provide users with a suitable value proposition and it leaves greedy or misguided or trend-following content providers who cannot meet that standard out of the web (or else on the web, but free). DRM as an integrated seamless solution flips that around and leaves consumers who seek free content out of the web.
exemplary commentary. wish I had mod points today
Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I cannot unlock it until the screen has faded in. I've tried with no luck to swipe before it comes in, but fat chance.
And aim shouldn't be the issue since you can now swipe to unlock pretty much anywhere on the screen (and I agree that is an improvement)
I am not able to slide to unlock until the text is visible. New screen lets you slide anywhere so exact position is not the problem in this case.
All these new animations drive me batty.
Sure, you see something happen right away in response to an action, so in a sense, you have instant feedback. If that makes you think things are happening faster, lucky you.
Because my iPhone 5, when it was running iOS 6 felt faster to me because any action I took translated to a change of UX paradigm right away where I could take yet another action. Hence, I'm working faster. Now with animations, I have to wait for each animation before I can take my next action. That feels slower to me.
Worst offender is the new lock screen. Why did they decide to make me wait an extra 1/2-1 seconds after hitting the power or home button to turn it on so that can "gracefully" fade in from black before giving me access to the "slide to unlock"? It's maddening.
Commercial speech should not be protected as free speech.
Financial incentives are what motivate commercial speech. This is vastly different from you having the freedom to speak your mind.
In fact, I could bribe you with $5M to NOT speak your mind and instead speak mine.
Thus, commercial speech has the potential to squelch the true free speech of an individual. More than the potential, it does this frequently already. How's that for putting the nails in the coffin of free political speech?
dumbass troll - pay attention
The right to free speech is about the right to not be silenced no matter what you feel like you want to say. Your incentive to speak must be from within however. If you are being paid to say something, then that is not YOUR speech anymore, that is someone or something else's message and you have been bought to relay their message. THAT is what should be regulated and it would have no impact at all on people's freedom to speak their minds.
If I have to pay you to say something, it's not free speech.
If someone wants to stand on a street corner and not get paid to tell everyone they should go out and buy the latest and greatest gizmo, well that's their right. But if someone is paying them to do it, that's a whole different story.
I like this idea.
Advertising is becoming increasingly intrusive in our day-to-day activities. Billboards are bad enough, then it became the sides of busses and tops of taxis, and then gigantic LED displays that blind you at night. Now it's while you're sitting in the theater, broadcast in public areas, it's at the gas pump and the urinal stall, they come up when you press pause on a blu-ray... enough.
Specifically, advertising needs to be prohibited from all situations where a person has paid for access or entrance to something. More ideally, it would also be prohibited from any context where the person hasn't explicitly agreed to be subjected to ads in exchange to some product or service.