Then it should be noted that people who believe in string theory are irrational since it can't be proven.
The argument about committing crime being outlawed would be more convincing if basic copyright infringement were treated as a crime and was actually investigated and punished in some proportionate way by the authorities when it occurs. The reality is that copyright is in most cases a civil matter, which means that while the cumulative damage to a genuine victim can be significant, they are essentially responsible for their own protection, without any police or public prosecutors to help them the way a victim of say theft or fraud would have. And the costs of bringing an action to recover losses are disproportionate in most cases, because copyright infringement kills with a thousand cuts.
Also, we're talking about the EU. Everything your wrote about fair use doesn't apply here. We tend to have more specific exemptions to copyright in our national laws in Europe, often including certain special privileges for libraries because of their unique public service role, and that is the matter at hand.
There are 3 criteria that will eliminate a huge subset of apps that devalue all app stores:
1. An app that simply wraps a mobile website is not an app, it's a short-cut. If the app has no function offline, it's really not an app.
2. Games that are free but have in-game purchases. All garbage.
3. Apps with similar names to highly rated apps, walk-through, and otherwise knockoff apps.
Another way to go about it is to require new apps to have a beta period, to open it up to users who opt-in to beta, and to only release to the public after a 30 or 60 day beta period or when enough users in the beta approve it for general release.
Anything, actually, is better than the screening which happens now, which is essentially none.
So what if it's labor intensive? Make a person at Microsoft beta-test every app for a week. Once word gets out that the last flappy bird knock off isn't going to fly, developers will stop wasting thier time. Or make the first submission of an app by a developer happen by mail. Or whatever.
Not only would I happily use an app-store with no in-app crap purchases, no adverts, and no security problems with knock off apps, I would be happy to deploy that to the whole company.
If it means you only have 500 apps, that's fine. If it means you only have 250 apps, that's fine. As long as they are good.
I also don't get it. It's fine to unify Windows (please unify Windows desktop SKUs please, Microsoft. We don't need 5 versions of Windows for the desktop. If you want a cut-price one, offer Windows and Windows Pro. Thanks), but that doesn't mean you have to take away what people like. Offer Metro as an alternate to classic windows, and be done with it.
Disagree. Microsoft just needs to focus on high-quality apps, or better yet, just paying top app makers to port to Windows phone. There is a strong market for a trusted, high-quality only, app store. You know, apps that don't have in app purchase, no ads, etc.
Microsoft users are used to paying for things. That's the selling point. Just build really good apps, get rid of the BS, the crap, and only accept solid, really solid, working apps.
The problem MS has with it's Windows app store is that it's the worst of all worlds - low-quality, knock-off apps with security problems, ads, phoning home, etc AND missing too many good high-quality apps that users come to expect.
Microsoft, if you are listening, don't work on getting Android to run, focus on having an app-store with only 100% quality apps. Even if it means only have 500 apps in your strore, just have only good stuff.
No, Yahoo did not really try. They did more than anyone else, but it's an existential threat. These companies won't exist if people keep feeling their data is insecure. It's already happening internationally, US-based companies are getting pummeled.
Yahoo is a public company, and did not want to have a $91 million loss in addition to their already failed everything else.
Yeah, if they' re going to end up out of business anyways, what's a little bit sooner. And, amazingly, standing up for your customers will probably lead to more customers, not fewer. But even if it really pissed of the customers they did have, so what. The Yahoo precedent was set, and everyone else fell into line. That's why they should have picked up the phone, paid the fine for disclosing the legal battle, and enlisted other parties to help.
And no one uses Yahoo, at least intentionally. How the shit do they fight back with a barely captive audience?
This is a stretch. I've heard of people who use Yahoo. Back a few years it seemed more common.
So Yahoo takes the burden, what happens to the rest of the companies? The competition? They learn not to oppose the government. Yahoo, from the article, was the first to comply. If they did not, and died as a company, would anything be different other than fewer @yahoo.com email addresses?
Yes, absolutely. We would have known contemporaneously that this was happening. Years later, what can be done? Very little. And, instead of being a joke, Yahoo would be a company with principles. It may have even worked out better for shareholders.
The worst that could happen is that the board opposes the CEO, and fires and replaces management. Which happened anyways.
I may not agree with you on everything, but I do agree with you that the same idiots who funded the earlier version of the 9/11 terrorists want to fund Syrian rebels, and Iraqi's, and all manner of rebels today. ISIS, our now mortal enemy in Iraq, are fighting with equipment that we just left behind, in part.
It's a never ending parade of idiocy.
My thoughts exactly. You think the phone traffic from the slowday was big? Shut down Google for a day, replace with page for everyone to call a Senator's office or the WH, and see what happens. Ever seen a phone system try to handle 100 million phone calls at once?
It's either get things 100% end-to-end encypted, and done up so that even the service provider can't get to the clear text, or they need to get the right legal framework in place to avoid large-scale data releases to the government. Otherwise all of these companies end up overseas sooner or later.
For one of these large companies to actually fight back. Tell the Government to stick it. Really, honestly, it's time. Well past time.
Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Google - just put the government in it's place. If they feel strongly about it, Yahoo, shut down Yahoo. Redirect every page to an explanation that they are currently in the process of shredding the all data, and if the users want Yahoo back, to call a Congress person or the directory of the FBI.
Fighting back has to be asymetric. $250k a day in fines is only $91 million a year. Fight. Back. There was no one at Yahoo with the pockets to with stand that type of fine? No one they could have picked up the phone and asked for?
It's not okay to lay down with the government. Just from a business perspective, American companies are loosing 10x that amount daily in lost business from international clients - business that will probably never come back - thanks to the overreaching operations and activities of the US government.
If Lars at Lavabit can do it - a one man operation - Yahoo can do it.
The thing is, as many a Slashdotter has pointed out, you can't accomplish the same thing virtually. If you let people download material from a library then there are only two realistic options. One is that you provide the material with huge amounts of DRM and interfere with readers' own systems in dubious ways. The other is that you create a blatant avenue for copyright infringement and inherently give it special legal blessing that is intended to protect the public resource of a library for entirely different reasons. It is highly unlikely that libraries would support the former, and there is no way the latter was going to fly legally.
I would agree with you, except that a free and competitive market can only work this way if it's also an informed market.
If you can lawfully sell someone a ticket for a flight, which they purchase with reasonable expectations in terms of promptness, comfort or whatever else, and you can then fail to meet the customer's reasonable expectations when they bought their ticket without their having any recourse, then you aren't really in a competitive market at all. The customer has no way to know when, or how, to vote with their wallet.
You can certainly make a reasonable argument that this is more about transparency and advertising standards than it is about needing heavyweight industry regulation, but either way the current market dynamics evidently are not sufficient to protect the customer alone.
Thing is there is no correlation between quality and cost.
Of course there is. It's not 100% obviously, but the idea that you can in general provide inferior products or services and yet charge the same as or more than your competition makes no sense on any level.
I don't have a fancy name for it. For essentials like shoes and food I'm lucky enough to have plenty in the bank these days to buy what I need, so I have the luxury of choosing quality without sacrificing timeliness. But for something that costs a significant amount by whatever my financial standards are today, I'd rather wait and buy something good.
Ugh. I wouldn't live an die on that hill. The odds of him being a criminal now are extremely high.