You're right. The US murders innocent civilians abroad instead.

It's just a different brand of evil.

I fear if they use this to push notifications for each new Firefox release then I'll exceed my data cap.

They shouldn't just be able to take what they want from it. That technology is valuable IP.

This is why we need SOPA.

It's not Apple's fault that they appear to be the only company taking education seriously enough to upend the current broken structure of authoring and delivering resources. I'll probably get flamed for saying it, but I don't see any of the other big technology organisations, open or closed, doing much about this. Perhaps if they took education as seriously they wouldn't have waited for Apple to come and do something in this arena first. Not wishing to turn this into the traditional Apple vs Microsoft debate, but arguably Microsoft are Apple's biggest rival in this space and all they seem to be doing for schools is offering discounts on Windows and Office. Revolutionary indeed.

I do agree with your point around patents though - this is where Apple is at its worst, and I'd argue the current patent system encourages the kind of behaviour that stifles innovation. To my mind the blame lies with the patent office every time one of these ridiculous ideas becomes patented.

E-textbooks have not gained traction to date so this is fairly new territory. If other technology firms were as serious about this subject then they would have all held education events and showcased their idea of what the future of education looks like, including a vision for improving the publishing experience. The current paper-based method is wildly expensive for both authors and schools, becomes obsolete every few years and is a pretty crap deal for educators and students. Instead of picking holes in Apple's strategy, I'd be asking why is only a single company taking an interest in improving this experience?

I'm not saying I don't see the benefits of open. What I can't understand is the mindset of the anti-closed brigade who refuse to believe that anything proprietory can be good. There's plenty of room for both.

Slating something *just because* it's not open is ridiculous, especially when there's a distinct lack of open competition in the subject area being discussed (in this case, digital textbooks, content authoring and delivery).

And are textbooks that become outdated after a few years every time the curriculum changes really an already solved problem then?

So never mind about all the benefits something can bring, unless it's 'open' it's useless and has no future?

I understand the benefits of open, but I don't understand the obsession some people have with it. Something can be closed, proprietary and locked-down and still be thoughtfully crafted, built to a high standard, be of excellent benefit to the customer and serve its purpose well.

I see no 'open' projects out there with the ecosystem and vision to deploy something as elegant as what Apple showed today, including the cross-device support and authoring tools. Teachers will be able to create their own content with this without spending years trying to get published. The best part is the content can be updated for years to come so it need never expire. Compare this to extremely expensive paper textbooks that have a useful life of 5 years.

Whilst I find writing things down is a better way of embedding knowledge, I don't see why note-taking and an iPad textbook have to be mutually exclusive. You could have all the benefits of a digital textbook (lighter, cheaper, always up to date and far easier to search) and still use your paper to take notes.

I can't tell if you're trolling or being stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trolling.

You might not have the data, but the scientist team did. Thanks to their work we know the chemical composition of Mars rock. It's distinctive from Earth rock and moon rock. There is conclusive proof that these rocks are from Mars. What have you got up your sleeve that suggests the findings of this study are flawed?

As for the science you studied at school - I'm glad I didn't attend the same school as you. Science seeks to find the truth - it does so without being discriminative, and it does so conclusively. Anything can have "potentiality" - it's scientific study that allows us to prove.

If you have something to discredit this study, then by all means, let's all take a look.

If you purchase music on the go (from iTunes) you don't even need iTunes Match to enjoy the benefit of over-the-air sync. Stuff you buy on one iDevice is 'pushed' to your other iDevices (and PC) anyway. iTunes Match is really aimed at people with large CD-ripped libraries.

About 60% of my music is cd-ripped, and I don't have the discs anymore, so if anything happened to my hard drive I'd lose the lot. For £21/year, that music is up converted to 256kps (I ripped at 128kps years ago - my bad) and downloadable to my phone too, at any time. Plus, and more importantly for me, it's backed up offline.

As an insurance policy, I think £21 is pretty good value.

An American, thinking that the US = The World?

What a surprise.

Will it move into warmer waters (and melt?)

You totally misunderstood. He was referring to the typo (manor vs. manner)

There are no fart apps in the top 20 paid, free or grossing app store charts.