Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:cult of mac (Score 1) 168

using it didn't feel like torture.

Such precise language. You wouldn't be a member of a cult of some sort, would you?

Did you try the browser? The screen was small, the pages not tailored to mobile (unless you were using WAP). The browser was just showing a tiny bit of a very poorly rendered page at a time, you had to scroll sideways as well as up and down to read. Remember, the screen was small and had a resolution one quarter of VGA. No proper keyboard for input.

That said, the camera was good for the time and it had GPS. Not very common back then, and a major reason why I upgraded from my Sony Ericsson W810i. But while it was a little bit step up, the iPhone was a giant leap when I tried it. Phones back then weren't pretty comparable to the iPhone, like Android flagship phones and iPhones are today. They were a giant leap.

Comment Re:cult of mac (Score 1) 168

Opera did mobile browsing right, many years before the iPhone came out, and it was available on multiple platforms.

"The first version of Opera Mobile Classic was released in 2000 for the Psion Series 7 and NetBook, with a port to the Windows Mobile platform coming in 2004. One of Opera Mobile Classic's major features is the ability to dynamically reformat web pages to better fit the handheld's display using small screen rendering technology. Alternatively, the user may use page zooming for a closer or broader look." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I used Opera on my Nokia N95. While it was a bit better than the horrible default web browser, Mobile Safari on 3GS was an order of magnitude better. Pages rendered better, and using it didn't feel like torture.

Comment Re:cult of mac (Score 3, Insightful) 168

On top of that, it was expensive, you could not share files over Bluetooth, it did not support 3G, it did not have an expandable storage slot and you needed iTunes for everything. But despite that, and to the horror of its rivals, everyone wanted one.

just goes to show the best product doesnt always win - same is true with the ipod, there were better options at the time. the term "cult of mac" became known for a reason

Actually, the iPhone showed that it was better to do some things well than to everything poorly - to have you features be a check on a long list.

I had an Nokia N95. On paper, this is a far more capable device than the iPhone. However, when I switched to an iPhone 3GS it was a massive improvement. Mail worked very well, the browser was usable, text entry was quick and by that time, the AppStore had launched. Far, far better than going around hunting individual apps and updates. They were a lot cheaper too. All of this was an order of magnitude better than the Nokia.

Comment Re:Marketing to the Cult (Score 1) 168

The product wasn't transformative. The marketing was transformative and the timing was exceptional.

The business strategy, though, of making you pay for a product you don't own, was ingenious. Long live the walled garden.

Take a look at phone designs before and after the iPhone. When you can see a clear "before" and "after", it's a transformative product.

Comment Re:Obvious (Score 1) 180

Sure, it's supported. Usable, that's a whole different story.

We do have iPhone 4 and 4s phones in our organization now, and users are complaining they are slow. Must be an Apple fan, it does not register in your brain that all these updates slow down these phones, in some cases dramatically so. I'm pretty sure there was a story on this site with users of older iPads saying they updated their device by mistake and performance is terrible and there's no way to go back to the old version.

Then you have already used them for 5-6 years (iphone 4 was 2010), that's very good lifespan for a phone. At some point, switch and move on.

Comment Re:So,basically the verification bill will be usel (Score 2) 146

I find it amusing how conservatives, who are usually the most energetic at raging against regulations and the mommy state, are the most eager to impose mountains of regulations, draconian censorship and generally the mommy state on the public in order to regulate other people's sexual behaviour. I

This goes for conservatives (Republicans) in the US as well. They're against regulation of businesses, but they sure are happy about regulating people's personal life..

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 1) 621

The commission is the only entity that can propose legislation. Usually, you do elect the people who can propose legislation.

The power of the actual elected body, the European Parliament, is still quite limited. They don't even have enough power to prevent their forced relocation from Brussles to Strassbourgh every month, rather being caught in a perpetual schoolyard bully 'stop hitting yourself' moment. They've managed to block legislation, what, once in history?

There are good and bad things about the EU, but democratic credibility isn't one of the good ones.

The power is limited, because most of of the power lies at a different elected level - the individual governments of each nation. The reason for this is to avoid the larger countries not having to care about the smaller ones. The principle here is not too different from the principle of the US Senate.

Comment Re:Deeper explanation (Score 2) 181

Most of the articles on this dispute aren't getting too deep into what's going on, but here's some more information...

1. Spotify's current app allows users to subscribe through the app, using Apple's billing system, which gives Apple of cut. User's can also subscribe on the Spotify website, which bypasses Apple's cut.

2. Spotify is not allowed to advertise through the app that users can subscribe on a website outside the app. Spotify and Apple have had a dispute over this in the past, but Spotify chose to do as Apple asked, and removed all in-app subscription advertising targeted at iPhone users.

3. Spotify is now trying to submit a new version of their app that offers no in-app subscription method, period, and also has no advertising or instructions on how a user can get a subscription. Spotify is assuming that even with no in-app advertising or instructions, users will figure out that they can subscribe on the website.

4. Apple is claiming that this is still breaking the rules, and thus is rejecting the new version of the app. Spotify is claiming that this doesn't break the rules, and that Apple is just going to keep rejecting the new version of the app as long as they can so that users are stuck using the older version of the app that still has in-app purchases, from which Apple gets a cut.

It looks as though the "offers no in-app subscription method, period" is a bit misleading - according to Ars Technica, Spotify replaced the link with automatically sending you an email that you could use to sign up.

Comment Re:It has always been that way (Score 2) 181

No they are not free to not use Apple to start subscriptions. If you read the article, you'll find that Spotify's update removes that and Apple has rejected the update. Despite the fact that Netflix, Amazon Video and countless other subscription services do not offer subscriptions via Apple in their apps.

It's not that they removed it, it's that they replaced it - with a mechanism that sends you an email to sign up via the web site. Drop that, and the problem is solved.

Comment Re:It has always been that way (Score 1) 181

Oh but it has not. From the original article:

"Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute."

Compare to Amazon Video. You can't buy videos or subscribe to Prime from the app, and yet it hasn't been kicked out of the store. So why is Apple threatening to do this to Spotify? I can't *possibly* be because of Apple Music, is it?

This smells very much like an anti-trust issue.

The problem with the Spotify app, is that they want to do it easy to sign up from the web site from within the app. If they just dropped that, and just allowed you to log in if you had an existing account - or sign up via the app store if you don't have one - everything would be as it used to be, and the app would be accepted.

What Apple does not like, is that if you don't have an account you're referred to Spotify's web page to sign up and pay there.

Comment Re:It has always been that way (Score 1) 181

If you want to sell SUBSCRIPTIONS via your App on Apple, you have to give them a cut. There are means to circumvent (having people go to your website to signup and pay) but taking payment and not giving apple their pound of flesh has always been operating procedure. I am unsure the problem here? I mean, you might not like the terms (30% is a lot) but it hasn't changed in years.

30% was pretty low for applications at the time the app store - if you sold it any other way (physical stores, carrier app stores etc) and you'd get far less. Subscriptions for magazines were also a bargain for the publishers - it's not like you'd get 70% from retail stores. The only problem there was Apple's privacy guidelines, meaning they didn't get the valuable subscriber information.

For outlets like spotify, this is a much bigger problem. When you pay 70% of your renenue in licensing costs, you can't pay 30% to Apple as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray

Working...