What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
72 Comments
- CVL4317, on 11/03/2008, -5/+47iDrama
- jazzviolin, on 11/03/2008, -1/+31Why not link to the person who did all the research -- Gruber. Instead of linking to an article that links to his.
http://daringfireball.net/2008/11/opera_app_store - mbonzo531, on 11/03/2008, -11/+26If it is over anti-competitive grounds I hope Opera sues Apple. I am tired of them preventing competition on their software so that they can over charge you on hardware. As much as I hate Vista (Note to fanboys: I have a Vista and Leopard machine) at least Microsoft is more liberal on their software. Apple will claim up and down it is only to provide a better experience, ie. less bugs, but in reality it is so they can drown out competition and charge you more. There is a reason why the average PC desktop is going for around $700 and the lowest end iMac (with outdated hardware) starts at $1199.
- mbonzo531, on 11/03/2008, -3/+13It should be a consumers right to do what they want with their own property. Apple is preventing capitalism by preventing competition. Even if this case is found to be not on anti-competitive grounds that is still a basis that Apple is using. When they promised third-party apps to the consumers they didn't say third party apps as long as it doesn't interferre with us price jacking our hardware.
- Myztry, on 11/03/2008, -1/+10Why do people compare Apple's products to IBM PC compatibles running Microsoft's Windows? It is two different scenario's.
Microsoft DOES NOT make PC's. Microsoft piggybacks onto generic 3rd party hardware. In the personal computer systems market, Microsoft is strictly a software parts supplier (peripherals aside).
Much more appropriate would be to use Microsoft's XBOX range in for comparison. Try getting software onto an unmodified XBOX without Microsoft digitally signing off on it... - jazzviolin, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7You obviously don't read Gruber.
- xylemverse, on 11/03/2008, -7/+14Whenever Apple does something evil, some Apple fans come out in denial of that and try to refute that. Kind of like scientologists.
Opera Mini does not have JS interpreter, Opera Mini is also available to non-java devices too.
http://operawatch.com/news/2007/12/opera-mini-port ...
Opera business model revolves around small and portable devices, and that also contributes majority of Opera's revenue. Therefore there is no obvious reason that Opera will intentionally would keep its application away from such a lucrative market.
Apple on the other hand has already rejected many applications on the anti-competitive grounds. It is not surprising to many that Apple is a control freak and anti-competitive.
People bought iPhone with their money, it is their property now. Then why should Apple have a say on what you use on what you bought ? - LoganT, on 11/03/2008, -1/+7So you don't do any banking online? Like bank of america and chase? Are you living in the stone age?
- MalDON, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5I don't think I want to browse the web by viewing essentially screenshots. What if I go to a site that uses a lot of javascript like gmail?
I think I will stick to safari, it works fine for the most part. - zang74, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5Opera Mini isn't even technically a web browser because it renders OBML, not HTML. Everything on Opera Mini goes through Opera's proxy servers, making it one HUGE SECURITY VECTOR for any and everything viewed in it's windows, even stuff over SSL. That makes it a very big liability for Apple and a single point of infiltration should someone hack Opera's proxy servers.
- BrendanSheehan, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5"Whenever Apple does something evil, some Apple fans come out in denial of that and try to refute that. Kind of like scientologists."
Actually the fanboys are usually the first ones to cry bloody murder. Do you remember the iPhone NDA crap? Apple fans gave out so much Apple dropped it. - Myztry, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4I think it's fair that Apple choices what they keep in their store. They own it.
They do not own the physical iPhone. They have sold the item for it to be used by the consumer, and with that comes 'fair use'. It is reasonable to expect to be able to chose the manner in which a commodity item is used, within it's capabilities.
What is anti-competitive isn't the store itself. It's the requirement to buy through that store, and only that store. The laws that are meant to protect competition and disallow abuse of monopolies. Only a governing body can rightfully hold a monopoly least it cedes it's power.
The practice of selling items (even under cost) to deliberately mislead the consumer as to the 'real' price of an item, forcing extra expenditure in order to prevent the item becoming useless and thus worthless needs to be explicitly outlawed.
The practice is becoming all too common with digital media / consumable reliant products, under the guise of a 'business model'. There is not an undeniable right to run a business, or enforce a 'business model'. The license allowing a business to operate can, and in some cases should, be removed if laws aren't complied with.
Sorry, but anti-competitive behavior is not an acceptable or justifiable business model. - apophenic, on 11/03/2008, -3/+7Haha on what grounds exactly would they sue them? Seriously, it's Apple's store, they decide what goes into it.
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4Its not a "right", but there are anti-trust laws on the books that may not permit this degree of selectivity that Apple is currently employing as being legal for such an agreement. And mind you, while people normally associate anti-trust with literal monopoly, there is no basis for this association, it only deals with the context of the agreements.
- r3zonance, on 11/03/2008, -2/+6"this browser is awesome"
Opera Mini is okay, as long as you don't mind Opera's servers having access to your banking/personal information when you use SSL (as their proxies are actually connecting to the internet). - gelatina1996, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4iFlawless Victory. iFatality.
- apophenic, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3"Don't like it, don't support it."
How... REASONABLE! - MacParrot, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Oh I really don't care if they digg me down. Most of the people whining about it don't own an iPhone (even most of those that claim they do).
I still haven't bought one for reason beyond all this nonsense (storage). When it gets to where I want it, then I'll probably get one but I'm not holding my breathe or throwing a tantrum because Apple isn't doing some thing I'd like them to do. - DatVillain83, on 11/03/2008, -3/+6this browser is awesome. it's quite competitive against Safari, i think. I tried it as an alternative to my PSP browser, which is ***** overall, but that's an entire other story but that just goes to say Opera Mini can operate on just about any mobile device. It's really worth a try if you haven't already dismissed it.
- MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Oh, MacParrot, come on now...
Don't be bringin' all that logic, reason, and capitalism to Digg...you're just gonna get dugg down :P - rimantas, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3You do not read Gruber either. STFU.
- MacParrot, on 11/03/2008, -3/+6Sooooooo then don't buy an iPhone ( like I didn't)? It's called choice. If you know company A does things in a certain way (the reasons why they do it are unimportant), then choose products from company B.
For the record, you can go do whatever you want with the iPhone and Apple won't say boo. Just don't expect them to support you or fix/replace your phone if you screw it up. - MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4@Elranzer:
And that's officially supported by MicroSoft right?
Oh, wait... - hmar2, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Yes but I am still not sure where we stand legally on this issue. The iPhone itself cannot be called a monopoly, it is still only a drop in the bucket as far as cell phones go. I don't particularly like the lockin of the iPhone, therefor I don't own one. It may be just that simple. Don't like it, don't support it.
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -3/+6So rather than all these "it was or wasn't submitted" then lets submit it
- Myztry, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Not the OS itself, but rather the OEM licensing 'Agreement'.
In essence it was about blackmailing OEM's to supply and charge for Windows on every PC, OR none at all. A requirement which made competitive substitution non-viable.
I think racketeering, as it was in essence a protection racket, would have been more suitable.
Corporate crimes that become mere entries on a balance sheet, don't provide half the deterrent that jail time would to the executive masterminds responsible. - Myztry, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2cmf2 - fair use. Though I think the US Government might have auctioned that off.
Australians can legally install modchips. It provides 'fair use' and overcomes anti-competitive practices like zone locking, use of legal home brew software, etc.
Sony discovered that the hard way. Not all countries are corrupt, and grant consumer inalienable rights such as fair use which can't be taken away by anything less than actual law. - djrbx, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Kind of a self plug you got there don't you think? Although I admit and agree that Opera Mini is based on the Java ME platform, I do not think it would be too hard for them to port it over to Objective C/C++. In the end, it still all boils down to Apple not approving the software because they see it as competition to their Safari browser.
- MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3@FrostyFire:
Sure they COULD distribute via Cydia. But that would require a jailbroken iPhone, no?
Most people do not want to jailbreak their iPhone, and want stuff (free or otherwise) directly from the officially-supported App Store.
Hence my comment that Opera wanted to make an iPhone version (jailbroken) of their browser, I do, in fact, feel that the AppStore would stop them...
Just as it stops every jailbroken-requiring app. - rimantas, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2I think you mean Opera Mobile, not Opera Mini.
- MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -2/+3"...do you think the AppStore would stop them?"
Yes. Yes, I do. - Elranzer, on 11/03/2008, -2/+3"Since when has running third-party software on a platform been a RIGHT?"
Proof positive that there is such a thing as Apple kool-aid. - Myztry, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1The right of fair use exists extensively under Australian legislation in relation to consumer law and trade practices.
Our law making is quite different in that we don't have the corruption brokering center for the Corporate 'lobbyist' - manogamez, on 11/03/2008, -2/+3"My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers" - Nice sources
And this is a dupe from yesterday. - lornali, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Doesn't matter.
- MacParrot, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Is lurking victor different from victor?
(Harvey? Is that you?) - jazzviolin, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Gruber isn't a fanboy. He's the source.
- brettgian, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1It is good thing if the Opera Mini is not rejected however the news I have heard from here: http://iphonetouchscreen.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/ ... which was annoncing that Apple has rejected Opera Mini for iPhone.
- apophenic, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, I am. gj
- agentlame, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2At first I though your username was 'apathetic', and you were being clever.
But, it's not... and you're a troll. - MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1You're correct.
I'm as much an Apple "fan boy" as you can get (I only use Macs at home, school, and work)...and I am the first to shout when they ***** up.
Why is that? Because I know them so well that I can tell immediately tell when they ***** up...a digg story about it is not necessary. - MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Allegedly.
- MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1The hilllls are aliiiive....with the sound of muusssiiiiiiic!
- FrostyFire, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1Read what I wrote in my response to your first comment. Opera is not a well known browser, hell Opera Mini is pretty unknown in general except to the tech-savvy's who are more than likely jailbreaking their phones anyway. Most people who don't want to jailbreak their phone won't have any interest in using a different browser, end of story.
- r3zonance, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1"Its not a 'right', but there are anti-trust laws on the books that may not permit this degree of selectivity that Apple is currently employing as being legal for such an agreement."
True, but anti-trust laws are there to prevent a monopoly from abusing their position. Does Apple have a monopoly on the mobile phone market?
No, they don't!! They have around 1-2% of the mobile market. - scarwars, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1get back to lurking victor.
- MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1Wow, tech history fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr ... - iofthestorm, on 11/03/2008, -2/+2Probably because that one made the front page yesterday, and the submitter was paid by this site to get it to the front page.
- MtheoryX, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1"they should go hand in hand"
So strange...
I was just thinking that about you and arsenic. - FrostyFire, on 11/03/2008, -2/+2Opera would be free anyway, so they could distribute it through Cydia. Anyone who even knows what Opera/Opera Mini is has jailbroken their phone anyway.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is