Dan Cameron - Latest Comments

Re: Display a loading image until the page completes loading

Johncena C88 — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:49:58 -0000

Not Working Properly. Loading completed image don't hide

Re: Display a loading image until the page completes loading

Ashish Jindal — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:19:47 -0000

Nice work, Thanks :)

Re: Kindle Touch

sell electronics for cash — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:52:24 -0000

Kindle touch actually is much easier to operate when
held in the left hand. You can page forward and backward with tap or
swipe. Cool tablet.

Re: Linux vs. Mac

Keeg64 — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:02:26 -0000

Yes, exactly. I love to tinker with my linux. Had to find drivers online for some of the hardware I have. But if I were to get a mac it wouldn't be as fun. With a linux I can say, this is mine! I'll do what I want with it! Compatable with many different pieces of hardware incase i wanted to build from components. But with a mac i couldn't do that. No tinkering, no saying this is mine. Its very draconian, they do have you locked in. Always having to go back to the mac stor for special cables...

Re: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocal

JB — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:53:42 -0000

Best movie review post yet

Re: Creating OS X Leopard Install on a USB Drive or iPod

Bananqs — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:52 -0000

Installation took 24 min. :-)

Re: Apple gives Samsung some work-around options for its iPhone and iPad design patents

JB — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 01:11:09 -0000

So ridiculous

Re: Daring Fireball Linked List: The Rise in Android Malware

insitedesignlab — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:04:53 -0000

I agree. Of course there's going to be a lot of Malware in a market that anyone can submit to. I've had my android phone for almost 2 years and never once had a problem with Malware. That being said I've also been virus free on my windows machine for 3+ years. I suppose I'm just a power user, but I definitely agree that just because people submit malware doesn't mean all android phones are infected.

Re: Holding Sway

JB — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:48:20 -0000

I can't reply at the same thread level, so maybe that's a sign that it is a good idea to wrap this up. :-) I'll keep it brief.

In terms of the contradiction between their behind the scenes plans and their public positions on topics, I still believe that the video iPod and app store are relevant examples of this. Products take a while to develop, and given the timing between when the statements were made / reinforced and when the products that contradicted them were announced, it's a fairly widely held opinion (not a fringe idea of mine) that Apple would have been working on them during that time.

The independent music issue is a core one to the proof of their desire / intent to use DRM. You keep trying to wrap it in to the timeline relative to the other labels, but the important question keeps getting neglected: if they truly didn't like DRM, then why was indie music *ever* forced to have DRM? Them *eventually* allowing it to be optional (after the deal with EMI) doesn't prove much to me, since (if it were true that they didn't like DRM) they could have done that (for indie music at least) at any point in time *before* that. They didn't. Lending more credibility to the theory that their easing off on DRM was in response to external market pressure to do so, not an internal desire on their part. There's no other reason why indie music wasn't DRM-free (at least as an option) long *before* that time.

In summary -

To boil it down to the most basic point: the most compelling evidence as to whether Apple favored DRM or not is very simple: they used it, and they continue to do so. In other words, at the most basic level, *the simplest explanation for why they use DRM is because they want to*.

If they (and / or you) want to try to make a case for something more complicated (that they used / use it even though they *didn't* want to), I think the burden of proof lies with the one trying to make that case.

As evidence to *that question* (whether they wanted DRM or not), you essentially have two conflicting things to weigh: what they said (clearly anti-DRM) and what they actually did (clearly pro-DRM). I lend more weight to the "what they did" side of that argument, and that's how I draw my conclusion on this matter.

Re: Creating OS X Leopard Install on a USB Drive or iPod

Will Wenzel — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:45:09 -0000

so convert it into a dmg file on your hard drive.

Re: Holding Sway

dancameron — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:20:10 -0000

I'll leave it at this:

I'm just trying to show you that the examples you use to base your _negative_ opinions on include a lot of assumption and to the point where it becomes circular.

For example, you assumed Apple didn't try to get non-DRM in the iTunes store before Amazon but they did with EMI. Then you mention indie music as a rebut, even though indie labels were able to use DRM free music shortly after EMI had DRM-free tunes. You're biggest point is they could have renegotiated with the labels to get DRM free music long before they actually did; instead of disregarding that *perceived* non-action, since whatever they were doing wasn't public, you're using it as major point of contention.

There's reasons behind each one of your arguments but I don't think you're giving them their due credit. A good example is how you think Jobs' letter was a marketing message to apease it's customers, something completely unfounded because it had never been done before. You're reasoning behind not believing what was said in a long letter about the topic is one response to an interview when he said "It's all about the music..." and later said "we're focused on music" after a question about an iPod that does video: the fact that a video iPod was released a year later doesn't mean they were "hard at work" on it, nor does it hold the same weight as a hundred+ public letter. Yes, the denial of an iPod video is simply good business strategy (not marketing), it's standard not to hype a future unreleased gadget while you have it's predecessor on store shelves. An open letter to the record labels complaining about DRM restrictions may be a business strategy in the long run but Apple looses nothing if they/Jobs' doesn't write a letter. Publics approval? Yeah right, the company that's said to be so idealistic they don't release products the public thinks they want.

Another example of why don't trust that letter is how Apple pushed web apps as the iPhones SDK saying there was no SDK for native apps, only to later release a full SDK for native apps the next year. Again, I don't agree that this has the same weight as the public letter but I'm mentioning it because it's a great example of how the lack of information and the mystery Apple places on themselves creates fuel for negative opinion.

Maybe Apple should be more forthcoming in their intentions but in this case they actually were, they tried to do web apps and were later convinced to do something else[1]. It's not a matter of Apple lying, it's a matter of Apple making the right decision instead of sticking to the wrong one.

Again, if there's no trust in Apple's publicly release intentions or beliefs on a matter (DRM, Flash, etc.) than there's no reason to assume the worst.

[1] Jobs pushed web apps because that's what he believed in, he constantly referenced Google for making web apps, it wasn't until after the launch of the iPhone and a lot of convincing by Schiller that he agreed to release an SDK and the app store was created. This is from his bio, google it.

Re: Holding Sway

JB — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:34:18 -0000

[ I'm re-posting this one, since the lack of paragraph breaks made it very difficult to read. Hopefully you can delete the other one and possibly edit this part out ]

I think you might be misrepresenting what I said a bit here; I never
claimed that aspects of this story that were my opinion were actually
"fact". What I did do was present what I feel is the most *logical
conclusion* based on the evidence. I'm certainly open to other
interpretations, but I haven't yet seen one that's more convincing.

I
do concede that the timing is more detailed than I initially remembered
or described above, but it remains true that the majority of iTunes
music was *forced* to have DRM (including independent, non-big-four
music) until well after Amazon released their DRM-free store. It was
also a fairly widely (though not universally) held opinion / observation
at the time that iTunes was following Amazon's lead or responding to
their move in that regard - it's not just a wild theory that I'm making
up myself as an anti-Apple whacko.

Again, I *do* discount statements they
made publicly, because they don't line up with what they actually *did*
at the time (or currently, in my opinion). The most logical explanation
(*IMHO*, of course - it will get old having to clarify that every time)
for why they'd release a statement *saying* that they don't like DRM is
that they want to please consumers. They recognized that for the most
part, anyone who is aware of the concept of DRM dislikes it, so rather
than even trying to "sell" it as a good thing, they wanted to be
perceived as being "on the side" of the consumer on that issue.

When you
compare that against what they actually did, however, it becomes clear
that it doesn't line up, and reveals what is (most logically) their real
feelings towards DRM. Again, if they were so against DRM, why did it
take them so long to negotiate DRM free deals compared to Amazon?

BTW,
Apple making public statements that *directly contradict* how they're
*actually running their business* behind the scenes is *nothing new*.
Steve (and the company) said that no one would want video on an iPod,
during a time when (in hindsight) they obviously were already hard at
work developing that very product, and would soon announce it. Same goes
with native apps on the iPhone. So *please* don't act like Apple making
a statement that is *totally untrue or inconsistent with what they're
actually doing* is such a far reach - it isn't.

Even if you want to blame
the DRM on the pressure from the big four labels as a part of their
licensing, that doesn't explain why *all* the music, including that
released from independent parties that had *nothing* to do with the
labels was still forced to have DRM. That was even the case *after* they
did the no-DRM deal with the big four. There is a very simple
explanation for that (mine - they wanted DRM). Please feel free to offer
another story that explains the facts in this paragraph.

Then (assuming
you attempt to make up a story that explains that away) take a step
back and look at how many assumptions you have to make in order to
formulate a story that fits with your desire to justify Apple's actions
and reconcile them to their statements, and contrast that with the much
more simple explanation that I am pointing to, based strictly on an
observation of what they've done. Occam's razor.

Lastly, I'll understand
if you want to stick to discussing DRM only as it applies to music, and
not software. While I (of course) think it's bad in both arenas for
*exactly* the same reasons, I can certainly understand why you'd want to
separate them and support one but not the other. Since Apple is *so
clearly* fully behind software DRM, it would be very difficult for you
to argue a position that they don't like DRM (in music) unless you
separate them (artificially, IMHO). With my argument, on the other hand,
the explanation is (again) much more simple / obvious: their position
on software DRM is totally and thoroughly consistent with their position
on DRM in general.

If you do want to further discuss their
software DRM, however, I'm certainly game. It's interesting to know that
you "like" it, and I'm curious to know why, more specifically why you
"like" it for software but (presumably) don't for music, in a way that
isn't an inconsistent stretch.

While it's great that some
developers also "like" it (just like the record labels did), I'm not
quite sure that's selling me on anything. It's my understanding that (on
iOS apps) DRM is still *mandatory*. If they were only trying to satisfy
the desires of devs who wanted it, they could make it optional. Hmm,
wonder why they don't do that...

But even in the cases where it
would be optional (as I understand it is in the Mac app store), you
definitely can't blame that on the developers wanting it. If Apple has
made any point regarding their stores perfectly clear, it's that they
can and will dictate the terms of how it works and what gets in there
with an iron fist. They are not exactly easily influenced by external
desires (devs or otherwise) in terms of how they run things, so if they
*really* didn't want DRM (and this goes for iTunes across the board -
apps and music - now and in the past) they could have "just said no" and
stuck to their guns, just like they've done on many other occasions
when it comes to enforcing their policies (the ones they *actually*
believe in, as opposed to the ones they only claim to).

Re: Holding Sway

dancameron — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:38:02 -0000

I updated that last part a little to make it easier to understand.

Also, I forgot to mention that you don't have to agree with what they said publicly but if you're judging their stance on DRM because of what Amazon was able to do early is silly. There's obviously more to it than that, much of which has already been hashed out but I'm curious as to what they are in brief points.

Here are mine:

* Only until recently has DRM been applied to any of their software, items that they solely control the delivery of and would not be tied to any other party's term/contract
** Apple only until Lion had DRM on their OS (when purchased through the App Store, not sure about hard copy purchases)** All of Apple's software doesn't include DRM (unless delivered through the App Store), other than their "Pro" apps like Final Cut, etc..

The whole software DRM is highly debatable because I agree with it for the most part and I'm sure all the developers in the store like it too.

The way they implemented it shows that they continue to care about experience since their DRM isn't heavy handed (single seat restriction) and unless you're trying to steal an app you shouldn't even know it's there.

Re: Holding Sway

dancameron — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:36:59 -0000

Do you not see that you're making assumptions about what you think happened since there's no fact? To disregard their public statements because of some notion that they didn't try hard enough is not "logical". I don't get why you're trying to say your opinion is fact. I'll concede that what you're saying is your opinion but you're speaking as though it's fact, fact derived from not believing publicly released information.

I glossed over the Amazon stuff earlier but I didn't think it was right and based on Wikipedia it isn't.

Job's letter was released in Feb. 2007
The first DRM free songs came out in April of '07 - http://www.apple.com/pr/librar...
Amazon's music store was release in September - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

So for you to allude that Apple didn't want DRM free music in the store until after Amazon is factually inaccurate.

I remember reading this a long time ago and there's a ton of other articles that knew a lot more about the conditions than the anti-apple sites at the time. http://www.wired.com/entertain...

It's simple:

* Record labels wanted DRM and Apple agreed[1]
* Apple created a goliath in the iPod
* Apple didn't want DRM and made it public[2]
* Apple somehow got EMI to agree to non-DRM, probably because of competitive reasons over the other labels
* Amazon brought the labels together to fight iTunes, the competitive advantage given was DRM

Logically you could (I do) determine that the reason Apple was able to bring DRM free music to it's entire library was because of renegotiated terms because Amazon now had a competitive advantage[4].

I think it's careless to think [because Amazon had all the labels a year+ before iTunes Apple didn't want to allow DRM free music] -- especially since they already had months before Amazon and publicly said they didn't want DRM months before that.

[1] - "When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," ...
[2] - Jobs' letter
[3] - http://www.wired.com/entertain...
[4] I will say that I doubt iTunes would have gone DRM free in Jan. of '09 if it weren't for Amazon.

Re: Green Lantern

dancameron — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:56:34 -0000

Yeah, I posted this review right after the movie. So I'll adjust it but even at 84% it's still not a great review. I also don't like discerning movies that I like or enjoy, that's why I tend to rate them like a school grade where 3.8-5 are movies I liked, 3.5-3.7 is meh and anything lower was bad and there's a lot of room to show how much I didn't like it.

Re: Green Lantern

nstryker — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:46:07 -0000

are the stars our of 5 or 10? if out of 5, 4.2 is a lot for "pretty good"/"i'd watch it again". so the difference between this and casabanca is .8 stars?

Re: Holding Sway

JB — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:58:27 -0000

On the contrary; it's the most logical conclusion that Apple was in favor of DRM, based strictly on what they actually did (and when). What they *said* their opinion of DRM was means nothing, since it doesn't line up with their actions.

If you want to say the timing is only off because of the time it took to make the deals with the labels, that doesn't wash either. I'm sure it took Amazon a while to negotiate those deals too, but Apple was already an established player in that space before Amazon even thought about it. Given that, and their *supposed* anti-DRM stance, plus the fact that Apple would have had tremendously more negotiating leverage than Amazon based on their established position at the time (and earlier) there is *no* logical reason that Apple didn't make the no DRM deals with the labels *first* - before Amazon.

The obvious explanation is they didn't *want* to pursue that no DRM model until Amazon essentially called them out by doing it first. Even then, they still made no-DRM more expensive, another clear indication of their true preference, because again, there's no way that Amazon was in a better position to negotiate a cheaper price for DRM-free sales than Apple.

Re: Green Lantern

ReedSolomon — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:25:55 -0000

I don't get why it got such a bad rap. I think people were hoping for more from DC though. And Green Lantern was a bit of a letdown compared to the source material at least.

Re: Green Lantern

JB — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:10:28 -0000

Looks like it's on Amazon Instant; I will check it out.

Re: Green Lantern

JB — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0000

Yeah, I will eventually watch this, but probably not until I can stream it from somewhere for "free" or cheap (NF or Amazon); i'll have to check if it's there yet.

Re: Holding Sway

dancameron — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:31:31 -0000

I think it's pretty obvious your opinion about what happened and the facts don't jive, you're assuming a lot -- including that Jobs lied to everyone in his open letter and Apple is dishonest. You're also assuming that when Amazon got their music deals Apple's terms with the labels would change immediately.

Re: Holding Sway

JB — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:22:24 -0000

Taking a temporary break from the Guber-fast to mention that I can't believe he's still trying to sell this story about Apple hating DRM.

He forgot the part about them not making DRM-free available until after Amazon released their DRM-free music store. But yeah, I'm sure that was totally a timing coincidence :-)
Then there's also the part where (long before that point) they required DRM even on music from independent artists (whether they wanted it or not) that weren't bound by the terms of the major labels. But yeah, they've always hated DRM. Sure. :-)

And lastly, when they later released their own market (for iOS apps) that was totally under their control, from beginning to end, with no outside influence from labels, etc., I'm sure they were relieved to not have to be "forced" to add DRM, since they hated it so much. Oh wait...

Re: 1and1 scams

Unhappy User — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:10:50 -0000

We had similar experiences with 1and1, very poor service. On one one ocasion they were going to turn us off a when something went wrong, without offering solutions/support and on they are also advertising themselves as UK hosts on TV when they are clearly hosted in germany: http://www.server-centre.net/b...

Re: Google, Why Don’t You Hang On To That Gmail App For A While? | TechCrunch

JB — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:16:41 -0000

:-) I was just joking about the language because I think it sucks; I'm sure Google would have no problem hiring good iOS developers if they really wanted to.

My point with mentioning the iTunes thing was that I think the explanation for both (the lack of quality in the Google iOS apps, and the lack of an Android iTunes altogether) is the same.

Re: Google, Why Don’t You Hang On To That Gmail App For A While? | TechCrunch

dancameron — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0000

Comparing Apple not making Android apps to Google making crappy iOS apps is funny to me, since Apple isn't even trying on other platforms (except iTunes on Windows but that's only so their devices will work) but Google is _trying_.

If they suck at developing iOS apps because of the language it's their own fault, they can hire an outside company that knows the tools or they can hire someone. It's like you're saying the people that build the Android apps are the ones tasked to build iOS apps too, they have to be separate teams, only they don't care to hire good enough people in the iOS department.