On 9/2/2011 8:49 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 11:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 9:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:53:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/1/2011 8:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps
>>>>> distributed
>>>>> through the app store
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty much industry standard for all the app stores, including
>>>> Microsoft and Android.
>>>
>>> I don't think so, but my sample size is one at present. (It's standard
>>> for the app itself, not the paid content - the paid content is what I'm
>>> talking about).
>>
>> Google takes a 30% cut of sales on the app store. Microsoft takes a 30%
>> cut of sales on XBox indy games and Win7 phones. Amazon takes a 30% cut
>> of books you publish on the Kindle.
>>
> But, that isn't the issue. The issue what that, to use the "in-app"
> purchase, Amazon would take a 30% cut, but then Apple would take another
> 30%, since you where buying via *their* app store. So, in actuality, you
> would be paying like 60% extra, not 30%.
>
> Think of it like an ATM transaction fee, the way they worked before
> banks mostly stopped charging their own customers. You would pay say 50
> cents to use the ATM *at all*, then another $1-$5, because you didn't
> just use the ATM card, you used "someone else's" ATM. In this case, you
> would be *required* to do all transactions for books via the Apple app,
> or even store, which would tack on 30%, but since the place you where
> *buying from* was Amazon, they would need to tack on another 30%, for
> their profit, and the result would be that, for a $1 book, you would be
> charged a 30 cent "transaction fee" by Apple, and then another 30 cents,
> by Amazon, for the actual profit they need to make from the purchase.
> Your $1 book is now $1.60. Now, make that a $10 book, and its not $3
> extra, but $6, and so on. Yet, if you bought the same book from Apple,
> it would only be $3.
>
> Not sure why even having such a thing isn't illegal as hell, since I
> can't see it much different than if two businesses opened, both charging
> $5 for a pie, but one of them went and hired goons, to stand on the
> street and charge you an extra $1 to walk to the end of the street,
> where the other store was located, to buy the same $5 pie. Try that any
> place, but online, and you would have your ass handed to you...

As a side note, we even had this discussion recently with one of those 
"libertarian" types, in the form of, "What keeps someone, in your 
magical libertopia from buying everything around your house, including 
the privatized roads, and then stating that they will simply shoot you 
for trespassing, if you step on their land?" 3 days of hand waving 
later, we are still waiting for him to explain the non-governmental 
solution to this one. lol

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > But it boils down to this - do you want an appliance, or do you want a
> > general purpose computing device.
>
>   If you want a general-purpose computer, why don't you buy a laptop?
> You'll be able to do a lot more with it than with a tablet. Many modern
> laptops aren't even significantly heavier or larger either, so it's not
> even a question of portability.
>

Maybe I should give you my answer. I have an i7 laptop that I carry with me when
I am travelling it weighs about 5.5 lbs. And I need to carry my works laptop as
well (6.5 lbs). Add the power supplies and stuff to that and it is about 5~6 kg
hanging on my shoulder, for hours. But you are right an iPad type tablet is no
substitution for computing power. So I bought one anyway.
I hope my wife likes it :-)
Really, I just wanted to spend some money after 3 months of two weeks in a
desert then one week working 12:00 to 20:00. With 24 hours travelling inbetween.

>   The iPad is not a laptop. It's a portable multimedia device which also
> doubles as a pretty decent game console (it is, in fact, surprisingly
> powerful at running games, even heavy 3D ones). It also has an incredible
> battery life (which most portable devices can only dream of).
>

Yeah! That is why I hope Regan will like it. And it is shiny O_O.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:49:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> But, that isn't the issue. The issue what that, to use the "in-app"
> purchase, Amazon would take a 30% cut, but then Apple would take another
> 30%, since you where buying via *their* app store. So, in actuality, you
> would be paying like 60% extra, not 30%.

Except that, of course, you're not buying via *their* app store - because 
Kindle/Nook/etc do in-app purchases through *their* store.  Apple isn't 
providing anything but the hardware the purchase is being made on.

And the way they've worked around it is to do it via the web, figuring 
that Apple can't add a charge in for something that's purchased through a 
web page.  And Apple is probably trying to figure out a way to do just 
that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EkCdK6bUls

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBWrMQVsuak

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8r0xbou9Ho

  (Also an "it's that voice!" experience if you have played a certain game.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> As a side note, we even had this discussion recently with one of those 
> "libertarian" types, in the form of, "What keeps someone, in your 
> magical libertopia from buying everything around your house, including 
> the privatized roads, and then stating that they will simply shoot you 
> for trespassing, if you step on their land?" 3 days of hand waving 
> later, we are still waiting for him to explain the non-governmental 
> solution to this one. lol

  Those anarchist dreamers who envision a micronation with no government
and no regulations always amuse me. They only see problems with governments,
never the fact that a government is actually a requirement for a working
society.

  Without regulations and a police force to enforce them, the system becomes
a chaos. It becomes a chaos even if every single citizen is a good-willing
hippie who wouldn't harm a fly. (For example building regulations are
necessary to avert or at least diminish the effects of natural disasters.
You can't stop those with just positive thinking.)

  Also a military, or at the very least military agreements with a strong
neighboring country, are unfortunately a necessity. If you are an independent
micronation with no military and with no connections to any other country,
what stops a country like China or North Korea suddenly deciding that they
want your micronation? You are defenseless.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2011 23:15, Warp wrote:
>    Those anarchist dreamers who envision a micronation with no government
> and no regulations always amuse me.

About the only time it works is when the "nation" is *so* small that 
everyone knows everyone else, like with aboriginal tribes. As soon as you 
get to the point where you don't personally know everyone you interact with, 
you need some intermediary.

And of course, the people against government don't realize even in a 
situation like that, there are rules and regulations. They're just expressed 
as "societal expectations."

> micronation with no military and with no connections to any other country,

I'm always amused by that, when someone says "well, let's just buy a small 
island and make it legal there to sell meth and violate any copyrights we want."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/3/2011 8:56 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 23:15, Warp wrote:
>> Those anarchist dreamers who envision a micronation with no government
>> and no regulations always amuse me.
>
> About the only time it works is when the "nation" is *so* small that
> everyone knows everyone else, like with aboriginal tribes. As soon as
> you get to the point where you don't personally know everyone you
> interact with, you need some intermediary.
>
> And of course, the people against government don't realize even in a
> situation like that, there are rules and regulations. They're just
> expressed as "societal expectations."
>
Yeah, his most recent example was Madagascar deciding to protect its 
forests, instead of destroying them. And how big is Madagascar? lol

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2011 9:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:49:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> But, that isn't the issue. The issue what that, to use the "in-app"
>> purchase, Amazon would take a 30% cut, but then Apple would take another
>> 30%, since you where buying via *their* app store. So, in actuality, you
>> would be paying like 60% extra, not 30%.
>
> Except that, of course, you're not buying via *their* app store - because
> Kindle/Nook/etc do in-app purchases through *their* store.  Apple isn't
> providing anything but the hardware the purchase is being made on.
>
No, Kindle/Nook use a web page that "looks" like an "in-app" store, 
because Apple's patent is on using "in-app" purchasing, and thus they 
would have had to go through "Apple" to sell to the customer. Its 
basically the whole "Amazon patented being able to click on button, to 
buy shit on the website", all over again.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 17:08:56 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 9/2/2011 9:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:49:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> But, that isn't the issue. The issue what that, to use the "in-app"
>>> purchase, Amazon would take a 30% cut, but then Apple would take
>>> another 30%, since you where buying via *their* app store. So, in
>>> actuality, you would be paying like 60% extra, not 30%.
>>
>> Except that, of course, you're not buying via *their* app store -
>> because Kindle/Nook/etc do in-app purchases through *their* store. 
>> Apple isn't providing anything but the hardware the purchase is being
>> made on.
>>
> No, Kindle/Nook use a web page that "looks" like an "in-app" store,
> because Apple's patent is on using "in-app" purchasing, and thus they
> would have had to go through "Apple" to sell to the customer. Its
> basically the whole "Amazon patented being able to click on button, to
> buy shit on the website", all over again.

Yes, that's the way it is now.  Until Apple decided they wanted 30% of 
"in app content purchases", they had it implemented in the app itself 
rather than just going through a web connection.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/03/2011 01:02 AM, Stephen wrote:
> So I bought one anyway.

Cool ... a new toy, that's always fun. Enjoy!

I particularly like the zoom feature ... thumb and index finger, then 
either diagonally close or open the gap. Also Dragon Dictation is a 
/must/ have application.

Post a reply to this message