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

On 9/3/2011 8:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
Yep. Perfect example of how frakking stupid the patent system has 
gotten. If we did someone like dropping minimum wage laws, and a few 
other things, to place us on the same "economic" status as the places we 
buy shit from, the next thing we would have to do is let all the drug 
dealers out of jail, so that we would put half the rest of the country 
in there, based on "patent infringement", as everyone tried to invent 
solutions to problems, instead of buying stuff they couldn't afford any 
more.

After all, you can hardly expect companies to make profits, if everyone 
can just create what ever they want, for cheap, instead of buying, 
without any money to do so, patented products, from corporations. lol

Sorry, mixing threads here, but this truly is a major pain in the ass. 
There is a reason why half the games on the market are made with other 
people's game engines. And its not because they are the "best" engines. 
Its because, even if you wanted to create one, you would have to slog 
through 900 patents, to make sure that you didn't step on anyone's toes, 
and then you would end up with total crap as a result, if you didn't pay 
royalties some place. The "tech industry" is this, multiplied by several 
orders. And stupid BS like, "We need more money, to let you use that!", 
is why.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> On 09/03/2011 01:02 AM, Stephen wrote:
> > So I bought one anyway.
>
> Cool ... a new toy, that's always fun. Enjoy!
>

Yes, I've been playing with it this last couple of days. I like the screen and
audio output is okay too. You can listen to music or an audio book without
headphones. The ebook reader with its lager screen than a Sony is good too.
There is a certain tactile pleasure in using it.


> I particularly like the zoom feature ... thumb and index finger, then
> either diagonally close or open the gap.

I've got an iphone and have come to expext that. ;-)

> Also Dragon Dictation is a
> /must/ have application.

Aye, richt ma loon. Dae ye think it c'd cope wi me, ye ken? :-D

Having said that I think that my wife will like it as it's just too big and not
powerful enough for me to use. :-(

Post a reply to this message