Originally Posted by wmarone

NPR does not have advertising on their website. Please educate yourself before making such comments.

Originally Posted by ysss

I don't see the iPad 'replacing' the internet at this point.

I do see (and agree) that the iPad (+eco system) is seen by the 'conventional' media companies as a way to deliver their (paper) content in the 'digital age' way, while still retaining their controls and potentially getting revenues off it.

But, what's the problem with this? It only happens in Apple's gated community anyway (for now). They cannot implement this on the web.

Seems like a sensationalist article.

Originally Posted by juise-

As for the Internet... I don't think so. At least until big media houses start buying ISPs.

Originally Posted by wmarone

The problem is cited in the segment I quoted. It is not merely that it happens in Apple's gated community, but that others may see Apple's route as a successful idea and implement equally closed ecosystems.

We can, in a way, see that with WP7 which (unless MS does a 180 in the next few months) will be equally closed. This would likely be backed up by demands from media companies of those who wish to carry their content, and relying on public inertia and apathy (or ignorance?) to carry it. The ultimate worry is where such a situation would steer modern personal computing technology.

Personally, I don't enjoy the thought of having to effectively give up ownership of my hardware to stay up to date with the news. For now I'm content to criticize and work against Apple's closed platform.

Hardly. It voices a concern the rest of the media is more than happy to brush under the carpet. After all, -they're- absolutely gung ho about a closed system that makes it really easy to extract payments from everyone. They'd love it if that were the new way of interacting with "The Web" and the -only- way. The new TV, per se.

Originally Posted by ysss

I don't understand this point. If it turns out to be something that those media companies want, then Apple has created a solution to a certain problem that they have; which they will probably heavily profit from.

What would the ideal outcome for you, to those media companies' problem then? Let them go on their negative trajectory?

Wish for a more 'open' (?) solution to their problem? What's stopping that?

But some people take this stance to the extreme where they think it's their ***'s given right that they have full access to things in their possession that they're familiar with the innerworkings with.

They don't take into account the convoluted world of codes licensing (wanting source to binary blobs too?)

Originally Posted by wmarone

Simple: if it is successful enough they'll demand that anyone else who wants access implement an equally controlled and closed system. No better way to ensure your audience than to deny them alternatives (where alternatives are anything outside the mass-media.)

Personally, I'd prefer if most of the major media outlets weren't controlled by a whole six companies, but that's a matter of (brace yourselves) regulation, and an entire topic unto itself.

Because they have no interest in finding a more "open" solution. They'd rather lobby and whine about how their existing business model is being rendered non-functional. Apple gives them a form of control over the "new" model and, if successful, will likely be demanded from anyone else who wants access.

Are you seriously suggesting that people don''t have the right to do what they wish with their property? You are, and you're also suggesting that DRM, lockdown, and remote killswitches are justifiable. Maybe we should weld the hood on your car shut, and send you to prison for telling others how to open it?

Convoluted, yes, and needlessly so. Preferably there would be no binary blobs, which are the biggest hindrance to doing some ports for the N900 at the moment.

I'm trying to get why you (and others) are so confused that people might not want to have their experiences and property controlled so tightly by corporations, with obvious profit motives that run counter to their own best interests.