The Glade 4.0

Coro's unusually illogical reasoning for this is the circular "tablets are not the appropriate device for peer to peer file transfer because Apple disallows them." This is not because of "design priority" as it takes Apple no effort for someone else to write a p2p app for them and them to rubber stamp it. This is about Apple trying to tell users appropriate uses for hardware. Coro drinks the Apple koolaid. "Tablets aren't an appropriate device," why, exactly? Android can do it. Win8 tablets can. My PHONE can. All just as easily and efficiently as a computer, which belies this bizarre analogy he gave me about using a hammer to drive in a screw. Computer devices do computer functions, regardless of how mobile they are. The hardware in a tablet is no less powerful than the hardware in a laptop. (Not that BitTorrent requires any hardware capabilities that weren't already in every computer 15 years ago.) They are the same thing. Besides, the purpose and function of BitTorrent is identical to the purpose and function of iTunes...maybe we should remove iTunes from the tablet, too? That, of course, is why Apple blocks it...they want iTunes to be your only source of content on the iPad.

BitTorrent was just one of many complaints I've had about this experience.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Actually, no. The purpose of Bittorrent is to facilitate massively parallel data transfers. What you want to do with a tablet is just small file transfers. I spent a month seeding some torrents from my linux box at work. When all was said and done, I had distributed about 1.5TB of data. My linux box was always on, and always seeding, basically directly connected to a large Internet backbone. Now, I wasn't seeding the most popular of files. Had I seeded something like an Ubuntu distribution, I probably could have blown away that 1.5TB number. Still, in order to achieve something like that on a tablet, it would have to be always on, and always on WiFi (and that would have to be good WiFi). You DO NOT WANT to utilize Bittorrent, as it should be used, on a tablet. A tablet user cannot accept the risk to their battery, nor to their data plan. Unfortunately the average tablet user does not comprehend, and perhaps cannot comprehend, the risk to their battery or data plan. If Apple allowed Bittorrent on their iPads, the month after there would be a large outcry from the population of users about why the iPad caused them overage charges, and large ones. If Apple allowed Bittorrent on their iPads, the month after there would be a large outcry from the population of users about how their battery life went into the crapper.

_________________

Bittorrent works for all file transfers, regardless of size. (I primarily wanted it this time to get books, for instance.) Large or small, it works just as well. Now, I couldn't do 1.5 TB transfers on a tablet, if only because I don't have the space. (I don't have the space on my computer, either, but on a tablet it's more accute).

Also, who'd use a data plan? Always wi-fi except for emergencies. I've got only 1GB on my phone dataplan. I've never exceeded it, despite running bittorrent on it. (That was my workaround for getting bittorrent files to the ipad--- download on my phone and use gmail.)

Lastly - Apple DOES make bittorrent-protocol file transfer apps available on the ipad. They just can't be used for accessing Bittorrent tracking sites - the concerns apple has are related to where people get their content, not the suitableness of bittorrent protocols to a tablet.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't think you've got the gist of it. Yes, Bittorrent works for all file transfers. That advantage is the problem. Once the average user has fired up Bittorrent, gotten their files, and then left their app seeding those files in the background, Apple just became subject to class action lawsuits for the reasons I have listed above.

_________________

Except they do make Bittorrent apps available that would be subject to all those same problems. The only thing you can't do with apple's bittorrent apps, is download from known torrent tracking sites.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You might want to look at the particulars of the Bittorrent apps available. Do they actually seed? Do they do so while not the active app? I'm thinking that there's a lot of safeguards in place. Not allowing access to piratebay and demonoid and whatnot is another of those safeguards.

_________________

All of those other safeguards (if they're there) would work fine in an app that DOES access any torrent tracking site.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, see, all the other safeguards would be there so that Apple isn't liable for anything. I will leave it as an exercise for you to imagine what they could be liable for if they even unknowingly allowed their users to access thepiratebay.

_________________

Why would an iPad not be treated like any other internet-connected device? Legal warnings would go through the ISP providing the connection. Apple would not be held liable for letting users access TPB just as Microsoft isn't liable for people using Windows to pirate things.

Indeed. Nobody has successfully sued Google or Microsoft for allowing Bittorrent clients that access TPB on tablets.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Neither Google nor Microsoft make this claim:
We review all apps submitted to the App Store and Mac App Store to ensure they are reliable, perform as expected, and are free of offensive material.

_________________

I don't see how any of that excludes torrent applications. The app itself would contain nothing offensive.

Yeah...uh...so some advice I have for you is never incorporate in the US, never produce anything that can be traced back to you, and probably don't ever do business in the US if you can ever help it, if you ignore point 2.

_________________

Whatever logic you're trying to apply here would also be applicable to mobile Safari controlling my μTorrent client at home. Or hell, even a remote desktop application like TeamViewer.

That is incorrect. Apple has assumed responsibility for the contents of the (iOS) app store and guaranteed non-infringing usage of those same apps. A look at the App Store Review Guidelines would show you this. I don't know how you have arrived at the nonsense you're spouting. Neither of your examples make any sense in the context of the discussion. Let me refresh things, so that we're all on the same page. Talya is miffed that she can't p1r473 her w4r3Z using her iPad. I don't pay any attention to the app store, but off the top of my head I could imagine a number of scenarios why. You and Talya have determined that the scenarios I posit have no bearing. You base this on some reasoning known only to you, and not shared by Apple, the DoJ, nor those entities who enjoy being in court and roping the DoJ into scuffles. Apple employs many lawyers. In order to not employ more of them, they take certain steps. Microsoft and Google also employ many lawyers, and like Apple they aren't really interested in employing more of them and so they take certain steps. The steps differ between the companies. Some are attempting to find plausible deniability and safe harbors, others are attempting to not require either. Some things are plausibly deniable, some things aren't. Some things are low hanging fruit, some things aren't. Sometimes you gamble, sometimes you don't.

_________________

I know the review guidelines very well, if you wanted to reference the actual rules you should have just quoted 22.4 and been done with it.



That's very clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

My post was only to address the statement that a BT client would somehow not "be reliable, perform as expected, or be free of offensive material." Strictly speaking, a BT client would be reliable, would perform as expected, and out of the box it comes with no content or material, so it could not be offensive. You would not be able to access any material through a BT client that you could not also access through Apple's own Safari application, which is subject to the same rules.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but there is in practice. And while the RIAA and the MPAA (for instance) have conceded the web browser safe harbor, by omission if nothing else, the same cannot be said for Bittorrent clients or philosophically similar applications.

And quite frankly, any functionality linking to certain trackers would certainly be offensive to some entities. You are naive to think otherwise.

_________________

I enjoy naivete, makes the world suck less.

+1

_________________
"I Live, I Love, I Slay, and I Am Content."
- Conan the Barbarian