The concept of marriage is defined differently by various cultures,societies and religion different people-different expectations but a common platform for happiness – Expressjodi.com. Find your life partner now,people who match your expectations.

Like attracts Like, the simplest way for me to look at the law of attraction is if i think of myself as a magnet,and i know that a magnet will attract to it-John Assaraf (The secret).

Indian Matrimonial Services by Expressjodi.com safe,secure and confidential with a pleathora of choices to reach your soulmate you express your expectations and we help you find your potential life partner, bridging the gap to make two people and their families meet.

ExpressJodi.com-Common platform for happiness

! ! !

I also got an email from JGL whom I respect, but found it a bit off hand. His take seems to be if Apple brings the sub they get 30% if the App Provider brings the sub then they take the full 100%. This is just Apples soft spin and what is a hard to the core realpolitik move.

Before adding 5¢ to the huge amount of current analysis, I’d like to reframe the question away from can Apple get away with it, what is their motive, etc etc to this:
Is it the right thing to do? Or to put in Steve’s vocab, is this a cool thing for Apple to do?
To me this is the only question that really matters. And it’s one I thought Steve Jobs was better at that most CEOs today (we all get disillusioned eventually ). As the iOS / iTunes segment of Apple approaches M$ of the 90s dominance in the ‘truck’ era, Apples actions need be scrutinised for the ethical implications even more.

I first wrote to you and JGL a few months ago about this when I didn’t realise a free-from-Apple-rent external subscription model did exist, say if I develop an iOS app that provides large amounts of content that isn’t suitable for web delivery, say an illustration based medical encyclopaedia and sell in the App store, totally fair enough that Apple takes 30% (they provide Cocoa, XCode, AppStore customers who feel safe buying etc). If I employ writers and illustrators to extend and improve the content, then sell the update for say $15, Apple wants $5 of that for providing zero in the way of additional service, zero by way of hosting content (possibly they can host if whole app gets upgraded) and (presumably) I have to wait for their approval before it goes on sale.

Apple has set the rules so that anybody re-subscribing in App is not going to leave the app to do so b/c Apple have precluded incentives to do so and disallow links anyhow to just make sure. It’s a total stitch up trying to look to, on the face of it, like a simple minded magistrate like a fair-enough 50-50 kinda thing.

The fact that Jobs said “This is our philosophy…” is kind of telling to me. Firstly there’s no philosophy involved at all, because philosophy is not about we win, you lose, that’s about attitude, at best. It is in fact just a position, and a very short sighted one to my mind. Remember Apple came out punching at the Green my Apple campaign, how dare you, don’t you know who we are, we invented the PC you idiots, then after seeing little benefit in denial, they belatedly got their house in order, more so than most other manufactures anyhow.

What Apple is doing is Rent as understood in the financial industry, the kind banks get away with in high fees in my country (Aust) because there are so few of them providing the service of taking my deposits and lending it a high rates or gambling with it overnight on currency trades (in return for cash dispensing ATMs). In UK, an academic study found Banks provided a net disservice to the total economy of a few £B a year.

While I was concentrating on small developers, obviously content providers and resellers with tight margins are being given their marching orders. Apple has decreed that iBooks must become iTunes even though the industries, Apple’s leverage and Apples lead to market are all completely different. They wont get away with it twice, I’m guessing. In the case of music Apple arguably created value for all, win-win-win. Here it’s a case of Apple: win – customers: minor UI improvement but definitely lose services so net loss – App providers: lose 30% gross on subs (50-150% net of profit).

Apparently Woz used to sell stock to cover apples ethical blues back in the day, he could begin to cover this one.

This tension between open and closed has always existed at Apple. Just reading on Woz site last month when they launched the Apple III, which was expensive, closed and a flop, Apple ][ was paying all the bills but they wouldn't invest any money or advertise it for over a year. He? kicked up a fuss and they launched the IIgs which sold well. Woz credits the great success of the Apple ][ to it's openness, read 6 slots. Pretty humble because there's a lot of his IP in that box that apart from the slots.

It interests me that Frédrick thinks HTML5 can do slick UI based offline content provision to the tune of a 20MB download. That's certainly news to me.

You take on newspapers is only half-true. Yes they are expensive to run, no that doesn't mean they provide better content than other sources, only more mainstreamed and slick. Yes Journalist are better trained, no they don't always have time or inclination put that training to good use. Most stories are PR Media Release rewrites. The notion of 'balance' ie. 'both' sides of the story (as in truth and fiction) has resulted in dim-whits dragging the climate debate into fairyland for over two decades. The hatchet job they are doing on Julian Assange is in response to Wikileaks suing them (in case of NYT) for breach of contract. The ny times was completely unethical in the way it handled the material and broke all the rules of the contract and forced the early publication of the Afgan war material before the material was fully redacted and Wikileaks was ready. MSM are also more exposed to very real political payback like denial of access to power and punishing the proprietors next time the fine print of cross media ownership rules or bandwidth sales is up for negotiation (realpolitk again). Wikileaks doesn't need access to power nor cross-ownership favour nor radio-waves, which is what has a bunch of politicians calling fatwa and my govt deny his basic national rights to diplomatic assistance.

You may have missed this exclusive:
SBS Dateline | Assange Speaks http://bit.ly/f8QdnS

Will blogging make it easier for companies to put their message out there and affect journalists? yes. But it will also make it harder for them to be seen as legitamate, especially when other writers would be seen as equal.

As it is now we basically have shallow, right and center right views on public TV, softball interviews, and an obsession with scandal and daily headlines, not issues. The blogs I read are often far more informed, well written and clear than the drivel on CNN and MSNBC. Those writers would do well to learn a topic and specialize.

I for one, cannot wait for old media to go down. It is an “us vs them” mentality. That is how they see it, and how it is. The news and views US Corporate media want to report come from the top, while the stuff a real journalist should be looking at comes from the bottom.

As far as I am concerned, the real reporting on Egypt came from blogs I read from political scientists who were there, not CNN. Your examples of professional journalism fall short: The Wikileaks stories are there for all to see and report on: fraud in the Iraq war and corporate thievery are clear to most thinking Americans. Many news outlets did not even investigate these topics, were not interested them, and are still fighting to shut them down, and shut down Wikileaks. Wikileaks should not even have to exist if journalists were doing their job.

Google’s blindness to JCPenny ad targeting? Small fish, and nothing will happen. Any investigation on the bail out? I mean REAL, persistent investigation on the front page? Nope. Lies about Wisconsins fiscal situation, growing income inequality, lack of job development, Democrats becoming “Republican-lite”? Also real stories that need investigation and discussion.

US media is failing its public and will hopefully fall apart. They have no interest in the public good.

The sponsor can include a short message to the 200 users. These end users never need to register, sign in, or pay; they are encouraged to share the paid content that’s free to them; and can purchase their own sponsorship if they wish, with a simple e-commerce transaction.

URLs giving free access to otherwise-paid content will get attention for emails and blogs. This system is DRM-agnostic — but forces pirate copies to compete with legitimate free ones.

I’m thinking music — but journalism could find sponsors who like a story for commercial, ideological, personal, practical, or other reasons, and will pay to send it out through their networks. Some news could use it, some maybe not.

Our guesstimate is that about 98% of users can be free and registration-free — paid for by the 2% who are not paying for content, but to get their message out through whatever social networks they select.

And the “smart URLs” will never expire, since they will always offer more sponsorship for sale.

to argue that the printing costs should not be factored in is just plain stupid on your part, I guarantee, and am backed up by “Wired” and other publishers, that they would have charge the same price, IF NOT MORE for digital content, if they could do it for free even on the iPad, THEY ARE THE VERY essence of greed and stupidity. 50% of the costs in printing and another 30% in costs for retail mark up Apple was saving them and Wired and other publishers wanted to charge MORE for the same material as a digital form… STUPID idiots.

Now they have to rethink their greed, now instead of charging people 120% of the print subscription, they would charge 150% of the print price, which of course is as ludicrous as you saying that some how it is Apple’s fault that your idiotic countries charge a VAT tax on digital apps…. HEY TAKE IT UP WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT and whine to them, that you don’t have the back bone as a people and put your foot down on taxes… that is why people in the US make so much money and have a standard of living that is much better than yours, because we stand up to over taxation….

so now it is Apple’s fault that a publisher charges MORE for a digital subscription WITHOUT 50% of the print costs, and blame apple again for then another 10% or more for your Country’s decision to TAX the hell out of you…. and then the Mailing costs or retail store mark up 30% or more… ya, might as well throw that on there too… must be Apple’s fault, everything else is….

and now you are complaining because Apple just saved the publishers 70% to 80% of their costs for a 30% fee???? hello?????

good luck with that argument. this is really simple, if you don’t like the policy, then don’t put your content on an iPad, go to your tried and true method of doing it on the web, you know how successful that has been for the last 10 years of trying to get people to pay OVER PRICED charges for magazines that they could get cheaper delivered at home.

what this forces Publishers to do is to offer content free of a subscription, and to pay for that content through ads… and by golly just like the TV networks, some smart publisher will do it, and show how it is done…. then the rest will go, oh wait, this does work…

unfortunately “smart” publishers are few and far between, as you illustrate, where they have had 10 years to figure this out… and have not… now they are going to be forced into being smart….