 Talking Heads Discussion
Jun 17, 2011
Headline: "Did Apple Just Crush the Next Revolution?"" [""'A patent application filed by Apple, and obtained by the Times, reveals how the software would work. If a person were to hold up their iPhone, the device would trigger the attention of infra-red sensors installed at the venue. These sensors would then instruct the iPhone to disable its camera.' The main goal from such technology is to curb unauthorized recordings of concerts, sports, movies, plays, etc. ... However, founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media Tim O'Reilly sees this as disastrous for the international masses who depended on such technology to document their own revolutions. He believes that this patent could easily be abused by oppressive regimes and silence any record of dissent.""] Minyanville
|
Member Comments:
June 17, 2011, 8:37 pm (Central) by Jack Purcher
Number one, the patent was reported on June 02, 2011 as noted below. So it wasn't "Obtained by the Times" as if it were some secret feat which plays this story up.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/06/apple-working-on-a-sophisticated-infrared-system-for-ios-cameras.html
Secondly, the feedback that this patent has generated will likely ensure that Apple refines some of this technology or outright drops it - being that it's only at the application stage.
The wonderful thing about a thriving democracy and capitalism is that there's no motive to anger customers to this degree. While I don't speak for Apple, I think it's safe to say that angering customers isn't and wasn't Apple's intent. You don't become the leading mobile device company in the world by angering customers. Put this into perspective.
While I'm happy to see so many get involved in airing their views, I'm amused at how Apple's competitors are jumping on this bandwagon so as to twist it negatively and elevate it to an artificial level of being "evil" and "Big Brother-Like" - Ha!
In perspective, every technology has the potential of being twisted for evil purposes. The internet itself is used for crime, theft and child pornography - and I don't see young people dropping their precious devices so as to save the world.
Those making crazy leaps of how this will end protests aren't acting responsibly. The likelihood of every camera in the world adopting this technology that angers so many potential customers is 100% impossible. At the end of the day, describing giant leaps into doomsday police states, over a single light-weight technology, is clearly an overboard reaction.
June 17, 2011, 6:19 pm (Central) by Jack Purcher
Number one, the patent was reported on June 02, 2011 as noted below. So it wasn't "Obtained by the Times" as if it were some secret feat which plays this story up.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/06/apple-working-on-a-sophisticated-infrared-system-for-ios-cameras.html
Secondly, the feedback that this patent has generated will likely ensure that Apple refines some of this technology or outright drops it - being that it's only at the application stage.
The wonderful thing about a thriving democracy and capitalism is that there's no motive to anger customers to this degree. While I don't speak for Apple, I think it's safe to say that angering customers isn't and wasn't Apple's intent. You don't become the leading mobile device company in the world by angering customers. Put this into perspective.
While I'm happy to see so many get involved in airing their views, I'm amused at how Apple's competitors are jumping on this bandwagon so as to twist it negatively and elevate it to an artificial level of being "evil" and "Big Brother-Like" - Ha!
In perspective, every technology has the potential of being twisted for evil purposes. The internet itself is used for crime, theft and child pornography - and I don't see young people dropping their precious devices so as to save the world.
Those making crazy leaps of how this will end protests aren't acting responsibly. The likelihood of every camera in the world adopting this technology that angers so many potential customers is 100% impossible. At the end of the day, describing giant leaps into doomsday police states, over a single light-weight technology, is clearly an overboard reaction.
|
|
|
|
