If you know of anyone that wants the free Blockchain App for their iPhone or iPad, it is a super simple job.
iTools 2013 is a free software available on CNETs download site.
It allowed me to copy it from my old phone to my new iPhone in just a few seconds.
iTools was only about 3MB and was a stand alone executable. So no need to install anything.
I did virus check it and found no problems.
I'd have been happy to put a link to it and the Blockchain app on here, but come on, if it's one thing we all do share - it's a mutual distrust of anyone else.
Anyway, couldn't imagine it being any easier or faster.
Cheers!
Finally some reasonable way to solve this issue. Much better than destroy expensive devices to have 15 minutes of fame. I fully support this solution. |
|
|
|
Any of the start up companies or venture funded companies who are affected negatively by Apple's unreasonable position...
There's plenty of people who would benefit from an IOS app. Apple is certainly depriving a legitimate market for whatever reason and it really should be challenged...
None of the affected companies owns the Bitcoin software. So how are they going to argue in court about something they do not own? |
|
|
|
The Blockchain fixes some of the inherent corrupt practices of our monetary system.
Its not about making things 'equal' as in resource distribution. But more as in 'equal access' to capital so that whoever wants to sell something and as long as there is someone to buy it, then you create a free market. A removal of the middle man will allow much more friction-less transactions. In that kind of a decentralized world, capital will find the best uses through open decentralized exchanges. Some people may value wars more, some removing poverty. The idea of how to allocate resources won't be decided by a few bankers, but by a more open decentralized, freer and a more democratic society.
Amir was alluding to these issues. And given the constraints, I think he did a pretty good job.  LoL at "removal of the middle man". Before Bitcoin: Bank -> Exchange Market -> Bank After Bitcoin: Bank -> Exchange Market -> Blockchain -> Exchange Market -> Bank. |
|
|
|
This is why it is imperative that actions against Apple be started in multiple jurisdictions, so for example if an Anti Trust case were to fail in the United States a Competition Case could for example succeed in the EU etc. In the Microsoft case after not much success in the US there was a good success in the EU.
LoL Started by who? Satoshi Nakamoto? The Bitcoin foundation? Who is going to pay for the legal expenses? |
|
|
|
It look like some angry teenagers are butt hurt...  Coming from the person who's already made 10 similar posts in the various "Apple bans bitcoin" threads. What are you afraid of? I am not afraid of anything, but completely amused by a fanatical Bitcoin mob which thinks that Apple is conspiring against their imaginary revolution. |
|
|
|
|
LoL
I cannot stop to laugh at the delusional and misleading text the OP did in an attempt to copy the Apple's old advertisement.
Facts:
- No "cryptocurrency" revolution happened 5 years ago.
- Bitcoin do not put the "power of currency" back to people.
- Accepting Paypal or credit cards is not a skill.
- Satoshi Nakamoto's paper do not address any estimation...
- ...of 21 million people willing to buy 1 BTC to benefit speculators.
- Next year the Bitcoin user base will not increase exponentially...
- ...and that did not happened in the last years.
- The Bitcoin "community" could care less about competition...
- ...otherwise there would not be "altcoins".
- The only capital being enhanced is the capital of the speculators and early adopters.
|
|
|
|
It look like some angry teenagers are butt hurt... |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices. Apple is not producing a software like Bitcoin and competing with other software producers for a share of the market. Nope. "A tying arrangement, whereby a party agrees to sell one product only on condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier, is per se unreasonable, and unlawful under the Sherman Act whenever the seller has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain appreciably free competition in the market for the tied product, and a "not insubstantial" amount of interstate commerce is affected." - Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, 356 US 1, 1958. This case was about frieght routing by railroads, which is actually quite analogous to an app market. Businesses need railroads to get their products to market just as app developers need Apple to get their products to markets. Bitcoin is open source software available to anyone. No one needs an exclusive Apple device to use the Bitcoin software. The day Apple creates something similar to Bitcoin you will have something to argue about. Otherwise, your analogy is meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices. Apple is not producing a software like Bitcoin and competing with other software producers for a share of the market. You fanaticism for Bitcoin made you all so delusional that you cannot even understand what are you talking about.
|
|
|
|
Augusto Croppo seems to believe this is "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I believe this is evidence of the social movement we're witnessing.
BTW--Google News is showing that 108 outlets have picked up this story so far.
"Social movement"? LOL Since when some angry teenagers breaking Apple products is a "social movement"? |
|
|
|
I guess you don't know the power of social media. Apple's demographic is already leaving them after it was revealed the i-phone is really the spy-phone. The individuals breaking the i-phones aren't going to convince them of anything. But if there is a big audience for this on social media then it actually could influence Apple to stop trying to legislate where they can't innovate. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales.pngI think when I was learning MS-DOS 6.0 in 1994 you did not even existed. LOL at "it actually could influence Apple to stop trying to legislate" followed by some random graph. You do not even know what are you talking about. |
|
|
|
Apple already does what it wants, which (like any corporation out there) is what it thinks will maximize its profits. Thanks to some ingenious marketing that has built it a very loyal fanbase, Apple is able to ignore its customers' best interest by selling them crippled products at higher prices, just because they are "cool" to own. Their strategy is not to give customers the best value when they buy an Apple product, but to lock them inside the Apple ecosystem by creating devices that don't play well with others and using other anti-competitive measures, including banning Bitcoin, which they see as a threat to the status quo.
Isn't that a strong parallel with the banking and other cartels that Bitcoin is up against? What would you say if someone paid the expenses for a bunch of people who otherwise might not afford to destroy their credit cards, close their bank accounts and switch to Bitcoin, and did that publicly to raise awareness? I think that's a legitimate course of action that does not directly harm the big guys, but might make them stop and think if they perceive a threat to their profit margin. The comparison you made with the banking system is just nonsense. TL;DR Apple is not "terrorized" by broken phones, but negative attention and the threat of lost business is what could make them rethink their strategy, and that's one of the few ways (and a legitimate one) for a small group of customers to try to influence a huge corporation. The only entity which is having negative attention due this stunt are the fanatical idiots which thinks Bitcoin is some kind of new religion. I am certain that Apple will not review their business strategies because some clowns decided to show off to the whole world they are able to destroy Apple products. |
|
|
|
So this is where the cyber scum and haters post. No, here is where the smart and wit people post. The clueless and delusional people post in the moderate thread. No one here is interested in a lawsuit because no one here did invested in that predictable failure. |
|
|
|
Lol why's it about them?? It's the ability for us to practice our freedom in a tangible form.
Yeah, I agree with that. I am all for freedom of expression. However, such stunt is not an attempt of freedom of expression. There was a person sponsoring people to destroy Apple products. This is an organized attempt to terrorize Apple to accept something against their will. If people think they are entitled to do whatever they want, why is not Apple entitled to do whatever they want as well? |
|
|
|
I wonder why is it so hard to just NOT BUY APPLE PRODUCTS  Destroy iphones? Is this a joke? Why don't you just buy something else? Something better? It looks like someone is pointing a gun to you and ordering you "buy apple products" financial terrorism Yeah sure now breaking a phone is terrorism. Such stunt could be interpreted as attempt to terrorize Apple to list Bitcoin wallet applications against their will. Perhaps I used the wrong words? |
|
|
|
The only message which is being sent is that Bitcoin had attracted a bunch of fanatical idiots which could care less for the money wasted in the stunt. That will give more and more reasons to Apple distance itself from anything related to Bitcoin. I am sure some important decision making people inside Apple will even interpret that as attempt of financial terrorism.
I think it's fucking hilarious. Anyone taking it seriously (from either side) needs to relax more! Financial terrorism... LOL!  I am relaxed! But that do not change the fact that such stunt is not going to convince a company like Apple to comply with everything a bunch of fanatical idiots require. |
|
|
|
I suppose this stunt won't break Apple's back, but I'm sure it is sending a clear message. The only message which is being sent is that Bitcoin had attracted a bunch of fanatical idiots which could care less for the money wasted in the stunt. That will give more and more reasons to Apple distance itself from anything related to Bitcoin. I am sure some important decision making people inside Apple will even interpret that as attempt of financial terrorism. |
|
|
|
Can someone who believes Shrem got what he deserved explain what he did wrong, morally? What Shrem deserve is up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else. Moreover, he did not made anything morally wrong. This is not about his moral views, this is about the agreement he made with the authorities. He promised to comply with certain requirements and failed to keep up with the promise. In other words, he agreed to play by certain rules and was caught cheating. Now a court of justice will decide what punishment he will receive. I personally think he will not be jailed. He is going to be offered the opportunity to help the authorities collect evidence to build other cases. The authorities know that is much better having him around to help them rather than having he locked in a jail for the next decades. When exactly did he agree of his own free will to comply with those requirements? He was TOLD that he would follow those rules, or he would be thrown in a cage. Most likely when his company applied to be a money transmitter business. Do you think compliance is just a verbal agreement? I am certain that there is a document with his signature where he declares to be aware of the requirements made by the authorities. |
|
|
|
Can someone who believes Shrem got what he deserved explain what he did wrong, morally? What Shrem deserve is up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else. Moreover, he did not made anything morally wrong. This is not about his moral views, this is about the agreement he made with the authorities. He promised to comply with certain requirements and failed to keep up with the promise. In other words, he agreed to play by certain rules and was caught cheating. Now a court of justice will decide what punishment he will receive. I personally think he will not be jailed. He is going to be offered the opportunity to help the authorities collect evidence to build other cases. The authorities know that is much better having him around to help them rather than having he locked in a jail for the next decades. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
