Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 13th Apr 2010 11:35 UTC
Podcasts We are joined by OSnews user Mark Henderson to discuss iPhone OS 4 and Apple's licence restrictions on third-party development tools. Also discussed is Haiku, QNX, WebKit 2, Theora and Copyright. Please note that the show was recorded before we received news about Palm.
Order by: Score:
What?
by Xeon3D on Tue 13th Apr 2010 12:48 UTC
Xeon3D
Member since:
2005-07-08

Who could in 2010 have never seen a Blackberry?

(in all honest truth, believe me they suck..., but still...)

Sorry long time reader, 1st time listener so I can't really match the voices to names.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What?
by henderson101 on Tue 13th Apr 2010 13:11 UTC in reply to "What?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Well I don't remember saying that, and as there are at least 2 Blackberry users within 10 feet of me now... ha!

Reply Score: 1

RE: What?
by tessmonsta on Tue 13th Apr 2010 14:17 UTC in reply to "What?"
tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

I hate to ask, but if you're in the US Blackberries are * extremely* common. When I went to Europe, I never saw a BB for months and months. On planes, trains, buses, not one. Nokia phones on the other hand...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What?
by ebasconp on Tue 13th Apr 2010 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Same here in South America, BlackBerrys, iPhones and HTC Smart Phones are far less common than the Nokia mid/low end phones that are obiquitous.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What?
by henderson101 on Tue 13th Apr 2010 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

When I went to Europe, I never saw a BB for months and months.


They are very popular in business circles, but not so popular for consumers. Working in/commuting to London I see them every day.

I see as many, if not more iPhones. I see a lot of other smart phones (Nokia/Samsung/LG etc.) I see a few older ones. I've seen two, maybe three Android phones - though I do know a couple of friends that have the Hero.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What?
by tessmonsta on Tue 13th Apr 2010 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

They are very popular in business circles, but not so popular for consumers. Working in/commuting to London I see them every day.


But doesn't England make a point of not exactly being Europe? From what my few English colleagues tell me, they aren't exactly happy being lumped in with the rest of the continent.

Granted, I was only in England on Holiday. And I'm probably completely wrong in my impressions. I was, however, buried in the business world in Germany and I can't recall seeing one.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What?
by Ragged on Tue 13th Apr 2010 23:00 UTC in reply to "What?"
Ragged Member since:
2006-03-23

I have never seen one. Displayed in the Phone-shops, yes, but not a single one out in the "open".

I have seen lots of iPhones, Samsungs, SE, and HTC`s smartphones here in Norway. And tons and tons of Nokia phones. But I have never seen a Blackberry outside a phone-shop. Never.


It`s only in the US the Blackberry is big.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 14th Apr 2010 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Weird ... I have three extremely picky co-workers that have rejected every other phone besides blackberries. They say they have the best real features ( email, text and phone) for real heavy business use dealing with huge multiple email accounts, massive amounts of texts and call quality/reception.

So do Nokias fill that same void? The E- series or N series? Doesn't really matter that much, as carriers here don't subsidise them, just curious.


There was also a period of time that they were the only smart phones beside Treos. If you really wanted push email, you needed a blackberry, and people would made fun of you for talking to a calculator ( as thats what the early phones looked like.).

Reply Score: 2

Best comment on Apples politics:
by kragil on Tue 13th Apr 2010 12:49 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/steve-jobs-weighs-on-ipho...

It is not about quality or standards, only anti-competive, anti-developer and about lock-in.

Reply Score: 2

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

It is not about quality or standards, only anti-competive, anti-developer and about lock-in.


It is about eliminating meta-frameworks and stomping on Adobe et al for making pots of cash off the back of iPhone development. Plain and simples. The fact that it is "anti-completive, anti-developer and [all] about lock-in" is just happy coincidence and a useful side effect* ;-)

* Clarification - for Apple/Jobs.

Edited 2010-04-13 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

And after using the recently approved Opera Mini for iPhone, I will say good for Apple for attempting to enforce the use of native toolkits. Opera's text rendering, scrolling, zooming, copy-pasting sucks majorly.

Reply Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

But... but... the video demo of it looked AWESOME!

Reply Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/steve-jobs-weighs-on-ipho...

It is not about quality or standards, only anti-competive, anti-developer and about lock-in.


Why does Apple want to block Flash and the use of Flash based tools to create Apps outside of Apple's development framework and in a way that might allow cross platform development?

Part of the reason is that Flash is very poorly implemented - its a dog on the desktop and still (three years after the launch of the iPhone) Flash mobile is nowhere. Adobe dropped the ball on this one - badly. Apple isn't in business to help Adobe.

A much bigger, and more strategic reason that Apple wants to block flash based cross platform development from working on its mobile platform is to do with not losing control of that platform. There are very, very good reasons why Apple doesn't want to lose control and it has nothing to do with Steve Jobs personality and everything to do with what happened to Apple in the past. The best single paragraph summary of this I have seen is by Jean-Louis Gassée (ex Apple, ex BeOS etc). he said this:

"Who, in his right mind, expects Steve Jobs to let Adobe (and other) cross-platform application development tools control his (I mean the iPhone OS) future? Cross-platform tools dangle the old “write once, run everywhere” promise. But, by being cross-platform, they don’t use, they erase “uncommon” features. To Apple, this is anathema as it wants apps developers to use, to promote its differentiation. It’s that simple. Losing differentiation is death by low margins. It’s that simple. It’s business. Apple is right to keep control of its platform’s future."

The full article is here and its worth the read:

http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/04/11/the-adobe-apple-flame-war/

To understand some of the reasons why Apple is anxious to avoid seeding control of development on its mobile platform to a third party read this illuminating account of the sorry tale of MacBasic.

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=MacBas...

This story exactly illustrates the dangers Apple would face if it allowed third party cross platform developers to take control of its mobile platform.

Its always important when trying to understand why Apple and Steve Job's is doing something to remember just how long the company and he has been around. He and Apple have seen how things can go wrong in so many ways that they now have a laser sharp focus on not blowing it again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: More flash?
by kragil on Tue 13th Apr 2010 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Best comment on Apples politics:"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Interesting link.
Quote:
"Let’s perform a thought experiment. By the end of 2010, there will be more than 100 million iPhone OS devices (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad). You’re the webmeister at an important content site. The boss comes in and asks you why you’re not supporting the iPhone OS devices. ‘Our stuff is all Flash-based, chief, those guys don’t run Flash’. You’re about to become the ex-webmeister. The boss, a really patient sort, asks you to “think different” about all these “non-compliant” customers, each of whom has an iTunes account backed by a credit card, and has developed the habit (encouraged by Apple) of paying for content. So, one more time, with feeling: What’s your answer?"

My answer would be: "Let's keep Flash and build an app to SELL our free content to poor Itunes addicts."

Maybe we will see even more Flash if "apps" take off like Apple thinks. It would be great for Apple and the app store and maybe for content providers .. users are a different story ..

.. another reason why I won't buy closed computing devices.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: More flash?
by Tony Swash on Tue 13th Apr 2010 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: More flash?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

... another reason why I won't buy closed computing devices.


What significant difference does open or closed actually bring to the end user? What matters I think is the nature of the device (its quality, design, stability and usability) and the nature of the user experience it creates (is it more or less useful, can I do more or fewer things with it, how easy is it to do lots of stuff I want to do).

Or to put it another, and simpler, way:

What offers more choice - the device with 25,000 apps or the device with 125,000 apps?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: More flash?
by alcibiades on Wed 14th Apr 2010 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: More flash?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12


What offers more choice - the device with 25,000 apps or the device with 125,000 apps?

Which offers more choice, one with one hardware vendor or one with two dozen?
The one with one hardware vendor.

Why?
Because less is more.

Well then, does the one with 25,000 apps offer more choice than the one with 125,000?
No.

And why not?
Because freedom is slavery, truth falsehood, and choice an illusion.

Edited 2010-04-14 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Open device
by kragil on Wed 14th Apr 2010 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: More flash?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

For me an open device offers me the assurance that _I_ am in control. Nobody will take anything I already have away from me and that there can be no lock-in.
If I am able to play my Xvids and MKVs now I will always be able to play them. Choice of web rendering engines + adblocking addons, choice of dev enviroment, multitasking IRC/torrent clients, any emulator, more security, more privacy and the list goes on.

Basically an open device has no limits, as long as people have specific needs those needs can be met without restrictions.
And 25k apps on a open device can offer way more flexibility than 1 million on a closed device. So just comparing numbers isn't a solution.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open device
by darknexus on Wed 14th Apr 2010 06:55 UTC in reply to "Open device"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

While I agree, we have to face the facts that the average user doesn't care about these things. If it works, and it's easy, they really don't care about openness and I don't see this changing. That they *should* care is irrelevant, they don't. Most people should care about a lot of things and could care less, to the detrament of all, and openness is one thing in a very long list.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open device
by Neolander on Wed 14th Apr 2010 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Open device"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, sure the average public does not care about open hardware, but they may care about the consequences of it, like DivX/Xvid playback without hours of reencoding, right to playback video files on an usb pen connected to their TV HDD recorder (some Sony recorders have an usb socket and handle usb pens well, but brain-dead anti-policy piracy prevents you from having a look at anything else than photos on it, making this feature close to useless), and so on...

Edited 2010-04-14 07:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open device
by darknexus on Wed 14th Apr 2010 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open device"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

No, they don't care about those consequences... yet. By and large, most people don't think forward. They live for now, and when they get bit by tomorrow they bitch and regret that they didn't care. That's the sad thing, but it's the way our societies by and large teach us to act. Go along, do not question, you will be taken care of. That is what we are taught, and those of us who go outside the lines or otherwise question are looked upon as weirdoes or paranoids. We are conformist by our very nature, and most simply go along with what they're told. This means that they don't care about something until it bites them hard on the ass. An unlikely, but always possible, example: What if Apple fell tomorrow, and iTunes was no more? All those videos purchased through iTunes would fail to work eventually as the customers would not be able to authorize any new machines. This is something most people will very much care about... if and when it happened. But if you were to ask most people, they're response is along the lines of "oh, that will never happen." You see the problem? It's a problem present in all aspects of life, from technology to politics to spirituality. We don't care until it happens.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: More flash?
by darknexus on Thu 15th Apr 2010 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: More flash?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

What offers more choice - the device with 25,000 apps or the device with 125,000 apps?


I suppose that depends on how many flashlight apps you need.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Let's hope Apple will lose, then. If a product absolutely relies on total control on any part of it, it's a bad product.

Do drill makers have a need to get absolute control on drill bits to make nice drills ? No, they don't, they only rely on some specs of them (diameter, type of drilled material...).

Do forks makers have a need to get absolute control on the food you eat to make nice forks ? No, they don't, they only rely on some specs of it (hardness, lack of ability to corrode alloy and chrome...).

Do speaker makers need to have absolute control on the underlying amplifier ? No, they don't, they only rely on some specs of it (wattage and output impedance).

Are you going to tell me that things are totally different for computers ? Well, Android coders don't say "hey, you need to use a htc Naughty to do that". They define some specs that the underlying hardware has to meet (touchscreen, resolution...) and then make their software work on any hardware meeting these specs.

It's the same for software, really. No good reason can justify dictatorship and infantile "you need to use an Apple-approved language" statements over clear and well-defined specs that won't change everyday because His Steviness wants to piss Adobe off. It's just as simple as that.

Edited 2010-04-13 19:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

(moreover, as Ars and Tao Effect say perfectly, it's an inefficient way of doing things).

Reply Score: 1

gramma police
by jonathane on Tue 13th Apr 2010 13:20 UTC
jonathane
Member since:
2009-05-31

thou *shalt not pass

Reply Score: 1

RE: gramma police
by leech on Tue 13th Apr 2010 14:03 UTC in reply to "gramma police"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

shalt would be pass tense, correct? Shall would be present tense, and since it would be speaking in present tense, it should be Thou shall not pass.

Of course I could be completely wrong, after all, it's Olde English for a reason! It's... well Olde!

Then again, if you do a typo with shalt it is much more amusing. "Thou shat pass!"

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: gramma police
by henderson101 on Tue 13th Apr 2010 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE: gramma police"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

shalt would be pass tense, correct? Shall would be present tense, and since it would be speaking in present tense, it should be Thou shall not pass.


No

Of course I could be completely wrong, after all, it's Olde English for a reason! It's... well Olde!


Yes, you are. Shalt is the present tense form of the second person singular.

I shall
thou shalt

Shall is irregular though, take "to have"

I have
thou hast
he/she/it hath
you have

Lovely. Off topic ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: gramma police
by Christian Paratschek on Tue 13th Apr 2010 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: gramma police"
Christian Paratschek Member since:
2005-07-06

I have
thou hast
he/she/it hath

Funny, how close old english and modern german are. The same in German would be:

ich habe
du hast
er/sie/es hat

And from then english only got simpler and german stayed bloody complicated - for no reason :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: gramma police
by loftyhauser on Tue 13th Apr 2010 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: gramma police"
loftyhauser Member since:
2006-12-18

Funny, how close old english and modern german are.



For a reason -- they are both germanic languages!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: gramma police
by cb88 on Tue 13th Apr 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: gramma police"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

What? most English words do not follow a regular spelling is German even worse?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: gramma police
by darknexus on Wed 14th Apr 2010 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: gramma police"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

What? most English words do not follow a regular spelling is German even worse?


Nope, not in spelling anyway. German is pretty regular, words are usually spelled how they sound although there are a few letter combinations that sound identical so you have to know which one to use (ai and ei, ie and ih, etc). German grammar is quite a bit more complex than modern English however and retains a lot of older constructions that English has since done away with (word genders, noun and adjective inflections, etc). English grammar is actually quite simple, it's the spelling irregularities that make it one of the most difficult languages for many to learn.
Also, to quibble: Thou shalt is *not* Old English, but rather very late Middle English. Old English is much closer to Old German (and even Modern German) than to anything we call English these days. What we now call Old English is the root from which sprang both English and German as we know them. Most English-speaking people would not recognize true Old English at all, and mistakenly refer to the language of three or four centuries ago as Old English.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: gramma police
by Tuishimi on Tue 13th Apr 2010 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: gramma police"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't, unfortunately, matter anymore. You could write thou sahabjoet not pass and it would be correct in American English today... since people make up new words and spellings of old words on a daily basis.

ix-nay! Ere-hay ome-cay the ord-way olice-pay! ol-lay!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: gramma police
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 13th Apr 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: gramma police"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's what you get with an unregulated language. English could use some serious spring cleaning, especially to bring spelling back in line with pronunciation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: gramma police
by Tuishimi on Tue 13th Apr 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: gramma police"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah! But do we really need any more regulation in our lifetimes for anything?! ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: gramma police
by henderson101 on Wed 14th Apr 2010 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: gramma police"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

That's what you get with an unregulated language. English could use some serious spring cleaning, especially to bring spelling back in line with pronunciation.


Yes, true. Except that would create a logistical nightmare. The Americans would have one version, the British 2 or 3, maybe more, Canadians would have one (as Canadian English is quite far from US pron in many respects) and the Aussies/NZ'ers would both have one each.

England would be the worse. The peoples of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have completely different pronunciations. The North/South of England have completely different pronunciations. The regions each have a further distinction. The cities often have a distinction (take Liverpool and Manchester, for example. They have completely different accents, and St Helens in the middle is a mixture of both.)

It will never happen. Nice idea though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: gramma police
by darknexus on Thu 15th Apr 2010 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: gramma police"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It wouldn't necessarily result in that. Accents determine how certain sounds are pronounced in that language, i.e. we Americans pronounce the combination "er" as a pronounced "r" whereas the British and most other European nations pronounce it more similar to "uh" or a final A though neither are exactly right (I don't know how better to put it down in writing however and I dare not try to use IPA here). Most words, however, despite these pronunciation differences and various accents of English, are spelled the same. There are a few exceptions, such as -ize (American) vs -ise (British), but ironically those two endings while spelled differently actually sound more alike in all accents than most others. Standardizing would not mean spelling things differently for each accent or dialect. You're right about one thing though: It'll never happen. Part of why English has become as prominent as it is today is that it can adapt to pretty much any situation and new words can be coined just by enough people using them. It can take in regional words from other nationalities without a hitch if the situation calls for it, and a lot of languages adopt words from English as well. Think of English as the f/oss software of languages. It's unregulated, it's chaotic, and it can be a real pain in the ass to learn... but it's also the most adaptable to any situation precisely because it is so unregulated.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: gramma police
by henderson101 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: gramma police"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

It wouldn't necessarily result in that. Accents determine how certain sounds are pronounced in that language,


Ima stop you there. Yes it does. You need to listen to how different words are pronounced in different dialects. For example, merry/marry/Mary are all pronounced differently in most English dialects. Large sections of the US pron two or more of those words identically. How would you render the word Missle in a way that is both phonetic and covers both UK and US pron? In the US is would be missul (maybe missl?) but in the UK is would be missail (where ai, rhymes with high.) There are tonnes more of these. Router (rooter/rauter) etc. It is impossible to have a common written form that covers a consistent vowel sound, even consonants (s***** vs snicker, titbits vs tidbits.) How do you handle the glottal stop? That is a very common device in British English.

Thought of another one - Northern Irish, Sea and see are pronounced differently. Sea sounds more like "say". This of course, stems from the fact they *were* pron differently in Middle English.

This isn't superficial stuff. It would be a logistical nightmare as I had originally described. At the moment the spelling is archaic and inaccurate, but it is pretty much fixed.

Edited 2010-04-15 15:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Haiku WebPositive vs. Chromium
by Leszek Lesner on Tue 13th Apr 2010 19:42 UTC
Leszek Lesner
Member since:
2007-04-08

A small test with my Chromium on ZevenOS vs. Web+ on Haiku (both on the same machine).
I have to agree this particularry demo runs faster on Firefox 3.6 or Opera in comparisson to Chromium on the same os same hardware but Haikus Web+ is still a little bit faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMO1SqSmv3s

Reply Score: 1