Linked by David Adams on Wed 7th Jul 2010 19:09 UTC
Apple A Forbes article notices that while the iPad's reception from the public and the mainstream press has been overwhelmingly positive, the prevailing sentiment among some alpha geeks has been negative to the extreme. The conclusion, of course, is that these people aren't reacting to what the iPad is, but rather what it represents: a violation of the ethos of the personal computer. The author of the Forbes article concludes that much of the anti-iPad vitriol is hyperbole, and doesn't help advance the cause. It's a thought-provoking question.
Order by: Score:
jailbreaking is illegal?
by Manish on Wed 7th Jul 2010 19:45 UTC
Manish
Member since:
2009-12-18

I would jailbreak even if it were illegal

Is it really illegal? I don't think so. Again it may vary country by country.

I think it will surely void the warranty, but isn't illegal (unless it is in ToS)

Edited 2010-07-07 19:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: jailbreaking is illegal?
by TechGeek on Wed 7th Jul 2010 19:54 UTC in reply to "jailbreaking is illegal?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Probably violates the DMCA. Or at least Apple will say it does.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Last I heard, Apple was still fighting against the possibility of a jailbreaking exception to the DMCA. If included as an exception, it would be legal for one to jailbrake there own property. If rejected as an exception, DMCA would make jailbreaking a federal crime rather than a simple breach of contract or civil court case.

Apple voiding one's warranty for jailbraking is remotely rational but federal criminal charges applied through the DMCA for jailbreaking; absolute madness.

Reply Score: 9

Manish Member since:
2009-12-18

Apple voiding one's warranty for jailbraking is remotely rational but federal criminal charges applied through the DMCA for jailbreaking; absolute madness.


Federal criminal charges? That takes it just too far.

Thanks God! DMCA isn't global and I don't know any other country which has copy-protection laws which includes criminal charges. Atleast not in Asia AFAIK

Reply Score: 1

Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Canada is working on getting it.

Bill C-32

Reply Score: 2

Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

But at least it is not as bad, it even have some good parts. Currently, having a PVR in Canada is a crime, it wont be anymore. There is a lot of small suitabilities like that, and it does not use the American one.

The current legal state of downloading "stolen" material is not clear, so copyright holder can do plenty of FUD about it. It is nor legal nor illegal, so it is just strange.

Reply Score: 2

Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

i thoguht it was the other way around. currently it's legal to have a pvr, when bill passes it wont be.

I know it'll be illegal for me to watch my legally bought dvds on my linux desktop. Automatically a criminal! yey!

I believe c-32 is based on the US DMCA to an extent.

Forgot to add that since we're talking about jailbreaking an ipad, it would be illegal under bill c-32 since reverse engineering or breaking encryption and such would be illegal.

Edited 2010-07-08 13:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

My understanding is that we currently pay a tax on blank CD and DVD media which is then funneled back into the Canadian RIAA and such. Essentially, we are taxed on blank media in exchange for legally obtaining content for personal consumption. (granted, it's not something I'm willing to test in court)

Reply Score: 2

bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Thanks God! DMCA isn't global and I don't know any other country which has copy-protection laws which includes criminal charges. Atleast not in Asia AFAIK


There is one scary master plan to extend it worldwide: ACTA.
And at least Korea and Singapore are Asian involved parties in it.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement )

Reply Score: 4

RE: jailbreaking is illegal?
by mintar on Thu 8th Jul 2010 09:20 UTC in reply to "jailbreaking is illegal?"
mintar Member since:
2008-09-26

"I would jailbreak even if it were illegal

Is it really illegal? I don't think so. Again it may vary country by country.

I think it will surely void the warranty, but isn't illegal (unless it is in ToS)
"

No, that is why David wrote "if it were illegal".

Edited 2010-07-08 09:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: jailbreaking is illegal?
by Soulbender on Fri 9th Jul 2010 04:15 UTC in reply to "jailbreaking is illegal?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

but isn't illegal (unless it is in ToS)


Even if it's in the ToS it s not illegal to jailbreak it. It's just a violation of the ToS and the worse that can happen is that Apple voids your warranty.

Reply Score: 2

Forbes
by vivainio on Wed 7th Jul 2010 20:11 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

The guys summarization of geek ethos annoys me to an extreme.

For example:

Once we buy something we consider it ours to hack, and we don't need or seek anyone's permission to do so.


He totally misses the point. The real point is:

We are not interested in being serfs to an American publicly traded corporation. Not Microsoft yesterday, not Apple tomorrow.

We don't want the global developer culture to be forced to support Apple's reign and profits. We just don't want them as our gatekeepers, even if they gave us shiny devices.

It doesn't matter at all if Apple is a benevolent master or not - we don't want them to have any power over us at all, unless we explicitly wanted to be part of their ecosystem.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace

http://www.unix.org/images/unix_plate.jpg

Reply Score: 15

RE: Forbes
by bryanv on Wed 7th Jul 2010 20:33 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Once we buy something we consider it ours to hack, and we don't need or seek anyone's permission to do so.


This is atrociously worded, and clearly done so to troll.

A more-correct statement of the ethos (at least as I live by it is):

Once we buy something it is our property. We do not require nor seek permission for how we use what we own.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Forbes
by vivainio on Wed 7th Jul 2010 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


A more-correct statement of the ethos (at least as I live by it is):

Once we buy something it is our property. We do not require nor seek permission for how we use what we own.


Even this is more extreme than what is required for anti-iPad stance ;) . You don't really own the stuff (esp. software) you buy, you license it. That is nothing new, and not Apple specific.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Forbes
by nt_jerkface on Wed 7th Jul 2010 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I think the "we" here refers to tech trendsters.
http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2010/07/are-you-tech-trendster.html

Most geeks I know have an iphone and don't care about unlocking it. They use it to (gasp) talk on the phone and maybe (gasp) play a $3 game once in a while. They also might (double gasp) pay $5 for a movie rental when on vacation.

Some of us aren't impressed with following a how-to so you can run a torrent client on an iphone. Whoopdy freaking doo.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Forbes
by gerry on Fri 9th Jul 2010 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
gerry Member since:
2010-07-09

> Most geeks I know have an iphone and don't care about unlocking it. They use it to (gasp) talk on the phone and maybe (gasp) play a $3 game once in a while. They also might (double gasp) pay $5 for a movie rental when on vacation.

Then what makes you think they are geeks? I have a lot of geek friends and every single one of them that has an iPhone has hacked it, except for one who reimaged it because he develops apps so needs his phone to be standard.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Forbes
by nt_jerkface on Wed 7th Jul 2010 21:12 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26



If you're not developing server-side software for Unix then you're a sharecropper?

I write .net software and MS doesn't get a dime from the profit. I do have to buy Visual Studio but then home contractors have to buy hardware from Craftsman. Perhaps they are sharecroppers for Craftsman?

Sure Tim Bray, everything should run on lamp stacks. I'll go ahead and start writing an alternative to MathCad in PHP.

Hey where are all those Ruby on Rails web apps that the ABMr army were supposed to create?

People like Tim Bray should either code or shut the F*CK up. These blog posts for revolution are really getting old, especially when the army isn't backing them up.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Forbes
by righard on Thu 8th Jul 2010 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

If you only rely at .NET for your business you are at the mercy of Microsoft. They might decide to kill it of, or change the Terms of Agreement to something you don't like, &c.

And like you say, Microsoft does get profit from you buying Visual Studio and you lock your self and your customers into one platform, which will cost you and them money in the future, in favor of Microsoft.

The Craftsmen analogy doesn't work, it's like a carpenter having too buy overly expensive nails to go with his non-standard nailgun, while he could have bought a nailgun in which standard nails fitted.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Forbes
by nt_jerkface on Thu 8th Jul 2010 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

If you only rely at .NET for your business you are at the mercy of Microsoft. They might decide to kill it of, or change the Terms of Agreement to something you don't like, &c.


Kill off .net? About as likely as killing off Windows given that they have software written for the framework. Anyways in that highly improbable case I could switch to Mono.

All technologies come with a risk of invested interest. The main investment is time, not money.


And like you say, Microsoft does get profit from you buying Visual Studio and you lock your self and your customers into one platform, which will cost you and them money in the future, in favor of Microsoft.


My productivity gains easily pay for VS and any software I buy from them. For any business Windows licencing costs are peanuts, especially when you consider that they are amortized over 4 years.


The Craftsmen analogy doesn't work, it's like a carpenter having too buy overly expensive nails to go with his non-standard nailgun, while he could have bought a nailgun in which standard nails fitted.


It's your personal opinion that the tools aren't worth the price. I used to develop in Java and you would have to pay me quite a bit to go back. I could care less about it being free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Forbes
by lordepox on Thu 8th Jul 2010 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Forbes"
lordepox Member since:
2010-04-14

Microsoft had done stranger things than killing .NET... I still personally won't use it. I don't care if it's faster, it's not portable enough (different versions of the tinting on different windows platforms) and overall it's a bit buggy sometimes. Anyone who ever used version 1.0 will know what I mean (the infamous unknown error has occurred). The might decide tomorrow that they're new XYZ is better and make everyone use that with an interpreter in between for
Legacybsruff.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Forbes
by lordepox on Thu 8th Jul 2010 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Forbes"
lordepox Member since:
2010-04-14

And that's what I get for writing a reply on an iPhone. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Forbes
by nt_jerkface on Thu 8th Jul 2010 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Forbes"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Anyone who ever used version 1.0 will know what I mean (the infamous unknown error has occurred).


LOL version 1.0? When did that come out? Try paint.net or the Zune software for a better assessment.


The might decide tomorrow that they're new XYZ is better and make everyone use that with an interpreter in between for Legacybsruff.


Half the point of .Net is to keep it independent of any changes in Windows. You can also run .Net apps in Windows with Mono so there is really no cause for concern.

MS uses .Net to keep developers on their platform which in turn keeps consumers and businesses buying Windows. It's laughable to suggest that they might move away from it anytime soon given its success. If anything they will ditch Win32 but that would be far into the future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Forbes
by Tuishimi on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Forbes"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

You mean like supporting Win32 for umpteen bajillion years?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Forbes
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I write .net software and MS doesn't get a dime from the profit.


Your programs need to be deployed over Microsoft server platform. That's what Microsoft is selling, and that's where you are 'sharecropping'.

Sure Tim Bray, everything should run on lamp stacks. I'll go ahead and start writing an alternative to MathCad in PHP.


Well, you could use Qt for that. And C++, a standardized commodity programming language.

Hey where are all those Ruby on Rails web apps that the ABMr army were supposed to create?


I think the rails hype has died a bit. They are all jumping on the Scala bandwagon now, waiting for the next big thing.

People like Tim Bray should either code or shut the F*CK up. These blog posts for revolution are really getting old, especially when the army isn't backing them up.


Maybe because this blog post is from 2003 (note how they still speak of "Longhorn"). I still like to link to it because now it's more relevant than ever.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Forbes
by nt_jerkface on Thu 8th Jul 2010 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Your programs need to be deployed over Microsoft server platform. That's what Microsoft is selling, and that's where you are 'sharecropping'.


Well recently I have been working on client software but I don't see how buying Windows Server is sharecropping and not an exchange of money for a product aka capitalism. I do have a Windows Server VPS which means that the hosting company and server hardware manufacturer also get a cut. Am I sharecropping to them as well? This is so silly.


Well, you could use Qt for that. And C++, a standardized commodity programming language.

Tim Bray wants all developers to move to lamp stacks. That's an absolutely ridiculous proposition. Do you realize how much server processing would be required for a web version of MathCad? Programs like MathCad and AutoCad routinely churn the cpu. The economics would never work out, your server costs would trump the cost of building it locally.

Fat apps are not going anywhere. Just because Google can throw their slush funds at a few AJAX apps does not mean that it makes sense for the typical ISV to move to the web.


I think the rails hype has died a bit. They are all jumping on the Scala bandwagon now, waiting for the next big thing.


So will this be web 3.0 then? Maybe I should consult my buzzword handbook. Hopefully by the time web 4.0 comes out we will actually see the web apps that are supposed to doom fat apps and Windows.

I know your underlying outlook is "don't feed the Redmond bear" but at least be honest about it instead of trying to tell me what is in my best interest.

Windows wouldn't dominate as much as it does today if Linux was a single platform and

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Forbes
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Well recently I have been working on client software but I don't see how buying Windows Server is sharecropping and not an exchange of money for a product aka capitalism. I do have a Windows Server VPS which means that the hosting company and server hardware manufacturer also get a cut. Am I sharecropping to them as well? This is so silly.


You can always change your hosting company, and server hardware (one of the factors that makes x86 such a good deal, actually). You are not sharecropping if you are not dependent on the other party.

Programs like MathCad and AutoCad routinely churn the cpu. The economics would never work out, your server costs would trump the cost of building it locally.


I expect Google NaCl to settle this problem eventually.

Fat apps are not going anywhere. Just because Google can throw their slush funds at a few AJAX apps does not mean that it makes sense for the typical ISV to move to the web.


I agree. Local apps are where the money currently is, because that's something you can sell directly. In 2003 (when Bray's article was written) web was the only sensible place to be, because local applications were the wasteland where only Microsoft was making money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Forbes
by nt_jerkface on Fri 9th Jul 2010 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Forbes"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You are not sharecropping if you are not dependent on the other party.


If a mechanic specializes in Ford is he sharecropping because he is dependent upon Ford for parts? What if he likes working on Fords and it makes him good money? Would you still call him a farm-slave because he couldn't switch to Japanese cars overnight?

Specialization is an integral part of capitalism and it often means having an exclusive relationship with a company to reap rewards that are greater than having a varied practice. Some people like myself don't care for the offerings of the competition and would be trading dependence on MS for dependence on inferior toolkits.

But more importantly all tech platforms have dependence due to the time investment involved. An expert Java developer can't switch to being an expert Python developer overnight.


In 2003 (when Bray's article was written) web was the only sensible place to be, because local applications were the wasteland where only Microsoft was making money.


Adobe, Intuit and Autodesk were making plenty of money in 2003. The client application market was not a wasteland then. Bray is just a bitter ABMr who has to resort to insulting the competition instead of making a technical appeal. He has the common ABMr fantasy of web apps taking over and destroying the empire (cue Star Wars music). Note that he works for Google, so does that make him a slave? Why isn't he making an independent living from nix based web apps? Oh that's right he's full of sh&t like a lot of these revolutionary ABMrs that expect someone else to do all the coding.

As Linus said Microsoft hatred is a disease. Tim's brain is obviously filled with the sickness and I doubt he will ever be cured.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Forbes
by mrhasbean on Wed 7th Jul 2010 22:50 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

It doesn't matter at all if Apple is a benevolent master or not - we don't want them to have any power over us at all, unless we explicitly wanted to be part of their ecosystem.


You have that choice - it's pretty simple really, don't buy their products...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Forbes
by tupp on Thu 8th Jul 2010 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I definitely do not buy Apple products, but that is not the point.

The crucial point is that, if we acquiesce to Apple's terms, we are setting a precedent that completely reverses centuries of fair trade law and consumer protection law.

Folks, we cannot afford to be passive and just lie down, while greedy/self-interested corporations (like Apple) ride roughshod over our fundamental rights.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Forbes
by Tuishimi on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

You are going about it the wrong way. Hire tons of lobbyists and drive your senators and representatives nuts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Forbes
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

"It doesn't matter at all if Apple is a benevolent master or not - we don't want them to have any power over us at all, unless we explicitly wanted to be part of their ecosystem.


You have that choice - it's pretty simple really, don't buy their products...
"

Yes, a consumer has that choice. A developer might not have, if it turns out that iPad gets much more popular than other tablets. We need to prevent this from happening, and one way is to not buy one as a consumer.

Serfdom is a developer issue, and doesn't apply to normal users in the same sense.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Forbes
by aesiamun on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

I support Apple on the desktop currently. I really don't like the i(Phone/Pod Touch)/AppStore trend. There is really nothing wrong with how they are running their desktop other than that they aren't focusing on it as much anymore.

As long as I have full control over my OS X installation, then I'm happy with Apple. I just ignore their mobile division ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Forbes
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Jul 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22



It doesn't matter at all if Apple is a benevolent master or not - we don't want them to have any power over us at all


Then just don't buy Apple kit - christ this forum is so full of whiners - if you don't like Apple stuff there is lots of alternatives.

The interesting question is why Apple kit is so popular - and please no juvenile toss about Apple customers being stupid, Apple's voodoo marketing, etc - the question of why Apple is so successful is a real and important one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Forbes
by tupp on Thu 8th Jul 2010 05:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Then just don't buy Apple kit - christ this forum is so full of whiners - if you don't like Apple stuff there is lots of alternatives.

I don't buy Apple "sh-kit," and I don't whine about the fools who do.

However, I will try to point out the hard truth about Apple products and their business practices. In addition, I will take on any argument that supports the notion that Apple and other manufacturers should have control of a product's use after it has been sold.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Forbes
by targetnovember on Thu 8th Jul 2010 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
targetnovember Member since:
2010-04-27

Should a company have control over how its network or services are accessed? Is denying unauthorized use different from controlling a person's product they purchased? I can see a rational argument for "here's your phone to use on our network, but we provide access to our network under certain conditions. If you modify the device, we can cut off access to our service." You can hack your property anyway you want, but if you void an agreement on a service you consume, then that service can be stopped. Assuming there's a contract, at least.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Forbes
by Leynos on Fri 9th Jul 2010 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Forbes"
Leynos Member since:
2010-07-09

The thing is, as far as landlines are concerned, we've gotten over the "no use of unapproved equipment" thing. And I don't see why we should go backwards where wireless networks. Vodafone (UK), for example, used to be quite happy to sell you a data SIM that could then be used for whatever purpose you pleased. As far as I'm concerned, the phone company should be providing a data pipeline to my device, and whatever that device is is and what I use it for none of their business, as long as I don't exceed the bandwidth usage I have agreed with them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Forbes
by jaklumen on Thu 8th Jul 2010 01:57 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
jaklumen Member since:
2010-02-09

The guys summarization of geek ethos annoys me to an extreme.

For example:

"Once we buy something we consider it ours to hack, and we don't need or seek anyone's permission to do so.


He totally misses the point. The real point is:

We are not interested in being serfs to an American publicly traded corporation. Not Microsoft yesterday, not Apple tomorrow.

We don't want the global developer culture to be forced to support Apple's reign and profits. We just don't want them as our gatekeepers, even if they gave us shiny devices.

It doesn't matter at all if Apple is a benevolent master or not - we don't want them to have any power over us at all, unless we explicitly wanted to be part of their ecosystem.
"

Uhhhh... Forbes, dude. Have you read it? My grandfather, an ardent Republican and stock investor, has subscribed for years.

I'm not surprised one whit about what an author would say for a publication about Forbes. Yes, I'm being totally flippant, but I don't expect Steve Forbes or his publication to care one iota about what geeks think. Management types, profit, etc., no, sorry, I don't see geek idealism in there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Forbes
by krreagan on Thu 8th Jul 2010 21:43 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

The guys summarization of geek ethos annoys me to an extreme.

For example:

"Once we buy something we consider it ours to hack, and we don't need or seek anyone's permission to do so.


He totally misses the point. The real point is:

We are not interested in being serfs to an American publicly traded corporation. Not Microsoft yesterday, not Apple tomorrow.

We don't want the global developer culture to be forced to support Apple's reign and profits. We just don't want them as our gatekeepers, even if they gave us shiny devices.

"
But the public has said (through the mass purchasing of the iPad) that they want Apple acting as gatekeepers. Probably due to all the crap/crapware/virus... that infects all their windows PC's. They realize that with Apple filtering the SW, It removes one of the biggest headaches to owning a PC.
KRR

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Forbes
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


But the public has said (through the mass purchasing of the iPad) that they want Apple acting as gatekeepers.


No it hasn't. Sensible people are buying iPads because there are no other "big time" tablets around currently (and they are impatient).

Hopefully the situation will improve by next year.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Forbes
by krreagan on Thu 8th Jul 2010 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

"
But the public has said (through the mass purchasing of the iPad) that they want Apple acting as gatekeepers.


No it hasn't. Sensible people are buying iPads because there are no other "big time" tablets around currently (and they are impatient).

Hopefully the situation will improve by next year.
"
This does not bear out from history! The iPhone has the Android as competition yet look at how well the latest iPhone is selling! Better the ever! Yet you can say the same things in this market.

I saw an article that indicated that 20% of android apps were misrepresenting what they did or collected or were malware... This will keep large numbers of people away from Android (including myself). When the Google tablet comes out there will be a initial surge and maybe even a sustained following but it will not put the iPad out of business. 95% of the people out there could care less who or what builds it, they want apps that work and that are not doing things that they don't like.

Like SJ said, if you want porn (or don't mind malware) there is always the Android.

KRR

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Forbes
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

When the Google tablet comes out there will be a initial surge and maybe even a sustained following but it will not put the iPad out of business.


'The google tablet'? There will be tons of Tablets, based on Android, MeeGo, Windows and whatnot.

They don't need to put iPad out of business. The important thing is that there is a good alternative, so people don't have to buy an iPad if they want a gadget like this. I know I want one asap.

Like SJ said, if you want porn (or don't mind malware) there is always the Android.


Android and everything else apart from iPhone/iPad. But that wouldn't have sounded quite so selling, would it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Forbes
by krreagan on Fri 9th Jul 2010 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Forbes"
krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

Android and everything else apart from iPhone/iPad. But that wouldn't have sounded quite so selling, would it?


The only platform that currently can challenge the iPhone is an Android device. Nothing else really challenges in the mobile internet device.
KRR

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Forbes
by vivainio on Fri 9th Jul 2010 04:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

"Android and everything else apart from iPhone/iPad. But that wouldn't have sounded quite so selling, would it?


The only platform that currently can challenge the iPhone is an Android device. Nothing else really challenges in the mobile internet device.
KRR
"

You missed the point, which is: Steve wanted to stigmatize Android as the "porn platform", he didn't want to single out Apple as the only who doesn't support porn.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Forbes
by JAlexoid on Fri 9th Jul 2010 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Forbes"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I saw an article that indicated that 20% of android apps were misrepresenting what they did or collected or were malware...
...
Like SJ said, if you want porn (or don't mind malware) there is always the Android.


First of all, that report said only that about one in 5 requested more privileges than it required. It concluded that some of them may be malware.
The other thing about that article/report is that it has reached so little audience that it will probably not affect Android in any way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Forbes
by Tony Swash on Fri 9th Jul 2010 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Forbes"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"
But the public has said (through the mass purchasing of the iPad) that they want Apple acting as gatekeepers.


No it hasn't. Sensible people are buying iPads because there are no other "big time" tablets around currently (and they are impatient).

Hopefully the situation will improve by next year.
"

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

I think that the feeling of security and safety that the App store model imbues is a very big part of the attraction of iPhone and even more so iPad. People are just so sick of feeling anxious about their computers, they just want to get on a do stuff and have fun and if Apple makes kit that allows them to do that without worrying about infections and attacks they will (and have) jumped at the opportunity.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Forbes
by JAlexoid on Fri 9th Jul 2010 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Forbes"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

I think that the feeling of security and safety that the App store model imbues is a very big part of the attraction of iPhone and even more so iPad. People are just so sick of feeling anxious about their computers, they just want to get on a do stuff and have fun and if Apple makes kit that allows them to do that without worrying about infections and attacks they will (and have) jumped at the opportunity.


Well by the latest mainstream news the latest iPhone is a buggy piece of equipment that gets no reception and the AppStore is riddled with sh*t apps who's owners scam you, get your CC details and get their low value book apps to the top!
That is what the average Joe got from the TV!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Forbes
by JAlexoid on Fri 9th Jul 2010 15:36 UTC in reply to "Forbes"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You are annoyed by one line, yet both your messages are exactly the same.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Forbes
by vivainio on Fri 9th Jul 2010 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Forbes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

You are annoyed by one line, yet both your messages are exactly the same.


Nope. He thinks the problem are users that can't "tinker" (big deal, just don't buy the damn thing if you need to run unspecced stuff).

Real problem is the potential stranglehold over developer landscape Apple could acquire if things go terribly wrong.

Reply Score: 2

Again?
by emerson999 on Wed 7th Jul 2010 20:14 UTC
emerson999
Member since:
2007-12-08

People actually get paid to write things like that? Christ, that would make an ok but annoying strawman post on a message board. But I'd have assumed forbes would have a more strict policy. That's almost a picture perfect example of how not to objectively look at something. He comes to a conclusion, cherry picks emotional arguments against it while ignoring well made ones, and then calls anyone who disagrees a nerd.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Again?
by fretinator on Wed 7th Jul 2010 20:31 UTC in reply to "Again?"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Journalism 1950:
Who, What, Where, When, Why, How

Journalism 2010:
WWW, Hits

Reply Score: 13

RE[2]: Again?
by _xmv on Wed 7th Jul 2010 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Journalism 1950:
Who, What, Where, When, Why, How

Journalism 2010:
WWW, Hits

so true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Again?
by adkilla on Thu 8th Jul 2010 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Don't forget sex and violence.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Again?
by Damnshock on Thu 8th Jul 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
Damnshock Member since:
2006-09-15

Journalism 1950:
Who, What, Where, When, Why, How

Journalism 2010:
WWW, Hits


And who's fault is that? It's not the journalists but ours ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Again?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 8th Jul 2010 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Again?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26



And who's fault is that? It's not the journalists but ours ;)


BS, I'm not taking any blame for laziness in journalism. Even the sensationalist crap could have more investigating and perspective. Journalists know that they can half-ass a story and still get paid. That's the problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Again?
by Tuishimi on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Amen! I'd mod you up but I already commented.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Again?
by jaklumen on Thu 8th Jul 2010 16:39 UTC in reply to "Again?"
jaklumen Member since:
2010-02-09

Repeating what I said earlier. Combined with blogging journalism, I know that Forbes magazine has been more concerned about subjects of profit, and such formats just make it worse, although they have really been that way for years.

It's not the idle rich that have the great tech (and Forbes DOES write to a very affluent audience); it's more the working class folk. This has been written about in other tech media sectors (home audio, etc.) before, by other authors.

I don't think geeks/nerds are getting that. The almighty buck will not always pay for geek idealism or ideology. Corporate backing is fueling some segments of Linux and open source development.

Techies/grunts and management are usually in pretty separate worlds-- paradigms, behaviors, working styles, etc., etc., etc. I've learned that well enough at the office.

Y'all are preaching to the choir here because I can assure you Forbes ain't listening.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I can name several people who live in Louisiana that love BP. I can name several people who live in Wisconsin that love the Bears, several who live in Boston that love the Yankees, several women that don't think they should be paid the same as men.


What's your point? Other than that you have disparaging things to say about people who disagree with you?

Reply Score: 5

AaronD Member since:
2009-08-19

several who live in Boston that love the Yankees

I wouldn't if I were you. The results would be...bad. ;)

For the record I dislike both teams.

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I can name several people who live in Louisiana that love BP. I can name several people ... who live in Boston that love the Yankees


They must be eliminated.

Reply Score: 2

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Change the heading to why airheads like the iPad and you have a winner too.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Oh right, because if you don't like an Apple product you're a freeloader. Lovely argument but Steve will still not have your baby.

Reply Score: 6

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Oh right, because if you don't like an Apple product you're a freeloader.


No, I think the point is more, most "freeloaders don't like Apple products." I take "freeloaders" to mean the types of people who make comments like yours. People who have written of Apple/Microsoft/etc because they have a revenue stream based on selling licenses for their IP to average consumers. *shrugs*

Reply Score: 1

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


No, I think the point is more, most "freeloaders don't like Apple products." I take "freeloaders" to mean the types of people who make comments like yours. People who have written of Apple/Microsoft/etc because they have a revenue stream based on selling licenses for their IP to average consumers. *shrugs*

Nice strawman again. There is no "Apple/Microsoft/etc", every company is unique and has a distinct effect (threat?) on the global software/hardware economy. Microsoft is a threat that has been contained, while Apple is a loose cannon, able to create devastating damage for the free world, riding on the backs of what-me-worry consumers.

Reply Score: 3

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Microsoft is a threat that has been contained, while Apple is a loose cannon, able to create devastating damage for the free world, riding on the backs of what-me-worry consumers.


My heart bleeds for you; living with this must be so hard to accept. :-)

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


My heart bleeds for you; living with this must be so hard to accept. :-)


I'm afraid your sarcasm goes unappreciated.

Having a discernibly "evil" entity in the business can be invigorating, it serves as an inspiration for the youth. ;-)

Back when I was younger, Microsoft was flexing their muscles quite a bit (see Halloween documents). Microsoft has been dormant for quite a while, so there has been little to create a proper "us vs them" mentality among the would-be linux youth.

Open source in many ways won already, and I don't see how the current "yeah, it appears to be more efficient way for separate corporations to collaborate on even ground" could inspire those 15-year olds.

Apple, on the other hand...

Reply Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06


Having a discernibly "evil" entity in the business can be invigorating, it serves as an inspiration for the youth. ;-)


O.K. This is a funny [and honest] comment. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I take "freeloaders" to mean the types of people who make comments like yours


Sure...or maybe people just don't like different Apple products for a number of different reasons.
I have nothing against closed-source or companies having a revenue stream btw.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

They work all over the industry, from Intel, IBM, Boeing, Apple, etc.

Change the heading to why geeky freeloaders hate the iPad and you have a winner.


Well your comment cracked me up, but I guess some people here can't take a snarky comment unless it is directed at one of the accepted targets.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

People don't seem to like snarky replies either.

Reply Score: 2

v internet memes
by patrix on Wed 7th Jul 2010 21:14 UTC
RE: internet memes
by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 7th Jul 2010 22:06 UTC in reply to "internet memes"
Nicholas Blachford Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it funny how the meme spread and how the App store feuds fuel the meme...

Can't wait to see the next meme spread ;)


There's an app for that ;-)

--

The reason the iPad didn't get a good reception among geeks is really quite simple:

It's not designed for geeks.



....posted from an iPad.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: internet memes
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE: internet memes"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


The reason the iPad didn't get a good reception among geeks is really quite simple:

It's not designed for geeks.


I call bullshit on that. iPad allows you to do what geeks enjoy (consuming information) in a more fun and relaxed way. iPad is great device today, but buying one has implications that reach into the future.

It's a bit like polluting - it's more fun to just throw away your trash (instead of looking for trashcan), but you don't do it because you are a conscientious citizen.

Typed from my N900

Reply Score: 3

I'm a geek and I don't hate iPads...
by galvanash on Wed 7th Jul 2010 21:47 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

I'm a life-long Windows/Linux user. I'm a professional programmer and web developer. I consider myself a hacker (using the term's proper meaning). I never considered Apple hardware previously because I could never rationalize the higher prices and Macs just felt too foreign to me. I never hated them though... Apple's slick marketing and the "appliance" feel of their products always turned me off. I was a typical PC user - Macs were overpriced computers for smug artist types...

I got an iPad for a possible future development project with the purpose of evaluating feasibility. The device was very nice. It is small, lite, fast, had a good screen, great battery life, etc. etc. I really could not find anything particular to fault it. It was great for what it was and the interface was perfect for our application. Being a touch screen tablet device, the iPhone OS actually was very comfortable to use - much more so than any touch screen I had used previously. I cant say I use it that much - it is what it is (a consumption device) and it is a very good one at that, but it isn't my cup of tea. I certainly don't hate it though. It is nice to use for reading websites while lounging around...

So to move forward with development I needed to get a Mac. Ugh. I dreaded this. I ended up buying the 13 inch Powerbook. OSX is very difficult for a long time Windows users to get used to, and XCode/iPhone SDK is absolutely archaic compared to Visual Studio. This I did not like - at all. I eventually got used to it enough to make progress, but I still think Apple needs to come up with a less rigid, more prototyping friendly development environment - maybe not to replace XCode but to augment it for those coming over from environments where MVC is an optional methodology not chiseled in stone. That and objective-c just feels wrong all over. But I digress...

After about a week I installed Windows 7 on it using bootcamp - just so I could get some other use out of the machine. This is what flipped the switch for me. The machine became instantly familiar to me and was no longer my antagonist... This was by far the best Windows laptop I have ever used.

It is small, fast, has great battery life, etc. - but lots of laptops have that for far less money. The killer feature (which I simple never had before) was the overall build quality. The keyboard is a joy to use - actually it is the first laptop keyboard I have ever used that doesn't drive me nuts. It simply does not flex AT ALL - this seems like a minor thing, but being absolutely rigid makes typing on it and handling it feel a lot better. The huge area below the keyboard for resting your wrists is great, as is the giant touch pad. I originally hated not having a number-pad, but I came to realize the ergonomics of a laptop simply don't allow one - the mousepad MUST be centered below the spacebar to use it properly, and having the mousepad be off-center on the device would just be weird. This epiphany made me look at my old HP laptop in a different light - it had a number pad (which I liked) but I could never manage to use the keyboard comfortably... I now knew why, it was because the mouse pad was positioned so that you could not actually use it without taking your hands off the keyboard. Lesson learned.

So those two were for work... I decided I needed to get a new HTPC for my home to replace an aging xbox running XBMC. I wanted something small and quite - this was a frontend unit and would not actually house any media. I looked at the Dell Zino HD, Zotacs, and other Atom and Arm based devices, but I kept coming back to the new Mac Mini. At $699 it is roughly twice the price of anything else I looked at - but it had a full Core 2 Duo CPU running at 2.4Ghz and very good specs relative to the other machines - good enough that I felt running Windows 7 on it (which I now know works well on Macs) would be effortless for it. The Zino HD was close, but it looked like a fat kid next to the mini, and by the time you upgraded its specs to get close to the mini it was about $600...

It was worth the price. It is absolutely silent. It doesn't get hot. It plays 1080p without a hitch. The built in wireless works great, and the bluetooth lets me use my wii-mote as a wireless remote with a builtin mouse. Not having an external power supply is the best feature, you can plug this thing in using any common 2-prong AC cable. The one from my xbox actually works fine. I did not have to tinker with it at all to get it working properly - it just works. I don't even have OSX installed on it - I wiped the drive and installed Windows 7 directly - then installed the bootcamp drivers and everything was up and running in about 45 minutes.

So to sum it all up I still don't consider myself to be an "Apple user"... But I have learned to appreciate the value proposition of their hardware, at least some of it anyway. And I still retain my soul (I think)...

Reply Score: 5

thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

I guess I am in the same boat as you, but on the opposite side of the OS fence. I am very used to OS X, so if I could (without using OSX86) I would be installing OS X on any PC hardware I have.

I just love the software and find the development system XCode/IB a joy to use. Oh, I have developed software for the PC most of my 20 year working life, so I appreciate environments like VS and Delphi, but I love XCode too. All very different but all workable once you get used to how they work. There are features of all 3 I'd love to somehow jam together into one IDE. I'm a huge fan of Netbeans by the way and use that for my web dev on the Mac.

But I totally get where a PC user is coming from if they can't get their heads around OS X. The cool thing most people forget is that Macs are PC's, you can put pretty much anything you like on there (though drivers for Linux might be tricky - not sure (I have Ubuntu running on Parallels, so no problem (even wobbly windows - LOL)).

I'm looking forward to XCode 4 by the way, there are some very very nice features in there that will bring the dev environment much closer to a VS...

Reply Score: 2

"Get off my lawn" syndrom.
by theTSF on Wed 7th Jul 2010 21:57 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

What I think he really missed is that a Lot of Geeks act like old phogies. Or the "Get off my lawn". This hostility is beyond just the apple products it is basically towards anything that is new that they haven't actively participated in making.

Part of our identity is knowing stuff that others don't know, and geeks over zealously push that fact on others. We would be happy for the good old days of punch cards or just hand-wireing the computer to do the processing, as it is something that we can do that others cannot.

As time goes on and tech gets out dated you get a lot of kicking and screaming when every technology gets replaced with something new. They will focus on the new technologies weaknesses and exaggerate the old technologies strength.

We have seen this many times In my memory there is the Desktop Replacing the Mainframe, GUI replacing the command line, are some of the biggest changes. And they all really center around the fact that technology is being more accessible to a wider range of people. You no longer need an advanced degree to replace a part. Or need to write code to do a task.

Geeks have long disliked Apple. Because they are making technology more open for the average person... Between 2001-2008 or so there was massive geek support for Mac mostly because OS X unix base and being open source giving the geeks a way to do things the old way... But as that faded the geek hatred is coming back.

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Get off my lawn" syndrom.
by Wintermute on Wed 7th Jul 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to ""Get off my lawn" syndrom."
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

This isn't about being a "get off my lawn" type person or having an irrational hate towards Apple. Computer geek have a better understanding of technology, therefore they are likely to be more skeptical about corporate policies.

You average consumer does and cannot think beyond the short term impact of him purchasing a certain product. Geek on the other hand are in to tech as a hobby, therefore much more likely to care about long-term impacts of tech policies and the ability to tinker with their devices.

This isn't about hating Apple or disliking products that appeal to the masses. This is about wanting to use products that we pay for in a manner we see fit. You have an issue with that? Go buy yourself a second iPad to support Apple! No one is stopping you from doing so. Don't be so defense towards criticism. If you all you cared about was ease of use, you simply wouldn't care.

Reply Score: 8

RE: "Get off my lawn" syndrom.
by Lennie on Thu 8th Jul 2010 18:06 UTC in reply to ""Get off my lawn" syndrom."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"Geeks have long disliked Apple. Because they are making technology more open for the average person..."

I don't care much for Apple, don't against them particularly.

But do tell me, how is Apple more open ?

Reply Score: 3

RE: "Get off my lawn" syndrom.
by Soulbender on Fri 9th Jul 2010 04:00 UTC in reply to ""Get off my lawn" syndrom."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This hostility is beyond just the apple products it is basically towards anything that is new that they haven't actively participated in making.


Yeah, we can see this quite a lot in all the Windows/Apple geeks who oppose Linux.

Reply Score: 2

martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

This dumb ass article is explained in my also dumb ass article.

http://martin.iturbide.com/?page_id=168" http://martin.iturbide...

Reply Score: 3

Well, that Forbes article is stupid
by Eugenia on Wed 7th Jul 2010 22:30 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

The reason why I dislike the iPad and I didn't buy one is very simple: because it doesn't do all that I need.

It has nothing to do with crying out for the demise of the PC era or geek ethos. It has to do with the fact that I wanted the following:
1. A web cam to use with iChat/Skype/etc.
2. A built-in SDHC card slot. From my cam to the iPad, please. No bulky hardware add-ons. And why not be able to extend my internal storage please?
3. A non-restrictive virtual filesystem so I can add files in there that are accessible to all (or some) apps (this is a missing feature that also bothers me on the iPhone a lot because it stops some kinds of apps from being developed or be fully functional). The current filesystem implementation on the iPad via the iTunes is restrictive (won't let you add any kind of file you want).
4. Bluetooth OBEX (for the said non-iPod files above).
5. A true 16:9 screen at 1280x720 for true HD video playback. Not 1280x800, and not 1024x600 either. True 720p HD please.
6. HDMI-out wouldn't hurt either, although it's not a must-have at this point in time.

Gimme that, and I'd be happy. I'd pay $1000 for it, not just $500. But the way it is now, the iPad doesn't do what I need. Nothing to do with "oh my God, my time is over, the PC has fallen, death to the tablets".

Reply Score: 9

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

The reason why I dislike the iPad and I didn't buy one is very simple: because it doesn't do all that I need.


Exactly. Unfortunately many geeks can't differentiate between NEED and WANT. For some, it is missing features they need, for most however it will simply be missing "toys" that they WANT to play with...

Reply Score: 3

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I agree. However, I can personally justify all the missing features I mentioned above:

1. I want to chat with my mom. I recently gave her my old Ubuntu netbook and she wants to skype/gtalk me with video from Greece. Seeing her only once a year is hard, and a webcam can help with that.

2. After I left OSNews I became a filmmaker. But even if I don't do "real" work, when I visit places I still have my 720p HD Canon digicam to shoot videos and pictures. I'd like to at least be able to view my pictures immediately on the big screen of the iPad, without having to use dongles. The iPad is big enough to fit an SDHC slot (in fact, it was shown that it has lots of available space inside).

3. I want to use the imovie app Apple is selling, or the ReelDirector (arguably, a better iPad/iPhone video editor than the iMovie Mobile). Unfortunately, because there is no "user" filesystem below for apps to access, you can't add your own, non-iPod, music for scoring your edited videos. The imovie comes with 15 pre-cooked musical pieces, the poor ReelDirector comes with none because they don't have the money to license that stuff. Another usage: a real WAV audio editor. Basically, this lack of filesystem on the iPhone/iPad/iPod really irks me. It's the main missing feature that drives me towards Android. There is a whole RANGE of kinds of apps that can't exist on the iPad because of this limitation.

4. I want to share my pics or documents with others, via Bluetooth (non-iTunes files, of course). I don't really carry data cables with me, and I shouldn't anyway.

5. True 720p screen means 1:1 no-zoom playback (for my video exports, Vimeo/Youtube HD, Hulu, iTunes purchases/rentals). And 1:1 playback means better quality, and speed (the DSP won't have to work harder to resize).

6. I'm thinking of foregoing Comcast and move to Hulu Plus (if it wasn't for my husband's need for golf and ESPN). So HDMI-out would have been nice. But as I said, it's not a show-stopper feature yet, just some added value. But if Hulu adds live sports TV eventually, it will become a needed feature, because then I will indeed cancel Comcast TV.

So basically, all 5 of them are must-have for me, and #6 is ok any way it goes. To me, it's really missing functionality that made me not get the iPad and stay with my 11.3" netbook (which has most of these features, and then some). But if Apple was to fix these issues in the next iPad, I'd buy it immediately.

Edited 2010-07-08 00:07 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Piot Member since:
2009-09-17

From the original article.

"Apple's tablet upsets the way they (geeks) think technology should work."

Reply Score: 1

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Regarding my "user" filesystem example above: it's not about "how, we geeks, think this feature should be implemented", but the fact that "there's NO ALTERNATIVE way offered by the iOS API to implement this functionality".

If that was a matter of "we, Apple, think you should have all your files in the cloud and not in the device, that's the way forward", I'd say, "whatever, at least you offer us a way to access arbitrary data from within apps". But Apple doesn't offer us a solution whatsoever.

And the journalist who wrote that sentence in the Forbes article, should stop generalize. I take personal offense by his writings. I don't argue for webcams because "the iPad upsets the way I think technology should work", but because I freaking wanna video-chat with my mom who lives thousands of miles away, and she's all alone.

Or, I want "user" filesystem access because I want to use apps that currently can't exist, or they're severely limited by it.

What a dumbass. Pissed off my perfect afternoon.

Edited 2010-07-08 01:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

If that was a matter of "we, Apple, think you should have all your files in the cloud and not in the device, that's the way forward", I'd say, "whatever, at least you offer us a way to access arbitrary data from within apps". But Apple doesn't offer us a solution whatsoever.


Now I'm confused (really. I'm not be snarky). There is nothing precluding iPad apps from using cloud storage to access arbitrary data - I'm writing an app that does that now... Granted, Apple doesn't exactly promote this as a primary IO mechanism, but it is doable.

Is your issue that Apple doesn't provider a storage cloud itself with an official API? Granted, you more or less have to roll your own storage engine, but there is nothing that would stop developers from standardizing on one (I've seen some using Amazon S3 for example).

Only point I have is that it can be done...

Reply Score: 2

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Sorry, but having 10 different apps using 10 different cloud servers is UNACCEPTABLE. So, yes, my issue is with Apple for not offering a solution -- cloud or not. It has to come FROM Apple, otherwise it creates fragmentation and makes this feature useless. If I was to have all my doc files on one server, and all my mp3 files on another, it defeats the purpose of having apps accessing all of my arbitrary data and providing a consistent and easy-to-user experience.

So yes, this is Apple's fault. No one else's. And it's very ironic that Apple added some iPad filesystem support via iTunes, ONLY when their OWN office apps stumbled into the same limitation. Think about it. Here we were 3+ years using iOS and Apple hadn't bothered to create a virtual user filesystem, or a cloud system with a standard API, or whatever other shit that would do the trick. But when their OWN apps got the problem, what did they do??? They added iWork file support (via iTunes). And they still gave the finger to all the other kinds of file formats! If iTunes doesn't recognize the format, it won't allow it to the iPad!

This goes on to show you both how arrogant Apple is, and how this is actually a much needed feature that is required by serious apps (rather than toys).

And personally I hate cloud filesystems, I prefer in-device support for it. The cloud thingie is simply an example if Apple wanted to play it modern to us. But instead they didn't do squat for this. No in-device, no cloud, no nothing. The important thing here is that the API or service about this must come from Apple, otherwise is just useless in the grand scheme of things. It's one of these features that it must be built-in, or it'd be half-assed if third parties tried to "fix" the problem.

Reply Score: 2

cjlacz Member since:
2010-05-13

I don't think you'll ever be happy with anything other than a traditional PC. If Apple fixes this you'll just find the next limitation to pick on.

A lot of those cloud services aren't really for file sharing, but in app usage. Since you don't need a login for the App to access them I don't really see the problem. It's invisible to the user if there 10 such services or just one.

File sharing as you pointed out time and time again isn't easy to go on the iPhone, but it's never really been an issue for most apps. It's become more of an issue with iPad since it allows more traditional productivity apps. Apple made it's first pass with the iWorks apps. Apple always starts simple and goes from there. It's not going to be stuck where it is now for all time.

I'm sure once Apple works through the security and other issues that would result from allowing any files on the device we'll see more flexibility with files on iOS devices.

Reply Score: 1

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>I don't think you'll ever be happy with anything other than a traditional PC.

This is absolutely not true. What I need is already being laid out in plain English in my first comment. I don't need the full functionality of a PC.

>If Apple fixes this you'll just find the next limitation to pick on.

You don't know me, so you can't make such assertions publicly. I know very well what I want.

>A lot of those cloud services aren't really for file sharing, but in app usage. Since you don't need a login for the App to access them I don't really see the problem. It's invisible to the user if there 10 such services or just one.

First of all I prefer in-device file system support, not clouds. But even if the solution was the cloud, you'd still need to login to each of these cloud systems -- if each app was using its own solution and not a built-in Apple-offered one. So no, what you write here is not correct. The plain truth is that if Apple doesn't give us a solution, third party will try to fix it by themselves, and in the process will create fragmentation and a terrible experience.

>File sharing as you pointed out time and time again isn't easy to go on the iPhone

It's easy enough on Android.

>but it's never really been an issue for most apps.

Did you somehow missed my first comment on this story? I explained exactly the kind of apps that were bruised by this limitation. And it's been a HUGE issue for the developer of ReelDirector. His app -- an amazing app btw -- is being rated low because people want to add music to their videos, and Apple doesn't allow for filesystem access (and I'm not talking about iPod files here, I respect the wishes of the commercial copyright holders for their work to not be used this way). So this guy has had revenue LOST because his app was getting low ratings from clueless consumers, because Apple doesn't have the right functionality in place for that app to work properly. That app, and many other apps that don't even EXIST because it's a lost cause without this functionality.

>It's become more of an issue with iPad since it allows more traditional productivity apps. Apple made it's first pass with the iWorks apps. Apple always starts simple and goes from there. It's not going to be stuck where it is now for all time.

This is a feature that should have been there since Day 1. Four major releases later is inconceivable to not have this BASIC functionality. So please stop apologizing for Apple. They don't deserve the cutting of slack in this case. Your whole comment is reading like a big apology. Don't do that.

Reply Score: 3

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So this guy has had revenue LOST because his app was getting low ratings from clueless consumers, because Apple doesn't have the right functionality in place for that app to work properly. That app, and many other apps that don't even EXIST because it's a lost cause without this functionality.


My heart is bleeding for this guy.

Perhaps he should buy Steve a gift? Perhaps if he asked really, really nice, they would allow him to add that functionality?

Reply Score: 2

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

And it's been a HUGE issue for the developer of ReelDirector. His app -- an amazing app btw -- is being rated low because people want to add music to their videos, and Apple doesn't allow for filesystem access (and I'm not talking about iPod files here, I respect the wishes of the commercial copyright holders for their work to not be used this way). So this guy has had revenue LOST because his app was getting low ratings from clueless consumers, because Apple doesn't have the right functionality in place for that app to work properly.


This is not true. I know, because I uploaded music to ReelDirector *yesterday*. It uses WiFi and a browser on your PC/Mac, but it's not hard nor is it "limiting". I don't understand how or why you would want to add random Music files to your iPhone and *not* have it in the iPod?! And, as we know, having it in your iPod then falls in to the restrictions of Apple not allowing iPod Music in apps such as ReelDirector. This is therefore entirely consistent.

ReelDirector is very good, yes, but the clip editor (trimming the clips) really sucks. I wish it was a simple as the camera app. It's actually simpler to trim the clips in the Camera, save as a new clip and import in to ReelDirector. Bad workflow.

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

They obviously have a different vision as to what they think should be fixed and they control their device.

But the problem is with freedom, that which Microsoft has been accused and convicted of Apple is doing now.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Really now. All geeks, everywhere.
Aren't generalizations lovely? I especially like ones like "All Apple users are uptight snobs" or "Windows users are clueless noobs". I'm sure we can find at least one example of either so obviously the generalizations are universally applicable.

Reply Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The reason why I dislike the iPad and I didn't buy one is very simple: because it doesn't do all that I need.

It has nothing to do with crying out for the demise of the PC era or geek ethos. It has to do with the fact that I wanted the following:
1. A web cam to use with iChat/Skype/etc.


Agreed. That was a major omission.

2. A built-in SDHC card slot. From my cam to the iPad, please. No bulky hardware add-ons. And why not be able to extend my internal storage please?


The simple truth is storage space is Apple's only differentiator for pricing. If it had storage expansion they would have to use something else to segment their pricing - what I don't know... Granted, that is their problem, but that is the problem.

3. A non-restrictive virtual filesystem so I can add files in there that are accessible to all (or some) apps (this is a missing feature that also bothers me on the iPhone a lot because it stops some kinds of apps from being developed or be fully functional). The current filesystem implementation on the iPad via the iTunes is restrictive (won't let you add any kind of file you want).


I agree. But they probably don't want to give users a way to bypass iTunes. Again, their problem - not yours. You can always jailbreak...

4. Bluetooth OBEX (for the said non-iPod files above).


Same issue really...

5. A true 16:9 screen at 1280x720 for true HD video playback. Not 1280x800, and not 1024x600 either. True 720p HD please.


This one I don't agree with. I was puzzled by the choice of a conventional 4:3 AR as well - but after using it, it was the right thing to do with this particular device. Using a 16:9 AR device in portrait mode would be very awkward to say the least - too top heavy (its already a bit top heavy). And portrait mode is preferable for a lot of apps...

As far as resolution - its frankly too small to matter much imo. If you want 1280x720 for video playback you are probably better off with a dedicated video player (or something that runs an OS that restricts itself to landscape orientation so as not to encourage people to sprain their wrists).

6. HDMI-out wouldn't hurt either, although it's not a must-have at this point in time.


Yeah - Id like that too. And regarding the previous gripe it would be very nice if it could output full 720p when playing videos to said external HDMI-out. No real reason it couldn't do that...

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The reason why I dislike the iPad and I didn't buy one is very simple: because it doesn't do all that I need.


What? That's a like, a rational argument. Those things really have no place in todays "journalism". We need more scandals and controversies, not sane, well-composed articles.

Reply Score: 3

rubberneck Member since:
2009-06-16

You used to pimp the BeOS which did absolutely nothing. iPad kills it in features. As soon as something meets your feature list then you will want more. You will never be happy.

Reply Score: 1

sanders Member since:
2005-08-09

Perhaps it did nothing, but it did so with amazing fluidity and pervasive multithreading.

Reply Score: 1

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

You used to pimp the BeOS which did absolutely nothing. iPad kills it in features.


The iPad definitely kills BeIA. Killing BeOS is a real stretch tho.

Reply Score: 1

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

BeOS was what it was back in 1999. This is 2010, and for the range of 2009-2012 I know what I want -- I mentioned what. Maybe in 2013 I'd want something more, but for now, I don't. These devices have a practical life of 2 years anyway, so they're within that window of my "current wants" list. It's just that for 2010, these devices are below par for me (again, read my previous comments as to why). So stop patronizing me without knowing me.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I don't know which side of the "tablets are killing PCs" discussion I hate more.

There is a measurable trend towards more specialized devices for certain thing, this has been going on ever since all that was available was big irons. Did the PC kill the server industry? Of course not. What it did was allow people to do certain things on more specialized machines. Did it mean that PCs were useless, and the server industry wouldn't be affected by their comming on to the market? Of course not.

Replace PC and Server with iPad and PC, and the same statements apply. It is blindly obvious, and the only reason these sorts of articles keep happening is because apple has a kickass marketing department, and want to generate buzz. And it is working/has worked.

Reply Score: 2

I could be very wrong...
by thavith_osn on Thu 8th Jul 2010 00:46 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

...about this, and have been wrong before - but...

I think the iPad is a closed environment for a reason. I really don't think it's Apple trying to control the device (which they do) to stop people from doing whatever they like on it - but due to the market it is aimed at. It's not aimed at people who know what they are doing as such, but at the masses of people out there who still don't use a computer or when they do, dislike the experience.

We all hate the car analogy, but here it is anyway. There are people who buy a car and love to tinker with it, get inside the engine bay and so on. The thing is, I like many many others am not a car geek. I just want a car I can sit in and drive somewhere with. I have to put petrol (gas) in it from time to time and maybe change the water and oil even more rarely, but basically I don't care about that stuff too much. I do want a nice comfortably ride, reliability, easy of use and so on. So the chances are I won't by a kit car or build one from scratch, and I certainly don't want a car I have to spend hours on before I can drive it. I just want to leave the showroom in it and use it right away.

This is true for many PC users. They just want a computer that does the little they do well. Email, browsing, some home office apps, games, manage photos, chat (with video (OK, iPad doesn't do that *)) and so on...

I would put myself in the geek category here, so I haven't wanted or needed an iPad and don't have one. I'd rather a touch screen running OS X with a stylus. I would get one to develop iPad apps for it though, but that is pretty much it.

But for my Mum, most of my rellies and a lot of other people I know, the device I want would be less desirable for them (OS X, Win 7 or Linux). But an iPad would be much closer to what they want. A simple device that does the little they do very well. The fact that you can plug a keyboard into it makes the difference for me.

To make this happen, Apple needed to control the environment. You can see they are on the right track if you look at how other companies are implementing their "ecosystems". So I don't think it's a company trying to control our use of h/w but a company trying to create an easy to use and safe environment for those that need it.

If OS X 10.7 is controlled like iOS, then I'll change my mind.

So again, not for everyone, just those that need it.

*I'm guessing the next iPad will have camera like the iPhone 4 and iMove - maybe the whole iLife suite (sweet) :-)
** I also wonder if the next incarnation of the iPad will have the retina display, so will show 1920x1080 video? Just a thought...

Reply Score: 4

RE: I could be very wrong...
by martini on Sat 10th Jul 2010 03:15 UTC in reply to "I could be very wrong..."
martini Member since:
2006-01-23

...there are some points to analyze about your statement.

1) Why does Apple don't allow the regular user to continue the limited restrictive experience, and allow the advanced users to install apps from other sources? Apple patches their system to don't allow this hacks and void the warranty to anybody that does Jailbreak.

2) Why don't Apple keep with the crazy restrictions about Flash apps on their Apple Store, but leaves the door open for advanced user to install other kind (non native) applications in a legal way?

Apple can still offer the "experience" they propose to the non-technical people and allow the advanced users to hack and experiment with the device, but Apple don't want people using the iPad beyond the boundaries they rule.

...but this had been historically the Apple weak point. They set their own limitation and a competitor shows up without them, so Apple turn into a niche.

Reply Score: 1

Shrek iPod Touch
by SuperDaveOsbourne on Thu 8th Jul 2010 01:04 UTC
SuperDaveOsbourne
Member since:
2007-06-24

Apple is now the Sony of the 10s. THey produce overpriced crap and people line up to get it like they are on crack. Kinda a reflection of American society really. Oversized and overpriced.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Shrek iPod Touch
by Dr.Mabuse on Thu 8th Jul 2010 02:26 UTC in reply to "Shrek iPod Touch"
Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple is now the Sony of the 10s. THey produce overpriced crap and people line up to get it like they are on crack.


QFT. It's not that I *hate* the iPad, I just see it as a rather pointless gimmick (considering the non-crippled alternatives out there.) I guess it may fill someone's needs, but I suspect it's more about being seen with the latest trendy gadget.

Edited 2010-07-08 02:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Shrek iPod Touch
by sbenitezb on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:03 UTC in reply to "Shrek iPod Touch"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Kinda a reflection of American society really. Oversized and overpriced.


Please don't put us southamericans in the same shit sack as USA. America is a continent, not a country.

Reply Score: 3

I don't have an iPad because...
by license_2_blather on Thu 8th Jul 2010 02:33 UTC
license_2_blather
Member since:
2006-02-05

It's overpriced for what it does. No keyboard, no hard drive? I can buy a real laptop for less.

Maybe as the OP stated, there isn't much room between my portable digital assistant (an HTC Droid Incredible) and my laptop. If I'm going to carry an iPad, I'll go ahead and bring a laptop. If not, I'm taking the phone. It has nothing to do with geek sensibilities, even though I'm pretty tech-minded.

I'm sure the hardware is nice, and there's a target (niche) market for it. I'm just not part of it.

Reply Score: 2

sanders Member since:
2005-08-09

It doesn't have proper boot clamps either. I could get a real snowboard for less, and spend the money on a few printouts of photos I really like. Okay, so if I want to change the picture on my snowboard I have to do so manually so it's cool that the iPad has a nifty way to change pics, but all in all I think the iPad is a ridiculously overpriced snowboard.

Reply Score: 2

Lock-in
by jrincayc on Thu 8th Jul 2010 02:45 UTC
jrincayc
Member since:
2007-07-24

If you don't care about lock-in and freedom at the start, you can easily get bitten by it in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Reply Score: 3

People are comparing incorrectly
by openwookie on Thu 8th Jul 2010 02:50 UTC
openwookie
Member since:
2006-04-25

It's being compared to a traditional home computer, when it's really more similar to a TV + cable box.

I can't modify the software on my TV. Nor on my HD cable box. They are closed devices designed for consuming content. If I want to rent a movie on my HD cable box I have to purchase through my cable company. Luckily there are other sources to get content (movie rentals/purchases, or bittorrent if that's your thing), but that requires the purchase of separate devices.

Same goes with the iPad. It's meant for consuming content. A nice thing about it is that the web contains far better content than my TV's antenna can pick up. And the app store/itunes is far more permissive of allowing publishers to sell content than my local cable company is.

This idea that it's meant to replace real computers wholesale is absurd. It's meant to replace computers at certain tasks, namely portable content consumption that traditionally has been the realm of laptops and netbooks. And in that regard it's mostly a good replacement. It may even be useful for light content creation duties as well, but it seems ill suited to replace traditional PCs for the heavy duty tasks.

Reply Score: 2

AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

... except you can install apps and look at whatever media you want on an iPad... as long as it is through an Apple approved method, which is a restriction enforced artificially by the iOS software.

Your cable box and TV probably don't have any way to install programs on them. If mine did and I couldn't install my own programs on them, then, yes, I would be annoyed.

Reply Score: 1

openwookie Member since:
2006-04-25

But this is where you're wrong. What you call 'programs' on an iPad is actually 'content'. It's just a different medium than the videos & music available on your cable box.

What you want is a general purpose computer. iPad is NOT a general purpose computer. It's a next generation consumer content device.

To think of it another way, if you produced a cool ass video, do you think you shopuld be able to give it away for free on the cable box? And because you can't, are you pissed about it?

Reply Score: 2

AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

1. TVs do have standard inputs. If I produce video, anyone can show it on their TV using standard hardware.

2. The cable box has no easy way to get my video onto it -- that is, the restriction is actually due to the cable box not having a feature, not due to the feature being locked down. Its input is a coax cable. Given a device that can create a TV signal, I would expect the cable box to be able to decode it. Actually that is related to an issue with cable boxes: for just watching TV (i.e. no on-demand stuff), the cable box does nothing but handle DRM. It *is* an annoyance.

3. If I want a video to show up on everyone's cable boxes, I can probably get it shown on government public access TV. Of course, this would be silly since video web sites like YouTube/Vimeo exist, but it could be done.

Reply Score: 1

It's simple
by cefarix on Thu 8th Jul 2010 03:05 UTC
cefarix
Member since:
2006-03-18

The iPad is not a tablet PC. It's just a bigger iPhone. It has its uses but trying to use it like a PC is not one of them. I think maybe a lot of complaints about the iPad is that people expect it to be a PC in their hands.

People's fears about the Internet becoming a closed network are unfounded. Some countries will try to do that. But the Internet is global and can't be closed. Living in the US, I think there is a very remote yet still distinct possibility that the Internet here could become something like North Korea's, but if that happens I'll just move somewhere else, no biggie.

The "geek ethos" to hack things is not really "geek ethos" at all. It's human nature, and the ability to manipulate our environment is a result of the laws of physics. Nobody can stop anyone from doing that. People who think they can stop it, and people who think it could be stopped, are equally delusional IMO.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by dvzt
by dvzt on Thu 8th Jul 2010 06:55 UTC
dvzt
Member since:
2008-10-23

I, for one, am a big iPhone booster, but also a dedicated jailbreaker.


I fail to understand this. I would never give money to a company, which doesn't treat me fairly.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by dvzt
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Thu 8th Jul 2010 07:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by dvzt"
yoshi314@gmail.com Member since:
2009-12-14

good luck finding one that does.

Reply Score: 1

iPad is for dummies? Gimme a break!
by wargum on Thu 8th Jul 2010 07:50 UTC
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

What most people don't get is this: The iPad needs a PC/Mac with iTunes for some of the most crucial tasks:

- Installing OS updates with security fixes in them
- Making backups

So whenever someone says this is great for dummies, I can't stop shaking my head. Those people would still need a 'fully featured' PC anyway or you have to be honest that you do all administrative tasks for those people.

That all may change, as well as some of the other restrictions mentioned in previous comments. That's the problem I have with apples ads as well as a lot of iPad reviews: They talk about revolution, the post-PC era, etc. but when you really look at the iPad and leave out all emotions, you can only see it as what it is: A giant iPod touch and simply an iTunes extension and media consumption device that is dependant on a PC/Mac.

Reply Score: 3

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

What most people don't get is this: The iPad needs a PC/Mac with iTunes for some of the most crucial tasks:

- Installing OS updates with security fixes in them
- Making backups


This is true - but I wouldn't say it is "dependent" on having a PC/Mac, more like it is occasionally needed.

Most apps don't have much local data - and frankly most apps that do have local data don't have any that people care about - at all. They are mostly toys and such. I'm not saying everyone uses it purely for entertainment stuff - but that is by far the primary use. So you do need to sync up every now and then to install an OS update or put some new music/videos on it - but not very often. I haven't synced mine since the week I got it (which was the week it was released) - and if it went fubar on me tomorrow I really wouldn't lose anything of value (I might whine losing my save game for Angry Birds, but that is about it). Id just restore from backup, re-sync my music from iTunes, and reinstall my missing apps from the app store.

Reply Score: 2

Nice article
by mintar on Thu 8th Jul 2010 09:32 UTC
mintar
Member since:
2008-09-26

Some of our most pressing economic, social, political, and environmental problems we face today are the result of things that happened decades or even centuries ago that just didn't seem like a big deal at the time.


Full ACK! Nice article, thanks.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Paradroid
by Paradroid on Thu 8th Jul 2010 10:12 UTC
Paradroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

I still don't understand this "geek" mentality regarding the iPad. Yes it is locked down but it is a consumer product, not a "pro" device. The XBOX360 and PS3 are exactly the same.

I just think people haven't caught up to the idea that it's a specialised device, not a general purpose computer. It strips out complexity to try and do what it is designed to do as efficiently as possible.

Microsoft hardware partners tried to sell general purpose tablets about eight years ago, but no-one wanted them.

I am not a raving Apple fan, they have been made to look very silly with the iPhone 4 debacle and I don't like the App Store approval process either.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Paradroid
by Lennie on Thu 8th Jul 2010 16:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by Paradroid"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think the problem with the older devices is, the software interface sucked. People are not interrested in paying more for a worse experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Paradroid
by AnyoneEB on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Paradroid"
AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

To the contrary, there is a significant minority of game console users that want to be able to run their own applications on their game consoles. Remember how big a deal OS News made about the PS3 losing the "other OS" feature ( http://www.osnews.com/story/23075/Sony_Does_180_Removes_Other_OS_Fe... )? What about XMBC (originally "XBox Media Center"; was for the XBox, not the 360) ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/XBMC )? And there's the constant fight between Nintendo and the Wii homebrew community. The iPad is not the only locked down device that has people unhappy with the lock-down.

Personally, I own a few game consoles and the lock-down doesn't bother me that much because for that form-factor, I can just as easily hook-up a real computer to my TV and do whatever I want with it. (It is a tiny bit inconvenient because I don't have a computer permanently hooked up to a TV, but it only takes a minute to plug a laptop into a TV.) Similarly, I carry an N810 for a portable computer, so it does not bother me that I cannot use a less powerful portable game console as one -- although for mobile devices, carrying fewer of them would be nice, except for battery life issues.

The issue is that all of those devices, including the iPad, are specialized not because there is anything special about them but because the manufacturer has gone out of their way to put technical and legal restrictions on what software they can run. Other people in this thread have mentioned not being able to run their own software on their TV or cable box as a reasonable restriction -- and I agree: it can't run anyone else's software either (other than its built-in firmware, of course). There is a difference between not supporting a feature and the manufacturer going to great lengths to intentionally break it (see: Nintendo releasing OS updates that do nothing but break some Wii homebrew install method).

Saying the iPhone/iPad is not a "general purpose computer" is silly. It is running on hardware of relatively similar specs to an Android phone or N900, which allow any apps to be installed.

I guess basically what I am saying is that the closed application access was more okay before the iPhone/iPad because having full control over a gaming console is a very small niche interest as they tend to be underpowered and of limited use for applications other than games (in part due to their available input methods), so you did not hear about it as much unless you frequented the respective homebrew communities, but having full control over a relatively powerful handheld or tablet computer is much more useful.

As for the popularity of the iPad vs. older tablets: yes, it is quite possible that the Apple iOS interface and app store make the device easier to use. Having a buried preference for using alternate app stores would not affect the usability but would appease those who don't like walled garden.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Paradroid
by Paradroid on Fri 9th Jul 2010 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Paradroid"
Paradroid Member since:
2010-01-05

Just because it is general purpose hardware doesn't mean it is a general purpose computer - the form factor, OS and user interface (and, yes, Apple's restrictions) dictate that it is not.

I am well aware of the fact that games consoles can be unlocked or hacked. That is fine with me. People will probably do the same with the iPad and that is fine.

But lets be honest, the target market for the iPad is the average consumer and they are not going to jailbreak it.

Apple have built a device that tries to do a few things very well.

Them creating and selling this product does not suddenly prevent us pro/geek users from doing what the hell we like with our desktop PC's and laptops and netbooks, so I come back to my original point - why are we bothered?

Reply Score: 1

Trade-offs
by Martin3000 on Thu 8th Jul 2010 15:25 UTC
Martin3000
Member since:
2010-07-08

Most things in life are trade-offs. For example, we want to be free to do whatever we want, but we also want some laws and we want the government to provide a framework we can use to live our lives without having to be police officers or medics or fire fighters ourselves. Most of us probably think this is a pretty good deal. Don't do stupid things that violate the laws and you won't be affected negatively by the laws. The cops won't throw you in jail and you can continue to go about your business.

This is how I feel about the app store. It provides a framework for me, the independent developer, to distribute my software without even having to set up some kind of web shop myself that I have to direct people to. My apps compete on virtually the same stage as the apps from big software companies.

The app store has a bunch of rules. I am aware of them and I agree with most of them, just like I agree with many laws in society. The rules don't feel very restrictive, because as long as I don't violate any of them, I won't even know that they are there. It's simply a tradeoff between control and freedom. The consumer has an abundance of apps to choose from and the fact that so many competing apps are actually approved is probably more of a threat to any developer than the app store rules are.

Sure, there are governments that go overboard with their laws. Fortunately, with the app store, if Apple starts adding crazy rules in the future, you can just quit and take your development somewhere else, such as the Android marketplace, which I hear is also thriving at the moment.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Trade-offs
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 15:34 UTC in reply to "Trade-offs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


This is how I feel about the app store. It provides a framework for me, the independent developer, to distribute my software without even having to set up some kind of web shop myself that I have to direct people to. My apps compete on virtually the same stage as the apps from big software companies.

I note you created your osnews account today, and that this is your first post.

Welcome! I hope you'll keep us posted on the fascinating future developments in the Apple ecosystem, and especially the plethora of opportunities the ecosystem presents developers, independent or established alike.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Trade-offs
by jaklumen on Thu 8th Jul 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Trade-offs"
jaklumen Member since:
2010-02-09

Your sarcasm is so heartwarming.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Trade-offs
by Lennie on Thu 8th Jul 2010 18:08 UTC in reply to "Trade-offs"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"The rules don't feel very restrictive, because as long as I don't violate any of them, I won't even know that they are there. It's simply a tradeoff between control and freedom."

That doesn't make it right. Certain governments have also created their vision of such a trade-off, but it doesn't make it right.

I prefer freedom.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Trade-offs
by nt_jerkface on Thu 8th Jul 2010 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Trade-offs"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

How do you have more freedom then him? He's free to choose how he wants to make a living. If that means partnering with Apple and making use of their platform then so be it.

Services like the app store, Steam and XBLA can actually increase the independence of small developers. Apple, Valve and MS get a cut of the sales but they are also handling the distribution and financial transaction which reduces the investment required by the developer.

I work outside such systems but if I developed games I would definitely consider using one. There are game developers that have the option of going pc-only and releasing directly but prefer the benefits that come with a controlled environment like XBLA. It's just a business decision, not a compromise of personal or political freedom.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Trade-offs
by bitwelder on Fri 9th Jul 2010 06:48 UTC in reply to "Trade-offs"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

The rules don't feel very restrictive, because as long as I don't violate any of them, I won't even know that they are there.

Does this mean that you generally do whatever it pleases you (disregarding the existence of regulations), until somebody cries foul?
Interesting approach to civilization.

Sure, there are governments that go overboard with their laws.

How can you say that? It's enough you don't violate laws and all is good...

Reply Score: 1

Net Neutrality
by telns on Thu 8th Jul 2010 17:22 UTC
telns
Member since:
2009-06-18

"[A]nother geek obsession: net neutrality..."

Count me as one geek not obsessed. Giving governments the authority to dictate network behavior is far, far more scary than the idea that ISPs might prioritize traffic.

Mind you, once governments have the authority to dictate neutrality, they implicitly also possess authority to dictate non-neutrality. Lobbyists would make sure that was put to good use in short order, with the force of law behind it now.

Things like the DMCA should make anyone cautious of government involvement in tech.

Another way to combat the problem of [possible] non-neutrality by ISPs would be to have more competition among ISPs. A "neutral" ISP could compete with "non-neutral" ones with people free to choose. However high-speed ISPs are generally attached to government conceded monopolies, which is the common case with telephone and cable in the US.

At one point in history, a natural monopoly probably existed in those services, but the fact that those monopolies were (and are) codified in law is the bigger problem. It might be tough for a newcomer to compete, but that doesn't mean it should be downright illegal for them to try.

Even still, with the Internet competition exists in an additional way. If Cox customers in Dallas can download whatever they want, but Comcast customers in NYC cannot, that information will get out and Comcast customers will be very angry. It would take industry-wide collusion to prevent such disparities*. Something which is already (a) illegal and (b) unlikely, since the whole argument in favor of the laws anyway is that some service providers have closer ties to specific content providers than others.


*Edit: I am _not_ saying perfect neutrality with no disparities exists among all providers, but there can be perfectly valid technical reasons for non-neutrality, but those reasons (and therefore the restrictions) may be different for different providers. Ie, it might be necessary to prioritize interactive traffic over non-interactive traffic or else offend even more customers than the P2P guy you just slowed down. Ie, non-neutrality in some protocols might be necessary to guarantee a certain level of user experience for the majority of customers. Because of variations in networks, usw, different providers might be "non-neutral" in different ways, but provide a similar over all experience. The kind of disparity I'm talking about here is a truly heinous abuse, like the neutrality proponents use as examples, such as some new movie/TV service launching and Cox people can access it but Comcast people cannot (or at least cannot at a speed to make good use of it).

Edited 2010-07-08 17:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Trains v.s. Automobiles
by tomz on Thu 8th Jul 2010 18:03 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

The post mentioned mass transit v.s. Automobiles (and roads) and it is a good example.

The iPad is a train pass - you can only go where the tracks go, and that is most places, but also on their schedule, and you don't really own the train, it is whichever train is at the station.

The desire is for everything to work with everything else - roads connect everything, though some are gravel, and there are also ORVs.

The bigscreen TV, tablet, and other devices should be a peripheral and/or appliance, not yet another rail-road company so I can't display a movie on anything except the TV - Separate tracks, separate tracks, separate stations. You can't get there from here.

Or as another group put it:

"Defective by Design".

Vista was DRM for HD-DVD perfected over XP.

iPad is DRM. It is not a walled garden - gardens dont have razor wire and guard towers or locked gates where you can't get out of. It is a prison-farm.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Trains v.s. Automobiles
by nt_jerkface on Thu 8th Jul 2010 19:43 UTC in reply to "Trains v.s. Automobiles"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


iPad is DRM. It is not a walled garden - gardens dont have razor wire and guard towers or locked gates where you can't get out of. It is a prison-farm.


Beneath a Steel Sky Remastered is one of the most enjoyable games I have played in a long time and was only a buck in the app store.

I guess when I was playing it under the covers at night I was actually in an isolation cell.

I bought Earthworm Jim the other day for a buck as well. Instead of playing it I may just slit my wrists as it is the only way to escape this prison-farm.

Tell the world about me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Trains v.s. Automobiles
by vivainio on Thu 8th Jul 2010 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Trains v.s. Automobiles"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I guess when I was playing it under the covers at night I was actually in an isolation cell.


Perhaps a more apt comparison: iPad is the NSDAP

They throw great dance events and torchlit parades. But there is a nagging suspicion that not everything is quite right.

;-)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 9th Jul 2010 02:24 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I find that there are some 'geeks' who are completely fixated on IT and turn anything into some sort of crusade - picking a thing to be enamoured with, an operating system to cheerlead, or a device to praise or to scorn. Sure, I am interested in IT but I have other things in my life where IT isn't the only thing that I am interested - I see the kind of fixation mindset on this very forum with people ranting, raving and screaming about the evils of particular format, software, company etc. where all perspective is lost - that through this 'struggle' they've construct they have given themselves an identity of being some sort of 'online crusader'.

I'm interested in getting an iPad (the Kindle device isn't available in NZ) so I can run the Kindle on the iPad and read books on a device with an easy to handle form factor, I can surf the internet when I am on the train using the 3G model, and purchase some applications for quick note taking. For a lot of people out there, that is what they'll be using the device for as well. Most people like me don't give a crap about the crusades that I see people create about the supposed evils of the device, for me the device works and enables me to do what I want. If you as a 'geek' don't like it then don't purchase it but don't come to me and start 'schooling' yours truly on how I am a gullible idiot who has swallowed the 'Apple Koolaide'.

Edited 2010-07-09 02:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by alcibiades on Fri 9th Jul 2010 07:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, this is not what is going on.

What is happening is that one corporation, with a culture firmly stuck in the 1955 of Walt Disney, is exercising control over people's reading and movie watching and application installation on machines they have bought. When you look at the censorship they apply, it turns out that what they want to ban is perfectly legal in all Western jurisdictions. They wwant to ban pictures of ladies in swimsuits, access to books that have been lawfully on sale for half a century, cartoons of public figures. Applications that run or were written in 'the wrong' programming languages. The head of this company in an Orwellian turn of phrase announces that this way of doing things will free you from pornography. It will also free you from the temptation to run the politically incorrect Matlab on your iPad, and it will free you from using the politically incorrect scripting language Lua.

Apparently they also now want Federal law in the US to make it a criminal offense to modify a system you have bought and paid for, so as to allow it to access content and applications from other sources and thus avoid these controls. Think about this, Kiawai. We are dealing with a company that really thinks it appropriate to make it a criminal offense to modify a computer you have bought so as to be able to run Matlab on it. What do you think their state of mind can be to even dream that this is a reasonable idea?

I have not mentioned the advertising. The next thing that happens is that the monopoly on supply of applications and content enables Apple to extend its functionality to load advertising into both, and to ban anyone else from so doing. So Apple is now able to sell you a computer, then force you to use apps which are loaded with ads, and ban anyone else from accessing this ad space. You can be sure there will be no suggestive or subversive messages in these ads. Yes, you will be free from ladies in swimsuit in them, you'll be free from anything that would have struck Walt Disney in 1955 as being in questionable taste.

If this were a company with no influence and no great market share, it would be of no social importance or political significance. Apple unfortunately is not. It has very large, dominant, share in smartphones, it has large share in the iPad segment. It has great influence. Its model will inspire other companies to follow suit.

What Apple is moving towards is a world in which large corporations control what is read, what is watched, and what is done on computers and media access devices. It is using this control to impose a politically correct subset of the real chaotic and often offensive real world culture. Others will follow its example, if it is allowed to succeed, and we will end up again in a culture which most people here have never experienced, one of stifling conformity and uniformity, one in which Lady Chatterly's Lover and Ulysses could be prosecuted for indecency, but in which people cheerfully bought tickets to see two men beat each other to a pulp in public for profit. There was nothing obscene about quite extreme violence. The erotic was a different matter.

It was a world in which Louis Malle's film, Les Amants, could have the frames which revealed its entire point cut as indecent, because they showed women capable of experiencing sexual pleasure, but in which John Wayne could be seen every Saturday shooting and killing whole armies of bad people and get a U rating. They died with a distinct speed and lack of pain, which struck anyone who had seen the real thing as far more obscene than the changing expressions on the face of Jeanne Moreau.

That, and Twinkies, and Coke, and Marlborough, and the Superbowl, is what you get when you hand control over your culture to an oligarchy of large corporations. Legal freedom to read and dissent becomes irrelevant because there is no access.

That is why not simply geeks, but anyone with a commitment to an open society, intellectual freedom, and the values of John Stuart Mill and the US Constitution, ends up, once Apple's destination becomes clear, detesting not just the iPad, but Apple. At the end of the road that Apple is on we will encounter the equivalent of the Index, which controlled access to information in orthodox Catholic Europe for generations. You may not see this, because its hard to see that imposing the values of Disney 1955 in brightly colored designer boxes is at all similar. Look at the effect on freedom to read and access however, and the effect will be seen to be the same.

We need to do everything in our power to stop Apple, and one of the most effective measures we could take is to object to any public spending on any Apple products. Anyplace you can influence what any charity or educational institution uses and buys, do your best to make sure none of its money goes to Apple. That we should boycott Apple goes without saying. It is only when they are hit in the wallet that they will change.

And don't underestimate the power of ridicule either. The implications of what they are trying to bring about are scary, but they themselves are ridiculous. There cannot, surely, be anything much more ridiculous and uncool than banning a version of Ulysses because it is too sexual? Well, maybe they could ban books on evolution, because it is a controversial subject. Or perhaps they should ban sites which question Climate Change? Or which cast doubt on our conduct in Afghanistan?

In the end, what defeated Mosley in the thirties in England, was ridicule. It has a role to play in defeating Apple also.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by vivainio on Fri 9th Jul 2010 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


In the end, what defeated Mosley in the thirties in England, was ridicule. It has a role to play in defeating Apple also.


This may be true, because a big part of Apple brand is that people think they are "cool". If iPad was suddenly the "lame" tablet, people would steer clear of them (just like fur coats are no longer desirable).

This won't work until there is a credible alternative on the market though. The message should not be "tablets are lame", it should "iPad is lame".

Reply Score: 2

Not buzzword complaint
by robco74 on Fri 9th Jul 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
robco74 Member since:
2009-10-22

Bear in mind the cardinal rule - never buy the first version of an Apple product. Given the specs of the iPhone 4, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next version of the iPad have a camera, more memory and a faster processor.

As for ads, iAd is not the only conduit for advertising in apps. It's a way for developers who want to use ads to get revenue from Apple in a similar way they can with paid apps. Apple will not block third-party ad services. What they are blocking is sharing certain analytics with ad services that are also competitors to the iPhone/iPad - like Google and AdMob. You can still use AdMob, but there is some device information you won't have access to. From a business perspective, this makes sense. No reason for Apple to give one of its largest competitors inside information.

Apple doesn't allow Java, Python, Ruby or a host of other languages on iOS either. Perhaps this is them being jerks. Or perhaps they don't want a bunch of services running in the background on an embedded device. They don't block any of these on the Mac - hell, they include them by default. The iOS devices have much less memory and processing power, perhaps they really do want to make sure apps perform as optimally as possible.

As for content, Apple is beholden to the content providers. They can offer it, but only under the terms the record companies, studios and publishers will allow it. They were forced to use FairPlay when the iTunes Store was first launched, now pretty much all the music is free of DRM. Before the iPhone, carriers crippled built-in features and services. You were lucky to get OS upgrades. The iPhone changed that. Without the iPhone's success, I'm not sure many carriers would have warmed to Android. Apple is playing by the rules of the system, but has also worked to change it.

I personally don't have an iPad because I don't really know what I'd do with it. I already have a laptop and a smartphone, I don't see a need for a tablet. That's just me though. I just don't get the animosity toward Apple. I've usually found more than one app for functions I need. The vast majority are approved. They've had some high profile screw-ups, but have reversed decisions and approved "controversial" apps. They allow Amazon and BN to put up alternatives to iBooks. They have Hulu Plus and Netflix as alternatives to the iTS. You can import and add music from just about any other music store or rip CDs.

There are limits, but most users and developers never bump into them. Even Android is limitless only to the extent carriers allow it to be. People can complain about the closed nature of content, but the blame hardly rests squarely on Apple's shoulders. I suppose they could be accused of enabling, but aside from Disney, they don't really have much choice.

Reply Score: 1

Yes...and no
by Soulbender on Fri 9th Jul 2010 04:06 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Some geeks hate it, some love it, some are indifferent. News at 11.
Is this kind of Professor Obvious material really newsworthy?

Reply Score: 2

I detest the article
by WereCatf on Fri 9th Jul 2010 11:02 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Not ALL geeks hate Apple or iPad. I am very much a geek, and while I very much dislike Apple and their trigger-happiness in throwing DMCA takedowns around it doesn't mean I'd literally hate them or the iPad.

I just don't feel much of anything towards iPad tbh; it's uninteresting little box filled with too many restrictions for me to want one. So, what would I benefit from literally hating it? Needless bad mood and anger? Oh, sounds SO productive.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I detest the article
by vivainio on Fri 9th Jul 2010 11:23 UTC in reply to "I detest the article"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So, what would I benefit from literally hating it? Needless bad mood and anger? Oh, sounds SO productive.


The word "hate" was chosen by the Forbes guy.

Reply Score: 2

Here is why this geek hates the iPad:
by mlankton on Fri 9th Jul 2010 13:18 UTC
mlankton
Member since:
2009-06-11

Apple released a pedestrian device. It was up to Apple to do their magic and give me a tablet that raised the bar for all other tablet devices and do things we hadn't thought of yet. They did this with iPod. They did it with iPhone. We expect that of iPad.

Given the choice between an iPad and an Adam from Notion Ink, I am far more interested in the Adam. Much closer to what the Apple device should have been.

Reply Score: 1

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Apple released a pedestrian device. It was up to Apple to do their magic and give me a tablet that raised the bar for all other tablet devices and do things we hadn't thought of yet. They did this with iPod. They did it with iPhone. We expect that of iPad.


I have to ask though, what did the iPod actually do that was simply so new and revolutionary? I ask because so many seem to think, and talk, as if the portable digital music player was somehow invented by Apple. Funny, because I seemed to remember owning Mp3 players years before the iPod came out. The funny thing is that I have seen some argue that it was the Apple software that was what revolutionized the iPod. To which I reply...really? Are you serious? Consider that statistically speaking you will have more people running iPod software on Windows, this is a bad argument to make. Also, I seem to have thought over 10+ years ago the software that was used with my Rio to be more functional that the Apple iTunes. So what do we have left but the iTune store, which really is not all that revolutionary.


The old saying still holds true, Apple doesn't make computers for people who know anything about computers. That's not always a good thing. It's all flash, no substance, and goes back to the joke from two decades ago... First week you own a Mac you'll be amazed by what it can do, the rest of your life you'll be amazed by what it can't.


Agreed. So agreed. I resist the urge every time the name Apple comes up, but sometimes it just gets too damn much and I can not control myself. This statement above pretty much is 100% my sentiments exactly.

Reply Score: 2

mlankton Member since:
2009-06-11

2001. From what slim options existed for linux and the BSDs at the time, (which I'm pretty sure was limited to one KDE and one Gnome app, neither of which was worth a damn, and command line options) and the sad state of Windows solutions (I'm thinking whatever Roxio made for Win32 might have been your best bet back then) iTunes was a revolution. 2001. Don't think so? Been using various BSDs, linux, Digital Unix, Windows and Solaris, not to mention OPENSTEP throughout the 90s. If you want to tell me some Rio software back then was better at importing, cataloging, burning and exporting than iTunes I may be interested in what you've been smoking.

It's a moot point: we're talking iPad, and there is simply nothing compelling about it.

Reply Score: 1

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

2001. From what slim options existed for linux and the BSDs at the time, (which I'm pretty sure was limited to one KDE and one Gnome app, neither of which was worth a damn, and command line options) and the sad state of Windows solutions (I'm thinking whatever Roxio made for Win32 might have been your best bet back then) iTunes was a revolution. 2001. Don't think so? Been using various BSDs, linux, Digital Unix, Windows and Solaris, not to mention OPENSTEP throughout the 90s. If you want to tell me some Rio software back then was better at importing, cataloging, burning and exporting than iTunes I may be interested in what you've been smoking.

It's a moot point: we're talking iPad, and there is simply nothing compelling about it.


I seem to remember the Real Jukebox 2.0 was a pretty nice program that did import, catalog, and burn. Point here is that the iPod itself was simply NOT a "revolutionary" device. Apple simply can not claim that title when existing products existed years before. Did the iPod come with some extra or different features? Sure, but that changes absolutely nothing as a few minor features does not equate again to "revolutionary" status. My whole point here is that Apple gets these labels that are based purely on good PR, but not so much on actual delivery of new and innovative technology. Whether it be smartphones (iPhone), music players (iPod), and the tablet (iPad) Apple has simply created a consumer fetish product, nothing more. What they have not created is the new, revolutionary device that people seem to think they have done..which is my point.

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

What they have not created is the new, revolutionary device that people seem to think they have done..which is my point.


iPad is to tablets what Asus EEE PC was to netbooks. It's not a technical revolution, but it does revolutionize the market and creates a new consumer need.

Regardless of all the negative aspects, I'm glad iPad got released. It took Apple to release a tablet anyway, regardless of all the naysayers everywhere (incl. osnews) chanting "we don't need tablets".

Reply Score: 2

mlankton Member since:
2009-06-11

"
The old saying still holds true, Apple doesn't make computers for people who know anything about computers. That's not always a good thing. It's all flash, no substance, and goes back to the joke from two decades ago... First week you own a Mac you'll be amazed by what it can do, the rest of your life you'll be amazed by what it can't.


Agreed. So agreed. I resist the urge every time the name Apple comes up, but sometimes it just gets too damn much and I can not control myself. This statement above pretty much is 100% my sentiments exactly.
"

Alright if you are going to reply to my comment, identify what you put in block quotes. I will respond to the above nonsense, but first tell me where it comes from. It wasn't me, which is implied since you are responding to my post.

Reply Score: 1

Gadget vs computer
by MatsSvensson on Fri 9th Jul 2010 15:18 UTC
MatsSvensson
Member since:
2010-07-09

It may be a Cool Gadget, but its not a real computer until you can scoop out the gunk it comes with and install your own stuff in it.

Imagine buying a PC from Dell or HP or whoever, and having to use it with the 10 Gig of bloatware on the hard drive and recovery discs.

Reply Score: 1

Minor Article Correction
by Hae-Yu on Fri 9th Jul 2010 16:22 UTC
Hae-Yu
Member since:
2006-01-12

"the re-drawing of the borders of the middle eastern countries by WW1 victors"

Off-topic minor correction - take off the "re-"

There were no Middle Eastern borders before WW1. There were no "countries" or "nations." It all belonged to the Ottomans. People identified with tribe, religion or urban/ rural, not nation (defined as race/ people, not country). Areas peripheral to the Ottomans, such as Persia/ Iran, also lacked firm boundaries and national identities.

"Peace to End all Peace" by David Fromkin. Everyone from Zionists to anti-Israelis like Robert Fisk puts it at the top of their bibliography.

Still your point is taken about affects of past actions affecting lives now. Today is the accumulation of all that happened in the past.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Fri 9th Jul 2010 19:12 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Oh yes, it being ridiculously overpriced couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

When I can get a 2.2ghz Celeron laptop with a 15" 720p widescreen laptop for $299, a oversized PDA that starts at $900 isn't going to blow my skirt up.

It's what I was saying in the "PC here to stay" thread - we have 7" 300mhz arm tablets running android costing $80 or LESS - I find it hard to believe that a 1ghz ARM in a 2" larger form factor should cost three times what a netbook does. That's bull, pure and simple... hell, it's can't even cost them more than $150 to manufacture - but again, how else can they possibly get their record profits per unit without price-gouging and contributing to inflation.

Also, people who know the technology know there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING revolutionary about the iPad - it's just another tablet the only difference is it being a media darling for no good reason other than the RDF that surrounds all Apple products.

The old saying still holds true, Apple doesn't make computers for people who know anything about computers. That's not always a good thing. It's all flash, no substance, and goes back to the joke from two decades ago... First week you own a Mac you'll be amazed by what it can do, the rest of your life you'll be amazed by what it can't.

But of course, getting technical advice from Forbes is like getting financial advice from Popular Electronics. They really should stick to covering what they actually understand.

Edited 2010-07-09 19:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by Soulbender on Sat 10th Jul 2010 05:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But of course, getting technical advice from Forbes is like getting financial advice from Popular Electronics.


I love that line.

Reply Score: 2

this geek says
by Googol on Sat 10th Jul 2010 15:21 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

I hate it because it is appauling useless for 830 USD.

In the media, it has been hailed for being great for watching videos. They say, it makes sense Apple's prefered image for advertising it for that purpose is while sitting on the couch, legs up on the coffee table.

Now, bad manners aside, this is retarded. So I - or you - sit in the lounge, on the couch. With an iPad. Watching a movie. Wow, how retarded. Guess what is opposite everyone's couch, even every iPad users' couch? Yes, that's right: a big TV-set / flat screen, whatevva. And one of the main selling points is how great a device it is for watching videos. No, it's not.

It is the same BS as with a Zen Vision or similar device for video. They are cool for what they are, a geek toy, a novelty item, etc. Yes, I watched a few vids on a portable media player, and yes, it is "cool". "Cool" as in this was unthinkable 10 years ago, and cool as in I have one and my mates don't. But the truth is, videos are best watched on a big TV, not a retarded little 9" device for 830 !!!! USD. And geeks are called that for a reason - they know technology. And the iPad's novelty factor is wearing of like 1-2-3. Now, the same goes for it's browing cababilities. If I am at home, I use a PC. Btw, the iPad can never be a substitute for anything - see, you don't even get your media loaded onto it without a PC.. omg.

So, is the ipad utter rubbish? Yes and no. It is ok to have a useless device for 150 USD, just for geeky fun. If you paid 830, don't tell anyone, because it's rediculous.

PS It doesn't play flash for 830 USD, and never will.

Reply Score: 2

RE: this geek says
by vivainio on Sat 10th Jul 2010 18:11 UTC in reply to "this geek says"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I hate it because it is appauling useless for 830 USD.


Do you hate Rolex watches too? First class airline tickets? Bottled water?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: this geek says
by deathshadow on Sat 10th Jul 2010 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE: this geek says"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12


Do you hate Rolex watches too? First class airline tickets? Bottled water?

I would think it depends -- Apple's products on the whole are like taking a $20 timex, slapping a rolex type-band on it, slapping the rolex labels on it and selling it at Rolex prices; It's like the only thing making a ticket be first class being it's at the front of the plane and not have any of the ACTUAL luxuries; It's like if bottled water at a restaurant where ten minutes ago a guy was filling the bottle in the back alley with a garden hose.

Because that describes most Apple products... You're paying for the label slapped on it and not what the product actually is. Hence the joke "I'll buy anything if it's shiny and has a Apple logo on it."

Again, Kool Aid, RDF, etc.

Edited 2010-07-10 21:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: this geek says
by vivainio on Sat 10th Jul 2010 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: this geek says"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I would think it depends -- Apple's products on the whole are like taking a $20 timex, slapping a rolex type-band on it, slapping the rolex labels on it and selling it at Rolex prices; It's like the only thing making a ticket be first class being it's at the front of the plane and not have any of the ACTUAL luxuries; It's like if bottled water at a restaurant where ten minutes ago a guy was filling the bottle in the back alley with a garden hose.


These are all products that only hurt you if you buy them. iPad is different.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: this geek says
by deathshadow on Sat 10th Jul 2010 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: this geek says"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

These are all products that only hurt you if you buy them. iPad is different.

How?

$900+ for a netbook without a keyboard? Must be that reality distortion field in action again.

Why I'm still waiting to see what the price is going to be on the Cisco Cius... Since there's ZERO reason for it to cost more than any current netbook.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: this geek says
by Panajev on Sun 11th Jul 2010 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: this geek says"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

$900+? What? Converting price in Euro to USD? (I hate that companies use the $1 == 1 Euro conversion too, but iPad is nowhere near that expensive in both U.S. and Europe... also, if you do that math... pretty much any product is over-priced here... all CE manufacturers use that USD to Euro covnersion factor for prices...).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: this geek says
by Soulbender on Sun 11th Jul 2010 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: this geek says"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why I'm still waiting to see what the price is going to be on the Cisco Cius... Since there's ZERO reason for it to cost more than any current netbook.


Oh, but there's a very good reason for it to cost more than current netbooks: it has the Cisco logo on it.
Heck, that's even more expensive than the Apple logo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: this geek says
by Googol on Sun 11th Jul 2010 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE: this geek says"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

Well,obviously, Apple buyers suffer from a lack of sound judgement.

You know, if you buy a Rolex, it is not a comodity item. A Rolex you buy this year for 3K USD will not be substituted next year by the successor model that will rubbish the value of the one you bought. There are even Rolex ONLY second hand shops, where you can find a model from every year back to the friggin 60s which look like new + work like new, etc.

First class tickets: There clearly is an extra value in there - try flying 1st class for +10 hours, surely you won't suffer from thrombosis there.

And bottled water - you saved the silly bit for the great finale ;) Dude, sure I buy bottled water, but I don't pay 15 USD for a bottle, after all, it is only plain water. -- Which is the most fitting comparison for the iPad.

Here's a better one for you: I pay 30-50 USD for a GOOD bottle of wine, because it is not the same as the shite they sell you at 4 USD a bottle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: this geek says
by vivainio on Sun 11th Jul 2010 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: this geek says"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


And bottled water - you saved the silly bit for the great finale ;) Dude, sure I buy bottled water, but I don't pay 15 USD for a bottle, after all, it is only plain water. -- Which is the most fitting comparison for the iPad.


But you still wouldn't "hate" a company that sells $15 bottled water, even when some suckers buy it.

In the same way, animal rights activists didn't hate fur coats because they were expensive.

Reply Score: 2

cutterjohn
Member since:
2006-01-28

Which with apple mobile devices the battery is no longer user-replaceable by most users, which I still find to be cynical in the extreme.

Article linked is poorly written anyways. Seriously! Crediting Jobs with the rise of the home computer? Rrrriiiiggggghhhhtttt... I wouldn't even give that credit to Woz whom in Apple terms comes closer to deserving that accolade than Jobs does, and even others that worked at Apple and on the Lisa/Macs.

Next up we have his claim that the iPad has a browser but no flash, yet he then turns around and happily states but ALL web content is STILL available?! Oh, unless you count that rather LARGE percentage of the web that relies on flash. (I don't care much for flash either, especially when it's used EXCESSIVELY, as in your ENTIRE web site is just a flash app...)

As a side note, I also don't like the closed system either of having to get everything from Apple's app store and dealing with their arcane approval process and gross censorship.

Now back to jailbreaking: that's fine and dandy if it exists and works, but there's no guarantee that it always will. I'd just rather not to have to jailbreak something in the first place, and I shouldn't have to.

Reply Score: 1

iPad and it's users
by ssa2204 on Sat 10th Jul 2010 19:09 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Did not see this posted, but I just came across this article today:

http://mashable.com/2010/07/08/ipad-usage-report/

Interesting. I will have no comment, I will leave the stats to speak (assuming this are accurate of course).

Edited 2010-07-10 19:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

HTC
by vivainio on Sat 10th Jul 2010 20:11 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

On a possibly related tangent, check out these HTC guys:

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/07/10/htc-is-not-jumping-into-t...

Way to sugarcoat engineering failure as "taking the high road".

Reply Score: 2

Comment by truckweb
by truckweb on Sun 11th Jul 2010 22:30 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Show me a $299 Netbook with a touch screen?

Show me a Netbook that can last for 8-10 hours on a charge (for real...).

That CISCO tablet will cost more than a Netbook, if only because of the touch screen, and yes, the logo...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by truckweb
by tupp on Sun 11th Jul 2010 23:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by truckweb"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Show me a $299 Netbook with a touch screen?

Here's the Archos 7 tablet that lists at $199: http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/top-10-best-tablet-p...

You can connect a keyboard and/or a mouse.

The tablet section of the Always Innovating touchbook lists a $299: https://www.alwaysinnovating.com/store/home.php

The least expensive version of an Ipad is $499.


Show me a Netbook that can last for 8-10 hours on a charge (for real...).

The Archos 7 lasts 7 hours on constant video playback and 42 hours on constant audio playback.

The Always Innovating Touchbook lasts 10 hours on a charge: http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/

Furthermore, perhaps the Apple's claims of Ipad battery life aren't all that they are cracked-up to be: http://gizmodo.com/5510095/ipad-test-notes-battery-life
http://gizmodo.com/5510095/ipad-test-notes-battery-life

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by truckweb
by robco74 on Mon 12th Jul 2010 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by truckweb"
robco74 Member since:
2009-10-22

Whut?

From your Gizmodo article:

"The iPad has everyone thinking about the future of computing, but one of its greatest achievements is what it lets you forget about: battery. We pushed the iPad as hard as we could and got nearly 6 hours of use.

Early reports had the iPad's battery lasting even longer than Apple's 10 hour estimate—up to 11 and 12 hours of continuous video playback in some cases. In our test, during which we alternated between streaming video and playing graphic-intensive games, with Wi-Fi on, brightness at its highest, and the speaker at its loudest setting the entire time, the iPad's battery lasted 5 hours, 54 minutes.

By any measure, these are fantastic times, and they're essential to the success of this new type of device."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by truckweb
by tupp on Mon 12th Jul 2010 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by truckweb"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Not sure that you understand the portion of the Gizmodo article which you quoted nor am I sure that you understand my point.

They are saying that their Ipad test got 5 hours and 54 minutes of battery life, while Apple and all of it's fanboys constantly claim 10 hours and longer.

Again, my point is that "Apple's claims of Ipad battery life aren't all that they are cracked-up to be."

By the way, nearly six hours of battery life is good, but it's no better than the battery life of several other tablets/netbooks (which also claim 10+ hours of battery life).

Furthermore, the batteries in most non-Apple devices can be replaced by the user.

Edited 2010-07-12 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2