Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Jul 2012 22:18 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes The article I'm about to link to, by Oliver Reichenstein, is pretty terrible, but it's a good way for me to bring up something I've been meaning to talk about. First, the article: "Apple has been working on its file system and with iOS it had almost killed the concept of folders - before reintroducing them with a peculiar restriction: only one level! With Mountain Lion it brings its one folder level logic to OSX. What could be the reason for such a restrictive measure?" So, where does this crusade against directory structures (not file systems, as the article aggravatingly keeps stating) come from?
Thread beginning with comment 528280
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

I'm just saying you need to appreciate the argument for why they are moving file storage in this direction.


Which is making money by charging you to access your own data.

Because what you describe is perfectly achievable on a local storage area, and nothing, litterally nothing forbid the same to be implemented locally. Just add a mail server and use the always working 127.0.0.1 network address, and you will have the same exact feature you describe. Or install a cheap NAS device with email server on it. Or install a cheap NAS device with OwnCloud on it.

But that's not the aim.
The aim is to push people to store data outside their own network, in order to be able to charge them for both storage *and* access cost to their own data.
The aim is that people don't own anymore their computing environment, but rent it. The sign is written everywhere, that's the aim, the new business plan.

Every cloud storage providers are after that new market, and the ones in a position to push a little bit harder users to do it earlier than latter are using their position to eventually degrade the current local storage situation. Yes, I'm pointing Apple and Microsoft's operating systems current trend here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Which is making money by charging you to access your own data.

Because what you describe is perfectly achievable on a local storage area, and nothing, litterally nothing forbid the same to be implemented locally. Just add a mail server and use the always working 127.0.0.1 network address, and you will have the same exact feature you describe. Or install a cheap NAS device with email server on it. Or install a cheap NAS device with OwnCloud on it.


I see. The solution to making things easier for non-tech types is making them harder and more expensive... Do you think your average american can manage what you just described without help from someone else? Do you think that even if they could they would want to? There are thousands of people who would trip over themselves to throw money at Apple or Microsoft to make managing and accessing their data easier, your ability to accomplish the same thing with duck-tape and bubble gum doesn't mean anything to those people and never will.

Besides, do you use email? Unless you own an ISP or run your own mail server you are paying someone to access your own data. And if you use free email you are STILL paying someone, just with your eyeballs instead of your wallet. Welcome to capitalism!

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

You don't get my point. If the actual purpose is to make things easier for average user, it's perfectly achievable with local storage alone.

My point is that the move is not about making it easier but about lying that it can *only* be easier *their* way, via remote service you can't hope to have any control on ever, not talking about being charging.

I'm all for moving toward a more smart data storage and retrieval paradigm, I just fail to see why doing it on a remote machine will magically make it easier but the same on the user's machine can't.
For today mobile devices, which comes with far limited storage capacity than personal computers, okay, but today the laters have both large enough power and capacity to do it well all locally.
Plus why any new feature should first remove another feature that prove usefull to power-users (not just tech guys are power users these days, mind you, it's not 90's anymore...)? Can't progress be to *add* a new feature, not replace one with a new one that I'm not the only one to think it's a regression (you do undertsand that the "today" hierarchical storage is perfectly able to handle the one folder only case, right?


That's was the point(s).
But you miss it, probably too busy to make me look like some IT conservative and in the same time claiming that the average american is not able to understand a hierarchy and that there is no money motivation behind these post-file push.

PS : yep, I know, I use a free email service. But, mind you, my *local* emailer fetch any new message and store it *locally*. If people ever discover that this well-known free email service is abusing his position, I wont lost my emails history.

Not sure that people who store theirs files online can all say the same already.

Anyway. I'm not against cloud storage, or dumb-proof, I'm just against enforcing on every user. And will always take action to avoid it.

Reply Parent Score: 2