Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering

theodp writes "Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ][e as a ten-year-old, Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did: 'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world. With every software update, the previous generation of "jailbreaks" stop working, and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers. There won't ever be a MacsBug for the iPad. There won't be a ResEdit, or a Copy ][+ sector editor, or an iPad Peeks & Pokes Chart. And that's a real loss. Maybe not to you, but to somebody who doesn't even know it yet.'"

26 of 965 comments (clear)

  1. It's true by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What makes computers great are their flexibility - it's an entire world to discover to someone young and new. Are we going to be in the insane situation where our children will need to dust off the old C64 from half a century ago just to learn the basics for themselves?

    If all you've got is locked content on locked machines, you end up with mind firmly locked shut.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    1. Re:It's true by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Inquisitive minds are a danger to authority. Best to shut it down as early as possible. No need to seek out anything. It will be provided to you on a need to know basis. Curiosity should be confronted with great suspicion. If somebody asks a question, the only proper answer is, "Why do you want to know?".

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:It's true by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      *is their flexibility. Ughh, just woke up and my spelling subsystem hadn't booted yet. C'est la vie.

      Just prioritize the spelling subsystem above the French subsystem in your init.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:It's true by ProfMobius · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There is a difference between being geek friendly and being antigeek.

      The author is not complaining that the iPad is not geek friendly, but overtly anti geek. Apple is now trying to prevent people from tinkering with their bought hardware/software by blocking all ways of access.

      It is the same mentally as the car makers who lock down all access to the internal working of their car by way of proprietary protocols/special screw, etc.

      For this whole locking down thing, most people are not complaining that it doesn't go their way, but that some random person decided that their way is not authorized or worthy anymore and they can't walk it.

      --
      EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
    4. Re:It's true by coaxial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole "Mac goood", "Linux baaad" idea when it comes to interfaces and usability is just mindless propaganda. Most people aren't in a position to check this for themselves because Apple is a closed off product that's not really well suited for casual exploration. You need special hardware just to run their stuff.

      Well, anyone can go into an Apple Store, or ask to borrow someone's mac. Also there are plenty of hacks to get MacOSX to boot on non-Apple hardware. So that's really a canard. Anyone can check it out, you just have to want to.

      So "Mac Usability" becomes a myth bolstered by fanboys that need to buy into the cult and then justify their choices.

      Nice try. Just because someone doesn't bother to take the effort to find out for themselves, doesn't automatically make it a myth. I've never bothered to go to northern Canada and see if the Magnetic North Pole and Geographic North Pole are actually different, but that doesn't make it a myth.

      Let me tell you my story. I ran Linux as my primary OS from 1994 to 2005. At no point during those 11 years did I ever have a system that supported all of my hardware. At no point. I used it because, I'm a unix guy. I like the shell. I like scripts. I like that everything is a file. Unix lets me do my work. That said, I am not a sysadmin. I do not like sysadmining. I do not like having to patch my kernel just let get my digital camera to work. (Incremented a hex value in a #define in unusual_devs.h so that my Sony DCF-707 would be mounted as a usb storage device.) I do not enjoy having to manually load a kernel module just to get my printer working, because it fails to be autoloaded. I do not like having a print driver that makes every photo come out pink, and then buy a print driver, only to have the photos still come out pink. (Canon i850. Printed perfectly under windows. The only think I ever used it for, well that and Warcraft III.) I do not like having two(!) different sound systems being installed, and my system still not always have sound. (I loved how I'd get "No ALSA devices found" during boot, but could only adjust my volume through alsamixer.)

      Fuck. That. Shit.

      I got a 17" Powerbook G4, and all my hardware worked. And you know what? I got a terminal, and X11, and XEmacs, and gcc, and everything else I wanted too. It's quite simply a better unix. (I've since upgraded to a 17" MacBook Pro.)

      Linux usability? I'm sorry it sucks. It always sucked. I used GNOME during the 1x days, and it was full of incomprehensible and cutesy options. "Xyzzy Goodness = 0.42," and my personal favorite, "Clock," "Digital Clock," "Another Clock," "Clock with Mail Check." The GNOME folks couldn't say "no," and got a shit. Havoc Pennington and the rest of the GNOME "usability" team, took the message as "no options" instead of "too many options," and subsequently removed everything from the 2.x tree, in the quixotic quest to make it simple for people that have never used a computer before. (It's now 2010. It was 2001 when they started that quest. Even tribes deep in the Amazon and New Guinea had computers then. These folks simple no longer existed.) It still sucks, only now it sucks because you simply can't do the things you used to be able to. KDE? Well KDE4 is quite simply a clusterfuck

      The reason why Linux usability sucks, is two fold.

      1. It's hard. It's hard to do it right. It takes resources. It takes time. It takes expertise. Linux doesn't have the resources when it comes to interfaces, and everyday office software. It just doesn't. Sun is dead. Novel, never had much resources devoted to it. Usability isn't really something you can do right one weekend a m

    5. Re:It's true by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Apple" is not a closed off product; their phone and tablet are. Their laptop and desktop lines are completely open and welcome tinkering, multiple OSes, and anything else you can think of. I don't see why we hold Apple to such a high standard of accountability (robbing our children of their futures, for example) that we exclude everyone else from. Anybody try to hack a Zune lately? Anybody care?

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    6. Re:It's true by cynicist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let me tell you my story. I ran Linux as my primary OS from 1994 to 2005.

      Ugh, I can feel a jaded old software user rant coming up soon.

      I do not like having to patch my kernel just let get my digital camera to work. (Incremented a hex value in a #define in unusual_devs.h so that my Sony DCF-707 would be mounted as a usb storage device.)

      I'm not sure why you did that. The Linux kernel has had usb mass storage support since 2.4 (2001). Your camera was listed as supporting it around that time as well.(1) You were also able to transfer photos through the PTP protocol on that camera since 2002.(2) (this required changing a setting on your camera of course)

      (1)http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/USB-Digital-Camera-HOWTO.html#AEN33
      (2)http://www.gphoto.org/news/

      I do not enjoy having to manually load a kernel module just to get my printer working, because it fails to be autoloaded. I do not like having a print driver that makes every photo come out pink, and then buy a print driver, only to have the photos still come out pink. (Canon i850. Printed perfectly under windows. The only think I ever used it for, well that and Warcraft III.)

      I got a 17" Powerbook G4, and all my hardware worked. And you know what? I got a terminal, and X11, and XEmacs, and gcc, and everything else I wanted too. It's quite simply a better unix.

      Your printer is partially supported by gutenprint, which is a collection of free software printer drivers for systems such as CUPS. What OS uses CUPS besides Linux? A relevent excerpt about gutenprint:

      "It was originally developed as a plug-in for the GIMP, but later became a more general tool for use by other programs. When Apple Computer brought out Mac OS X, it omitted printer drivers, claiming that it was the printer manufacturer's task to produce these. Many of them did not update their drivers, and since Apple had chosen to use CUPS as the core of its printing system, Gimp-Print filled the void."

      So until a driver was written for your printer, you would have had to buy a new one with your mac. OSX is the better unix? It doesn't appear to be as different as you think. By the way, for someone so comfortable with scripts and the like, I'm surprised you couldn't write one to load this module on boot, or I dunno, compile the driver with the rest of your kernel instead of loading it as a module.

      I do not like having two(!) different sound systems being installed, and my system still not always have sound. (I loved how I'd get "No ALSA devices found" during boot, but could only adjust my volume through alsamixer.)

      Yeah, sound on linux sucked for a while. Just like blue screens sucked on windows. However just like windows blue screens, sound on linux hasn't been an issue for a long time.

      2. It's always pale copy. Free of over bearing commercial interests, you'd think that the Linux "community" would create some ground breaking new ideas, but they don't. Instead they mindlessly copy whatever Microsoft does. (Thanks unreorganizable taskbar!) And now whatever Apple does (Thanks no-typing-allow file-open dialog!) Even when they do it, it just feels like a cheap knockoff. There's no coherent feel, beyond shoddy. You'd think after all these years, someone would get it right, but they never have, because of #1.

      OS's tend to incorporate each other's features as it makes sense to do so. Just like how OSX just implemented spaces, which has been a feature of Linux since 1989. Or how Windows Vista's Desktop Window Manager (part of Aero) introduced compositing to Windows in 2007, while Compiz had already done so in Linux a year prior.

      Desktop Linux can go

    7. Re:It's true by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On Windows and Linux (KDE, Gnome...I can't speak for any other set up as I havn't used them. I'm pretty sure Xfce acts the same way though) you can scale windows from any edge or corner, but not on OS X. There seems to be no logical reason for this, and it causes problems if the scaling corner has been moved off-screen or underneath the dock. This is admitedly a minor gripe, but none the less present

      I understand the issue of the little resizing tab possibly being off screen, but the logical reason for not allowing other corners ad edges to be grabbed is that there is no window borders or dressings other than the tab in the lower right corner. They could add window borders or more corner doodads, but the one on the lower right fits right under commonly used vertical scroll bar widgets and keeps the interface clean. Upper left is off limits, up right is a possibility, and I'm not sure what the implications of sticking a widget in the lower left would be. Anyway, it might not be the best, but the reasoning is pretty clear.

      The menus for an application over-write the menus for the OS. Other than the Apple menu at the end, you either have the applications menus or the systems menus. On Windows, KDE and Gnome the applications menus are tied to the window, so not only can you use both system and application menus, but the menus are also visually tied to the application, giving a more obvious link to application functions

      The Apple icon IS a system menu, but what you might be referring to is Finder's menu that you get when a Finder window is active, or you click on your desktop. For those who don't know, Finder is a file browser, like Explorer in Windows or Nautilus in Gnome. In OS X, the file browser is treated like any other application except that your desktop is also a Finder window of sorts. This is identical to Explorer in Windows, and pretty damned close to Nautilus aside from the 'Places' menu. I do wish Finder's 'Go' menu had a permanent placement on the menu bar next to 'Window' and 'Help'!
      How does collocating menu bars with windows visually tie functionality to an application? You still have to click on a menu to discover it's functionality, which on any of the systems you've mentioned changes window focus and activates a different window, closing the current menu you have open. IF there was a windowing system that allowed you to keep open multiple menu's from different apps, maybe you'd be onto something, but the benefits of such a system are not immediately obvious, and I'm not aware of any that behave that way. So, if you can't use more than at a time, what use is it to display all those menu bars at once?

      The dock, to me, seems pretty broken. It is both an application launcher and task manager. Open apps have a little light under them to show that they are active. Other than that there is no visual identification for which apps are running and which aren't. Second, it gets in the way - it is all too easy to activate by accident, especially when the zoom animation is switched on. This also isn't helped by the fact that in between the icons is empty space, rather than a colid (or even transparent) bar - areas where you would expect to not activate the dock do. On Windows you have neither problem - running programs appear in the task-bar, and launcher icons in the quick launch. There is also the start menu which provides access to every installed program (with a few exceptions). It is also clear where the task-bar starts and ends. KDE is pretty much the same in that respect, and Gnome isn't far off. (I havn't tried Win 7 yet, so it should be interesting to see what that's like). As a side note, I hate to think what the dock would be like if it allowed multiple program windows like the other OSs.

      Obviously the menu bars/panels in Windows and Gnome also both manage active windows and launch applications. Neither actually manage running tasks, just active windows - I'll come back to this.

  2. Buy something else by Ed+Peepers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives. But as much as I enjoy a good rant against Apple, I fail to see the problem. Buy your kids something else. Either he thinks the latest Apple SHINY is more important than his child's opportunity to get under the hood or he doesn't, and there are (or soon will be) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked. Life is about decisions and trade-offs.

    1. Re:Buy something else by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real concern, broadly speaking, is what happens to the kids whose parents don't know/care.

      Empirically, a fair percentage of engineer/comp sci./science types owe their trajectory(or at least believe they do) to childhood tinkering options. Some sanctioned by their parents, some a tolerated but wholly accidental side effect of parental decisions, and some outright clandestine.

      If tinkerability is default in all computers, all children in computer owning households, whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it. If tinkerability is a special feature, one that you have to trade off against shiny for, a much smaller percentage of children will have access to it.

      This isn't a "OMG, the iCops are violating your rights" thing; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children's access to tinkering and future motivation in certain directions.

      It's like chemistry sets: If you are really motivated, you can get your hands on home chemistry stuff, no real problem. The death of the (useful) home chemistry set as a normative childhood expectation, though, has vastly reduced the number of kids who get to play with one, and quite possibly the number of kids who end up going in a scientific direction.

  3. Evolution by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this is just a natural evolutionary process for most new technology. When personal computers were new, they were mainly purchased and used by hobbyists. Now they are mainstream and most people just want to use them to get things done, they don't care how or why they work. Cars were the same when they were first introduced. You had to know how to tinker just to keep them working. Now cars are everwhere and they are computerized and automated so much, it's hard to do the kind of tinkering that used to be common.

    It's sad to see things change, but there will always be room for those who like to tinker. We still have Linux and *BSD, after all. I love my Mac, but sometimes it's nice to play around with Linux.

  4. Re:True for the iPod, yes. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But Mac OS X comes with development tools right on the install CD. How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux and I'm pleased that Apple make it so easy to get programming tools on your Mac.

    I think the article author was making a different point than the cost / availability of developer tools:

    Apple, way back when, made it easy to get into the inner workings of its systems. They didn't try to prevent people from finding ways to do things, indeed Beagle Bros. built an entire company around that. 1984 was the epitome of what Apple was about.

    Now, Apple appears to be more ideologically aligned with the "Big Brother" than the hammer thrower. While it's not quite gotten to the "Information Purification Directives" level yet; Apple seems to be much more inclinned to ensuring things are done there way and controlling how their products can be used tahn creating really cool stuff and watching what others do with it, as they were in the Apple ][ era.

    While Job's focus and control has been critical to their success as a company; the down side is a very tight controlled ecosystem. A very successful one, and probably the right way to go; but still controlled.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. seems like a mistake by ultramk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this is certainly true for the iPad, iPhone etc, it's really not true at all for OSX. OSX comes with a bunch of dev tools on the install disk, in a way that was not true way back when. Those kinds of utilities existed, but getting ahold of them was non-trivial for someone out in the boonies.

    The iPad isn't a general purpose computer, although it seems like it's blurring the line a bit. Certainly no reason for doom and gloom.

    I always find it a little sad when I read something like this, though. Part of the joy of those days was exploring something new and interesting, finding terra incognita... the problem is that your kids probably won't get that joy in exactly the same way, and very well may not be interested in those things at all... they are actual individuals with individual tastes and interests, not a bunch of little clones running around. It seems like every time someone goes to great lengths to recreate his precise childhood for his kids, it's just doomed to failure, just because they're kids. Unpredictable.

    --
    You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  6. Parallel with hobby electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the 50's and 60's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements. It might still exist now in some manner, but it's far, far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that "just works".

    It's the same with computers. We're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they're being "locked out of their own computers", but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.

    The simple fact is that 98% of people out there just want their computer to work. They don't care about getting under the hood. If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy. That's all that's needed. So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.

    Yes, it means that the kind of computing we all grew up with in the 70's and 80's will either die or come close. But that's just the standard life cycle of technologies - it happened with radios just like it's happening now with computers. It's a mistake to extrapolate our interest to the general public, which doesn't share it. Since there are 50 or 100 of them for every one of us, they form a FAR larger market, and that is the direction things will inevitably shift over time. It's a lost cause trying to argue things like "but you're locked out of your own system!!". They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer. The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.

  7. But isn't there room for both? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even Linus readily acknowledges that the world needs more than the Linux model, that the Windows and OS X can all co-exist.

    And I hear people talking all the time that OS X is a joy to program for, and not particularly hard.

    The iPod/iPhone/iPad is in the form factor that's best suited to appliance. That is, most (90+%) just want them to work. Where even the most polished desktop is too complicated for their tastes and task at hand. Shouldn't their demands be met? BTW, I'm not covering for DRM or the like which only serves the content provider -- just that the appliance view of things is really useful to some people.

    Do we complain how the Kindle or past Nokia phones are essentially closed to the average person the same way? Why is this reserved for Apple?

    Really. I taught my 45 y/o uncle how to use a computer (Windows 7), his experience to computers limited previously to ATMs. It was painful. There is so much to learn that us geeks take for granted. The computer's behavior is so seemingly arbitrary at times, as are the solutions sometimes. These people don't want a "sense of wonder", they found it in other areas already and they want to have something easy to learn and use - should they be denied entrance into the digital world because they're not geeky enough? Geez, I'm glad when I don't have to fuck around with yet another relatives beige box for once.

    I hope that the open PC never goes away. But there should be room for other solutions without the endless complaining. (And yes, the steps Apple does to clamp down their devices from the users themselves, who want to explore and not through misuse, absolutely sucks and should be called on it every step of the way).

    1. Re:But isn't there room for both? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the problem people are having the iPad lockdown is that it is trying to straddle appliance and full computer. The iPhone I'm fine with being an appliance. It's made around a small screen and a very particular UI to deal with that small screen. The iPad on the other hand has this large touch screen and it feels like Apple may end up holding it back by keeping it closed. Only time will tell though, when the iPhone first came out there was no 3G, web apps only, etc...

    2. Re:But isn't there room for both? by cvd6262 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do we complain how the Kindle or past Nokia phones are essentially closed to the average person the same way?

      Yes. We. Do.

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    3. Re:But isn't there room for both? by MpVpRb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You, the tinkerer, will *always* be able to buy a PC that meets your needs.

      I certainly hope so...but the trend is disturbing.

      The new versions of Windows restrict driver development to "approved corporations" only.

      The mass market is being herded toward "appliances".

      Gamers are switching to consoles.

      Without large sales volume, the "fully programmable" computers will be a high priced, obscure niche product.

    4. Re:But isn't there room for both? by isilrion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You, the tinkerer, will *always* be able to buy a PC that meets your needs. Why not allow everyone else the opportunity to do the same?

      And how I being able to tinker with /my/ device deprives you of your opportunity to not tinker with /your/ identical device?

      And no matter how popular the iPad becomes (very popular, trust me, most people do *not* share the geek-centered criticisms)

      And yes, that's exactly the problem. If it becomes very popular, then we geeks won't be able to "play" with the popular devices. I doubt may would bother if it were a useless piece of crap. Are you telling us that we can't play with our devices, unless we get a less popular/functional one, because you don't want to or know how to play with yours?

  8. Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in?

    ... what iPod would that be? You can change the battery in every iPod, it just takes a little effort rather than a trip to walmart for a new 'pack'. Same for the iPhone. Its certainly possible for anyone who wants to put some effort into it, and since the mass of the people buying them will just replace it before the battery is shot anyway, its really not an issue. You want a replaceable battery, if thats a required feature, buy something else. You want the iPod, and its form factor, you don't get an easy to replace battery. There IS an engineering reason to it as well you know, its not just 'because they are assholes'.

    Apple's also lowering DRM in lots of places, and as far as DRM goes, they have about the best system out there to date. Yes, you have to authorize your PC ... ONCE, and assuming it continues to function the same you'll have no problems. You could also, of course, just buy MP3s from somewhere else like Amazon.

    I have distantly wanted a Mac, just to toy with it... but why? No reason anymore.

    Why is that? Macs are still the same way there were 20 years ago from any context relating to this article. If I can run Windows 7 on my Mac, I'm pretty sure you can do just about any sort of tinkering you want. Its not like you can't run Linux on one, its clearly open to screw with however you want. Nothing has changed on the Mac.

    Whine whine, moan moan, bitch bitch, nothing to see here, move along. Don't like Apple, don't buy one. Do you bitch about not being able to modify the ECU in your car? Do you bitch about not being able to change the picture tube/lcd/plasma screen in your TV? Are you mad that you can't upgrade the firmware in your digital thermostat in your home or office?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  9. Very much for tinkerers by Tony · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Apple ][ came with manuals that had the ROM listings. The ][+ (at least) had a mini-assembler built right in (Sweet-16, baby!). It had full schematics right there in the box. The default "shell" was a BASIC interpreter, fer cryin' out loud!

    The Apple ][ was most definitely a tinkerer's machine.

    There's a huge difference between the Apple ][ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today. The Apple ][ (and to a certain extent, the Commodore 64) was simple. Almost everything you did was related to the hardware. If you wanted to do anything but launch programs, you pretty much had to learn something about the computer, and how computers operate in general. Anyone nostalgic for those days is nuts.

    Don't get me wrong. I really loved the Apple ][. (This was before the ][+ or ][e, you puppies.) I believe I am a much stronger computer geek because of it. I'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ][ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.

    Computers today are far cooler than they were back then. Part of the reason is, they no longer resemble "computers" so much as they are now communications devices, or information handling devices. The downside is that kids starting out these days aren't learning about the true fundamentals of how computers work. Also, they're shielded from even the ability to tinker with them.

    That's not as much of a loss as you might suppose. It's not like it'd be the old Apple ][ experience anyway.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  10. From The Beginning by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple's trend away from tinkering predates the company. During the design and building phase of the ][, Woz was building in things which Jobs didn't want. Three specifically that they argued over were color (vs. black and white output), the lid (and by extension, poking around inside) and memory expansion past the max installed 16 K (this is the actual source of the often repeated and rarely correct "Who would ever need more than X-kb of memory?" -- It was Jobs and it was 16K). The second and third are both in the 'tinkering' group of features. In all cases Woz won, and we got a machine that ultimately was pushed to do things which by design it supposedly 'couldn't'.

    When Jobs decided to make his own machine, all three of the above limitations were built in. The first Mac was B&W, had no lid, and came with the only memory configuration that it could run. At the time I was senior/technical editor of The Road Apple, a 'zine for Apple ][, // and ]|[ users, created with the specific intention of trying to prevent Apple from dropping the ][ line. (As far as I have ever been able to determine, it was the first computer publication produced simultaneously in the US (Portland OR; Al Martin, Publisher)
    and USSR (Moscow, Russia); my co-editor was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Academician Vladimir Fedorov). When Woz left, Jobs prevailed and we lost. Jobs' design choices for the first Mac and his acquiring complete control when Woz left, were the second and third major changes away from tinkering. Both were a direct result of Job's taking back those things he wanted done on the ][ that allowed tinkering (or were just plain neat hacks) but which Woz chose to do his own way. Simply put, this direction was based on the fact that Jobs lost those arguments. resented it, and when he got the chance, he finally got his own way.

    References for the historical stuff can all be located if one digs. Support for Jobs' tendency towards management techniques such as tantrums and verbiage bordering on abuse has also been documented up through the point where John Scully took over for 10 years so Jobs could grow up and gain some people skills. Collections of The Road Apple were available on some of the Apple ][ ftp sites. One that has been converted to webby stuff is at http://apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/GS.WorldView/Resources/ROAD.APPLE/

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  11. Re:True for the iPod, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I almost completely disagree with you. Pay $100 for the iPhone developer program and you can do whatever you want to your own iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad.

    You left out "per year" after the "$100".

  12. So get a N900 by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most awesome phone ever. Completely open, runs a very normal Linux distro, and you can "apt-get install" stuff on it.

    No jailbreaking needed, the terminal is one of the applications in the default installation, and you can install SSH.

  13. Re:Apple gives you dev tools. Does Windows? by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

    In response to your subject line, YES, Microsoft does give you dev tools for Windows. They're the Visual Studio Express editions.

  14. We had that problem at university by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A professor (a Mac head unsurprisingly) wanted to teach a class on iPhone application development. Well of course that needs to run on Macs and we don't have any Mac labs since some of our software is Windows only and we need to purchase budget computers. I don't know what he planned to do about that, maybe buy some Macs for teaching out of his research funds. However the bigger problem, the show stopper problem, was Apple. We needed to get the SDK licenses. They sent over this ginormous contract for us to sigh. That of course had to go to the lawyers, who modified it and sent it back. Apple said "No. No modification are permitted, you sign it as it is now or you can't have it." Well, we have no authority to sign, only the lawyers can do that. They weren't going to sign it as is. So, we had to say screw that.

    Now the class is being taught on Android app development. This has proved to be dramatically less problematic. The SDK runs fine on our Windows systems. It would also run on Linux or Mac systems, if needed so if we want to put it on our shell systems as well as our lab system we could. Getting the SDK was not problematic either. No contract to sign, I just downloaded it from Google's site and installed it.

    Does this all matter? I dunno, all I can say is there's a class of students being taught how to develop for the Android phones, rather than the iPhone precisely because of the locked down environment. The requirement to use Mac hardware, but in particular the requirement to sign a massive contract vastly in Apple's favour killed any chance that it might be taught. We simply cannot do that.