Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Chrome OS Tablet Concept Demo
MojoKid writes "With all of the iPad buzz stirring up the tech world over the past couple of weeks, Chrome OS has almost been forgotten. Though Google has yet to officially release the netbook-centric operating system to the public, the company continues to keep details flowing about their forthcoming lightweight operating system. In their own response to all the recent tablet fanfare, Google decided to release some teaser shots and a demo video of the Chrome OS running on a concept tablet device. The Chromium team suggests that a screen of 5" to 10" is optimal for enjoying Chrome OS and of course tablets, netbooks and MIDs all fit that size class rather well. Couple a streamlined Google-based OS with NVIDIA's Tegra 2 processor in a design like this and the iPad could have serious competition."
I haven't seen any actual buzz, as in people genuinely talking about it.
I have see, press releases, astro-turfing, slashvertisements, and spam.
In response to Apple's iPad announcement, Google proved that it could draw a tablet and post it on the web.
My point being that maybe there is something more interesting than tablets. We already know that we'll see a fresh batch of articles on tablets / iPad in about 60 days.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I hate virtual keyboards. The other touch sensitive concepts are cool, but I'm a touch typist and to have to use a virtual keyboard is the pits.
You can suggest that a 10" screen is optimal all you want, a tablet that is 8.5x11 inches is optimal.
.. top that, Apple!
Lenovo already has.
The video shows 2 windows open. Probably best not to have multiple apps sharing the same screen.
How soon people forget ... "Embrace, extend, extinguish."
Once again Google is trying to play catch up with Apple.. and if it's anything like the Android it will once again be a total waste of time.. It's interesting to see how badly a company ran for and by technology orientated people does in comparison to a company ran by people orientated people.
The article says 5"-10" screen size is ideal for Chrome OS, then they go and show a video with what looks like what, a 30" screen? The reality distortion field has spread, and it stretches rulers now too!
Am I the only one that is chomping at the bit to play with Chrome OS on an older (5-10+ years) system? I have Lubuntu on my old P3 and it flies - relatively speaking.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
I realize this entire discussion will probably devolve into a GNU/Free versus Closed argument, or a Mac Lovers versus Mac Haters flamefest, but...
Having watched the demo video, I'm not convinced. This really just seems like another Tablet PC, except it's running Chrome OS instead of Windows XP. The demoed functionality is almost exactly like the application switcher that's available in both PC and Mac (alt+tab cmd+tab), and the resizing functions just use your fingers instead of a mouse pointer. Personally I think that's an issue - I'd rather use a mouse for most of that functionality.
I know there are some people that mock the iPad because it's not running a tablet-ized version of the full OS X; but when I see demos like this, it just reminds me of why Tablet PCs never escaped their niche. For a lot of typical desktop functionality, it is easier to use a mouse. There's no compelling reason making me wish to be able to do those exact same functions using my fingers. It's not that those Tablet PCs were running Windows - it's because they offered no compelling reason to exist for most of us!
Now, hopefully Google will have some additional tricks up its sleeve, and there'll be a reason to care beyond "it's running Linux". And I do believe competition is a rising tide that lifts all boats (yup, I'm pulling out the cliches now). But hopefully Google has studied the past and will try to look at why the Tablet PC never really made it, rather than just duplicate the same mistakes Microsoft made.
#DeleteChrome
Microsoft is actually one of the most open player there, in terms of what you can do with their devices. Sure, their OS and programs isn't open source, but you are allowed to run and install anything you want on your devices (both desktop Windows and Windows Mobile). Everyone is able to develop for their platform and distribute applications and games in a way that suits them.
Now I don't understand where Google comes with this, since as I understand you're allowed to run anything you want on Android. Their OS being open source isn't that much more better than Microsoft though, as it's generally pain in the ass to get compiled and you don't get the drivers and everything else required to run it on your phone manufacturers device.
But Apple definitely is a problem here. They're blatantly restricting everything you can install on iPhone and iPad and need to buy all the software from their App Store. And for developers it's hit-and-miss to get their apps there and takes many months. At some point this will most likely be true for OS X too - maybe even on the next major version.
Maybe it's because it is in the video (which I can't view at work)...but where are you seeing lockdown with this device? From what I read in TFA, I didn't see anything that implied you would be restricted to Google-approved programs...
Living With a Nerd
the iPad could have serious competition
Once Apple has figured out to whom this is being marketing.
The whole Apple-Yahoo-MS-Google circle jerk posturing is delirious. If next week Steve Jobs called a press conference and sliced his dick off with a silver scalpel in a room full of stunned reporters, I have no doubt that -- not to be outdone -- Sergey Brin would cut off his with a chainsaw on nation-wide TV seven days later.
And no one in the tech punditry -- all happy just to have jobs and something to write about besides the latest PC graphics card -- would question *WHY* these idiots are emasculating themselves, they'd just write tedious "thought" pieces contrasting the metaphors of Job's elegant, shiny castration versus Brin's use of loud horsepower.
Ok, when they have something more than entirely made up concept stuff, then we might be able to have a discussion about serious competition for a given product. Until then, it's made up shit. I can make a video of someone using a supercomputer the size of a wrist watch, if I want - until it's actually made, however, it's just concept art.
Assuming they follow a similar plan to the Android phones, I don't see a problem. I can install any software I want on my phone (Settings->Applications->Unknown Sources), including overwriting the operating system. There are certain kinds of programs that I agreed not to run when I signed up with my service provider, but that doesn't have anything to do with the device.
Web apps just don't cut it Google. Apple found that out with the iPhone, Palm has learned that with the Pre. People want to have stuff that runs even when there is no internet even if it is just a game.
We also want to carry some media with us so if we are stuck on a plane with no WiFi or anyplace with no WiFi or 3G we can watch or listen to something.
Stop working on the Chrome OS and improve Android or just go right to a tablet Linux.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This has been especially helpful for the developers of apps that contain trojans, not to mention the drive-by-download virus writers.
What exactly are you smoking?
What is...?
I do hate the full integration with Google accounts and services though, I don't want to login to my Google account just to use my phone (and save all the information and possibly GPS position and so on at Google's servers). I can just boot my Windows Mobile, type PIN and it doesn't try to integrate me in to any other bullshit or be in constant contact with MS servers.
Yeah you could get the source, but it's pain in the ass to set up the environment and even then you don't have the drivers and stuff for your phone, so it's pretty much out of the question.
Right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eF0y0IfpPU
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Ok, so iPad isn't even out yet, but google still feels threatened enough to put out a hastly put together "concept art" as a "demo". Sheesh.
One thing everyone seems to have missed about the iPad announcement is the fact that apple will have iWorks on it for $30. This has two implications:
1. Nobody else will write a full on office app for iPad.
2. Nobody will write a full office app for any other touch tablet.
Chew on that for a while.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
I just hope they don't make the massive oversight that Apple did with the iPad: no DVORAK keyboard support. I realize that probably fewer than 1% of people will use it, but how long can it possibly take to program that feature in? 5, 10 minutes?
Notion Ink Adam
You've completely missed the point that Apple is a hardware company, whereas MS is a software company. Of course MS doesn't try to lock you out of "their devices" since the devices aren't MS's in the first place. You can "install anything you want" on OS X, and there are plenty of other phones that are locked down--heck, my Motorola phones were MORE locked down than any iPhone, since there was no way to install software except OTA.
How's the weather up there in Redmond, anyway?
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
We know it can ran from a flash drive, but does it actually support FLASH?
This Sig is removed due to factual inaccuracy
How could something no one wants to buy have competition?
This has been especially helpful for the developers of apps that contain trojans, not to mention the drive-by-download virus writers.
So do you instead prefer fully-locked-down, all apps from our App Store PC's? Do you prefer a fully-locked-down environment and living in a police nation to save you from those who abuse the freedom?
It's funny that people always complain about DRM, locked-down consoles and proprietary standards and want more open and free, but when it's about Apple then it doesn't matter anymore. btw, you can blame Apple for HTML5 video never going to happen - they're pushing hard towards H.264, which is never going to be reality for Firefox because it can't be distributed in the source code.
What exactly are you smoking?
Why do you think it's so out of the question? Apple is already doing it on every other device they have, and it's good market for them.
I haven't missed that point. My point is, maybe it's not good that Apple is all of hardware company, software company and a marketplace, having vested interest in locking down their devices, locking down their software, and strictly controlling all of it via their App Store (which generates them even more money)
MS develops the OS and lets other companies to develop the hardware, and then lets other developers to freely develop application and games for it. In my point of view, that is more open, free and better environment.
Five to ten inches? Thanks, but I'll pass.
Is it just me, or is there anyone else out there who wants a big tablet instead of some small, sleek, fashionable, and largely useless piece of overpriced tech trinketry? At this point, I'm about to pick up an old Thinkpad on eBay and make one myself -- and still probably come out cheaper than the latest and greatest. And no, I don't need a touch screen. I'd be perfectly content to mount a few programmable keys down one side and the Trackpoint hardware on the other. All I want to do is be able to read PDFs in color and at a reasonable scale.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
...to see the iPad haters explain why a tablet that only runs a browser is better than one that can run any of thousands of touch-designed apps.
There is no way the iPhone app model will be used in OS X - just what evidence do you have that it will? Apple released a slew of new OSS features in Snow Leopard, with GCD and OpenCL being chief among them, and have encouraged developers to use them. Why do that if they are going to limit OS X?
The iPhone and iPad are designed around a different software model, to be more like appliances - it doesn't mean OS X will go this way, not even "likely" - I would put a [citation needed] response on that one, it is so absurd.
As to taking "many months" to get your app on the store... again, [citation needed].
How long does it take to get an app into the iTunes App Store? While we’ve seen some estimates of up to 20 days to have your app approved, we’ve had apps accepted in as few as five.
from my first google hit: http://mashable.com/2009/06/10/build-iphone-app/
If you do not like Apple's model, you are free to *not buy into it* and instead buy an Android device, or some other competing product. It's not like Apple are the only player here. There are many ways to skin a cat, and Apple's "one gatekeeper" approach works extremely well for them, and no one is forcing you to take part (unless you want an iPhone, but want to do something else with it, but then... why buy the iPhone in the first place - buy a Nexus One or something).
Let me just repeat - Apple's model for OS X is totally, completely separate from the iPhone. They are not going to put iPhone OS on Macs and control the software you use on it. All evidence so far suggests they are in fact, opening up OS X a little more than before, starting at an OSS level for some of their new core technologies rather than opening them up later (or keeping them closed source), they support the installation of pretty much anything you can port over, and they don't make it difficult - the dev tools are free, and they provide an X window system if you don't want to (or can't due to various reasons) rewrite the UI to be native. They have a thriving third party commercial software industry going, much like Windows does, and there is no reason to change that.
By your logic, the Xbox OS is pretty locked up, so that must mean that "the next version of windows" is "likely" to be all closed up as well, with MS having to approve all software you install on it, and only being able to buy apps for Windows via Xbox Live, right? Seems very likely.
Yes, MS is a software company... and yet, they don't lock down any of the software options within their operating systems.
Yet, when you run their operating systems (including mobile variants of windows), in any form, MS does not prevent you from using a competitor's software within that OS. Apple, however does restrict you.
If Apple is a "hardware" company, then why do they restrict competing applications.
Because they are not a hardware company, they are either a package company - wanting to sell you on the whole deal, hardware and software, or they are a PR company, more concerned with convincing you to buy something, than with the actual nature product. It depends on your view of the company as to which category fits them best...
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
What nerds don't get is that most people don't care about "user's freedom." They're happy to buy a controlled but stable device that lets them browse the web.
Do you add and remove components of your car's dashboard? Do you drive a stick-shift, or do you let the computer in the car change gears for you?
You've completely missed the point that Apple is a hardware company, whereas MS is a software company. Of course MS doesn't try to lock you out of "their devices" since the devices aren't MS's in the first place. You can "install anything you want" on OS X, and there are plenty of other phones that are locked down--heck, my Motorola phones were MORE locked down than any iPhone, since there was no way to install software except OTA.
How's the weather up there in Redmond, anyway?
If Apple is a hardware company what do they have to gain from banning Opera, Firefox, Chrome and political apps that Steve doesn't like from the iPhone and iPad? It's all about control and that nice 30% forcible cut of every non free app.
We're talking about the iPad too, which is being hailed as a tablet computer, not phone. The point is that MS could've locked developers out of MS-DOS and Windows by banning competing applications and those that 'duplicate functionality' or leeched off them by forcibly taking 30% of cost of AutoCAD etc.
It's funny you call him a paid shill while being ready to whore for free.
This space for rent.
But Apple definitely is a problem here. They're blatantly restricting everything you can install on iPhone and iPad and need to buy all the software from their App Store.
Both iPad and Andriod/ChromeOS have the ability to restrict your from modifying the OS or running unauthorized programs. The only difference is that iPad ships with this in the 'on' position and ChromeOS in the 'off' position. ChromeOS has built-in support for detecting tampering and re-imaging itself. Google can flip that switch at any time to 'on' and lock you out of your computer.
Suppose Google, once ChromeOS achieves ubiquity, flips the lockout switch to 'on'. Being open source means it has fewer bugs, so fewer opportunities for the community to jailbreak the device. Being open source doesn't help you, because the hardware won't let you run your modified version that you control.
And all Google has to do is subsidize ChromeOS-only products so that they cost much less (just like Microsoft and Intel have done to maintain markets). Sure, a manufacturer could make a hardware that didn't enforce ChromeOS so you could run your ChromiumOS, but if the cost to the buyer is $300 instead of $100 with subsidies then few will buy that version. So nobody will even make that version, even without exclusive or other shady contracts.
Apple is being completely up-front in what they are doing. Google is saying 'trust us, we are not nor ever will be evil'. Microsoft is saying 'just pay us some money for each new computer and then you can do whatever you want'. That Microsoft is clearly the good guy here is pretty sad.
Jeff Han did this four years ago:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html
He now has a company spun off from his research at NYU:
http://www.perceptivepixel.com/
I'll use this opportunity to make a larger point: you're not going to get much progress out of the corporate game of developing a product. The difference is in these two questions:
1. What is possible to sell?
2. What is possible?
At least in the locked down device market there is going to be some competition.
Steve Jobs may call the Google "Don't be Evil" mantra bullshit, but I don't see anything evil in a little market competition.
So do you instead prefer fully-locked-down, all apps from our App Store PC's? Do you prefer a fully-locked-down environment and living in a police nation to save you from those who abuse the freedom?
Wow... exaggerate much? App store to police state?
I can see where a locked down, "trusted" source for apps can be useful in certain situations. I think my parents would have a much easier time with an iPad versus a laptop. I, however, have no use for such a thing as I require the flexibility a laptop gives me.
What nerds don't get is that most people don't care about "user's freedom." They're happy to buy a controlled but stable device that lets them browse the web.
AppleTV failed because it wasn't open; it can only play content from the iTunes store, or painstakingly transcoded files. People would rather use devices that are convenient, which implies a certain amount of give and take with the user's needs (see XBox 360 and the PS3). People will want to listen to Pandora while using other applications, and if the iPhone/iPad OS4 still has a single-tasking mentality, it will be fundamentally broken, just like AppleTV is. Ditto with receiving instant messages while playing a game or browsing the web; OS3 can only do that on the 3G network. The iPhone was enough of a revolution for people to see past these faults (heck, I own one); but when the competition starts in earnest Apple will need to adjust.
People aren't as stupid as you seem to believe.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Wow, way to miss the point. I was making light of the fact that windows is notorious for security breaches and a plethora of shitty apps that come bundled with shite the user doesn't want.
HTML5 Video isn't going to happen? H.264 is never going to be a reality? Because Firefox isn't going to support H.264? Yeah, that's stopped people before. If someone is using firefox, they already know how to download a DIFFERENT browser. If Firefox doesn't do what they want, they'll get a better one.
Microsoft is expected to support HTML5 in IE9.. And I know where I'd be putting my money when it comes to Microsoft supporting H.264 or the lower performance, lower quality, non-hardware accelerated Ogg/Theora video.
I think you're very confused about what constitutes a "device".
Of the Apple products that allow user installable applications (so, all computers, iphone, ipod touch and ipad), seven allow "full access", and three rely on the App store for distribution of apps.
Every time I hear someone complaining about the App store, I'm reminded of all those sweaty linux fans living in their parent's basements, who think all software everywhere should be free and run under fucking Gnome and look like it was raped at birth by a horse.
Get a fucking life. If you don't like the iPhone OS, don't buy a device that runs it. There are plenty of alternatives out there, and I keep hearing how a Dell running Windows 7 for all of 45 minutes will be such a better experience while you watch it running a fucking virus scan for the first 30 minutes.
What is...?
Now I don't understand where Google comes with this, since as I understand you're allowed to run anything you want on Android.
Chrome is Google's PC/Mac/Linux Browser.
Android is Google's phone OS.
ChromeOS is Google's new idea - its a stripped down Linux-based OS that only runs the Chrome browser. The idea is that you run everything via the "cloud" - if you want to write an app for ChromeOS you write it in AJAX and stick it on a server (which means it will most likely run just as happily on the iPad, Android or a PC running Chrome browser). Of course, Google would prefer you to use Google's cloud apps, and the first thing ChromeOS asks you to do is to sign in to Google - but I haven't heard any suggestion that its going to be locked to that.
At some point this will most likely be true for OS X too - maybe even on the next major version.
Citation needed.
Its not impossible but it would basically equate to Apple walking away from the general-purpose PC market, and conceeding a big chunk of their Mac sales to Windows. Now, selling OS X Apps through iTunes sounds like a logical next step - but lockdown would be a major and very, very risky U-turn.
If Mac sales were flagging, I could imagine Apple dumping the Mac range and switching entirely to "appliances" like the iPod/Pad/Phone - but AFIAK Macs are still gaining market share.
What interests me is that nobody rails against the broadly similar system in the Games Console market (developers need to be licensed; sellers of mod chips get sued to a smoking hole in the ground; if you "jailbreak" your console and it breaks you get to keep both pieces...)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Here's hoping that BOTH the iPad and the Chromepad are successful. A little competition here might actually make these devices pretty sweet.
Facebook is the new AOL
It's the same wankery that everyone got up to about the iPad. Might even be the same people.
Basically, Chrome OS devices are not meant as general purpose computing devices, they are meant as information appliances. Same concept as the line of Apple iDevices, different execution. The people who complain miss the point, deliberately or no.
Some people just have the opinion that they are entitled to everything being how they want, and they bitch a lot when they don't get it. That's life, I guess.
I'm just wondering if the money gained from the crapware that is installed on new computers is enough of a subsidy to offset the Microsoft tax.
For example, if Microsoft charges OEMs $50, but the OEMs also manage to get $50 from crapware installers, then it's a wash when you buy a laptop and wipe it down. If on the other hand, the manufacturer only gets $10 for the crapware, you're out $40.
The ideal situation would be where the manufacturer gets MORE for the crapware than it costs them for the Windows license - then crapware software manufacturers who target Windows are subsidizing your switch to linux.
I've been playing with android-x86 on my eeepc. It's nice, but doesn't seem to have any applications.
Mostly I'm interested in getting Google Maps Mobile running on it... it's the only thing I really miss from having a Blackberry. Is there any way of getting Google Maps Mobile on a laptop / netbook?
I don't really care for an Android / iPhone / Blackberry / Symbian device and accompanying data plan just to get gmm going... it would be nice to get gmm running on a larger netbook running it and tether it to my existing data plan.
I've tried using Google Earth Plus in the past, and had it hooked up to a GPS... but it wasn't quite as useful... for one thing the zoom level was fixed to something inconvenient after each 1second GPS marker update :-/
That's real cute, but what irks me, as an iPhone user, is that this fancy shmancy app submission process does nothing to ensure quality. Every goddamned week I see hundreds of those "daily babe" apps, all seemingly made by the same 3rd-world developer slapping new pics on his 99 cent app. You're trying to convince me someone actually reviews these submissions ? If I want suggestive imagery on my iphone, I can get them off the web like everyone else, no need for a freaking ad-riddled app.
The app store review process is all about Apple's selfish interests. It offers a false air of legitimacy to any apps hosted therein, and by that sole trait I consider it a fraud.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Hah! They're in the middle of their tablet disaster and meltdown and now here come Google. It's gonna' be Godzilla vs that fisherman guy on the beach outside of Tokyo. Or Bambi.
Stoopid Apple, they should never released a tablet now that Google has theirs out.
I drank what? -- Socrates
It's a well-guarded secret that Jobs has been a nullo since the cancer surgery. Any such public emasculation would obviously a trap to trick others into emulating him.
Mac OS X, derived from eunuchs
I feel like this whole iPad business is just a regurgitation of an product we've seen on the markets for ages with comparatively less power between these new iterations of tablets and today's modern PCs and those tablets of yesterday compared to the modern PCs of that day. I'd be impressed if they had these new tablets running Crysis at 90fps, but that's impossible. This news has been like watching Steve Jobs go up to his attic and digging out something from the old toy box, dusting it off, and telling the world, "Hey, I just invented this." That followed shortly by everyone else doing the same thing.
Do you drive a stick-shift
Yes. Why?
I've been thinking about this tablet format, and I think it's got a few limitations.
For a start, you've got to hold it up or prop it against something while you use it. So, how's this for an idea... give it a hinged lid that can be used to protect the screen and as a stand when it's open. Better yet - if you've got the hinged bit at the front, why not put a physical keyboard in there to save screen space and for easier typing.
Wonder if anyone's come up with any products like that?
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
The ideal situation would be where the manufacturer gets MORE for the crapware than it costs them for the Windows license - then crapware software manufacturers who target Windows are subsidizing your switch to linux.
I believe that was the case for a while with Dell. I haven't checked lately, but I think a Dell laptop with Linux costs the same as the equal-in-hardware Windows laptop.
Do you prefer a fully-locked-down environment and living in a police nation to save you from those who abuse the freedom?
If so, move to the UK. We're doing our best, and we'll get there soon.
</flippant>
Wow... exaggerate much? App store to police state? .
That's not that big of an exaggeration. See here: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/
FreedomTime was a app that displayed a countdown till the next president was elected. It was banned by Apple for being too political.
The developers email:
Dear Steve,
A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.
This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement.
For a quick screen shot:
http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/
Sincerely,
Alec Vance
juggleware llc
His Steveness' reply:
Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve
That's only of many examples, which include political caricatures etc. etc.
So while you play with your shiny phone, freedom is being trampled.. and even the tech savvy Apple Slashdotters are not even aware of it..or maybe they're busy brushing them under the carpet while making and modding up posts that rationalize Apple. Just think of the mom and pop types that get an iPhone because everyone else has it, no one will care, while developer freedom is lost. This is Microsoft's wet dream.. and Apple is realizing it.
This space for rent.
I was one of those people who complained about the iPad...but I was complaining because the iPhone OS restricts what you can install based on what Apple has approved to appear in the App store, not because it isn't a "full" OS (although that would be nice).
There is no such restriction with Google's OS, even though it too is a stripped down operating system. I can live with the reduced functionality, but not with being told what I can or can't install on my device.
Living With a Nerd
A TRS-80 CoCo would be serious competition for the iPad. Seriously, no multitasking, expensive add-ons (keyboard dock, etc.), no camera? What were they thinking?
That brings up a good point, but it failed simply because it wasn't flexible enough. It could play any content that it had codecs for (which of course came out of the box with only iTunes compatible bits). Had it been more flexible, I would buy one. That said, the mini does everything the TV does, but being a computer, it does it better with the ability to install my own codec support with a few clicks.
I think they got the iPhone right in that it offers a huge array of apps that eliminate the need to jailbreak the thing for 99% of the people who use it.
Looks like MS shills have mod points today. Waste some more of your mod points on this comment too, shills, so informative comments like the one above you modded down won't get buried. You won't hurt my karma any.
I do understand why you MS stockholders and employees want everyone to forget. Sucks to be you.
Free Martian Whores!
If you do not like Apple's model, you are free to *not buy into it* and instead buy an Android device, or some other competing product. It's not like Apple are the only player here.
This is basically what the OP was suggesting, and was immediately attacked for.
(unless you want an iPhone, but want to do something else with it, but then... why buy the iPhone in the first place
What reasonable excuse is there for Apple to have any control over what people do with their iPhones? Once you've bought it, it's yours and you ought to be able to do whatever you want with it.
Apple's [user experience] model for OS X is totally, completely separate from the iPhone
Agreed, 110%, however what a lot of people don't realize, at least those that aren't iPhone or Mac OS X developers, is that the iPhone OS and core Mac OS X share over 80% of their source code [Apple WWDC'09]. You also use the same tools and many of the frameworks to develop apps (in Objective-C, C and/or C++) for either platform. It is plausible to have the same code base and then change a build target to create a Mac OS X or iPhone version of a product.
If Apple wants to just be a hardware company (and they do make good hardware), then they need to act like one and let you install whatever the hell you want on said hardware. Nvidia doesn't tell you what OS or software to use with their cards, Intel doesn't tell you what you have to use with their hardware, Dell / HP / every other company doesn't try to force you to use only the software they tell you to. There's nothing wrong with pre-installing an OS / software, but there is something wrong when you claim to be a hardware company and then prevent people from using said hardware in the manner in which they choose.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
What nerds don't get is that most people don't care about "user's freedom." They're happy to buy a controlled but stable device that lets them browse the web.
Except that when they see that for less money they can buy a netbook with the same size screen that lets them do a hell of a lot more then browse the web, a lot of people will stop and think "why the hell should I get this?" The only people I know planning on buying the iPad (and before the details were released, I was very eager for it as well) are the diehard Macolytes who would buy and eat Steve Job's shit as long as it was called iShit and branded with the Apple logo. Everyone else has said "the functionality is so limited that it's not worth buying - my netbook and phone already cover all of that and cost less".
Do you add and remove components of your car's dashboard?
Actually, even professional modders rarely do that. I think you don't really know what you're talking about here. But then again, your lack of a clue when it comes to cars is backed up by your next sentence...
Do you drive a stick-shift, or do you let the computer in the car change gears for you?
I absolutely drive a manual. I refuse to own an automatic because they cost more, up until recently they were slower and got worse mpg, and you don't have as much control over the car. There's a reason why the US is the only country that views manuals as evil - because the US is the only country too lazy to learn how to properly drive a car. That's why car choices in the US are so limited for me - because most cars don't have the option of a manual and are automatically (no pun intended) disqualified.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Did anyone else notice in the demo video that the hands on the person were freakishly small? I think Google is trying to tell us something:
ChromeOS is not for manhands.
That's right folks. Forget your hopes and dreams of manhandling the ChromeOS, this OS isn't for you. It's designed and built for those with small hands. Midgets, small children, and perhaps rodents will be able to use it. But not manhands.
Draw your own conclusions. I think that googlers are looking for people who have small hands, like women. Then the googlers will have a source of information on available women with which they can actually take on a date. It's quite an ingenious plan.
Now I don't understand where Google comes with this, since as I understand you're allowed to run anything you want on Android
android != chrome OS (today anyway, it might in the future).
Yea, its not like they can just opt to make a closed source plugin or anything ... this is a bullshit excuse, and considering how little momentum Firefox has at the moment, I wouldn't even worry if its not supported.
If your licensing model prevents you from working with other software then its your problem. If everyone else can play by those rules and you can't, its your problem, not theirs.
The only reason you've given is 'its not open source'. I don't recall anything anywhere in Mozilla's licensing that prevents you from joining it with closed source software. I know for a fact that there isn't any such restriction as I and many other software developers use Gecko in closed source software, Mozilla even has a nice list of some rather well known closed source software packages that use Gecko.
If you require OSS and can't make an exception then it sounds like you have a problem, not everyone else.
I prefer OSS if all other things are equal, but I don't let some retarded philosophy rule me. I use the right tool for the job, if its open source, AWESOME. If its not, well that sucks, but lets be realistic, 99.9999999999999999999% of the people using open source get no value from the 'open' part of it. VERY VERY few people actually bother to make patches or add features themselves, most people just use it and the OSS part is just a battle cry for what they really mean as 'free' as in no cost.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
No, I'm not making an objective or even subjective assessment of the quality of the system, just that people can choose to avoid it by not buying an iPhone.
My actual assessment of the one gatekeeper approach is that there really isn't a lot of benefit, beyond removal of the most obvious of scam/malware apps. There are a hundred "fart noise" apps, and "iPhone torch!" apps that just make your screen go white.
Even with those, however, Apple's system is working for them - the iPhone is selling like hot cakes, and people are downloading lots of apps.
I really wish it did have a more rigorous quality assurance system, to remove apps that really are useless - how many Torch apps do we really need, for example, or those apps you mention that are really just vehicles for advertising. I think a lot of the QA slipped when the store was faced with such a backlog of approvals to process.
Plus, one man's "awesome" fart app is another man's "total waste of time" - the store is filled with all manner of apps I personally find pointless, but some people love them.
I think the best we can hope for in the near future is for the approval process to go away. I don't think that the single point of access will disappear, at least not yet, but I think eventually you may see it become much easier for a developer to publish an app onto the store.
What nerds don't get is that most people don't care about "user's freedom." They're happy to buy a controlled but stable device that lets them browse the web.
Many oppressed people aren't aware of it, either. Example: living in the USA. Living here, I have far more freedoms than most of the world, but since my government has the capability to spy on just about everything I do, I'm just living in a really big, well furnished cage. A well furnished cage is still a cage.
Do you add and remove components of your car's dashboard?
Not my current car, because I'm keeping it relatively close to stock, but in the past yes. I have installed different gauges to read various pressures and display that the stock dash doesn't monitor. I would LOVE to have a configurable dashboard as a standard option in vehicles, but that's asking a bit much currently.
Do you drive a stick-shift, or do you let the computer in the car change gears for you?
Until the day that I am mentally or physically unable to do so, I will always drive a manual.
Living With a Nerd
Its not that no one knows, its that no one cares.
Not everyone agrees with your idea of useful, and it is their store.
Do you bitch that walmart doesn't sell music with explicit lyrics? Are you even aware of that?
Of course they aren't the only place to buy music, but they were until recently the largest source.
The reason no one cares about that little app being rejected is well ... it had no significant value.
The percentage of rejected apps for any reason is so small its hardly worth noting that apps get rejected. As long as it stays that way, no one is going to give a shit in general.
You call it rationalizing, which is entirely correct. When you look at it from a rational point of view, its really not a big deal like you make it out to be.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Darn you Apple and your computing monopoly. Darn you to HECK!
I drank what? -- Socrates
On the second point, I agree - and jailbreaking is a pretty big community. Apple hasn't gone after people who jailbreak their phones, in the same way they haven't gone after (individual) people who make hackintoshes, or the people who promote the EFI tools that make it possible. I'm an enormous Apple fan, but I end run around them all the time - mostly by doing my own hardware work on their "welded shut" computers, and I'm sure they don;t mind. Sure they want me to send the powerbook back to them to have a bigger HD installed, but they're not really going to care if I do it myself.
Where I make the distinction is assertion that Apple's (or anyone else's) business model is somehow wrong because it doesn't match up with what the user wants to do from the outset. This was my beef with the FSF's protest about the iPad.
Obligatory car analogy: Ford doesn't sell a car in the particular shade I want, because it's not popular enough, but it doesn't stop me respraying it after I buy one. Apple don't offer an open, install from anywhere iPhone by default, but you can modify it afterwards.
To me it looks like a larger iPad with multi-tasking.
If you look at it more, you could conclude that it wouldn’t work (multuple windows…) all that nice on a screen the size of the iPad.
No really new stuff. But also the iPad doesn’t show something revolutionary.
Nonetheless, it’s nice to see different concepts by different people.
You are either trolling or just amazingly obtuse. The unlocked iPhone (and presumably, iPad) actively restricts what software you may install to the device. You need to jailbreak before the software will run. So far, there is no evidence that any Chrome OS devices released from Google will put any more impediment to your installing a package manager and installing any Linux/X11 apps (Chrome OS is Linux+X11+Chrome+A custom window manager, period the end) of your choice.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I agree (although I had an arguement on /. yesterday about whether the iPhone ran OS X at all), but the original assertion by the GP was that because the iPhone OS is all locked up, with single app purchase point that Apple will "likely" make the next version of OS X this way, which is just totally not going to happen.
I don't have some OSS philosophy either. The reason I mentioned why H.264 is not much use for Firefox is because of all the forks of it.
Mozilla License indeed does allow putting in closed source code, but they obviously cannot release that proprietary code as open source. This means only the official Firefox will be able to use H.264 - any Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD or other fork in Windows will not be able to do so. Not that I care that much, I use Opera (though they're against H.264 too and want to use Ogg, but Apple and Microsoft aren't going to do that)
What nerds don't get is that most people don't care about "user's freedom." They're happy to buy a controlled but stable device that lets them browse the web.
That is not yet clear. Nobody has sold a device limited to web browsing yet. Or if they have, they've not been very successful. Even Apple recognized the need to allow the development of actual applications for the iPhone, which was not the original plan.
Do you add and remove components of your car's dashboard?
Yes. All my vehicles have aftermarket stereo systems. I even added a custom in-dash screen to my Impreza. My F250 has an aftermarket pyrometer and boost gauge.
Do you drive a stick-shift, or do you let the computer in the car change gears for you?
Yes. My Subaru has an automatic, but they were kind enough to provide a manual mode in which it will only lug down a gear (and if you put it in third, it will only lug down to second!) if you are attempting to stall the car. In 1st gear manual mode, it locks the center diff to a spool, making it 4WD instead of AWD. My Mercedes has a euro-style shifter which encourages manual shifting, which is very useful even though it has a grade sensor, for preventing unwanted upshifts.
Don't make car analogies, you suck at it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
i have swallowed the google pill for sure, but that demo just makes me sad. for goodness sake, there are already companies with *real* android tablets and many of them were demoed at CES. why did google feel the need to put together shoddy youtube video showing a fake tablet running a mocked up OS?
why don't they just spend a few more dollars to make people aware of the awesome android tablets that are already announced? for example, the vega tablet,
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/vega-tablet-beats-apple-and-crunchpad/
and the MSI tablet,
http://phandroid.com/2010/01/29/msi-android-tablet-harmony/
Yes. My Subaru has an automatic, but they were kind enough to provide a manual mode in which it will only lug down a gear (and if you put it in third, it will only lug down to second!) if you are attempting to stall the car. In 1st gear manual mode, it locks the center diff to a spool, making it 4WD instead of AWD.
Jeebus. I knew some of the variations on the Impreza had some complicated transmissions/gear boxes/differentials, but that is just crazy considering how low the price on those cars tends to be.
Still, I prefer the good ol' 6-shifter manual on my 04 RSX Type-S :-) BTW, in case anyone is looking for a good CAI/Cat Back exhaust combo, go with an Ingen CAI and a Borla stainless steel cat-back, with a Hondata intake manifold gasket for good measure. In regular use it's fairly quiet, but has a real low growl to it. Once the V-Tech kicks in though, it sounds like a top-fuel dragster.
I rattle windows, bitches.
Living With a Nerd
I've been saying since the Apple announcement that the real competition for the iPad will not be the Kindle, or existing netbooks running Windows, but the as-yet-unreleased machines running ChromeOS.
Both are targeted primarily at "average" consumers who don't want a full-on computer, but rather an appliance that "just works," more like a phone, for certain tasks -- browsing the web, watching movies, reading books, keeping track of their photos.
That's why geeks like us find both of them to be a bit lackluster; they're not aimed at us. They're aimed at our parents.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
Jeebus. I knew some of the variations on the Impreza had some complicated transmissions/gear boxes/differentials, but that is just crazy considering how low the price on those cars tends to be.
Pretty much all Subarus of the modern age (Impreza from MY1993, Legacy from IIRC 1994, and the ilk) which are AWD (which includes all non-Kei-class MY1996+ Subarus) have some sort of advanced center differential. The simplest ones have rear-wheel lockout and/or spool mode. The stuff in the transmission is done in software, and required only some additional code and a stick-mounted button... oh, and an idiot light.
Once the V-Tech kicks in though,
You can make some really bitchin' phone calls. V-Tech makes crap electronics, Honda makes engines with VTEC. Brought to you by the department of pedantry.
I would have preferred a stick, but I got the car for $1500, and I was willing to make a small sacrifice. I added WRX wheels and some nice Kumho Ecsta ASX rubber and a custom intake. Now I'm trying to get the factory intake back on and can't figure out where the air injection goes; I think the pipe I got was 48-state. I'll probably just add a fitting to the airbox, before the filter, which is where it looks like it belongs. I also ended up having to replace the TPS. Fantastic deal on a great runner... and SOHC models are non-interference. The car outhandles most things in the twisties and the factory suspension soaks up bumps in Lake County, California (which are amazingly prevalent) in a way that no firmer, street-oriented aftermarket suspension would. The most fun you can have with four wheels and 100HP...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So it's the Windows+crapware tax? Linux/OSX never sounded better.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Apple went from being nearly kaput 10 years ago to the juggernaut they are today. They didn't pull a bait and switch on anyone, so it's obvious that making the whole widget does have a certain appeal for a significant segment of the market.
Apple's success doesn't mean that they have somehow snuck into a leadership position, they earned it.
Other models like Microsoft Operating systems, which are less couple to the hardware and Open Source exist as well, and can be more successful than Apple within their respective areas/niches.
Yes, MS is a software company... and yet, they don't lock down any of the software options within their operating systems.
But they do. The Xbox 360 is locked down and software can only be installed if it passes certification from Xbox LIVE.
or [Apple is] a PR company, more concerned with convincing you to buy something, than with the actual nature product.
Apple only spends about a third of the marketing budget that MS expends.
You can make some really bitchin' phone calls. V-Tech makes crap electronics, Honda makes engines with VTEC. Brought to you by the department of pedantry.
::hangs head in shame::. I...I can't believe I made that mistake...
The car outhandles most things in the twisties and the factory suspension soaks up bumps in Lake County, California (which are amazingly prevalent) in a way that no firmer, street-oriented aftermarket suspension would
I got the A-Spec kit on my RSX-S...the kit is overpriced compared to going aftermarket, but the suspension is AWESOME. I swear I can feel individual bits of gravel through the tires. Adding a strut bar up front and the RSX-R floor bar in the rear really helped tighten things up. It has some slight oversteer, but I got used to it fairly quickly.
With the wheels straight, if you put your hand at 12 o'clock on the steering wheel and start driving, the car will go in whichever direction your hand is pointed at 1:1. I love that little car, SO much fun to drive.
Living With a Nerd
An open source OS is more open than anything MS offers. Yes it can be hard to do something with it but not everything was meant for the average person.
I don't see why this got the "me too" tag. People have been working on Chrome OS and Android-based tables for as long as those operating systems have been out. The first Android tablets probably will ship before iPad.
No, what he meant is that the crapware like Norton Antivirus trial preinstalled on a Windows computer could be used to subsidize the cost of OEM Windows. If Windows costs $50, and the manufacturer gets $50 back to preinstall those trial programs, the actual Windows costs $0 for the manufacturer. Then they can sell the actual computer without Windows tax.
Before the Subaru I had a 1989 240SX with Eibach springs at about four times the stock rate and with a 3.5" front and 3" rear drop, a front strut tower brace, koni yellows, and a 300ZX viscous limited slip diff (2-way, of course.) You had to shift twice to get to 60 and it was gear-limited to 124 MPH (and electronically to 115.) But it was amazing to drive, until I bent two of my TSWs (totally soft wheels, inc.) hitting potholes. I had to get rid of it at that point, and get something less bouncy, hence the Impreza. Now I'm selling it because I want all turbo-diesels, and I have a MBZ 300SD and a OBS F250 that fit the description.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We mainly develop on Linux-Java platforms. Android is closer to that than the AppleOS-ObjectiveC platform.
The RSX is only the second vehicle I've used as a daily driver...the other was an '88 6 Cylinder 4Runner...had 326,000 miles on it when I sold it. Still had the original transmission and engine!
Living With a Nerd
Apple openly touts that it will babysit your phone, will curate the apps available for it, that it provides this as a service to its owners, and that this is a positive selling point for the device?
People have been buying subsidized phones for years, and this proved the principle that people are willing to reqlinquish control over something they owned in exchange for something else of value: lock to our network, we give you money to buy the handset -- the handset is still "yours," but you give up some control over it. Apple's offer is similar: give up some control, and we give you a better experience.
One man's big brother is another man's "Find my iPhone," one man's walled garden is another man's "Parental Controls", one man's sandboxed single-tasking is another man's anti-spyware. These are Apple's solutions to these problems; they are extreme ones, no one disputes that, but I don't think there is any doubt at this point that people are really receptive to these solutions, even given the drawbacks.
You can either see the people accepting these conditions as making a decision, or as ignorant morans. Up to you.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
This seems like a highly speculative conclusion, given that MythTV hasn't exactly taken over my TV credenza just yet. Are you sure AppleTV hasn't failed on account of the fact that people prefer to pay for cable/ DVR over paying for shows episode-by-episode? I think the AppleTV model just doesn't match up with how people want to pay for content at the moment. There's a lot more perceived value in being able to record all-you-can-eat off of 300 channels onto a 30-hour DVR over actually paying for episodes.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
This seems like a highly speculative conclusion, given that MythTV hasn't exactly taken over my TV credenza just yet. Are you sure AppleTV hasn't failed on account of the fact that people prefer to pay for cable/ DVR over paying for shows episode-by-episode?
Sure, that's one reason -- but another is that AppleTV can't do what a PS3 or 360 can do (among other set-top boxes and blueray players). Apple was trying to herd users to their store in the same way the iPad is attempting for books. They placed artificial restrictions on the formats and distribution channels for AppleTV (no Netflix, no Hulu, etc.). My Mac Mini can do all of that just fine, and is a much better Apple TV than AppleTV is.
Consumers have picked better alternatives that are more convenient, which in that instance means that it must play a variety of formats and be able to read media from a variety of sources (Internet, USB, home network, etc.). They wanted something more open. They aren't mindless Apple-buying zombies, although some of those do exist (and they probably bought the AppleTV).
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
This has nothing to do with freedom or police state.
Let me know when Jobs has people killed. The you can use terms like police state.
developer freedom lost? I didn't realize someone was putting a gun to peoples heads and making them build apps.
They could build Apps for the G1 is it is such an issue. Oh wait, you said police tate so I better hide before some one kicks in my door and kills me in front of my family bacause it's not an Apple phone.
Police state, please.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Shouldn't the consumer be the judge of what has "significant value" and what does not, rather than Apple?
You are welcome on my lawn.
MS actually applies a lot of pressure as to what hardware vendors adapt. The hardware DRM crap costs the vendors money and they don't want to put it in their hardware. Yet they are being forced to if they want to compete in the consumer system market.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
really? try playing an 1080p movie onto a non approved monitor.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because they want to control what goes onto there hardware to ensure it meets their standards.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yet, they run an "app store".
You are welcome on my lawn.
". I can just boot my Windows Mobile, type PIN and it doesn't try to integrate me in to any other bullshit or be in constant contact with MS servers."
MS want's you to be completely integrated with their services as well.
You don't need to be integrated into Google to use an android based phone. My G1 could hook into many different email and calendaring systems.
Personally, I use Google services, so it's a nice feature for me, but it's certainly not mandatory.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apple went from a being a ground-breaking and highly individual manufacturer of computing platforms to a consumer electronics juggernaut.
Good for them. Apple stock paid for the down payment on my house and I'm very grateful. But those of us who remember when Apple Computers was a serious player in educational computing and in the arts and in publishing and a company that was out to change the world lament the fact that it's become a purveyor of expensive toys to rich douchebags and fashionistas with credit cards.
Their personal computer division, which seems to have given up on any innovation besides cosmetics, could really change the world if they released a version of OSX that would run non-Apple branded hardware. If Apple hardware really is so fantastic, then they shouldn't worry about selling a version of OSX that I can install on my own x58 i7/12gig/Radeon 5870 machine. Clearly, their hesitation is that by making OSX run on standard hardware it might expose Apple hardware as being overpriced and technologically ordinary.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't follow. You're comparing an AppleTV (a media appliance thingy that buys content off iTunes and plays Quicktimes) to two consoles (which play videogames, several movie formats of varying openness, and optionally BluRays, don't have media buying options, thus their movie-playing functionality just exists to facilitate bittorrent piracy).
Hulu works on PS3? I thought there was some "artificial restriction" on that; same thing for XBox, actually. Neflix has been admirable in their support of these consoles, but on the other hand they are actually collecting MONEY from their subscribers, and they didn't exactly open-source their player, nor did Xbox or Sony open-source their interfaces. Netflix support on consoles is a closed, opaque business decision between small numbers of huge media players.
People accept all kinds of boneheaded restrictions just fine as long as you sell them on the primary benefits: lets you watch the stuff you wanna watch for good price. People prefer paying for Netflix over AppleTV, clearly, but attributing this to "openness," when all of your counterexamples involve proprietary videogame consoles, proprietary or patented/licenesed media formats, proprietary client software, and streaming non-saveable movies, is a bit rich.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I didn't watch the video, however I'm assuming that your post is of the "take the words about the iPad and turn it against Chrome OS" ilk.
If so, you are misdirected.
Here's the thing - from all that I've heard about the ChromeOS platform, it is intended to be usable only as essentially a web appliance. The apps that it uses are no different than the apps that anyone can use on any other modern web device, including, humorously, the iPad.
Your bank won't gloat about their new "ChromeOS Banking Application", nor will your doctor, etc. The public won't be bifurcated into various walled gardens.
Now personally I have zero interest in Chrome OS: Give me a real notebook any day. But I can see its purpose, and I don't see the same (gigantic) pitfalls that I see with the iPad.
Jobs has applications killed. That's the parallel. A developer can invest a huge amount of time in an app, and Apple can fail to approve it for any reason it wants (or no reason), and prevent any iPhone user from using it legally. You never know until you submit, and cross your fingers.
People prefer paying for Netflix over AppleTV, clearly, but attributing this to "openness," when all of your counterexamples involve proprietary videogame consoles, proprietary or patented/licenesed media formats, proprietary client software, and streaming non-saveable movies, is a bit rich.
I was using the term "open" in contrast with "fucking locked down" as per the gp, not open in a FSF sense. And, yes, those proprietary systems are all much more open than AppleTV was, which consumers saw. It's all a matter of degree. If the Google device is more open, in a non-pedant-FSF-way, then consumers may well pay attention to it.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The variable sized / changing position of the virtual keyboard seems like a bad idea to me. I wonder how accurate the demo video is meant to be.
Quite a few people do, and I'm sure there are lots of people on the car enthusiast front fighting modern locked-down cars. We're a Linux/copyright/Apple/Google site so we don't exactly hear much from them.
"There"? I'll assume you mean "their", but that doesn't make much more sense than what you typed. You see, if I pay for a computer I expect to have the rights that go along with ownership; which includes the right to put what ever legal software I have on it. If Apple was loaning me a computer, I could see them not allowing me to install what ever I wanted on it. But such is not the case.
Know thyself. -- Delphic Oracle, 8th century BC
In hindsight, I think Steve is a genius. How's that hope and change work'in for ya
I'm not sure you've even established your point to that standard. Is a PS3 less "fucking locked down" than an AppleTV, or just "fucking locked down" in a different sort of way? At least when you put an iTunes movie on an AppleTV, you can at least play it in HD, without having to worry about network buffering -- there's your tradeoff.
Either way, the Mac mini and console-modding solutions are pretty thin gruel to argue on success or failure of an entire strategy, considering how little penetration they've achieved compared to Plain Old Satellite/Cable/DVR. I don't think any of these has shown a true "way out" of the cable block-channel-subscription model. Everything out there in the Internet Television world is still pretty half-assed compared to cable, and when we try to assign the reason for something like AppleTV failing, you have to show why people didn't buy it instead of X, and if X in 90% of cases is cable TV, then arguing the comparative merits of PS3 modding is sorta unresponsive.
The AppleTV was a test device to see if people were willing to do what people on slashdot have been begging to do, namely, "let me pay for only the shows I want!" It's a cable-killer: in it's primary use case, it makes cable redundant. Lo and behold, this prospect didn't actually appeal to alot of people. Which is interesting, and says a lot about how much "freedom" people are actually willing to pay for.
Apple's attempts to restructure their sales in a more all-you-can-eat way, most recently reported before Xmas, have failed, primarily because many of the largest content creators, Time-Warner, Disney and Sony, have huge interests in cable distribution. This is remarkably similar to how the plain film industry was organized up to the early 1950s, and studios back then would essentially pull the same crap that cable providers pull on their customers -- they'd force theater owners to book two bad films in order to be able to book one good one, they'd use formula deals to create artificial scarcity, etc. This was finally resolved by the SCOTUS forcing the studios to divest their theaters on anti-trust grounds... I wonder what the chances of that happening again are :)
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Wow, troll much? HTML 5 is an open standard. HTML 5 video just requires a codec to function properly. Right now, there is H.264, which is a patent encumbered codec (you must pay to license it) and is bundled with Chrome and Safari, or Ogg Theora, a free codec bundled by Firefox.
I know I'll probably get downmodded into oblivion, but I would rather have an open standard that is relatively cheap to implement and just works like H.264, than a closed standard like Flash for video on the web. Mozilla can harp all they want about how they are trying to free web standards by using Theora, but there may be submarine patents that come to bite Theora implementations, and personally, when I want to watch Hulu or something on the web, I don't want to worry about whether I have the right codec installed. I'll just use Chrome and let Google pay the $1.50 or whatever it costs to license the H.264 codec.
H.264 also has the advantage that there are hardware accelerated decoding chips in most mobile devices and a lot of new netbooks, so I don't have to drain my battery in 30 minutes of watching video.
Sorry, free software is a great thing in theory, but in practice, I just want to be able to watch video that actually works, and doesn't drain my battery too fast.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Yeah, it's just terrible the way Google locks down ChromeOS ... no, wait a minute. ctrl-alt-T ... what's this Linux thing? You mean I actually have to type my PASSWORD to get root? Evil bastards!
There's an article here about kickback against the whole idea that the world would miss Microsoft.
We have to keep in mind that a lot of people don't know anything *but* Windows. To them, Microsoft invented the PC. They don't know what it was like to "pay your dues" and help create the consumer computer market by buying all those primitive 6502 and 6808-based "home computers", often spending thousands of dollars. They would never believe that you could have a working graphical multi-user multi-tasking environment in 128k of ram @ 2 mhz.
To them, Microsoft is just "a natural monopoly". They don't remember Microsoft programs looking for specific mouse drivers to try to determine if they were running Digital Research DOS and then going "OMG YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM IS INCOMPATIBLE!" or other dirty tactics.
Look at the number of formats and sources available between the two. The PS3, the 360, my Pioneer DVD player, and numerous other devices will play many of: plain-old MPEG-2, MPEG4/2, H.26x, WMV, sorensen and others. They typically accept Quicktime, AVI and other envelopes. Additionally, with those devices you can often browse network shares, the Internet or use various streaming servers open-source or not. They attempt to play what consumers want to play.
The AppleTV is tied to iTunes, and can only play very specific MPEG4 in Quicktime envelopes.
Perhaps Apple's ala-carte plan would have been more successful if they had coupled it with the ideal that gave us Rip. Mix. Burn. The iPod supports MP3 and allows consumers to directly use their content from external sources (ogg notwithstanding). This, in addition to their preferred format. If AppleTV had allowed importing of existing content without re-encoding, and (legalities aside) made it easy to import DVDs into a library -- and THEN offered the ala-cart iTunes episodes, I wonder what would have happened.
I won't hold my breath on the SCOTUS doing anything pro-consumer right now. ;-)
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
So you gonna run around screaming stalker as usual because you got odded down Mcgrew?
I see no sign of MS shils, just realism.
So does Intel.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
The point is that MS could've locked developers out of MS-DOS and Windows by banning competing applications and those that 'duplicate functionality' or leeched off them by forcibly taking 30% of cost of AutoCAD etc.
It's funny you call him a paid shill while being ready to whore for free.
It's funny that Microsoft has already done worse than this, indeed : ban competing applications, using *illegal* tactics: see the famous DR-DOS false bug under Windows 3.1. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/
If I hadn't blown all my mod points modding your cussing flames as flamebait and trolling, I'd mod you offtopic.
directly or indirectly
http://www.slashgear.com/foxconn-engineer-commits-suicide-after-losing-iphone-4g-prototype-2149841/
...I obey the laws of physics....
The same $500 hardware with everything stripped out except the browser is "serious competition"?
This is embarrassing coming from Google. Didn't Nexus One hurt their brand enough? iPad is almost $100 cheaper than Nexus one and with a $30 data only plan and Skype is more like what the Google Phone was rumored to be.
Apple is bigger than Google and for Apple this is a full-time job, not a hobby.
Again, you have to compare like to like. An AppleTV replaces a cable subscription. A console cannot. A console is always going to be half the package, you still have to actually have a way of getting the content into the house, and getting money from the customer.
You keep wanting to make the AppleTV into one of these hobbyist gizmos that people are using to play their stolen movies and ripped DVDs, but it's specifically designed to not do that; it is, exactly like a cable box, simply a storefront that provides the same content but with a different payment model. Why are the cable boxes winning and the AppleTV losing?
There is a quicktime component for ogg, but this is undermining your point, since iPods can't really play a wide span of media, iTunes has to keep transcoded versions of anything that ain't Linear PCM, MP3, AAC, or Apple Lossless. Cable doesn't let you the user control any of this, it just gives you a button to press and shows you the show.
No vendor provides this -- if this isn't how cable or consoles are winning it can't be how the AppleTV is losing.
Ripping CSS DVDs is forbidden in the United States, and is illegal -period- in the UK and most of the rest of the first world. That doesn't keep you or I form doing it, practically speaking, but it definitely keeps Apple, Sony and Microsoft from putting it on the box. Which brings me back to my original point that the only way a console could possibly compete with cable is by leveraging media piracy to obtain content. Consoles just don't have good storefronts, and where they do have programming, they offer no real advantage over the iTunes store.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
And I moded both you and the fucking troll down. You often post semi-interesting stuff. But you need to know that Tom Hudson is the troll of fucking trolls. One of the original "troll tuesday" founders, or whatever the fuck day it was. I don't give a shit what he wants to post - he's been a fucking troll for so long, he gets a troll mod no matter what the fuck he says. I don't bother to read it. Notice that Smitty Mcgrew also got down modded for saying the same shit. We're sick of hearing his rants about how he's old and friends with prostitutes. He's a troll too.
Protip: Ignore those two. Otherwise you look like a similar troll, and will get modded into oblivion like they do, regardless of their posts.
Draw your own conclusions. I think that googlers are looking for people who have small hands, like women.
Yeah, that seems stupid. Based on /. statistics, they're only like 2% of the market...
(Sorry for the teasing, ladies :P)
Amen!
And while we're at it -> APK can die in a fire too.
I think that more likely their unwillingness to support OS X white boxes has to do with their experience with the clones, and the fact that currently their support costs are negligible. If they had to support every random piece of crappy x86 hardware out there, they'd soon be in a world of hurt.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Stalker? You're the only stalker, bozo. That comment would only be flamebait to someone who wanted the world to forget "Embrace, extend, extinguish", and only MS stockholders and employees would wish that.
Like I said, mod me down all you want. I get 5s every day.
Free Martian Whores!