Slashdot Mirror


XML Co-Founder Joins Google, Blasts iPhone

XML co-founder Tim Bray has taken the job of 'Developer Advocate' at Google. Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?' Because he sure doesn't mince words against the iPhone in his first sermon: 'It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.

628 comments

  1. Oh SNAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No he didn't!

  2. XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable."

    1. Re:XML vs iPhone by JamesP · · Score: 5, Funny

      Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    2. Re:XML vs iPhone by .tekrox · · Score: 5, Funny

      They both have the power to kill thousands, I don't see the big difference.

    3. Re:XML vs iPhone by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.

      I see no mention of cars in that comparison, so I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

    4. Re:XML vs iPhone by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      I can: open but convoluted = Little money
      Closed but usable = Big money

    5. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot wheels on a plastic track to F1.

      ... Well, I guess toys can be compared to online help...

    6. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing XML to the iPhone is cars like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.

      Understand it now?

    7. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Steve, is that you?

    8. Re:XML vs iPhone by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable."

      Well that explains why proprietary alternatives to XML like JSON or YAML are so much better!

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    9. Re:XML vs iPhone by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.

      No, comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing fiberglass insulation to a Toyota car. One is a technique the other is a brand of hardware products.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    10. Re:XML vs iPhone by Sulphur · · Score: 0, Redundant

      iFighter jet catches celebrity pizza school delivery vehicle with new XML specialty pie.

    11. Re:XML vs iPhone by neoform · · Score: 4, Funny

      He invented XML, how isn't he an expert on cellphone platforms....???

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    12. Re:XML vs iPhone by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Exactly! The comparison makes no sense. It's like saying your muffler is a far better car than Ford Pinto!

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    13. Re:XML vs iPhone by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

      Try asbestos insulation. The poisonous effects aren't obvious at first, but it eventually infests and clogs the flow of important things, like oxygen or the data you actually care about.

    14. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      lol I ws thinking the same thing. Like a guy like this would have ever thought of a UI like the Iphone. Instead we'd be noodling through tons of awkard menu's but hey it would all be configurable with xml and xls. Can I pull my hair out now or later.

    15. Re:XML vs iPhone by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well that explains why proprietary alternatives to XML like JSON or YAML are so much better!

      JSON is not propietary.
      http://www.json.org/license.html

      Nor is YAML
      http://www.yaml.de/en/license/license-conditions.html

      Or is there a woosh here that I am missing?

    16. Re:XML vs iPhone by Wovel · · Score: 1

      How is he? He is no more an expert on cellphone platforms than Robert Metcalfe, James Gosling, Tim Berners-Lee, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, or the ice cream man.

    17. Re:XML vs iPhone by Tycho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try asbestos insulation.

      Head, desk. Desk, head. HEADDESK!

      95% (literally) of the asbestos ever used is of a type known as crysotile. Crysotile fibers are hollow and fibers shorter than 1.5 inches are quickly physically broken up in the lungs by the immune system and excreted. Fibers longer than 1.5 inches can get stuck in the bronchii and are carcinogenic. However, no processed crysotile with fibers that long are sold anymore. Only smaller fiber sizes are sold currently. On the other hand, the other types of asbestos are amphiboles and have a totally different fiber structure that is solid and that has ends that will flake off into microscopic pieces are are carcinogenic. It may be good to mention at this point that natural asbestos deposits are common and asbestos fibers of both types are probably something you inhale on a regular basis. On the other hand, if you live in the US and have vermiculite insulation in your home, and depending on the age tremolite asbestos, an amphibole, may be present. Surprisingly, asbestos is not like a toxic or radioactive substance and is safer if left alone, assuming it is in an enclosed space, like an attic, that is left undisturbed. Note, this changes is vermiculite insulation end up in your living room. When and if asbestos needs to be removed, hire trained professionals with the proper equipment.

      Also, fiberglass insulation isn't necessarily any better for your lungs than asbestos.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    18. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

    19. Re:XML vs iPhone by FrankDrebin · · Score: 2, Funny

      And depending on the fuel, nasty hot gasses.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    20. Re:XML vs iPhone by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      So XML is a "technique" now? I guess it is something different to everyone.

      I'd say a more apt analogy would be comparing a grammar text-book with a tape recorder.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    21. Re:XML vs iPhone by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the ice cream man is indeed an expert on cellphone platforms. He told me himself.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    22. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

    23. Re:XML vs iPhone by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      Well XML is a technology that became widely adopted throughout the whole computing industry. He is no cell-phone expert, he is a technology and standards expert.

    24. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is useful the other is buggy and overrated?

    25. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, everybody knows that XML is like violence: when it doesn't solve the problem, you apply more.

    26. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor is YAML
      http://www.yaml.de/en/license/license-conditions.html

      Or is there a woosh here that I am missing?

      You mean http://www.yaml.org/

    27. Re:XML vs iPhone by blueskies · · Score: 1

      I think the woosh might be that JSON (iphone) is not proprietary and is better than XML for most things. XML:Google::JSON:Apple doesn't really work.

    28. Re:XML vs iPhone by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Exactly! The comparison makes no sense. It's like saying your muffler is a far better car than Ford Pinto!

      Chances are it is.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    29. Re:XML vs iPhone by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      There'd be an Excel spreadsheet involved? That's just sadistic!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    30. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The woosh sound is because you don't even seem to know what YAML is, since all you did was google for "yaml license" and you didn't even look to see if what you were linking was the right thing.

      http://www.yaml.org/

    31. Re:XML vs iPhone by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      He invented XML, how isn't he an expert on cellphone platforms....???

      Maybe that means it will finally be simpler to send XML markup with T9. I'm sure lots of people miss this feature and both of them will be really happy.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    32. Re:XML vs iPhone by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      More like comparing a tinker toy set to a luxury car. XML is great in theory but doing anything practical with it is often a bad idea. I do think XML is often a great tool but it is often badly applied.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    33. Re:XML vs iPhone by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Obligatory............whoosh

    34. Re:XML vs iPhone by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      He's invented something awful so he's an expert on awful and that make him more than capable of talking about the iphone.

    35. Re:XML vs iPhone by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      No!!! That would be both open and closed at the same, sick, time.

    36. Re:XML vs iPhone by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The context made sense though since the one I linked to home page states

      Yet Another Multicolumn Layout" (YAML) is an (X)HTML/CSS framework for creating modern and flexible floated layouts. The structure is extremely versatile in its programming and absolutely accessible for end users.

    37. Re:XML vs iPhone by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      JSON is not propietary. http://www.json.org/license.html

      Oh wow. I see a crisis brewing.

      JSON license:

      The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

      Open Source Definition:

      6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
      The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

      Waaaah! Theo de Raadt wants his baby mulching machines to exchange information with JSON, but he can't do that, because evil is banned!

      <flamebait type="merely sarcastic" expressedusing="XML" ref="Apple" hence="on topic">Plus, if evil is banned, why the hell is Apple using JSON? On the frigging iPhone????</flamebait> =)

      What exactly are "good" and "evil" in this context, anyway? If it is such a big point that it warrants a mention in the license, why isn't it defined clearly?

      Yup, proprietary.

    38. Re:XML vs iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is there a woosh here that I am missing?

      Whoosh......

    39. Re:XML vs iPhone by lennier · · Score: 1

      The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

      I assume that mad scientists will be using Ruby and really mad scientists will be using Common Lisp (on vintage Symbolics machines), while run-of-the-mill evil dictators will stick with the tried-and-true deathray+Java+volcano+SOA+gorilla+XML+submarine+ESB stack.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    40. Re:XML vs iPhone by amexiteinc · · Score: 1

      What is XML? I don't Get it. Thanks Du www.amexite.com

  3. To be fair by JanneM · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not a work-related "convenient opinion" of his. He's been critical of Apple's walled-garden approach to development for years, and an Android advocate since he got an Android phone in 2008 (see http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary for his chronicles using and programming it).

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:To be fair by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, it's a completely legitimate sentiment (if rather over-dramatically stated). Most phone users don't care, which is how the iPhone manages to stay popular in the face of Apple's iron-fisted control, but it's still true.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:To be fair by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only is it a walled garden, but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players (at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves), etc, all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer. Well, Apple has done exactly what Microsoft was doing 10 years ago, it's just that since it was Apple, it was ok (don't mod me down, I'm not trying to troll here). There's some traction in the tech media about Apple doing to developers what slashdotites claimed MS would do, but since Apple isn't the (or wasn't) 800 lb gorilla most people let it slide. Well now Apple owns the market segment (or at least a good portion of it) and ceding Poland to Apple is showing it's downside. Google's approach is definitely better, but right now the fact of the matter is that Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although I don't condone their abuses of corporate power, Disney has made a lot of money by being "Disney-fied".

    4. Re:To be fair by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing

      Yup, very few posts on /. critical of Apple lately. It's not at all the dominant meme when talking about smartphones.

      Seriously - do you actually read /. ? Half the posts in a thread about Apple are criticising it for exactly the things you mention, and the other half are defending it.

    5. Re:To be fair by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      and ceding Poland to Apple

      godWIN!

    6. Re:To be fair by paiute · · Score: 2, Informative

      and ceding Poland to Apple

      godWIN!

      The Sudetenland was ceded. Poland was invaded. Get your convoluted memes right.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    7. Re:To be fair by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oops sorry. But you got my lightly veiled reference that Apple = Hitler, so I'm still ahead :)
       
      Here's the wikipedia link for those interested.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    8. Re:To be fair by sbeckstead · · Score: 1, Funny

      I disagree you are trolling big time. Since I disagree with you it is obvious that you are trolling!

    9. Re:To be fair by Purist · · Score: 0

      Yeah...none of us slashdot readers are familiar with the "walled garden" approach...

      --
      I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
    10. Re:To be fair by jocknerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its not OK because its Apple. Its OK because Apple makes it usable. It wasn't OK for Microsoft, because their implementations sucked. People are willing to forgive Apple because it works well for them.

    11. Re:To be fair by Hadlock · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I think you're right. Let's wait and see if I get up or down modded(!)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    12. Re:To be fair by rolfwind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not only is it a walled garden, but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing...

      Microsoft was and is a monopoly. This is apparent in marketshare and the fact that many application are Windows-only without a good Mac/Linux counterpart (for instance, no good comprehensive ebay listing software equivalent to blackthorne).

      It has alleviated the past years, seen by how no longer are many websites IE-only, but it's still entrenched in many areas. Basically, Windows had a monopoly on its API.

      Apple has no such monopoly. Music Players? You can get many alternatives in the very same windows Walmart showcases iPods. Itunes? Amazon sells tracks, along with many other vendors. Smartphone, droid. Does the iPhone have a monopoly on smartphone apps? I don't think it does but may be wrong.

      I don't think Apple is the nicest company around, but they dickish moves have much less impact than Microsoft did in the 1990s.

    13. Re:To be fair by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the part defending Apple are not only consistently and intentionally wrong[1], they are actively advertising Apple, just because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team. Of course there had to be a back-lash against them, since that kind of fraudulent PR can't go unchallenged.

      [1] Examples: That the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers (it's not, it's designed for internet addicts who already have at least one computer); that the walled garden is for security (it's for profit and lock-in); that solutions that are prohibited by Apple (tethering the iPad to the iPhone, for instance) are there because Apple always need to design things so lusciously simple (they don't, and that's not the reason why: it would compete against their otherwise prohibitively expensive 3g version of the iPad). All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.

    14. Re:To be fair by weston · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but everybody seems to forget

      No. No they don't. Perhaps you have some kind of blind spot or other cognitive impairment that keeps you from noticing the rather high number of comments on Slashdot that are not only generally critical of Apple, but specifically critical of Apple's lock-down policy w/regards to Cocoa Touch devices, but they're still there.

      that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players (at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves), etc, all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer.

      Microsoft had a uniquely powerful monopoly, a hold over the computing desktop for about two decades, and abused that not just through their own product standards but through their market power over OEMs.

      Apple's control issues can be a pain, but they've simply never done anything like that. The fact that music players and associated file formats are frequently cited as one of the most high profile issues shows how weak the comparison is: even at their absolute worst in terms of lock-down, iTMS and the iPod have been quite usable with non-Apple products and systems, and most of the time, Apple's competed on their product merits and marketing skills rather than market pressure.

      If you decide Apple's practices aren't for you, more power to you. But that's part of the point, really. You've never faced any segment of any industry in which Apple's produced a device or piece of software you might be *forced* to work with, in which their mindshare and market power are so completely dominant you can't just choose something else if you want to. Cranky about their music store? There were other options. Didn't like the iPod? Buy another mp3 player. Don't want to bother to code for Safari as a web dev? Code the standards and chances are you can ignore it. Or use Chrome. Never want to use OS X? You're in luck. Never want any of your money to go to Apple for any reason? You're pretty safe as long as you don't buy their products.

      Now, can you say the same thing about Microsoft? Unless you're new to Slashdot, chances are you're aware that for a good long period of time, it was pretty difficult to buy a prebuilt computer without paying the Microsoft tax. You can't be ignorant of the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do client-side web development and not test with (3 versions of) IE. And in many corporate environments, you're still essentially forced to use Windows. Thankfully, Microsoft as been pretty crappy about extending their monopoly outside of the desktop. But even in a world where Apple does brisk business, where Linux is starting to make inroads, where OpenOffice and other tools mean that for most common tasks you don't *always* have to have MS Office to exchange work-related documents.... Microsoft still actually has an incredibly strong near-monopoly grip on the desktop/applications experience.

      And that's why statements like this:

      Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.

      Are flat out, 100%, simply wrong . Apple's product decisions may make their platform less vital and products less appealing to some customers. But they don't ever really try to bend the whole industry that direction, and the only reason they have as much influence as they do is the same reason anybody who comes up with a good idea or a successful model does. Not because they're threatening OEMs with raised license prices if they don't do what they want.

    15. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      ^- this

      It's a huge difference when Microsoft is abusing its monopoly power to try to take over additional markets by bundling them "free" (ie: you pay for it with the OS whether you want it or not).

      Whereas Apple made a good product and succeeded with it, and deserves what they get. Meanwhile they've kept things as open as possible in terms of standards, even if the iPhone device is (for arguably good reason) halfway closed.

      The GP's comparison is pretty poor, but it was a nice effort from a Microsoft apologist!

    16. Re:To be fair by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Both companies have (or are trying to exert) monopolies for products functioning inside their respective operating systems. Apple has as large of a consumer base today as Microsoft did when they were indicted for a monopoly oh so many years ago. Also, I'm not a Microsoft apologist, my last computer was a Powerbook, and I only boot into Windows to play video games -- I mostly run Ubuntu these days.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    17. Re:To be fair by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Oops sorry. But you got my lightly veiled reference that Apple = Hitler, so I'm still ahead :)

      If Apple are the Nazi's, that must make Google the Brits (co-operated with the Nazi's for a time, appeased them), Microsoft must be Soviet Russia (I'm sure Vista can be considered a purge). So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    18. Re:To be fair by wisty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's a sign of my age. I never liked MS much. I liked google for a while. I almost trusted them. Then I switched to Apple - google seemed a little too eager for all my personal information.

      When you realize that they are all ruthless corporations out to make a buck of you, you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option. It's not always the best option (and I'll use the best option even if it's evil, as long as there's a way to port my data), but it's the one I root for.

      I still use google for search and mail, and I like my Macbook, and I like Microsoft's ... em, no wait I never liked anything Microsoft (though I might duel boot one day and play some games, and the .net runtime looks like it might inspire some useful developments) but I don't like or trust the companies.

    19. Re:To be fair by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The iPad seems a nice device. It's not for everyone, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It may not be for you, but again, there's nothing wrong with that.

      I find the backlash you mention exactly as bad as the breathless fans you berate and to be honest I'm just as tired of either side of the pundits on this one. Extremes on both sides are misrepresenting the truth, either intentionally or not, and I see some of that in the little squad of straw-men lurking in your post.

      The only people that matter in this are the people who will buy the device. If there aren't enough of them, it'll fail. If there are, it'll succeed. All this back-and-forth garbage is a waste of electrons.

      Nothing you or I say will make a jot of difference on that, and judging by the posts on /. this is a good thing.

    20. Re:To be fair by troll+-1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing

      Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-238758.html

      I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.

    21. Re:To be fair by daveime · · Score: 5, Funny

      So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?

      Johnny-come-latelys who will hang around for 10 years after the actual fighting is over, and claim THEY won the battle ?

    22. Re:To be fair by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So what you are saying is that every car with an automatic transmission is crippled so that grandmas can drive it. Any claims of superiority over a manual transmission are excuses proposed by advertisers and fanboys. I pretty much agree. The only reason the automatic transmission is so heavily advertised is because it provides an extreme up front profit and requires prohibitively expensive repairs, many of which are done by the dealer as the transmission is so unreliable.

      We also see in real estate that walled gardens are valued. People seem perfectly willing to pay huge amounts of money to live in controlled gated community. I do not believe that they provide any additional security, I have never needed to live in one and an perfectly safe, but I do not see AGs going after them for fraudulent PR.

      I am not going to say any Apple product is superior to any non apple product. I like the laptops because I transfer video through firewire, and I can do so with no additional drivers. Same thing for cameras. Same this for mass storage. I expect people to buy the machine they need, not the machine they are told to buy to look good.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    23. Re:To be fair by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2, Funny

      So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?

      Johnny-come-latelys who will hang around for 10 years after the actual fighting is over, and claim THEY won the battle ?

      Linux. :-)

    24. Re:To be fair by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft was never and is not a monopoly.

      I don't care what the courts say. I'm not usually a defender of the "let the market sort everything out" mentality; but by the time the court ruled, Linux already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was not far behind. Defining "PC" as "IBM clone" was a travesty. Whoever prosecuited MS was smart, and got away with that. I remember joking at the time, "so an iMac's not a Personal Computer, eh?".

      Also, the MS "monopoly" is far less problematic than what would happen if Apple's way of doing biz took hold. It was MS that forced hardware vendors to be open. No PC clones, no open BIOS, and arguably NO LINUX. I don't think that's an exaggeration.

      If a proprietary hardware business model dominates, it's much harder to break than a "monopoly" in software. After all, a rather small core of hackers demonstrated that very fact. Developing an open competing *hardware* platform would be an order of magnitude more difficult, I think.

      Hopefully we don't end up with a choice of iPhone-like lockin, or homebrew Arduino-based machines 10 years from now.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    25. Re:To be fair by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Linux

      But linux can't be the yanks!!! It's communist, remember?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    26. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people were railing against Microsoft, it wasn't because of "Usability" issues. It was because of corporate practices (think anti-trust, etc). This stupid meme about Apple being excused for Microsoft-esk anticompetitive evils because of *usability* is utterly stupid.

      I would support Apple and buy an iPhone if not for things like the walled garden and capricious rejection of apps on spurious grounds (one example of many complaints). Usability of my Calculator app is secondary to that.

    27. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you really understand the whole monopoly thing. Are you seriously saying that the iPod does not control the majority of the portable music player market just because you can buy other music players? By that rationale, Windows doesn't have a monopoly of the OS market because I can download Linux for free.

    28. Re:To be fair by Toonol · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Microsoft was never and is not a monopoly.

      I tend to agree, but that's a dangerous thing to say around here.

    29. Re:To be fair by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple's control issues can be a pain, but they've simply never done anything like that. The fact that music players and associated file formats are frequently cited as one of the most high profile issues shows how weak the comparison is: even at their absolute worst in terms of lock-down, iTMS and the iPod have been quite usable with non-Apple products and systems, and most of the time, Apple's competed on their product merits and marketing skills rather than market pressure.

      It's funny, you know. I can't remember one single occasion where Microsoft actually used its control of Windows to specifically prevent a competitor's product from functioning on a PC. Yes, they pushed their own stuff. But I could always install Opera or Mozilla or Lotus or whatever I wanted, and nothing built into the OS could or would prevent that. Likewise MS never attempted to 'protect' me from 'objectionable' material or otherwise impose its value judgments on me.

      My memory loss must be pretty bad, because I also can't remember this fabled golden age when ipods and itunes were "quite usable with non-Apple products". What I can remember, though, is Apple changing the way files are written to an ipod over and over again to deliberately break compatibility with non-Apple software. I can remember my frustration that my ipod wouldn't let me simply drag music files on and off in via a file browser. I can remember Apple selling DRMed music through itunes which wouldn't work with my Creative Zen MP3 player. Funnily enough, I also remember Apple forcing me to install the bloated monstrosity that is quicktime on my system, and both itunes and quicktime then breaking my perfectly functional GUI standards almost as though they never existed.

      As for your underlying thesis, it is immensely naive. "ipod" and "mp3 player" are more or less synonymous for most non-tech people I know. Apple is moving aggressively into video and text. And to me, control over our society's collective cultural record is far more significant than which web browser I use when I install a pre-2000 version of Windows.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    30. Re:To be fair by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 2, Funny

      All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.

      You mean they're Mac F.A.G.s? ^_~

      --bornagainpenguin

      --
      Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    31. Re:To be fair by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Disagree. The root hatred of Microsoft is that they kicked everyone's ass with arguably inferior products like DOS/Windows3, VisualBasic, MS-Access and so on.

      (Keep in mind all these oldschool computer guys who bet on Novell, OS/2, etc were essentially fucked when the PC world switched to Microsoft.)

      Computer geeks have never really cared about the business/marketing stuff and have always sucked up to their hegemonic corporate overlords. But with Microsoft, they are fundamentally convinced the products would never have won on their own merits, so everyone cries that "they cheated!"

      (Not that MS didn't cheat, but throwing a DR-DOS error message into a beta version of Windows, for example, didn't exactly change computing history. Yet the people who bet on the losers are still whining about it..)

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    32. Re:To be fair by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 1

      How nice he's now embracing the underhanded collection and exploitation personal data that is Google's business plan, very "open source" and egalitarian of him. I wonder, will he be in charge of censoring chinese Google search results?

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    33. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why statements like this:

      Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.

      Are flat out, 100%, simply wrong . Apple's product decisions may make their platform less vital and products less appealing to some customers. But they don't ever really try to bend the whole industry that direction, and the only reason they have as much influence as they do is the same reason anybody who comes up with a good idea or a successful model does. Not because they're threatening OEMs with raised license prices if they don't do what they want.

      Your righteousness is amusing about how wonderful Apple is because they "don't ever really try to bend the whole industry" in their direction. Maybe you missed the part where Apple convinced the entire record industry to allow Apple to resell their music encoded with a special kind of magic that only allowed that music to be played on Apple products. And then, for years, millions of people (sure, not everyone) bought that music without realizing that it would only play on Apple products. Unless, eventually, you paid an additional "tax" to remove the Apple lock-in magic. I'll have to differ with you and suggest that Apple's DRM is even worse than some of Microsoft's attempts in the past.

    34. Re:To be fair by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Has to be BSD then.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    35. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option.

      And then people like RMS start spouting off about how no one should be able to sell software commercially, and that the job that I have writing software to put food on my table shouldn't even exist, and you realise that maybe OSS isn't all that "non-evil" to begin with.

      I wish I lived in that perfect world where everyone worked in harmony and unicorns fart rainbows. But we don't. Fact is we need money to live. I write software for money. If the open source movement thinks I'm the evil one for trying to pay for things, maybe they've got some learning to do about the real world.

    36. Re:To be fair by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't be ignorant of the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do client-side web development and not test with (3 versions of) IE.

      You also have to do testing with several versions of Firefox. Damn that Mozilla! We should all hate them!!! (More seriously: what's your point? If you don't suck at your job, you have to test with all currently-supported somewhat-popular browsers.)

      And in many corporate environments, you're still essentially forced to use Windows.

      That's because your corporation chose Microsoft products, because Microsoft products generally are much better than the competition in corporate environments. Apple's always ignored corporations, and Linux solutions are disjointed and disorganized.

      Did your company have a choice? Of course, they could have gone with some other solution. They chose not to... that's not Microsoft's fault.

      But they don't ever really try to bend the whole industry that direction, and the only reason they have as much influence as they do is the same reason anybody who comes up with a good idea or a successful model does.

      Sure they have. Look what they did with the record companies... remember when Amazon was fighting to price music at less than $0.99, they were fighting against Apple and the record companies Apple had brainwashed into selling all tracks for at least $0.99.

      I suppose you could argue (using the loophole you helpfully included) that Amazon's music store wasn't "a good idea or successful model."

      But let's back up a step... Windows (Windows Mobile if you like) ecosystem vs. iPhone ecosystem:

      Has your Windows computer ever stopped you from downloading and installing a program because that program contained a feature the OS already had?

      Has your Windows box ever prevented you from paying for software that contained pictures of titties?

      Has Microsoft done anything, ever, on purpose to break compatibility with older or competitive software? (Apple does this about every week, BTW.)

      No, no, and no.

      Oh, and here's something else to think about: why do I have to install a gigantic application that sells music and movies so I can update the *firmward* of a cellphone? Why does that gigantic application also install a media library I don't want or need? Why does it try to stealthily install a web browser I didn't fucking ask for? Why do I now have some strange zero-config service running beyond my firewall? Apple's software situation sucks-- it's the worst "software taking over your computer" experience since RealPlayer circa 2004.

    37. Re:To be fair by tc3driver · · Score: 1

      This just proves it! Apple steals everything from microsoft!

      --
      42 69 6C 6C 20 47 61 74 65 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 77 68 6F 72 65 21
    38. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point you have to realise that in order to know the world, you have to be known by the world.

      The kind of privacy that you want can only be achieved if you become a hermit. I'm willing to let Google know a little about me in exchange for me knowing whatever information I find by using their search engine.

    39. Re:To be fair by Wovel · · Score: 1

      That is interesting, but it does not mean his opinion matters. Does he actually know anything about the cell phone industry, cell phones themselves or delivering products of any kind? Inventing a Markup Language does not make his opinion of the iPhone any more informed than the average /. user.

    40. Re:To be fair by furball · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't care what the courts say.

      What are your qualifications that makes your insights about the issue better than the courts' opinions?

    41. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Oddly, you state things as facts without backing them up just like the people who you disagree with do.

    42. Re:To be fair by GlassHeart · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not usually a defender of the "let the market sort everything out" mentality; but by the time the court ruled, Linux already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was not far behind.

      Microsoft was enough of a power to be able to dictate to OEMs that they may not pre-install Netscape, simply by threatening to charge different prices for Windows licenses. If that's not a monopoly, it's pretty damn close, because these OEMs did not tell Microsoft to fuck off. The fact is, they played ball and squished Netscape as instructed.

      MacOS X is irrelevant to the discussion, because it ran on PowerPC chips, because Apple wasn't willing to license it anyway, and also because the antitrust trial started in 1998 - some two years before the MacOS X Public Beta. As for Linux, GNOME's first major release was March 1999, entirely irrelevant to this discussion. KDE was first released in July of 1998, also irrelevant. So exactly which "pretty usable desktops" were you referring to?

      I remember joking at the time, "so an iMac's not a Personal Computer, eh?".

      The trial started in May 1998, while the iMac G3 that did not ship until August 1998. The iMac is also irrelevant to the Microsoft antitrust case.

    43. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they only got sued because a) lawyers love money and b) microsoft has a lot of money. that antitrust stuff was pure, fabricated bullshit.

    44. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, monopoly does not mean that MS has 100% of the market like you think it does. "Monopoly" has a more complex legal definition one of the tests of being that a company enjoys monopoly status if they can charge different prices to different customers.

    45. Re:To be fair by weston · · Score: 1

      You also have to do testing with several versions of Firefox.

      Not really. You can almost safely ignore Firefox if you code to another standards-compliant browser. If an optimal cross-browser experience is a must, naturally you test. But it's funny how rarely you end up having to change things between versions of Firefox or, say, Chrome and Firefox. It happens, but it's not anywhere near as common as differences between IE 5,6,7, and 8 and... just about everyone else.

        But more to the point is the reason why IE is the browser that dominates the landscape, and unlike the other browsers, it has very little to do with active choices on the part of the user and everything to do with market power. If you understand this concept -- if you understand things like how Microsoft bought up shelf-space in stores when software stores mattered, why OEMs increasingly chose to stop dealing with Netscape from 1996-1998, and in general Microsoft's history at distribution level with their associated business -- then you understand the issue.

      Sure they have. Look what they did with the record companies... remember when Amazon was fighting to price music at less than $0.99, they were fighting against Apple and the record companies Apple had brainwashed into selling all tracks for at least $0.99.

      "Brainwashed." Not strongarmed? No threats where they refused to sell music of any label that sold through Amazon for less? If not, then we're not talking about market power.

      But let's back up a step... Windows (Windows Mobile if you like) ecosystem vs. iPhone ecosystem:

      You're still talking about product features instead of market power.

    46. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      MS = *Convicted* monopoly. [Notwithstanding /. used 132515's opinion].

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Settlement (the Findings of Fact were never disputed).

    47. Re:To be fair by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is one of my favorite comments on this topic. iPhone detractors describe what they see as a problem. iPhone users say it's not a problem because they don't care. The detractors describe the situation accurately, but their judgement of it as a problem is contextual. If you don't care, it's not a problem.

      This isn't like global warming, where a relatively small group can fuck it up for everyone; if people didn't like the iPhone, they just wouldn't buy it. And it's great that there are other options out there.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    48. Re:To be fair by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      iPad schmiPad. I want my Atari 400.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    49. Re:To be fair by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Nobody said it was about having 100% of the market.

    50. Re:To be fair by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Not disputing a "Finding of Fact" isn't the same as agreeing with it.

    51. Re:To be fair by Phroggy · · Score: 0

      Yes, Apple isn't playing nice - but it's NOT the same, because nobody HAS to use Apple's stuff. People buy Apple's products because they WANT to, not because they're locked in. Apple has the dominant position in some markets (portable music players, downloadable music store) but not in others (personal computers, smartphones). In the markets where Apple has a dominant position, they didn't get there by abusing their power to force out the competition; they got there by making something consumers wanted to use more than the competition.

      Is there lock-in? Sure, but Apple's efforts in these areas have been aimed squarely at Apple's own products, not at Apple's competitors. Apple doesn't pay its partners not to do business with its competitors, for example.

      So yes, we're unhappy when Apple does unfriendly things... but Apple has earned the right to do unfriendly things, and you are free to not use their products. The situation with Microsoft is not the same.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    52. Re:To be fair by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "When you realize that they are all ruthless corporations out to make a buck of you, you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option."

      Open source is not the opposite of "ruthless corporations", so your logic seems a bit faulty.

    53. Re:To be fair by weston · · Score: 1

      Your righteousness is amusing

      Righteousness has nothing to do with my post, really. I'm not assigning any value judgments to Apple's behavior or Microsoft's in this discussion. I'm simply explaining the difference between the two to an audience that seems to have a chronic problem confusing them because they don't understand market power.

      Maybe you missed the part where Apple convinced the entire record industry to allow Apple to resell their music encoded with a special kind of magic that only allowed that music to be played on Apple products. And then, for years, millions of people (sure, not everyone) bought that music without realizing that it would only play on Apple products.

      Apple "convinced" the record industry? As in, persuasion? No threats to drop any label that wouldn't agree to some exclusive digital label? If so, we're not really talking about an abuse of their market power.

      Funny thing, though... not only is there a lack of evidence things happened that -- with Apple strong-arming the industry -- the way I heard it was that it was the other way around: the music industry (the player with most of the market power in this context, mitigated somewhat by their cluelessness) asked for DRM. It wasn't until the industry figured out the lock-in situation that they started considering an open format, and Apple doesn't seem to have shown any resistance. In fact, most of the accounts on record suggest that Apple was willing to go with mp3s before the record industry was; Jobs certainly made some stump speeches about it before it happened.

    54. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Has to be BSD then.

      but BSD is dead

    55. Re:To be fair by geminidomino · · Score: 0, Troll

      but by the time the court ruled, Linux
      already had some pretty useable desktops,

      Ignoring for a moment your hubris in attempting to reverse a legal decision by nothing more than fiat...

      You're nuts. I'm a huge fan, but Linux *still* doesn't have a usable desktop. The poster-child of "usable" Linux (Ubuntu) is a charlie-foxtrot of poor packaging policies (grub2, e.g.), horrible out of the box misconfiguration issues (pulseaudio, e.g.), and other problems that you *have* to know the deep wizardry of the system to get around to reach a "usable" system.

      I spend about 50% of my off-duty computer time booted into linux (the other 50% is windows for Guild Wars), but it's definitely an uphill battle.

    56. Re:To be fair by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny, you know. I can't remember one single occasion where Microsoft actually used its control of Windows to specifically prevent a competitor's product from functioning on a PC.

      You apparently weren't involved in the industry in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS are among the (then) highly discussed cases. Proving intention is a difficult thing, but with all the fuss over time that Microsoft's come to make over backward compatibility, it's a pretty big stretch to claim that they didn't test against what was at the time fairly popular software.

      I also can't remember this fabled golden age when ipods and itunes were "quite usable with non-Apple products".

      I've never had a problem putting music I didn't buy from Apple on an iPod. I've never had a problem getting music I bought from Apple out of their ecosystem, as they included a "burn to CD option." That's before you consider some of the various hacks out there that will let you move whatever you like on and off an iPod w/o having to use iTMS (or even replace the iPod software entirely) and/or crack their DRM.

      But again, that's beside the point. Apple's never used whatever market power they've had to ensure that you didn't have an alternative to their music player, or their music format, or their music store.

      As for your underlying thesis, it is immensely naive. "ipod" and "mp3 player" are more or less synonymous for most non-tech people I know.

      But not because they threatened anyone or made deals to eliminate competitors. Largely because they're good at marketing campaigns and producing products most non-tech people like to use.

    57. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how much marketshare will Apple have to have before they're forced to offer a browser or music player choice in Europe, like MS?

      dom

    58. Re:To be fair by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Microsoft was never and is not a monopoly.

      I don't care what the courts say. I'm not usually a defender of the "let the market sort everything out" mentality; but by the time the court ruled, Linux already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was not far behind.

      Please. OS X was 2 years after the first finding of fact. And the first real usable Linux desktop probably wasn't until Ubuntu released in 2004. And in the first few releases when you put in a CD, you had to mount it on the command line.

      Besides the dying Mac of the mid-late 1990s, what OS could you get from any of the major OEMs other than Windows?

      Yeah, there is building your own computer, but for many people, it wasn't much of an option.

      The fact was that Microsoft was able to leverage it's position in the market to make other product dominant by default - like IE over Netscape.

      And yes, a hardware monopoly would be more disastrous. We were probably much closer to one with intel than we like to imagine years back...

    59. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not usually a defender of the "let the market sort everything out" mentality; but by the time the court ruled,[...]

      (Emphasis mine)

      So your argument is totally worthless. Learn to comprehend.

    60. Re:To be fair by c.r.o.c.o · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has Microsoft done anything, ever, on purpose to break compatibility with older or competitive software? (Apple does this about every week, BTW.)

      You either are too young to remember, or you have a short memory.

      Microsoft went out of their way to maintain compatibility with their own older software. But until recently they always tried to block competition intentionally. Although Windows 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS, it was returning an non-fatal error message, in effect convincing users there was something wrong with DR-DOS. Eventually Novell gave up on DR-DOS and sold it to Caldera (now called SCO). The ensuing lawsuit was settled out of court sometime in 2000 for $155 million, with Novell and Caldera sharing the profits. This is just one example.

      When they couldn't outright deny competitors access, Microsoft's policy was embrace, extend, extinguish. Internet Explorer 4 and 5 were NOT standards compliant. I remember running Mozilla M18 and encountering sites that would only render in IE properly, that is if Mozilla wasn't blocked outright. How is that not purposely blocking competing software? Only after FireFox started gaining traction did Microsoft release standards compliant browsers.

      The point is today Microsoft is a better company because the competition forced them to open up and listen to their clients. Remove competitive pressure and I promise you they'll revert to their old policies.

    61. Re:To be fair by Kattspya · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Whenever I'm uncertain about the meaning of a word I look it up in the dictionary. You should do the same with the word monopoly becuase your definition is not the usual one.

    62. Re:To be fair by aevan · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.....
      Google datamining..
      Blairwellian England...

      Curiouser and curiouser

    63. Re:To be fair by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's very much like global warming. There's a very large group that don't seem to care because it doesn't affect them yet, and (if true) everyone is going to pay for it in the future.

    64. Re:To be fair by SerpentMage · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You hit the nail on the head... What developers need to understand is that they [users] don't care about "openness" "extensibility" and all of the metaphors that developers like to throw around.

      Users care about one thing... Can I use the product? Which interestingly is not one of the questions that developers seem to raise.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    65. Re:To be fair by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny you mention automatic transmissions...

      Have you looked at the transmission of a Ferrari? Or an Alfa Rameo? Drum roll...

      Its an automatic! Ok, Ok, its a choose your gear automatic. Even in Formula 1 the days of clutching and shifting are long gone. These days most high end cars have something called tiptronic. My Mercedes has this. It is quite impressive actually. Its an automatic when you are lazy, but can be shifted when needed.

      Thus this slagging of Apple is pretty pointless. Since if we were to mince our metaphors, Linux would have an automatic transmission by now...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    66. Re:To be fair by Ponyegg · · Score: 1

      If Apple are the Nazi's, that must make Google the Brits (co-operated with the Nazi's for a time, appeased them), Microsoft must be Soviet Russia (I'm sure Vista can be considered a purge). So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?

      Well, if the Yank in question was Walt Disney that'd be Mussolini or Franco wouldn't it? Does this also mean that O'racle is Ireland.... sorry, it is almost St Patrick's day.

    67. Re:To be fair by MrNiCeGUi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If your most recent example is from 1992, as in only a short while before it will be allowed to drink, I'll say that Microsoft has really mended its ways. Don't tell me to google a more recent case. Please, show me an example where Firefox or Mozilla wasn't allowed to run on windows. Or a Windows Phone sync interface modified to block third party apps. Or WMP deliberately breaking syncing to a third party media player. Or say, Office for Mac installing IE for Mac behind your back to boost IE's market share (I know there's no current IE for Mac, but you know to what I'm referring to).

    68. Re:To be fair by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It's not for everyone, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it"

      The fact it costs about as much as a netbook with about half the hardware and no multitasking, I'd call that an obvious inherent flaw.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    69. Re:To be fair by Khyber · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Microsoft was never and is not a monopoly."

      Show me your JD in law, please, just so I know a person with REAL FUCKING AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD IS SPEAKING. Also, read the NYT Analysis United States vs. Microsoft.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    70. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      short-term memory that you have.

      I remember non microsoft mice not working whenever win 3.1 crashed and the driver always defaulting back to the microsoft driver.
      It became such an issue I had to use microsoft mice, if I ever lost the drivers.

      Non-licensed microsoft keyboards cannot always use all the features of windows without weird shortcut keys. I forgot the sequence to
      access the start menu without using the windows keys. Not as much as an issue when using the mouse.

      Did microsoft have there own branded modems? if they had any popularity, I'm sure other modems would mysteriously stop working whenever you upgraded windows.

      I think it would be more of an issue if microsoft had more hardware products. But there is plenty of lock in with microsoft office and file formats.

    71. Re:To be fair by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Almost true, I guess.

      But users also care about: Are there many cool apps ? Can I get a app to look at porn ?

      Or put more bluntly; can apps exist, that the producer of the phone don't like ?

    72. Re:To be fair by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on people. This is the fundamental problem with the closed and controlled nature of the Apple products, which affect us all and not just individuals making individual choices:

      If these Apple products become very successful, the landscape changes. Others will follow. Let's say at some point a majority of devices will be closed media devices. Now people like Steve Jobs control the Net. For example, say you are a small company from Israel with the idea for the next killer app. You release the app and see what is going to happen. This is innovation. The app is called ICQ. Wait, that already happened, not ICQ, but a new killer app. But now Steve Jobs, Rupert Murdoch and friends control the Net, and simply say "no" to its release because it fuzzes with their universe. Innovation died, freedom died.

    73. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers

      Do you expect your DVD player to web-browse?

      Do you expect your microwave oven's controller to play Ogg Theoris video?

      No? Why?

      BECAUSE THEY ARE APPLIANCES.

      Read some Alan Kay. We are FINALLY getting around to his vision of "The computer as an appliance."

      And WTF is so "prohibitively expensive" about the 3G iPad? They negotiated a STELLAR, NO-CONTRACT deal from AT&T, and charged THE SAME AS DELL does (within $5) for adding that feature to one of their Netbooks; so, as I said: WTF?

    74. Re:To be fair by loufoque · · Score: 0

      there's a very large group that don't seem to care because it doesn't affect them yet

      What the hell are you talking about? Everyone cares about global warming.

      and (if true) everyone is going to pay for it in the future.

      What's with the "if true"? It's widely recognized.

      Are you related to the usian government or something? They're the only ones, worldwide, spreading such FUD about global warming because they can't be assed to reduce their emissions.

    75. Re:To be fair by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, there is something inherently wrong with it. Are you intentionally ignoring everything that's being said? Here's a brief refresher: Lock-in, crippleware, no multitasking, iTunes.

    76. Re:To be fair by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Wow, the fact that your "comment" is "insightful" just shows how low the bar is set for Apple fanboys.

    77. Re:To be fair by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Wow, get some perspective, man.

      >> Now people like Steve Jobs control the Net.

      Really? Steve Jobs controls which apps are allowed on the iPhone, yet you are free to connect to the Net with any other device. More to the point, the apps we are talking about hardly define the Net; some of the most useful are not even aware of this Net. And besides, when you say the Net, you really mean this Web Two-point-Oh thingy, right? Because there is no way that the iPhone is even aware of much of the rest of the underlying Net (you know, the Network), much less controls it.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    78. Re:To be fair by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      I see your Atari 400, and raise you a Commodore 64.

          -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    79. Re:To be fair by Angostura · · Score: 1

      You're mixing two different things - the application walled garden and DRM, I'll come back to that in a minute.

      But taking a step back I think the difference in reaction to the two companies may have something to do with the company's backgrounds. MS has always been defined by its PC OS business, a business that grew to be a defacto monopoly. It was incredibly important that Microsoft remained open and fair because entire industries depended on them. Multiple hardware manufacturers depended on them. A misstep by Microsoft would have dire consequences for a large number of people. When MS produced the closed XBox or the Zune however, the stakes were lower.

      Apple by contrast comes from a different direction. It's OS is only applicable to people who choose to get involved in the Apple ecosystem - and as far as Mac developers are concerned Apple is relatively open and benign. However Apple also has a series of closed proprietary devices over which it exercises obsessive control. Those devices have become incredibly popular not least because of the obsessive control that Apple has had. Not surprisingly people would like a piece of the action, but as with Disneyland, the operator is not going to jeopardise things by giving up control.

      Where Apple is screwing up, in my opinion is in the way it is moving goalposts and seemingly making arbitrary decisions about app suitability. It is increasing the risk involved in developing for iPhone for no very good reason.

      Back to DRM. Apple's DRM system isn't terrible, IMHO. The vast majority (all?) of music sold in iTunes is DRM-free. There's DRM on movies and TV, but I'm not sure Apple could do much more to fight the studios than they have. The iPhone ring-tone policy is stupid, but that's mainly the stupidity of the record labels.

    80. Re:To be fair by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Nope. If I were to be living in the middle of the Auvergne, I wouldn't care about global warming; it'd make my summers a little more pleasant, that's all. As it is, I don't live there, and I do care, but it isn't as if I can't imagine the opposite position.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    81. Re:To be fair by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, that was his point!

      Compare this,
      >> It wasn't OK for Microsoft, because their implementations sucked. People are willing to forgive Apple because it works well for them.

      with this,
      >> The root hatred of Microsoft is that they kicked everyone's ass with arguably inferior products like DOS/Windows3, VisualBasic, MS-Access and so on.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    82. Re:To be fair by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1

      Has your Windows box ever prevented you from paying for software that contained pictures of titties?

      Does that sum up the current Anti-Apple nerdrage on slashdot sufficiently? I'd say so ...

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    83. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft was never and is not a monopoly.

      In my country it is not supported to prepare your tax return electronically except by using MS Windows. A couple of years ago wine was functional to use the tax software, but no longer.

      How is that not a monopoly?

    84. Re:To be fair by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      It all seems to stem from the apparent lessons that Steve Jobs learned during his years in so many failed technology companies, including the original Apple Computers, Inc. There was a time when a very naive (and just as forceful) Jobs thought that the Macintosh, and Apple in general, would trample over the competition by its own merits. The technology on its products, he was heard saying, was so good and so much above anything else in the industry, that nobody could touch them; people would just rush to genuflect at his feet and throw all sorts of money at him for the mere chance of owning one of his shiny products.

      Windows? what Windows? Who's going to pay $200.00 for that piece of junk which runs on a stupidly broken, half-ass disk operating system installed on almost every plebeian machine; when they can pay $4,000.00 for a shiny new Macintosh? Applications you ask? It comes with MacPaint and MacWrite--show us the money!

      Then, as history showed, that was not the case. People were perfectly happy with inferior products that just barely solved their problems, just because they were cheaper and affordable. Not many people or businesses could justify the price of a Lisa or a Macintosh, when an IBM PC ran a version of VisiCalc and WordStar, which were perfectly usable--and CHEAP! Heck, even the Apple II, which was more of a toy, kept overselling the Macintosh for years, and basically maintained Apple solvent for at least half a decade.

      You could argue that the same happened with NextSTEP: all sorts of good and innovative technology, at a very high premium, one which most of the industry thought was unreasonable. They couldn't give those things away, and yet most of the technology in them was ahead of its time.

      I guess Steve Jobs is determined not to let that happen again. He seems to understand that the iPod or the iPhone are not going to sell themselves just because they are a better product, that you have to fight your way through the market and make it recognize how much better they are.

      So the new Apple, Inc. is now more aggressive than ever. Still, I would argue that they make the better products, at least some of them. Their tactics all revolve around making their products look better than the competition, by pushing for better integration and more intuitive user interfaces, and actively shoving this in everyone's face. You can't fault them for that.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    85. Re:To be fair by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a very confused post. Actually, modern sports car transmissions are still usually manual, and the automatic ones tend to be Direct-Shift Gearboxes. Unlike a tiptronic transmission, which is just a normal automatic transmission that responds to your shifts (unless you ask it to do something really stupid), a DSG is much more similar to a manual transmission under the hood, in spite of supporting automatic gear changes.

    86. Re:To be fair by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's very much like global warming. There's a very loud group that don't seem to care that it doesn't affect them yet, and (if true or not) will make everyone pay for it now.

      There, fixed that for you.

    87. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the arguments for and against apple are mostly valid points. the world is not black and white, you know.

    88. Re:To be fair by __aaelyr464 · · Score: 1

      Dunno about you, but my walled garden sure keeps that pesky rabbit out.

    89. Re:To be fair by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      You're welcome for all the ships and planes, too.

    90. Re:To be fair by GordonBX · · Score: 1

      There is one fundamental difference between Microsoft and Apple. Apple don't have a monopoly (virtual or otherwise) on PCs or Phones. You have a choice. If you don't like their DRM or their App submission policies, don't buy a Mac/iPhone/iPad and don't develop software for them. Other people may make a different choice. Why does this have to mean that Apple are somehow "evil" ? they aren't holding a gun to your head if you don't buy one of their products. What I think most people have a problem with is that Apple stuff definitely looks and feels "nicer" than everything else, and in this day and age that's all that appears to matter to the average (non nerd, non /. reading) consumer. Ranting on to other /.ers and Mac zealots is simply naval gazing.

    91. Re:To be fair by CoolVibe · · Score: 1

      I see your C64, and I raise you an Amiga 1000

    92. Re:To be fair by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      There is one fundamental difference between reasonable people and Mac fanboys: when you criticise something reasonable people enjoy, they listen to you and either accept or reject your arguments, and if the latter, they will show you their counter-arguments. Mac fanboys will say: hush, if you don't like it, don't buy it. And they will point to Microsoft, hoping to rather unite people against a common enemy.

      Then they will go on and say you're free to chose to buy from another vendor if you don't like Apple's DRM, using freemarket memetics to draw attention away from the giant elephant in the room: that buying into Apple's DRM locks you to Apple's platform for as long as you want to access the DRM-encumbered content. Free? As free as in jail. As I said, you're a bunch of dishonest pricks.

    93. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, your memory IS pretty bad. You obviously forgot the whole DR-DOS story, where Microsoft explicitly added code to Windows to break DR-DOS, at least from a user's perspective.

    94. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just pinin'.

    95. Re:To be fair by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      I see your Amiga 1000 and raise you an Intellivision ECS.

      Oh gawd... what have I done!

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    96. Re:To be fair by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be strict enough, monopolies don't exist. Everything has substitutes, except maybe water.

      But Microsoft was and is a monopoly, because in many situations, the costs of substitutes are prohibitive.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    97. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are using the term "wrong" where you actually mean "partly correct".

      the people who are "defending Apple" raise valid points.

      I agree that there are valid points regarding lock-in, censorship, etc' - but saying that those who are "defending apple" are "wrong" when they are actually partly RIGHT is tantamount to bigotry.

    98. Re:To be fair by GordonBX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And there you go, proving my point.

      According to you, I must be an Apple fanboy, and a "dishonest prick" simply because you don't accept a point of view that I have expressed.

      Therefore pretty much proving yourself not to be such a "reasonable" person as you would probably wish to be.

      I agree that if you buy an iPod or an iPhone you are likely subject to lock-in. You, as a clearly well-informed person, do not want to get locked in. But you DO want the lovely shinyness, dont you? Otherwise why do you get so angry and start calling people pricks? - I think you protest too much!

    99. Re:To be fair by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You either are too young to remember, or you have a short memory.

      Or I've heard the same bullshit urban legends about Microsoft repeated three dozen times, but I still don't believe them without proof.

      Microsoft went out of their way to maintain compatibility with their own older software. But until recently they always tried to block competition intentionally. Although Windows 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS, it was returning an non-fatal error message, in effect convincing users there was something wrong with DR-DOS. Eventually Novell gave up on DR-DOS and sold it to Caldera (now called SCO). The ensuing lawsuit was settled out of court sometime in 2000 for $155 million, with Novell and Caldera sharing the profits. This is just one example.

      I've heard that story before, and I've yet to see any proof that error was put in-place intentionally to shut-out DR-DOS. And notice how even Wikipedia (extremely biased against Microsoft, but at least beholden to provide facts when possible) says the error only occurred in a beta, and the released version did not have it.

      Gee! You think it was a ... *bug*? That was later *fixed*?

      When they couldn't outright deny competitors access, Microsoft's policy was embrace, extend, extinguish. Internet Explorer 4 and 5 were NOT standards compliant.

      First of all, the W3C had somehow even less teeth in this era than they do now. Do you think the equivalent Netscape versions were anywhere even remotely close to the standards? No.

      Here's a few reasons why IE 4-6 were not standards-compliant, and the reasons why:

      1) ActiveX support. Why? Because HTML was originally designed to be extensible (that's why SCRIPT tags have a LANGUAGE property). Microsoft just extended HTML in the way the W3C said people were able to. Five years later, and suddenly that's a huge crime and everybody hates them for it.

      2) CSS box model. When Microsoft implemented CSS, they read W3C's incredibly-vague specs on the box model differently than they were intended to be read and ended up with an incompatible box model. W3C didn't fix the vague standards until Microsoft had already shipped a browser.

      3) DOM extensions. IE developers knew the DOM sucked-ass as much as all other right-thinking people knew/know. They added a few DOM functions/behaviors that aren't in the standards to make using it easier. (Note: adding additional DOM functions not defined in the standards is not wrong. Remember: all of this was intended to be extensible!) When W3C saw that these DOM functions were useful, they standardized some of them... in a completely different way than the already-implemented Microsoft version! Thus, the sibling function to "innerHTML" is named "textContent" instead of the much-better-named Microsoft version "innerText".

      The point is today Microsoft is a better company because the competition forced them to open up and listen to their clients. Remove competitive pressure and I promise you they'll revert to their old policies.

      Look, I'm not saying that Microsoft is full of angels, but they're not nearly a hundredth as evil as you seem to think they are.

      Look at what you're criminalizing them for: A bug in a beta. Making use of the extensibility built-in to HTML/DOM. Trying to implement W3C's shitty vaguely-worded standards. That's it! That's not mustache-twirling evil villain stuff!

    100. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on! No multi-tasking? Just because you don't like the lack of certain features doesn't mean it's wrong. That's like complaining it doesn't require a stylus.

    101. Re:To be fair by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? Everyone cares about global warming.

      Not by a long shot.

      What's with the "if true"? It's widely recognized.

      Are you related to the usian government or something? They're the only ones, worldwide, spreading such FUD about global warming because they can't be assed to reduce their emissions.

      I imagine the GP was trying to be diplomatic, so as not to provoke people getting off-topic with cries of "You moron, global warming is a hoax!" or "You moron, global warming is real and is serious business!". It's not that hard to understand... although apparently ineffective, as you tried debating him on the topic anyway.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    102. Re:To be fair by sorak · · Score: 1

      Also, the MS "monopoly" is far less problematic than what would happen if Apple's way of doing biz took hold.

      So how is that relevant? Even if Microsoft was a non-profit dedicated to helping sick puppies, that wouldn't make them above the law.

    103. Re:To be fair by maccam · · Score: 1

      Wonderful analysis.

      --
      Half Word - Will Double, Wire Palindrome, San Francisco
    104. Re:To be fair by sorak · · Score: 1

      This isn't like global warming, where a relatively small group can fuck it up for everyone;

      Al Gore: Trying to fuck up global warming since 1976.

    105. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All England did against Japan was surrender their colonies, then take them over again after the US liberated them. England was a bit player to the US and the USSR, and the post-war order properly reflected that.

    106. Re:To be fair by dylan_- · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gee! You think it was a ... *bug*? That was later *fixed*?

      Gee! *No*...*I don't*!

      You really think that a whole series of deliberately obfuscated tests, that could only be passed by MS-DOS and that serve absolutely no other purpose, were added *accidentally*?

      Have a look at this for a detailed look at the code. Seriously, tell me *that* is just a bug!

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    107. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple's always ignored corporations"

      except that tiny amount of time, oh what was that ..... hm oh yea the 80's and the 90's

      yea its very convenient to ignore corporations when you have been laughed out of every office

      with exception of that 1 old mac the art guy still insists on using because it runs photoshop 6 real good

    108. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, though... not only is there a lack of evidence things happened that -- with Apple strong-arming the industry -- the way I heard it was that it was the other way around: the music industry (the player with most of the market power in this context, mitigated somewhat by their cluelessness) asked for DRM. It wasn't until the industry figured out the lock-in situation that they started considering an open format, and Apple doesn't seem to have shown any resistance. In fact, most of the accounts on record suggest that Apple was willing to go with mp3s before the record industry was; Jobs certainly made some stump speeches about it before it happened.

      You can't be naive enough to believe that there is evidence of all backroom deals, readily available to anyone who simply Googles on it. Does your company publish minutes on all secret meetings? Of course Apple was just bowing to the whims of the music industry when they selected a closed DRM system.

    109. Re:To be fair by s122604 · · Score: 1

      he only reason the automatic transmission is so heavily advertised is because it provides an extreme up front profit and requires prohibitively expensive repairs, many of which are done by the dealer as the transmission is so unreliable.

      you sound European...

      Properly maintained automatic transmissions (read trans fluid flushed and refilled at the specified interval) are actually more reliable than a comparable manual transmission. Even if driven perfectly, you will need a new friction plate/throwout bearing eventually..

      A good auto tranny can last 500k miles with nothing but fluid/filter changes.

    110. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPhone detractors describe what they see as a problem. iPhone users say it's not a problem because they don't care. The detractors describe the situation accurately, but their judgement of it as a problem is contextual.

      The users don't care because it's taken the developers a little while to recognize. If the detractors/developers all run off, then the users will be left with iPhones that don't do anything cool. They may still not care about the "walled garden," but they won't be so enthusiastic about their toys.

    111. Re:To be fair by ahankinson · · Score: 1

      There are 140,000 apps, according to Apple. They'll get the most "cool" apps there, 'cause that's where the developers are. There are also a number of browsers in the app store, and there's a browser installed by default, so the porn angle is moot from a user's point of view.

      And, to your last point, how do you know what your needs are unless someone else has already made an app for it? In other words, does it matter that Apple won't allow certain apps if users don't know that they want it?

    112. Re:To be fair by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at the transmission of a Ferrari? Or an Alfa Rameo? Drum roll... Its an automatic! Even in Formula 1 the days of clutching and shifting are long gone.

      You probably don't have much of an idea of what you are talking about. The "automatic" transmission in high end sports cars (including some Mercedes) is actually a computer controlled clutch. The car does all of the proper revving, gear shifting and clutch release involved with a manual transmission, but does so much faster than any human could ever shift. So while they are automatic transmissions, clutching and shifting still happens underneath of the hood.

      This is much more advanced than standard automatic transmissions (including many "Tiptronic" systems) that use momentum-wasting torque converters to change gears and prevent the engine from stalling when the car is stopped.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    113. Re:To be fair by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I imagine the GP was trying to be diplomatic, so as not to provoke people getting off-topic

      Why post on slashdot then?

    114. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not blind to Apple's shortcomings, but neither am I reflexively critical of everything they say. They do speak the truth about most of their design decisions. It may not be the whole truth, but it's not all lies either.

      I have multitasking on my Blackberry. I HATE it because all it does is run down my battery when I forget to exit an app (Such as when taking a call). Either that, or my 3 year old gets hold of the phone, starts up pac-man, hits the power/switch-app key by mistake, shrugs, and walks away leaving no visible indication that a game is running down the battery in the background.

      How much worse is it for someone who isn't tech-savvy like I am? My mother in-law would have no clue what's going on with that phone. Only that the battery she was told would last 2 days runs down in just 4-6 hours, even when she's not using it to make calls. So how would a multi-tasking iPhone or iPad be anything but frustrating for her to use?

      Apple's right. Battery life is important. More important, in fact, than the multitasking most folks rarely need. It's also more important than Flash. Which, let's be honest, has few real day-to-day uses outside of delivering annoying adverts and streaming internet porn videos.

    115. Re:To be fair by ahankinson · · Score: 0

      Not ignoring, just not caring. There's a difference. You're making an issue out of things that most people don't care about. When they start caring about it, Apple will either a) fix it or b) start losing enough sales to make them fix it.

      Here's an equally inane list that contains the features they *do* care about: Easy software installs, multitouch, mail/web/phone/facebook/twitter/music/videos on one device, decent battery life.

    116. Re:To be fair by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, Auvergne, like most of Western Europe, stands to cool as a result of global warming. The North Atlantic Current keeps Western Europe warm, but it stands to be disrupted by decreased ocean salinity caused by an excess of melting ice. Without that current, Western Europe would become markedly colder (closer to the temperatures in Eastern Europe and Canada which are at the same latitude but don't benefit from warming currents). Of course, it's unclear exactly how much it would be affected. Historically, the Gulf Stream (which feeds the North Atlantic current) seems to strengthen with warming, as it isn't driven by thermohaline circulation, while the North Atlantic current seems to weaken. The problem is that we don't know enough to say what would happen. Worst case scenario is a general shift to extremes; very cold regions and very hot regions with the temperate zone (that supports modern civilization most efficiently) being squeezed.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    117. Re:To be fair by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the more interesting question you should be asking yourself is, what are the courts' qualifications that makes their insights about the issue better than a random dude on /.?

      I mean, I'm a pretty open-minded guy, and as such, I tend to abhor arbitrary authority (where an entity presents itself as being right, and thus deserving of trust - institutions such as religions and governments often base their authority on this). I prefer rational authority, where the confidence factor into a source's opinions is based on their qualifications and the soundness of their discourse.

      And I find Random Dude's opinion convincing, while I haven't seen any rationale for the courts' decisions. And so I'd prefer not to lend them any trust until I have something to base it on.

      I mean, if you haven't observed the courts' utter failure to comprehend technical issues time and time again, then you must be new here*.

      (4-digit UID notwithstanding)

    118. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yikes, you just lost. Sorry.

      (Godwin's Law.)

    119. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumers are completely free to buy Apple products or not, so no, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

      What is inherently wrong is people like you who do wish to impose on others.

    120. Re:To be fair by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This is the fundamental problem with the closed and controlled nature of the Apple products, which affect us all and not just individuals making individual choices:

      The fundamental problem with the closed nature of some geeks is that they don't see that there's variety in the world. There's a lot of people out there, and they have different desires. There's a great variety of products out there that do computer-like functions in some way, and some are closed up (handheld electronic toys), and some are open (some Linux desktops), and most are in between. They all sell in fairly large numbers (Linux is about 1% of the personal computer market, and that's really big).

      While iPhones will appeal to a very large number of people, so will Androids. The number of people they appeal to is going to be different, but as long as there's a good many Androids and other more open smartphones out there, there's a market for new and different smartphone apps. Once a neat new thing starts sweeping the Androids, Apple and similar manufacturers will be pressured to include it. Apple's already included cut-and-paste, after all, and it looks like 4.0 will offer more multitasking.

      The people to be afraid of are those with laws, or influential lobbyists, or monopoly power and lock-in. The iPod/iPad/iPhone don't have any of that, and don't look like they're going to acquire it in the future.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    121. Re:To be fair by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Almost true, I guess.

      But users also care about: Are there many cool apps ? Can I get a app to look at porn ?

      Or put more bluntly; can apps exist, that the producer of the phone don't like ?

      The "porn apps" that were removed were factory-farm template apps that had a few pics on (or deep linked to a few) and were then sold. Then the developer changed the urls to the images and released it as a new app, and then again, and again...

      If it was an actual, proper app (for example, the Playboy app is still up there [whether you think of that as porn or not]), so the nature of the content is not the issue, merely the quality of the apps themselves in this case.

      All that being said, the app store is under Apple's control, so if that affects you as a user (or a developer) there are other options you can take (Android).

    122. Re:To be fair by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry, I'm not buying into the paranoid conspiracy theory. The fact is that the release version of the software did not have the bug, so stop getting your panties in a knot over a fucking minor fucking bug that happened 20 fucking years ago.

      Get the fuck over it already.

    123. Re:To be fair by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Wow, that generated more commentary than I thought it would for something so deep in the comments. Plenty of "arguments from authority", and ad hominems which are easy to dismiss. Yeah, they were a *legal* monopoly, that's not what I'm disputing. The best posters (and the ones who were most persuasive to me) were the ones who cited examples where people really felt trapped--especially the guy who can't do his taxes without MS. I suppose if I were one of the Netscape guys I'd have a different opinion, although the Be Inc. guy didn't think browser bundling was anticompetitive.

      I'm surprised people didn't disagree more about a hardware monopoly and/or business model being breakable. After all, Apple was in this discussion and nobody mentions how their machines were first built?

      A Beowulf cluster of Arduino-like machines that click together and fit in a box, in your pocket. That could be the result of the next Homebrew Computer Club, and the cycle begins again...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    124. Re:To be fair by ExoDemon · · Score: 1

      Inherently wrong? To whom?

      Lock-in: Works fine for me on my iPhone, so I don't see it as a problem.
      crippleware: Ditto
      no multitasking: The only time I want this is when I want to use Pandora and something else at the same time. Other than that, no thank you - had it in Windows Mobile, and I could never kill all the zombies.
      iTunes: Works fine for me, so I don't see it as a problem.

      I know all of this as been repeated ad nauseam, but it's still pertinent. The consumer decides whether there's something wrong with the product or not.

    125. Re:To be fair by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Is that why there's zero growth in desktop Linux?

      I didn't think so.

      Apple offers choice (ie, buy or do not buy). There are other options that provide the opposite experience: Android, for one, that exist as an option.

      Choice in the market is good. Just because Apple has been successful with one business model doesn't exclude others from also being successful.

      ICQ failed because they were constantly pushing their users towards the "new, awesome" ICQ client which was bloated and horrible (and had adverts built into it) when people were quite happy using the old clients. They started changing the protocol to block the older clients to force people to use the bloated shitty client with the adverts and people jumped ship to IM/MSN or their OSS client/protocol of choice. (and yes, I had a low-digit ICQ number way back in the day, client quality peaked at ICQ 98a - small enough to carry on a floppy, so portable between uni machines that used network boot, and no adverts).

      Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch certainly didn't kill ICQ.

    126. Re:To be fair by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find this post interesting. You claim to know all the answers, and they're just what they should be to support your emotional claims.

      The iPad is simple. We're thinking of getting iPads for my son's grandmothers, since it's about at their level of computer acumen. Exactly why it was made that way is open to question (and you provide no sources, just blatant assertions), but it really doesn't matter for the end effect.

      The walled garden provides security, regardless of what it was intended for. Nor have I seen evidence that Apple makes significant profit from the iTunes store; Apple financial reports (which are probably reasonably accurate) say otherwise, and it's really hard to make much money off a 30 cent cut when you're handling a credit card transaction. Therefore, it's very likely that the iTunes store is, oddly enough, what Apple claims it is: a way of making Apple hardware more attractive, and not there for profit. I don't know why you claim it's for lock-in, since Apple's idiosyncratic use of Objective-C and Cocoa already makes it difficult to write cross-platform phone apps.

      Your argument as to why Apple didn't implement tethering is patent nonsense. The iPhone had the physical ability to tether from the start, long before Apple came up with its pricing strategy for the iPad 3G. Moreover, Apple would be better off if I bought an iPhone and a base iPad rather than no iPhone and an iPad 3G. Nor does Apple prohibit tethering in all markets; I'd think the people responsible for banning it are AT&T (if you're going to try to tell me that cell phone providers are sweetness and light, you'll owe me a new keyboard).

      And, despite all this, you claim that those who disagree with you are consistently and intentionally wrong.

      And, despite all that, you're showing a (4, Insightful) right now. There's irrationality on Slashdot, but methinks it isn't what you claim it is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    127. Re:To be fair by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      And the part defending Apple are not only consistently and intentionally wrong[1], they are actively advertising Apple, just because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team. Of course there had to be a back-lash against them, since that kind of fraudulent PR can't go unchallenged.

      [1] Examples: That the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers (it's not, it's designed for internet addicts who already have at least one computer);

      Who says these are mutually exclusive? Can't it just be a product for a product's sake. The fact that it is simple allows your grandma to use it, but just because she can doesn't mean 'an internet addict with at least 1 computer' can't also make use of it, if it does what he wants it to do.

       

      that the walled garden is for security (it's for profit and lock-in);

      No, the walled garden is for a consistent and seamless user experience. One store to get apps, that is easy to use, convenient and consistent across all apps in terms of function (ie, the way you shop, the way you buy, the way the apps download and install). It's not really about profit - Apple has stated that it doesn't make much, if any profit on the store, since most of the cut they take goes into upkeep [servers, bandwidth, staff, etc]. Whether you believe them really makes no difference - it is their stated position. You are free to call it "consistently and intentionally wrong", but it is part of their financial statements.

      that solutions that are prohibited by Apple (tethering the iPad to the iPhone, for instance) are there because Apple always need to design things so lusciously simple (they don't, and that's not the reason why: it would compete against their otherwise prohibitively expensive 3g version of the iPad).

      No, tethering is not on the US iPhone because AT&T forbids it. My iPhone, bought in the UK on O2 had tethering working out of the box. No jailbreaking, no extra fees, no extra apps. The iPhone has always been capable of doing it, but it's a carrier decision. The 3G iPad will also be available in the UK too - are you telling me that they are going to stop selling iPhones here that have tethering out of the box when the iPad goes on sale?

      All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.

      Well, if I'm a freelance advertising agent I'd love to pick up a paycheque. I think you'll find that calling *everything* that "fanboys" post on /. about Apple "wrong and repeated ad nauseam" to also be "wrong". It's very tricky when you start dealing in absolutes.

      What I think you'll find you just posted was your opinion on each of the statements you made about specific things to do with Apple, and then claim these are facts that you can use to "disprove Apple's fraudulent PR". Opinions are not facts.

      "Most people who read this site" is also a huge generalisation. I think you mean "I" where you said "most people".

    128. Re:To be fair by Blackhalo · · Score: 2, Informative

      MicroSoft threatening to blacklist Compaq and IBM from the Win 95 launch if they shipped any systems with OS2 installed was pretty compelling too.

      --
      "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
    129. Re:To be fair by blueskies · · Score: 1

      You are really reaching. You are saying that people should plan 5 phones down the road. Don't buy the phone you need for today, buy crappy phones that will eventually be the phone you need down the road. I'm don't really mean to say the android is crappy, but you are asking people to invest in the phone they think isn't as good (presumably they buy the best phone that matches their needs).

      I think competition is great. And the author brings up great criticism. But it's hyperbole to compare choosing a phone and global climate change.

    130. Re:To be fair by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Users care about one thing... Can I use the product? Which interestingly is not one of the questions that developers seem to raise.

      Interestingly enough you've summed up the whole Flash debacle in two sentences.

      Some users like me - want Flash and Java, but the developer of the iPhone decided they didn't want me to have it.

      Apple apologists turn around and try to convince me I don't need either of those technologies to be happy.

      Which in turn - I end up getting an android phone because they do support both.

      Apple in turn wonders why Android is the largest growing phone platform last quarter (which it was).

    131. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has an open approach, but their design sucks ass. Its almost as if they don't have a single graphics designer working at the company. Compared
      to Apple, Google & Microsoft look like they make Mattel Playschool apps.

    132. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Convenient opinion" eh? No need to check up on shallow opinions. You don't get hired by the makers of Android by saying "Oh yeah! I LOVE what Apple has done with the iPhone" in a job interview.

    133. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of multi-tasking is an *extremely* good thing for me. I'm developing processor and disk intensive applications and if Joe Consumer installs a bunch of apps on his multi-tasking platform, he'll come complaining to me that my app isn't working right. As soon as Apple opens up multi-tasking, you're going to see almost every single developer put in spurious background processes and performance for the average consumer -- who is nothing like an average slashdot reader -- is going to suffer greatly.

    134. Re:To be fair by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am glad for global warming.

      Otherwise I'd be living under the glacier that formerly covered much of North America.

      How the indigenous people managed to get SUVs and gas without factories or refineries is beyond me, but I'm thankful for their efforts.

    135. Re:To be fair by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Lock-in: Then don't buy the device
      Crippleware: (assuming you mean that it can't use its 'full potential') As above, plus limits things that can go wrong so that there don't have to be as many patches
      No multitasking: As above, plus prevents the user from stupidly slowing down their device without knowing why
      iTunes: I think it's fair to say that millions of users who are satisfied with the store don't constitute something inherently wrong with the product. Do you mean that they can't install apps from wherever? Then as above, plus addresses security concerns.

      "Inherently wrong" means if you buy the product, it will sneak out of your house, murder your neighbors, and blame it on a passing nun. "Inherently wrong" means if you buy the product, a hypnotic spiral will light up on the screen, drawing you down further and further into a circle of insanity where you lose your will to live. "Inherently wrong" means that if you give it to your child, they will grow up to be a rapist criminal who gives people cancer just by touching them.

      It does NOT mean "I have objections to how this device is managed." That's covered under the GP's "Not for you" category. Grow the fuck up.

    136. Re:To be fair by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that RMS isn't saying anything about not selling software commercially, and that if the GPLv3 were mandated it wouldn't affect most software jobs. Most software jobs are about internal software (what RMS calls "private" software and has publicly said he has no problems with). RMS's ideas would eliminate one software business model among many. Personally, I think that business model is too useful to ban, and I disagree with RMS on many things, but accusing him of trying to destroy software development is a step farther out than RMS is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    137. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      t because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team.

      So you are saying that people pay these extravagant prices because the cars are really that much better, and not just to because they are fanbois who need to saw they own such a thing? Alphas have the legendary Italian quality.

      And I notice you are so in need of other's appoval you have to tell everyone that you own a mercedes. Oh look at me, I drive a mercedes! How is this different from carrying around a MacBook?

    138. Re:To be fair by eparker05 · · Score: 1

      I think his point, although poorly stated, is that Apple's way of doing business should concern us all. If us consumers make it a successful business model, other companies will follow. That is why many of us 'apple h8rs' are such vocal advocates. We want to spread the message. We want others to join our cause of avoiding Apple branded products.

      Here's a short list of things Apple does that makes many of us so opposed to them:
      Restricted development, DRM content, competition through litigation.

    139. Re:To be fair by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mod parent informative, GP is wrong.

      Car noobs: There's a difference between a robotized manual (AKA DSG, what supercars and F1 cars have) and a manually shiftable automatic (an automatic transmission with manual shifter buttons, AKA Tiptronic, Sportshift, etc).

      Automatic and manual transmissions are mechanically VERY different - automatics are much more complicated and inefficient.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    140. Re:To be fair by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Well... Not so quick... I kept the discussion at a higher level because people's eyes tend to glaze over when I talk details. I am a mechanical engineer...

      But the argument you are making is exactly the reason why Apple does. This detail that automatics are X, and the other being a manual transmission with clutches is actually lost on people. They REALLY don't care about the minutia.

      People get into cars, they step on the gas pedal, and they can either let the car shift or press a little button that lets them shift. For people this is called an automatic transmission...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    141. Re:To be fair by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Aren't they semi-automatic? Granted I've only seen one of these fancy cars up close once (and it was a lot of them - at the classic car races in Laguna Seca) - you still have to shift gears, just its a paddle on either side of the steering wheel. Drag racers use auto-transmissions frequently because they can shift faster than any human. Rally car drivers in Group A use semi-automatic transmissions because it reduces the amount of gear boxes they've had to replace (Subaru started this trend - and thats what they have said at least). There is a good technical reason for an automatic transmission, but in the end its the drivers choice.

      Also on a you can still get a Ferrari with a manual shift (at least according to Top Gear reviews). See? They give you a choice.

      No - if you like car analogies the iPad would be like having a car where you can only use approved tires from the car companies "tire store", and you couldn't get an after market stereo because it "duplicates functionality". Addons to you car (like plugins) would be banned by the manufacturer because they would reduce fuel economy - so no comfy seat back, heads up display, 2 way radio or mp3 player.

      On the plus side you'd have as many cd's as you want that make fart noises (no - I'm not making fun of the fact that a lot of app store apps are totally useless), but forget about picking up that hot date because those are immoral.

      But it sure looks cool!

    142. Re:To be fair by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is that the best example you have? One from more than 18 years ago?

      Microsoft takes compatibility so seriously right now that when they were developing Vista - I was working for one of their competitors (as far as applications go) and they kept logging bugs with our application compatibility team on versions we hadn't supported in 8 years. Yes I'm not even kidding - they were testing every single one of our products on their Vista platform from 8 years ago to our current versions. Apple doesn't do that! I honestly really can't remember the last time a hotfix they released broke anything I support now (I run a bunch of computer labs at a community college these days, but thats a lot of machines, a lot of applications (well over a hundred - some of which are vertical market apps) and a lot of patches).

      Compare that with Apple who's hotfixes regularly broke our stuff - repeatedly. We used to complain all the time to them that they should test that, and failing that - let us know so we can test it. They would change the way the print back-end worked, or change an api here or there that would screw stuff up and never tell anyone. Blissfully send out patches to uses and expect the vendors to fix everything - which we always did, about a month after all our customers complained bitterly about *US* being lazy.

      This was for their largest 3rd party software developer too...

      I'll give you one thing - Apple behaves today like Microsoft behaved 15+ years ago - with complete contempt for their vendors and customers. Luckily for them - their customers don't know it.

      Apple needs better competition, but they are very good at defending their position in the court system.

    143. Re:To be fair by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You apparently weren't involved in the industry in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS are among the (then) highly discussed cases.

      DR-DOS was blocked out in Windows 3.1 beta (claimed by MS to be inadvertent, claimed by DR to be deliberate; later on DR was proven right when internal MS emails were published during the antitrust case) - also known as "AARD code". The check was not stopping, however (it displayed an "error" message "Non-fatal error detected, press any key to continue" - but didn't prevent Windows from loading once you pressed the key).

      No release version of Windows ever contained that code.

      As for Lotus, I presume you refer to the infamous "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run". That is purely a myth.

    144. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and that serve absolutely no other purpose

      Or maybe you're too stupid to think of a purpose? Heh, another data point of the fantastic stupidity of anti-ms trolls.

      Seriously, tell me *that* is just a bug!

      Learn to use google. This has been explained over 5 years ago.

      http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/08/12/213681.aspx

    145. Re:To be fair by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Although Windows 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS [wikipedia.org], it was returning an non-fatal error message, in effect convincing users there was something wrong with DR-DOS.

      It was Windows 3.1 beta, though. The final version didn't have that code.

    146. Re:To be fair by Eivind · · Score: 1

      The count isn't the problem.

      The problem is that only apps which Apple, at their sole discretion, likes, are allowed. They can, and have, arbitrarily change the rules whenever they feel like it.

      For example, they currently decided they do not like any app which has any kind of scantily clad people in it. Just like that. A month ago, those where numerous, now, they're nil.

      This is particularily relevant for apps which benefit the consumer, but lead to lower income for apple and/or the carriers. Also for apps which are in any sense controversial.

    147. Re:To be fair by LordVader717 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This whole "if you don't like it that's your opinion" crap is getting ridiculous.
      Yes, we realize that products are made for diverse markets, and people have different priorities. But if we can't call bullshit when we see it what's the point of having a forum of discussion.

      Back to the topic:
      The iPad is a nice device. But there are a lot of things inherently wrong with it. And I find it worrying that Apple, otherwise often a pioneer in technology is capable of ruining an otherwise good device and wants to severely restrict what I do with it. I think there's something very wrong with that. Even if I'd never contemplate buying an iPad.

    148. Re:To be fair by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Hey! Weren't you paying attention? If you like Apple stuff, you're wrong. And you hate Santa Claus.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    149. Re:To be fair by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Damn it! All I have is a Ti 99/4a. And an "L" stuck to my forehead.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    150. Re:To be fair by eihab · · Score: 1

      How nice he's now embracing the underhanded collection and exploitation personal data that is Google's business plan, very "open source" and egalitarian of him.

      If you read his blog post you would have noticed that he said:

      On Google It’s now too big to be purely good or in fact purely anything. I’m sure that tendrils of stupidity and evil are even now finding interstitial breeding grounds whence they will emerge to cause grief. And there are some Google initiatives that I feel no urge to go near.

      If there are more guys like him at Google calling the shots like they did before, things would be very different today.

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    151. Re:To be fair by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Sure they have. Look what they did with the record companies... remember when Amazon was fighting to price music at less than $0.99, they were fighting against Apple and the record companies Apple had brainwashed into selling all tracks for at least $0.99.

      While I do agree with some parts of your post, this isn't quite accurate. Apple was refusing to let them sell anything for a different price from $0.99, i.e. they also refused to let them sell songs for more than that. They were enforcing constant, non-variable pricing for all songs, not a lower limit. At the same time, places like Wal-Mart had already been selling the same songs for $0.89 for a while already.

    152. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who drive automatics are pussys and women. Heck even most Japanese manuals are for light touch fairies.

    153. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure is, in the legal sense. Besides there is a whole other "conviction" here

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

    154. Re:To be fair by MSG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's easy to name something that users should care about: If Apple decides what applications are allowed, they're free to prohibit applications which implement the functionality of Apple applications in a better way. If competitors can't improve the system, that's something that I care about both as a user and a developer.

    155. Re:To be fair by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It's an improvement on the old style automatics. I think all cards will eventually be some sort of automatic. The fact is, while everyone thinks their a better driver than everyone else, most people aren't that good. The bar for passing the test is so low it's almost harder not to get a licence. So for the vast majority of people standard doesn't make sense because they probably can't even drive it that well.

      The only people that turn their noses up to anything without a clutch are either poor or worried about their penis size. Personally I don't care. Automatic is much more convenient but there's not wrong with driving a manual either. There are a lot more important things, as far as I'm concerned, on a car. The only place where I'd say automatic is a must in in congested cities. I just can't be bothered to with shifting and using a clutch to move a few feet.

    156. Re:To be fair by bdabautcb · · Score: 0

      A non-apple user, non much of computer software user except what I need to get along (internet, pdf reader, games, sometimes I experiment)... My first experience with Apple was a fifteen dollar Itunes gift card this christmas. I thought I could watch a movie or something so I tried to redeem it. When I signed up and tried to download the Departed, I also got Itunes, an Ipod registration, and Apple downloader showing up in my task manager. I would not be that mad but I could not stop the AppleHelper task from running. I stop it in my windows TM, and it starts again within twenty seconds. The only way I could get rid of it was deleting the program through my windows control panel. I call BS. Apple has the fifteen dollars that a friend of my dad's spent on a gift card that will never be redeemed. They also have a person that will never buy apple mediated content because they are not trustworthy and "hack" their customers. Also, the next time someone asks me what my zipcode is to buy a piece of cheese and a bottle of wine, I am going to tell them no. If they tell me I can't buy without exposing myself, I will tell them to go fuck themselves and then steal a bottle of wine and a piece of cheese.

      --
      Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
    157. Re:To be fair by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      /me throws a Coleco Adam on table.

      Call.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    158. Re:To be fair by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 1

      True enough, but the point is, why does he view Apple in black and white, while portraying Google in shades of gray?
      Seems like he's publicly voguing at the behest of his new overseers.

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    159. Re:To be fair by zuperduperman · · Score: 1
      > This isn't like global warming, where a relatively small group can fuck it up for everyone;

      I'm sorry, but it is exactly like that. A small group of people making the App store and it's locked down model a success has now prompted Microsoft to completely ditch their open Windows Mobile platform and replace it with a closed alternative where developers need approval to make applications and are forced to give money to Microsoft every time they sell one.

      This is a disaster for the wider development community and it's all Apple's fault because they were the only one that could have pulled it off and they decided to "be evil" to make a fist full of dollars. Now that they have, the idea that developers should be able to deploy whatever applications they want on a platform is going to soon seem like a quaint memory from the olden days.

    160. Re:To be fair by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      If only Iphone users and the media would take that attitude too, and stop hyping and astroturfing the phone and claiming it's the best ever. Shouldn't they also consider that perhaps we don't care and it, and we're happy using the many more popular phones out there?

    161. Re:To be fair by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. How come when there's a story about Microsoft, we don't have people saying "Oh who cares, you don't have to use it"? Indeed, you'd think Mac fans would be keen to not worry given it doesn't affect them, but they're first in line with the criticisms!

      Thankfully the Iphones are a non-issue now, with Apple being a niche player (before anyone replies to claim otherwise, yes they are - make sure you check out actual market share figures, not "what me and my friends have", or "mindshare" or whatever else). But I do worry that all the free advertising they get from the media will lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy where it does become the mainstream platform - just look at the hype over the Ipad too.And then in ten years' time, all of mobile computing is one where it's completely locked down and controlled by the same company.

      And I find it sad that Slashdot, of all places, would have been guilty in promoting that future. Long gone are the days when this was a place to champion open platforms.

      I think there's also the worry that Apple fans are so obsessed with promoting the Iphones that anything to do with the phones are promoted as good, whether or not they really are. So rather than people criticising the company for this practice, we have an army of geeks saying how it's a good thing, we have the media saying how wonderful Apple's app store is - which increases the risk that other companies will follow this practice.

    162. Re:To be fair by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Learn to read - the bit before you quoted say "Let's say at some point a majority of devices will be closed media devices."

      And his point was about app developers. Yes, 1% of the market might still be able to use my app, but what good is that?

      As for the rest of your comment, I presume "control the Net" was short for "control what can be released on and installed from the Internet". If you'd read the post, the context should have made that clear.

    163. Re:To be fair by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch certainly didn't kill ICQ.

      Yes, that was exactly his point, I think. ICQ was a killer app, and although it's not around now, it did give us instant messaging. His point was that, imagine if ICQ was never allowed to be released on the majority of the world's platforms, because controlling companies could simply refuse it. ICQ, or the IM programs we use today, would never have happened.

    164. Re:To be fair by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      That supports his point - when it was MS, was it half supporting them and half defending them? No, the point is that the overwhelming majority would criticise their dubious practices, and rightly so.

      The very fact that there is an argument; that so many people here defend everything Apple do, no matter how dubious, or how closed the platform would be, proves his point.

      Not to mention the mod point issue. It used to be, criticise MS to get modded up. But criticise Apple, and mostly you'll be modded down. Apple stories are the only ones I have to read at -1, because moderation is so broken because of all the Apple fans who get mod points.

      And furthermore, who cares about the comments? Let's look at the stories. For Microsoft, for years the stories themselves posted on Slashdot (as well as elsewhere) were critical of MS's practices. But for Apple, it's nothing but hype and praise.

    165. Re:To be fair by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The iPad seems a nice device.

      Duke Nukem Forever seems a nice game too.

      It's not for everyone, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

      There are plenty of reasonable points that people can make about it - why is their point "extreme", but your viewpoint not extreme?

      I'm just as tired of either side of the pundits on this one.

      You're taking part in this thread, you don't get to fence-sit. Or if you do, I'll play that card too: yes the Apple fans, and the people like you who criticise Apple critics, are as bad as each other.

      The only people that matter in this are the people who will buy the device. If there aren't enough of them, it'll fail. If there are, it'll succeed. All this back-and-forth garbage is a waste of electrons.

      But that's just it, it doesn't matter. E.g., the Iphones have been out for years, and we can look up cold hard statistics for them. But that doesn't stop people falsely claiming that Apple are number one in the market. If they say that, I'm going to point out they're wrong - that doesn't make me "extreme". It's an argument to moderation fallacy to claim that both "extremes" are wrong. If you have an example of someone misrepresenting the truth when criticising Apple, then criticise their post. That doesn't mean it applies to everyone who criticises Apple products.

    166. Re:To be fair by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Lol, man that was good. Your troll get's modded insightful and your insightful comment gets a redundant. I get a funny. Everybody wins!

    167. Re:To be fair by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So are you conceding that iPhone OS is a "major platform" that could make or break the next trend in computing?

      (/tounge in cheek)

    168. Re:To be fair by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Just got my moderation report and the original post was listed as +5, insightful. Everybody wins indeed! :)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    169. Re:To be fair by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      Come on... you really expect us to believe that if a single company is able to tightly control the means by which most people access the internet for an extended period of time, that innovation on the intenet in general will suffer?

      Psssshhh... like that could ever happen.

    170. Re:To be fair by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      but by the time the court ruled, Linux
      already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was
      not far behind.

      OSX wouldn't run on X86 processors for another five years. And as long as Apple ties you to their machine, I don't think we can ever consider OSX a competitor to other "normal" OSs.
      I think you're confused about the meaning of the word monopoly. Monopoly doesn't mean that there are no alternatives anywhere. It can also be specific to certain parts of ressources in the market.

      Aside from that, 'the court' didn't 'rule' that Microsoft is a monopoly, that's just a word they used. The *ruled* that they were guilty of violating antitrust laws, which get more specific.

    171. Re:To be fair by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    172. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok big mouth, you asked for it. We are so going to shut off the internet.

    173. Re:To be fair by giuda · · Score: 1

      Wait... what? My alfa romeo got a manual 6 gear. Also, formula 1 got a SEMIAUTOMATIC gearbox. It's pretty different. The pilot can activate the clutch with a button, if he needs to. The car software just push the clutch when the pilot wants to change gear.

    174. Re:To be fair by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Replace monopoly with dominant market position, where anti-trust laws are also applied.

    175. Re:To be fair by WNight · · Score: 1

      No it's not, you're pretending to be picked on for your unconventional attitude when really it's just you intentionally missing the point. You're trying to spin the "monopolists'" position into something crazy like 100% ownership of something.

      The power MS abused (against vendors offering OS choices, etc) came from being a monopoly - the ability to dictate terms because of the other party's lack of options. Arbitrary pricing, exclusive deals, etc.

      Put simply, if you asked the man in the street what valid alternatives to MS-Windows were they couldn't have named any. That's the monopoly.

    176. Re:To be fair by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Damn!

      > /me folds.

          -dz.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    177. Re:To be fair by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm not buying into the paranoid conspiracy theory.

      Well of course *you're* not. You wouldn't hear anything derogatory said of your beloved Microsoft! The release version didn't have it enabled after it was found in the beta. MS memos at the time specifically refer to not wanting Windows to run on any DOS other than MS-DOS. There's nothing paranoid about it.

      Get the fuck over it already.

      Truth hurts a bit, does it?

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    178. Re:To be fair by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Well of course *you're* not. You wouldn't hear anything derogatory said of your beloved Microsoft! The release version didn't have it enabled after it was found in the beta. MS memos at the time specifically refer to not wanting Windows to run on any DOS other than MS-DOS. There's nothing paranoid about it.

      Actually, I read up on this (thanks to another poster's helpful link explaining all) and it turns out that the reason Microsoft did this was because Windows was coded like a piece of shit and it dove right into all kinds of DOS internal undocumented data structures. The check wasn't to steal marketshare from DR-DOS, but to prevent Windows from overwriting important files on the off-change that DR-DOS had different data structures than MS-DOS.

      In fact, at the trial, they brought up a concrete example where DR-DOS' differing implementation would have caused trouble for Windows.

      So Microsoft had the choice of restricting Windows to run on the OS they *knew* worked (because it was the only one they QAed against), or let it run on everything and rely on the OS makers to put in enough compatibility features for it to run. They could have gone either way-- the beta went one way, and they changed their mind and the release went another.

      This is just one of the realities of software development, a simple choice to not let it run on a system they never QAed becomes a horrible conspiracy just because so many people have irrational hatred towards one corporation over another. (Frankly, having been subjected to Netware, I'd much prefer to hate Novell... at least Windows works!)

      But the real crime here is that you're apparently stuck in a timewarp, re-living 1992 over and over again. Like Groundhog Day, or that episode of Star Trek: TNG. How are you enjoying your Milli Vanilli albums in your personal time warp?

      What I'm trying to say here, and I think I've already expressed this, is "get the fuck over it already."

    179. Re:To be fair by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      and it turns out that the reason Microsoft did this was because Windows was coded like a piece of shit and it dove right into all kinds of DOS internal undocumented data structures. The check wasn't to steal marketshare from DR-DOS, but to prevent Windows from overwriting important files on the off-change that DR-DOS had different data structures than MS-DOS.

      Yeah, that's what they claimed. Of course, that doesn't explain why the code had to be encrypted, why it didn't simply present an error message saying it couldn't run on this version of DOS, why they had internal memos explicitly discussing ways of surreptitiously preventing Windows running on other DOS's and why the court didn't believe them.

      But the real crime here is that you're apparently stuck in a timewarp, re-living 1992 over...

      Blah blah...you're the one scrabbling around trying to defend Microsoft for something they clearly did. I didn't bring this up: I'm just responding to your rather desperate attempts to rewrite Microsoft's history. Get the fuck over it yourself and accept that they were in the wrong.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    180. Re:To be fair by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does it matter? It was 20 fucking years ago!

      Seriously it's not even close to the same company anymore, get the fuck over it.

      You just sound pathetic, when your only example, ONLY example, is not only not a clear-cut case, but 20 fucking years old. Goddamned pathetic.

    181. Re:To be fair by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      You just sound pathetic, when your only example, ONLY example, is not only not a clear-cut case, but 20 fucking years old.

      It wasn't my example, retard boy. Someone else offered it, you tried to justify Microsoft's actions, and I'm pointing out you were wrong. If you don't care about it why are you still replying and still trying to rewrite Microsoft's history? Just accept that they were in the wrong and leave it!

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    182. Re:To be fair by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      The only people that turn their noses up to anything without a clutch are either poor or worried about their penis size. Personally I don't care. Automatic is much more convenient but there's not wrong with driving a manual either. There are a lot more important things, as far as I'm concerned, on a car. The only place where I'd say automatic is a must in in congested cities. I just can't be bothered to with shifting and using a clutch to move a few feet.

      Although I agree with your general sentiment, I won't as far as you're going. Being in Europe, I've only seen maybe five automatic cars in my life, all the ones I've been in had problems. Either lurching around on gear changes, or shifting REALLY slowly, or over-revving the engine, you name it. Every single implementation of an automatic I've ever seen was bad, which doesn't make the concept bad. Since driving a manual is really not that hard or bothersome (even in traffic), I'd prefer getting one over an auto, for the moment.

      For racers, though, being able to control gear shifts is a must. You don't want to throw the car's weight around while you're already pushing it to the limit on a corner.

    183. Re:To be fair by AgentMagneta · · Score: 1

      Sadly... there is a benefit to the end user of not having an open platform.... So that is where we are heading I belive.

  4. He Can Vote With His Wallet by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just like the rest of us he can choose to buy, or not buy, an iPhone or any other Apple or non-Apple product.

    We're all adults here and if he doesn't like Apple's rules about software of the iPod/iPhone/iPad then he can choose not to get one. It's as simple as that.

    The government isn't requiring us all to get iProducts ... yet ;-)

    1. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Cryacin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the trick here is that he's presenting his reasoning for why he votes with his wallet in the hopes that he will change people's viewpoint.

      But then again, apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock. There's even an app for that!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, as Developer Advocate for Android, part of his job is trying to change people's viewpoint on whether they ought to develop for the iPhone or Android.

    3. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Liquidrage · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You could choose to not buy Windows. But for some reason they were forced to not strongly couple their web browser with the OS. And /. applauded.

    4. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That whole anti-trust thing just went over your head, eh? I can see how the stories from remote locations like the US and EU would be hard for you to spot. It's not like there was any coverage around here or on any tech enthusiast site.

    5. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      iPhone's main advantage from the perspective is user base and that won't necessarily continue if Apple has to compete with competent Android implementations. I'll probably be getting a droid based phone in the near future. A large part of the desirability is that Google allows a number of programs into their marketplace which Apple won't. It got really ridiculous when Apple started banning things which made the iPhone easier to use or could be used in some esoteric way to find objectionable material.

      Probably the best thing he can do is crack the whip and make sure the various companies that want to create Android based products do so in a competent way and discourage carriers from behaving like the dicks they tend to be. As in not doing all that stupid adjustments and customizations that hurt usability.

    6. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll agree that Apple makes Disney Land. It's all highly controlled and polished to look exactly how they want it to, and to keep "undesirable" elements out.

      There's still quite a lot of choice in the market. In fact, whatever you think of the iPhone it's self, we've certainly seen a bigger improvement in the cell industry in the last 3 years (post iPhone) than we did the in 3 or 4 years before. Today, there are numerous phones out with interfaces that aren't abysmal. You can get a game like Bejeweled without having to pay $3 or $4 per month (as carriers liked to charge).

      I like the Apple experience, and I love my iPhone. Daniel Jalkut put up a post on his blog today called Surfing in Antartica, which really resonated with me on why I think the iPhone is so great, and why I'm really interested in what the iPad might bring.

      Apple does some stuff I don't like. Disney does a lot I don't like (and I know many /.ers agree with me). But there are large segments of the market that love the way those companies do things. There are people who happily pay a large chunk of money to get to live in Disney Land for a few hours a day, a few days a year.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    7. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's third-party. Go figure.

    8. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I think the trick here is that he's presenting his reasoning for why he votes with his wallet in the hopes that he will change people's viewpoint.

      But then again, apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock. There's even an app for that!

      I like how both sides are trying to "change people's viewpoint", but only the people Apple's side are called sheep.

      The Android Community does not need this.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obviously you are missing his point. Or is it that somehow you feel that Apple is better than MSFT and therefore above the same scrutiny???. This is not about choice of purchase. It is about one company getting legally screwed, whilst another just does it own little thing while trying to monopolize and sue its way to dominance (oh and that is not Microsoft) I personally think that most Apple products are awesome, however, I doubt that I will ever own one as I like their business practices much less than Microsoft

    10. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only can he vote with his wallet, but he's free to express his opinion to others who might vote with their wallets in the future. He's not forcing you or anyone else to do anything.

    11. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sadly, this argument assumes that free markets remain free in the face of the massive success of a given good or company. Let's face it, for all that it's touted to be pragmatic, the foundation of capitalism is idealistic. It assumes that the "almighty market" will always promote competition. While it does so at first, in reality, the moment that a given brand/company/product dominates the market sufficiently, there is often the aftereffect that competitors die off. If the number of people who exercise their choice to buy elsewhere is too small, those people eventually see their freedom of choice denied by the masses who chose otherwise, becasuse competitors disappear from the market. Hence the complaining on sites like Slashdot, because if we can't get enough people to excercise their freedom of choice elsewhere than the dominant flavour, we all run the risk of being denied the choice in the future. It's all about critical mass.

    12. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Also, as Developer Advocate for Android, part of his job is trying to change people's viewpoint on whether they ought to develop for the iPhone or Android.

      I'd rather say that he's now getting paid for doing what he always did. SCORE!

    13. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      And if it was Steve Balmer saying the same things we'd be dragging him over the coals and shouting "Developers, Developers, Developers!".

      There are as many, if not more, Apple haters as there are fanboys in these parts and the rest of the tech world. They constantly declare Apple failures and berate Apple achievements. It's just unrealistic to blame the failures of competing products on Apple or MS successes.

      Open is good, but it's obviously not a requirement for a successful product or company. If it were Apple and MS wouldn't be in the top 5 US companies ... and a Linux company would.

    14. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is that simple. And I am sure he votes with his wallet, but does that mean the topic should not be discussed, nobody should post about it or have an opinion about it? You are changing the subject in attempt to end the discussion. If a car company made a crappy car with design problems and limitations or whatever would you be telling people they should not be talking about it because they have a choice to buy a different car? Just like you don't have to read this article, nobody is making you, so go read another article and don't comment on this one. That makes sense... If people didn't want to discuss positive and negative things about tech and such, forums like this would not exist. You have been brainwashed by apple.

    15. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as the poster stated above we could have easily said the same thing about Micro$hit but all the apple-gnomes were right there clapping, cheering and whining along. Funny how the song changes but the dance remains the same.

    16. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by mjwx · · Score: 0

      A large part of the desirability is that Google allows a number of programs into their marketplace which Apple won't.

      Ahh, I see, you want porn on your mobile.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From a user perspective, the Android advantage goes a little further than that, the marketplace is a convenience, not the exclusive way to install apps on the phone.

      From a developer perspective, having a friendly filter is probably better than having an annoying filter (but hey, you can market stuff outside of the filter on Android, if you think it is worth your time).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I'll probably be getting a droid based phone in the near future.

      Tangential question: Do you think you would have used the phrase "droid based phone" before the Motorola Droid came out?

      --
      Property is theft.
    19. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      The government isn't requiring us all to get iProducts ... yet ;-)

      Oh? It is military issue now.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    20. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and he can also complain about them, if he wants, and tell us why we ought to vote with our wallets they way he does. Moreover, the walled-garden approach Apple takes is a cultural issue. When we point out cultural problems, we do so with the hope that they don't spread. We don't have to buy an Apple product, but we also don't want other companies to get any ideas by looking at the support Apple gets.

    21. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      "But then again, apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock. There's even an app for that!"

      Insightful? It's ad hominem attacks--which by the way seem to be the bulk of anti-Apple remarks--such as this that make me think your views are based on nothing more than emotion.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    22. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Do Androids dream of eclectic sheep?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      forget porn, i want war driving apps and SNES Emulators

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    24. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

      Take a long, hard look at the Pre before you settle for anything Android.

      I'm super happy with mine, especially that 1) third-party apps can be installed easily, 2) the multitasking and notifications are very, very elegant, 3) carriers can't fuck up the experience by making their own modifications or refusing to upgrade the software (or allow it to be upgraded), and 4) Sprint in the US has been a breath of fresh air for me since switching from Verizon last year.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    25. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The porn apps are back. Just thought you might want to know. They were gone for like a week.

    26. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the rest of us he can choose to buy, or not buy, an iPhone or any other Apple or non-Apple product.

      ... and you can choose to read, or not to read his posts. The government isn't requiring you to read opinions on the net...

      Seriously, I do not understand these comments trying to prevent discussion. Perhaps this just is consumerism taken to it's logical conclusion or a form of market cargo cult.

    27. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      If he honestly believes that the single best way he can promote development on Android is to criticize development on the iPhone, then he's probably destined to fail.

      It's not enough to say what's bad-- or, more appropriately, what he doesn't like-- about how Apple's program works. He'll need to illustrate what's good about how Google and Android work above and beyond just not having some of Apple's deficiencies, since it's clear that for many developers, these deficiencies aren't relevant, or if they are, they are overridden by the size of the potential audience the iPhone platform represents.

      Disneyfied? If you're not making adult content, you probably aren't interested in that.

      Walled garden? Either he's unfamiliar with the term or is being disingenuous. The barrier of entry into Apple's developer program for iPhone development is very low; perhaps not as low as Google's, but lower than other mobile platforms that support third-party development have been historically (RIM, Symbian).

      Defended by lawyers? There I assume he's talking about the suit against HTC et al over Android: I doubt users and developers, by and large, care about that, since it concerns the platform itself and not programs developed for it. Except that, you know, if they think there's a chance in hell Apple might win they might want to consider developing for the iPhone to hedge their bets. If they think Apple's suits have no merit and won't win... then who cares if Apple wastes money on lawyers?

      This guy is doing his job-- promoting the interest of his parent company and their partners. Apple has guys who do the same. Where is the high road here, supposedly?

    28. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Okay, eat this.

      I worked as an Apple repair tech. FIRST HAND I can tell you they are PILES OF STEAMING SHIT.

      I thought I'd buy Apple products after being a repair tech for a while since I'd be used to the system by then - FUCK NO. As soon as I was no longer in that job I got as far away from Apple as I possibly could. I've had less problems working on a real DeLorean.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I love the way Apple does things in it's products because thus far, have never been more productive with my personal projects. I was a lot happier with the "it just works" (for some subset of 'it' and 'works') because the things I needed 99.99% percent of the time really did work quite reasonably.

      I want to get my projects done far more than I want to subscribe to some software philosophy.

    30. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of a couple of public schools that require either iPod Touch/iPhone. I know because I have to support the fucking things - you would think Apple could have made them compatible with authenticated proxies by now.

    31. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Neither way is very convenient when an app doesn't show up because you just bought a new phone with an old OS. That's quite a serious problem, IMHO.

    32. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I have a Nexus One and I have the SNES emulator; it works but keep in mind that on the iphone you only have the touchscreen for input. Using a tiny portion of the touchscreen to control all the buttons from even a relatively simple console controller really doesn't work that well. In fact, most games are practically unplayable because the input is so imprecise.

      The Nexus One has a trackball and some other buttons that can be used, but still, it really doesn't work. Android phones with physical keyboards are the only practical mobile platform that things like SNES emulators are going to work on.

      It would be great if Apple allowed things like that in the app store, yes... I am not arguing that. Just saying that practically, SNES emulators and the like aren't something you're really missing on the iphone since it'd be mostly useless.

    33. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fanboi argument is a myth. I'm sure there are people like that, but they are a minority. Of course, what is the point it trying to differentiate between a fanatic user and someone who simply sees a good product when the person you're talking to thinks it's cool to spell "boy" as "boi"?

    34. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Quicktime uses 'normal' formats - H264, mp4, etc. Apple don't have any proprietary audio or video formats. You're confusing format with DRM, and there's none of that in their music either.

      Except Apple is using software patents to make it so that you have less choice by asking international bodies to restrict imports.\

      So actually they are trying to control that too.

    35. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Liquidrage · · Score: 1



      From Wiki on the anti-trust:

      "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."

      Apple won't even let you install another web browser on the iPhone period unless it's based on their own webkit. And plenty of other apps they just won't allow.

    36. Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a 30GB Create Nomad Zen XTra based on "value" in my opposition to iPod few years back. Then my wife bought an iPod and the differences between them made me change my mindset. Yes they both play music, and the Nomad can hold a hell of a lot more songs with the 30GB drive than the 2 GB iPod... but the difference in usability between iTunes and the piece of crap app that came with the Nomad is amazing. So yes, buy what you want based on your philosophy, but dont forget that your philosophy also binds you to the choices you make.

  5. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim Bray apparently think he's Indiana Jones.

    I wonder if he has a <whip />?

  6. Lack of credibility by Danborg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:

    http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/...

    Maybe if he had tried 3 or 4 other phones and then settled on Android, his opinion would have weight.
    This guy had never owned a "fancy phone" until 15 months ago and now he's an expert? Seriously Google, is this the best you can do?

    1. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously Google, is this the best you can do?

      Oh yeah, because being the Co-Founder of XML automatically means he's a complete moron... Gimme a break!

    2. Re:Lack of credibility by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er, if it were his *first* smartphone, how could it *not* be the best he'd ever owned?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Lack of credibility by trb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project - that is, computerizing the OED, back in the 80's, before anyone blazed those trails - and did lots of other cool hacking over the years. You're saying he doesn't have credibility because he hasn't sampled enough smartphones?

    4. Re:Lack of credibility by Danborg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Notice I said he had a lack of credibility, I didn't say he wasn't a bright guy in other fields. That's like saying, hey my Uncle Lou did some cool stuff with mainframes back in the day, and they had about the same amount of processing power as an iPhone, maybe Google should hire him! Read Tim's own words in his Android Diary.

      I've never actually had a "smart" or otherwise fancy phone before, so this is by far the nicest I've owned.

      What kind of technologist bought his first smartphone a little over a year ago? And declares his very first one, The Best! It makes me question his methodology for making decisions, at the very least.

      Do you ever read smartphone related websites like Boy Genius Report, for example? These people live and breath smartphones, and actually carry and use the devices they review and blog about. There are numerous people that are infinitely more qualified on smartphones than Tim Bray will ever be.

      I'm sure Tim is a fine fellow otherwise, and would make an excellent neighbor, who if he borrowed your rake, would return it promptly in good condition.

    5. Re:Lack of credibility by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read his statement a bit more closely. He obviously recognizes his lack of basis for comparison, his wording says so: "I've never actually had [a smartphone], SO this is by far the nicest". He may have used other smartphones (he doesn't really say), but his wording clearly is meant to convey that he's choosing his Android phone as "best I've owned" by default.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    6. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, because being the Co-Founder of XML automatically means he's a complete moron...

      Actually, I'll agree to that.

      He was on a committee that took a mess of an existing file format (SGML/HTML) and made it more consistent. So now the rest of us get suffer this ridiculously inefficient data format. Brilliance!

    7. Re:Lack of credibility by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      A lot of those "fancy phones" weren't worth buying until recently.

      --
      meep
    8. Re:Lack of credibility by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:

      Pretty much describes every Iphone owner I've ever met. The Iphone is a consumer phone, the typical user goes from things like the LG Shine or Nokia 6210 to the Iphone and instantly claim it is the best smartphone evar despite lacking any experience with smartphones what so ever.

      Comparing this to business users who has used a BB, Nokia E71 or TYTN/JASJAM you'll find the Iphone uptake and praise is far lower.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like I'm feeding the troll, but nowhere does he say his phone is "The Best!" If you reread your quote, he says that he's never had a fancy phone, so this is the nicest phone he's owned. He's not comparing his phone to the other smart phones on the market, he's comparing his phone with the other phones he's owned.

    10. Re:Lack of credibility by feepness · · Score: 2

      What kind of technologist bought his first smartphone a little over a year ago?

      Smartphone penetration has been growing slowly. I'm in a tech field. I got to play with friends G1s, iPhones, and BlackBerrys. They all had drawbacks I found unacceptable at the time. I did like the iPhone best except for Apple's walls, but I wasn't about to touch the thing until it could at least do MMS, which I'd had for years already.

      So I bought my very first smarthpone, an iPhone, in July 2009, about 9 months ago. It is indeed the best smartphone I have ever owned. It isn't, however, the best smartphone I've ever used.

      When I buy my Nexus One in a couple months, the iPhone will then still be the second best I've owned at least.

    11. Re:Lack of credibility by tbray · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, if it were a good rake I might sell it on Craigslist.

    12. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What kind of technologist bought his first smartphone a little over a year ago?

      One who was waiting for a high-tech non-crippled phone to hit the market? Phones that don't suck are extremely new; waiting until a year ago is a sign he is a technologist. If you have used personal computers, you're going to want a phone that is at least as good as a 25 year old personal computer. Non-technologists are the kind of people who were waiting in line to buy Windows 95 and the iPhone, and the techies were the guys who looked at those and decided to not take a step into the past.

    13. Re:Lack of credibility by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      I have sampled more than enough smartphones over the years, SonyEricsson 900i, 990i, Nokia Communicator, Nokia 6110, Blackberry, Palm Tungsten, Treo, iPhone etc. The reason not many people was interested in them was that cellular internet connections sucked, bigtime. Both internet speeds and battery consumption made a smartphone worthless unless you had an extension cord and an ethernet jack. The phones was on top of this crap all by themselves, both in software and hardware.

      It would have been enough if i had tried one phone and then waited for something working to come out but what can i say, im pretty stubborn. The first phone im really satisfied with is my Nexus One. All the others had major flaws like not being able to multitask, being totally locked down, having sucky camera, lack flash, crappy screen resolution, the list goes on.

      I fully understand all the people who just looked at smartphones a couple of years ago and said to themselves "that sucks donkeys" and decided to wait a year or two. If i had been a bit smarter i could have saved myself oodles of money and sanity.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    14. Re:Lack of credibility by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, he is a moron because he invented XML.

      Go ahead and mod me into oblivion, I don't care, but XML is the biggest piece of crap to come down the pike since CSS.

      Nobody, and I mean, nobody uses XML as it was intended. I have seen so many fucked up XML files that it is just beyond belief.

      And even when XML is used as it was designed you are moving 1000 bytes of descriptions and greater than and Less than symbols to move 100 bytes of data. Sorry that is just plain stupid.

      How fucking hard is it to use 1000 bytes of a header record that describes the data and then shove a terabyte of data behind it. You pick it, fixed length, variable length, comma delimited, quote delimited you just get data after you get a brief description of it and load it on up.

      EVERY single line of an XML file MUST be parsed, context saved and an entire global structure created to make sure that no one slips in and extra definition.

      Ah but the answer is a remote far off on some other server someplace the glorious DTD file, which is almost always out of date our out of version with the very very abbreviated XML file you just got because everyone was to lazy to include every definition tag and bloat the xml file to proportions only envisioned by astronauts.

      And THIS is the guy that Goolgle wants the rest of the world to believe when it comes to doing a smack-down of the iPhone and or iPad? Yeah right, I want some of whatever they have been smoking over in google land.

      And hand full of crybaby geeks can jsut keep crying while apple sells iPhones and iPads by the fucking container load. Yeah apple controls the platform, and the apps that get designed for it all work, what a fucking concept! The UI is consistent, god that so sucks!! App behavior is consistent, again massive suckage!

      As far as Apple pulling a Microsoft? Yeah right. Microsoft in their wildest dreams could not come up with a product this good. Apple wants a consistent, quality software experience for their customers, GOD they are such ASSHOLES for that.

      News Flash! The crybaby geeks comprise about 0.01% of the iPhone customer base. The rest of us just want a PDA that works, does not go bugshit very often and don't have to figure out some bizaro world interface that some script-kiddle came up with because he thought it was "cool man!".

      This is not to dis the Android phone OS, it has merit, but it is entirely a different mindset and feature set from the iPhone. I have looked at a few different implementations on various phones and none of them come close to the consistency of look, feel and functionality of the iPhone, they just don't.

      Call Apple what you will but the iPhone and the iPad are quality products, with great well thought out SDK's and development environments and tools.

      And Oh BTW before anyone accuses me of being a Apple fan-boy, the iPhone is the only apple product I own and I am not 100% satisfied with it more like about 97% satisfied with it.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    15. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to fine tune your reading comprehension: Tim is clearly pointing out his deficiency in smart phone knowledge with the phrase you quote and explicitly does not declare his phone the best.

    16. Re:Lack of credibility by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> Er, if it were his *first* smartphone, how could it *not* be the best he'd ever owned?

      If it were a Windows mobile phone. Those things suck even when you don't know any better.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    17. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because he didn't buy one, doesn't mean he's not very knowledgeable about them.

      Perhaps he's researched and played with them extensively, and it wasn't until an Android device that he finally thought a phone existed for which the benefits matched the costs?

    18. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought my first smartphone late last year. Why? I've been holding out for a linux-based phone that would do SSH. Also, as a family man, $400 phones kinda have to meet the approval of the wife. If, by "technologist" you mean a programmer, an open-source advocate, a technical-minded person... why, I do believe that's me! (Also, didn't Linus just buy a smartphone a year or so ago?)

      You quote Tim saying: "I've never actually had a "smart" or otherwise fancy phone before, so this is by far the nicest I've owned." First, I think you're reading it wrong. I believe (conjecture alert!) he means to say "...so this is by far the nicest [phone] I've owned". Even exempting that interpretation, what is wrong with that statement? My brother's first smartphone was the iPhone he still carries, and I can guarantee you he would tell you it is the nicest he's ever owned.

      "There are numerous people that are infinitely more qualified on smartphones than Tim Bray will ever be". Exactly! There are probably some guys out there who would make better husbands and fathers than me... How the hell did I get married? Better programmers than me, too... yet somehow I have a job. Probably better responses to your post out there somewhere, yet for some reason, here I am, writing this. I'm sure, though, that if you hurry up and let Google know they're making a HUGE!MISTAKE! hiring this guy who OHMYGOODNESS didn't even OWN a smartphone a few years back, they'll quickly see their grandiose error and... what? Hire one of the Boy Genius writers instead?

      Did YOU read Tim's own words in his Android Diary? You know, where he bought an Android smartphone and immediately started writing about what he liked, didn't like, thought was well done, and thought was poorly done? Did you read about how he jumped right in and wrote some applications for it and then shared his experiences? Sounds to me like he DOES carry and use this device rather extensively.

      Really though, I'm sorry he doesn't meet your standards.

    19. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of technologist bought his first smartphone a little over a year ago?

      Someone with such high expectations of technology that nothing offered before then was good enough.

    20. Re:Lack of credibility by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      By the way, your Tautology Club card is your Tautology Club card. You can collect it at a place of collecting Tautology Club cards.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    21. Re:Lack of credibility by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was the [i]worst[/i] he'd ever owned.

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    22. Re:Lack of credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XML sucks.

      I agree with the guy's views about the iPhone, but seriously, having "Invented XML" on your resume is like claiming you're a joke writer for Dane Cook.

    23. Re:Lack of credibility by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Would be more convincing if it had any truth to it. Techies are among the iPhones biggest fans. I knew many who felt like you because they read sites like this , and then they tried it for themselves. The iphone has the most practical functionality of any phone on the market, there really is no comparison. Technologists who use the iPhone understand some of the limitations are in place because Apple chose not to compromise the user experience to put in features few people want and even less actually need.

      A true technologist knows he can right any application he wants and put it on his iPhone or his 100 closest friends without any intervention from Apple at all.

      A true technologist knows that an Android phone limits you to an underpowered Java VM for app development.

      I have sunk to arguing with ACs, time for bed.

    24. Re:Lack of credibility by Wovel · · Score: 1

      I have owned and written applications for some version of nearly every smartphone that has come before the iPhone.

      I have converted friends who were massively disappointed with Storms and Android phones to the iPhone. The real problem with every over smartphone still today is that the interface sucks for everyone. It does not matter if you are tech savvy are not, sucks is sucks.

      Since switching companies I have been forced to carry a BlackBerry because our IT department does not want to enable exchange ActiveSync. The experience of email on a blackberry is so far inferior to email on an iphone it is laughable for you to actually attempt to claim it is better.

  7. Mind Of God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hires Devils Advocate.
    Hell just froze over.

  8. Surprising? by jaxtherat · · Score: 1, Troll

    Of course he's going to blast the iPhone. Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevant in the future in the same way that Microsoft did in the cloud (for lack of a better term).

    --
    http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    1. Re:Surprising? by VirexEye · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically RIM still holds the biggest smart phone market share with the iPhone in 2nd place.

    2. Re:Surprising? by eparker05 · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with the implication you are making here, but I'd like to point out the irony that Google needs to win a fight for a software platform in order to prevent themselves from becoming irrelevant in the cloud.

      Perhaps this supports the idea that the future is going to be made on software+service. This also turns all the old antitrust rules on their head. Businesses based on software+service can't be decoupled in the same way as windows + IE.

    3. Re:Surprising? by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure you mean Nokia, not RIM.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course he's going to blast the iPhone. Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevant

      Haha. The market leader in advanced phones remains the blackberry, which has had an open SDK and documentation freely available for years. You don't need RIM's blessing (or even RIM's knowledge) to sell your blackberry apps.

      Google is trying to dethrone the market leader in coolness.

    5. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm pretty sure you mean Nokia, not RIM.

      No, he said smartphones. A smartphone is defined as being a device with few enough sales that the iphone looks like a serious competitor in comparison. Nokia do not make smartphones.

    6. Re:Surprising? by data2 · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Surprising? by daveime · · Score: 3, Informative

      So the Nokia N95 and E90 weren't smartphones ? Funny, because I could do stuff with those phones 5 years ago that I *still* can't do with an iPhone.

    8. Re:Surprising? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Yes and you can do too many things to list on an iphon eyou can't do on those, so what.

    9. Re:Surprising? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      With several phones out that provide a better and equally secure email experience through ActiveSync withoout the need for the Blackberry server, corporations are starting to open up their email environments and you should expect to see RIM fade away. They had a niche, their phones are crap.

    10. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like copy and paste text?

    11. Re:Surprising? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Yes and you can do too many things to list on an iphon eyou can't do on those, so what.

      Like what? Seriously, name one thing you can do on an iphone that you can't do on an E90 or N95.

      The secret sauce of the iphone isn't its huge feature set. Its how _well_ it implements the features it does have. Nokia's approach is different. They cram so many features in their smartphones that they are very powerful tools, but full of rough edges. The iphone has reduced the number of features available to the user, so there is a much reduced surface required for apple to apply their polish.

    12. Re:Surprising? by Tarmas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like multitask?

      --
      Signature has left the building.
    13. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh

    14. Re:Surprising? by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Yes and you can do too many things to list on an iphon eyou can't do on those, so what.

      Name 3 (paying 3 times as much money for a service doesn't count as one).

    15. Re:Surprising? by daveime · · Score: 1

      Paying 3 times as much probably counts as all 3 ... Apple users aren't terribly savvy when it comes to the (excessive) cost of things.

    16. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N900?

    17. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I read this ready to say you're wrong, I realized you are actually right.

      My n900 is definitely not a crippled smartphone a la apple, its just a really small linux netbook with a 3G modem and SIM slot.

    18. Re:Surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With several phones out that provide a better and equally secure email experience through ActiveSync withoout the need for the Blackberry server,

      Secure? You gotta be kidding.

      The Blackberry platform has been audited & certified by the governments of Canada, United Kingdom, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, United States and Turkey.

      Also certified by NATO, FIPS 140-2, Common Criteria EAL 2+ and the Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology in Germany.

      Iphone & other ActiveSync devices have been certified by: NOBODY.

      corporations are starting to open up their email environments and you should expect to see RIM fade away. They had a niche, their phones are crap.

      Blackberries certainly do have their quirks, but no other mobile platform offers what RIM does.

      Now, not everyone needs real email security, but some of us do. Blackberries also support PGP and S/MIME for additional email paranoia.

    19. Re:Surprising? by lee1 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    20. Re:Surprising? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Seriously Ok.. Lets see:

      Play Madden 2010
      Can use it as a level
      Put it in your pocket
      Learn to play the guitar
      Brushes ....I could go on for 1000 lines minimum. What a silly question. These are all real things that real people enjoy doing on or with their mobile devices.

  9. The bird still sings in its gilded cage by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.

    1. Re:The bird still sings in its gilded cage by schon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.

      Yes, because if Apple allowed pictures of women in bikinis, uncensored dictionaries or mentioning the name of a competitor on the iPhone, the "solid single platform" would fragment into a dozen incompatible versions, right?

    2. Re:The bird still sings in its gilded cage by peragrin · · Score: 1

      well since I have used three different android models each with variations in UI, and abilities you can never know what your going to get with a android. Some sucked, others were okay, None of them made me happy to use my phone. None of them used the same way to work with apps.

      There needs to be one version of andriod with a consistent hard specs or it will end up like windows mobile. used by feature geeks, and hated by everyone else.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:The bird still sings in its gilded cage by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0

      If you're that bad of a programmer that your app can't test the environment at startup and adapt accordingly, you don't belong near code.

    4. Re:The bird still sings in its gilded cage by schon · · Score: 1

      There needs to be one version of andriod with a consistent hard specs

      And you believe that without censorship, "one version" of android is impossible?

      What colour is the sky in your world?

    5. Re:The bird still sings in its gilded cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because if Apple allowed those things they'll sell so many more units.

  10. Wait, what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    XML was "founded"? What is it, a city? An institution?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Wait, what? by value_added · · Score: 1

      XML was "founded"? What is it, a city? An institution?

      A proposition.

      +1 Funny mod points for completing the following:

      XML was founded as a proposition dedicated to the idea that ...

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "XML was founded as a proposition dedicated to the idea that ..." the only thing holding back s-expressions was the lack of angular punctuation and an extra, degenerate syntax for association lists which support every god-awful thing except general s-expression nesting?

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      XML was founded as a proposition dedicated to the idea that 100 bytes of data needed 1000 lines of bullshit code just to be moved from one place to another.

      Example: The googly eye feature in Camfrog - check out the XML file for that hunk of shit!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  11. wrong. by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.

    i create the apps... i fear nothing.

    the employees of google are presumptuous AND wrong.

    1. Re:wrong. by PBoyUK · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're clearly lying. You must fear something. My bet would be your Shift key.

      Oh but then, hmm. You did capitalise 'AND', so you are capable of it. Perhaps the fear is of a more general kind - fear of looking intelligent maybe? I'd say it was a stretch, but then, you are an apple fanboy who programs for the iPhone and doesn't seem at all concerned with the fact that Apple can at any time with no real explanation remove your products from their store. So yeah, that's not too intelligent either. Corraborates my theory.

    2. Re:wrong. by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      i don't fear people that criticize the way i communicate... especially ones that would use sentences such as "Oh but then, hmm."

      in the 80s i sold programs for IBM machines written in quickbasic... why? hmm. because everyone had one, and it worked sufficiently. i also sold programs for apple ][ c+ machines written in apple basic. in high school i sold programs to other students for their TI graphing calculators written in z80 assembly. why? hmm. because everyone had one, and it worked sufficiently. i have programmed in every modern language for every modern platform that have made any significant blimp on any usage radar. why? hmm. can you guess? Oh but then, hmmmmmmmmmmm i must just be a "apply fanboy" (is that a word? shouldn't you capitalize proper nouns?)

      i have written native android apps that have far less users than their iphone equivalent. i don't care if apple chooses to remove my apps... i CERTAINLY don't fear it.

      you are clearly an idiot, and that does not require corroboration. (that is how you spell the word, genious)

  12. A critic, but not direct opponent of swpats by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tim's critical of software patents, but his position is that there's just an implimentation problem - with good tweaking it could work. Kinda disappointing that he's not pushing for abolition. Surprising too given his experience in web dev and XML. Related info:

    swpat.org is a publicly-editable wiki - help in expanding this info would be very welcome and useful.

    1. Re:A critic, but not direct opponent of swpats by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There is a strong argument for patents: that if a person works hard to invent something, they should be rewarded for having done something great.

      The biggest problem with software patents is that people can patent things that are extremely obvious, and very much not something great. If people only got patents for doing something great, not very many people would have a problem with them. (there might be a few other problems to fix too, like elimination of submarine patents).

      Most of us don't benefit directly from patents, so we don't have any reason to support them, but there are some reasons for their existence (though personally I would prefer to get rid of software patents completely compared to what we have now).

      --
      Qxe4
  13. Disney-fied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody, with me now..

    It's a small world after all
    It's a small world after all
    it's a small small world..

    1. Re:Disney-fied? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Why do trolls post anonymously? I mean, if their goal is to create negative karma, shouldn't they want that recorded somewhere?

      --
      Property is theft.
    2. Re:Disney-fied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      struck a nerve, eh?

  14. XML sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Googling XML sucks

      Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for xml sucks. (0.22 seconds)

    1. Re:XML sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adding quotes brings the number down to about 23k.

      I agree that XML sucks, but if we are out there to discuss the truth, we should do so.

    2. Re:XML sucks by ThePengwin · · Score: 1

      Googling iPhone sucks...

      Results 1 - 10 of about 11,100,000 for iPhone sucks. (0.33 seconds)

      Somehow, i dont think that is a good way to measure how much something sucks.

    3. Re:XML sucks by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Googling iPhone sucks...

      Your google-fu is weak old man.

      you need to use quotations marks.

      "xml sucks" produce 21,300 results

      "iphone sucks" produces 30,900 results.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:XML sucks by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      "xml sucks" produce 21,300 results

      "iphone sucks" produces 30,900 results.

      And considering that these numbers are close, and that the overwhelming majority of lay people have no idea whatsoever what XML is, but these same lay people would have to be living in a cave not to know what the iPhone is, we must conclude that XML triumphs over the iPhone in suckitute.

    5. Re:XML sucks by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And considering that these numbers are close, and that the overwhelming majority of lay people have no idea whatsoever what XML is, but these same lay people would have to be living in a cave not to know what the iPhone is, we must conclude that XML triumphs over the iPhone in suckitute.

      And considering that these numbers are fairly far apart (over 30% more results for the Iphone) and the number of people who use the Iphone compared to XML (at best 30 million users vs over a billion internet connected people) the Iphone is several orders of magnitude greater in suckitude.

      Proven by Science(TM).

      Now onto other news, in what Scientists are describing as "pretty gay", any data can be sufficiently manipulated to show whatever the author wants with the simple addition of unsubstantiated or obscure assumptions.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  15. I love this quote by laffer1 · · Score: 1

    "The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger." -- There's an app for that.

    I guess I'll start caring about google's phones when they decide to target men AND women. Their ads are clearly for men and it's not like I can convince my wife to get one. It's just too convenient having the same phone.

    1. Re:I love this quote by PBoyUK · · Score: 1

      To be fair, they target gay men, so it's not that far removed from targetting women as you implied.

  16. He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.

    As an owner of many Apple computers from the Apple ][ all the way to today, it's thoroughly depressing to have watched this happen. But I guess Apple's always been schizophrenic about opennness. One one hand you have Woz distributing schematics, the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard, embracing of open-sourced software & development tools, lack of copy protection on their OS, replacing drm music with watermarking, etc. But then you've got them suing Franklin & Pystar, suing HTC, their absurdly paternalistic App market, a closed-down iPad, etc. I guess there's always been a bit of hypocrisy and self-contradiction with Apple.

    But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary. Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer. And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?

    I guess Apple II isn't forever.

    1. Re:He's right. by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      With the XBOX 360, Microsoft has become the Big Brother railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.

      With the Wii and DS, Nintendo has become the Big Brother railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.

      With the PSP and PS3, Sony has become the Big Brother railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.

      Wait, which device were you talking about again? Oh, right. Apple. It's different when they do it, huh?

    2. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, which device were you talking about again? Oh, right. Apple. It's different when they do it, huh?

      Huh? I don't remember Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony running the 1984 ad. Apple did. And for what it's worth, the original ad was directed by Apple towards IBM, not any of the companies you mentioned.

    3. Re:He's right. by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 1

      What the GP mentioned in his, quote, and what you skipped, is the word "it". I feel in a similar manner to the GP, and it's not because they have started using lock-in, but because they (seemingly) used to be against lock-in and have reversed their stance on it.

    4. Re:He's right. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary.

      Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date? Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?

      The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web. Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.

      You can write any web application you want, and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it. HTML5 has great support in Safari.

      You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform, using one of the best development environments in Xcode.

      You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment. The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store. Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace. Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues, quality control issues, etc. Some of it has to do with branding, things they don't want to be associated with. Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience. And yes, some of it has to do with business.

      What I would like to see Apple do, and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store. Google Android will push them to do this, if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.

      Invariably, Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually, before they erode mindshare.

      Consider the history of iPhone:

      - Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.

      - Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.

      - Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.

      Well, Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0. I'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning, I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier "smartphones," i.e. overly complex process management, and battery use issues. As hardware evolves, battery life is less of a problem, and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.

      If they did address multi-tasking and application installation, what would all of you guys bitch about? Oh, right. AT&T.

      Disclaimer: I own stock in Apple and Google.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    5. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.

      As opposed to the Big Brother wannabee that they were?

      They always get the wrong book. Big Brother is too late. To understand Apple (and Google, and...) soon enough to do some good, don't read 1984, read Animal Farm.

    6. Re:He's right. by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      The ad was more about IBM being a monopoly than about controlling software environments.

      As evidenced by the game industry, there is plenty of room for multiple "walled-garden" systems in the market. And there are many advantages to the walled-garden approach, especially for custom hardware platforms. If you're going to complain about Apple, better start complaining about the other companies doing the exact same thing.

    7. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here. Sorry I have to respond to this...

      Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date?

      You mean the *only* browser to date for the iPhone? And why is it the best? Because Apple says so and won't give you any alternatives? Unlike the webkit-based browser on Android, which can be replaced by downloading any other browser you feel like?

      Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?

      You think this is to embrace open standards or to reject Adobe's (non-Apple) standards?

      You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment.

      You neglect to mention that if you want other phones to use it, you need to go through Apple's approval process, after forking out a fee and agreeing to a NDA.

      The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store.

      The only question is not whether or not you are able to distribute it in the App Store but whether you can distribute it at all. The app store is the only way to do it, the only game in town on that platform. It's none of Apple's business (literally, as I am voting with my $ and my voice) what I run on my phone.

      - Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.

      After hackers made it possible.

      - Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.

      Long after Android had it.

      - Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.

      Open marketplace and multitasking are but a few. Open development of the OS is a major major advantage. So are multi-platform development tools, a better interface, etc etc.

      The iPad is a slap in the face to what Apple is supposed to stand for. This isn't the kind of Different Thinking we need. I get why they chose the iPhone OS-- iphone apps are already touchpad-friendly. But they need to do a reversal of their policies on their extreme full control of the machine. When they do that, I'll stop complaining.

    8. Re:He's right. by steveha · · Score: 1

      To the extent that Steve Jobs can get his way, Apple will sell locked-down products that they can control. Steve Wozniak was in favor of openness, Steve Jobs not so much.

      The Apple II series was open, with card slots, and anyone could make cards for it. Steve Jobs was in charge of first the Lisa and then the Mac; these were released with no card slots at all. I don't have a citation, but I have heard that Steve Jobs fiercely resisted putting a hard disk into the Mac initially, because they were able to sell the Mac initially without a cooling fan, but adding a hard disk would require also adding a fan, and fan noise offended his sense of aesthetics.

      When Apple killed off the Newton, some Newton fans got together and made a serious bid to buy out the Newton technology so they could keep the platform going. Steve Jobs preferred to kill Newton rather than let someone else have control of it.

      There are other examples, but enough. Basically, Steve Jobs wants to control your whole experience. Because Steve Jobs has, overall, very good taste in user experience issues, this does have its good points. Man, the iPhone is really slick!

      But I won't buy in to the Apple "walled gardens" of the iPod and the iPad. If I spend my own money on a smart phone, I will get an Android phone; and I'm eagerly waiting for the $300 Taiwanese tablet computers that will actually let me install Ubuntu, plug in USB devices, and slot in memory cards.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    9. Re:He's right. by Nicky+G · · Score: 1

      The only problem with this observation is that in 2010, Google _REALLY IS_ Big Brother.

    10. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard

      Just to be a little nitpicky, the signatures on the 128K Mac are on the inside of the plastic case, not the motherboard.

    11. Re:He's right. by jamie(really) · · Score: 1

      The iPad is a slap in the face to what Apple is supposed to stand for.

      Apple is a business. It is legally required to stand for its shareholders. I'm not sure where you get this "supposed to" bit. It may be what Woz used to stand for. I doubt its ever what Steve stood for. You seem quite upset or disappointed by this.

      When they do that, I'll stop complaining.

      Do you find this form of communication to be effective? I think you might feel better if you just let go. The openness that you describe as the Apple ][ is alive and well. Its called Linux. Be happy.

    12. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer [in the 1984 commercial]. And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?

      You're kidding? Where's the source to gmail, or their ranking algorithms, or anything google other that trivial things like say protocol buffers or jokes like Google Go? Google doesn't even contribute back their changes to the linux kernel. In fact about the only open source thing to do with google is the interface, Chrome, to their closed world. And the vast majority of the work involved in that is webkit, so was other people's work.

      Google doesn't mind giving you convenient access to your data... as long as they still control it. Fans of google aren't swinging the hammer... they're the people sitting in the crowd who technically could get up and go to the bathroom or leave, but are too glamored to blink.

    13. Re:He's right. by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      You may be right, but your examples are disjointed.

      The Lisa and the Mac limited expansion, not as an attempt to control the marketplace or the consumer, but to limit the options of infinite expansion, which to Jobs' views affected the experience of the consumer. Also due to his personal aesthetic sensibilities, as you pointed out.

      Jobs killed the Newton for no other reason than because it was Sculley's and Jean Louis Gasset's baby project (the fact that it had already burned through over a billion dollars in R&D and marketing did not help the product either). It was a personal vendetta against the project's leaders since they were instrumental in Steve Jobs' dismissal from Apple, a pain that apparently still burned in his soul.

      Yes, all this points to a tyrannical control over the products by a single maniacal person, but hardly a conspiracy against the consumer or to exploit him.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    14. Re:He's right. by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, neither Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo have ever run ads claiming that they were the small upstart fighting the monopoly and raging against the machine. Apple, on the other hand, ran an ad exactly like that. So yes, it is different when Apple does it.

    15. Re:He's right. by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      You said yourself that Apple's commercial was about "small upstart" vs "monopoly". What does that have to do with Apple controlling software on their phone? Are you suggesting Apple has a monopoly on the cell phone industry?

      Conflating monopoly-control with software-control is quite a stretch. Software-control on custom hardware happens all the time, as with the game industry examples. Monopoly-control has happened two primary times - IBM and Microsoft.

      The latter is what Apple's commercial was about, not the former.

    16. Re:He's right. by steveha · · Score: 1

      I don't think we disagree. The original poster commented that Apple is schizophrenic, with the Apple II series coming with schematics and program listings and such, but other Apple products locked down hard. My thesis was simply that Steve Jobs likes to lock things down hard, and the more he is in control, the more Apple does this (and thus the less schizophrenic Apple gets).

      For the Lisa and the Mac I think one can make the case that Steve Jobs was simply trying to make the "best" possible product, with his own vision of what "best" means.

      For the iPhone and iPad I am no longer willing to cut him that slack; Apple is ruling those platforms with an iron fist. Giving users the best possible experience might be one reason why they are doing this, but stifling competition Apple does not want cannot be a coincidence.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    17. Re:He's right. by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      I do think we disagree.

      I understand that may you think things have changed at Apple, but your previous post used older examples as supporting evidence, which I posited were unrelated or irrelevant.

      So, in spite of that you still feel that Apple is out to squash competition out of sheer caprice; I don't. I think Steve Jobs has matured not only in his personal behaviour (to some degree), but on his business senses as well, and is doing everything in his power to avoid or prevent the same issues he encountered during his first tenure at Apple, due in part to his naivety and hubris at the time: mainly that the market will choose his products by mere virtue of them being better than the competition, and that there's nothing any competitor can do to touch them, because they are that good.

      As far as I can tell, Apple still focuses heavily on the user experience. I would imagine that the popularity of some of its products would be evidence of this. Then you have the added dimension of Jobs trying to keep Apple's control over its properties. I don't see any anti-competitive behaviour: The market is full of portable music players and smart-phones, and many online stores and attractions have come and gone in the past. Even Google has their own phone and store now; I don't see Apple trying to close those down.

      Do you forget that mere two years ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth, Apple was laughed at by the rest of the industry because they were going to attempt to enter the smart-phone market, which was wholly owned by the Big Players? And now these same critics claim Apple is a bully attempting to squash everybody else... interesting.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    18. Re:He's right. by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Most technologies do not sell off failed products to third parties. There is still IP there can be used for future products. Like people, companies learn from their mistakes.

      They made a serious bid for what they valued a failed product, they have no idea what Apple was able to do with what was learned in the development of it.

    19. Re:He's right. by steveha · · Score: 1

      I do think we disagree.

      So be it.

      I understand that may you think things have changed at Apple, but your previous post used older examples as supporting evidence, which I posited were unrelated or irrelevant.

      The major change, I submit, is that now Steve Jobs gets his way more often. My "older" examples were intended to demonstrate that Steve Jobs was never a fan of openness, even back in the old old days.

      [Steve Jobs] is doing everything in his power to avoid or prevent the same issues he encountered during his first tenure at Apple

      Perhaps this is true, but this is not by itself adequate explanation of why Apple rules the iPhone and the iPad with an iron fist.

      There are other smart phones out there, and they let you install whatever software you want. I've heard various wild claims that Apple needs to approve each and every app because they want to make sure the FCC doesn't get annoyed, but no other smart phone seems to have a problem with being open.

      I don't see any anti-competitive behaviour:

      Irrelevant.

      The market is full of portable music players and smart-phones, and many online stores and attractions have come and gone in the past.
      Even Google has their own phone and store now; I don't see Apple trying to close those down.

      Irrelevant.

      Do you forget that mere two years ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth, Apple was laughed at by the rest of the industry because they were going to attempt to enter the smart-phone market, which was wholly owned by the Big Players? And now these same critics claim Apple is a bully attempting to squash everybody else... interesting.

      Irrelevant.

      My thesis has been that Steve Jobs likes to lock down the products produced under his watch. Now the iPhone and iPad are so locked down that one cannot even install software on them without permission from Apple. You can bring up other issues all you may like, but I'm not really interested in a long discussion about them.

      You and I won't solve anything by debating here anyway. You seem to be an Apple fan; okay, then, I hope you enjoy your Apple products. I will never spend my own money on an iPhone or iPad, but you may buy whatever you choose, and it's not my business to try to tell you otherwise.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  17. XML... by onefriedrice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language. Yeah, I can't wait to not care any less what his opinion of a phone is.

    He's right, though...

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    1. Re:XML... by nebaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using it enough.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    2. Re:XML... by ekhben · · Score: 4, Funny

      <?xml version="1.0"?>
      <reply xmlns="http://slashdot.org/xmlns/reply">
          <content xml:lang="enUS">True.</content>
          <content xml:lang="frFR">Vrai.</content>
          <content xml:lang="it">Vero.</content>
          <content xml:lang="hr">Istinto.</content>
      </reply>

    3. Re:XML... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hint - Tim designed it as a markup language, you know - that's why it's right there in the name. For that sort of thing, it's pretty good (and keep in mind that "sorta looks like SGML" was a requirement, just as Java had to look "sorta like C++", to get existing developers to learn it).

      The fact that it has since been used not for markup, but as a general-purpose tree and even graph description language (configs, SOAP packets, etc) isn't his fault.

    4. Re:XML... by Animats · · Score: 1

      Oh, so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language.

      XML is just a simplified subset of SGML. XML-type stuff had been done in SGML for years, but mostly in government applications. (SEC filings used SGML, for example.) For XML, the heavy thinking had all been done. It just needed a promoter for the subset. It's not like HTML, where the presentation was an issue and browsers had to be developed.

    5. Re:XML... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      True. Why do you _think_ WinFS failed, and why do you _think_ Microsoft's super-patented OOXML technologies are unusable by anyone who actually understands markup languages?

    6. Re:XML... by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      Hmm...

      XML is human readable yet can readily processed by programs using well developed libraries in a number of compter languages su ch as Java - so you can use any decent text editor to change it, though an IDE like eclipse can be ageat help. To be fair, being processed by software, was a more important goal than being suitable to write English essays - but it was never intened to be seen by end users.

      XML files are esily compressed to be much smaller, so it verbosity is irrelevant.

      If you look at te design goals of XML, you might be able to reailize that although XML is nor perfect, it does avery good job - so much so, it is widely used for many puposes.

      XML is used extensively for configuration files for enterprise Java systems, and to control the maven build process. But there are many other areas of application.

      XML is not designed to be used to dictate how the content should be disoplayed to the end user like HTML.

    7. Re:XML... by cbreak · · Score: 1

      He didn't even design it, he just co-founded it.

    8. Re:XML... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      That, is sig material.

    9. Re:XML... by glassware · · Score: 1

      I guess the real question is, was he the idiot that came up with the "' in it? Oh, too bad, my entire system fails on those three characters. I just assumed nobody would ever want to use those three characters together."

      Anyone who's designed encoding systems would know that, by the mere fact of selecting a token, you make that token text that people will need to embed. :) A proper language would take into account the fact that you will someday have to nest that ending token inside another element. HTML encoding, for example, works. CDATA doesn't. In fact, there's no reason why CDATA should ever have existed - you could simply have specified that complex characters would be represented by html encoding, which can nest infinitely deeply. But instead, now we have to program special rules for CDATA conditions that are unreliable at best and wrong at worst.

    10. Re:XML... by Sheepy · · Score: 1

      Not completely unusable -- I've recently written a program that transforms OOXML WordprocessingML to XHTML and WordprocessingML is 'usable' for this purpose. I'm not saying it's nice to work with, just that it can be used for some purposes.

    11. Re:XML... by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      It's also posted on every discussion tangentially related to XML. And is no longer funny.

    12. Re:XML... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't recall seeing that before.

  18. Exactly! by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist! How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!

    1. Re:Exactly! by robski88 · · Score: 1

      A bit of an unusual tangent- however I believe that Richard Dawkins was brought up as an Anglican throughout childhood which means he would have at least a basic understanding of religion. I think anyone can debate religion- but usually the more intelligent the person comes across there views tend to have more gravitas.

      --
      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
    2. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you were being sarcastic. If not, I regret to inform you that you're an idiot.

    3. Re:Exactly! by tokul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!

      1. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
      2. Become a god and you won't need any other gods

    4. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He knows about religion because atheism is a religion. A no-god religion. But it meets all the requirements of being a fundamentalist cult. and i am knox@knoxbronson.com ... too tired to create an account at the moment. am an apple fanboy, been lurking for years here. :)

    5. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy

      You make a more cogent point than I thought possible from a sentence starting like that.

    6. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what? This is fucking illogical. Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean you don't understand what religion is. How did you even come to this fucking retarded theory?

  19. Thanks, kdawson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have provided us with yet another article worthy of slashdot's finest flamewarriors.

    Instead of RTFA or reading the comments, I think I'll go pet some kittens.

  20. Opinion of Google is Changing... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With this, my opinion of Google is now changing. I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between "making money" and "doing the 'right' thing." This, however, is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light. Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.

    In case Google has forgotten, Apple has a lot of fans. Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google, and Google might not like the choice people make. After all, switching away from Apple means buying all new hardware and software. Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".

    I know which choice I'm going to be inclined to make in the future...

    1. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My opinion changed when they stopped releasing text-only copies of public domain works through Google Books.

      I am rather concerned about Google and Apple, and primarily support alternatives.

      I won't buy Apple products though and only grudgingly do business with Google these days.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by General+Wesc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google

      No, it really doesn't. I can still use products from both companies.

      Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".

      I also use Google Reader, Google Docs, Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Webmaster tools, Adsense, GMail, iGoogle, Blogger, and YouTube. I have a Picasa account, but don't really use it. I occasionally use Google Code Search.

      And then there's the more relevant Google Android. I don't have it, but if I did, there's hardware right there.

      (Oh, this post is written in Chromium--and at work I use Google Chrome.)

    3. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      Umm, Apple has been forcing people to decide for a really long time. I take it you didn't notice that the ITMS for a really long time didn't support any MP3 player that wasn't a variation of iPod. They didn't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.

      But I'm sure that's so much better than actively locking people out of your store while signing things up as exclusive.

    4. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

      ITMS?

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    5. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by tabdelgawad · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're missing context. See here:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html

      Apparently, Apple considered Google's Android a stab in the back. So now Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) is off Apple's board of directors and Apple is suing HTC for patent infringement (Google is not named, but is the indirect target).

      I'm surprised this whole fight hasn't gotten more coverage on Slashdot. In any case, I'm squarely in Google's corner on this issue. We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    6. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.

      The sad thing is that this site has already seen that happen with Linux zealotry. I can't believe I'm watching this little bit of history repeat itself again. Who is going to take Android or any other OS seriously when people that like it actively call iPhone users 'iSheep' or say that the only reason they like their phone is because Steve Jobs tells them to?

      I think this site would rather have flame wars than actually guide people towards Open Source.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The choice to not spin a personal blog post of a new employee into the damnable actions of a company?

      The choice to actually RTFA?

      Whoops, forgot this was Slashdot for a moment.

    8. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Lets keeps the scientists out of porn

      The porno-hypothesis, the porno-experiment, the porno-statistics, and the foregone conclusion.

    9. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      iTunes music/media store

    10. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTMS = iTunes Music Store

    11. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, chris.travers@GMAIL.COM, your Google boycott rings a tad hollow.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    12. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With this, my opinion of Google is now changing. I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between "making money" and "doing the 'right' thing." This, however, is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light. Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.

      Do you consider Apple's acts as ugly or have you forgotten the Apple MS bashing ads? Or wait... I forgot its okay to bash MS but not Apple.

      I know which choice I'm going to be inclined to make in the future...

      Linux?

    13. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?

      What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.

      Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.

      Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?

      Wow.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    14. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by uss_valiant · · Score: 2, Informative

      My opinion changed when they stopped releasing text-only copies of public domain works through Google Books.

      Care to substantiate that claim?

      As far as I see, Public Domain books can be downloaded in the PDF and EPUB format, for free. And there's a plain text version.

      Example: "The origin of species" By Charles Darwin

      PS: Reposting this since I don't have mod points and the anonymous user's post is currently at 0.

    15. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With this, my opinion of Google is now changing

      Then, as Gregory House, M.D. would no doubt say, "You're an idiot."

      This is one employee of Google making comments about a product and a company that he doesn't particularly like. You're taking it way too seriously (which simply marks you as a likely candidate for iPhone ownership. If you don't have one already, you will sooner or later. I wish you luck.)

      Outright insulting Apple in this way

      Apple Computer can't be insulted: it's not a person. It's a corporation, and frankly it's deserving of such a critique. If you mean that the man is insulting iPhone customers ... well, he's criticizing their choices, and offering legitimate reasons as to why they made a bad one. Given that the bulk of iPhone customers made that choice because they didn't bother to look past Apple's marketing hype, I'd say he's performing a public service.

      forces people to decide, Apple or Google

      What? Why would it? All of Google's services are, for the most part, readily available to iPhone owners. Google wants it that way. Furthermore, as the happy owner of an Android phone there's nothing that Apple has to offer in terms of online services that would interest me. So how is Google being evil here, again?

      Fact is, Apple owners in particular behave like zombies (or maybe lemmings, certainly pack animals of some kind or other) when defending their toy, and rather than take the man's statements at face value and acknowledge that it happens to be true, will simply hide behind the usual wall of arrogant ignorance (arrignorance?) exhibited by many Apple users.. What this might (hopefully) do is make people that were considering Apple think twice. There are alternatives to Apple's iPhone, even if Apple won't publicly admit that, and it's high time that the facts about Apple's high-handed behavior are given a wider public.

    16. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      ITMS?

      I'm assuming he means "iTunes Music Store".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    17. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to pay Google for that email address; no more than I pay Microsoft for mine.

    18. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      lol you have a hotmail account

    19. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you're contributing to Google's bottom-line by using Gmail. The storage for them is so cheap as to be zero cost, but the more users they have, the better deals they can get when dealing with advertisers.

    20. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets.

      I'd argue to the contrary on that point. The future of the smartphone market does not depend on Android's success, but it will be influenced by it one way or the other. Android isn't anything special, it's the natural response to Apple's model from the rest of the market. It's like Linux was to Windows, except this time it has a corporate driver that acts like it knows what it's doing. The big dog(s) carve their own way, but the little dogs band together with standards. Happened with IBM PC's vs. Atari/Commodore/etc., MS vs Windows, and now it's happening with Nokia/RIM/Apple vs Android (and WebOS to some extent, but that's not a very big player). To say that competition hinges on the success/failure of Android is false, however. Where Android might fail, somebody will pick up in its stead and not screw up..OR the consumer will decide that openness and competition don't stack up to the walled garden approach that Apple/RIM/Nokia provide (with a good price point, mind you). Competition is necessary, but not required. I say this in the abstract sense. The idea of competition being able to come up and destroy your business is what keeps companies at the forefront of innovation and good pricing...whether or not this environment really exists remains to be discussed.

    21. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      They didn't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.

      They may have gotten rid of DRM in an advanced stage, but that might have been because the competition was emerging with DRM free files, and Apple was moving to keep step. As a matter of fact, I think that's more the case. There are a few stories that Jobs was against DRM from the get go, but had to go with it per the record industry. I mean you can accuse him of lying, but this is what the man says.

      On another point, you say Apple has achieved a "strong monopoly" in the music player space. I don't find this to be true. Yes, they have the lion's share of the market, but that doesn't imply that they have a monopoly or full control of the market. There are competing players, they exist, and they sell. Apple does not have the market horizontally integrated, and it doesn't control the player market. The consumer can definitely still choose alternatives. It just means that they have a majority market share because the consumer considers their product(s)/ecosystem to be that good. Apple was there at the beginning and struck at a pivotal time. They created an integrated music store and player system that competition can barely ape (at best, even today!). Heck, not even Sony has put out an end-to-end system that competes with Apples in the reasonable sense, and they could have vertical integration! (I love using these robber baron terms).

      Lastly, I ask you, what would the impetus be for Apple to unlock iTunes to make the music simply compatible with other players? Especially given the fact that consumers can get unlocked music from other places already? It wasn't in Apple's best interest, their consumers could already use the product anyway and people who didn't opt in, hadn't yet opted in anyway.

    22. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Switching to BING just because Apple and Google have decided to fight over the iphone/android? Stop letting companies decide your preferences for you. Just because APPLE doesn't like Google doesn't mean YOU have to hate google.

      Yikes, the mindless drones these days...

    23. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      He said he was grudgingly doing business, I am sure every time he checks his gmail account he is grinding his teeth.

    24. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you steal music?

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    25. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'm sure most gmail users use adblock and have adsense blocked to hell and back. I certainly do!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we already have maemo, which is ready for the prime time and truly open (heck, it's debian). we don't need any more fragmentation, especially in terms of programming languages. (android's java vs iphone's objc vs nokia's qt/c++)

    27. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act as if Apple brought about the removal of DRM everywhere. I could buy DRM-free music from Amazon before iTunes dumped it...

    28. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Kidnap an orchestra?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    29. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you block the ads isn't relevant to the point I made.

      Please re-read it.

    30. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by ndavis · · Score: 1

      Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?

      What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.

      Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.

      Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?

      Wow.

      I think the reason Apple wanted to remove DRM is for two reasons.

      First Amazon.com was selling non DRM MP3 files. Who is going to purchase from Apple if they can get the same song without DRM from Amazon.com?

      Second if the Apple store grew too large they could be considered a monopoly due to the hardware lockin which would have come with a new set of problems.

    31. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by cabjf · · Score: 1

      So there is no room for ethical behavior in this brave new open world? It's alright to sit on the board of a future competitor, gather secrets and plans, then launch a competing product (or products with Chrome, the upcoming Chrome OS, Android, etc)? I'm all for competition in the marketplace, but spying on the competition isn't exactly a method I would condone. If Schmidt was planning on competing with Apple, he should have left Apple's board much earlier than he did. Oh well, information wants to be free, right?

    32. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      But it was not so much a stab in the back. It was more a frontal attack. Apple knew that google were working on Android when they launched their first iPhone.

    33. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      Looks like it has been added again, I think. Last time I looked at this it didn't have a plain text option which was really, really annoying.

      As for my gmail account, I had moved there before this happened and it's a hassle to move.

      I am glad that this has been made available. As I say, last time, it had not been and that was really, really annoying.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    34. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you don't want fragmentation, then the logical choice would be to back the more popular open platform, not the less popular one. At this point, that would be Android, not Maemo.

      It also doesn't help that Maemo is going through a breaking evolution phase (Gtk -> Qt transition) right now, which will cause even more fragmentation.

    35. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If Schmidt was planning on competing with Apple, he should have left Apple's board much earlier than he did.

      Uh, they're both big companies in the same industry. Why on earth would anybody elect the CEO of a competing company to your board of directors? It isn't like he snuck into the board meetings, or lied about his day job.

      If you want a board of directors that actually looks after shareholder interests, you might start by not hiring somebody who works for (let alone runs) your competition at the same time.

      The idiots here are shareholders that vote "Yes" on every proxy statement, and regulators who allow companies to have near-complete control over their boards.

    36. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see how I contribute anything to gmail when all of my provided information is 100% FALSE.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    37. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Dude, like I said, the fact that you're a gmail customer means Google gets better ad rates. The more gmail users they have, the better their ad rates are. We've already gone over this. That applies whether or not you put in fake info. Please re-read the post *again* as you obviously still don't get it.

    38. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I guess you still don't get it - how many other people have multiple gmail addresses? I know I have AT LEAST TWENTY.

      Those numbers of actual users is HIGHLY inflated. It's not going to benefit Google once word leaks out that for every 5-10 accounts there is one actual user. The biggest explosion happened during the first three years of Beta, and many of those were multiple accounts created with the invites you were given when you used your invite, over and over again.

      It is only to Google's benefit if the ad purchasers don't catch on - that's not going to be the case, I enjoy fucking things up.

      See what I did to EA over Spore for an example of what a bitch I am.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    39. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Amazon rode on Apple's coattails on that one. Apple had a long history of pushing for DRM free music before Amazon was on the scene. They both had the EMI catalog available without DRM within a few weeks of each other, that is all Amazon sold for a long time and they really were not able to expand much beyond that until Apple finally broke it open.

    40. Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac user?

      itunes on windows is horrible. It would be easy to blame windows, but most other media/library progs on the same OS work better.

      Maybe their hardware is superior. But people are FORCED to user itunes.

      Everything Apple does is evil.

  21. Walled garden it may be by actionbastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But at least it's the same version of the walled garden for all purchasers/users:

    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/

    --
    Sig this!
    1. Re:Walled garden it may be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's easier to convince people that everything is version X, make them all look alike, but charge for changing within it. Why didn't I think of that!?

  22. correcting myself: he's turned against them by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative

    While verifying my sources just now, I found that Tim is, since February 2010, against software patents. Glad to hear it.

    I've updated the wiki.

    1. Re:correcting myself: he's turned against them by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Software patents wouldn't be an issue if they had to provide the same level of documentation required for other types of patents. The patent office would laugh you out of the building if you came in and said that you have a new engine that runs on water but that they can't see how it does so since it's proprietary.

    2. Re:correcting myself: he's turned against them by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      The reason why software patents are a problem is that nobody needs that level of documentation in order to practice the art they describe.

      They are either based on simple mathematical algorithms or a one-line description of some obvious hack or another ("use a hash table to do x").

  23. Re:That seems to be Apple's role... by capnkr · · Score: 2

    This post is completely wrong WRT the mouse.

    And I was playing DRM-free mp3 music long before there was an iPod or iTunes.

    Apple might be 'frist' in some things, but not much...

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  24. Re:That seems to be Apple's role... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

    Hey, can I do that too?

  25. Everybody be cool, this is a 'vangellery! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    When they make a movie of this, I hope they get Samuel Jackson to play Tim Bray. Of course they'll have to change a few of the words, and give him a revolver...

    1. Re:Everybody be cool, this is a 'vangellery! by actionbastard · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean, 'Van Geldery'?

      --
      Sig this!
    2. Re:Everybody be cool, this is a 'vangellery! by tbray · · Score: 1

      Tha muthafuckin phone is fulla muthafuckin snakes! Hey, I could get used to that.

  26. Show me the money... by sbeckstead · · Score: 0, Troll

    But how do you make money from the Android side.

    1. Re:Show me the money... by mjwx · · Score: 1, Troll

      But how do you make money from the Android side.

      Umm...

      By making a product people want to buy. If you've failed to grasp this simple concept your not going to have much luck in any market. Android users do not tolerate simple applications for $1, nor do these applications make any money even in Apples walled garden. If you want to make money you have to provide enough functionality for a program to be at least $10.

      The vast majority of Iphone developers aren't making enough money to pay the US$99 a year fee let alone recoup the cost of their time.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  27. What are they doing again? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players

    Can you explain this point a little more? None f it made much sense to me.

    1) You could always use non-DRM music from other stores on the iPod, from launch.
    2) There has never been an Apple "digital wallet" like the points system MS uses on Live (though MS is not using that for Windows Phone 7 Series).
    3) Multiple music stores??? Why is that even a problem...

    The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft had to have utter control of standards, and only begrudgingly worked with anything open. While Apple has worked beside and on top of many open technologies, which has benefited a ton of people (ZeroConf, Webkit, CLANG, etc.).

    I'm sorry but the parallels between Apple and Microsoft are weak at best, because in general Apple's approach strengthens the technology sector for everyone. Would HTML5 video really be pushed as hard as it has been without Apple helping to shove?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What are they doing again? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've always been able to play MP3s on all digital music players. That's a key bullet point in the PPT presentation on how you even get funding to design and a digital music player. I'm not even going to argue about that.
       
      Apple has had absolute control of their standards (Quicktime, proprietary audio formats/encryption, device lockin (itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)... Apple has always been very aggressive about vendor lockin, and only uses "open" standards when it serves their purpose to break into a market, and quickly lose interest once they have a substancial market share (see also: embrace, extend, extinguish).
       
      I'm not trying to say Apple is completely evil, but they act more like Microsoft than most people realize, and only use open technologies enough to ease the paranoia of the technical community, knowing that their acceptance of products/technology is crucial to widespread consumer uptake (see also: Vista Failure).

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:What are they doing again? by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      iTunes ain't done till the Palm won't run!

    3. Re:What are they doing again? by RedK · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Quicktime today is h.264 video with AAC audio (Sorensen is gone). iTMS files are AAC audio and fairplay is gone. Fairplay was easy to remove by yourself and Apple documented how to do so. iTunes works with anything as long as anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes (the fact Palm doesn't understand how is Palm's failure). Some vendors even get sync functionality (many Motorola devices, following the ROKR partnership), not just the iPod as you say. What was your point again ? Oh right, outright lies.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    4. Re:What are they doing again? by trapnest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that CUPS and WebKit are both open standards that apple has used and contributed to for a long time. I don't see them being thrown aside.

    5. Re:What are they doing again? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple has had absolute control of their standards (Quicktime, proprietary audio formats/encryption, device lockin (itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)... Apple has always been very aggressive about vendor lockin, and only uses "open" standards when it serves their purpose to break into a market, and quickly lose interest once they have a substancial market share (see also: embrace, extend, extinguish).

      Quicktime uses 'normal' formats - H264, mp4, etc. Apple don't have any proprietary audio or video formats. You're confusing format with DRM, and there's none of that in their music either.

      Palm decision to use someone else's software to manage their device is a bad move in every sense. They become reliant on the experience provided by someone else, and open themselves up to being locked out. When Apple also provide APIs for accessing the iTunes database (hell, it's just an XML file, any dev worth their salt can write a parser, and there are plenty of open-source XML parsers out there) then Palm's decision looks more like posturing and using their own customers as a weapon.

      Still, many of the /. crowd fell for Palm on this, hook line and sinker. It became an issue of 'freedom' or something, and not just a shabby development decision that was almost certainly going to bite them later.

      As for EEE, can you give an example? I can understand how Microsoft could do that with IE, as they had market dominance. I can't see how Apple can do that in any market but mp3 players, and clearly they've not done so in that market.

    6. Re:What are they doing again? by Kitkoan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quicktime today is h.264 video with AAC audio (Sorensen is gone).

      h.264 is a licensed technology owned by MPEG LA. While it did go free for a few more years for usage, it was set to lose that until about a month ago and is still a licensed technology that can be used to lock.

      iTMS files are AAC audio and fairplay is gone. Fairplay was easy to remove by yourself and Apple documented how to do so.

      Again, AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one. The license is quite a easy one to stream and distribute (free), but to use the actual codec itself requires a company to obtain a license. This is why FOSS FAAC and FAAD software projects are only distributed in source code form only to avoid the patent issues. As for Fairplay, it was Apples way of keeping any songs bought from iTunes to only play on iPods. No other MP3 player was able to read the files helping Apple keep a monopoly, and is still being fought under the Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation Not to mention Fairplay is still being used by Apple. Also couldn't find anything on the Apple.com site on how to remove Fairplay from anything.

      iTunes works with anything as long as anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes (the fact Palm doesn't understand how is Palm's failure). Some vendors even get sync functionality (many Motorola devices, following the ROKR partnership), not just the iPod as you say.

      iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely break that connection to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

      What was your point again ? Oh right, outright lies.

      No, that was your point to make outright lies.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    7. Re:What are they doing again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let me fix that for you...

      iTunes works with nothing as long you don't care about anything working at all. I can't imagine a shittier program.
      By god for the last 10 years it's incapable of picking up on songs moved directly into a folder, only if you manage it through iTunes does it work and even then it's the worst experience ever.

      Please explain how easy it is to remove "fairplay", if i remember correctly the instructions from Apple require you to BURN A CD OF THEM FIRST!!!! BLOW ME.

    8. Re:What are they doing again? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not legally. MP3 remains patented in the USA, and only licensees who pay the fees, or for whom the patent owners are willing to _accept_ fees, have been able to use it. This has actually been a serious problem for "free" operating systems, with whom the patent owners have either refused to cooperate or charged genuinely outrageous fees.

      Fortunately, if you're not in the USA, there are plenty of downloadable players at locations like the "Penguin Liberation Front", which also has DVD decryption utilities, game emulators, and software with strange licenses that don't easily permit their use in Linux distributions.

    9. Re:What are they doing again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple had the chance to hold on to proprietary DRM for all music sales, and openly called for that protection to be dropped. And now it is gone.

    10. Re:What are they doing again? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      h.264 is a licensed technology owned by MPEG LA [...] that can be used to lock.

      ...but not by Apple.

      AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one [...]

      ...again, not by Apple. Allow me to direct you at the point in dispute: "Apple has had absolute control of their standards."

      I have no real interest in the rest of the arguments, please carry on.

    11. Re:What are they doing again? by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely [slashdot.org] break [slashdot.org] that connection [slashdot.org] to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

      No, that's utter rubbish. There's a well-documented method for interacting with iTunes via its database. There are many third-party apps that do so, including the Amazon mp3 downloader which competes directly with the iTunes store. Palm were trying to piggy-back onto iTunes by partially emulating an iPod, which isn't something that Apple support (and why should they, any more than HP will support your Epson scanner with their scanning software), and made a huge fuss about it. Palm should have written their own code for interacting with their media player and interacted with iTunes (and any other software) through the right APIs.

    12. Re:What are they doing again? by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple never wanted Fairplay. It was a requirement to get the music industry to sign on. Jobs made that clear, and after just a few years, he got all DRM dropped from all tunes on the iTMS. This is not RDF, it's fact.

      And that Palm silliness is ridiculous. They didn't have any brilliant technology, they had their device identify itself as an iPod, which is in violation of USB standards. Apple's updates just helped enforce the standards. It's easy enough for third parties such as Palm to make their own app that interfaces into the iTunes library via the easily parse-able XML file that drives the program; there was no reason for Palm to break the USB standard.

      Your other points are reasonable enough, but again, Apple is not Microsoft. They may become that bad one day. It's always possible. But there is, as of yet, no comparison.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    13. Re:What are they doing again? by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      h.264 is a licensed technology owned by MPEG LA [...] that can be used to lock.

      ...but not by Apple.

      AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one [...]

      ...again, not by Apple. Allow me to direct you at the point in dispute: "Apple has had absolute control of their standards."

      And allow me to direct you to the point in dispute "Apple has always been very aggressive about vendor lockin, and only uses "open" standards when it serves their purpose to break into a market". Like Apple did with MP3's on the iPod and making it mandatory to use iTunes with the iPod. They made sure to support the more or less 'open' standard of MP3 on all their iPods then turn around and do a vendor lock in with their music sold on iTunes with Fairplay while not mentioning to the customer that the music will not play on anyone else's product. If people had been informed of this they might have continued to buy music cds or look towards other companies like Amazon's MP3's that aren't vendor locked in. They made sure to do this vender lock in when it no longer needed to break into the 'market' since you already had their player and no longer support the more 'open' standard of common MP3's. While the average iPod user might not notice this, it still locked them into iTunes and prevented them from transferring their digital music collection later in life to a competing product, like a Creative Labs Zen or Sansa Clip. Same goes with the later models with the video function.

      I have no real interest in the rest of the arguments, please carry on.

      I will, let me know when your interested in something else.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    14. Re:What are they doing again? by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Steve Jobs has always been against DRM. Apple didn't create FairPlay to lock out other portable music players, Apple created FairPlay to appease the record labels. Ironically, the only reason the record labels have acquiesced on this is that they became afraid of Apple's near-monopoly position, and saw selling non-DRM'd music (including via competitors like Amazon) as the only way they could weaken Apple's stranglehold on the market (they tried to sell DRM'd music through other companies, but nobody wanted it because it didn't work with the iPod).

      What the GP poster was referring to was an officially-sanctioned method to burn DRM'd tracks to audio CD, then re-rip them and encode to a non-DRM'd format, thus incurring a reduction in quality due to the use of lossy compression. There are other ways of achieving that goal without going through the hassle of actually burning a CD, but that's not the same as removing the DRM. There was one app that really did remove the DRM from iTunes Store purchased music, but Apple broke it in the next release of iTunes and it was never heard from again.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    15. Re:What are they doing again? by Amarantine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely break that connection to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

      Eh... Palm was connecting to iTunes by faking its usb vendor id, imposting as a genuine Apple device. This technique is heavily frowned upon by the USB Implementers Forum, no matter how noble the cause. It's like the usb equivalent of identity theft. So i'm afraid Palm is no saint either.

    16. Re:What are they doing again? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Apple don't have any proprietary audio or video formats."

      Excuse me? ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) is 100% proprietary and belongs to Apple. Of course, it has been reverse engineered.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:What are they doing again? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> There was one app that really did remove the DRM from iTunes Store purchased music, but Apple broke it in the next release of iTunes and it was never heard from again.

      DVD-Jon's Requiem is still maintained, and removes DRM from even the latest version of iTunes' files. DRM on iTunes files, you say? Why, yes. Only mainstream music files are now DRM-free. Audiobooks, Podcasts, and other media still contain a FairPlay wrapper.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    18. Re:What are they doing again? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> Please explain how easy it is to remove "fairplay", if i remember correctly the instructions from Apple require you to BURN A CD OF THEM FIRST!!!!

      Yes, and that was very easy indeed.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    19. Re:What are they doing again? by moonbender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that Palm silliness is ridiculous. They didn't have any brilliant technology, they had their device identify itself as an iPod, which is in violation of USB standards. Apple's updates just helped enforce the standards. It's easy enough for third parties such as Palm to make their own app that interfaces into the iTunes library via the easily parse-able XML file that drives the program; there was no reason for Palm to break the USB standard.

      I'm considered an Apple fan among my friends. But that whole paragraph is so stupid -- particularly the sentence I marked up -- that it bears repeating. RDF/Stockholm Syndrome in action. If MS pulled shit like that (and I'm not sure they have) I doubt anybody would be in a rush to defend them.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    20. Re:What are they doing again? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight, because it crops up all over this thread. You're suggesting Palm program it's own media player/PMP management software that reads the iTunes XML database and writes stuff to their devices? Or can you write a plugin for iTunes that does the interfacing, similar to how players are integrated into most FOSS media players. That would be great.

      But I can see why they didn't want to write an iTunes replacement, or even a partial one that just does the PMP management thing. That'd be a massive reason for not using their hardware for many Mac users and would give Apple a substantive advantage in selling their media players. And of course Apple should interoperate here, everybody should be able to integrate their media player into iTunes, anything else is just a huge fuck you to the iTunes users.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    21. Re:What are they doing again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Blackberry can?

    22. Re:What are they doing again? by Steve+Max · · Score: 1

      Easy, but a real bad thing if you care about sound quality. Reencoding a lossy file to another lossy file only amplifies the artifacts and degrades the sound. You can notice it plainly if you use a good pair of headphones.

      Burning a CD and ripping it as a way to remove DRM is akin to saying that BD DRM has always been OK because you can remove it by playing the BD and filming it as it is shown on your TV with a video camera. Yes, you will end up with a DRM-less file containing the same music/video, but you do so through an unintended backdoor; and the quality is completely different.

    23. Re:What are they doing again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By god for the last 10 years it's incapable of picking up on songs moved directly into a folder, only if you manage it through iTunes does it work...

      So, because Apple didn't design iTunes to work just how you want it to, it's crap? If Apple followed the wisdom of adolescent, neurotic techies, they'd be dead by now.

    24. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh right, because the USB guys are objective.

      The fact is that the iTunes Client is the only interface to the iTunes Store, and iPod's and other Apple devices enjoy the special status of being the only ones with integrated syncing via that iTunes Client.

      If Microsoft got a big hit in the MP3 player market first, with its own big hit store, with its own DRM and non-interoperability with competitors, people would be still be bitching about it a decade after Microsoft got fined for anti-trust.

      If Microsoft then produced a big-hit client for their competitors operating systems that ninja-installed several other unrelated products when it updated, one of which was so unstable that it caused kernel crashing and even when functioning properly eats up CPU and spams the local network with traffic, you would never ever hear the end of that.

      But its Apple, so people welcome these things with a big fat "Bonjour!"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    25. Re:What are they doing again? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Again, AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one.

      And what would be the alternative? MP3? No. MP3 is also licensed. Ogg has almost no commercial support. WMA/ASF are proprietary to Microsoft. So please tell me what format Apple could have picked. It seems that Apple picked the most popular MP3 and its apparent successor, AAC neither of which is under their control.

      As for Fairplay, its been known for quite a while that Apple didn't want it but it was required in order to get the music industry's blessing to sell their music. In fact, after much negotiation of the part of Apple, they now have the option of not using it should the consumer decide. So that point is really opposite to your point.

      As for Palm, there is an API for iTunes. There is a database file that holds your iTunes library. Other players/companies use either to access the iTunes music. Unless the song is a Fairplay song, there is no reason others can't access it. Palm did not choose either route; they decided to trick iTunes in thinking their devices were iPods instead of programming their own application.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    26. Re:What are they doing again? by ahankinson · · Score: 1

      Short of FairPlay DRM, which they no longer include on files in the iTunes Music Store, what proprietary audio formats does Apple use? You do know that M4A is MPEG4 audio, a documented ISO standard, right?

      And their non-DRM'ed video is always MPEG4 h.264, another ISO standard. In my memory, Apple hasn't pushed a proprietary delivery format for video since Sorenson in the late 90's, and that wasn't even their tech. Granted, yes they have proprietary formats like Apple Lossless and Pixlet, but those are mostly meant for workflow applications and not as an end-user delivery format.

      The iPod has always *only* run with iTunes, not just when they gained significant market share. I will give you that they have been more active in ensuring that it's an exclusive iTunes/iPod environment, but they've never really opened it up to third parties. (MusicMatch on Windows is the notable exception.)

    27. Re:What are they doing again? by tepples · · Score: 1

      licensed

      ...but not by Apple.

      Apple is a member of MPEG-LA. The container format used by MPEG-4 files is essentially QuickTime.

    28. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Then how does this program work then? http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac-features.html

      The Missing Sync has been around (and has matured into an amazing product) ever since Palm abandoned the Mac platform. Palm is perfectly capable of writing a piece of software that syncs with the Pre (or anything else it makes) just as well as the iPod syncs with iTunes. They chose not to go that route, but instead decided to spoof Apple's vendor ID (it's much cheaper).

      If they didn't want to write software from scratch, they could have bundled a copy of The Missing Sync with each phone, but again that would have cost them money. They took the easy way out, which featured a method that is not allowed under the rules of the USB IF - vendor IDs are unique. If someone else is using yours, they are in the wrong, regardless of why they are doing it.

      Also, the music on the iTMS currently has no DRM - it is perfectly interoperable with anyone who can play AAC files (a standard, that while patented [like mp3], is open and licenceable). The DRM initially was to appease the music industry (who had the product), and was removed as quickly as possible. iTunes even encouraged you to back up your DRM purchases to audio CD (which removed the DRM) when you purchased them, which was not ideal (quality loss when re-ripping to non-DRM) but was the best they could do until they could remove DRM entirely.

      If you are having problems with Quicktime on Windows, then I suggest you reinstall it. It's never been a source of kernel panics on any windows machine I've ever used.

      If zeroconf (Bonjour!) is "spamming your local network" turn off the "look for shared libraries/airtunes speakers/apple TVs" in the iTunes options.

    29. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      And they don't sell any music in that format. They offer it as an option for ripping your CDs in the simplified encoder frontend built into iTunes, but none of their store purchases use it - they are all AAC.

    30. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could do what The Missing Sync does - funnily enough, the software that came about because Palm abandoned the Mac platform in the first place, so a 3rd party piece of software was needed to sync your Palm device.

      http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac-features.html

      They didn't need to write an iTunes replacement - they just needed to go the proper route to write a piece of software that would allow the Pre to sync, but spoofing Apple's vendor ID was cheaper that either writing their own software to interface with iTunes (and iCal/Entourage/Address Book etc), or bundling copies of The Missing Sync with Palm Pres that they sold.

      There are documented ways to sync on the Mac. None of the are of the form "1. spoof Apple's vendor ID, 2.?????? 3. Profit". Interoperation exists, it's just not seamless unless you write an interface - iTunes doesn't do it all for you like it does with the iPod/iPhone.

    31. Re:What are they doing again? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Quicktime uses 'normal' formats - H264, mp4, etc. Apple don't have any proprietary audio or video formats. You're confusing format with DRM, and there's none of that in their music either.

      So how do I play a quicktime movie without quicktime installed?

      Its just like FLV and Flash - which support all those "standards" too - if I can't open the wrapper I can't get at the goodies. FLV is documented though as a format, Quicktime isn't - they don't want people legitimately opening up the goodies.

    32. Re:What are they doing again? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The method you propose won't work unless you install additional software on the computer. What if you just want your device to work with itunes without any changes to it? There is nothing wrong with emulating a device for compatibility purposes, and courts have ruled that you can even violate copyright law to do so.

      Palm wasn't asking Apple to support their device. Apple's behavior was not a mere refusal to support the Palm - it was intentional breaking of the interface. That's just dirty no matter what. Would anybody think highly of Linus if every kernel minor update were designed to force nvidia to completely rewrite their kernel modules?

    33. Re:What are they doing again? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It's easy enough for third parties such as Palm to make their own app that interfaces into the iTunes library via the easily parse-able XML file that drives the program; there was no reason for Palm to break the USB standard.

      It is also easy enough for Apple to define standards that would actually allow other companies to interface their mp3 players without the need to use external software. Apple is trying to use software market share to sell hardware (not unusual for them).

      Palm did nothing wrong, and courts have repeatedly ruled that IP law generally should not prevent device interoperability. If it was strictly necessary to copy some of Apple's firmware onto the Palm to allow it to interface as an ipod chances are a court would allow this. If you don't believe me, just google for the original gameboy license enforcement scheme and what a court did to it. Courts have backed violations of both trademarks and copyrights when used as schemes to prevent interoperability, and I'm sure Apple will fare no better.

    34. Re:What are they doing again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he sold out his principals for a few bucks and then tried to backpedal when people complained.

    35. Re:What are they doing again? by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      No, there's nothing wrong with emulating a device for compatibility purposes. But Apple specifically provides the iTunes/iPod integration as a benefit of purchasing an iPod. I say again, would you expect HP to support Epson scanners in their scanning software? It's a very common thing to buy a hardware device like a scanner and have features advertised on the outside that are actually software/driver features, and when a company has invested money developing a desirable piece of software, I would expect them to defend it from freeloaders. Would you expect nVidia to support an ATI card with their fancy Windows drivers?

      Just because Apple gives iTunes away for free (gratis) doesn't mean that they should support every media player. They are definitely intentionally breaking compatibility, but that's because Palm are freeloading in order to benefit from the tight integration that Apple have reserved exclusively for their own media player. Linux is provided for free, but compatibility is still broken regularly for high-profile devices in order to fit in with some sort of philosophical decision. iTunes is commercial software developed to make money, and Apple want you to buy an iPod if you want the tight integration/management features; for everything else you get it for free (gratis). I think that's a pretty good deal.

    36. Re:What are they doing again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      m4a is not any kind of audio, it's just a renamed mp4 container.

      mp4 IS a non-free, proprietary container format.

      h.264 IS a non-free, proprietary video format.

      aac IS a non-free, proprietary audio format.

      wake me when apple starts using free and open source formats.

    37. Re:What are they doing again? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Obviously I'm not privy to Palms motivations here, but as a Linux user I can't help noticing that none of Apples aledged "openness" actually helps me sync my iPod Touch. AFAIK I can only sync it if I jail break it, at which point I have to dick around any time I want to upgrade the firmware. This happens because Apple only want people to sync the iPod/iPhone via their software on their terms.

      I guess they're entitled to do so... but it also means that any products that hook into iTunes via the "well documented method" will also suffer from all of it's limitations, *and* will be subject to Apple's whims -- which given Apple's recent behaviour regarding iPhone apps, is... well... a bit shitty.

    38. Re:What are they doing again? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      But Apple specifically provides the iTunes/iPod integration as a benefit of purchasing an iPod.

      Any compensation Apple requires for the purchase of iTunes should be collected prior to sale. They cannot impose restrictions on use after the sale.

      I say again, would you expect HP to support Epson scanners in their scanning software?

      No, and I don't expect Apple to support syncing with Palms either. However, software changes made solely for the purpose of breaking compatibility with a 3rd-party product are still wrong. This has nothing to do with support.

      Ditto for ATI/Nvidia. They don't need to support each other's drivers, but they can't go out of their way to break each other's devices either.

      They are definitely intentionally breaking compatibility, but that's because Palm are freeloading in order to benefit from the tight integration that Apple have reserved exclusively for their own media player.

      You don't get to dictate how your products are used - only that people pay for them. That's essentially the first-sale doctrine.

      Linux is provided for free, but compatibility is still broken regularly for high-profile devices in order to fit in with some sort of philosophical decision.

      Citation please? I'm not aware of Linux being modified solely and repeatedly for the purpose of breaking compatibility with some 3rd-party product. In my post I specifically stated that if Linus modified the kernel repeatedly solely with the goal of breaking the Nvidia binary drivers I'd certainly find that objectionable as well.

      What Apple is doing is nothing more than restraint of trade - somebody makes a better widget and Apple is trying to use dominance in one field to obtain dominance in another. No consumers benefit from these kinds of actions.

    39. Re:What are they doing again? by thule · · Score: 1

      First of all it is a lie to say that Palm didn't write iTunes software. They did write iTunes software, but the software to read the iTunes generated files was in the device so the user didn't have to install anything on their computer. The software was already "installed" on the device. Very clean and simple and all it took was a simple USB device ID setting that is *built-in* to the guestfs driver in Linux. Initially Palm didn't have to send a fake manufacturer setting. It was only until Apple decided to check that ID that Palm had to change it.

      Personally, I don't see what the big deal was. I thought it was pretty ingenious of Palm. It is similar to reverse engineering the SMB protocol since they were emulating the "protocol" via the USB bus.

    40. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Then how does this program work then?

      That program doesnt do anything that mitigates the compaints.

      The iTunes Store enjoys 70% market dominance and is in fact the worlds largest music retailer (even beats all offline retailers.) The iTunes Client is tied to this service, and is in fact the only legal portal to the monopoly iTunes Store.

      The iTunes Client has integrated synching only with iPods. Hence, Apple is using its dominance in one market (music retail) to maintain its dominance in another (portable players.)

      Remember the Euro bitch over Windows Media Player? No? Microsoft did way less than what Apple is doing, but got fined, and were forced to distribute Windows Media Player separately in Europe.

      You sir, are a willfully blind hypocrite grasping at unrelated things (other non-integrated synching software) as if they mitigate the problem. They don't, asshole.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    41. Re:What are they doing again? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Apple had the chance to hold on to proprietary DRM for all music sales, and openly called for that protection to be dropped. And now it is gone.

      Actually that came as a direct response to a request by the EC for Apple to allow other devices to play their files and other store to be able to use Fairplay. For Apple this was the only reason they wanted the DRM anyway.

    42. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Apple does not have a monopoly on online music, or on mp3 players, or on smartphones.

      You also don't need to keep your iTunes music purchases in the Apple ecosystem - they are un-DRM'ed AAC files. You can also trivially burn them to Audio CD if you like if you really can't deal with AAC (and take the quality loss when you re-rip in your format of choice).

      My point about The Missing Sync is that it does *exactly* what Palm needed to do when they wanted syncing with iTunes, and it does it in a totally non-USB-ID-spoofing way. It is *clearly* possible to sync on OS X (even with iTunes) without resorting to what Palm did. They just chose not to do it that way because it was cheaper to resort to what is essentially a bit of an ugly hack that may or may not work, and doesn't assure compatibility or future availability. The greatest trick they then pulled was convincing the /. community that somehow it's *Apple's* fault that their attempts at syncing are half-assed and broken (even if Apple left them alone, there is no assurance that something in the iPod sync code wouldn't change and break it anyway - that's the risk you take with a hack).

      This is not about monopolies, not that Apple even has one here. There are numerous other online music download stores, and you're not even locked into the iTunes one (since the removal of DRM, which they didn't want in the first place). You can even use third party software like The Missing Sync to use your Pre with the iTMS. Apple has documented methods to enable you (a developer) to do this. The methods are certainly not "spoof our vendor ID" - of course Apple were going to put a stop to that. Apple is not stopping Palm from writing a piece of software to *properly* sync with iTunes though, as other people have already done.

      The client as it comes (free) from Apple only syncs with Apple's own products. This does not mean that you can't sync other products with it - you just need to write a little code. Apple aren't under any obligation to make seamless "plug in and go" syncing for third party players, and it is not anticompetitive of them to not offer this.

      You also appear to be confusing Apple with a company that was convicted in a court of law for monopoly practices - if the iTunes store and iPod/iPhone vertical integration is deemed to be such a thing, the courts will act on it.

      Also, there's no need to resort to name calling. Feel free to think "asshole" - you don't have to type it and lower the tone. I'm not calling you names, we can at least be civil.

    43. Re:What are they doing again? by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      As for Fairplay, its been known for quite a while that Apple didn't want it but it was required in order to get the music industry's blessing to sell their music.

      I have noticed that I've only been able to find out Steve Job's not wanting to have put Fairplay on music files was an open letter dated Feb 2007, 5 years later when DRM was being spoken against by the general public. And its a typical PR stunt "Oh we didn't want to... it's the other guys fault. They strong armed us into doing it". This argument has been used by quite a few software vendors. And the big issue I have with it is that Apple as a business shows the opposite. DRM by definition is "a generic term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices.".Look at the DRM on OSX, most notably Snow Leopard. I could buy a copy of Snow Leopard but due to the DRM in it, I can't install it on any other hardware but Apples. While the old versions of OSX needed the special CPU's, Snow Leopard only works on Intel sytle x64 chips. There isn't much DRM on the software side for checking if it's legitimate, but all the DRM is focusing on the hardware. This is a massive limitation of my usability of the software, limiting it to only using Apple hardware. The only problem here is that with Apple doing it, it isn't a limitation, it's a 'value adding function'. I've been told by many Mac users that it's not truly DRM though it severely limits my usage, its a function to 'make sure to have the optimal usage since it was designed for that hardware'. No it isn't, its a DRM to limit my usage to be device locked in. Look at a Hackentosh. It takes a lot of cracks to get it working on non-Apple hardware, and shows it is possible once the digital locks are removed. And Hackentosh's work pretty stable showing it doesn't truly need Apple only hardware. They have some of the most aggressive DRM in usage, beyond the 'calling home' of Ubisoft. The iPhone has the same style of DRM, to limit what you can do with the iPhone. It isn't because it will be unstable if it ran multiple programs or used unauthorized programs, jailbreaking proves that wrong and because jailbreaking breaks the DRM of the iPhone Steve Jobs calls declares that it's pretty much that the sky is falling. It's easy for Apple to claim they hate DRM, but their actions show they not only approve of it, they love it.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    44. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Apple does not have a monopoly on online music

      Bullshit. 70% of the market all by itself. The next largest competitor, Amazon, only has about 10% of the market.

      Lets check out your next bullshit.

      My point about The Missing Sync is that it does *exactly* what Palm needed to do when they wanted syncing with iTunes, and it does it in a totally non-USB-ID-spoofing way.

      Thanks for declaring for Palm exactly what they needed to do for them.

      It is not integrated into iTunes, which you are refusing to admit. You keep saying that it "syncs with itunes" and other things as a response to the criticism. Its bullshit downplaying and apologizing, disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.

      The difference is a radical one. iPod owners only need iTunes. Everyone else needs iTunes too, but also needs a separate synching application as well, software easily broken by apples next alteration to how they store their music library.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    45. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Apple aren't under any obligation to make seamless "plug in and go" syncing for third party players, and it is not anticompetitive of them to not offer this.

      It is anti-competitive for Microsoft not be be interoperable with others, but when another company enjoys a monopoly its OK for them to not be. Gotcha.
      Lowering the tone again. Hypocrite asshole who makes grand claims that are obvious lies. Apple has a monopoly in online music sales, as much of a monopoly as Microsoft has in operating systems: their are alternatives, but they have low market penetration.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    46. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The difference is a radical one. iPod owners only need iTunes. Everyone else needs iTunes too, but also needs a separate synching application as well, software easily broken by apples next alteration to how they store their music library.

      My point is that it doesn't have to be "integrated into iTunes" to work.

      Now you're the one being disingenuous. "software easily broken by apples [sic] next alteration to how they store their music library".

      So, you're saying that Apple's publicly documented method for syncing with iTunes is going to be "easily broken" compared to a totally hackish USB-ID spoofing where a Palm Pre pretends to be an iPod. Come on!

      One way is supported and documented by Apple, the other is a hack and you think the supported way is the one likely to break? It's documented for a reason - so that when Apple makes changes to its software, the things they have put in place for 3rd party developers still work. It's the reason some APIs are pubic and some are private - private ones have no guarantee that they won't change, so if you have a dependancy on one, you may find your app breaks if the API does.

      The Missing Sync has been working just fine through many different iterations of iTunes.

      The fact that it's *not* integrated and all fancy and seamless really isn't the point. Apple has no obligation to provide that experience for third party players/phones with iTunes, but they have offered a way to get the same results (even if it's not integrated) with documented methods. You can sync playlists, address book, calendars, photos - pretty much everything that the iPod/iPhone can do - has a public documented API for syncing on OS X.

      I'm not refusing to admit anything. I didn;t claim one way or the other about whether it was integrated, I just stated that Apple didn't have to provide an integrated method for anything but its own players.

      And while the iTMS has a 70% marketshare, and may be considered a monopoly, this is not illegal. They are not forcing you to use an iPod (or even to use the iTunes store), and their music purchases work on any player that can play back AAC formatted music (a codec that is patented, but not proprietary to Apple) and offer an easy way to get your music purchases into CD audio format, and offer a third party syncing method, and an XML formatted copy of the iTunes library.

      Hardly "forcing" anyone to use an iPod.

      The only reason that Palm users need a separate sync application is because Palm stopped providing one with their hardware - they used to have one for the Mac but stopped development of it. Hence the rise of The Missing Sync.

    47. Re:What are they doing again? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Apple never wanted Fairplay. It was a requirement to get the music industry to sign on. Jobs made that clear, and after just a few years, he got all DRM dropped from all tunes on the iTMS. This is not RDF, it's fact.

      Then why did Steve Jobs force music from independent labels and artists to have DRM on them, even when these labels and artists requested that their music be DRM-free? I really don't care what Steve Jobs says, as his actions directly contradicts his words. Maybe you should step out of the RDF?

    48. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Why is Apple obliged to make any and all third party players seamlessly sync with a piece of software it gives away for free, especially when it offers a documented way for the people who make the players to write a simple plugin/conduit to be able to sync.

      The sync APIs are right there, all laid out in OS X.

      You are again confusing monopoly issues with ordinary business practices.

      Microsoft is under no obligation to make the Xbox 360 media centre sync seamlessly with anything other than Windows. There's no problem with that.

      What they cannot do is deliberately break something (say, their JVM) in order to force the web to use IE (since they have an OS monopoly) or use their OS monopoly to "suggest" to OEMs that they only sell PCs with Windows preinstalled, not Linux, and that the Windows PCs they sell not have any competing web browser preinstalled. That is illegal.

      What Apple is doing is... none of those things. They are not stopping anyone else from competing in the market by using their monopoly in music sales - they allow third party syncing, and publish documentation on just how to do it. They are not going into phone stores and threatening to withhold iPhone supplies from them unless they refuse to sell competing phones or media players.

      The situation is very different.

      iTunes is not incompatible with third party hardware - it is demonstrably compatible with all sorts of third party players and phones, even Palm Pres that are not iPods/iPhones.

      I would also speak to your attempts to lower the tone - I'm just having a discussion here. You are the one throwing personal attacks around. It's the nature of a debate that you disagree with me (it wouldn't be much of a debate otherwise) but ad hominem attacks really serve no one.

    49. Re:What are they doing again? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      (itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)

      Ermm, do you mean iTunes or the iTMS? Doesn't matter, it's wrong anyway. And if you mean that stunt Palm tried - fuck, others manage to sync the Pre to iTunes (and the other Apple apps) without raping the USB standard. But then they aren't to cheap to actually write their own software. And judging by the URL, Apple doesn't seem to mind.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    50. Re:What are they doing again? by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think it's really a 'lie'. My post was quite clearly talking about software to run on a PC/Mac, not firmware in the device. Palm have every right to do this as you say, but iTunes is a loss-leader - it's given away in order to drive sales at the iTunes store and sales of iPod/iPhones. It's not at all surprising that Apple want to keep exclusive the tight integration of iTunes and iPod/iPhone, and Palm would have known that. I really can't understand why Apple is the bad guy in this scenario - they have provided a documented API, Palm knew this, but Palm chose to emulate an iPod instead. That's something I would expect from a bargain bucket far eastern clone manufacturer selling 'iPhrone' on eBay.

      I do understand the frustration the other way around - I think it should be easier to use an iPod/iPhone without iTunes as a mass storage device, but I think that comes down to the clash between Apple's vision of computing appliances and people's expectations of what a general-purpose computing device can do.

    51. Re:What are they doing again? by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Any compensation Apple requires for the purchase of iTunes should be collected prior to sale. They cannot impose restrictions on use after the sale.

      When did you buy iTunes, by the way? Get real, companies give away or sell products as a loss-leader all the time. This is why games consoles are often sold as a loss. Even if you had bought iTunes (which you didn't), I don't know if you noticed - but there's a click-through license whenever the software is updated - so if there is any contract between Apple and the end-user, anyone who downloaded an updated version of iTunes that blocked the Palm agreed to those changes when installing the software.

      No, and I don't expect Apple to support syncing with Palms either. However, software changes made solely for the purpose of breaking compatibility with a 3rd-party product are still wrong. This has nothing to do with support.

      Why is it 'wrong' for a company to adjust their product to prevent it being exploited by a third party? Particularly when they have already provided a documented API to do this? I just don't see the moral imperative there.

      You don't get to dictate how your products are used - only that people pay for them. That's essentially the first-sale doctrine.

      Sorry, when did you pay for iTunes again? One can argue about the purchase of software versus licensing, etc., but I think when Apple are giving the software away, it's perfectly reasonable to have some additional functionality that only works when you but a product from them - many software/hardware companies have that sort of business model.

      Citation please? I'm not aware of Linux being modified solely and repeatedly for the purpose of breaking compatibility with some 3rd-party product...

      That's not what I said, I said that functionality gets removed from Linux for philosophical reasons. Go read a Debian mailing list. Stuff gets taken out all the time because it's not 'free' enough, and the devs decide that it's better to break things for the end user for the sake of freedom. I was drawing the parallel that there's a reason for Linux - freedom - that sometimes trumps the end user's desire for functionality. Apple exists to make money for its shareholders, and without that happening the software would not exist. It seems very fair to me that they provide iTunes for free, and benefit by driving sales at the iTunes store, and providing enhanced functionality with iPod/iPhones. The don't want to provide that advanced functionality for third-party devices because that removes one of the revenue streams so they've provided a documented API for other companies to interact with iTunes.

      What Apple is doing is nothing more than restraint of trade - somebody makes a better widget and Apple is trying to use dominance in one field to obtain dominance in another. No consumers benefit from these kinds of actions.

      What??!

    52. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The sync APIs are right there, all laid out in OS X.

      You are being willfully ignorant again, intentionally subsetting to smaller domains in order to ignore the problem.

      iTunes on windows is the largest market. Where is the itunes sync API on windows?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    53. Re:What are they doing again? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      It sounds an awful lot like the only difference is that Apple was happier to save money by using good technology that was developed outside of the company. That's because Apple doesn't think of itself as a software company, they're a whole widget company and anything that will help them build a better widget using less development resources is fine by them.

    54. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Who is talking about Windows here? We were talking about Palm sidestepping the issue in OS X. Either way, there are several sync programs for Windows that work with the Windows versions of iTunes.

      Including The Missing Sync, which we have been talking about. Again, this is done without resorting to USB trickery.

      "Willfully [sic] ignorant" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

    55. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Missing Sync is not integrated into itunes, nor is it possible for it to be. You know how you "sync" with Missing Sync? You drag files from itunes into a folder, because missing sync presents devices as folders.
      It is not integrated into itunes sync features.

      You ARE being disingenuous because there is a difference between "capable of syncing" and "integrated with itunes" and you fucking know it. You are a bigger asshole that I gave you credit for.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    56. Re:What are they doing again? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that Apple's publicly documented method for syncing with iTunes is going to be "easily broken" compared to a totally hackish USB-ID spoofing where a Palm Pre pretends to be an iPod. Come on!

      sigh.. totally hackish indeed.. unbelievable that they know how to look like a generic drive..

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    57. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you used The Missing Sync? It knows where your iTunes Library is, and it knows your playlists as you have set them up in iTunes itself.

      You just select the playlists you want to sync from within the sync app itself, in much the same way you do for the iPod. Even the icons are the same.

      The only difference is that the window that you put the checkboxes in (with your playlists, read right off the iTunes DB by the app automatically) is not inside the iTunes window itself. The sync experience itself is *practically* identical.

      The Missing Sync enables much more than just "capable of syncing" - the experience is smooth and relatively seamless. All you have over the iPod is the fact that you need this app running instead of just using iTunes to do it all for you. The iTunes sync features are superfluous when you are using it since it replicates everything iTunes does.

      I'm not being disingenuous here - I am in no way attempting to hide the fact that the app doesn't create a totally integrated experience - it clearly does not, but for the user there is very little difference.

      Again, you can drop the hostility. I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks. I have not been hostile to you. Please act your age.

    58. Re:What are they doing again? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      "Hackish" in that their chosen method was to use Apple's USB ID so that iTunes saw the Pre as an Apple iPod - that is hackish by any sense of the word.

      Incidentally, the iPod itself doesn't appear as a generic drive by default, and iTunes will sync with it without that feature enabled. It's not part of the sync process to mount the iPod as a generic drive.

    59. Re:What are they doing again? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Thanks; somehow I was unaware of Requiem. (JHymn is what I was referring to.)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    60. Re:What are they doing again? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      But you're right, Apple breaks it on each of its iTunes releases. However, Requiem is still in active development (at least up until iTunes 9.0.3).

      As of a couple of months ago, it works great, though a bit buggy in OS X. Er, or so I've heard.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  28. evil apple seems to have a hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can bitch and moan about it all we want but that probably means we're not selling the cheesy $1 apps.

    Sadly as much as I hate a closed, dictatorship like environment the entire iTunes/App Store has been extremely successful and probably will be for years. Obviously more folks like the false sense of security of what Apple provides through the app store compared to the ways of the past. I'm just baffled that MS or Apple haven't opened an app store for the desktops... How wonderful would that be to buy actual software that has been confirmed to work on your OS version, it's so linux like but without the word free. Sadly doing so might actually suck away open-source developers.

    Wonder what how this will end up in 5 or 10 years.. Google the next apple, apple the next MS and MS the next google?

    1. Re:evil apple seems to have a hit by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      More like MS is the next DEC

    2. Re:evil apple seems to have a hit by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      More like MS is the next DEC

      I don't think its that bad. The next IBM, surely.

    3. Re:evil apple seems to have a hit by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      We have to wait and see if they actually change their business model to fit the facts. If they don't it's just like DEC right around the time of the processor they designed.

  29. What he fails to understand by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    is that most users prefer a "walled garden" even if they don't know that's what it is. Most users only want to do a few things on their phone such as browse the web, read e-mail, text, and make calls. Most users want a dead simple, easy to understand interface. Like iTunes or hate it, it makes setting up your phone, managing media and applications brain-dead simple even while it is somewhat limiting.

    Tim can rail against the iPhone all he wants to, but at the end of the day, all I have to say to him is check the current market share scoreboard. It's going to take more than a developer evangelist shitting on the competition to increase Android's market share.

    Thus far the consumer has chosen, and they have chosen iPhone by a significant margin. There's a reason why the Droid is buy one get one free on Verizon, and it's not because it's outselling the iPhone.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    1. Re:What he fails to understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are advocating is "good defaults", you haven't explained why you need a walled garden for any of the benefits you mention.

    2. Re:What he fails to understand by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Because it allows the user to explore more of what their device is capable of without fear of destroying it. My mom had gotten so sick and tired of having to have someone come clean all the malware crap off her windows machine that she basically stopped downloading anything, didn't want to play videos that her friends emailed her, would call me and ask if I though random websites were safe to visit, etc. The fear of having the same problems with her phone (which she considers pretty much vital to her life) would make all the "openness" in the world completely useless to her.

      Apple's closed marketplace isn't a 100% foolproof solution, but it's certainly a much safer option, and someone like my mom can freely download whatever the hell she wants from the App store and be pretty comfortable that it's not going to result in her having to pay someone a hundred bucks to clean out all the malware.

      These people don't feel like Apple is controlling them. Apple is protecting them. They are not only willing to deal with that, they appreciate it. That's what the walled garden provides. Some people definitely don't need or want that sort of protection/control. Good for them, there's lots of companies out there who'd love to sell them a phone.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  30. Disney-fied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if Apple would allow a "Gay-dar" app, seeing as how most Apple users are poo stabbers...

  31. Dont worry, Cancer will stopThe Landlord. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 0, Troll

    OOOOOOOOH NO HE DIDNT!!! YES HE DID...

    seriously...

    cancer sucks.

    no seriously...

    it does...

    I wish Mr Jobs good health.

    and I like my iPhone.

    But i'll gladly pay attention to anyone else offering something better... and I'm locked into iTunes so... It better be damn good.

    1. Re:Dont worry, Cancer will stopThe Landlord. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But i'll gladly pay attention to anyone else offering something better... and I'm locked into iTunes so... It better be damn good.

      I cant leave him, I know he beats me but that's OK because he says he loves me.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Dont worry, Cancer will stopThe Landlord. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      No.. I like itunes. I enjoy it as a player/library. It has a resume feature so I can listen to all my 4 hour long Opie and Anthony shows and Ron and Fez of course... horse.

      I like when he beats me... I enjoy it.

      Seriously, I do think itunes is pretty good at how it manages/organizes tunes etc. I'm not a fan of the format dictatorship but... I can live with apple lossless if i cant have flac.

  32. Google hires a FUDster? Do only a little evil? by guidryp · · Score: 1

    Something about this strikes me, as not very Google like.

    I can figure out both the advantages/disadvantages of Apples model.

    Does Google really need to hire someone to smear Apples model in Public.

    I don't own any Apple product, so I don't think I qualify as an Apple fanboy, but I do respect the work of both companies.

    But this really does lower Google a notch in my eyes, it is the kind of thing I expect Steve Balmer to say about the competition.

  33. He just wants the sex and violence by macsyrinx · · Score: 1
    It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger. I hate it. I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great

    He just wants the sex and violence on a phone that he likes, and OS that he likes

  34. Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure the iPhone is a "walled garden" and sure it's all filled with DRM and the music store sucks.

    Eh...

    The thing is the thing works wonderfully well, I've not had the chance to try out an Android phone just yet, might turn out it works just as well or better; but that does not change the fact the iPhone does it job wonderfully well.
    Sure Apple might rule the app store with an iron fist and put all kinds of restrictions on what kind of apps the developers can put on there, again does not change the fact that many of the apps that do make in into the app store are good apps (or at least marginally useful or entertaining).
    The Android phones might allow the developers more freedom, it might allow them TONS more freedom and the result might be that there will be more cool and more useful apps released for the Android phones. Again this does not change the fact that the iPhone also has some good apps.

    iPhone, Android. In the end it's all the same, they're both phones, they both do relatively the same things and offer relatively the same services. It is not like the increased freedom offered to developers in the Android app store is going to somehow magically revolutionize the mobile phone market, it is simply going to result in Android being a different product to the iPhone.
    I'm no Apple fanboy, I just don't particularly care. If you like the iPhone (and many do), fine buy one, use it and like it. If you want an Android phone, buy one, use it and so forth.

    Aside from the OS and the associated policies the Nexus One and the iPhone are basically the same stuff in different wrappers, neither one is doing something that is in any way revolutionary.
    I mean be objective about it, both phones can make calls, send text messages, handle contacts and calender information, handle e-mail and browse the web and offers apps and a way to distribute those apps, both come with bluetooth, gps and a way to store (some kinds of)data.
    They are the same thing, the differences between the two are philosophical neither one is superior (or really that unique any more) so get the one you like.

    (and if you want more freedom on the iPhone, jailbreak it)

  35. Re:Your daily dose of Hope & Change (TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know neither candidate would have been any different on this point, but for once I'd just like to hear you glass-eyed Obamabots concede that maybe, JUST MAYBE he's not the fucking messiah.

  36. Slight Irony... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    ...in the fact that Apple has been a big pusher of XML-based formats - it pervades most of their application frameworks and is extensively supported in their APIs.

  37. Re:Apple's Been Blasting iPhone Users in the Ass by jamesh · · Score: 1, Funny

    Do you not, for one, welcome your new ass-blasting overlords?

  38. What do you call multiple walled gardens? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A hedge maze, into which consumers can become easily lost. They need to figure out the versioning strategy quickly...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What do you call multiple walled gardens? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      No, Apple's policies are more like the topiary in The Shining than a hedge maze or walled garden. Not only are consumers being denied a way to get where they want to go, the walls of the garden are closing in behind them.

      As someone else said, Apple's behavior is a far cry from the company that gave us this.

    2. Re:What do you call multiple walled gardens? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      What is it you feel consumers want that they actually can't get? I write new applications all the time that I give to friends as well, none of them go through the app store and none of the phones are Jail broken.

      If I want to use an Android phone I have to get squeezed into a JVM.

  39. iDIOT antI-fanboiIs by weston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But then again, apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock. There's even an app for that!

    Or maybe they just get tired of anti-fanboi idiots making statements that seem to equate:

    "Um, you're not forced to buy it. You're perfectly free to buy, enjoy, and develop for something else."

    with

    "Apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock."

    For some reason, for a lot of geeks, it's never enough to just like something else that's not Apple. They have to LOUDLY TELL EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LIKE APPLE TOO and this despite the fact that nobody's ever been forced to buy Apple.

    1. Re:iDIOT antI-fanboiIs by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      For some reason, for a lot of geeks, it's never enough to just like something else that's not Apple. They have to LOUDLY TELL EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LIKE APPLE TOO and this despite the fact that nobody's ever been forced to buy Apple.

      Swoosh....

      I think the trick here is that he's presenting his reasoning for why he votes with his wallet in the hopes that he will change people's viewpoint.

      That's the whole point of the matter. People are sick and tired of responses to statements such as

      "I think Apple' policy is concerning because of this and this."

      being

      "Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it so you're not entitled to an opinion here"

  40. ***YAAAAAWWN*** by Khan · · Score: 1

    Yet another technology tool calling another technology outfit names. Puh-lease...this shit just gets old. And the more these types of "employees" spew shit, the stupider they appear to me regardless of how many PhD's they have. Make a product that doesn't suck donkey ballz and you'll get my attention (and possibly my business). Otherwise, just STFU already. This world sucks enough as it stands without having to listen to yet another moron "evangelist" throw mud. Grow up already all of you. That includes you too, Apple.

    --

    "Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash

  41. Small lives or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you guys serious? Are your lives so small that you have to seek validation and self-fulfillment by way of the brand of *cell-phone* that you use? Wow. That's just so sad.

  42. Gotta love freetards by wintermute000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:

    For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10

    Apple's formula is not a secret and their products sell themselves. Should they wish to implement a walled garden that's their perogative (and in their defence it is a major factor for the smooth integration of all their components / relative lack of issues compared to other platforms and OSes.) The market has shown that people are willing to sacrifice open-ness and pure performance for buck for a superior end user experience (note its not value for buck: my time fixing stupid linux bugs is a COST).

    1. Re:Gotta love freetards by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Dunno wintermute I have just moved my wife from her ubuntu laptop to a macbook pro running macos and the challenges seem much the same, even after spending money on commercial software for the mac. There ae bugs on both sides, but macos lacks the consistency brought by dpkg.

    2. Re:Gotta love freetards by wintermute000 · · Score: 1

      Prob because you are migrating. Also I've found IMHO that its worse for geeks because we're kinda set in our ways and assumptions. Finally of course YMMV I don't know whether you have specific requirements, maybe you got the one in a thousand dud unit, etc. etc. etc.

      Personally my macbook has required less troubleshooting than any PC I've ever owned or used, once I got used to the apple conventions. If I didn't play video games I would go all OSX at home

    3. Re:Gotta love freetards by Raffaello · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just gonna burn some karma here since you've unfortunately been modded 0 flamebait:

      As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:

      For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10

      You sir, are absolutely right, no matter how much we people who read slashdot, we denizens of the extreme right hand tail of the user bell curve, wish it weren't so.

    4. Re:Gotta love freetards by Rational · · Score: 1

      Move her to an iPad - that's what the future of computers will look to non-nerds, whether us nerds like it or not.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    5. Re:Gotta love freetards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does a post get moderated flame-bait for stating the obvious? I think most commenter's and moderators here on slashdot somehow lost their grasp of reality.

    6. Re:Gotta love freetards by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

      You sir, are absolutely right, no matter how much we people who read slashdot, we denizens of the extreme right hand tail of the user bell curve, wish it weren't so.

      I have to agree. I switched from my RAZR to a Droid because I was at first more interested in the better hardware (camera, flash, screen size, etc.). Two days of using the Droid convinced me to get rid of it and switch to an iPhone (3GS, 32GB). I am much happier. The hardware is obviously not as good, but there's simply no comparison on the base software. I'm hoping that the Droid phone I got was simply defective (perhaps a memory failure) because basic apps like Contacts crashed frequently. The usability of the iPhone is also just plain better, much better.

      I paid quite a bit to break my AT&T contracts, sign with Verizon, and switch back just to get to the iPhone from (in my experience) the crappy Droid. And, it was worth it. (Disclaimer, I was able to convince Verizon to drop most of the charges due to certain Florida laws, so all in all I was out about US$150 for the experience.)

    7. Re:Gotta love freetards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      walled garden that "just works"

      I'm sorry, are we still talking about the iPhone here? I couldn't finish reading that because Safari on my iPhone crashed again, then I had to wait for the "broken apple" picture to go away, which took 20 minutes.

    8. Re:Gotta love freetards by maugle · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately" modded to flamebait? The guy just called everyone who values freedom and choice over convenience "freetards". That won't exactly endear anyone to his point of view.

      If I complained that people were giving up their long-term interests (an app market where apps can't be pulled at the whim of a single company, general openness, etc.) in favor of short-term usability and shininess, I'd have a point and we'd have the beginning of a debate about the pros and cons of the Apple environment.

      But if I did so while calling those people "Mactards" or "blowJobs" or "iDiots" or "smug self-satisfied latte-sipping black-turtleneck-wearing fuckwits", you bet your ass I'd be modded flamebait.

    9. Re:Gotta love freetards by $1uck · · Score: 1

      No, it fails 10 out 10 times when you're a developer who wants develop an app that isn't allowed (be it porn or whatever else isn't permitted inside the walled garden) or you're a user who wants to install such an application.

  43. Billy Graham versus Clarence Darrow by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?'

    Evangelists preach to developers, advocates listen to them. Since Google basically gives away most of its tools and platforms, it does make rather more sense to ask developers what they want, rather than tell them.

    Just so nobody doubts my Google-skeptic creds: Google can afford to do this because they make so much money off their ad revenues they can afford to run almost every other business at a loss with profits postponed to an extremely hypothetical future. And even so, their stockholders would never stand for it — if they had any say in the matter.

  44. You are free to make a better Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note to all the whiners - Stop it!!

    You and Mr. Bray are free to create a company and come up with another product that people will
    want to buy instead of Apple's.

  45. New iPhone app idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's called iPoopyDick. Fags enter their vital stats and preferences into a profile, and whenever two or more iPhones running this app are within 20 or so feet and the profiles match, their iPhone plays "It's Raining Men."

  46. Um.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, PDF and EPUB format isn't good enough for you? Hell EPUB is even FOSS!

  47. For the sake of your soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the iPhone is the fighter jet in your simile that wants to be a metaphor. Because a celebrity cooking show is a pretty good analogy for the beast that is XML: wrapping trivialities in decoration, depending on studio editing to save the dish, and a medium which assaults different senses than you would first guess.

    1. Re:For the sake of your soul by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      wrapping trivialities in decoration

      While I agree that iPhone is mainly a shiny, overpriced toy, I that's going a bit far.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  48. When it happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, THAT explains it! Now that I've got a rough time estimate to go against, it all makes sense! Around the exact time this guy originally made these statements, I noticed all my iPhone-toting co-workers suddenly stopped in their tracks, all at once, all sort of staring into space. Then their heads jerked a bit, all in unison, complete with a very subtle but decidedly inhuman clicking noise.

    Now, I was on the phone at the time when I was walking by, and they all slowly turned their heads straight at my Nexus One, with empty, unblinking stares in their eyes. Then they all pointed at me, and for the next couple hours it was all this cacophony of "cleanse the unpure" this and "the sinner must pay" that as they chased me all over the office. If it weren't for the RescueDroid app I found in a non-Marketplace website, I would've been done for, but in a matter of a half-hour of hiding, a blue, red, yellow, and green-colored helicopter came to rescue me.

    Man, first interesting day at work in ages! Anyway, am I sure glad THAT got cleared up! Would've been wondering about it for MONTHS!

  49. Some people enjoy a nice garden. by VeryVito · · Score: 0, Troll

    As a developer, I hardly "fear (the landlord's) anger." In fact, I find it rather liberating to develop the apps I want without worrying about what hardware and/or drivers the user has installed, and without worrying about how to market and collect payment for the same apps. Yes indeed, the iPhone is a miserable development experience -- which must be why it has so many developers playing in its garden. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it a streamlined development and distribution system? Absolutely.

  50. Re:That seems to be Apple's role... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you made me laughs
    thank you sir !

  51. Has anyone thought to ask by realinvalidname · · Score: 3, Interesting

    just what the point of this hire is? Apple-bashing aside, is it just to put the shiny open-source face on Google? That didn't exactly save his previous employer, who also hired him for apparent PR value and where he accomplished nothing of sufficient significance to merit inclusion on his Wikipedia bio.

    Perhaps if Apple is very, very lucky, Google will hire Jonathan Schwartz too.

  52. Re:That seems to be Apple's role... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    woosh

  53. Re:idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you don't like socialism. How about capitalism? That's where the government gives away *your* money so rich bankers don't have to work. Ya, that sounds soooo much better than socialism!

  54. No mention of HTML5? by RecessionCone · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's funny - Google is the biggest proponent of using the web to deploy applications of any company that I'm aware of. And Apple doesn't manage, censor, or exert a scintilla of control over web applications. In fact, they support them by ensuring the iPhone remains one of the best deployment targets for HTML applications, keeping their browser up-to-date. Accordingly, I would expect Tim Bray to hold the opinion that developing native apps is a relic of the 20th century, destined to die out soon from natural selection, and persuade people to write web apps rather than rant about Apple's outdated and relictual "walled-garden" app store.

    I think Tim Bray's rant on the iPhone is rather ill-considered & rather short-sighted.

    1. Re:No mention of HTML5? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      RTFA. He does discuss HTML5.

      I’m going to have to get savvier about HTML5-based applications, because a lot of smart people think the future’s there, that the “native app” notion will soon seem quaint.

    2. Re:No mention of HTML5? by RecessionCone · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I should have been more clear in my post. I don't understand why Bray didn't discuss HTML5 when criticizing Apple for its walled-garden app store & control over apps on the iPhone, since web apps completely circumvent all the restrictions that Bray ranted on and on about. When he does bring up HTML5, it's only to acknowledge that he doesn't know much about it, and he never manages to connect the dots.

      From the article: "The big thing about the Web isn’t the technology, it’s that it’s the first-ever platform without a vendor" . Somehow he misses that the Web is a big platform on the iPhone, and then goes on to whine about native applications not being as open and free as the web! It's like he totally missed the point of his own tirade: if you don't like vendor controlled platforms, use the Web, it's the first-ever platform without a vendor!

      For someone who supposedly thinks deep thoughts about these subjects, he's frighteningly short-sighted.

  55. Walled gardens vs glass houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Google demonstrates it can protect its own network against hackers, I'll listen to its critique of Apple's tight control over what goes on the iPhone/Pod/Pad.

  56. I like this guy already ! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    its the first time i heard of this guy, but i like him already. never before the issue with apple was so bluntly and concisely put as below :

    It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.

    He can do advocating for me alright.

  57. Apple fans in slashdot have come a long way by unity100 · · Score: 1

    back 1.5 or so years ago, ANY retort or comment that criticized apple would be harshly modded down. regardless of its content. however after all the happenings of the last few years, its not as such anymore. so we can say that, at least the apple fans in slashdot, came a long way. probably because they are more tech savvy to know what is right and what is wrong than the regular 'hip' apple fan.

    1. Re:Apple fans in slashdot have come a long way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And content-free "I like Macs" comments were getting modded-up to 5 within about 30 seconds.

      My theory was that Slashdot was being astroturfed by the old Evagalistas, at least until they realized this dump is a circlejerk and a waste of time. They are probably now toiling away their worthless zealot existences on rededit or facebook or something.

      (Seriously, a lot of mac fans are quite clearly head-cases, there's no other explanation other than deep unrepairable psychological damage to explain such devotion to a computer manufacturer of all things. I'd love to hear stories about these people's personal lives, I bet they are quite hilarious.)

  58. Re:Your daily dose of Hope & Change (TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the sound of AC bitching about President Obama.

    Just the thought that he pisses them off is a great amusement to me.

  59. "smart phones" by Weezul · · Score: 1

    I don't believe "smart phones" is a meaningful market category. First, my 2006 Motorola L7 SLVR supports email, plays mp3s, and plays java games. Second, all these fancy phones are distinguished mostly by who buys them, not their features.

    Nokia and RIM produce smart phones with large keyboards that balance the need for sending real emails with portability. A casual consumer simply doesn't need that big ass keyboard because a casual consumer doesn't lose a $200k contract by sending a short terse text message. I feel these are more properly called business phones, which also well represents their extra features, like tethering, vpn, voip, etc.

    Apple and Google produce smart phones with large touch screens for entertainment. Any road warrior salesman type would be stupid for depending upon a touch screen keyboard, even the new blackberry storm 2. You know, Apple's iPhone hype might even have contributed to the recession. :) I feel these are more properly called entertainment phones, again well represents the available applications.

    Apple's iPhone did surprise the industry by proving the profitability of high end entertainment phones, which prompted the Blackberry Storm 2 among others, and surely changed Android's direction. Apple's iPhone has not altered the needs of business users. If anything, Apple has removed business oriented applications, and push out the iPod Touch as a high end entertainment platform for travelers. You almost surely know people who own both an iPod touch for entertainment and a Blackberry for work.

    p.s. Nokia largely control the smartphone market outside the U.S.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  60. (asside) by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Nokia takes an interesting flexible form factor approach where their highest end phones are designed explicitly excluding both the business and entertainment market. For example, the N95 let Nokia debug technology among more forgiving early adopters, before releasing the N97 for business users. I'd call these early adopter or fanboy phones.

    I personally own an N900 myself, a phone so raw Nokia won't even call it a phone. I don't mind subsidizing Nokia's R&D though because the phone does wicked shit like run pdflatex, R, python, glom (gui sql client), x11vnc, sshd, etc. A few crazy mother fuckers even run the gimp!

    You can easily see where Nokia is taking the N900 however, a unified smartphone platform well optimized for both business and entertainment functionality, and provides an easy porting target for apps developed on other platforms. We should ultimately expect two Maemo/MeeGo phone, a thin touchscreen phone and a thick N97 form factor phone, both offering the same high level phone features, native applications, and Android compatibility layer.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  61. Droid by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

    Um, actually I think you're thinking of the ads for the Droid, which is actually just a particular Android device made by Motorola and marketed by Verizon. It was the one with the really macho ads everywhere.

    I don't know what Google was thinking allowing one of their OS users to brand their device the Droid, total marketplace confusion.

    The Palm Pre is Verizon's smartphone for women:
    http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/04/verizon-advertising-says-droid-is-for-men-pre-is-for-women-vid/

    1. Re:Droid by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      I don't know what Google was thinking allowing one of their OS users to brand their device the Droid, total marketplace confusion.

      it would be pretty hypocritical to attack apple for not allowing developers to cause marketplace confusion, and then turn around not allow their resellers to do it.

  62. You're paying, just not in cash by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

    There are more ways to pay for something than with cash.

  63. java vm ghetto better than app store ghetto by ad454 · · Score: 1

    Android is only open for carriers, not users. Basically this idiot is saying that he prefers that end-users and developers be walled within a slow Java VM (Virtual Machine) ghetto on the Android platform, verses having end-user and developers walled within a ghetto of limited, but fast natively compiled and executed, selection of iTunes Apps that Apple approves at their sole discretion. Keep in mind that many of Android's prebundled apps/utilities are compiled into machine code, since the Java VM is nothing more than 3rd party app ghetto . I will only believe that the Android VM Java is decent and not an app ghetto, when all of the Android core applications, including the phone app, are solely written in it. Gee, I miss those days when computer operating systems use to have an open execution model that allowed anyone to write, distribute, and install applications as compiled machine code without any restrictions.

    1. Re:java vm ghetto better than app store ghetto by $1uck · · Score: 1

      You fail at life. The JVM is not a walled ghetto. You can go ahead and write whatever you want for it. You can also write portions of your app natively if you wish: http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html. What you're doing is akin to complaining that you can't install windows on your power pc.

    2. Re:java vm ghetto better than app store ghetto by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      1. Android doesn't run JVM (it runs Dalvik VM).

      2. Android has an officially supported way of developing native code applications.

  64. Err, no. by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the folks attacking Apple have as much of a track record of being consistently and intentionally wrong. Case in point.

    For example, both my Mother and my Aunt, in their 60's, want an iPad. They are not fangrrrls. One has a Mac and would prefer the pad, the other doesn't use PC's a lot but would like a simple, portable device for email and internet, and easily sharing photos of my family (since she lives in Europe).

    As for the walled garden, I'd say the motives are mixed. I (and many people I know) actually like walled gardens, in some circumstances, if it helps remove bullshit from my life. Not all circumstances, of course.

    I do agree the blocking of iPad -> iPhone tethering is crap, but I can't tether on AT&T as it is.

    --
    -Stu
    1. Re:Err, no. by MrHanky · · Score: 1, Troll

      Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't suddenly make Apple advertise their stuff to grandmothers. It's designed for young, fashionable gadget freaks who hang out on Twitter all day long and want something more portable to help the tweet from the sofa. If your aunt or mother wants easy sharing of photos, she obviously would prefer something with easy access to an USB port or a built-in sd card reader, i.e. not an iPad. Someone (most likely you) has been selling her a device she doesn't need.

      And speaking of "mixed motives": you don't need a walled garden to remove the bullshit from life. At least not a walled garden that's also a prison. So yes, you're intentionally wrong, and an Apple apologist.

    2. Re:Err, no. by u38cg · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the marketing looks like it speaks to young, fashionable types. That makes it appealling to those of us who are not young and fashionable. All the actual young fashionable types I know are too busy drinking, smoking and having sex to give a toss about Apple.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    3. Re:Err, no. by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, young and fashionable people only look like they get to have sex all the time, in reality they're just spending all their time trying to look fashionable. Fashion == advertising.

    4. Re:Err, no. by radish · · Score: 1

      And speaking of "mixed motives": you don't need a walled garden to remove the bullshit from life. At least not a walled garden that's also a prison. So yes, you're intentionally wrong, and an Apple apologist

      Someone who disagrees with you is not automatically an apologist. I certainly am not - I just sold the only Mac I owned because I really didn't like it, I've never bought anything from iTunes and have a general dislike of the Cult of Mac. However, I do have an iPhone, and I do like the appstore. On my real computers I appreciate being able to install whatever I want and hack it up in any way I like. For my phone I appreciate it being simple, consistent and reliable. I'm perfectly capable of jailbreaking my iPhone if I wanted to, I just don't have any desire to do so - the free/cheap apps I get from the store do everything I want.

      So we differ, which is fine, that doesn't make either of us apologists for anything.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Err, no. by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You seem to know a lot about exactly who the iPad was designed for. Were you on the design team? Did you write the brief?

      You decry the GP's anecdotal evidence and then claim your own opinion as fact to disprove him. You're quite fond of doing that.

    6. Re:Err, no. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      No - they want want because the marketing hype told them they wanted one. There have been plenty of internet appliances (like cell phones) that do all this already.

    7. Re:Err, no. by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      They don't "disagree" with me, they make up vaguely believable but untrue assertions like the one above, not to counter my argument, but to distract from it. Like the guy above who said the walled garden removes bullshit from life. Fact 1: there are tons of bullshit iPhone apps, readily available in the app store. Fact 2: restricting you from installing third party apps isn't necessary to remove bullshit. The fact that his "arguments" are meant to white-wash Apple while having no merit at all makes him an apologist.

      Your arguments for your usage of the iPhone are perfectly fine with me, on the other hand. There are plenty of good things to be said for the iPhone and other Apple products. It's when people trump up blatant lies like the guy above I call them apologists and liars.

    8. Re:Err, no. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Um, MrHanky says you're wrong. Who ya' gonna believe; your own reasoned thoughts on things or some guy with a funny name on the internet?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    9. Re:Err, no. by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

      With utterly crap user experiences. No thanks.

      --
      -Stu
    10. Re:Err, no. by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

      Err, they saw the ad during the Oscars and read about it in the paper prior to that. Neither would have any idea what an SD card or USB is; we share photo and vids via email or MobileMe , and even that doesn't work well with my Aunt since she doesn't have a PC. We wind up mailing photos and stuff.

      I don't like being "family tech support" so no, I didn't push this on them, but apparently your worldview requires you to believe that I'm already a fanboi and thus not worth listening to.

      A walled garden isn't required, never said that it was, only that I appreciate Apple's for removing bullshit from my computing and communications devices.

      --
      -Stu
    11. Re:Err, no. by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      And the iPad is definitely not for your aunt. Since iPad REQUIRES a conventional computer to be present in the household.

  65. thers better devices then the ipad, by luther349 · · Score: 0

    the ipad the over sized ipod it is i dont think will be a big hit. theirs just better devices out there at a lower price that offer better features. the arcos 5 android tablet smokes anything apple in term of power and features, the orignal arcos models did but they used there own os and genuinely charged to unlock anything useful they have changed that model with there new models being the use the fully open android. the android 5 is powerd by a arm cortex hehe lots of power. if i knew of the arcos before i bought my ipod trust me i woulda when with a android arcos its the same price.

  66. Way I see it... by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Apple wants to control the world's premium hardware devices (and how they are used).
    Google wants to control the world's information.

    Only one of these visions frightens me.

    --
    -Stu
    1. Re:Way I see it... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Balderdash!

      Google just wants to make revenue from an advertistement every time someone reads some information - big difference!

      But you're right - the thought of Apple creating proprietary lock-in on all the world's hardware frightens me also.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  67. Re:Your daily dose of Hope & Change (TM) by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    It's only guys like Beck who are talking about Obama as a messiah.

  68. Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism! by introspekt.i · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reworking the line from Steve Ballmer. Everybody seems to be reminiscing about the days when this stuff was open, but it was open because that's what people wanted to buy! Steve Jobs could be a nasty guy like people pass him off (I don't know him, so I reserve judgement), but what he is good at is reading markets. He was good then, and he's good now. Steve Jobs doesn't care about openness more than closed-ness. The man wants a product that sells, he's a businessman to the core (and a damn good one at that). If it's open stuff, he'll make it, but right now he doesn't see it that way, and I'm inclined to agree with him. The typical consumer he's targeting wants an integrated product suite that "just works". Openness takes a backseat to dealing with the alternative (to your typical Mac user, IMO!!). You can't really hold it against the user, or Jobs, for creating a product and acting as such. I'm sure you can come up with other reasons to hate them though.. That Mac user loves his VW, lattes at Starbucks, thick black rimmed square glasses and listening to Moby. Steve Jobs is running a company that, apparently, goes nuts in court over patents and control of its OS.

  69. That's how deep the conspiracy goes! by weston · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws.

    I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.

    No! You don't get it! That's how deep the conspiracy goes! Either Apple has brainwashed state governments so they don't see that Apple's also violating the same antitrust laws, or fanbois have infiltrated those governments! There's no other possible explanation!

    Wake up sheeple and see the truth before it's too late and we have iGovernment!

    1. Re:That's how deep the conspiracy goes! by Draek · · Score: 1

      There's a much simpler explanation out there, however: they simply haven't sued them yet. Intel didn't magically become an abusive monopolist when they were sued by the EU, they were sued by the EU *because* they had behaved like abusive monopolists for years before then.

      But of course, we had Intel fanboys claiming up and down that Intel was merely a normal business player and that AMD was just a sore loser until the last minute before the lawsuit. Actually, scratch that, we still had them months *after* that. Some people just can't ever stop looking at their favorite corp through rose-tinted glasses.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    2. Re:That's how deep the conspiracy goes! by hercubus · · Score: 1

      Wake up sheeple and see the truth before it's too late and we have iGovernment!

      Steve Jobs as the unelected dictator of a new iMerica. This fanbois just had a massive iGasm.

      Oh Steven, you complete me!

      --
      -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
    3. Re:That's how deep the conspiracy goes! by H0D_G · · Score: 1

      Welllllll.... Obama did give an iPod to Queen Elizabeth. A Sign?!

      --
      Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
  70. Quality, simplicity - onus is on Android by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    On my smartphone I want
    -quality and security vetted apps -just works
    -apps with simple, quality-assessed human factors ui design
    -relatively few apps to choose from in each category
    -performance and battery-life vetted apps
    -a single simple way to pay for non-free apps or content

    These properties are way more important to me than
    total freedom for developers on the platform.

    If android can achieve my requirements, and also have
    a "scratch" area for unvetted apps to be browsed and tried
    out in secure sandboxes, well, cool, but the onus is on
    them to show that they have a way of making it easy to
    limit yourself to finding and running apps that have
    some standards. Yeah, I know. iFart, But at least its easy
    to use.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  71. Ah, the joys of open gardens by jamie(really) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At the store, Roark had never been told that his HTC Eris has Android 1.5, nicknamed “Cupcake.” Until told by a reporter, he had no idea what features he’s missing as a result. For instance, free turn-by-turn navigation is available in the latest version, Android 2.1 (”Eclair”), but is only available to Cupcake users for $10 a month from Verizon.

    Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/#ixzz0iJv1DstU

    The carriers have been fucking us for years. Half the talk on forums is how to uninstall the shitty bloatware that carriers install on the android phones. Hey, at least with an android phone you *can* do it, unlike every other motorola, nokia slow-fest.

    The iphone is the best phone i've ever had. It has an alarm that works, and I can set for only weekdays. How hard is that???? It has a battery life of more than a few hours (I'm looking at you, my Samsung windows mobile phone). It has a headset with a NORMAL HEADSET JACK. It charges by plugging into my USB. How is it that such simple pleasures make this the best phone ever? Because all the others are corrupted bloatware pocket fillers, courtesy of the "carriers".

    The iPhone works because Apple took on the carriers. The various Droid market is failing because carriers are worse than M$. Between you and google is a carrier. Good luck with that!

    1. Re:Ah, the joys of open gardens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The various Droid market is failing because carriers are worse than M$. Between you and google is a carrier. Good luck with that!

      He's a carrier ! Unclean, UNCLEAN !

    2. Re:Ah, the joys of open gardens by H0D_G · · Score: 1

      I can do everything you just described with my nokia E72. + more!

      --
      Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
  72. Meditation by jamie(really) · · Score: 1

    I visited a meditation garden with my family. It was a very beautiful place. Our children were excited and making quite a bit of noise. A polite lady asked us if we could keep our children quiet because people were meditating. We agreed. It had walls, this garden. And a gate. We will be going back.

    1. Re:Meditation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Our children were excited and making quite a bit of noise.

      Sounds like children had more fun in the end, though.

  73. Totally different by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

    It is totally different for Apple to not allow developers to duplicate functionality of existing applications (ostensibly to avoid marketplace confusion) than if Google (hypothetically) were to use its trademark on the word Android to prevent users of Android from naming their devices confusingly similar names.

    1. Re:Totally different by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      totally different? they both cause marketplace confusion, yes?

    2. Re:Totally different by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      Man, are you for real or are you trolling me?

      Let's do an analogy.

      If the government banned everyone from making colas because it would cause marketplace confusion by duplicating functionality with Coke, that would be draconian. If the government banned everyone from making things called Coca Cola (other than Coke) because it would cause marketplace confusion by confusing customers as to which one is which product, that is probably good policy and is why we have trademarks.

      Similarly, when Apple prevents people from making applications that duplicate functionality, people call it draconian. When Apple prevents people from making applications that include the word Apple, nobody complains.

      Even though the words "marketplace confusion" remain the same, they refer to different types of confusion.

    3. Re:Totally different by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      you seem to be the one trolling me... you stated that you couldn't even image what google could be thinking "allowing" someone to use a term that they didn't have a trademark on, because it caused confusion with a trademark they did have a trademark on.

      what they were probably thinking is THEY WERE NEVER IN THE POSITION TO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO DO THAT.

      since when can we not do something unless google allows us to?

    4. Re:Totally different by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      Even though the words "marketplace confusion" remain the same, they refer to different types of confusion.

      and you are saying that SOME of the types of confusion apply and some don't. i don't think you understand what the word "totally" means.

    5. Re:Totally different by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      i guess what you're saying is that phone manufacturers that utilize the android OS serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger. no?

  74. I totally agree with Tim Bray by viraltus · · Score: 1

    It's time to talk about things the way they are.

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  75. The first law of Slashdot by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot as a group is ALWAYS against what you are for.

    Slashdot is filled with hippies/gun nuts.

    Slashdot is filled with rabid republicans/demented democrats.

    Slashdot is filled with MS apologists/BSD freaks/Apple fanboys. They are all seen as silly by the enlightened linux users who are well above this kind of shameful name calling what are after all their fellow human beings even if they are obviously less evolved.

    Slashdot is filled with Trek nerds/People that hate Trek for being nerdy/Hate trek for not being nerdy enough.

    Slashdot is filled with virgins/people who lie about having had sex.

    Oh and the best way to make a claim that slashdot is against you? Claim you are going to be modded down for saying it. Then when you are modded up, don't change your mind.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The first law of Slashdot by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is filled with hippies/gun nuts.

      I am a hippie gun nut! /collect WWII side arms, have long hair and have small pottery business out in the country

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  76. like it's with all new technologies... by alobar72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it is like with all new technologies that settel in the consumer market.
    First, there are the early adopters who can - an take pride in the fact that they can - manipulate and fix those technologies.
    As that technology becomes more common - more and more users are
    a) not willing to invest a huge amount of time to be able to use this technology correctly and
    b) dont want to rely an an early adopter to do so.
    As the technology further matures, the neccessety - and with it the possibility - to maipulate and fix this technology by yourself disappears.
    The early adopters loose the possibility of beeing more than just "dumb users" and feel caged because that technology has been kind of locked down.
    But for the users that have by now become the majority it is most convenient to use it without having to get into it too deeply.
    The early adopters find a niche (product ) where they still can test their technical skills on and the overall consumer is just happy this easy-to-use piece of technology exists.
    That said:
    - assuring no app can do bad things through strict quality controll
    - strict guidelines for userinterface design
    - limit external interfaces and provide a standard way of data exchange
    sounds to me like being a good thing for serving the average user.

  77. Nominative Determinism... by Rational · · Score: 1

    Best example in a while.

    --
    "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  78. Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no! Someone blasphemes against the iGods! - quick, someone tell the Slashdot!

  79. Apple are likewise abusing USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple are likewise abusing USB by using the iPod product ID to define the CAPABILITIES of the device. Palm says it's iPod in compatibility. Apple refuse.

    Apple themselves are breaking USB protocol.

  80. Sad propaganda from the Chief of the Nerd Police by gig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All you need to ask yourself is why did he even say the word "iPhone" at all? He just got hired by Google. WTF has iPhone got to do with anything? Seriously, ask yourself that. None of the answers are good for Google.

    The misinformation was also very sad, since he is someone who has contributed mightily in the past. He should at least have the standards of a Gizmodo review. It was sad to see him say the Internet is locked down on iPhone when it is clearly not in any way locked down, nor is it proprietary like Microsoft or Adobe. It was also sad to see him say that iPhone has limited the conversation on the Internet when it's clearly drawn an even larger audience to the conversation, providing many people with the first Internet device that they could master, causing many people to discover text messaging or Twitter and so on for the first time. Not only that but these are the very first native app purchases and installs for many users. Also sad that he thinks the successful, popular, and malware-free iPhone App Store should change to be more like the fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market. And he clearly doesn't understand that App Store is not the only place to get iPhone apps, it is only 1 of 2 app platforms on iPhone ... App Store is entirely optional. The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server. The alternative is there already if App Store is not for you. Why does it bother the Nerd Police so much that users on iPhone have their own choice of either managed or unmanaged apps? With all that has happened with Windows malware and botnets, why is it so important that *phone users* should be exposed to a native malware risk?

    But this is the guy who said he would never type on a virtual keyboard and how awful iPhone was for having that, how stupid the users were for not being able to type on the device (he imagined) until he got a G1 with a much worse virtual keyboard than iPhone and said it was OK, he could live with it. So it's actually not surprising to see him talking out of his ass rather than actually trying the gear, learning about it, finding out about it.

    Imagine if Google had hired a hardware chief instead, and announced they were making a "true Google phone" like so many have asked for. I think that would have been a much more interesting move, and they could have done it without saying "iPhone." Well, maybe not. Too bad.

  81. Walled garden construction kit by argent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One reason Android beat out Openmoko was because Google was willing to make a platform that carriers could turn into a walled garden if they wanted to, while Openmoko was designed to NOT be locked down.

    Sure, technically Google isn't doing evil here. They're just enabling AT&T to do it.

  82. How to spice things up... by TaggartAleslayer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whether you are for Apple or for Google, you will eventually get tired of the conversation. So here is how to add some spice.

    "Well, I mean OS X and Android are both Unix derivitaves, so as long as we're supporting open source I'm all for it."

    Hilarity ensues on many levels.

  83. Re:Sad propaganda from the Chief of the Nerd Polic by weez75 · · Score: 1

    Find a better, more well-written opinion in this thread and I'll be impressed.

    iPhone users have a choice as do all smartphone users. Many iPhone users selected the iPhone knowing that they'd be locked into the App Store and the rules that apply.

    Those who preach the "open is better" mantra at all costs obviously don't speak for the public. For the most part, Apple's customers seem quite happy with the iPod, the iPhone and other "closed system" devices. Sadly, Tim Bray seems to have joined this crowd and has done so without critical evaluation of Android.

    As you pointed out, Google needs to make advances in phone technology to win--not copy nor denigrate the choices other manufacturers have made. If they feel they have a superior alternative to RIM, Apple or WinMO then let customers speak. So far, RIM and Apple lead the pack.

    --
    Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
  84. "co-founder" ??? by .tom. · · Score: 1

    Please don't mix technique and business: XML is not a company, and contributing to the creation of a technology is not "co-founding" it.
    Tim Bray is one of the creators of XML, like Vint Cerf can be said to be the inventor of TCP, but they are not "co-founders" of the said technologies.

  85. And... by Rand+Race · · Score: 1

    Google and I have been a plausible match for a long time. Web-centric, check. Search, check. Open-source, check. The list goes on.

    Unstable, check. Virus ridden, check. Poorly documented, check. Good enough but cheaper than the best, oh you better believe that's a check.

    --
    Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  86. Commercial support for Vorbis by tepples · · Score: 1

    Ogg has almost no commercial support.

    Guitar Hero and Rock Band series are among the many video games that use Ogg Vorbis audio.

    1. Re:Commercial support for Vorbis by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I didn't read anywhere in that list where commercial music was supported by Ogg which is the context of iTunes not video games

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  87. And for video? by tepples · · Score: 1

    iTMS files are AAC audio and fairplay is gone.

    Let me know when fairplay is gone from video.

    1. Re:And for video? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Ask the movie/tv industry about that one. Again, it is a goal of Apple to remove it, but they can only do so with the product owner's consent, or they will just refuse to allow Apple to sell it in the first place. No doubt negotiations are in play. I would imagine that Disney will be the first to do this, given the ties with Apple already. It's not easy though.

    2. Re:And for video? by tepples · · Score: 1

      would imagine that Disney will be the first to do this, given the ties with Apple already.

      Fat chance. The Walt Disney Company and the Gershwin estate were the two leaders of the fight to extend copyright in the late 1990s.

  88. It's not called iTMS anymore by tepples · · Score: 1

    iTMS

    It's called "iTunes Store" now, and everything that isn't the M in what iTMS used to stand for still has digital restriction management.

  89. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.'"

    Ironic, much like Google's relationship with China.

    Something about people in glass houses....

  90. Re:Sad propaganda from the Chief of the Nerd Polic by $1uck · · Score: 1

    "The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server." Did you write that with a straight face? Seriously, do you really believe that? "fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market" citation please.

  91. The car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Automatic transmissions are used to perform a function that the user would otherwise have to do for themselves. The Apple functionality in question prevents the user from doing things that they might want to do.

  92. let him finish his sentence by robogobo · · Score: 1

    "The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger..." and make a shitload of money.

  93. Openmoko didn't work! by AlphaGremlin · · Score: 1

    I'd argue Openmoko failed because they were too busy making shiny user interfaces to get the thing working.

    It had nothing to do with the level of lock-down and everything to do with the thing not even covering the essentials of being a phone, let alone smartphone. Just the little things, like... say, making and receiving phone calls reliably, or being able to have it suspend and actually work when it woke up.

    The hardware wasn't so bad, but they seemed to think that being open source would magically provide them with functioning software.

    1. Re:Openmoko didn't work! by argent · · Score: 1

      That's why I wrote "one reason". OpenMoko had serious problems, yes, but one of them (from the point of the carriers) was that they couldn't lock it down.

  94. Not really outside... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It sounds an awful lot like the only difference is that Apple was happier to save money by using good technology that was developed outside of the company.

    That's kind of true - but kind of not. Is there any other company on the planet putting as much money into Webkit development as Apple? Possibly Google, but even there I'm not sure. Apple also contributes a ton of code to other projects, and open sources wholly in-house develope libraries like ZeroConf and Grand Central.

    Yes they leverage free things so they don't have to do as much work - but it doesn't mean they do no work, or that the work they do is not significant in scope and effort.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  95. Re:That seems to be Apple's role... by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Were you buying licensed DRM free music in the United States before Steve Jobs asked the record companies to allow it?

    That would be news to the record companies.

  96. Why doesn't the android have USB- HOST mode? by cellurl · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't the android have USB- HOST mode?

    Seriously, without that we can't build:
    Light turn on gizmos.
    Robotics
    Cruise controls
    TV remote controls

    I just did a preliminary investigation of using Android for controlling something and there is no USB-host mode.

    WTF Need USB HOST MODE

  97. i can't get past this quote... by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

    The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.

    last i checked, fear-mongering was pretty evil...

    bad move, google.