Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously!

Thinkcloud writes "A user named Hexxeh has posted a video online of the iPad running Google's upcoming Chrome OS. Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state, but it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook. Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?"

Comments

Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the creators of these tech videos always add annoying music where silence or narration would be better?

Re:Music?

[moonbender]

I liked the music. You can silence it easy enough if you don't. Narration might have been useful, as would a better angle of the camera or an actual description on the video. I guess it's part of the mystery in revealing this. I'm wondering though -- is this an iPad running Chromium or an iPad running Chrome OS as TFA/TFS claims? It seems as if the former would be far easier to pull off (jailbreak it and get a chromium build running). And even if you buy into the whole the-browser-is-the-OS thing, surely it's significant that the whole Apple software stack is still running the show.

Re:Music?

[PARENA]

Since you want to know: it's from Penny Arcade: The Series. Don't know if they took it from somewhere else.

Re:Music?

[Miseph]

Dude, that's not even fair. My Kenshin//Disturbed AMV is totally sick!

Full disclosure, I have neither made nor posted to the internet any such thing at any time. And even if I had, it would most assuredly be utter crap.

go direct to the source luke

[m1ndrape]

http://blog.hexxeh.net/

Going forward?

[FrostedWheat]

Now that's really pushing the envelope.

Re:Going forward?

[SigmundFloyd]

Yeah, what's with that "operating systems going forward"? Sounds like a pretty pathetic attempt at double-entendre to me.

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question:

[Sockatume]

Chrome OS. Not the Chrome Browser.

Original Article

[Chickan]

Here is the original article on PadGadget, with the video mentioned here. http://www.padgadget.com/2010/10/01/hacked-ipad-runs-google-chrome-os/

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question:

[Pojut]

Flippin'....::slaps self::

Does it say if it runs better than the version of iOS that comes with the iPad?

Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis? That is exactly the level of openness Apple has consistently shown to be in their "playbook".

Seriously, the only thing that would make someone think this sensationalist hypothesis might be true is if one paid attention to previous sensationalist hypothesis but did not pay attention when they were proved completely wrong. Apple locks down their services and keeps a lot of their "secret sauce" code closed and is very secretive about it. Apple is secretive about upcoming projects. There are good business reasons for all of the above. Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[jschottm]

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers

The iPad is not a computer, it's a device. Apple has a much different attitude about their devices than their computers.

There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it.

You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Darkness404]

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[spottedkangaroo]

On the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone. It took new rules to allow unlocking, for instance. You might argue that the locking had more to do with contracts with ATT than anything else... Maybe you have a point here.

But ... How about Project Gutenberg? The Kama Sutra? I think Apple has rightfully earned their reputation as a nanny mothership. They may allow alternate OSes. We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[jschottm]

If you have to use an exploit to install your alternative OS, that means the vendor is not receptive to you doing so. And do you have a 6th generation iPod running Rockbox or the like?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[rjstanford]

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

Now does that sound like a sustainable business process to you?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Quantus347]

Yes, because they view this particular piece of hardware as a terminal for their proprietary iTunes and AppStore venue. That is the where a majority of the revenue comes from, why they are willing to so carefully walk the thin line of monopoly to attempt to keep competing software out of their draconian store, why they lied for so long about how it was illegal to jailbreak, why they then instituted code to report/disable jail-broken hardware (to the extent that said monopoly laws allow), why iPods can no longer do things like file transfer outside of iTunes, and a host of other measures they've taken. All this with the singular goal of keeping their online pay service as the sole means of access to these revolutionary new hardware platforms.

Its not that they dont care whether you run other software, its that they can only legally go so far. The very last thing they want is for you to be able to install 3rd party apps without their approval, or worse yet, an entirely new OS that bypasses all their control measures. The only leg they've had to stand on so far is the claim that such things (jail-breaking, non-itunes accepted apps, alternate OS's) create instability for the hardware. But even that has to stand up to a good bit of scrutiny, lest they be caught intentionally creating this instability, as both they and Microsoft have been seen doing in the past. As long as they can claim that their software is really the only safe solution, they can keep the reins. What happens when somebody comes along and proves that another solution, and worse a fully supported competitor's solution, is equally viable?

Yes, Apple did a good thing making the MacBook run multiple OS's, but that was a far different situation, and more of the exception than the rule. In that case they had already lost the market share, as the majority of users had for years decided they'd rather deal with lesser hardware (which until the whole Macbook thing was not widely believed or demonstrated) on a more open and common OS than deal with Apples imposed limitations on software diversity. They were clawing from the bottom, not looking down from the top. Now they are the kings of the mountain, with a solid and dominant grip on this emerging market. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve that position, and nothing will erode it faster than Options.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"

Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

You read it that way, I read it as "hey, if you're going to install new firmware and then also install our firmware updater, we aren't responsible if it screws something up. I mean, we haven't even seen your code... how can we possibly know ahead of time if our updater won't wipe some important part of the memory of your homebrew firmware? Look, if you're going to modify the guts of your phone, it's all your responsibility if it fails. Don't come crying to us."

At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update? That'd be like installing OSX on a computer and then running a Win7 security update. It could do nothing, or it could wipe out the kernel.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Tim C]

There is a difference between "actively attempts to prevent" and "does not provide the means to".

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps, and you can even distribute them using the ad hoc distribution method. The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of. Complaining about this is like complaining that you can't walk into Best Buy and put your own software on their shelves without their approval. They're under no obligation to provide you with shelf space and payment at their registers.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[chrb]

Their "long-running battles" extend only to voiding the warranties of jailbroken devices.

No it hasn't. Apple has repeatedly blocked jailbreaks.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Tom]

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that.

On the contrary, it's providing Boot Camp and (at least for windows) hardware drivers exactly for that purpose.

Nevertheless, the iPad and iPhone are locked-down devices, so in their particular cases, I think the submitter is still right.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

Many jail-breaking techniques rely on exploiting security holes. Closing them closes the jailbreak. Would you rather Apple not fix them?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[beelsebob]

Yes it has. Apple has repeatedly patched security flaws in their OS.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[PopeRatzo]

The alternative is, "Whatever weird-ass system level shit you put on your phone, without telling us about it, often using temporary internal API structures, we absolutely guarantee that our firmware and OS upgrades won't break a thing, and if they do, bring it to us and we'll get it all fixed up for you for free."

No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

There's a lot of room between that "try anything funny and we'll brick your phone".

Re:Idiotic Summary

[slim]

There is a difference between "actively attempts to prevent" and "does not provide the means to".

There is. And exploits are workarounds to the former.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

Refusing to provide storage and distribution is quite clearly [i]not[/i] the only thing that Apple do to try to limit this. As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone. Officially, this voids your licence agreement with Apple, and although to my knowledge they've never enforced this they regularly do as much as they can to the device to try to prevent jailbreaking. You can argue that Apple are within their rights to do this, and potentially even that this may be good for the average consumer, but to simply claim that it doesn't happen - that Apple do nothing to prevent you from putting your own apps on an iPhone beyond refusing to distribute - is plain wrong.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

As far as I remember Apple has always said installing other firmware may cause problems and may brick your phone. In the one incident I remember users that jail-broke the phone and then tried to install an iOS update made their phones unusable. But it wasn't really bricked as they could recover if they followed a series of steps which including installing an older version of iOS.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone.

Go back to my earlier post. Notice how I used an odd phrase, "ad hoc distribution"? That was on purpose. You can most certainly run non-Apple approved apps that aren't web apps without jailbreaking your phone. It also doesn't void your license agreement with Apple.

The rest of your post is moot in view of the above and therefore invalid.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Rhaban]

See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps

Being able to do something after jailbreaking your phone doesn't mean apple allows it.

And a number of things are just allowed by Apple because there are laws against them not allowing it.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Fnkmaster]

Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here), AND they have refused to replace or service obviously broken hardware simply because the software was jailbroken or the phone unlocked and running on an unapproved carrier. Go to some of the iPhone forums, you'll read plenty of threads of users restoring their software to stock state so that they can bring a broken piece of hardware to the store to get serviced without being thrown out the door.

Admittedly, not all Apple employees are like this, and enforcement has been highly inconsistent. Plenty of reports out there of people who've had broken hardware replaced regardless of jailbreak or unlock status. But you can't deny the generally user-hostile attitude of Apple toward anybody who wants to modify, customize or change in any way their iPhone device they shelled out cold hard cash for.

But the general attitude completely unacceptable. I have walked away from iPhone as a platform after being an iPhone 2G and 3G owner, and would never touch it again. I am so much happier with my Nexus One, a phone that lets me do what I want and doesn't treat me like a criminal.

Companies that treat their users like criminals or slaves under the pretense of "sustainable business practices" (i.e. driving absurd amounts of profit - I don't think Apple has to worry about sustaining their business at this point) won't be getting my business. And their OCD insistence on uniformity of everything and insistence that their way is always the right way drives me nuts (remember how long they insisted that nobody needed a real API for applications on the iPhone? And how now apps are the primary draw of the platform? Idiots.).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

You read it that way, I read it as "hey, if you're going to install new firmware and then also install our firmware updater, we aren't responsible if it screws something up. I mean, we haven't even seen your code... how can we possibly know ahead of time if our updater won't wipe some important part of the memory of your homebrew firmware? Look, if you're going to modify the guts of your phone, it's all your responsibility if it fails. Don't come crying to us."

You know, if Apple said that they're not responsible for any of your DATA if you install homebrew software, I'd agree with you. However, if there's anything at all you can possibly do with software, without ever opening your phone up, that actually bricks your device (by the true definition of brick, ie, can't be fixed without the use of a soldering iron), then it's a hardware design flaw. You have to design that shit so there's a read-only failsafe rom that will place your phone in a recovery mode from which you can always reflash to factory firmware.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the iPhone IS designed like that. Which makes the whole warranty voiding thing bullshit designed to scare you into not doing it.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Urza9814]

Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?

Then why does every iPod get more difficult to open up? More difficult to replace the battery? More difficult to jailbreak? If Apple really didn't care what people did with their devices after they bought them, then why does Apple claim that jailbreaking their devices is _illegal_, even though the courts (despite heavy resistance from Apple) have said it isn't?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

n the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone.

Yeah, and Bill Gates is famous for programming Windows, that doesn't mean it actually happened. Apple locks down their app store service and ties their OS to that service, but they haven't done anything about people jail breaking those devices so that they can use other services and other software, or dual boot other OS's. They just don't support those devices under the warranty, as one would expect.

This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.

Why not? Did you even read my post? Apple hasn't stopped anyone in the iAndroid project from installing or even dual booting Android and iOS. That lets people run unapproved apps too. Why would you think they'll take the unprecedented step for ChromeOS and the iPad? How is it any different?

If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).

They've never cared and no, it isn't popular and probably never will be. Jailbreaking or installing alternate OS's is always rare. Hell installing an alternate OS on off the shelf desktop systems is rare. That will almost certainly always be the case because it takes people knowing and caring enough to make the effort. On top of that, they have to be people who for some reason bought a device with Apple's iOS instead of the many with the OS they've decided they want.

Once you've given Apple their money, they don't care what you do with your device so long as you don't expect them to support it and honor the warranty on a device where you've bypassed their security, update, and QC systems. They've never, ever cared. And yet people like you keep insisting they somehow do, based upon a complete inability to distinguish between hardware (iDevice) and a software service (ITunes Store).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[wannabgeek]

Who modded you informative? If I have an iP* device, can I install apps from another store without jail breaking? No, paying another 100 dollars (and going through some developer program or some such shite) is not the same as

The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Nevertheless, the iPad and iPhone are locked-down devices...

If by locked down device, you mean "can't run other OS's because of some hardware lock" no that's not true. Nor has Apple stopped anyone from installing other OS's on the iPhone or iPod touch, except in that they patched some security holes that had been used as a method to easily install those OS's from within iOS.

...I think the submitter is still right.

Gee that's great, but how about a logical reason why you think they're right. Since Apple has done nothing about the iAndroid project installing an alternative Linux based OS from Google on the iPhone, why exactly do you think they'll do something about a different project installing an alternative Linux based OS from Google on the iPad? What exactly is the difference between those two scenarios that makes you think they'll take that course of action? Seriously, do you have any reasoning here?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

See, that's just not true. You can write and install your own non-approved apps

Being able to do something after jailbreaking your phone doesn't mean apple allows it.

Once more for the slow kid: You can write and install your own non-approved apps, and you can even distribute them using the ad hoc distribution method.

You don't have to jailbreak your phone to install your own apps, and you can even distribute them via your own website to people who can install them without needing to jailbreak.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

How, exactly? Say I've developed an app and I want to distribute it to everyone in my company. How would I go about doing it?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Mordaximus]

. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone. It took new rules to allow unlocking, for instance

None of my previous phones, besides a Blackberry, allowed you to do much of anything, and worse, the providers locked them down to the point that they were practically useless even if software was available for them. It took specialized software to unlock them just to install apps, or prevent annoying "trust this app" prompts. Apple seems a step ahead to me, or they did at that point in time.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Dog-Cow]

I'm a registered iOS developer, but even I have to agree with the principle of your parent post. Ad Hoc is a way to get betas out to testers before submitting your app to Apple. It is not a way to get your app to a random and/or unlimited number of users.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't know why you were modded flamebait.

Apple has everything to gain by allowing users to run Windows on their Mac products. This is not true of the iOS devices. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by promoting such things.

Umm, they gain a hardware sale and they don't have to promote it, just not actively go out of their way to stop it.

Just because they haven't found a way to crack down on it doesn't mean they like it, approve of it, and won't try to prevent it in the future.

No, it doesn't mean they won't take that action, only that there is no evidence to support the assertion that they will take that action. They haven't done anything about users doing damn near the exact that thing with regard to iPhones and Android. Therefore, why would anyone think they're going to do something about iPads?

Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the iOS line is as a hardware shopping portal to the various iStores and for iAd.

You are incorrect. The primary purpose of iOS is to sell portable hardware, you know the portions of Apple pulling in about 50% of their revenue. They make relatively little on iStores (5% if we're really generous) which exist to promote and sell hardware as well, as stated by Jobs and several other Apple execs and backed up their statements to their shareholders (where it would be criminal to lie) and their financial filings. As for iAd, it might make money some day, but it is an add-on idea, and certainly not the plan for their primary revenue stream anytime soon unless you have some astounding numbers the rest of us do not. It's mostly there to woo developers and get more commercially developed apps on the iPhone which, in turn, sells more hardware.

Hack the device to run ChromeOS or Android and all that lovely revenue flies out the window.

The percentage of users that will ever install a different OS on any device is tiny, not worth bothering about, but even if it weren't, that's still a hardware sale and Apple isn't selling devices below cost like game console makers have in past. They're no about to discourage people from giving them cash for hardware in the hopes that these same people will ignore all Apple's competitors in the market and give them money anyway. That is, as I originally stated, idiotic.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

How, exactly? Say I've developed an app and I want to distribute it to everyone in my company. How would I go about doing it?

Well, the first step would be to use Google. Some suggested search terms include "distribute" and "app". Of course, that only turns up 4 relevant hits on the first page and you apparently need more step-by-step directions. How about Googling for the phrase I used twice earlier - "ad hoc distribution"? Then you could even use the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Do you need further explanation?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

It's called Developer Enterprise Program. You do have to have permission of your company and your company must be in the Developer Enterprise Program.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

All of the links that this pulls back is to the beta programme (which is limited to 100 people prepared to give you their device id), so I assume you're not referring to this. Any more clues?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[molnarcs]

Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?

Most of what you say is correct, especially when it comes to desktop offering. That last bit, however, is nonsense or just fanboyism. See this for example.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Improv]

There's a danger when app distribution becomes most commonly steered through channels the device vendor controls. In older times, one had other options but Best Buy to reasonably distribute software, and people used them.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

I'm a registered iOS developer, but even I have to agree with the principle of your parent post. Ad Hoc is a way to get betas out to testers before submitting your app to Apple. It is not a way to get your app to a random and/or unlimited number of users.

Yes. It's not a limitless revenue stream, and is limited to only 100 users unless you modify your code slightly. Kinda like you can only burn 10 CDs of a playlist in iTunes before you have to modify the order slightly or add a second of silence.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[InsurrctionConsltant]

No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

There's a lot of room between that "try anything funny and we'll brick your phone".

In what way does this differ from what Apple is currently doing? You have to be a bit careful when installing OS updates if your iPhone is jailbroken. That's all. When has Apple ever bricked someone's phone for "trying anything funny?" Never.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What about the encrypted firmware on iPods? Now you can't run Rockbox...

Yeah, they added a hardware hash to the database, but that doesn't actually stop you from installing a different OS on the device, you just have to give up using iTunes for it or break the encryption (potentially illegal depending upon jurisdiction).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

OK. What about if I want to distribute it to my customers as well.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

All of the links that this pulls back is to the beta programme (which is limited to 100 people prepared to give you their device id), so I assume you're not referring to this. Any more clues?

It's limited to 100 people per app. Change the app and get another 100 people. It's an additional step not required by the App Store, but, it's certainly not:

As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yeah, I read it, particularly:

"Apple says it’s unlawful to jailbreak, but has not taken legal action against the millions who have jailbroken their phones and used the underground app store Cydia."

How does that support your opinion that Apple gives a rat's ass about jailbreaking, since they've taken no legal action ever, to stop it?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

But will Apple allow me to install OSX on Dell PCs?

Even better, can I sell PC's with OSX on them and call them Apple compatibles?

Apple is evil

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

So your idea of an acceptable way of ad hoc distribution to potentially many thousands of people is to get every one of them to send you their device ID and to create a new version of your app every hundred users, making sure that you've sent the correct version of that app to each of the people that you've entered their device id for? You are joking right?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[SigmundFloyd]

You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis?

Dean: Hi there! Hello, I'm Dean Peterson, but you can call me Bobby.
              I just want you to know if you ever feel stressed out from
              studying or whatever, I'm always up for some hackey sack. Or,
              hey! If you just want to come by and jam, I used to be the bass
              player for the Pretenders. [plays a riff]
Homer: [bitterly] Boy, I can't wait to take some of the starch out of
              that stuffed shirt.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Americano]

regularly do as much as they can to the device to try to prevent jailbreaking.

In some circles, this is also known as "closing exploitable holes which can allow an attacker to gain root access to a device." And we actually tend to appreciate companies doing that.

If the iOS dev model is not for you, looks like you'd be happier working with Android & the Android Marketplace. Nobody's forcing you to buy or use iOS devices, and if you listen to the talk around here, Android is the way of the future anyway, so might as well start riding that wave early, right?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[magus_melchior]

True, but that's a few steps removed from Blizzard's treatment of StarCraft 2 user-made maps ("You wanna publish your stuff? You go through us, and only us."-- Apple just doesn't make the "only us" a requirement of iOS, even though for all intents and purposes it assumes as such). It's practically impossible to get any mindshare outside of iTunes, unless your app is really polished and well-known outside of the enthusiasts who know about installation of ad-hoc apps. And even if it's exceptionally useful and brilliant, Apple can deny its entry to iTunes for seemingly trivial or arbitrary reasons.

It's like comparing a big-name commercial program sold at a Best Buy with one of many abandoned projects on SourceForge-- great ideas, not nearly enough mindshare, let alone financial support, to take off.

Now, this situation is understandable given the liability concerns Apple has (which are probably overkill, but that's corporate legal departments for you, especially Apple's notoriously paranoid legal team). But it does highlight the need for a more community-based development/distribution app "store" that's more along the lines of SourceForge. Alas, it seems that the companies who would like developers to come forth from the user community also tend to discourage the users from competing with their sanctioned method of app distribution.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

There's a danger when app distribution becomes most commonly steered through channels the device vendor controls. In older times, one had other options but Best Buy to reasonably distribute software, and people used them.

Sure, but that's a natural monopoly argument, rather than a "zomg, they're locking down my device!"

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

So your idea of an acceptable way of ad hoc distribution to potentially many thousands of people is to get every one of them to send you their device ID and to create a new version of your app every hundred users, making sure that you've sent the correct version of that app to each of the people that you've entered their device id for? You are joking right?

Well, since when you use the App Store, Apple does the functions of collecting device IDs and maintaining a record of which apps have been sent to which device IDs, then yeah. If you're not going to use Apple's store, then you're going to have to perform the functions of the store yourself. You're even going to have to collect money yourself, without any help from Apple.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[chrb]

And what about all the jailbreaks that aren't security issues? The ones that require physical access to the device? Or the ones where you must deliberately downgrade the OS?

If you are willing to classify everything as a security issue, even physical access and deliberate OS downgrades, then sure, Apple just closes security holes. The result is still the same. If Apple really didn't care about blocking jailbreaks, then they would just go ahead and release their own jailbreak app and be done with it...

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

So what you're saying is you want total control of everything and anything. If you don't like the terms that Apple has disclosed, I suggest you develop for another platform like Android. What if you want to distribute using Morse code or Pony Express? I think this is more of you harping on any negative aspects rather than a legitimate complaint.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[ceoyoyo]

Which is basically what Apple does. The ONE incident where jailbroken phones were bricked involved not just a jailbreak but some extra "weird-ass system level shit" (as the GP put it), and Apple said ahead of time that the update might brick some jailbroken phones. If you a) updated and b) didn't bother to restore your phone to factory settings before you did, you kind of deserved it.

Oh, and by "brick" they meant "temporarily disable until you went into a store and we fixed it for you for free."

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

True, but that's a few steps removed from Blizzard's treatment of StarCraft 2 user-made maps ("You wanna publish your stuff? You go through us, and only us."-- Apple just doesn't make the "only us" a requirement of iOS, even though for all intents and purposes it assumes as such).

No, I think that's a big step right there. Instead of saying "you have to go through us," they're saying "you don't have to go through us, but you won't get access to our giant distribution network." Which seems reasonable, honestly. It's their distribution system - why should anyone get to put stuff into it without their approval?

It's practically impossible to get any mindshare outside of iTunes, unless your app is really polished and well-known outside of the enthusiasts who know about installation of ad-hoc apps.

True, but that's not Apple's fault.

And even if it's exceptionally useful and brilliant, Apple can deny its entry to iTunes for seemingly trivial or arbitrary reasons.

Again, true, but it's Apple's distribution system. It's like putting software on the shelf at Best Buy - you don't get to march in and place your software there without their consent. It's their store - take it elsewhere. If your complaint is that you can only get your software in tiny mom and pop stores (or via Sourceforge, as you say), then sure... but that's not really Best Buy's problem.

But it does highlight the need for a more community-based development/distribution app "store" that's more along the lines of SourceForge. Alas, it seems that the companies who would like developers to come forth from the user community also tend to discourage the users from competing with their sanctioned method of app distribution.

Yeah, but that's understandable, too. Best Buy isn't going to subsidize another distribution system if they can't get any profit from it, and it would be unreasonable to call them censoring monsters for that.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[The Phantom Mensch]

But will Apple allow me to install OSX on Dell PCs? Even better, can I sell PC's with OSX on them and call them Apple compatibles? Apple is evil

Apple is a hardware company. If hacking leads to more iPad sales with a minimal bump in overhead cost to cover iPads bricked under warranty Apple is all for it. If that bump in overhead looks too large they might oppose it. But they won't sell the OS at retail stores because they're a hardware company, selling a product that partially differentiates itself from the commodity PC market with a different and perhaps better OS. Don't like it? Buy an OS you can buy retail or download for free.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

If you are willing to classify everything as a security issue, even physical access and deliberate OS downgrades, then sure, Apple just closes security holes. The result is still the same. If Apple really didn't care about blocking jailbreaks, then they would just go ahead and release their own jailbreak app and be done with it...

The position of Apple (and any sane company) is that by jail-breaking the phone, you are voiding the warranty and they will not support the device if you do it. Releasing a jailbreaking app would amount to supporting this behavior and be completely idiotic on the part of Apple. In a world where visiting a website can get your PC owned, I would think you would be more security conscious. I do think however that security is a red herring. You want to do whatever you want, whenever you want and not have to face the consequences of it, security be damned.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Tom]

They've done nothing about people installing other OSes on their own devices, and I think that will continue to be that way.

But I don't see any commercial offerings. They've not happened for the iPhone. Nobody is selling an iPhone with Linux pre-installed anywhere that I have seen. At least that is what I read into "going forward".

Re:Idiotic Summary

[WillyWanker]

5%? Maybe in single-track music once expenses are considered. But they make considerably more on album sales, TV shows, movies, apps (especially apps), and whatever other garbage they try to shove down your throat.

And com'n now, the markup on those iOS devices isn't anywhere near that of their Mac lines. There is a reason for this. It's because they fully intend to make money off of the continued sales from iStores, not the hardware (tho they still have a healthy markup and contribute nicely to Apple's bottom line). This isn't anything new, it's a well-documented fact. Why else would they keep the thing completely locked down (and if you believe Stevie J's line about maintaining the "experience" then I have a bridge you might be interested in buying)?

And while iAd is in part there to "woo" developers, again, don't delude yourself, as Apple takes a massive chunk of the profits where it would otherwise get squat (a 30% cut of free won't pay for Stevie J's private jets). Just because it's not in full swing yet doesn't mean it's intended purpose as a sizable revenue stream is any different.

Honestly, you really can't begrudge them. They have enthralled a nation of sheep and are going to milk them in any way possible. It's just good business sense. But don't fool yourself into thinking there is any altruism in there. Stevie J would just as soon sell his mother's soul in the Apple Store if he could find a way to digitize it.

But I agree with you as to why Apple hasn't made a stink about the hacks. The base is very small. But as it catches on and more people take advantage of it I suspect that's going to change.

Oh, and the negative rating comes from the massive number of Job cultists in the thread. Yeah, sheeple, come 'n get it.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[lymond01]

No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".

How is that not what they're saying? You buy the phone, jailbreak it, do whatever you want with it. It'll work like that for the foreseeable future. If you choose to "update" your phone with their OS again, of course it could stop your jailbreak from working since the jailbreak was written specifically for the previous OS. It's like writing an application for Ubuntu that works on a very specific kernel with very specific libraries, and then getting all butt hurt when your app binary doesn't work on the new kernel and new libraries.

I don't see the problem. Buy the phone, jailbreak it, put android on it, make it a flower pot. Just don't expect Apple's new code to work with your stuff.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Improv]

Fair. My complaint is probably a bit off-topic for this thread. I am bothered by the effective control that app stores provide vendors. I think this is pretty important, probably moreso than any locking down of OS that Apple may or may not do (reference: Sony).

Re:Idiotic Summary

[riegel]

The "voids your warranty" bit seems like a scare tactic to me. Lets suppose I do something to my phone (jailbreak) and it gets bricked. Wont turn on nothing works. Ok so I take it to Apple and ask for a replacement for my broken iPhone. They will have to be able to show me that it is still working (the hardware), and so they do some magic sequence of pushing buttons iTunes USB wizardry and boom its working again. Then they tell me its working so we don't need to replace it.

Its the same thing computer manufacurers have been doing for the last 10-15 years. If you call telling them your CD is broken the first thing they do is have you restore so its just like they sent it to you from the factory. Once you do that if the CD works they hang up. If it doesn't then they go down the warranty path.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Charybdis3]

There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis? That is exactly the level of openness Apple has consistently shown to be in their "playbook".

Yeah, Apple can't do anything about it on these older devices, because it was an exploit in the bootrom. You can't modify ROM (hence the "O"). There's no way for them to fix the exploit on older devices. What they can, and did do, however, was fix the exploit so that the same hole couldn't be exploited on future devices. One such exploit is commonly referred to as "24kPwn", and it has been patched in the newer devices (3GS and newer).

Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis?

There is, the fact that Apple continues to patch these holes in their software to prevent exploits that allow installing other operating systems. If they're so "open", why are they actively combating the issue?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[chrb]

The position of Apple (and any sane company) is that by jail-breaking the phone, you are voiding the warranty and they will not support the device if you do it.

It would be simple to track unwarrantied phones. The jailbreak app would sent a request with the hardware ID of the phone to an Apple server, the server records it, and sents back a signed unlock key.

In a world where visiting a website can get your PC owned, I would think you would be more security conscious.

There are no security implications here; Apple is fully capable of jailbreaking their own phones without opening them up to outside security exploits.

(and any sane company)

Then Nokia must be insane, because they sell "jailbroken" Linux phones with full root access.

You want to do whatever you want, whenever you want and not have to face the consequences of it

What is wrong with that? Why is it unreasonable to want to do whatever I want with a product that I 100% own, purchased with my own money?

security be damned.

As I already pointed out, I think Apple is capable of releasing a jailbroken phone without introducing security exploits. If Nokia can do it, why do you think Apple can't?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

The "voids your warranty" bit seems like a scare tactic to me. Lets suppose I do something to my phone (jailbreak) and it gets bricked. Wont turn on nothing works. Ok so I take it to Apple and ask for a replacement for my broken iPhone. They will have to be able to show me that it is still working (the hardware), and so they do some magic sequence of pushing buttons iTunes USB wizardry and boom its working again. Then they tell me its working so we don't need to replace it.

Well considering that some lawnmower companies have been successfully sued by people who picked up the lawnmower while in operation and severed their hands ("but it didn't warn that I shouldn't do that"), companies have to be very, very clear about legal issues like warranties. I think you'll find many companies that deal with hardware/software will void your warranty if you change the software without permission. I don't think it's a scare tactic as much as standard procedure.

In the case of Apple, they may have diagnostic tools which you do not that may be able to detect whether the firmware has been changed. In the case of the bricked iPhones, they were not really bricked but in an unusable but recoverable state. It is certainly plausible that they could detect the changes.

Its the same thing computer manufacurers have been doing for the last 10-15 years. If you call telling them your CD is broken the first thing they do is have you restore so its just like they sent it to you from the factory. Once you do that if the CD works they hang up. If it doesn't then they go down the warranty path.

CD? You mean HD? There is a balance companies must face when deciding how long to support a product and how much support they will offer. They certainly don't want to support you if you've altered their product in a way which they haven't tested or authorized.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

I deliberately avoided saying whether I thought this was good or bad - in fact I pointed out that people can argue that it is a good thing. Personally, I'm torn. I understand the benefits, and I think that the fragmentation of Android, both at plaform and app level, is likely to harm it in the long term. But I still get frustrated as hell when there's a handy app out there (like SBSettings) that I'm not allowed to install without jailbreaking. My point was that it's stupid to try to simply claim this control does't exist on the iOS plaform, which the message I replied to was doing.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[riegel]

Thank you for restating my point. They get you back the way you were when you purchased it then they determine if there is anything that needs to be replaced under warranty (No, didn't mean HD meant CD, as in CD-ROM drive)

While certainly Apple may be able to detect things like that it would be more trouble then loading up the original stuff and telling you here it works.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[ArsonSmith]

Well, the first step would be to use Google.

An Android phone it is then. Thanks for the suggestion.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

But that's a restriction that Apple have placed on the platform.
Regardless, this is still quite clearly not a sensible or practical way of distributing an app on any useful scale. I believe it's also a breach of the developer terms of use if you're not using it for beta testing, so I'm not sure how this is really meant to be convincing me that Apple allow real ad hoc distribution.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[ArsonSmith]

A sufficiently heated apple fanboi is indistinguishable from sarcasm.

Which are you?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[UnknowingFool]

It would be simple to track unwarrantied phones. The jailbreak app would sent a request with the hardware ID of the phone to an Apple server, the server records it, and sents back a signed unlock key.

It's not a matter of "simple" tracking. Apple does not want to support any device that has been significantly altered post-sale. No company does. For example when you buy a car, you get a limited amount of free engine maintenance. If you decided to swap out the engine, would you expect them to give you free maintenance?

So what you want is Apple to spend additional time and resources supporting phones that they shouldn't have to support? In the example of the car, you take up a mechanics time as well as the receiving clerk's time before they open the hood and say "Um, that's not one of our engines." Most hackers and modders know that altering something voids warranties; but there will always be a group that will still want warranty support anyway. Apple releasing an unlocking app would encourage people who have no idea what they are doing to mess with the phone. They will be more people wanting support with stories "but I didn't know what unlocking the phone's OS and botching an install would make it unusable. But you supplied the unlocking tool, you're totally responsible for this."

There are no security implications here; Apple is fully capable of jailbreaking their own phones without opening them up to outside security exploits.

It's not jail-breaking if Apple does it. It's unlocking the OS. And so now anyone who uses any unlocking tool has complete access to the phone. What if it's not your phone? There's a security implication, right there.

Then Nokia must be insane, because they sell "jailbroken" Linux phones with full root access.

Nokia does not sell jail-broken phones. They sell phones with Linux. The problem you're not grasping is the term "as-is". Legally companies will support products "as-is". They are under no obligations to support altered products. I would think if you tried to install Windows Mobile onto their Nokia phones, and then asked for support, I'm pretty sure they would not support it.

What is wrong with that? Why is it unreasonable to want to do whatever I want with a product that I 100% own, purchased with my own money?

The problem again is you want to do you want and expect support regardless. I suggest you read more about product liability and contracts. A company does not have to support you if you've altered the product significantly.

As I already pointed out, I think Apple is capable of releasing a jailbroken phone without introducing security exploits. If Nokia can do it, why do you think Apple can't?

Again. Nokia has designed the phone to run on Linux, thus it's not "jailbroken". The iPhone was not designed to run on Linux. It's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of "won't and won't support." If you feel so strongly about it they why don't you buy the Nokia then? Apple has made no big secret of their stance on this.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

No. What I'm saying is that Apple don't offer an ad hoc distribution method for their platform, despite what the parent poster was claiming. I gave no opinion as to whether this was a good or a bad thing.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),

Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.

Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices.
Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.

In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up.
Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.

http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Theaetetus]

Regardless, this is still quite clearly not a sensible or practical way of distributing an app on any useful scale.

"useful" being defined as "using Apple's distribution network". Yeah, it's not that. But it's clearly the exact opposite of your earlier statement that you could not do so.

I believe it's also a breach of the developer terms of use if you're not using it for beta testing, so I'm not sure how this is really meant to be convincing me that Apple allow real ad hoc distribution.

Do you believe this to be a breach based off a gut feeling, similar to how you believed it to be impossible to install applications without jailbraking? Did you try Google this time? Or read the developer agreement at http://developer.apple.com/programs/terms/ios/standard/ios_standard_agreement_20100909.pdf?

I'm not sure why I need to jump through hoops to be convincing to someone who refuses to even read the basic information that I point him to. Let's just leave it at that - I can provide Steve Jobs himself saying you can do it (as he did at WWDC), and you'd still not believe it to be true, because it goes against your irrational and factually unsupported hate, so, realistically, there's nothing that would ever be "convincing" to you. Good day.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Actually...
The iPhone in question (the iPhone 2G) has that. Which is why PwnageTool isn't ever going away for those devices. The exploit used to update the application processor is in ROM.

But the problem in this case was with the modem, which is a completely separate processor.
The firmware used in the Infineon cellular modem, because of the unlock, got patched in a way that spams unique data structures with garbage.
So when an update is applied, no matter by who, you lose data.

See this: http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick

So yeah, you CAN always reflash it. But reflashing it doesn't get you lost data back.
The desktop equivalent is flashing your BIOS after nuking your ethernet card's ROM. No matter how many times you reflash, you'll never figure out what your unique address was in the first place, thereby making your ethernet card useless.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Yes it sounds like a scare tactic, but it really isn't.

As much as we'd like to be able to simply restore to factory condition, almost every computer/phone has some data stored that is unique and irrecoverable if lost.

In the case of the bricked iPhones, it was the info that controls the identity of the phone on the cell network.
That's never supposed to be lost because nobody's supposed to be able to write to it. Hence there's no tools distributed to change that data, which is a good thing too because you don't want people changing the identity of a phone to be the same as another.

http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Americano]

Fair enough - and for what it's worth, I agree, Apple does exert a lot of control over what you may and may not do. The question of whether or not the control is insufferable is certainly debatable, but you're right - suggesting that it doesn't exist is incorrect.

BUT, I have a little faith, because from what I've seen, the long-term direction for Apple's products has been to remove restrictions on them, and expand the API / SDK functionality. I know that statement will draw lots of ire from the apple-bashers around here, but bear with me for a moment:

When iPhone was released, the only app dev option was web apps. A year later, they released the first version of the SDK. And the SDK and the iOS API set has only been polished, enhanced, and enlarged since then.

I think with most of Apple's products, you can see a trend, where they start fairly tightly controlled, and with a smaller subset of functionality ("No wireless. Less Space than a Nomad.") then geeks might expect, but with a high degree of 'fit and finish' detailing on the smaller subset of features. They seem to prefer starting with a small set of 'core' features, and polishing those to a shine, and then in future releases, they expand upon that functionality and allow more flexibility.

So, what we see is that Apple releases a 1.0 with what many tech-savvy folks consider "missing" features, and then they add to those over time, as they finalize a polished implementation: think copy/paste or multitasking in iOS. Take that out a few more steps, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple eventually expanding the ad-hoc install model to allow for some additional installation methods.

Now, you can get that with Android right now, but like you, I think the Android fragmentation and carrier control is going to eventually cause it a huge number of problems in the marketplace, where "Android" won't mean much, because each carrier will customize it and lock it down to the point that it'll be "a Verizon phone" or "a Sprint phone." I think the best chance for a coherent platform was Google pushing the Nexus One model, but it looks like they've scrapped that plan.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Kagato]

+1 Apple could care less. They're sell the device at a profit and worst case is you break it and they say you voided the warranty. If anything the premise of loading other OS's on the iPad is the weakest argument. There are likely to be much cheaper Android and Chrome tablets coming out soon. That's going to be the real issue for Apple. They are going to have to have some real competition soon and frankly google's high quality free OS packages means anyone can be a contender in the market.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[blair1q]

The OS I install after I jailbreak it will not have that hole. So I don't care what Apple does.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[willy_me]

You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?

Apple is aggressively attempting to prevent people from modifying their OS - this fact is obvious. But as long as you are not using their OS, Apple doesn't care what you are doing. You purchase a physical product and are free to do whatever you want with that product. But you are not purchasing their OS, just a license to use it. So if you are going to modify the software make sure you remove everything that belongs to Apple.

And I am not aware of any battles regarding keeping alternative OSes off of iOS devices. Lots of battles regarding modifying iOS, but this is a different issue. The two issues should not be confused.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Rufty]

There are three methods of distributing an iP* app. ApStore, of course. And adhoc, which is limited to 100 devices, is only for testing purposes and requires a unique binary for every device it's to run on. And enterprise, which is limited "in house" to one company. (There's also web apps, and apps for jailbroken devices.)

Re:Idiotic Summary

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

And what about all the jailbreaks that aren't security issues? The ones that require physical access to the device? Or the ones where you must deliberately downgrade the OS?

Okay, first of all: which "ones that require physical access to the device"? The ones where you have to use the device to go to a web-page that then jailbreaks the phone? Those still use a remote exploit.

As for deliberately downgrading your OS - that means deliberately making your device exploitable. Most OS prevent you from doing that. OTOH, that's exactly what jailbreaking does anyway - opening dozens of unfixed security holes.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[LordLucless]

is limited to only 100 users unless you modify your code slightly

So your argument is that it's a perfectly fine distribution method, because all you need to do is modify and re-compile your code every hundred purchases?

Yup, fanboy.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[RocketRabbit]

The iPad is a computer. Calling it a "device" doesn't make it less of a computer.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[LordLucless]

Uh-huh. I wonder how well Steam would have worked out if they intentionally encumbered their distribution system that way.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[plumby]

No. Useful being defined as being of practical use. Which your "solution" isn't.

Or read the developer agreement

Do you mean the bit that says "You may obtain development-related digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, that will allow Your Application to be installed and tested on Authorized Test Devices. You may also obtain, during the Term, one or more production digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, to be used for the sole purpose of signing Your Application(s) prior to submission of Your Application to Apple or limited distribution of Your Application for use on Registered Devices."?

Or how about in the bit that says "Applications developed under this Agreement may be distributed in two ways: (1) through the App Store, if selected by Apple, and (2) distribution for use on a limited number of Registered Devices"

For reference, "limited number of registered devices" refers to "Distribution on Registered Devices (Ad Hoc Distribution) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You may also distribute Your Applications to individuals within Your company, organization, educational institution, group, or who are otherwise affiliated with You "

And "No Other Distribution Authorized Under this Agreement Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and the distribution of Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You agree not to distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so."

Do you want to read those statements and see whether you can spot anywhere that Apple might be doing something to limit your distribution of apps outside the App Store? If I want to develp an app and make it available to the general public to download outside the App Store, do you think the above licence allows me to do that?

I'm not sure why I need to jump through hoops to be convincing to someone who refuses to even read the basic information that I point him to

Maybe you might want to read it before providing it as evidence.

I can provide Steve Jobs himself saying you can do it

Please feel free. I always find it amusing when people provide links to articles that directly contradict their own claims (that "The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of", in case you've lost track).

Again, I want to make it clear - I'm not saying that Apple is necessarily wrong for doing this. But they do it. Unless you want to breach Apple's terms of use, you are tightly restricted in your right to distribute apps.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[indiechild]

The haters never let actual facts get in the way of a good rant...

Re:Idiotic Summary

[spottedkangaroo]

None of your previous phones... perhaps you were picking the wrong phones. My Palm (now HP) pr can be rooted by downloading the SDK from developer.palm.com. It's supported. If you jack it up, they have a kit to fix it.

My previous phone was a crappy $0 samsung (I wanna say M520) and it let me install whatever the hell I want. Yes, sprint tried to direct me to their app store, but I didn't need to modify the phone to install whatever the hell I want.

This very much differs from Apple's attitude. They may not be unique, but I don't believe for a second blackberry users need to modify the phone (in a way that voids the warranty nonetheless) to install software of their choice. I've never really used a blackberry, so I don't actually know, but I just can't accept that.

I call BS on your argument. Apple has earned their reputation by being very anti-tinker. Sorry.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[exomondo]

The iPad is not a computer, it's a device.

Sounds like bullshit to me. What do you believe are the definitions of those terms in this context? Because it sounds like you're making them up.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[exomondo]

but they haven't done anything about people jail breaking those devices so that they can use other services and other software

Of course they have, every software update breaks the previous jailbreak.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[jschottm]

I personally don't care, as I will never buy an iPad. If I want a tablet running Chrome OS, I'll buy one that's designed for it, not one that the manufacturer will engage in a running hostile battle with users over. I was responding to what I presume was an Apple fanboy's loving statement that Apple will happily allow Chrome OS on the iPad. Apple does not consider the iPad a computer.

Don't take my word for it, take Apple's:

A magical and revolutionary product - note that the word computer is never used to describe the iPad.
The Mac is designed to provide the best computer experience you can have.

See the difference?

Or from their meta description at apple.com: meta name="Description" content="Apple designs and creates iPod and iTunes, Mac laptop and desktop computers, the OS X operating system, and the revolutionary iPhone and iPad."

See how they have the iPhone and iPad away from the computer section and emphasize that they're different than anything else?

When Steve Jobs introduced it, he referred to it as a "third kind of device". It is not a general purpose computer, it is a device or an appliance - whatever new term you want to give it - that includes the fact that you WILL use it in the way to Apple says you will. My microwave and digital cameras could technically be called computers but that's not the way they're used. The iPad is like that - locked-down and specialized. My previous generation "dumb" phone had a faster CPU and more RAM than my college computer, but it wasn't usable in the same way.

Go read some of the billion articles that have been written about the shift that the iPad has caused. They're selling like crazy because people don't want a computer, they want something pretty to consume media on, and lock-down is part of how Apple provides that experience.

I'm quite familiar with Apple and their shift from a computer company to a media consumption/delivery company. Maybe you should have some evidence before you label something bullshit? Perhaps a quote from Steve Jobs referring to the iPad as a computer?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[exomondo]

Apple does not consider the iPad a computer.

Don't take my word for it, take Apple's:

The fact that apple doesn't say it is a computer doesn't mean it is not a computer.

Maybe you should have some evidence before you label something bullshit?

No, you need evidence to support your assertion, I don't need any to question it.

Perhaps a quote from Steve Jobs referring to the iPad as a computer?

Lack of evidence doesn't support your assertion.

Your whole post avoids the question i asked you. You've used terms you don't appear to understand because you've failed to define them, so try again. Read the question, make sure you understand it, then post:

What do you believe are the definitions of those terms in this context?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[mjwx]

If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).

Ummm...

Apple uses the same kind of boot loader locking technology as Motorola has been criticised for using, not eFuse in particular, but something based on the SOC that prevents an unsigned kernal from runing. They did this with the Iphone 3GS after someone got Android 1.5 running on a 3G.

Do you think there isn't a reason the prolific Android hackers haven't put Android onto an Iphone 3GS/4 yet?

Re:Idiotic Summary

[jschottm]

No, you need evidence to support your assertion, I don't need any to question it.

My point is that Apple considers the iPad to not be a computer. Again, I don't care either way.You didn't like the way I stated it the first time around; I clarified (APPLE DOESN'T CONSIDER THE IPAD TO BE A COMPUTER AND WILL FIGHT TO KEEP IT RESTRICTED RATHER THAN THROWING IT OPEN TO ANY OS, which is the assertation of the parent of my initial post), you presented nothing to the contrary. Either provide evidence to the contrary or go away. Apple's opinion is the main one that matters, because they control the firmware. Would you care to make a wager on whether Apple will happily allow alternative OSes to iOS on iPads? AGAIN, WHICH IS WHAT IS ASSERTED BY THE POST I REPLIED TO.

What do you believe are the definitions of those terms in this context?

Device - a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, esp. a mechanical or electrical one.
Appliance - an instrument, apparatus, or device for a particular purpose or use.

The iPad is designed for a specific purpose (to consume media and use apps per Apple's desire), as above, as compared to a general purpose computer. Apple will fight tooth and nail to maintain control over this.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Uzekamanzi]

I entirely agree - after all, I have several iPods & none of them run that benighted iTunes piece of Sh*t -- Apple haven't stopped me running Rockbox, ever!! Aren't they nice and cuddly??

Re:Idiotic Summary

[spottedkangaroo]

I think you might be buying the wrong phones or something.

There's one essential difference you seem to be willfully to be forgetting or intentionally ignoring. On my crappy $0 Samsung M520 (or something close to that); I could install anything I wanted. Yes, it directed me back to the sprint store and warned me it's not safe (that warning may even be fair and accurate), but I could install whatever I wanted without their permission and without modifying the phone.

On my Palm (HP?) Pre, I can not only install whatever I want, but I can root the phone as a *supported* activity. You go to developer.palm.com and download the SDK to get a root shell. You can remount / as rw and do whatever the hell you want. If you completely jack up the phone, they have a program to fix that too. It's fully supported.

When you can install whatever you want on your iPhone without voiding your warranty, then you'll have a point. Until then, you're simply incorrect. Perhaps Apple's treatment by the nerds is less than fair, but they've most certainly earned this reputation. Oh yes.

If you're anti-tinker, you're anti-nerd.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Apple computers are the exact same hardware as any other intel PC.

And yeah I dont like it. I dont like the double standard that Apple gets away with while for years everyone has blasted Microsoft for doing the same exact thing, except they didnt have a monopoly over the hardware their software ran on.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[exomondo]

My point is that Apple considers the iPad to not be a computer.

And my point is that doesn't make it true.

Device - a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, esp. a mechanical or electrical one. Appliance - an instrument, apparatus, or device for a particular purpose or use.

The iPad is designed for a specific purpose (to consume media and use apps per Apple's desire)

But it's not designed for a 'specific purpose' at all, it's an 'appliance simulator' - in that it can become an appliance based on the program it is running - the same as a computer, not an appliance itself. To 'do whatever apple wants', is not a 'specific purpose' - unless of course the meaning of the word 'specific' escapes you - any more than a computer has the 'specific purpose' of 'doing whatever the user wants'.

They may not provide a 'boot camp' but i don't see a reason they would do anything to stop alternative OSes, they'll still get a hardware sale - and potential software sales - to those who would otherwise go elsewhere, exactly the same as with Windows on the Mac.

Re:Idiotic Summary

[Serious Callers Only]

Yes. It's not a limitless revenue stream, and is limited to only 100 users unless you modify your code slightly.

You evidently have no experience of the developer program. Ad Hoc distribution is limited to 100 devices per year (not users, not per app). Once that 100 are used up, you can't get any more. In addition it is limited to the several months that a developer certificate is valid - it's definitely not a method for distribution to arbitrary users, and Apple could shut you down at any time for doing that.

False dichotomy

[goodmanj]

Robust *is* cutting-edge.

Re:False dichotomy

[ByOhTek]

Yeah, say that after running the experimental branch of any operating system.

Re:False dichotomy

[goodmanj]

Wrong way around. I never said cutting-edge was always robust.

Re:False dichotomy

[ByOhTek]

Point taken.

In that case, I'd still take my 20-year-old corded phones in my house over the new wireless ones. Sure I can't move around as much, but when the power goes out...

I Don't Get Chrome OS

[cob666]

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[MBGMorden]

I don't know. Though my tone was definitely different several years ago, its come to a point now where I can't think of anything more useless than a computer with no internet connection. Yes, I know, you can do a lot of stuff without it. I been using computers for nearly 25 years, since long before networked connections were common. Still, today, even doing those tasks I find myself constantly needing to access something online.

Everyone wont' share this opinion, but there is some merit to the fact that if you don't need the computer at all if the net is down, then the OS not working with the net down is really a non-issue.

The main downside I see to "web-apps" and such is the constant possibility that specific companies will go out of business. With offline apps you can keep using software long after the developer folds. With open source software you can even continue development if your interest or needs warrant it. With webapps, if a company goes under they go under, taking your data with it.

Still, at this point most of my online app usage is through Google - Gmail, Documents, Reader, and Picasa Web. The only other significant service that I use is Dropbox (on the paid 50GB account), which seems financially stable, but if Google ever offered the same service I'd switch.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[vlm]

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

Humorously, you posted that in an article about the ipad, since its arrival mine has never been out of range of my wifi router. Apple also sells a 3G model that is always "in range" of the internet.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[vlm]

The main downside I see to "web-apps" and such is the constant possibility that specific companies will go out of business. With offline apps you can keep using software long after the developer folds

True, but almost infinitely more likely is the dev upgrades the app from version 4 to version 5. Ooops, you have version 5. I guess you need to pay, again.

How many times has my wife bought "discus" the (otherwise excellent) dvd label editor? How many times has she had to buy "garage sale"? Thats the business model to avoid at all costs.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[Nutria]

there's plenty of environments where internet connectivity is a given.

And there's plenty of shit that "happens": from small stuff like a broken router or cable modem or check that got lost in the mail, to big stuff like a back hoe accidentally cutting a cable.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[NekSnappa]

But if you were to leave the range of your router. Or go out of the country where you really don't want to be using your 3g radio. You can still use the apps installed on the device.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[ProppaT]

I get ChromeOS. I don't get it on a tablet. It's obviously focused towards netbooks and pc's where you want an "instant on" option. It's designed to be used like a desktop browser...with a mouse or track pad. Tablets should have a mobile OS designed around touch screens.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[at_slashdot]

Can't think of anything more useless than a computer that doesn't have internet connection.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[slim]

I get ChromeOS. I don't get it on a tablet. It's obviously focused towards netbooks and pc's where you want an "instant on" option. It's designed to be used like a desktop browser...with a mouse or track pad. Tablets should have a mobile OS designed around touch screens.

I agree with this, and had kind of assumed that ChromeOS would have a tablet flavour with those kind of features -- multitouch zoom and drag, a good onscreen keyboard etc. The Wikipedia page on Chrome doesn't mention any of this -- but I would be very surprised if it was missing from the first official Google release of ChromeOS.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[tepples]

It's 2010. You fall back on mobile broadband until your main service gets fixed.

Not every household has $110 per month to spend on redundant Internet connections ($50/mo cable + $60/mo MiFi) plus overages should your operating system vendor happen to release a major service pack while your wired service happens to be broken.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[tepples]

Seriously, there's plenty of environments where internet connectivity is a given. For example, if I had a tablet (iPad, Android, ChromeOS, whatever) it would probably seldom leave the house.

I take it you either A. drive to work, B. bike to work, or C. telecommute. Some people commute to work on a bus or train.

If you pay for it, you can get effectively uncapped mobile broadband

Some people don't have $1,440 for a two-year subscription to MiFi service in addition to what they're already paying for Internet access at home.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[tepples]

True, but almost infinitely more likely is the dev upgrades the app from version 4 to version 5. Ooops, you have version 5. I guess you need to pay, again.

Why? Does the software expire? Or do the upgrades happen at the same time as major Windows upgrades (such as 98 to XP, or XP to 7)?

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[cgenman]

You've clearly never owned a Tandy.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[ProppaT]

Google's committed towards Android 3.0 being geared towards tablet usage as well as phone usage. It would be silly of Google to create two separate OSs geared towards the same purpose. I never understood how the Chrome OS/tablet misconception got started.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[geekoid]

How about when it's for a device that can't function without an internet connection anyways?

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[slim]

I walk to work. Some public transport has free WiFi, and Google's expectation is that internet connectivity gets more and more ubiquitous over the next few years.

Some people don't have $1,440 for a two-year subscription to MiFi service in addition to what they're already paying for Internet access at home.

Sorry, I'm not in the US so I don't know what MiFi is.

I pay £23/mo for a two year contract. So that's less than US$1000 over two years, and includes an HTC Desire. If I'd bought the device outright the monthly charge would be less.

Admittedly this is capped at 500MB/mo, which is more than enough for everything except audio/video streaming. I count that as "effectively" uncapped.

An extra £2/mo would bump that up to 1GB/mo, and most iPhone users have no limit whatsoever on their mobile data.

As I said, lots of iPhone/Android apps rely on the Internet being available, and people don't tend to complain.

Note that ChromeOS is not intended to be completely at sea when the network is temporarily unavailable (think train routes that leave 3G coverage from time to time). Gears and HTML5 provide mechanisms for making web apps work offline, and Google want apps to take advantage of that.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[slim]

$60/mo sounds like a lot for mobile broadband. Maybe the US market is different from here.

I looked up MiFi after replying to your other post -- apologies, it is not a US-only product.

I dunno, it might be the circles I move in, but it feels as if almost everyone has a smartphone, and is therefore already paying for mobile broadband. If my home broadband were to fail (and let's face it, that's rare anyway), I'd tether to my phone. I'd probably turn off Windows Update and go easy on the YouTube/Spotify/etc. but if there was something really important I guess I'd bite the bullet and pay for the excess data -- but remember this is an exceptional situation.

I appreciate some people's smartphones don't do tethering, but hey, that's just thoughtless buying :)
I have to tether over USB, but Android 2.2 can turn your phone into a WiFi AP.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[ceoyoyo]

I saw the video a week or so ago. Chrome on the iPad looks like a REALLY slow web browser.

Not sure what's so cutting edge about that.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[MorpheousMarty]

I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.

A friend of mine has a similar opinion, and allow me to provide a rebuttal:

Is your web browser useless since it won't work without an internet connection? Of course not. Chrome OS is vastly limited, but that doesn't mean it's useless. Conversely, my Windows and Ubuntu machines are usually pretty useless when I don't have a connection. The only thing I do off-line is game, and many games are on-line only.

The real problem with Chrome OS is that you still need a good amount of processing power to surf the web. Chrome OS could be a pretty great deal when sub $100 tablets can run the top websites flawlessly. For now if you have a machine capable of running fast on the web, you might as well have a more fully featured OS.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[tepples]

Maybe the US market is different from here.

To make a long story short: Yes, the United States market is different. (I'm in the U.S., Google is based in the U.S., Apple is based in the U.S., and Slashdot is based in the U.S.) The only U.S. carrier whose offerings are remotely similar to those in western Europe is T-Mobile, the smallest of the big four.

I'd tether to my phone.

Tethering to a land line is called "DSL". Tethering to a mobile phone requires a hefty surcharge on some carriers and is simply not offered on others.

I appreciate some people's smartphones don't do tethering, but hey, that's just thoughtless buying :)

It's starting to become clearer over time that not emigrating from the United States is thoughtless buying.

Android 2.2

A lot of handsets still in use, such as the original Samsung Galaxy, are stuck on 1.6.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[slim]

For now if you have a machine capable of running fast on the web, you might as well have a more fully featured OS.

For now, you have no choice, since ChromeOS isn't finished.

I think/hope that by the time it's released as a consumer-ready product, it won't feel as if it lacks features.

It *will* run apps locally, it's just that those apps will be implemented in Javascript/HTML5 and the namespace for storage will be remote URLs.

I'm pretty sure that caching, Gears (or the features of Gears that made it into HTML5), etc. a great deal will work offline. That requires work on the part of the web app developers, but in the case of the Google apps at least, they'd be fools to release ChromeOS without making the apps offline-able.

Google's intention is that a non-technical user won't need to be aware that their "GMail" or "Word processor" window is really a browser.

(Note GMail works offline, after a fashion, already)

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[slim]

But if you were to leave the range of your router. Or go out of the country where you really don't want to be using your 3g radio.

My (offline, TomTom) satnav is pretty useless if I take it off the road.
It's also pretty useless if I go out of the country, since it only has UK maps on it.

It remains pretty damned good at the purpose for which I bought it.

Likewise, if I buy a device for doing webby stuff around the home, it's entirely irrelevant how useful it is in other scenarios. You might as well complain that it doesn't work underwater. "But if you were to take it scuba diving"...

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[MBGMorden]

True, but almost infinitely more likely is the dev upgrades the app from version 4 to version 5. Ooops, you have version 5. I guess you need to pay, again.

Not really, unless you're the type that absolutely has to have the latest and greatest stuff. Most apps work long past additional revisions are released. For certain applications we're still using Crystal Reports 8 at work. I don't know exactly how old it is but that's at least 4 or 5 versions back from the current version. It still works fine.

I remember using a version of Microsoft Works designed for Windows 3.1 well into the Windows 98 days. Still even had the 8.3 filename length restrictions, but it worked just fine for what I needed it for.

This is even more common with niche applications.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[Nutria]

How about when it's for a device that can't function without an internet connection anyways?

I'm old enough and crotchety enough to think that the only valid need-a-connection computers are specialized kit like:

• routers & cable modems,
• DVRs, and
• diskless PCs that boot off a server.

Certainly there are more, but I can't think of any at this time.

Smartphones, though, do not fall into that category, since I should still be able to

• run stand-alone apps (Tetris and GPS don't need Internet connections!),
• take pictures/movies and
• write emails/SMS which queue up until connection is restored.

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[shutdown -p now]

It has offline mode. Just because apps are written in HTML5+JS doesn't mean that they can't work offline (there are other aspects where that combo sucks, naturally, but it doesn't have to do with connectivity, which was your point).

Re:I Don't Get Chrome OS

[JanneM]

"I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection."

Like when you're writing? Or playing some casual game? Or editing an image, or a drawing? Working on a spreadsheet or presentation? Programming or working with an analysis tool like R, Matlab or Maxima?

I like the net. I use it constantly. It's a great communication tool, information source and distractor. But to be honest, very little of my actual work needs the net. I could probably restrict access to one hour in the morning every day and still remain exactly as productive as I am now; more, quite possibly.

And sometimes - when you're abroad, when you're travelling - you simply don't have net access. A net-only computer becomes a useless paperweight. A net-only netbook or tablet would interrupt me every day on my commute when the train loses connection in tunnels.

A OS that requires a net connection to work would be pretty damn useless to me.

Wait? What?

[Mr_Silver]

Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

A dual booting iPad with Chrome OS would essentially give you ... a second browser.

I'm not sure what there is to get excited about. The iPad one is pretty damn good, also uses WebKit and you get a bunch of other functionality thrown in for free - some of which is rather useful - without having to be permanently connected to the internet.

Re:Wait? What?

[cgenman]

Chrome OS is getting Flash integration. It's intended to have remote computer control, though I don't think that has been integrated yet. And there is Google's cloud printing.

Not a ton of wins. But enough to be interesting to some of us OS geeks.

In response to a probably screwy summery

[koterica]

Didn't read TFA- but the summery is worth responding to in its own right.

Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?

Apple isn't going for cutting edge as much as they are going for reliable. iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product, they want it to work, quickly and beautifully, out of the box.
In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

Re:In response to a probably screwy summery

[gstoddart]

iPad users don't want to spend time configuring their product

Depends on what you mean by "configure". If you mean downloading apps, and re-arranging my icons? Lots of time spent so far. If you mean almost any other form of "configure", you're absolutely correct -- not something I want to do on that device.

In short, iPad Market != Slashdot.

Not all of Slashdot, but the number of iPad users from Slashdot is also not zero.

And, I have to say ... kudos to this guy for getting something else running on an iPad, but I'm utterly not interested. I like the OS on my iPad, and I'm looking forward to when iOS 4 becomes available.

I'll also second the sentiment about not being interested in an OS which requires a constant internet connection. I recently took a business trip with my iPad. When I'm on a plane, being able to turn off the wifi and only use it for movies/music/games is one of the best features of it -- in fact, not having really thought about business travel when I bought it, it really proved to be a good traveling companion. I used it far more than my laptop, and every airport and hotel I was in had free wifi so I could check my email and the like.

I'm not sure of what Chrome would give me.

Re:In response to a probably screwy summery

[Graham J - XVI]

Agreed. I wonder about the second part of that quote though - how is a stripped-down Linux distro that only runs one app cutting edge?

Some work needed

[Ksevio]

The article states that it "reacts flawlessly to user inputs", but it's still doing mouse emulation for the clicks and it looks like he has some trouble clicking on some buttons.

It's also very sluggish looking (despite the hyper music) which isn't too promising for something that's suppose to be a light weight operating system. Looks more like he just made a Chrome app for the iPad.

Re:The end is near...

[ByOhTek]

They are iPad owners.

Their souls have long since been eaten and shat out.

Apple "allows"?

[VolciMaster]

not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

Since when did Apple disallow other OSes from running on its hardware? Back in the day, I recall Windows NT 4 running natively, and I've since seen XP and Linux running on Apple hardware with no modifications to the machine.

Re:Apple "allows"?

[rjstanford]

Jailbreaking to put an alternate OS on the phone is no big deal. Replacing parts of your current OS and then expecting Apple to support it is the problem (and considering that a large portion of the l33t folk who jailbreak their phone have no idea what they're doing or even why they're doing it, that's a sizable number of folk). Part of Apple's success is that they sell Solutions, not Products, and they support the entire Solution instead of passing the buck around. This changes that model.

Re:Apple "allows"?

[Amouth]

NT never ran native on Apple hardware.. there where 3 flavors

x86
Alpha
PPC

some people belived the PPC would work on Apple hardware but it wouldn't due to Apple using it's own implemntation.

while MacOS supported PReP and later CHRP - the apple hardware didn't.. meaning that you could have in theory installed MacOS on the same IBM PPC box that NT would go on.. but you would not have been able to install NT or AIX on the Apple PPC box.

are are reports of some apple hardware being CHRP compliant but you would be very hard pressed to figure out which ones it was and get your hands on them (if they even exist).

it's only recently with apples move to x86 that the cross platform to allow windows onto Apple hardware is possible - although it took the switch from BIOS to EFI or BIOS emulation over EFI (which i don't consider native) for it to work.

Re:Apple "allows"?

[puto]

You mean you recall NT. 4.0 running natively on Power PC architecture, not natively on macs, but on machines made by Motorola and IBM.

Not in Apple's playbook?

[erroneus]

Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows." What's more, they encourage dual booting with their bootcamp.

Now while it would be unexpected for Apple to endorse alternate OSes for iPad, it's not fair to say it's not in their playbook. This would be especially true if, for some reason, Win7 based tablets began to catch on. (I seriously doubt they will, but still!)

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[Darkness404]

But the iPad is not a true computer. Its not like their Macs but instead just a device like an iPod or Apple TV. You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad? There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume. Masquerading the iPad as a full computer helps them in their aims and that is to have people locked-in just like Microsoft does. There is a reason why you can't just hook an iPhone up to a computer and use it as a mass storage device like 99.999% of similarly capable phones, there is a reason why iP(o/a)ds can't play many standard, open codecs, there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking. Apple wants people to install iTunes, use iTunes, buy things from the iTunes/App stores, and Apple makes a boatload off of things that they normally couldn't get a cut off of.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[indre1]

It will be in Apples playbook when someone publishes an app for installing the 'cool new OS' without any hassle.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[Colonel Korn]

Sorry. I'm as anti-Apple and the next Linux fanboi, but that's just simply not true. Apple made the MacBook Pro famous by running Windows XP/Vista/7 better than most PCs "designed for Windows."

Since when are poor performance and the lack of solid drivers signs of running "better?" The main high point of MacBooks, the very good battery life, is cut in half when running Windows, as Anandtech shows every few months.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Apple "allows" the iPad to run other OS's just as much as android device makers "allow" it on their devices. Meaning you can do it if you hack it on and people will laugh in your face if you bitch about bricking it and losing your warranty. No mainstream company actively encourages or makes it easy to install anything other than what the portable device came with. To single out Apple for scorn just shows an irrational pettiness.

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[Theaetetus]

You think that a company which basically said "Jailbreak your phone and we will come up with a software update to brick it" really is concerned about letting people decide what they can run on their iPad?

Technically, what they said was "if you replace the firmware on your phone and then be an idiot and install our firmware updater which assumes certain files are in certain places, then don't come crying to us if it doesn't work."

There is a reason the iPad doesn't run a full operating system, Apple doesn't -want- people to use it, they simply want them to consume.

Or it could be that a "full operating system" doesn't really work well with a touch-based UI.

there are reasons why you can't just sideload apps that aren't approved without jailbreaking.

Google "ad hoc distribution". What you meant was "there are reasons why Apple refuses to waste storage and bandwidth costs in their store for apps that they don't want to host."

Re:Not in Apple's playbook?

[tehcyder]

Now while it would be unexpected for Apple to endorse alternate OSes for iPad, it's not fair to say it's not in their playbook. This would be especially true if, for some reason, Win7 based tablets began to catch on. (I seriously doubt they will, but still!)

The iPad is not really a general purpose computer, I'd much rather have a Win7-compatible tablet to put Linux on.

end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[atchijov]

Unless there is some "OMG I Absolutely Have To Have This" Application which is avilable only on Chrome OS, 99.999% of iPad users will see no reason to even think about it. Lets face if, MS Windows had some horrible usability problems and still most of the people never bother to look around for something better. And in case of iOS vs. Chrome - at best we have toss up.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[oh_my_080980980]

THANK YOU!

These idiots who write these articles need to understand the end user. End Users don't care.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[Darkness404]

An end-user will care when there are applications which Apple rejects that they can't find. A lot of my friends who were going to get the iPhone chose an Android device simply because Apple doesn't let you have emulators on their phones. While I myself think ChromeOS is a downgrade even for the pathetic excuse for an OS that is iOS, if it has apps that people want and can't get through Apple, it will have a fanbase.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[AccUser]

While I myself think ChromeOS is a downgrade even for the pathetic excuse for an OS that is iOS

How the hell is iOS a pathetic excuse for an OS? Or, like most detractors who simply haven't developed for the platform, are you simply referring to the application launcher?

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[Darkness404]

Lets see here:

A) I can't run whatever I want on it, everything has to be "approved" by Apple

B) Applications essentially run in a "black-box" with Android I know what my apps have access to. If a soundboard wants to access the internet and my GPS location I'm not going to install it because it could track me and has no legitimate reason to.

C) Only one source for applications and no built-in ability to add in other repositories

D) Minimal customization out-of-box, to change something as basic as icons you have to edit the direct image file itself, etc.

On the other hand, if I was running something on Linux or Windows, I can run whatever I want on it, through things like packet sniffers and the like I can see what my applications are accessing, there are many sources for applications on both platforms and adding other repositories is as simple as typing into a dialog box. With both Windows and Linux you can customize to your desires. You can leave the stock OS how it is, or you can make it be radically different to suit your style.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[AccUser]

A) I can't run whatever I want on it, everything has to be "approved" by Apple

OK, I'll give you that. But that is not really issue with iOS - it is more about the platform.

B) Applications essentially run in a "black-box" with Android I know what my apps have access to. If a soundboard wants to access the internet and my GPS location I'm not going to install it because it could track me and has no legitimate reason to.

Which is why iOS itself asks you to grant permission to an application that wants to use GPS, and indicates when the internet and GPS is being used. Wasn't there report recently about a spate of Android apps tracking users without consent?

C) Only one source for applications and no built-in ability to add in other repositories

Again, I'll give you that. Again, this is a platform issue and not iOS.

D) Minimal customization out-of-box, to change something as basic as icons you have to edit the direct image file itself, etc.

Hmm. You don't like the stock icons. Sorry.

On the other hand, if I was running something on Linux or Windows, I can run whatever I want on it, through things like packet sniffers and the like I can see what my applications are accessing, there are many sources for applications on both platforms and adding other repositories is as simple as typing into a dialog box. With both Windows and Linux you can customize to your desires. You can leave the stock OS how it is, or you can make it be radically different to suit your style.

iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are devices designed for end users who care about being able to use their devices productively without having to worry about details like the above. Are you seriously telling me that you will run a packet sniffer every time you download a new application for your Android device?

Your comments that iOS is a pathetic excuse for an OS are based on your perceived experience as a user and not a developer.

Whatever.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[slim]

Let's get real -- this is a hacker demonstrating their own L33T SK1LLZ, and ChromiumOS's portability. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that a typical end user would want to replace iOS with ChromeOS on an iPad.

What it does mean is that a hacker/developer who wants to try out ChromeOS on a touchscreen, and happens to own an iPad, can do so. If you want to develop for both platforms, well now you can test on both with less outlay on hardware.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[thoth]

A lot of my friends who were going to get the iPhone chose an Android device simply because Apple doesn't let you have emulators on their phones.

Are your friends particularly tech-savvy? I mean seriously, going to Android because of available emulators? I think you are under the massively broken assumption your friends remotely approximate the total user population.

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[Lennie]

You mean something like this:

"Wasn't there report recently about a spate of Android apps tracking users without consent?"

http://www.osnews.com/story/23865/Studies_Show_Android_iOS_Transmit_Private_Data_to_3rd_Parties

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[Archangel Michael]

Obligatory Youtube ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[slim]

Are your friends particularly tech-savvy? I mean seriously, going to Android because of available emulators? I think you are under the massively broken assumption your friends remotely approximate the total user population.

I'm not sure about this. I see a lot of not particularly technical people buying flash carts and pirating Nintendo DS ROM images from the Internet. The people who make these products have made them pretty user friendly, so much so that I've spoken to people who are clever enough to do it, yet not clever enough to understand the legal implications ("It's not illegal at all; you can just get them for free off the Internet").

So it's vaguely realistic that non-technical people would ask "so, can I play my Sonic the Hedgehog ROMs on this phone?"

Re:end-user mostly dont care what OS is running

[Graham J - XVI]

If Apple rejects an app you're not going to find it on ChromeOS either because the latter is just a glorified browser. Conversely, anything that runs on ChromeOS should run just fine in MobileSafari.

Just wondering...

[ChaoticCoyote]

Why is Chrome OS considered "cutting edge"?

Re:Just wondering...

[Darkness404]

Because most people aren't old enough to remember terminal clients, which is what ChromeOS essentially is. No native apps, etc.

If anything, Chrome OS is a downgrade from iOS.

Re:Just wondering...

[Americano]

Because it's incomplete & unreleased. Until it's released, we can dream of all the AWESOME features it's going to have, like free, on-demand hookers and a beer tap.

Then we'll actually see it and realize that, functionally, it's just another web browser. But single-use devices are *awesome* when they're open source. Not like those locked-down one-trick ponies Apple sells at all.

Re:Just wondering...

[slim]

Because most people aren't old enough to remember terminal clients, which is what ChromeOS essentially is.

... and if you were to show those "most people" an old terminal app alongside a rich web app, they'd have no idea why you consider them to be "essentially" the same. ... and if you were to show those "most people" a native app alongside a rich web app, they'd be hard pushed to know which was which.

By "rich web app" I mean something like Google Docs.

It's all very well to shout "IT'S NO DIFFERENT TO A MAINFRAME" every time cloud computing is mentioned -- but in terms of user experience it's a world of difference from using a VT220 (every keystroke is sent to the server) or a 3270 (Your UI is EBCDIC panels or nothing).

To address the original question; why is ChromeOS "cutting edge" -- I don't think it's entirely justifiable to say it is, or that iOS is not. However ChromeOS has some strong innovation in the areas of fast booting, and cached offline access to Web apps.

Re:Just wondering...

[xtracto]

It's all very well to shout "IT'S NO DIFFERENT TO A MAINFRAME" every time cloud computing is mentioned -- but in terms of user experience it's a world of difference from using a VT220 (every keystroke is sent to the server) or a 3270 (Your UI is EBCDIC panels or nothing).

Indeed, in terms of user experience it is a world of difference between the cirppled Google Docs word-processor interface and what OpenOffice Write can offer.

I hate webapps of today. They offer half of the functionality of real applications and the only "features" they have is that you have your data in an external server.

Re:Just wondering...

[at_slashdot]

Because you can cut yourself if you use it.

Re:Just wondering...

[slim]

Indeed, in terms of user experience it is a world of difference between the cirppled Google Docs word-processor interface and what OpenOffice Write can offer.

I hate webapps of today. They offer half of the functionality of real applications and the only "features" they have is that you have your data in an external server.

I think that's a fair statement. If you're using the advanced features of a local word processor, the current crop of web apps probably don't have them. As it happens, I have no use for those advanced features -- in fact they'd probably clutter up the UI without offering me anything I need -- but that's fine, different people have different needs.

I have Word and Excel installed on my laptop, but for personal use I prefer Google Docs word processor and spreadsheet. The features that are missing are features I don't need. I really value the ease with which you can share documents with others, and access the same document from multiple computers (my work PC, my home Mac, my phone, a friend's PC, a cybercafe).

But again, your needs are different to mine. Both kinds of app will continue to exist for some time to come.

Having said that, more feature-rich web apps will emerge. There will be competition, and consumers will demand more features. At the same time, browsers and network connections will get faster, UI libraries will get cleverer. I'm not sure how long it will take, but I suspect that in time Web apps will get as feature-rich as you want.

Re:Just wondering...

[NekSnappa]

I'll wait until the second version. When there will be rainbows, and unicorns.

Re:Just wondering...

[geekoid]

haha, it's nothing like a terminal app. And yes, I am old enough to remember them.

Chrome OS is nothing like a 3270 terminal.

Re:Just wondering...

[Americano]

No, rainbows and unicorns will only appear in the device when Slashdot officially declares "The Year of the Chrome OS Tablet."

Unfortunately, I fear that'll always defined as "The Year of the Linux Desktop" + 1.

Re:Just wondering...

[tehcyder]

Why is Chrome OS considered "cutting edge"?

It sounds cool and techy without the writer having to know anything about it.

Re:Just wondering...

[Graham J - XVI]

I'd say the Chrome part is fairly cutting edge as it is a pretty nice browser. The OS part is pretty straightforward though.

Re:The end is near...

[jgagnon]

Are you implying Chrome OS eats shit? :p

Last week?

[ViViDboarder]

http://hexxeh.net/?p=328117605 Sept 28th.

Re:is Chrome OS any good?

[jgagnon]

It is at least eleventy-dozen times better than anything created in the next ten years, starting tomorrow.

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?"

[jgagnon]

Why not turn your iPod Touch into a web server?

What's to love?

[bhartman34]

Why wouldn't users love that?

Probably because adding Chrome OS to the iPad doesn't add anything.

I'm all in favor of running something other than iOS on an iPad, but that's because I think it could be running a more robust OS (OS X, Linux, or Windows, to name a few). Running Chrome OS isn't much better than running iOS, and probably worse, because there aren't as many apps.

Re:What's to love?

[miffo.swe]

"Probably because adding Chrome OS to the iPad doesn't add anything."

Maybe, i dont know, Flash?

Re:What's to love?

[bhartman34]

If that's all it's good for, it's a waste of time. All you have to do to run Flash on a standard iPad is jailbreak it.

Re:What's to love?

[ceoyoyo]

What's non-robust about iOS? It's pretty much a full UNIX underneath. Is it a prettier window manager you want?

Re:What's to love?

[bhartman34]

This is an old debate, but here goes:

Any self-respecting computing device that size should have:

1) A file manager. It's not enough that the iPad stores things where it wants to store them. There should be a way to move files around and put them where you want them (without tethering it to a desktop or laptop).
2) Real apps. Sorry, but this running phone apps on what should be a real computer doesn't cut it. You should be able to run something in the class of Microsoft Office or OpenOffice on it, not just iOS's equivalent to WordPad.

And while we're on the subject of apps...

3) Apple's walled garden is a joke. A bad one. In this instance, gatekeepers suck.
4) It's a black box. If you can't get to the command line, see what processes are running, etc., it's not up to snuff for what a modern OS should be able to do.

Slapping a pretty window manager on it isn't going to help iOS. The problems (at least, when you put it on a tablet) run deeper than that.

iOS is perfectly acceptable for a phone, because people don't expect (and shouldn't expect) to do much more than what iOS can do. People shouldn't have any desire to get to a command line on their phones, or manage files w/o a host computer, etc. But any tablet should be a lot more versatile than that. Otherwise, all you're adding is a bigger screen.

To sum up: Without a more robust OS, an iPad is just an iPod Touch afflicted with gigantism.

Re:What's to love?

[ceoyoyo]

1) iOS has a file manager. Complete with rm, cp, mv etc.

2) iOS can run whatever you want. It just has to be compiled for ARM. If you want a GUI, it has to use the included GUI toolkit, or OpenGL.

3) Has nothing to do with the OS.

4) Sure you can. ps is there, as is top, etc.

Your problem is that Apple doesn't want you to (trivially) access any of these things. That doesn't mean that iOS doesn't have them. They're easily available if you jailbreak. And you're going to have to do more than jailbreak to run Chrome.

Re:What's to love?

[Graham J - XVI]

There aren't ANY apps, it's just a browser.

Re:What's to love?

[bhartman34]

1) iOS has a file manager. Complete with rm, cp, mv etc.

A built-in one? Do you have a citation for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have never seen that anywhere, and have seen several posts like this bemoaning the lack of a file manager. I understand you can SSH into an iPhone, but I'm talking about a user-level file manager and command line. (Incidentally, command line access isn't the same thing as having a file manager. A file manager is a program which manages files (e.g., Windows Explorer, Nautilus, etc.).

Your problem is that Apple doesn't want you to (trivially) access any of these things. That doesn't mean that iOS doesn't have them. They're easily available if you jailbreak. And you're going to have to do more than jailbreak to run Chrome.

First, don't kid yourself: Apple doesn't want you to do any of those things at all. If it was up to Apple, jailbreaking would be illegal, and they'd be more than happy if any attempt to jailbreak bricked your phone.

Second, if it doesn't exist in the UI, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. The UI controls what average users can do.

You're absolutely right about Chrome. That's one of the reasons I wouldn't use it on a tablet. A tablet should let you do all the things I mentioned without having to use Google to figure out have to get admin rights in your own system.

Re:What's to love?

[ceoyoyo]

That guy is complaining about the lack of a non-jailbreak common area, and non-jailbreak accessible file manager. iOS supports these things just fine. You can jailbreak your own iOS device and find out, or you can read one of the zillions of posts about people sshing to their iOS device.

The command line is fully accessible (once you jailbreak) from the device itself using MobileTerminal. Unfortunately that project hasn't been updated for the iPad yet, so in that case you need to use an SSH app to SSH to localhost. Works great.

If by user-level file manager you mean a pretty GUI, you can use something like iFile or Mobile Finder. Note that Linux doesn't have a pretty "built in" GUI file management system either - you have to install X and a window manager for that.

I think you're kidding yourself. Apple doesn't want to have to deal with large numbers jailbreakers. Their actions aren't consistent with a company that actually cares whether a few people jailbreak their devices or not. I have personally returned a jailbroken and non-functional iPod touch for a replacement. If Apple really wanted to discourage jailbreakers they wouldn't replace devices that were clearly jailbroken.

"Second, if it doesn't exist in the UI, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. The UI controls what average users can do."

Yes, we're back to you wanting a pretty GUI. That's fine, but it's not a comment on the "robustness" of the operating system. Linux is a good, robust operating system and doesn't have a pretty GUI, although you can add one if you want.

Re:What's to love?

[bhartman34]

Yes, we're back to you wanting a pretty GUI. That's fine, but it's not a comment on the "robustness" of the operating system. Linux is a good, robust operating system and doesn't have a pretty GUI, although you can add one if you want.

I'm well aware that Linux has a lot of pretty GUI options. In fact, I'm typing this in Ubuntu right now, using Gnome and Docky, typing in a particularly "pretty" Chrome browser window. All of that is entirely irrelevant to what I was saying.

The point is that iOS doesn't give you those things without having to jailbreak your phone, and Apple is on record (multiple times) that they don't want people jailbreaking. If you'll recall, they even issued a "You'll be on your own" statement after it was announced that jailbreaking your phone was perfectly legal. To whit:

Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said Apple won’t change its policy that voids iPhone warranties if a phone has been jailbroken. “It can violate the warranty and cause the iPhone to become unstable and not work reliably,” she said.

[Emphasis added.]
Source

This isn't about wanting a "pretty" graphic UI. It's about wanting a UI. Any UI. As it stands right now, Apple gives you nothing in terms of command line access, file management, or any of the other things I mentioned. That may be acceptable to offer consumers on a cell phone, but I can't understand why anyone would find it acceptable on a tablet. If you saw a PC or laptop with that kind of an OS, how hard would you laugh?

Again, this isn't about a pretty GUI. A GUI-less installation of Linux gives you about 1000 times the power of what iOS has.

I'm not down exclusively on iOS, either. I think the Chrome OS is silly to put on a browser, and while Android and WebOS don't suffer as much from the walled garden syndrome of iOS, they're a lot more limited than just putting a standard Linux distro on a tablet and being done with it. The only reason I think Apple deserves more scorn is because of how hostile they've been to people trying to use the hardware they paid for the way they want to use it. Android and WebOS (to take two examples in the mobile space) don't have that problem (although they have others).

Re:What's to love?

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, you're back to complaining about having to jailbreak. I thought when you said iOS wasn't robust enough you actually had something interesting to say about the OS, not about Apple's policies.

My mistake.

Re:What's to love?

[bhartman34]

Ah, you're back to complaining about having to jailbreak. I thought when you said iOS wasn't robust enough you actually had something interesting to say about the OS, not about Apple's policies.

How is the need to jailbreak not about the OS? If the OS was designed correctly, there wouldn't be a need to jailbreak to do these things. Apple took a system designed to do all these things, and took those capabilities out. To add insult to injury, they made it harder to add those capabilities back in, and use the threat of revoking your warranty as a stick to discourage you from doing so. Apple's policies made a bad situation worse, but the problem is the OS itself, not the policy against jailbreaking. The need to jailbreak in the first place is the problem. I would happily retract my comment about iOS not being robust if either a) the capabilities were exposed in the OS by default or b) the capabilities could be added via the App Store. (Hell, I'd even be satisfied if you could download an app through a third party website to do it, but God knows Apple is too anally retentive to allow anything like that to happen.)

This is really very simple: In order for me to consider the OS robust, it would have to have these capabilities, exposed to the user. It's not like Apple doesn't know how to make such an OS. They have one. They just chose not to use it for the iPod, iPhone or iPad.

Re:What's to love?

[miffo.swe]

"All you have to do to run Flash on a standard iPad is jailbreak it."

Think about that sentence for a while will you?

Re:What's to love?

[bhartman34]

I'm certainly not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that if that's all Chrome OS brings to the table, it's unnecessary.

the Wrath of Jobs

[WillyWanker]

Emperor Jobs will surely smite you for such heresy!

Re:First Chrome

[MatthewCCNA]

will this bring peace to a world raggled by the google apple wars ?

More likely it's just another sign of the coming zombie apocalypse.

Why?

[ntdesign]

Installing Chrome OS over iOS is effectively turning your iPad into a JooJoo. The only reason I could see anyone doing this is for the challenge. If you're ideologically opposed to iOS, then you wouldn't own an iPad anyway.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

The only reason I could see anyone doing this is for the challenge.

Yous say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[Americano]

Looks like somebody's confusing "robustness" with "huge set of infrequently-used features." :(

Thanks for the video but

[DrSkwid]

what the fuck are you on about ?

Re:is Chrome OS any good?

[binarylarry]

Actually it can run "native apps" with the help of native client.

users

[Tom]

Why wouldn't users love that?

Because (non-geek) users care mostly about being able to use the thing. Freedom, Free Software, "cutting edge" (aka "half of the stuff doesn't work yet) and other concerns like that take a distant second to turning it on and having whatever it is you need ready and waiting in front of you.

Geek people simply don't get what users want, and that's why "Linx on the desktop" won't happen for another 10 years. And that's why the iPhod, not the Nomad, is the #1 MP3 player. Why iPhones catch the headlines, not Android. Why - despite the great sales numbers - commercial developers still see the iPhone as the #1 for the forseable future, not Android. Heck, it's even why windos, as crappy as it is, still beats Linux hands down, one leg tied up, because it simply is there and it works - barely, but it works. And that is what users care about, that and that alone.

Re:users

[gstoddart]

Because (non-geek) users care mostly about being able to use the thing.

And even some of us geeks don't want to tinker with every device we own all of the time.

For business travel which includes lots of hours in airports, airplanes, and hotel rooms ... an iPad is a friggin' awesome tool.

I just did a business trip, which wasn't even a factor in buying my iPad. When you've got a bunch of hours of travel time, the iPad is a really great addition. It also meant I could check my mail from airports and other places along the way without needing to haul out my laptop. And, I could watch movies on the plane, or play games, or generally fill in some of the many hours that business travel leaves me to fill. I even used it to find restaurants and free wifi.

If you look at it as basically a fancy media console with some productivity and work features, it's a pretty nice device to have. It is by no means a general purpose computer, and it isn't going to be used for running a web server. However, for things like reading huge PDFs or some mapping out of ideas to be more ready to dive into some tasks, it's actually quite useful. Since I don't have a smart phone, this covers a lot of that functionality.

Sure, I lugged my work laptop in case I had any "real" work to do, but for most of the trip, my personal iPad covered most of my needs. They're complementary tools. Maybe a little more money than most people are willing to spend on it, but for me, I keep finding reasons why I'm happy with the purchase and why it actually fills a spot in my laptop bag when I travel.

Like Liberace

[SpaghettiPattern]

Like Liberace, Apple will cry all the way to the bank.

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?"

[slim]

Why not turn your iPod Touch into a web server?

I've been known to turn my Android phone into a web server. There's an app that lets you compose SMS messages in your desktop web browser.

I'm sure there's lots of other reasons you might want to contact your phone over HTTP.

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[Slash.Poop]

You fluffers crack me up!

Yea, cause printing is something you would never want to do from a computer. We should inform Apple that way they don't implement it in 4.2. They seem to be working on it for nothing.

Although you are right. A "feature" (LMAO at printing being a "feature") does fit into the "infrequently-used" category when it is not even present.

iPad instead of netbook

[tepples]

The iPad is not a computer, it's a device.

As I and apparently several other Slashdot users understand it, Apple's iPad is an appliance intended to replace a computer. Consider that Apple has chosen not make a MacBook smaller than 13"; instead of a netbook, it makes an appliance.

Re:iPad instead of netbook

[UnknowingFool]

As I and apparently several other Slashdot users understand it, Apple's iPad is an appliance intended to replace a computer. Consider that Apple has chosen not make a MacBook smaller than 13"; instead of a netbook, it makes an appliance.

It is intended to supplement a computer. You still need a computer to use an iPad. The iPad is light on productivity is heavily focused on consumption. At best the iPad replaces some computer functions like my smart phone does when I'm not at home. For many consumers that do not use computers for productivity it replaces most of the functions they need.

looks a bit pokey

[bl8n8r]

cool hack though, especially if you don't partake in Apple's elitism.

Update iOS to access iTunes Store and Wii Shop

[tepples]

At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update?

To retain access to the iTunes Store. Consider the case of another appliance maker that also calls its appliances' operating system IOS: whenever Nintendo releases a Wii Menu update to close the hole that allows installation of the current version of Homebrew Channel, it also updates Wii Shop Channel and blocks access from older versions of Wii Shop Channel.

Re:Update iOS to access iTunes Store and Wii Shop

[Theaetetus]

At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update?

To retain access to the iTunes Store. Consider the case of another appliance maker that also calls its appliances' operating system IOS: whenever Nintendo releases a Wii Menu update to close the hole that allows installation of the current version of Homebrew Channel, it also updates Wii Shop Channel and blocks access from older versions of Wii Shop Channel.

... and? This is like saying you hackintoshed a Dell to put OSX on it, but still want access to Windows System Updates. I mean, sure, you can want that, but it's neither Apple, Microsoft, nor Dell's responsibility to make sure you can have it.

Fake

[BlueF]

Looks like Remote Desktop to another system running Chrome OS.

Is there any more evidence this is real than a 30 second video which doesn't even show it booting (which in of itself would be hardly more convincing without more details).

Disappointingly not the first news site I've seen this posted on with so little to show.

Re:Can't RTFA at work. Question:

[Vectormatic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGECJP3phyY

Re:is Chrome OS any good?

[cgenman]

Considering it's running on a computer without a keyboard or mouse, that sounds like a good fit.

Nerds are not everybody

[TehHustler]

Why wouldn't users love that? Depends on the class of user. Remember, nerds. Everybody else isn't like us. We should remember that when we have our rose-tinted specs on.

Chromium state?

[shadowrat]

Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state

I am unfamiliar with the term "Chromium state". If more open source code was available in a Chromium state, could we install it on ipads? Is there something about this state that makes it easier to compile the source code for ipads?

Re:Chromium state?

[slim]

Just in case you weren't joking, "form" or "version" would probably have been a better word than "state". Let's assume English is not their first language.

ChromeOS is Google's official version, which presumably contains some closed-source components, and is unreleased.

Chromium OS is the fully open source version which you can get your hands on right now.

The guy was able to install Chromium OS on the iPad because (a) he could get his hands on the source and (b) compile it for any target architecture he chose.

Re:Chromium state?

[shadowrat]

Ah. I see. You should write summaries. The summary as it is is copied from a copy. This is why we don't rtfa.

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[goodmanj]

Robust: you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Robust, adj. Sturdy in construction. Unlikely to break.

A hammer is robust. A Swiss Army Knife is not. A hammer does only one thing, but it doesn't break while doing it. A Swiss Army Knife can do lots of things, but it will break if you try to use it as a hammer, and honestly, it'll probably break if you try to use it seriously as a screwdriver, scissors, or knife too.

Say what you like about iOS's feature set, but it's pretty much unbreakable.

Portable device for both Ubuntu and Windows

[tepples]

No mainstream company actively encourages or makes it easy to install anything other than what the portable device came with.

I know of one exception: Dell sells laptops made for both Ubuntu and Windows. What justifies this exception?

Re:Portable device for both Ubuntu and Windows

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I was talking about tablets and smartphones actually, portable devices, not portable computers (a grey area I know.) Apple sells laptops that officially support both OSX and Windows too. The previous generation of tablets, the kind that were little more than a laptop sans keyboard, might even have been able to boot another OS quite easily but the new purpose built mobile devices have all kinds of locks on the system firmware. Like the iPad does, like Android phones do.

Re:Portable device for both Ubuntu and Windows

[Dog-Cow]

And Apple provides drivers for several versions of Windows with every Mac OS X install. What's your point?

Dual boot

[tepples]

This is like saying you hackintoshed a Dell to put OSX on it, but still want access to Windows System Updates.

Of course someone who installs a dual boot between Windows 7 and Mac OS X will want updates for Windows 7. That's all the Homebrew Channel on Wii is: a dual boot environment. If Microsoft denied updates to Windows 7 users who have multiple operating systems installed, several countries' competition regulators would step in.

Re:Dual boot

[Theaetetus]

This is like saying you hackintoshed a Dell to put OSX on it, but still want access to Windows System Updates.

Of course someone who installs a dual boot between Windows 7 and Mac OS X will want updates for Windows 7. That's all the Homebrew Channel on Wii is: a dual boot environment. If Microsoft denied updates to Windows 7 users who have multiple operating systems installed, several countries' competition regulators would step in.

I don't have a Wii, but everything I can find on Google about the Homebrew Channel points to it being applications that run under the Wii OS. It's not Dual Boot at all, just a channel that appears along side all of the other Wii menu items, no?

Re:The end is near...

[geekoid]

Yep.. it eats shit and poops rainbows~

Oh Please

[geekoid]

How about: Unauthorized changes void warranty.

It's been on almost every electronic produced for decades. It's fine and a perfect middle ground between consumers and manufactures. Intentionally breaking something is simple rude, and they should be held liable. If you loaded you own firm ware onto your TV, and then the TV manufactures shut you down, you would be outraged.

Re:Oh Please

[shentino]

Interesting how both wireless phones and televisions use the airwaves.

I wonder if firmware tampering could rile the FCC if it causes a device's certs to be voided.

mod parent up

[sosume]

Parent is pointing to the original author's blog, no idea why this is moderated as troll ..

Platform issue

[tepples]

this is a platform issue and not iOS.

When people refer to iOS, they mean both iOS the software and iOS the platform. So what name do you prefer to use for iOS the platform?

Re:Platform issue

[AccUser]

When people refer to iOS, they mean both iOS the software and iOS the platform. So what name do you prefer to use for iOS the platform?

Since iOS is actually the operating system, I tend to refer to the platform the same way as Apple does: iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad. Sure, it is a moot point, but you made me make it. :-)

Re:Platform issue

[tepples]

Python shows how cumbersome your name for the platform is:

>>> len("iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad")
26
>>> len("iOS")
3

Besides, this name will become obsolete once Apple introduces a new device that runs iOS applications. For example, the new Apple TV runs iOS and may get apps in the future. Patent applications indicate that Apple is considering a touch-screen iMac that can dual-boot to iOS.

Re:Platform issue

[AccUser]

That's fine. At least you have found a use for Python. :P

Seriously, does it matter what I refer to the platform as?

I develop for iOS on iPad and iPhone, but the whole platform is not iOS. There are currently significant differences between the platforms, and this can be seen simply by looking at the iOS instances running on currently-for-sale iDevices. Once Apple has brought the platforms into line with a common, single-stream codebase, then maybe we can start to think about iOS as the platform, but right now there is significant differentiation.

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[Americano]

Looks like somebody's confusing "infrequently-used" with "never". :(

The number of times I've *ever* wanted a printout of something while not at home or work where I have a printer connected to my desktop computer, I could probably count on the fingers of one hand. So why do you see a dire and immediate *need* for printer support on a device that is primarily intended as:
1) A companion device to a desktop / laptop computer;
2) Aimed squarely at mobile usage?

Personally, I'd much rather see Apple focus on robustness of the features they do implement, rather than throwing every half-baked feature they can think of into the OS in an attempt to make some imaginary feature checklist longer. I'm sure printing will be "nice to have" the one or two times I'll ever need it, but I sincerely doubt I'd miss it if it never appeared in the device, because I can easily print a document from my desktop at home or at work if I need to, and I'm not going to carry a printer with me "just in case" when I'm away from my desktop anyway.

LMAO at printing being a "feature"

Since when is printing not a "feature" of a computing device? And if you're saying it's not a feature... why the fuck do you care if the iPad can't print then?

What is ChromeOS for?

[DrXym]

Google are really dithering when it comes to tablet support. On the one hand they have a real-world operating system called Android which works great in smart phones and would probably work great in tablets with some relatively modest changes. On the other they have this other thing called ChromeOS where "the browser is the OS" and everything else is some kind of a web app, although in reality they are also pushing "native" web apps so who knows.

I get the feeling from Google's silence / lack of direction that these two groups are engaged in some kind of unholy turf war for the hearts and minds of tablet devices. The consequence for consumers and manufacturers that no one else knows what the hell to do. Look at the tablets that have been released recently and they're running Android 2.2. Yet many devices don't qualify for certification so they ship with the market place application. Android is going to fragment if things don't sort themselves out soon.

If anyone from Google cares to know what I think, it is this. MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND. Personally I don't understand why ChromeOS even exists. The concept of web apps is fine, but what's wrong with a solution similar to Apple's where native / web apps coexist in the same user interface? In other words fold web apps into Android and dump this other thing.

Playbook

[Excelsior]

That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.

Apple has the IPad; The Playbook is Blackberry. Duh.

playbook?

[__aaoyac5342]

But sir Apple doesn't have a playbook, that would be Research in Motion.

HBC vs. loadlin

[tepples]

I don't have a Wii, but everything I can find on Google about the Homebrew Channel points to it being applications that run under the Wii OS. It's not Dual Boot at all, just a channel that appears along side all of the other Wii menu items, no?

All parts of the Wii OS that run on the main CPU, such as the "home" menu, are statically linked into the game executable. The Homebrew Channel that appears in the Wii Menu is a chain-loader analogous to loadlin, and HBC apps use the loaded IOS much as a PC uses BIOS. Closing an HBC app goes back to HBC, and switching from HBC back to the Wii Menu is more like a reboot. It's as if Chrome OS for the jailbroken iPad were packaged as an iOS app that rebooted the tablet into Chrome OS.

It -is- a computer

[jabberw0k]

How is this "device" with its CPU, memory, display, and I/O capabilities any less of a computer than an Apple ][ or a Commodore 64?

Re:It -is- a computer

[icebraining]

So my Nokia 3310 is a computer?

There are many definitions of computer. It can be a person who computes. It can be a machine who receives an input, processes it and outputs a result. And it can be a general purpose machine, as opposed to an appliance like the iPad (or my Nokia) which are more limited and suitable for some tasks.

Re:It -is- a computer

[slim]

How is this "device" with its CPU, memory, display, and I/O capabilities any less of a computer than an Apple ][ or a Commodore 64?

It's a classic matter of semantics. Just as people (understandably and justifiably) fail to agree on whether "Operating System" just means the kernel or whether it also includes /usr/bin/grep and X11, because they're thinking at different contextual levels, so people use "computer" to mean different things.

You could get quite wordy defining what "computer" means and what "device" means, such that the iPad is one and not the other. However I think we can all infer what kind of properties would make it a "computer" in that sense.

I would say that the only thing preventing the iPad from being a "computer" in that sense, is that Apple deliberately cripple it.

Perhaps "cripple" is too pejorative a word; you could argue that the "missing" features are features that confuse a certain class of user, and are thus better not included.

Re:It -is- a computer

[jschottm]

My car stereo has a CPU, memory, display, and I/O capability. So does my microwave. So does the Kindle and iPad. They are not intended as general purpose devices that the modern use of the term computer connotes. They are intended to be used exactly as the manufacturer says you're going to. You can hack some of these devices just like you can run MAME on some cameras, but that's going against the intended use and the companies that make them will fight to keep control over them. That's why they're not computers.

Don't take my word for it, take Apple's:

A magical and revolutionary product - note that the word computer is never used to describe the iPad.
The Mac is designed to provide the best computer experience you can have.

See the difference?

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?"

[Americano]

That seems to be a rather pointless "just 'cause I can" way of sending SMS messages. You can send them directly from your desktop using an AIM client on your desktop (send a message to +15554441234, or whatever phone number you want to connect to), and you can carry on an sms conversation right there without running down the battery of your phone.

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[Slash.Poop]

A "feature" would be something that is non-standard.

Take spell check for example, you wouldn't consider that a feature? Oh wait, nevermind.

Re: Why wouldn't users love that?"

[slim]

Well, it was kind of handy for a while when I was sending a lot of messages, and having a real keyboard was a boon.

Advantages over AIM/whatever

1. It definitely works where I live (UK)
2. The recipient sees my phone number as the sender
3. The recipient is not billed

I'm aware that US mobile phone billing is significantly different from the UK, but I'm not sure of the details. Here, it's always the sender that's billed (*) - which is one reason Twitter ceased to offer SMS-out service in the UK.

(* OK there are exceptions, but I'm talking about a consumer texting another consumer)

Buses don't even run on Sundays

[tepples]

I walk to work.

Do you move house every time you change jobs?

Some public transport has free WiFi

I happen to live in a city whose public transport has so little ridership that it doesn't even run on Sundays let alone provide Internet access. The expectation in the United States is that you drive your own car.

Google's expectation is that internet connectivity gets more and more ubiquitous over the next few years.

Then Google can introduce Chrome OS in a few years. Until then, web apps designed for Chrome OS will need to be designed to run offline for hours at a time.

I pay £23/mo for a two year contract.

U.S. contracts are much more expensive than that. A Best Buy Mobile representative told me that all four carriers' smartphone contracts start at 70 USD per month, including a 40 USD per month voice plan and a 30 USD per month data plan. I'm currently on a dumbphone with 5 USD per month prepaid service because I don't make a lot of calls.

As I said, lots of iPhone/Android apps rely on the Internet being available

Apparently, a lot of developers forget that iPod touch exists.

Re:Buses don't even run on Sundays

[slim]

Then Google can introduce Chrome OS in a few years.

I'm not sure what the release schedule is, but I think mass market Chrome devices are more than a year away.

Until then, web apps designed for Chrome OS will need to be designed to run offline for hours at a time.

I expect that to be the case too.

Re:Software should never be able to break hardware

[slim]

The manual for the BBC Micro included some comforting words about nothing you could type in being able to do permanent damage to the hardware.

However something like:

10 *TAPE 1
20 *TAPE 0
30 GOTO 10

... would burn out the cassette control relay if you left it long enough :)

Also you could fry a CRT monitor with a bad X modeline...

Direct link to the video

[objekt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tyG4upFns

Why do people insist on linking to a blog that links to another blog when all we care about is the video?

Is it really running ChromeOS?

[nmg196]

Given that it doesn't show the tablet booting, has it actually been verified that it runs ChromiumOS? After all, you could make this video in about 5 minutes by using a remote desktop app to a computer which really is running ChromiumOS. This trick has been done many times in the past.

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[slim]

A "feature" would be something that is non-standard.

I think your version of the English language is non-standard -- no offence intended, honest :)

"Feature" just means "something it has".

For example, my nose is a feature. A door is one of the features of my house.

Re:is Chrome OS any good?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yes, Chrome OS is "cutting-edge": It doesn't run native apps and it requires an always on Internet connection. How could that not be "cutting-edge" these days? Unless "cutting-edge" has been redefined as "back in the dark ages"...

Some call it "cutting-edge", some call it "borderline"...

Re:A Robust OS like Apple's???

[Slash.Poop]

Yup, and most electronic devices have a power button.
Although, you don't hear many people claiming that their device "features" a power button. No, it is just standard.

Was the door on your house one of the highlighted "features" during the pitch? You would have laughed at real estate agent if they told you the house "features" a door. Of course it "features" a door! You would be befuddled if it didn't. Kind of like how I am befuddled when a computer doesn't "feature" printing or spell check. (Although they do have spell check now)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feature
-noun
1. a prominent or conspicuous part or characteristic
2. something offered as a special attraction

But anyway, nice arguing with you. I have made my point and will now move on.

go direct to the source video

[catmistake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tyG4upFns

Made my day

[w0mprat]

"have a robust OS like Apple's"

Thanks for the lulz.

Re:your point is what?

[joebagodonuts]

What's the point of having cake, if I can't eat it? I've always been puzzled by that saying

Re:I$

[mjwx]

When they are selling the iShit for serious money, why would they care what you do with them?

Because they use that to sell you more crap. In the Apple world, everyone uses an Ipad to read, An Iphone to call, listens to an Ipod, uses an Imac at home and takes a MacBook to work all tied together with Itunes.

Apple are trying to do what Microsoft did back in the 90's, leverage one part of their business which has a very powerful position in the market to get people to buy their other products and services. The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft was quite successful at it.

Re:I$

[Krneki]

This is obvious. But if they earn money by selling phones, the more they sell, the better.