Apple Handcuffs Web Apps On iPhone Home Screen

SF Polack writes "On Apple's iOS 4.3, HTML5 and JavaScript apps are running significantly slower when they're run from the iPhone or iPad home screen rather than Safari, and the OS is hindering the performance of these apps in other ways. The end result is that it's harder for web apps to compete with native iOS app sold through the App Store, where Apple takes a 30 per cent of sales."

Comments

Uh.

[Shikaku]

Doesn't iOS have backends that needs tending, like I don't know, being able to receive calls and mail?

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because when you bring up Safari on the iPhone, it doesn't receive calls anymore.

Re:Uh.

[SirGeek]

Sadly, How many people ACTUALLY use their phones to make calls today ? Most people I see use them for playing games and sending out text messages and that's about it.

Re:Uh.

[scaryjohn]

Do these tasks not need tending when Safari is also running?

Re:Uh.

[russlar]

Try holding it differently.

Re:Uh.

[technomom]

....and handle seasonal time changes?

Re:Uh.

[ustolemyname]

This has to do with if you go to the page from the home screen (effectively clicking a shortcut that takes you to safari) versus going to safari, then the page. Nothing to do with the available capability.

In both situations, you end up with the same result (page running in safari). When you use the home screen shortcut, you get less performance.

As to backends, if you're phone app requires CPU power to *wait* for calls, you're doing it wrong. (memory I can understand. actively polling a hardware signal? not so much)

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

They need tending whether you're running the app from the home page or from Safari. The performance should be identical.

Re:Uh.

[Rhywden]

You did not understand the article. iOS offers two possibilities for web apps to be run:
a) open Safari on the iPhone/iPad. Surf to the web app. Run it.
b) Save the web app directly on the device, thus you don't need to open Safari first.

For the latter approach, some features are disabled and execution is slower even when the code is the same and it's executed on the same device.

Re:Uh.

[interkin3tic]

Sadly, How many people ACTUALLY use their phones to make calls today ? Most people I see use them for playing games and sending out text messages and that's about it.

"Sadly?" What's sad about it? Some us who always hated talking on the phone and would be happy if phones became obsolete (although they won't of course). I also hated faxes, you're not sad about them are you?

Anyway, if the increasingly inaccurate "phone" designation really annoys you, just pretend they're mutated calculators.

Re:Uh.

[markass530]

You don't see people wipe their ass or feed their pets, but I'm guessing people do those things as well as make phone calls with their phones. Texting/Games are what they do in public/when killing time.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, How many people ACTUALLY use their phones to make calls today ? Most people I see use them for playing games and sending out text messages and that's about it.

Wait... you can make calls from your phone now?

Re:Uh.

[Nadaka]

There is an app for that.

Re:Uh.

[hedwards]

Too many, and I wish more wouldn't. Mostly because a lot of them haven't figured out that they're talking to the phone, not to the people around them and as such don't need to yell.

Personally, I've got a Nexus One, and I use it primarily for the other things, because most of the time I don't need to talk. And frequently trying to talk just causes more problems, because lets face it, the carriers around here suck.

Re:Uh.

[kimvette]

They are not phones.

They are high end PDAs that include telephony as a feature, and you can choose to or not to use that feature.

There, does that make you happy? :-)

People like them. They're very powerful and can do a lot and industry leaders have been talking about "convergence" technologies for about 25 years but only now has it become reality.

Re:Uh.

[19thNervousBreakdown]

What's sad about that?

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if by "convergence" you mean 100 fart apps and other pointless diversions. Apple has succeeded marvelously at resurrecting the shareware concept and all it's awful baggage.

It is a toy, plain and simple. An expensive "activity generator" with a telephone attached. Stop pretending it is a world-changing piece of technology because it isn't.

Re:Uh.

[alvinrod]

Really they're just smart devices that also happen to be able to make and receive phone calls and use cellular data. Outside of those features you can get relatively similar functionality out of an iPod Touch. Branding and selling them as phones makes it easier to move such devices because 99% of the population groks cellphones and the carriers already have a large distribution base which makes it easy to get the devices into the hands of consumers.

With future additions of NFC and other technologies to these smart devices, they will invariably become more of a personal computer than the PC ever managed to be, phone calls will eventually just become another checklist item. The cellular data network will still be important, but in some areas of the world, WiFi saturation may make it less necessary.

Re:Uh.

[h4rr4r]

Some people do use them for work. With VPN + ssh my android phone gets used for work a lot.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that have to do with anything at all? Whether the javascript app is located on the device or hosted on the web, it's going to require the same amount of resources from the device. The only difference would be that on the phone, it would load even faster since it's coming from local storage. Are you really that dumb or you just couldn't think of anything else to say for a first post?

Re:Uh.

[Nogami_Saeko]

Maybe you should call it a "mobile" like our friends in Europe. It would seem to solve the problem with new technology and antiquated descriptions...

Re:Uh.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Sad, if you're unhappy that technology advances; or about how it's increasingly possible to access more of what interests you in a way that's convenient and comfortable to you -- and doesn't disrupt your life.

Me? I think it's pretty friggin' cool that in addition to supporting voice (and face-to-face/video conversations) today's portal wallet-sized devices are also able to connect me to the entire world in other ways too. (Not to mention entertaining me from time to time.)

Re:Uh.

[Ultra64]

Hahahahaha. Oh wow.

"Stop pretending it is a world-changing piece of technology because it isn't."

How is it (or rather smart phones in general) not? It's at least as world changing as the internet itself.

Being able to access nearly any piece of human knowledge whether I'm standing in line at the grocery store or out camping in the woods is pretty fucking amazing to me.

Re:Uh.

[EraserMouseMan]

"Retire, relax, enjoy your family. It is just a phone. Not worth it." -Jobs

Re:Uh.

[EraserMouseMan]

Or my favorite, "Mobular"

Re:Uh.

[DigiShaman]

I always thought it was just a joke, but that phrase was actually trademarked by Apple last year.

http://www.trademarkia.com/theres-an-app-for-that-77980556.html

Re:Uh.

[specialguy92]

How many people use their phones today? Seems like a lot when I'm waiting in line.

Re:Uh.

[spire3661]

Bullshit. Its a communication device. Its the same fucking thing that Kirk and Spock used. Its the fusion of a tricorder and a communication device. If you cant see a device with a several radios, the ability to pinpoint your global position, the ability to tell if you are moving or not, the ability to provide map data, emergency communication, in-the-field first aid data as a world-changing piece of tech then you are blind or living in the past.

Re:Uh.

[recoiledsnake]

Doesn't iOS have backends that needs tending, like I don't know, being able to receive calls and mail?

If that's a gay Apple joke you're making, I am sure most are not getting it. /joke.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

We call them a "handy", not a "mobile." /deutschland

Re:Uh.

[rednip]

Yeah, if by "convergence" you mean 100 fart apps and other pointless diversions

What you choose to load into your smart phone is your own business. Personally, I only have a couple of apps on my iPhone, but I use the browser every day, and the map function at least once a week.

Re:Uh.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Like you don't see people talking on their cell phones in public.

Re:Uh.

[praxis]

You honestly believe that having a phone and small touch screen computer in one device is at least as world changing as a network that can carry data (mostly unhindered) to a great portion of the world?

Re:Uh.

[jbezorg]

Yeah, if by "convergence" you mean 100 fart apps and other pointless diversions. Apple has succeeded marvelously at resurrecting the shareware concept and all it's awful baggage.

It is a toy, plain and simple. An expensive "activity generator" with a telephone attached. Stop pretending it is a world-changing piece of technology because it isn't.

You really should consider getting one.

I think there's an navigation app that will allow you to travel to and return from any destination and ensure that both routes taken are uphill.

Re:Uh.

[markass530]

usually I think they are talking to themselves, or me (i hate bluetooth headsets)

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that a sentence using no unique terms which can apply to any current or future platform can be trademarked by a single company. Why not start patenting words next.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and handle skipping a leap year every 100 years.

Re:Uh.

[MBGMorden]

Why not start patenting words next.

Ironically, they already own the trademark NeXT.

Re:Uh.

[NatasRevol]

Like Windows, Apple, Sun, Oracle?

Re:Uh.

[MBGMorden]

Yeah, if by "convergence" you mean 100 fart apps and other pointless diversions.

The old tired excuse that the cell phones are filled with "fart" apps is really getting less and less viable. My phone is now my primary method of GPS navigation. It also has a fairly good guitar tuning app on it. My music, podcasts, email, etc are all right there. With the SSH client I can login to my home PC and do certain tasks anywhere I need. I can identify any song I happen to hear in the background.

And most importantly, I can just open a web browser. That's something that you obviously have some use for as you had to use it to post that message.

There were ALWAYS people like you. Ranting that computers were useless "toys" when they first came about. Probably ranting that color TV (or even TV in favor of radio) would never catch on. Quit waving your cane around and understand that technology marches on, no matter how much you wish to dig your feet into the sand.

Re:Uh.

[MBGMorden]

To a degree, yes. The internet for many people shifted the location of their information from libraries into the home. When I was a kid and I wanted to check a random fact or lookup a recipe or find out just what was the last year of production for the Chevy Corvair, I could find that information out - but I had to go to the library. It was inconvenient, and it was slow. The internet brought that information a step closer. Now, you could access that information at home.

Mobile devices do the same thing taking it yet a step further. Now your data access is no longer restricted by your location - it's with you at all times.

Re:Uh.

[davester666]

Really? There's an app that enables you to use the iPhone to tazer idiots?

Re:Uh.

[DocSavage64109]

If it makes said network actually accessible when before it was not, then it seems rather world-changing. I'll agree that without the internet, the smart-phones would be much less useful.

Re:Uh.

[Pieroxy]

Errr, I guess it's just trolling, but I'll bite. iPhone receives calls whatever state it's in. Unless you're having a data connection over Edge, but that's a network limitation.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I said patent for a reason... trademarking individual words makes sense to identify companies. Unique catch-phrases can too provided they're specific enough. You wouldn't have blinked if someone had said to you, "there's a [Windows] app for that" back in 2000.

Re:Uh.

[Pieroxy]

While I completely agree with you, you should stop feeding the trolls. These big animals are becoming a commonplace over here lately.

Re:Uh.

[zeroshade]

woosh!

Re:Uh.

[RicoX9]

>The cellular data network will still be important, but in some areas of the world, WiFi saturation may make it less necessary.

Good luck with this. The wireless companies engage in an illegal practice known as "tying" - You buy whatever THEY deem as a "smart" device and you are REQUIRED to buy a data plan. Even if you purchase the device outright, you have to pay hundreds of dollars a year more for data service you may not want or need.

Here's my analogy: You buy a nice new 55" 1080p LED-LCD 3D TV. You've never seen a need for cable before, but your mother-in-law has moved into your spare bedroom and she likes to watch cable. You call the cable company for basic cable. Their first question is "What kind of television do you have?". Strange question, but you answer. Cable- "OK, Sir. You have a screen over 40", so you have to get a HD box. Since it's also a 3D TV, you have to get all the movie channels and sports packages." You-"But I just want basic for my M-I-L to watch the news and normal programming". Cable "Sorry, Sir - that's our policy".

I'm around WIFI all day. I don't have any use for data while I make my commute. I would love to have a new Android gadget phone. Can't get one on Verizon (or any others) without paying $360/yr for data that I WILL NOT HAVE ANY USE FOR. Sure, I could probably find something I'd use it for, but I get along great without it. It's Tying, and it is ILLEGAL. Unfortunately, no one with the deep pockets to fight it cares, they just pay the $360/yr.

Re:Uh.

[interkin3tic]

It is BS, yes, and should be enforced.

I do have to ask why you don't just get a wifi only device and a dumbphone if you need a phone and are around wifi all day. A dumbphone and an ipod touch worked for me for quite some time.

Re:Uh.

[CohibaVancouver]

Its [sic] a communication device.

Correct.

Its [sic] the same fucking thing that Kirk and Spock used.

Incorrect - Not even close to what Kirk and Spock had, even in TOS. A Star Trek communicator fit it one's hand and could reach a vessel in orbit, even if it wasn't geosynchronous over their head. Signals seemed to bypass most EM interference, and the devices allow nearly instantaneous communication at distances that would otherwise require more time to traverse. Most sat-phones today are bulky with little to no data capability.

Re:Uh.

[Raffaello]

That quote is actually misattributed. It was the person writing to Steve Jobs who wrote that, not Jobs.

Here's what the site in question says: "UPDATE: The last line in the email exchange was actually not said by Mr. Jobs; rather it was by “Tom.” We corrected it as soon as we were made aware."

Jobs closed his half of the email exchange with "You may be working from bad data. Not your fault. Stay tuned. We are working on it."

BTW, I'm not in any way condoning Apple's de facto classification of home screen web apps as second class iOS citizens.

Re:Uh.

[lgw]

Kleenex owns the trademark on "pop up". At least "there's an app for that" is somewhat limited in context.

Re:Uh.

[sosume]

> How is it (or rather smart phones in general) not? It's at least as world changing as the internet itself.
> Being able to access nearly any piece of human knowledge whether I'm standing in line at the grocery store or out camping
> in the woods is pretty fucking amazing to me.

Sure, we didn't have that 10 years ago with the PDA rage, right? And you weren't able to do that 30 years ago? Think harder ;-)

Re:Uh.

[T-Bone-T]

It isn't tying, it is subsidizing. It is a lot easier to sell a $200 phone with a 2 year contract than to sell just an $800 phone. I don't know where you get that you HAVE to buy service.

Re:Uh.

[sosume]

And how is that different from, say, an iPaq or a Palm in the 90's? People forget way to soon ...

Re:Uh.

[FictionPimp]

What he means is you can't get basic service with a smart phone (IE, no data).

There is no 3G service where I work (but there is at home). Everywhere I go has wifi. Yet I HAVE to have a data plan to use my iphone as a phone. I can't just get a dumb phone plan (which would be a LOT cheaper).

I have two choices.

1) buy a dumb phone and carry a ipod
2) pay for a much more expensive data plan that I can't even use most of the time.

Where is the option 3) no data service/wifi only smart phone plan.

Re:Uh.

[MBGMorden]

Disregarding the improved UI (almost all people seem to work much quicker with a capacitive touch screen versus a stylus), neither of those devices had a GPS, nor (most importantly) a functional internet connection that is available 99% of the time you are away from home.

Seriously, the "always there" internet connection on these devices pretty much the main driving factor in their popularity - you can't compare them to devices of old that lack that important part. It's like trying to compare automobiles to carriages and dismissing it as "nothing different".

Re:Uh.

[happymellon]

Or perhaps it was a varient on dry whit. Running in Safari, or running from a shortcut to a webpage (which would run run in Safari) would be no different than running an app.

Re:Uh.

[RicoX9]

I did exactly that for a long time. I went through a few semi-smart phones that played mp3's, but none had decent players till my current LG Env Touch (Verizon had some conflict with this phone - When I got it, data was optional, then later it wasn't, then it was again - go figure). I quit carrying 2 devices, and don't really wish to go back. I have a 42 mile commute. I listen to a LOT of audio books. A player that will remember your place in a book if you leave the player app is very important. It's nice to be able to load a 16GB micro SD card with books/music/pictures and be able to manipulate it all without iTunes too.

I've learned to work around the quirks in the LG player, and it's been OK. I'd love to be able to try out other apps without paying Verizon (only provider that works at my house) $1.99/MB/download just to try different apps, much less the purchase price of the app that may not do it. I like to tinker, so an Android seems like the device for me. I like the iPhone, but despise the whole Apple culture thing.

Also, dishonest business practices like forced data contracts gets under my skin and makes me dig my heels in. If *I* get a smart phone, then my wife has to get one (who honestly has no need of one, she's very non-techie). I know my step-son will wheedle her into getting him one eventually too, and a 14 yr old has NO valid reason for one (He needs to show behaviour and grades to justify permission, then have enough incentive to earn the money for it - that hasn't and probably won't happen) All of a sudden, I'm looking at $1080/yr for DATA. Even if I buy the phones for full price. Bullshit on that.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, and since when is Germany = Europe?

You lost the war, remember? ;-)

/ Ich lebe auch in Deutschland.

Re:Uh.

[goltzc]

We'll all remember to get off your lawn.

Re:Uh.

[RicoX9]

You can NOT buy a "smart" phone and put it on ANY provider's network without PAYING for a data contract nowadays. At least Verizon and AT&T (I don't know T-Mobile for sure) FORCE data contracts, even if you buy a used phone with a clear ID, you can't put JUST phone service on it.

I was pretty clear when I said "Even if you purchase the device outright, you have to pay " - I've tried. It is obvious that the subsidy isn't driving the data contract. The outrageous profit in data plans is driving the data contract.

It's illegal. Period.

Re:Uh.

[SQLGuru]

Ummm sure you can. I've got a Fuze and no data plan. Sure it isn't the latest tech, but even when I got the phone, data plans were a "requirement". I activated the account with my old RAZR and moved the sim over.

Of course, on companies like Sprint w/ no SIM, you're pretty much screwed in that regard.

Re:Uh.

[C_L_Lk]

Actually you can - quite easily. All you have to do is go to a carrier and buy the cheapest dumbphone with SIM that you can (AT&T is good for this) and get it on a "no contract length" plan (so.. a dumbphone will probably be about $100 - you'll have to pay that) - get the voice service you want on it with no data plan. Take the SIM out and put it in your android or blackberry phone. Your data services will not work, your voice services will.

I live in Canada and have an unlocked Blackberry Bold 9700 on Rogers with a normal blackberry data/voice/etc. plan for around $60/mo. I travel to the US regularly - many weeks a year. I went to an AT&T store and bought a $129 dumbphone with a $24/mo voice plan, no data, etc. I have that service automatically charged to my credit card each month so I just ignore its existence for the most part. When I travel to the US I pop my Rogers SIM out, pop my AT&T SIM in, and I'm good to go - I'm on a US phone number for making and receiving calls, and I have no data or blackberry service, but whenever I'm around WIFI I can use that for any data apps / web browsing.

Previously I had been paying around $600/yr in roaming costs when in the US. (typically ~$50 per week I was there). I now pay $300/yr for my US phone service and I get more minutes than I'll ever use while there and I use the Blackberry just fine with no data plan. My wife does the same with her Android phone using my SIM when she has to go to the US as well.

Re:Uh.

[Homr Zodyssey]

I'll bite...How could I have accessed "nearly any piece of human knowledge" while camping in 1981?

Re:Uh.

[Homr Zodyssey]

Or trying to drive across town...

Re:Uh.

[obarthelemy]

You're free to get a dumbphone. And/or an ereader. And/or a portable game console. And/or an MP3 player. And/or a PDA. And/or a portable radio.

I'd personally rather carry around a single gizmo + cable though. Certainly not best at any of those functions, but good enough at all for me.

Re:Uh.

[grahamwest]

Virgin Mobile USA sells two Android phones for $150 and $200 and you don't need any service at all from them. If you want phone/data you can pay $25/mo (not a contract, just month to month) but the phone works fine without that. The first thing I did with mine was hook it up to my WiFi, before I'd even ported my number over from my old phone.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is that different from, say, an iPaq or a Palm in the 90's? People forget way to soon ...

The same way a cell phone is different from a 1950s ham radio station that took up a whole garage, consumed 2000 watts, and looked like something from the 'Frankenstein' props warehouse.

Re:Uh.

[exomondo]

You can NOT buy a "smart" phone and put it on ANY provider's network without PAYING for a data contract nowadays.

Prepaid SIM?

Re:Uh.

[exomondo]

Like Windows, Apple, Sun, Oracle?

See Phrase.

Re:Uh.

[t2t10]

If you buy a $800 smart phone, you're a fool. You can get good Android phones for under $200 without a contract.

Re:Uh.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

That quote is actually misattributed. It was the person writing to Steve Jobs who wrote that, not Jobs.

Here's what the site in question says: "UPDATE: The last line in the email exchange was actually not said by Mr. Jobs; rather it was by “Tom.” We corrected it as soon as we were made aware."

Jobs closed his half of the email exchange with "You may be working from bad data. Not your fault. Stay tuned. We are working on it."

BTW, I'm not in any way condoning Apple's de facto classification of home screen web apps as second class iOS citizens.

First of all: the home screen web apps are not a bit slower than they were before the update, nor are the App Store apps one bit faster - the only thing that makes home screen web apps "second class iOS citizens" is that they are now much faster in Safari. Boo-hooh-hooh. I bet other second class citizens wished they had such a hard time.

As for that the misattribution - that was an quite understandable error, considering how much the guy vented, and how cool Jobs was all the time. Wouldn't be surprised if that was also an misattribution, and that are actually the words of his wife dragging him away to relax a little.

Re:Uh.

[praxis]

Yes, I agree that phones with Internet connections have made data accessibility more mobile and that it's world changing, but in order for access to the data to be worthwhile the data must be there which it would not be without the Internet. I base my ranking on what I would rather have if I could only have one: a worldwide network that gives me access to varied data, or a mobile device that can move data. Both important, but given only one, I'd take the network and deal with clunky large terminals than have a terminal I can put in my pocket but have to pre-load with data as there's no network for it to use to access troves of data. Not saying mobile terminals aren't world-changing, just don't agree they're as world changing as the network they act as terminals to.

Re:Uh.

[slashdottedjoe]

I picked up an old HTC with WiFi from a friend. I could not get a phone only plan for it at US Cellular. This was a phone I owned free and clear. They still wouldn't do it.

Re:Uh.

[nurb432]

Here's my analogy: You buy a nice new 55" 1080p LED-LCD 3D TV. You've never seen a need for cable before, but your mother-in-law has moved into your spare bedroom and she likes to watch cable. You call the cable company for basic cable. Their first question is "What kind of television do you have?". Strange question, but you answer. Cable- "OK, Sir. You have a screen over 40", so you have to get a HD box. Since it's also a 3D TV, you have to get all the movie channels and sports packages." You-"But I just want basic for my M-I-L to watch the news and normal programming". Cable "Sorry, Sir - that's our policy".

Comcast tried that garbage on me the other day. They signed me up without my permission for HD+DVR. When i called to complain and have it removed they asked if i had any HD TV's in the house. It's really none of their damned business what kind of TV i have, i asked for basic service and should get what i paid for. That i get less then possible quality is MY choice, not theirs ( as HD to me is a waste of money )

Re:Uh.

[The End Of Days]

This is pretty clearly a bug. Naturally the conspiracy theorists and freetards have to Apple-bash a little, but that's because they are by and large sad useless people with nothing better to do than shit on those who have accomplished something.

Re:Uh.

[Nyder]

Here's my analogy: You buy a nice new 55" 1080p LED-LCD 3D TV. You've never seen a need for cable before, but your mother-in-law has moved into your spare bedroom and she likes to watch cable. You call the cable company for basic cable. Their first question is "What kind of television do you have?". Strange question, but you answer. Cable- "OK, Sir. You have a screen over 40", so you have to get a HD box. Since it's also a 3D TV, you have to get all the movie channels and sports packages." You-"But I just want basic for my M-I-L to watch the news and normal programming". Cable "Sorry, Sir - that's our policy".

I call bullshit.

You can order different packages. You want basic cable for normal tvs? You can order it. You have an HDTV and you want to watch stuff in 720p, you can order and pay extra for the HDTV box. You only want 1 pay channel (lets say HBO). Yes, there are packages for that.

Granted I am only familiar with Comcast Cable, and not all the various cable companies out there, but by the few different cable companies i've had to dealt with (Like Millinium when it was around) were similiar.

Either your making this shit up, or your a stupid fuck who does NOT know how to research what you are getting. I'm going with your making this up to prove a point (a point that you couldn't actually think of a real world example).

Now, I'm going to change the topic here for a sec. That HD stream you are getting from comcast? sucks. When action scenes hit, it's pixelized like a crappy divx convert. I prefer to download shows off the internet then watch them via comcast cable. If I paid for the cable, i'd be pissed. But i don't, so I'm mildy disgusted.

Re:Uh.

[darkshadow88]

Before we start calling people "stupid fucks", you might want to notice that the first part of the GP's post was "Here's my analogy:". He clearly did not state it as fact.

Re:Uh.

[drtsystems]

But if they "catch" you, which they can because the SIM reports what device you are using, they will automatically enable the data plan. Not sure how long it takes for them to catch you though. I think it probably helps that you only occasionally have it on the network. They probably have a batch script that runs once a month or something looking for any smart phones registered without a data plan. Could be that it only looks for iPhones and android phones too since blackberry's have a lot more options for data plans so they may not bother.

Re:Uh.

[Virtual_Raider]

First of all: the home screen web apps are not a bit slower than they were before the update, nor are the App Store apps one bit faster - the only thing that makes home screen web apps "second class iOS citizens" is that they are now much faster in Safari.

What's being discussed here is exactly that along with the fact that there is NO reason for this, since in theory webkit should be the engine behind both Safari and web apps. Safari is nothing but the GUI to the web and in any sane OS the default browser would run anything web. Ergo, something "fishy" is suspected behind the speed difference that should not exist.

Re:Uh.

[Virtual_Raider]

While I completely agree with you, you should stop feeding the trolls. These big animals are becoming a commonplace over here lately.

And its a waste of valuable resources being diverted from feeding the Gnolls, Gnomes, Goblins and Orcs!

Re:Uh.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

First of all: the home screen web apps are not a bit slower than they were before the update, nor are the App Store apps one bit faster - the only thing that makes home screen web apps "second class iOS citizens" is that they are now much faster in Safari.

What's being discussed here is exactly that

No, because "that" would be that nothing has changed for web apps on the home screen, and "that" is most certainly widely ignored here. Instead people discuss how Apple can dare to put them at an disadvantage against apps from the App Store - when that isn't the case at all - because absolutely nothing has changed for both.

Re:Uh.

[RailGunner]

iPhone receives calls whatever state it's in

Unless you're holding it wrong.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite...How could I have accessed "nearly any piece of human knowledge" while camping in 1981?

Fuck... 1981 is 30 years ago? Wtf? When did it stop being 20 years ago???

-@|

It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[linuxci]

Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.

This bug only occurs when you launch a web app that contains a meta tag of name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"

If your 'web app' is just a shortcut to Safari on your homescreen then you won't see this bug.

Basically this web app meta tag launches the app fullscreen without any Safari chrome. To the user it looks like a separate app rather than it's running in the browser.

The slow behaviour is just using the iOS 4.2 JavaScript engine. It's possible that this is either an oversight or that Apple deliberately kept the old JavaScript engine for web apps in case it broke functionality that the app was depending on.

We'll see in the coming weeks I'm sure.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[interkin3tic]

most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero.

You must be new here. The correct way of saying that would be "Apple takes 100% of the royalties of most apps!"

Write that up, post it on a blog somewhere, and submit it, quick!

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Apple? Do something architecturally inelegant for the sake of backwards compatibility? Are you sure that you aren't mixing up your Steves here?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.

It also cost $100 or so a year to be in the app store.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[hustlebird]

The end result is that it that harder for web apps.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[prockcore]

> Apple allow free apps in their store.

Apple still gets money for that. $99/year to host a free app. If you stop paying the $99/year, Apple removes the app from the store.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Snocone]

"It's possible that this is either an oversight or that Apple deliberately kept the old JavaScript engine for web apps in case it broke functionality that the app was depending on."

No, it's a security thing. This was noted when people first found out about Nitro.

"apparently iOS 4.3 features JS JIT. did they lift restriction from the kernel that prevented mmap-ing rwx memory pages? hmm."

http://twitter.com/mraleph/status/43030240175468544

So in 4.3 they've lifted it for Safari.app and only Safari.app. Presumably they will lift it in future for at least web app bookmarks; UIWebView in general might be somewhat more problematic security-wise, but we shall see.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Samantha Wright]

I guess you've never heard of Carbon, Rosetta, or the Mac 68K emulator? (Although admittedly that last one is non-Jobsy.) Apple has quite a history of subsystem ghettos.

<sarcasm>What this really means is that we can expect web apps to be phased out in two to three years.</sarcasm>

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[mystikkman]

You can't blame them for trying. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-apple-doj-idUSTRE71H4DU20110218
Lets see if users can still use Netflix and Kindle on the iDevices after June.

If this was about MS, all here would be screaming OMG DRM!! MUST UNLEASH AND MOD UP LONG TIRADES AGAINST MS!!!! like it happened in those Vista DRM non-stories.

But now since it's Apple, it's all roses and honey.

YOU must be new here if you havent' seen modded up long justifications everytime Apple acts out of greed.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Dahamma]

The big problem is with web apps that allow purchases or subscription services.

If you want to create an iOS app (even if the app is free) and it includes a subscription service or sells in-app items, Apple now wants a 30% cut of ANYTHING you buy from the device. Buy an online magazine subscription, or sign up for an MMORPG through your iPad? Apple wants 30% of the fees ONGOING. Want to buy eBooks through Amazon or Sony? 30% goes to them. I mean, come on, these days even the ultra-competitive brick and mortar stores like Walmart don't make THAT much of a margin. So I'm just SURE that policy is not going to increase prices and/or stifle competition with iBooks...

Anyone is free to create something like a eZine, etc. on their website and handle the subscription themselves, but once they want a native app, Apple gets their cut. So yes, it is in Apple's interest to make web apps less usable than regular apps (whether in speed or look and feel).

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Altus]

True, but to be honest, most of those were fairly elegant.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[blueg3]

Doesn't it cost $99 / year to host any number of free apps?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't apple take 'their share' of ad revenue too?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[MightyYar]

The correct way of saying that would be "Apple takes 100% of the royalties of most apps!"

It's worse than that... they take an arbitrary amount and they never inform the developer.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Tharsman]

FACTS?! How dare you!? This is SLASHDOT!!! Take your facts somewhere else, Mr.!!!!

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[0100010001010011]

So it's not even that they run slower. They run the same speed as in OS 4.2, they just don't run FASTER thanks to the new Nitro Engine.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And ushered off the stage about as fast as they could be... Remember the wacky hijinks that ensued when Apple canceled their plans for 64-bit Carbon at the very last moment, after months of reaffirming their plans for it?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

True but these were put in place to completely drop them once the migration was complete. Unlike .NET, 32-bit only system with 16-bit FileSystem calls.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[skribble]

Yea and you get nothing else for that $100... you know like preview releases, technical dev support, very nice tools...etc.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You get all that (except maybe tech support) for $0 with Ubuntu.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Chronus]

I am not familiar with the policy behind this. I know you have to pay to get the developers license to put your apps in the app store. So Apple still makes cash from free apps. Does it cost money to deploy these Web Apps?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Write that up, post it on a blog somewhere, and submit it, quick!

You must not have been around lately. He should write it up and submit it here a week or two later.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[tyrione]

You get all that (except maybe tech support) for $0 with Ubuntu.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[scot4875]

It also ensures that developers are forced to build native iOS applications, rather than web applications that could work on any phone.

--Jeremy

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

i think what the article is saying is that the same apps run from the home screen perform poorer than when loaded straight from the browser RTFS

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a hell of a lot more than "hosting" for $99/year.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[exomondo]

I guess you've never heard of Carbon, Rosetta, or the Mac 68K emulator? (Although admittedly that last one is non-Jobsy.) Apple has quite a history of subsystem ghettos.

I'd say he probably has, since those are not architecturally inelegant solutions in that they aren't hacks in the current architecture, they are just bolt-ons that can be removed when they aren't needed.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[wumpus188]

This is incorrect. When certificate expires, you (as developer) lose the ability to upload app update, but the app itself will sit in store forever.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[exomondo]

very nice tools...

like what?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Billly Gates]

Not to mention they now charge for Xcode.

Giggles and returns to his Android phone.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[YoshiDan]

Wow, yeah how rotten of them to charge $5 for a full developers suite. Simply disgraceful.

How much does Visual Studio cost?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you never posted it to the App Store and loaded it directly to the iPhone from your Mac it goes away after a year if you don't renew. I wrote an app just to experiment and had paid the $99 initially. After a year, the app that I WROTE, stopped working.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[internettoughguy]

Wow, yeah how rotten of them to charge $5 for a full developers suite. Simply disgraceful.

How much does Visual Studio cost?

Way too much, especially considering the open source tools really are superior: Valgrind, the GNU toolchain, Eclipse, Qt Creator and so on.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

A security feature that restricts relatively controlled links, but exposes the browser to the wild web?

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[shutdown -p now]

How much does Visual Studio cost?

Depends on the edition, but the one that is full-featured for WP7 development (Phone Express) is free.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[YoshiDan]

Yes for Visual Studio Express you pay nothing. For the complete package you pay a lot. Apple is providing their entire set of developer tools for $6 on the app store. Woopee I'm sure a lot of people will go broke paying for that.

Re:It's a bit to soon to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

No one put a gun to any developer's head to: join the App Store developer program (for a measly $99 for unlimited apps), not charge for their approved app, not include ad revenue.

If charging for your native iOS application is a problem, then you have bigger issues. You should reconsider your chosen occupation. I hate donationware on the desktop. Either charge and I will pay, or give it away--no strings, and no begging.

Back to mobile.. there are 10s of millions of users you don't want; Android users who just steal everything anyway. They are _never_ going to pay for anything on that platform. I look forward to the day Google announces it has paid its first $5,000,000,000 to application developers.

Who saw it coming..

[microbee]

After Jobs said in public Apple was committed to supporting HTML5?

Surely, this is intentional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on Slashdot, open the conspiracy theory floodgates! Clearly, Apple is deliberately screwing web application developers!

I smell troll bait

[neosar82]

I'm sure this is a bug and not by design as the OP's argument doesn't make much sense. Most native app versions of services that also offer webapps are free anyways. Apple gets to eat the distribution overhead for no 30% cut. Just sayin.

Re:I smell troll bait

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

It says (near the end) that the Apple mobile team has confirmed the issue and Apple engineers also said that it will not be fixed.

It doesn't matter whether the new behavior was introduced deliberately or not, the negative effects are there. And Apple is saying they won't be fixing it. Therefore the article is not a troll.

Re:I smell troll bait

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

It says (near the end) that the Apple mobile team has confirmed the issue and Apple engineers also said that it will not be fixed.

no it doesn't. it says more than once that they cannot reach apple yet or apple has not commented.
it does say the some guy said that apple engineers said it wouldn't be fixed.

Re:I smell troll bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposably its' plural, but their not always write.

Re:I smell troll bait

[R3d M3rcury]

The "some guy" happens to be the developer who has been communicating with Apple about the problem.

Re:I smell troll bait

[DeadboltX]

Apple gets to eat the scrumptious $99/yr that it costs to host your free app

Re:I smell troll bait

[Anonymous Coward]

No, see, that's dumb. I paid for the phone. I pay for the bandwidth. I don't care about the damn "distribution overhead". If they don't stop screwing with the bandwidth I pay for, my dollar is walking.

Just sayin'.

Ever wonder why the iPhone can't go to any other marketplace besides iTunes?

Re:I smell troll bait

[jo_ham]

Yes, because hosting is free, right?

Home screen bookmarks are defective in most iOS

[Downchuck]

Bookmarks created on the home screen load much slower than those cached by mobile safari -- I've used applicationCache, and using mobile safari + bookmark is quicker in iOS 4 (prior to 4.3). It's likely intended to keep mobile safari and "apps" separate, should one crash (out of memory), it would not impact the other. But it seems to be poorly thought out / poorly engineered. It is frustrating that users who add to home page get a worse experience than users who add to bookmarks. Mobile safari itself could use some improvements there. Perhaps its own version of the home screen, in addition to the traditional bookmarks list.

Re:Home screen bookmarks are defective in most iOS

[Downchuck]

"I've used applicationCache, and using mobile safari + bookmark is quicker in [all versions of] iOS 4 (prior to 4.3). " iOS Home Screen bookmarks were working poorly prior to 4.3. It's not a new phenomenon. Early on in iPhone development, it was more of a priority. applicationCache was rushed in to support it. It just seems that things haven't improved in home screen bookmarks and offline apps since iOS 3, that they're not as much of a priority. The faster JS engine is a big help to web apps. Hopefully, Apple will look into improving start-up times in future releases.

walled garden

[Surt]

This is what you get in the walled garden. Just don't buy an ios device if that's not what you want. Duh.

Wrong way round?

[SmilingBoy]

I have not RTFA but I think the summary got it the wrong way round: If apps are running slower when run from the home screen compared to Safari, this would be an advantage of web apps as opposed to native apps. So if the article makes any sense, apps should run slower in Safari.

Re:Wrong way round?

[_0xd0ad]

No, web apps can be installed so that they can be launched from the home screen. They're still basically webpages, they just have a shortcut icon. It's like dragging an internet bookmark shortcut to your Windows desktop. (This has nothing to do with actual native apps.)

If you have a bookmark to a website, say, Facebook, the Javascript on that webpage shouldn't run any faster or slower regardless of whether the bookmark was located on the desktop (opening your browser automatically) or in your browser's Favorites menu (which means you'd have to launch the browser separately).

Exactly the opposite?

[Superken7]

What? You can't install "web apps" on your home screen. Except for shortcuts that launch Safari, which would run with the newer, faster engine.

AFAIK those "native iOS app sold through the App Store, where Apple takes a 30 per cent of sales." are precisely those that get launched from the home screen, which will be slow when displaying an embedded "WebView".

Did I understand this the other way around or did the summary just twist facts about 540 degrees? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Exactly the opposite?

[IAmGarethAdams]

You can save a bookmark to a web page on your home screen. If that web page has a <meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"> then it launches in a full screen (no status bar) chromeless window without the safari interface.

Apparently it also runs slower if you do that.

Re:Exactly the opposite?

[_0xd0ad]

What? You can't install "web apps" on your home screen. Except for shortcuts that launch Safari

Yes, that's what we're talking about. Shortcuts that launch Safari.

which would run with the newer, faster engine.

Ah... well, you'd certainly think so. Except that the whole point of this article appears to be that that assumption is, in fact, incorrect.

Re:Exactly the opposite?

[linuxci]

What? You can't install "web apps" on your home screen. Except for shortcuts that launch Safari

Yes, that's what we're talking about. Shortcuts that launch Safari.

which would run with the newer, faster engine.

Ah... well, you'd certainly think so. Except that the whole point of this article appears to be that that assumption is, in fact, incorrect.

If it's a shortcut on your homescreen then safari will open and the app will run at normal speed using the 4.3 Javascript engine.

If there's a special meta tag it will open full screen like a separate app, this is currently using the old 4.2 Javascript engine.

So basically - webapps with the meta tag will currently run the same speed as they did before the iOS upgrade, whereas web pages can use the new faster Javascript engine.

We'll see as time progresses whether this is intentional or not, but the fact is nothing is being slowed down it's just using a different javascript engine.

Re:Exactly the opposite?

[R3d M3rcury]

the fact is nothing is being slowed down it's just using a different slower javascript engine.

FTFY
Dance, fanboi, Dance!

Two explanations...

[dlsmith]

The article suggests two explanations:

• Apple can't stand to "lose" money to Web-based apps that it wishes would be sold in the store, so it is going out of its way to cripple them.
• Apple introduced some new features in the latest Safari version, and didn't manage to get around to integrating those improvements into its web-based app launcher yet.

Given that Web-based apps are typically free, I'm a bit skeptical about #1. But guess which explanation made the headline?

Re:Two explanations...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Given that Web-based apps are typically free, I'm a bit skeptical about #1"

Why? Isn't part of the culture of the iOS devices to push dependency on Apple and away from the web? This mass behavior modification seems reinforced by this, as well as reflected by the indifference in your comments.

Come to Apple, our free app is better than the web app. This is mere continuation of the garden theme, even if it isn't walled or the walls aren't that high.

Also, just because you don't care doesn't mean we shouldn't. Just because this is likely not malicious doesn't mean people won' t end using it or the results to that end now or in the future. After all, people still like cars with two main headlights instead of an optional center light, don't they?

Re:Two explanations...

[microbee]

Its more about control than money.

Web-based apps == less control for Steve == bad for Apple

Re:Two explanations...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article suggests two explanations:

• Apple can't stand to "lose" money to Web-based apps that it wishes would be sold in the store, so it is going out of its way to cripple them.
• Apple introduced some new features in the latest Safari version, and didn't manage to get around to integrating those improvements into its web-based app launcher yet.

Given that Web-based apps are typically free, I'm a bit skeptical about #1. But guess which explanation made the headline?

If I'm not mistaken, aren't web-based apps just Safari shortcuts to plain ol' Javascript-and-HTML5 websites (if that)? If so, that also means they're not paying Apple the $99/year for a dev license and don't need a Mac to develop the apps.

Okay, sure, $99/year from a dev and a MacBook every couple years or so probably isn't much to Apple, but giving developers the ability to make apps "for the iPhone" (even if it's just a web app) without going through the App Store or paying Apple anything (no matter how much it makes from microtransactions, etc) is most likely not what Apple wants to happen. Worse if said web app works nicely on, for instance, Android, WP7, Blackberry, etc, and removes vendor lock-in for both users AND developers.

Re:Two explanations...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot possible explanation 3: make cross-platform webapps perform slower and leave a bad impression upon users to diminish webapps' market share. Basically Apple is saying to webapp developers "Port your apps to IOS and have them run faster, or you'll lose Apple customers when your competitor comes out with a native app that does the same thing as yours. It's all about driving developers to Apple's platform and away from others.

Re:Two explanations...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its more about control than money.

Web-based apps == less control for Steve == bad for Apple

Citation needed. Other paranoid lunatics ranting in blogs don't count.

Apple tends to make product decisions that reduce user choice, but make the product better for casual users. Slower web apps are not better for casual users, so this does not fit the pattern.

Here is a less insane theory: Safari has been improved in some way that makes it faster, but the browser library that runs apps from the home screen was not updated yet.

Re:Two explanations...

[GameboyRMH]

Having the app in the app store instead of being a web app is better for "casual users" (the type that buy Apple devices at least) and better for Apple's profits from developer subscriptions and potentially app sales.

Re:Two explanations...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its more about control than money.

Web-based apps == less control for Steve == bad for Apple

Apple has complete control over their store, subject to current laws, just like anybody else who runs a store (with real costs and overhead). It's funny, though, how Apple has never used any kill switch they may or may not have implemented to reach into consumers' phones to forcibly remove apps, yet Google has done just that.

Of course, it's popular to moan about Apple's supposedly evil intentions with regards to their "walled garden" while viewing Google as the savior. Fanboism makes fools of many.

Re:Two explanations...

[ChunderDownunder]

Every web app is an app not coded in objective-C and hence cross platform. Every TV ad centres around their extensive app catalogue, exclusively available for iPhone.

What if someone were to develop a phone OS entirely around a web framework that could run web apps as if they were native? iOS would lose its lustre if HTML5 and Javascript ruled the handset.

Meet webOS...

Re:Two explanations...

[Anonymous Coward]

This may have something to do with the fact that Apple does at least some minor investigation (albeit probably automated) to determine if the Free app is mining your phone for data to ship off to Nigeria.

Re:Two explanations...

[arose]

The webapp might be free, but if it's selling stuff and runs full screen they want their 30%. It's targeting the likes of Amazon who are rolling out a webapp version of their reader and will probably use it to avoid Apple's iTax among other things.

Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

... buy an Android... :)

Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[GFLPraxis]

The cause of this has been discovered already; it's a software bug. iOS 4.3 has a new JavaScript engine. Websites launched from the home screen seem to be reverting to and using the old JavaScript engine from iOS 4.2. The article makes it sound like a conspiracy. I'm sure it'll be patched soon; I can think of no obvious reason to do this but give the same apps full speed if bookmarked within the web browser.

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[H0p313ss]

The cause of this has been discovered already; it's a software bug. iOS 4.3 has a new JavaScript engine. Websites launched from the home screen seem to be reverting to and using the old JavaScript engine from iOS 4.2.

And as a software professional that would have been my first guess, "Sounds like a bug to me"

The article makes it sound like a conspiracy. I'm sure it'll be patched soon; I can think of no obvious reason to do this but give the same apps full speed if bookmarked within the web browser.

It would appear that the anything iOS related brings out the tinfoil hat crowd. Time to up the meds guys.

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're right, but from the article:

"This developer reiterates that if Apple didn't specifically introduce these problems in iOS, it's aware of them now. And he says that the Mobile Safari team has indicated the issues will not be fixed."

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[aristotle-dude]

I hope you're right, but from the article:

"This developer reiterates that if Apple didn't specifically introduce these problems in iOS, it's aware of them now. And he says that the Mobile Safari team has indicated the issues will not be fixed."

It is still hearsay. Some guy claims that Apple will not fix it but there was no statement from Apple on the issue.

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[R3d M3rcury]

I would agree, until I read the following FTFA:

This developer reiterates that if Apple didn't specifically introduce these problems in iOS, it's aware of them now. And he says that the Mobile Safari team has indicated the issues will not be fixed. [emphasis mine]

Now I have my doubts...

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[Phil06]

Good thing my 3G can't get iOS 4.3. I sure wouldn't want slow operation.

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[recoiledsnake]

As if Apple would ever make or ever has made such a statement. Geez.

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[shutdown -p now]

And as a software professional that would have been my first guess, "Sounds like a bug to me"

As a software developer, my first thought was, "if they had a new JS engine in the browser, why did they leave the old one around, much less active on some code path?" It doesn't make any sense, frankly. If they left it in, it's intended to be used for something. Among other things, it's twice as much code to test - and I'd hope that Apple engineers do watch metrics such as code coverage.

Re:Extremely deceptive article! The cause...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cause of this has been discovered already; it's a software bug. iOS 4.3 has a new JavaScript engine. Websites launched from the home screen seem to be reverting to and using the old JavaScript engine from iOS 4.2.

And as a software professional that would have been my first guess, "Sounds like a bug to me"

Pretty much definition of one ^_^

The article makes it sound like a conspiracy. I'm sure it'll be patched soon; I can think of no obvious reason to do this but give the same apps full speed if bookmarked within the web browser.

It would appear that the anything iOS related brings out the tinfoil hat crowd. Time to up the meds guys.

Yah, well, anything that shows a discrepancy from any large company draws the pitchfork people, who are given ideas by the tinfoil hat people. Although sometimes the tinfoil hat people are right - NVidia, ATI, and Intel have all been caught "optimizing" for particular scenarios to make their product look better than the competitors.

I do find this interesting though. I would have assumed that iOS would launch safari in a "no-bar" mode with a wrapper to show as multiple instances. It does seem odd to have (what appears to me) to be two installs of a browser.

Doesn't this still show that apps could be degraded if viewed from a browser, compared to an installed app though the store? Would you really put such a thing past apple?

Sensationalist Link Bait

[alvinrod]

From TFA:

It's unclear whether these are accidental bugs or issues consciously introduced by Apple.

So, they have no idea whether or not it's actually malicious, but they've decided to run with the story using an inflammatory headline anyway.

According to Apple developers posting to the web, the speed issue has been discussed in the company's developer support forums, and one developer – the same unnamed developer quoted above – confirms with The Reg that multiple bugs have been filed on the issue.

Developers are using proper channels to report what's most likely a bug and this is most likely a non-story as of the next minor update, but they've still decided to run with it anyway.

Apple isn't degrading the speed of home screen web apps. It's boosting the speed of web apps in the browser. But in the long run, the effect is the same. And if this is a bug, Apple has yet to fix it.

So, in fact, Apple hasn't intentionally hobbled anything, it's just that they haven't sped them up, possibly due to a bug, yet they're still going to run this story.

This developer reiterates that if Apple didn't specifically introduce these problems in iOS, it's aware of them now. And he says that the Mobile Safari team has indicated the issues will not be fixed.

You'd think that such damning evidence would be posted, but it isn't. Complete hearsay, but they've decided to run the story, inflammatory headline and all, regardless.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[jdgeorge]

Your post is so far down the slashdot page that few people will be distracted from their rants against the imagined Apple monopolistic conspiracy.

Let the mindless flames continue!

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[recoiledsnake]

Lets assume you're right, then what's your take on this: http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

I don't know, it's kind of too similar to MS dragging its feet after it won the browser wars with IE6, leaving things unfixed and broken while Office went through a few revisions and great sales.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

All you really needed to say was "this article is from The Register." It's flamebait by definition.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

You conveniently left out an important piece of the article:

And he says that the Mobile Safari team has indicated the issues will not be fixed.

If true, it's not sensationalist link bait.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[sessamoid]

Lets assume you're right, then what's your take on this: http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

I don't know, it's kind of too similar to MS dragging its feet after it won the browser wars with IE6, leaving things unfixed and broken while Office went through a few revisions and great sales.

Not really the same. This is neither "broken" nor "unfixed". It "works" just fine. It's simply not as optimized at this time.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML5 isn't finalized yet. But even saying that, I can't even figure out what this guy is rambling about. One big warning sign, however, is when he QUOTES HIMSELF. Other than that, there's pretty much no content to the post. "Blah blah, something about how he doesn't like HTML5, blah blah, something about how he doesn't like iOS, blah blah iPad = IE6?" What?!?1

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like IE6 wasn't broken at the time because there were no proper web standards when it came out. Just like it was not optimized. It "worked" just fine too, that's why people at that time switched to IE5 and IE6 in droves from the sucky Netscape.

Let me guess, you own a iDevice don't you? Only then would present such BS rationalizations of Apple's actions. Stockholm syndrome and all.

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

My God. Do you make a hobby out of posting the same fucking thing over and over and over all in response to the same article. The blog post is interesting, I will give you that, as much as a lot of it is exaggeration (which WTF are you doing?! A lot of the slashdot crowd can't handle that, as you're probably learning). But fuck. Enough!

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[recoiledsnake]

It's been an year since Jobs posted a big rambling rant on how HTML5 was the future and that Flash sucks. In such a long time, all the issues haven't been fixed. So was Jobs' wrong then?

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ [apple.com]

Re:Sensationalist Link Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Recoiledsnake : There's no reason to post this link several times

Not anymore....

[recoiledsnake]

>Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.

Not anymore if it involves any money exchanged between the user and the app provider. Now Apple is forcing (users of) subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to pay up 30%. ( an extra 43% to the user). It's curtains from June.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html

Free app Readability already got banned for this.

http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/

Free Sony e-reader app banned:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/02/apple_bans_sony_e-reader_app_a.html

Re:Not anymore....

[linuxci]

>Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.

Not anymore if it involves any money exchanged between the user and the app provider. Now Apple is forcing (users of) subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to pay up 30%. ( an extra 43% to the user). It's curtains from June.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html

Free app Readability already got banned for this.

http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/

Free Sony e-reader app banned:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/02/apple_bans_sony_e-reader_app_a.html

We're not talking about these apps which were native apps and not web apps.

I'm just saying that most webapps are free and so it doesn't affect apples profits whether they're distributed as webapps or through the app store.

Remember, when the iPhone was launched web apps were the only way to get your app on the phone. The app store came later.

Re:Not anymore....

[mystikkman]

I think that was a counterpoint to this line:

Apple allow free apps in their store.

Readability was a free app before it was pulled with the new rules.

Anyway, Readability made a HTML5 app after they got rejected.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/09/readability-html5/

They can't be too happy with this news and might be thinking it is intentional to close the HTML5 loophole for subscription apps.

Re:Not anymore....

[Dahamma]

We're not talking about these apps which were native apps and not web apps.

Yes, that's exactly what we are talking about. The whole point of the article is that if these services now want to be on the iPhone, etc without paying that cut to Apple they will need to create a web app, and when they attempt to integrate them seamlessly using Apple's recommended method, they will run more slowly for no apparent reason.

Re:Not anymore....

[s73v3r]

Its not really free if they need a subscription.

Re:Not anymore....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not anymore if it involves any money exchanged between the user and the app provider. Now Apple is forcing (users of) subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to pay up 30%. ( an extra 43% to the user). It's curtains from June.

Why are you lying about this issue?

Apple is requiring providers of subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to offer in-app purchase through Apple's mechanisms in addition to whatever out-of-app system was being used before. They take 30%, yes, but they require the end user price to be the same as the out-of-app deal.

You claimed users are forced to pay 30%. No, they aren't. You claimed users pay an extra 43% in the end. No, they don't. Users aren't even forced to use in-app purchase, they can still buy from the subscription provider's website if they want to.

But they probably will use in-app. Buy through Apple, and you can see everything you're subscribed to in one central location. Stopping subscriptions you don't want any more is easy. And you can opt in to giving the subscription provider tons of your personal info for marketing purposes rather than maybe being allowed to opt out if the provider feels nice (and Apple probably isn't going to shove the opt-in questions in your face either). All of these things empower consumers, and the price to them is the same, so guess what, they're likely to take Apple's deal. Same price, less bullshit? Sign me up for that!

Yeah, Apple's greedy. Get over it. They're also not evil incarnate, much of the stuff they do is actually motivated by the question "how can we make this experience better for the user".

Re:Not anymore....

[Karlt1]

Readability was a free app before it was pulled with the new rules.

You mean the free app that charges authors 30% for doing nothing but allowing them to be viewed on the Readability platform.....that business tactic seems awfully familiar....

They can't be too happy with this news and might be thinking it is intentional to close the HTML5 loophole for subscription apps.

Oh the solution that Apple gave developers before the app store came on-line and that everyone cried foul about?

Re:Not anymore....

[recoiledsnake]

You don't need a subscription for the Kindle app. There are tons of free Kindle ebooks too. But Apple wants 30% of the cost of any ebooks that Amazon sells through the Kindle app.

Re:Not anymore....

[praxis]

I'm not sure he's lying. I think it's more like logical prediction. If Netflix is making a profit at price point X and they're profit is not 30% then when Apple comes along to take 30% of X Netflix will be out that money. Being a company they will pass that cost to the customer which is a 43% increase in end-user price. Now, Apple may very well not allow an application that charges more than the non-application price. Netflix has two ways of recourse here. One, they could raise the price across the board by 43%, keeping parity between iPhone and other platforms, or they could introduce a whole new service that is almost like the existing service and charge 43% more for it.

Re:Not anymore....

[tayhimself]

We're not talking about these apps which were native apps and not web apps.

Yes, that's exactly what we are talking about. The whole point of the article is that if these services now want to be on the iPhone, etc without paying that cut to Apple they will need to create a web app, and when they attempt to integrate them seamlessly using Apple's recommended method, they will run more slowly for no apparent reason.

No dumbass we're not. Subscription services now HAVE to offer in app purchase as well as web store purchases at the same price. There is no reason to force them to be slower when using a web store.

Re:Not anymore....

[mystikkman]

Readability was a free app before it was pulled with the new rules.

You mean the free app that charges authors 30% for doing nothing but allowing them to be viewed on the Readability platform.....that business tactic seems awfully familiar....

They can't be too happy with this news and might be thinking it is intentional to close the HTML5 loophole for subscription apps.

Oh the solution that Apple gave developers before the app store came on-line and that everyone cried foul about?

Umm, users can opt to pay for ad free content, 30% of which Readability keeps. Perhaps you can provide a service like this if you think it's easy and Readability shoudn't charge or charges too much. The content authors are utterly free to offer this kind of service through any other app or their own app or website.Where do iUsers and Readability go if the App Store doesn't carry it? There are no ways to offer apps directly(due to strict DRM) or through another store like the Amazon store like in Android.

All this not even mentioning that Apple used Readability's OSS code in Safari to make a similar feature. I guess this is what people mean when they say Apple is OSS friendly. Grab what can be grabbed and screw the developers for a few dollars when you can.

Re:Not anymore....

[Karlt1]

"Perhaps you can provide a service like this if you think it's easy and Readability shoudn't charge or charges too much."

So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,

"The content authors are utterly free to offer this kind of service through any other app or their own app or website."

You mean like the creators of the Readability app are free to offer the app on Android or BlackBerry devices....

"There are no ways to offer apps directly(due to strict DRM) or through another store like the Amazon store like in Android."

But they are free to offer the app on Android devices if they don't like Apple's terms.. I thought Slashdot Wisdom (tm) was that iOS would soon be irrelevant anyway as Android takes over?

"All this not even mentioning that Apple used Readability's OSS code in Safari to make a similar feature. I guess this is what people mean when they say Apple is OSS friendly. Grab what can be grabbed and screw the developers for a few dollars when you can."

And Apple is the only company that makes money off of open source code?

Re:Not anymore....

[mystikkman]

>So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,

The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge.

See how one 30% is not the same as the other one?

There, it can't be any simpler than that, unless you are intentionally try to act dense, in which case I give up.

Re:Not anymore....

[Karlt1]

"The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge."

And if Readability provides such a great service, Apple's "lockdown" is so draconian and Android provides a much better experience because of it's "openness", it seems like the Android Market should really be taking off and should be a godsend for both developers and users....

Obviously, that's not happening....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html

"iUsers" have made a choice to be "iUsers" and to spend over 17x as much buying apps. Apple must be doing something right...

Re:Not anymore....

[mystikkman]

Ah, now that you finally got it, a subtle switch of argument from the App subscription rules to the App sales rules. Anyway, I will bite

The new rules won't take full effect until June. WIll be interesting to see if Amazon and Netflix relent or tell Apple to shove it(iUsers won't be happy to see Apple pull Kindle and Netflix). Most users dont' know and don't care about DRM, but if it affects them, they will be mighty pissed. Anyway it's not an easy switch from a 2 year contract with AT&T or Verizon and the otherwise nice Apple hardware.

Obviously, that's not happening....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html [cnet.com]

"iUsers" have made a choice to be "iUsers" and to spend over 17x as much buying apps. Apple must be doing something right...

Microsoft must have done something right to get 90%+ share... right? Windows and IE6 users made that choice right?
Why did they get smacked for it?

And before you say 'monopoly according to the law', your own link(and other recent articles saying Apple had 93% of the tablet market) proves that the App store has a monopoly on app sales for mobile developers. Isn't Apple leveraging their monopoly to disadvantage Kindle to push iBooks and Netflix to push ITunes streaming? This is worse than Microsoft with IE6, they just bundled the browser, neither prevented Netscape from running on Windows nor demand 30% of Netscape's revenue. So shouldn't the same rules apply to Apple as well?

Re:Not anymore....

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Both Readability and Sony reader may be free to download but your paying to view content on them. Its already been confirmed that Netflix will not be affected by this.

Re:Not anymore....

[Karlt1]

Microsoft must have done something right to get 90%+ share... right? Windows and IE6 users made that choice right? Why did they get smacked for it?

You mean "smack down" with a slap on the wrist?

Users have a choice to buy Android or Apple. And according to the latest stats -- Android has about an equal share of the smart phone market in the U.S. as Apple (27% vs. 25%).

But to answer your question...

Has Apple ever told a developer that they couldn't write an app for competing devices? MS threatened OEM's with higher prices if they bundles Netscape.

Re:Not anymore....

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is forced to buy an iDevice.

Re:Not anymore....

[mystikkman]

>Users have a choice to buy Android or Apple. And according to the latest stats -- Android has about an equal share of the smart phone market in the U.S. as Apple (27% vs. 25%).

What about developers? They don't have much choice according to the links you provided, similar to the OEMs those days.

>Has Apple ever told a developer that they couldn't write an app for competing devices? MS threatened OEM's with higher prices if they bundles Netscape

They would if they could. Stuff like this comes to mind http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1633249/Apple-Bans-Android-Magazine-App-From-App-Store?from=rss

Re:Not anymore....

[Karlt1]

What about developers? They don't have much choice according to the links you provided, similar to the OEMs those days.

So whose fault is it that Android users are cheap?

But more to the point, there is nothing stopping him from offering in-app subscription and out of app subscription and heavily marketing his out of app subscription via Google Ads etc.

Do you think that most profit seeking developers would be happier giving Apple 30% or developing for Android and trying to sell software on their own site?

Re:Not anymore....

[exomondo]

Why are you lying about this issue?

I'd say he's just assuming that these services aren't just going to absorb that cost and will likely pass it on to the user which certainly seems to be a reasonable assumption don't you think? Perhaps not the full cost but certainly the majority.

Same price, less bullshit? Sign me up for that!

That is under the assumption the service providers are happy to swallow the entire additional overhead, which is pretty naive.

Re:Not anymore....

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix should be fine. They've always maintained that streaming is a free extra that comes with the through-the-mail service. As such, this would fall within the exemption Apple made for subscriptions that are free with an outside purchase. Netflix may have to disable iOS streaming for streaming-only accounts to comply, but otherwise should be fine.

And, actually, that exemption seems like one that's big enough to drive a truck through. Sell someone a branded rubber band (or possibly something more useful but equally as cheap to produce) once per month that comes with a free subscription...problem solved.

Re:Not anymore....

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

( an extra 43% to the user)

Yawn - an extra 0% to the user. Don't you get tired repeating the same lies over and over even after you have been told the truth a couple of dozen times? Or do you get the 43% from Amazon? The Amazon that takes at least 30% from each purchase and subscription for the Kindle?

Re:Not anymore....

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I think that was a counterpoint to this line:

Apple allow free apps in their store.

Readability was a free app before it was pulled with the new rules.

Readability was a "free" app where you had to pay for stuff you could get for free going through their website - IOW a rip-off worse than the "99 cents for an app that just takes stuff from the Web" apps Slashdotters were complaining about constantly.

Re:Not anymore....

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

You don't need a subscription for the Kindle app. There are tons of free Kindle ebooks too. But Apple wants 30% of the cost of any ebooks that Amazon sells through the Kindle app.

And 30% of free is free. IOW if you don't need to subscribe, there is no difference to before.

Re:Not anymore....

[Dahamma]

Wow, the clues are sparse today...

THAT IS THE POINT. Web apps are slower, and there is NO REASON they should be. iOS apps are getting banned with Apple's new policy, and their alternative is pay $$ or make a web app - which will be SLOWER than it should be. Hence Apple... Handcuff... Web Apps? I don't think I have ever had to tell someone to Read The Fucking Title before...

Re:Not anymore....

[Anonymous Coward]

( an extra 43% to the user)

Yawn - an extra 0% to the user. Don't you get tired repeating the same lies over and over even after you have been told the truth a couple of dozen times? Or do you get the 43% from Amazon? The Amazon that takes at least 30% from each purchase and subscription for the Kindle?

Think really really hard about how you could possibly be wrong.

I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

If not, see the first reply to: This post

Re:Not anymore....

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

>So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,

The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge.

See how one 30% is not the same as the other one?

There, it can't be any simpler than that, unless you are intentionally try to act dense, in which case I give up.

Ahh, so your issue isn't that nobody can offer the same service as Readability on the iPhone for more or less than Readability or even for free (which you actually imply but is false anyway), but that they can't do it on any alternative store - which of course is false too, because there is still Cydia. And as proof you bring up the Amazon app store - but ignore the Amazon Kindle store. Gee, what should I make of this?

Why Nitro doesn't get used with a WebView...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that whenever Apple does anything that has a negative consequence, people assume it's part of some evil plan for world domination. While they might be crippling things deliberately, there is a simpler explanation that doesn't need quite so much hyperbole.

Nitro is a JIT. As a JIT, it builds machine code on the fly and executes it. In the iOS security model, that's considered “uncool”, and regular apps aren't allowed to do it. (That's why if you write code using C# with Monotouch, it compiles it down to actual ARM code rather than using a JIT.)

Apple appears to have hacked their security model for Safari, allowing it to break their rules. They've done that kind of thing for a long time —the iPod app could play music in the background long before other apps could, for example. It may very well be that at some point in the future, regular apps with have access to the Nitro JIT too, but for that to happen, Apple has to work out some better way to allow it than their current method of “if it's Safari, it's okay”. Hopefully they'll have some incentive, because if any app needs a good security model actually in place, it ought to be the web browser.

Re:Why Nitro doesn't get used with a WebView...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regular apps can do JIT. I happen to know some on the app store which do (or generate and execute code on the fly, same difference). The limit is in the app-store guidelines, not in hardware (or software). No security model hacking needed. Background was similar, but Apple had a private API for it and rejected any app that used it.

Re:Why Nitro doesn't get used with a WebView...

[Guy Harris]

Nitro is a JIT. As a JIT, it builds machine code on the fly and executes it. In the iOS security model, that's considered “uncool”, and regular apps aren't allowed to do it.

And what is the "regular app" involved in a WebView? (Note: "app" in this context means something with an executable image; the Web app itself isn't the "regular app", obviously.)

Re:Why Nitro doesn't get used with a WebView...

[Guy Harris]

And what is the "regular app" involved in a WebView? (Note: "app" in this context means something with an executable image; the Web app itself isn't the "regular app", obviously.)

According to another posting, it's Web.app.

Android.

[jbeach]

I am so much happier with my Droid X than I ever was with my iPhone. And the Droid still needs bugs worked out in it. But it just isn't putting me into an ecosystem with a situation like that.

Re:Android.

[MightyYar]

But it just isn't putting me into an ecosystem with a situation like that.

A situation like what? The apps still work just as well as they did prior to an update - they just didn't speed UP. Nothing was "lost".

Re:Android.

[jbeach]

A situation where I have to even figure out if Apple just doesn't give a crap abou it's customers, or Apple is deliberately making things worse for them to make more money.

You know, the same situation where Apple just up and chose not to support Flash on iPod, iPhone and now iPad. A decision which is partly some platform concerns, more likely Steve Jobs still being in a snit about some early actions of Adobe, and is really most likely where Apple doesn't want to support anyone being able to watch a movie without buying it from iTunes.

That's the tight ecosystem situation I'm talking about. I'd rather deal with sloppy apps then a locked-down system that Apple is the only one holding the keys to.

Re:Android.

[MightyYar]

A situation where I have to even figure out if Apple just doesn't give a crap abou it's customers, or Apple is deliberately making things worse for them to make more money.

You mean like when getting the vendors to push Android updates is completely futile?

You know, the same situation where Apple just up and chose not to support Flash on iPod, iPhone and now iPad. A decision which is partly some platform concerns, more likely Steve Jobs still being in a snit about some early actions of Adobe, and is really most likely where Apple doesn't want to support anyone being able to watch a movie without buying it from iTunes.

Whatever the reason, they make it clear that it will not be supporting Flash at purchase time. If that's a big deal, then you can steer clear. If enough people steer clear, they will have to include Flash. So far it doesn't seem to have harmed them terribly.

I'd rather deal with sloppy apps then a locked-down system that Apple is the only one holding the keys to.

Jailbreaking is just as easy as rooting. Most Android sets need to be rooted just to apply updates. iPhones need to be rooted to run the wild west apps. Six of one, half dozen of the other...

Re:Android.

[jbeach]

"You mean like when getting the vendors to push Android updates is completely futile?"
Sure. Except that doesn't bother me because it doesn't mean they're trying to control me. It just means they're screwing up, which I prefer.
"Whatever the reason, they make it clear that it will not be supporting Flash at purchase time. If that's a big deal, then you can steer clear. "
Right, and that's exactly what I did. Also, I'm going to tell people that Apple's mobile devices suck more because of it - which they do. Whether or not other people buy it anyway, I couldn't care less.
"Jailbreaking is just as easy as rooting. "
Sure. I did that when I had an iPhone. Still wouldn't get me Flash OR fix this new Apple issue.
But far easier than jailbreaking is just avoiding Apple all together, and telling other people how much it sucks. So for me, it's more like 6 of 1 or a dozen of the other - and any 12 things I want, not just the 6 Jobs thinks I should want. but so it goes.

Re:Android.

[MightyYar]

it doesn't mean they're trying to control me

They most certainly are! They want you to buy a new phone with the newest bells and whistles, not add them with a free software update.

Regarding Flash, what do you do with it? Watch video? The pc games are difficult to use if they aren't designed for a touch screen. I'm biased, since I generally block Flash on my pc, so I can't imagine wanting it on my phone :)

And isn't telling people that "Apple sucks" just a bit disengenuous? It may not be what you like, but it may be a good fit for someone else. I know quoits a few people happy with iPhones and others quite happy with Blackberries. And of course the people with higher end Android phones seem pretty happy. Hell, I even know one guy who likes his WinMo7 thing. I'd hate to recommend a frequent emailer a touch screen device, for instance.

Re:Android.

[jbeach]

Sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it stands.
Apple has no logical reason to keep from supporting Flash, other than that they don't want people watching videos Apple doesn't sell them. Apple won't say this in a straightforward fashion. Therefore, in this way, Apple sucks.
I write this on an iMac, by the way. I like Apple computers. But their mobile devices are aiming for a locked-down ecosystem, and that is something I don't like at alll.
Sure, Android + Cell manufactures want me to buy a new phone. But they are at least **listening** to what I want, and not **telling me what I SHOULD want**. I can put any files I want on my iphone, use it as a USB drive, upload and download music, books and movies without having to a) jailbreak it or b) go through iTunes. That means Android + cell manufactures are trying to control me less than Apple.
That's how it is.

Re:Android.

[Anonymous Coward]

FREEDOM!
FREEDOM!
FREEDOM WAS LOST!!!
The evil Apple empire is stealing all your freedoms one by one and you just sit there not doing anything about it!
Well, not me! I'm telling the whole internet about it!

Re:Android.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it stands.

Apple has no logical reason to keep from supporting Flash, other than that they don't want people watching videos Apple doesn't sell them. Apple won't say this in a straightforward fashion. Therefore, in this way, Apple sucks.

In what way does Apple not supporting Flash let Apple sell more videos? Your answer must account for the fact that the alternative Apple is pushing, HTML5+H.264, is open for anyone to use.

Seriously, do you even try to think through your stupid before you post it? This is one of the dumbest Apple-is-evil arguments I've ever seen.

I write this on an iMac, by the way. I like Apple computers. But their mobile devices are aiming for a locked-down ecosystem, and that is something I don't like at alll.

You must be very dim to use an iMac and have failed to notice how much Flash sucks on the Mac. There are, in fact, very rational reasons for Apple to not like Flash: it sucks down tons of CPU cycles, especially on non-Windows and/or non-x86 platforms.

You know how Apple also stopped bundling Flash on new Macs as of the recent MacBook Air refresh? One of the websites which reviewed the new Air decided to load Flash on one and test battery life before and after Flash, using a web browsing test load which included sites that had flash. Guess what happened? Browsing battery life went way down with Flash turned on.

If Flash has that obvious an impact on portable Macs with their giant batteries, it's bound to be equally bad on iPad and iPhone. Especially when you factor in how poor Adobe's efforts have historically been at optimizing for anything other than x86. You don't want to know how bad Flash is on PPC Macs. *Shudder*. I'm typing on a 1.5 GHz G4 right now, and even though it's a 2005 product it still does OK as a web browsing machine, except when Flash gets involved. Flash just kills it. For example, when I try to watch video through any Flash based web video player (Youtube, etc) I have to pause it until the whole video finishes preloading, because Flash is too slow to handle network data transfer and video decode at the same time. Seriously. And this is a CPU which is probably quite competitive in raw performance with even Apple's brand spanking new iPad 2.

Adobe has yet to demonstrate that they can even deliver an Android version which doesn't suck ass. Wake me up when they do that. Until then, don't bitch and moan that Apple must have horrible DRACONIAN REASONS for banning flash. They're keeping it out because it fucking sucks.

Re:Android.

[MightyYar]

FREEDOM WAS LOST!!!

Not in the US. The iPhone did more to open up the restrictive carriers here than anything else. That Verizon lets you install applications from somewhere other than their own store still kind of blows my mind.

Re:Android.

[MightyYar]

Sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it stands.

LOL, I didn't say that I didn't like your opinion. I even asked questions to understand it better!

Apple has no logical reason to keep from supporting Flash, other than that they don't want people watching videos Apple doesn't sell them.

You are wrong about Apple only allowing videos that they sell. I mean, the phone even comes with a YouTube app! But there are free Netflix and Hulu apps for people who'd rather pay those companies, and Apple makes nothing. There's also the free Joost, and some websites - like NBC - directly support the video formats playable on the iPhone. I'm not saying that Apple has only altruistic motivations - in fact, it would be silly to assume that. But your thesis that Apple is trying to prevent free video viewing is not at all supported by the facts.

That means Android + cell manufactures are trying to control me less than Apple.

I'd rephrase that and say that they are trying to control you differently than Apple. In your case, the way they are controlling you is more palatable than the way Apple is. In my case, once I have to start rooting or jailbreaking the device, I don't really care what the company's intentions are anymore. In my case, I needed to jailbreak an old iPhone to make it work on T-Mobile. Had I bought a T-Mobile sanctioned Samsung, I'd have had to root it to get the latest Android update. To me, I'm getting screwed either way, so a big f-you to Apple/AT&T and a big f-you to Samsung/T-Mobile. I'm glad there are hackers :)

Apple users think they are smart

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong.

Looks to be just a bug

[Anonymous Coward]

Chronic (namesake of the Chronic Dev Team jailbreak group) tweeted:
'explanation for the "issue" of Nitro not working in full screen web apps: just a bug, Apple forgot to give Web.app a certain entitlement.'

So, looks like a permissions bug.

Re:Looks to be just a bug

[harl]

Chronic is not capable of saying that.

How does Chronic know that Apple forgot?

Re:Looks to be just a bug

[schnikies79]

Nor is the writer of this article capable of saying that apple intentionally handcuffed webapps from the home screen.

How does the writer know if Apple did it on purpose?

Re:Looks to be just a bug

[harl]

Also true.

The iPad is the new IE6

[recoiledsnake]

This is the opinion(not mine, I know this will be downvoted regardless) of this very interesting and detailed article which I wanted to post.

http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, troll. Wake me up when Apple stops using the standards adhering, cross-platform, cross-OS webkit browser and has a monopoly on the mobile device market. Then you can compare them to the utter catastrophe that was IE6.

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[recoiledsnake]

Mr. Coward,

As I said, that's not my opinion, so no need to attack me. Feel free to attack the author of that article instead.

BTW: Using webkit doesn't automagically make things better. Maybe you should address the points raised in that article instead of handwaving with some mumbojumbo about OSS and monopolies thrown in?

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[Anonymous Coward]

People who can't write any better than that shouldn't be writing blogs. If the guy can't write English any better than that, it's no wonder he can't get code to work.

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[mystikkman]

People who need to attack ad hominem anonymously* because of not being able to talk about content shouldn't be posting comments.

*That's a stretch considering even registered accounts are pretty anonymous, maybe you didn't want to sully your real account with this garbage comment?)

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[Guspaz]

Sure.

HTML wasn’t created for dynamic/interactive content, it was created to present academic documents.

And the USPS wasn't created to ship you books from Amazon. And the telephone network wasn't created to use DSL modems. And the cable network wasn't created to deliver video on demand or internet service. And computers weren't created to connect to a global information network. What's the point? Because HTML 1.0 wasn't intended for this stuff, HTML 5 can't be? That's silly. HTML 5 and HTML 1 are two different things. HTML 4 and 5 *were* created for dynamic/interactive content.

JavaScript performance on iOS is 100x worse than desktop.

Some benchmarks would be nice. How about I provide some? How about we take SunSpider from Anandtech's review of the iPad 2 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4215/apple-ipad-2-benchmarked-dualcore-cortex-a9-powervr-sgx-543mp2/2). 2041.4ms. Sounds about right, roughly twice the speed of the iPhone in this article, which is in-line with the hardware differences. OK, so if iOS JavaScript performance is 100x worse, we would expect a fast desktop browser to do this in 20.4ms, right? Let's see what Chrome gets with their latest-and-greatest, CrankShaft for V8 (http://www.conceivablytech.com/4472/products/chrome-10-posts-huge-performance-jump)... Hmm, 250ms. Not even 10x faster, let alone 100x faster. Maybe the speed difference is because we're comparing a processor that draws one or two watts, to a processor that draws a hundred watts? Maybe the difference has nothing to do with software, and everything to do with the fact that a smartphone is not a 20 pound desktop computer (or a 5 pound laptop)?

Canvas performance on iOS is so bad that it is barely usable.

Again, with the lack of any data or benchmarks... OK, I'll give you the fact that iOS canvas performance is slow. So is Android's: neither iOS or Android have fully hardware accelerated browsers. But barely usable? A bit of an exaggeration, I think. So let's put this one as "Sure, but that's about the same for most mobile browsers."

A lot of people don’t upgrade their software, iOS 3.2 is completely different than iOS 4.2 and you should support both.

Yes and no. Was Apple completely out of line to drop support entirely for products they sold 7 months before iOS 4.3 launched (the second generation iPod touch)? Definitely. Were they out of line for dropping support for the 3G? Sure. But if people don't upgrade their software, what exactly can be done to support them? If they don't want to upgrade, they're not going to get 3.2.x point releases either.

Officially, Google is actually worse here. The HTC Dream, the first Android phone, came out in October of 2008. The last supported version of Android was 1.6, which came out in September of 2009. Yikes, less than one year of software support from Google on their flagship device. And yes, you can root your Dream and put 2.3 on it, but you can jailbreak your iPhone and put Android 2.3 on it too, so that's not really a valid thing; we need to only consider official support. Both Apple and Google are dropping the ball on this.

The iOS simulator is different than the actual device.

Umm, sure, some googling seems to bear that out, but that's true of pretty much every emulator ever written. The goal of such simulators in the case of mobile app development isn't to perfectly emulate a given device, but to offer a generic development platform that's more convenient than loading builds onto actual hardware (something that's made very easy).

It is very important to note that every single Webkit browser works differently and that older versions of the iOS have many bugs and missing features (the new ones as well).
Chrome and Safari have a bunch of rendering problems related with HTML5 video and CSS3 as well when you start overlaying content and adding CSS transitions.
Android 2.0-2.2 also have many bugs related with HTML5 video.

OK... and? This is true of every piece of soft

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[recoiledsnake]

>How about we take SunSpider from Anandtech's review of the iPad 2

Umm... maybe the article was written before the iPad 2 came out?

Again, with the lack of any data or benchmarks... OK, I'll give you the fact that iOS canvas performance is slow. So is Android's: neither iOS or Android have fully hardware accelerated browsers. But barely usable? A bit of an exaggeration, I think. So let's put this one as "Sure, but that's about the same for most mobile browsers."

If HTML5 was pushed a replacement for Flash, and if it fails at the very basic tag to create Flash like content that's not possible in HTML5. See Jobs' rant against Flash about a year ago. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

If Apple is unable to get HTML5 even close to Flash in a whole year, I don't know what that says. Maybe they don't want HTML5 apps which will perfrom equally well on Android and the upcoming IE9 mobile and want native apps instead so that the user is locked in and where developers are forced to give up 30% of both their revenue from selling it AND any subscription fees that the user pays?

>>Don’t believe in keynotes, even better, don’t watch them

What does this have to do with the point at hand?

Maybe HTML5 was hyped up in some keynotes?

Sure, I'll agree to that. Maybe the problem here isn't iOS or the iPad, but HTML5 itself.

Ah. Then maybe Jobs shouldn't have waxed eloquent on it in that blog post above because back then HTML5 was even more immature? Re-read it once again.

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[WiseWeasel]

Unlike IE6, the iPad auto-updates.

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[recoiledsnake]

Were you asleep when IE7/E8 were pushed as automatic updates to XP and were included in SP2/SP3?

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, troll. Wake me up when Apple stops using the standards adhering, cross-platform, cross-OS webkit browser and has a monopoly on the mobile device market. Then you can compare them to the utter catastrophe that was IE6.

There's always one ignorant retard that justifies shortcomings that he/she knows absolutely nothing about with 'but it's got webkit'. Nice try but epic fail!

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[exomondo]

Unlike IE6, the iPad auto-updates.

If, by auto-update, you mean it tells you there's an update available after you plug it into a computer and open itunes then you have to select whether to download and install it, then yes. But that's far from the definition of 'auto-update', in fact that's pretty much a manual-update process.

Re:The iPad is the new IE6

[Guspaz]

Umm... maybe the article was written before the iPad 2 came out?

Fair enough. Then you'd also want to discount V8's crankshaft, and the advancements in desktop CPU performance since the previous slew of devices came out. The picture won't change much. Certainly not by an order of magnitude. And the general point is that you shouldn't expect the performance of a smartphone processor to come anywhere near a desktop processor that can draw a hundred times more power.

If HTML5 was pushed a replacement for Flash, and if it fails at the very basic tag to create Flash like content that's not possible in HTML5. See Jobs' rant against Flash about a year ago. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

If Apple is unable to get HTML5 even close to Flash in a whole year, I don't know what that says. Maybe they don't want HTML5 apps which will perfrom equally well on Android and the upcoming IE9 mobile and want native apps instead so that the user is locked in and where developers are forced to give up 30% of both their revenue from selling it AND any subscription fees that the user pays?

Do you really think that this is the first time Jobs has sold the public exaggeration and hyperbole? Apple makes some impressive products, but he's made a career out of perfecting the reality distortion field.

Not very surprising.

[unil_1005]

iPhone, iPad, iAnything are purely sales platforms for Apple.
Don't expect Jobs to be in a hurry to fix this -- he doesn't think it's broken.

Re:Not very surprising.

[Karlt1]

iPhone, iPad, iAnything are purely sales platforms for Apple.
Don't expect Jobs to be in a hurry to fix this -- he doesn't think it's br

And Android is supported by Google because they believe in "openness" and "freedom".......

Re:Not very surprising.

[unil_1005]

Google believes in the "camel's nose" principle.

[ i.e. let the camel's nose into the tent, and soon you'll have the entire camel.]

Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[harl]

Is anyone surprised? This is what happens when you decide to use a closed system.

The customer always pays. Apple forces apps into the app store so Apple can get their 30%. The devs pass that cost on to the customer.

Add in a higher than average up front cost for the device. iOS users need to speak out on this. Stop paying more for less!

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the effect is the functional equivalent of running a web page fullscreen (e.g. F11 in Opera). No "closed system" involved? There is no "force apps into the app store" other than in the mind of the paranoid. But in this case they apparently use the old Javascript engine instead of the new one when launched in such a manner. Is all your software bug-free?

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[Angst Badger]

Add in a higher than average up front cost for the device. iOS users need to speak out on this. Stop paying more for less!

If iOS users were interested in freedom (either as in beer or as in speech), they wouldn't be iOS users in the first place. They have iPhones and iPads because they like the product and/or because it's fashionable in their peer group. Big deal. And if you don't like the product, there's a workaround: buy something else.

That's not intended to be a defense of Apple. I don't like their products or their business model. But despite the hype, they're not going to drive all the alternatives out of business. This is especially true in the phone market, which is so fragmented that being the biggest player there is like being the fattest kid in an elementary school, but it's also true of the personal computer market. Steve Jobs' delusions of grandeur may lead him to believe that he's taking over the world, but his narcissistic giggles can be safely ignored. There are more choices for users now than there were before the days of the Microsoft monopoly.

The short version? "Don't feed the trolls" applies to bored Slashdot editors as much as it does to commenters.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[jo_ham]

Yes, the same thing happened to me when I tried to change the resolution of my Ubuntu box above 640x480, but I couldn't because the "ok" button is off the screen with no way to get to it. This is clearly Canonical forcing users to use hobbled systems.

I tried to send a text message to them about it on my Android phone, but for some reason it was sent to RMS instead, who told me my phone was a tool of Stalin.

In the end I gave up and bought a Mac.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[harl]

Well other than one being an error on the producer side and one being an error on the consumer side and one being complete made up nonsense . . . . not really sure what you're point is.

You find android and Linux too hard to understand and bought a mac. Nothing wrong with that. However that doesn't change the fact that apple are control freaks and macs are overpriced in terms of hardware. Both these are facts that people should be aware of and factor into their decision making process.

Remember your spending habits matter more than your vote in most capitalist countries.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[jo_ham]

One man's "fact" is another man's "value for money", since you're not just buying hardware, but I have noticed the trend has shifted form "Macs are overpriced" to "Macs are overpriced for the hardware they have".

I was being facetious with my comments, but all three were accurate at one point: you were stuck at 640x480 resolution in Ubuntu because the settings window was taller than that and there was no way to select or click "ok" to change it. This bug has been fixed.

Android phones were sending text messages to the wrong recipients. This bug has been fixed. Both were "errors on the producer side". The bit about Canonical forcing users to use crippled systems was a little hyperbole, just to balance out all the "Apple is evil and Steve Jobs wants to control everything you do" nonsense.

This iOS bug will be fixed, to enable home-launched apps to use the new javascript engine. (and note carefully that Apple didn't "handcuff" or "cripple" anything, they made these same web apps that they are meant to be "crippling because it threatens their profits" actually FASTER with the new JS engine, but due to the way the home screen is launching these shortcuts (with the old safari JS engine) they are the same speed that they have always been, but now slower than the improved versions in the new Safari. This too will be fixed.

FTR, I run Ubuntu and OS X side by side, but I'm not averse to taking a pop at it for comic effect and to make a point now and again.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[Guy Harris]

Android phones were sending text messages to the wrong recipients.

And here I thought the problem was you typed "RMS" when you meant to type "SMS".

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[jo_ham]

I typed "SOS RMS MY SMS R @ WRNG ADD-RESS"

lamenes filter lamenes filter lamenes filter lamenes filter lamenes filter lamenes filter

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[harl]

I wasn't aware of this trend. Let me clarify my position. Macs are over priced. From an economic stand point I have no idea why anyone would purchase one.

From a fashion stand point I totally understand why they sell. No comment there and as with anything based purely on taste you can't judge what someone does or doesn't like.

"This iOS bug will be fixed" Apple disagrees with you.

"Apple is aware of the issues, which are currently filed as bugs. But according to Matt Asay, who is vice president of business development for mobile Web framework maker Strobe, Apple supposedly has no plans to fix them. Instead, they are marked "not to be fixed by exec order," suggesting that a higher up at Apple is preventing engineers from fixing the problems."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/03/confirmed-some-web-apps-not-seeing-ios-43-javascript-speedup.ars
http://twitter.com/#!/mjasay/status/47786214966837248

Apple is no longer a computer company. They're a media company. They're more similar to the music industry/Hollywood/mainstream news/movie studio than they are to a software or hardware company. Apple came up with a new way to sell old stuff. Like any media company they strive for lock in and closed formats/distribution channels to protect revenue streams. Why can't you put music on an ipod without their shopping program?

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. They're using a 300 year old business model.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[jo_ham]

Note the words "supposedly" and the fact that that statement is not a quote from Apple, so "Apple" does not disagree with me. At least not officially.

In terms of why someone would purchase an Apple product "from an economic standpoint", how about because it offers everything (or most) of the things someone is looking for when buying a computer (and note that this is an individual decision and will vary person to person).

For example, I can tell you exactly why I bought an iMac - it runs OS X, which I enjoy using (although I also enjoy other operating systems) and the machine itself is very well designed, as is the box it came in. I can pull a couple of cables (power, optical audio, USB mouse) and have the whole thing packed up into its box (which has a handle and can be carried like the suitcase) so I can take it anywhere I need to go. This machine has done a number of trips across the Atlantic as checked baggage, for example, as well as shorter trips to friends' houses. I needed a portable desktop that took up a small amount of space and the iMac suited that beautifully.

It was the best £1100 I ever spent on a computer (I was using a laptop before this and was frustrated with a little too much compromise to make it portable [and I know the iMac is still 'compromised' compared to a normal desktop]), and I do not regret my purchase for a moment.

There was nothing else out there that fit my criteria (and the OS X thing is flexible, I can go with something else), and even to this day there really isn't anything so my next purchase will most likely be another iMac. Sure, it costs a lot more than some bargain basement Dell (and similar price to well specced Dells), but the value for money is well worth it to me.

*That* is why it makes economic sense - because it fits a role and my requirements very well. My personal story is one anecdote, but I assure you there are many people who look at the options available and pick something that *works for them*.

If you can't see the value in a more expensive product (and hey, I wish they were cheaper), and find that a cheaper computer works for you then great. Just don't try to pretend that they are merely white elephants, or that "only fashionistas buy them". That sort of thing is just as untrue as categorising everyone who uses Linux as a parental-basement-dwelling, two-tone neckbeard with an addiction to Cheez Its.

Also, I think it's (likely wilfully) disingenuous to classify iTunes as "a shopping program", since it is also a media manager/iPod manager/media playbac device. No one is forcing you to use the iTunes Music Store, and you can even turn it off if you want. You're not limited to iTunes-purchased music on your iPod and you can go your whole life without ever opening the store page (or even showing the link to the store in the program). You just have the option there if you want it.

It's also interesting that you categorise them as a media company when the bulk of their profits (the vast, vast bulk) come from hardware sales. The access to media (which they are not the owners of, merely the third party resellers of) is provided as a way to sell hardware - and very successful it is too. Again, no one is forcing you to consume that content, even if you have an Apple device - I don;t buy the movies, for example, due to the DRM, but I do have a lot of music from the iTunes store (which I also listen to on my Ubuntu machine). The bulk of my music library was ripped from CDs though.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[harl]

Sure it's a solution but numerous other manufactures produce devices that meet your requirements at a lower cost. There's nothing that makes a mac the best or only solution in your story.

I'm not pretending anything. I honestly view them as white elephants. Other than fashion or ignorance the only reason I can see for purchasing them is someone else is paying. I'm not denying the shiny factor. I just can't see getting one machine when you can get two better machines for the same price. Especially one machine that you're not allowed to open and modify.

I don't feel it's disingenuous to call it a shopping program when it asks you to set up a store account during set up and you have to opt-out of the shopping portion. If the shopping portion didn't exist unless you opted in you might have a point.

You ignored my whole point about being closed. Why exactly must I use itunes to load music? I see it's use as an organizational tool but sometimes you just want to copy a couple mp3 and not have to go through the whole process. Especially if you're no where near your itunes home base. The problem is that it's authoritative. I have one ipod that I can never update because it's orphaned. Any attempt to connect it to itunes results in itunes trying to completely wipe it before it will do anything with it.

"It's also interesting that you categorise[sic] them as a media company when the bulk of their profits (the vast, vast bulk) come from hardware sales."

That's a very disingenuous statement. The majority of their profits do come from hardware. But what type of hardware? It comes from media hardware not computing hardware. Itunes, iphone, ipod greatly surpasses mac revenue. It's akin saying Target is the world's largest restaurant company. They serve prepared food in their department stores and they have revenue four times as large as the largest restaurant company.

"Note the words "supposedly" and the fact that that statement is not a quote from Apple, so "Apple" does not disagree with me. At least not officially."

Someone is quoting Apple's bug database. That would make it hearsay. Where's evidence to support your position? Please provide Apple's statement that it's a bug and will be fixed.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[jo_ham]

Who says it's closed and I'm "not allowed" to modify it? I installed a new hard drive in it myself when the old one died (it's just a standard SATA HD, and took about an hour or so to put in since I was being slow and careful). It's not like the case is welded shut. I also "modified" it with extra aftermarket RAM, but that's easy.

Either way, show me a computer that ticks all those boxes and would be better for me than the iMac.
To recap it was:
* Easy to pack away into box (2 minutes or less, including disconnecting cables)
* Desktop size screen (20" widescreen or better)
* Desktop size HD (500GB minimum)
* Real keyboard and mouse
* box that can be carried like suitcase so I can move it easily between locations.
* Runs my choice of OS (OS X ideally, but I did say that was optional, and we'll make it optional here too so you can't just claim "you can only legally run OS X on Apple hardware so the comparison isn't fair" - hackintoshes are ok.)
* near silent is also a big plus, but I can be slightly flexible on this but would much prefer something that can wake up and run quietly while I am alseep.

Also I will make it a requirement that it be *one* machine. Why on earth would I buy two machines to do the job of one? That would just be a massive annoyance.

That's a very disingenuous statement. The majority of their profits do come from hardware. But what type of hardware? It comes from media hardware not computing hardware. Itunes, iphone, ipod greatly surpasses mac revenue. It's akin saying Target is the world's largest restaurant company. They serve prepared food in their department stores and they have revenue four times as large as the largest restaurant company.

 

So what you're saying is that they make the majority of their profits from hardware, thus proving my point. You are saying "they are a media company" when it clearly is not true. They are a hardware maker who happens to be a media distributor. ABC, or the BBC or Discovery - they are media companies.

You also contradict yourself with the Target statement with your earlier statement about iTunes. So, if I'm following your logic, and you can call iTunes a "shopping app" then I can call Target a restaurant, because they sell pre-made food in sit down cafe sections. Right?

Incidentally "categorise" is the UK spelling, no need for a [sic] use during quotes, it's spelled correctly.

Re:Standard Apple Operating Procedure

[harl]

And the quote where Apple says this is a bug and will be fixed?

Re:Apple == 1990s Microsoft?

[mystikkman]

You might have hit the nail on its head. http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

The only difference seems to be that MS didn't have sensitive fanboys armed with modpoints and blogs full of worship and long justifications for the shit that Apple pulls.

Proofreading

[Anonymous Coward]

The end result is that it that harder for web apps to compete with native iOS app sold through the App Store

Anyone else not understand this?

game played before

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a game that have been played before but with other dealers

Misleading: Not handcuffed, just not upgraded.

[Anonymous Freak]

They didn't cripple, handcuff, or kneecap anything.

They just didn't UPGRADE the web-app-run Safari to the new Javascript engine.

web-app-run websites will run at the same speed as in 4.2, they just won't run FASTER, as a 'Safari-run' website would.

Still not great, but not what people are calling it out as.

Re:Misleading: Not handcuffed, just not upgraded.

[Anonymous Coward]

basically it's a bug that's soon to become a new feature for the next release, just like airplay for videos in camera roll

It's not about the money, it's about control

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of people here saying that web apps are mostly free so why would Apple care about revenue. I think you're missing the point. Money is only part of the equation for Apple; control is the other. With traditional on-device applications, Apple can put all those happy little rules that they do on application developers, with web apps they can't. With the coming of HTML5, Apple knows a lot of devs who are currently writing native applications are probably going to jump ship (some already have) and move to web apps to avoid the hassle and the delays of getting their apps approved to the iTunes Store. And, for every developer that does that, Apple loses a little more control.

Of course, this could, and probably is, just a glitch in the JavaScript engine on iOS devices. If it is, I suspect we'll see an update soon that addresses this and, if it isn't, we'll probably see some 'usability' excuse issued by the company as to why things have to be this way. Instead of jumping to 'Apple is at it again' conclusions, let's wait and see.

staying compatible

[stinkfish]

Not using the new JavaScript engine in UIWebView (the component used to render web like content) is a good thing in my eyes. It is pretty hard to debug JavaScript apps in UIWebView, since you don't have things like a DOM inspector or a JavaScript debugger. By keeping the engine the same, they have guaranteed that the existing UIWebView based apps will continue to function after the upgrade to 4.3. Imagine if every app making heavy use of UIWebView had subtle errors after the upgrade... I *would* like to see the faster engine available to UIWebView, but in the mean time, I will take compatibility.

Re:staying compatible

[shutdown -p now]

By keeping the engine the same, they have guaranteed that the existing UIWebView based apps will continue to function after the upgrade to 4.3. Imagine if every app making heavy use of UIWebView had subtle errors after the upgrade... I *would* like to see the faster engine available to UIWebView, but in the mean time, I will take compatibility.

Be careful about what you want. Down that path, IE6 lies.

Apple Kills Kittens and Gophers

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go /. - your headlines are getting closer and closer to Gizmodo everyday.

Caching works for my webapp

[lee1]

I wrote one of these that caches some graphics and the single html page the comprises the app, which is mostly javascript. Using 4.3 it still runs fine offline, so whatever cashing bug exists does not affect everything. Running the app through iphone's Safari might be a little faster. I didn't time it, but the difference, if there is one, is not dramatic.

I see dozens of ignorant comments here claiming that webapps on the home screen are just Safari bookmarks. What makes them real apps is that they can store themselves and the resources they need on the device and work offline.

Re:Caching works for my webapp

[Anonymous Coward]

Great for you, I have written two webapps that defenitely does not get cached in the new iOS. I will only get an error when starting them in flight mode. "*PROGRAM* could not be opened since there are no internet connection." (translated from swedish).
I don't know why, but they worked fine offline before the update.

Re:Caching works for my webapp

[lee1]

Interesting. Did you specify the pages themselves (index.html or what have you) to be cached in the manifest?

What's the difference between these apps?

[jbrodkin]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between web apps launched from the home screen and web apps launched in Safari. I have an Android so maybe I'm just unfamiliar but it sounds like home screen apps are just bookmarks to websites. When you open the bookmark wouldn't it launch in Safari? Is this only an issue in iOS 4.3 or was it in previous versions?

Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Poster: you're an idiot.

UPDATE

[linuxci]

Note this bit in the same Reg article:
All three issues also affect native iOS web applications that uses Apple's UIWebView API – i.e., native applications that tap the web in a big way.

So it's saying apps available through the app store are also affected if they use the built in HTML renderer. Doesn't this show that it wasn't an intentional way to make apps look better, otherwise apps would have access to the new faster engine too,

The Reg is just trolling for pageviews.

Re:Apple == 1990s Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

"insightful". Are you fucking kidding me? For spurious complaints about moderation that is proven wrong by this very moderation? So your post being positively modded argues against the point you were trying to make. Funny.

Stupid conspiracy nutters....

[mark-t]

That X may happen to be beneficial towards achieving a goal of Y for Z is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to conclude that X was deliberately orchestrated by Z when other explanations for X exist, particularly when a goal of Y cannot be plausibly shown to be worth the costs and risks associated with orchestrating X.

In this case substitute slow javascript outside of safari for X, more app store profit for Y, and Apple for Z.

Apple has a history of crippling web apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely it must be a mistake. Apple would never cripple web apps on purpose, right?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3009888/autoplay-audio-files-on-an-ipad-with-html5/3055115

Oh, that's right, they blocked sounds from being played by javascript, which every decent webapp game will need. And every workaround that has been found has been quickly blocked also.

Apple tell us it is to save phone bandwidth, which makes no sense on a Wifi only iPod Touch, for example. Maybe I want to create my own interface for playing audio from my own web server. Nope. Denied. Apple thinks it knows best about how I should use my own network.

Since this used to work, and now there is not even a way to opt in to scripted sound, it is crystal clear they did this for purely anticompetitve reasons. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation from the Apple fan boys on this point.

This is the way I want it.

[leamanc]

When Safari is up front and center, let it have the majority of the CPU time. When a "web app" is on the home screen, let it compete for clock cycles with the rest of the "web apps" on the home screen and the main functions of the home screen (and the phone in general).

Maybe I am not qualified to speak on this topic, because I don't use any "web apps" to speak of on my iPhone 4, as I vastly prefer native apps. I have no web pages pinned to my home screen at all.

And stop bitching about the 30 percent that Apple takes for App Store sales. It's right in line with what Kagi, et. al., take for selling software. I fail to see how it is unfair in the least, as Apple is bringing developers a huge audience, hosting the files, footing the bandwidth, managing the update system, etc. In an ideal world, the standard percentage that a distributor takes would be less, but 30 percent is perfectly average in not only the software distribution world, but in other areas too (e.g., 20th Century Fox generally gets a lot more than 30 percent on the first run of the movies it distributes for other producers--it's more like 50 or 60 percent; maybe it will get down to 30 percent at second-run movie houses and for DVD sales).

Re:This is the way I want it.

[Guy Harris]

When Safari is up front and center, let it have the majority of the CPU time. When a "web app" is on the home screen, let it compete for clock cycles with the rest of the "web apps" on the home screen and the main functions of the home screen (and the phone in general).

When a "web app" is run from the home screen, it is "up front and center".

My phone is getting slower and slower - you?

[mpfife]

I have a 3GS, and with the last 4 or so updates from Apple, it's been consistently getting slower and slower across the board. Slower response times when starting/closing apps/keyboard trays, slower browsing, and most notably - slower than HECK at starting the camera app. Anyone else notice how horribly long it takes to start the app and take the first photo sometimes? That never happened before.

I'm almost certain at this point that they're trying to 'force' upgrades to the new iPhone 4 by making their old devices slower. Sure it sounds conspiracy theory; but I've already seen a lot of it happening. It's already been proven by the jail-braker guys that the 3GS can do HDR photography just like the 4G with just the flip of a single registry bit. The iOS SDK also supposedly required the new version of Snow Leopard OS, unless you also flipped a hidden registry bit and it worked fine on the old OS.

And with my tinfoil hat on, I also notice there is no way to roll back your iPhone to an earlier version of iOS so I could do some timed comparisons. In fact, given my choice, I'd roll back to right before they introduced multithreading - which really seemed to do nothing other than slow my phone down and show that I'm only getting half the bars I used too (if you remember that fiasco).

Re:My phone is getting slower and slower - you?

[omnichad]

You can roll back. You have to put the ipod into recovery mode. Then, you can restore whatever version you want onto it. You might have to install an older version of iTunes to set it up on an older iOS, but I'm sure it's possible.

Re:My phone is getting slower and slower - you?

[AshtangiMan]

You could simply not update the OS . . . I find that my 3GS is running just fine, and I don't feel a need to upgrade to the latest version of iOS, this is the same thing that I did with the 3G (which started out as slow and got slower with the first upgrade, which is when I stopped them altogether). My 3GS came with iOS 4.2.1, and runs very nicely. I don't keep a large photo or music library on it, which may improve the performance issues with start up time for related apps (ie, the camera app might load more slowly if there is a large number of photos in the library).

Re:My phone is getting slower and slower - you?

[thisisntme]

No, it is not possible. Each restore has to be signed by Apple before the phone will accept it, and they only sign the latest version. You can use a program called TinyUmbrella to store the signature and later go back to an old version (or if your phone has ever been jailbroken it might be stored on the Cydia servers). But if you don't have this info stored, there is no way to go back.

Re:My phone is getting slower and slower - you?

[Guy Harris]

I'm almost certain at this point that they're trying to 'force' upgrades to the new iPhone 4 by making their old devices slower

Because God knows new OS releases have never made your machine run slower, and have never required more powerful hardware....

who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

when did we forget that javascript is garbage? everyone needs to quit writing absolutely EVERYTHING in javascript.. imagine the dos world if EVERYTHING was written in qbasic. please, for the love of the lord who loves/hates you, write your code in something that produces slim, native binaries!

Re:who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

"when did we forget that javascript is garbage?"

The people who learned JS as their first and only language, and who hang on for dear life never had a chance to "forget".

Re:who cares

[Guy Harris]

when did we forget that javascript is garbage? everyone needs to quit writing absolutely EVERYTHING in javascript.. imagine the dos world if EVERYTHING was written in qbasic. please, for the love of the lord who loves/hates you, write your code in something that produces slim, native binaries!

Native binaries? How's this? It even has first-class functions, just like JavaScript! Not available for iOS, unfortunately. Dunno how slim the binaries are.

It's just a UIWebView issue

[nickovs]

So the real story here is "iOS Safari has got lots better in 4.3 and iOS web apps run just like they used to." Doesn't exactly sound like Apple adding handcuffs to me. Sadly that didn't make a good enough headline for The Register and anyway El Reg loves a conspiracy theory.

The fact is that this is almost certainly just a versioning issue with the UIWebView code. When you launch a Web App in iOS what actually happens is that it a launches a dummy app that just consists of a full screen UIWebView pointed at the web page. Other than when Apple releases new full version (e.g. x.0 release) the UIWebView code has typically trailed the code in Safari by at least one point release. This "bug" quite possibly "won't be fixed" as a bug because it will just come out in the wash. If there is ever an iOS 4.4 I'd expect to see it resolved there, otherwise I'll put money on it being fixed in iOS 5.0 come the summer. Apple aren't going to put up with on-going maintenance of diverging WebKit code bases just to make sure that Objective-C applications stay running even faster than JavaScript than they would with Nitro.

Average user will blame the device, not the "app"

[nrozema]

What is the most likely reaction of an average iPad user encountering a slow app?

1) WTF why is my brand new $500 toy so slow and sucky!

or

2) Boy, the javascript rendering on this bad boy is severely lacking, I wonder why that is?

For a company so clearly centered on the "user experience", it's certainly in their best interest for ALL apps to run smoothly and as fast as possible - be them "real" apps or "web" apps. How many iPad users do you think could actually tell the difference between the two in the first place? I'm all for a good Apple is Evil conspiracy - but this one stinks.

Re:Uh. - not required to buy data plan

[red_flea]

You buy whatever THEY deem as a "smart" device and you are REQUIRED to buy a data plan.

You are not required to buy a data plan. They only heavily advertise subsidized phones that include the data plan and beat you over the head with "DATA PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR FULL USE OF FEATURES!!!" You may be able to buy a partially subsidized phone with a contract extension and just not get a data plan. I did that with T-Mobile already and just use Wifi. I pay only for voice and a few text messages.

Nobody will tell you this. The website doesn't say it, and the store employees don't say it. They even say the opposite. I rolled the dice with a purchase online, and I do get WiFi and don't pay for a data plan. I could have gotten an additional $50 rebate on the price of the phone if I chose the data plan, however.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Microsoft, do it their way or don't do it. Complaining to Slashdot about it just makes the majority of us roll our eyes.

Ballmer calls this winning.

duh

Re:Apple == 1990s Microsoft?

[angel'o'sphere]

You forget that 30% ++ of /. readers are Mac users, and those get mod points, too ;D

angel'o'sphere

Advertising

[DaFallus]

I know it is too late in the life of this discussion for anyone to actually read this, but I see another angle on this that I feel is worth considering. Apple does allow free apps in the App Store and I believe they also take a cut of the advertising in these apps. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Anyway, if someone chooses to write a web app instead of an App Store app, Apple doesn't get a cut of the advertising revenue. Again, I don't know if we're talking about enough money to justify these actions; just something else to consider.

Yep...

[Tjp($)pjT]

I am a Direct TV subscriber since near the beginning. (Viacom messed up too many times and I canceled, as they were disconnecting on the pole, coincidence was with me and I chatted to the guy saying I was dissatisfied. he said well, there is our cable comany, then there is yours, with a smirk. I pulled out the Direct TV receiver boxes and said I had already chosen mine ... He'd not seen a direct broadcast sat dish yet. I told him it was about 1 hour to set up. He seemed not happy.)

But I digress due to old man syndrome (in my day we tied an onion to our belt as was the fashion of the day ... no wait) When Comcast came around and hooked up our Internet, they tried to sell us the cable TV package as well, but I said I was happy with DTV. Well, a few days later and about once a year since, Comcast has offered me free basic cable because we have a business Internet connection. They reason I suspect is so we'd no longer meet the 90 days since subscribing to cable rule for certain of the DTV packages with local sports and local networks (and distant networks if you're grandfathered in). But yes, all service providers say they have the same rules for everyone, but loss retention and new customer sales have extraordinary latitude to make exceptions. If you want to fight them. But In the above case I have a nice 3 inch portable LCD TV. Oh, and TYING is illegal in some jurisdictions and legal in others and product dependent in almost all.

Hey

[ThatsNotPudding]

If it's good enough for ISPs (and allowed by Congress), it's good enough for Apple!

Moronic Apple Haters Say Stupid Stuff All The Time

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Wow, the clues are sparse today...

THAT IS THE POINT. Web apps are slower, and there is NO REASON they should be.

Slower than what? Native apps? They have always been slower. Slower than when run directly in Safari? Yes, but so fucking what - run them in Safari. But ultimately: slower than before the update: Nope -just as fast as before the update. Hence Moronic Apple Haters Say Stupid Stuff All The Time. That is the point.

Re:Moronic Apple Haters Say Stupid Stuff All The T

[Dahamma]

I have an iPhone and an iPad and they are great devices - I'm far from an Apple hater. But I won't put blinders on and assume every business decision Apple makes is one step closer to world peace, either.

I have even created iOS and iPhone-customized web apps, how about you? I doubt it...

Anyway, you sure are a Mac fanboy, but not very cheerful.

Re:Moronic Apple Haters Say Stupid Stuff All The T

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Well, unlike you I have neither an iPhone nor an iPod, nor do I believe there is some nefarious "business decision" behind not making "web apps on the home screen" faster just like "web apps in Safari", but leaving them untouched and just as fast as they ever were.

As for cheerful - fuck, look at what you wrote, be glad I am so fucking cheerful and didn't rip you a new one.

Here is the proof

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Here is the proof that Apple wants to kill web apps: Why else would they have this page.

Re:Moronic Apple Haters Say Stupid Stuff All The T

[Dahamma]

Ok, then, please tell me what about my post that offended you SO much is not true:

"Web apps are slower, and there is NO REASON they should be. iOS apps are getting banned with Apple's new policy, and their alternative is pay $$ or make a web app - which will be SLOWER than it should be."

I was just stating what the article SAID (and has not been disputed), not inferring reasons behind it. Others have looked into it and found that web apps (using the same web browser core) don't use the new Javascript enhancements, do offline caching, asynchronous execution, and other HTML5 features.

All Apple has to do is state "oops, there is a bug, for some reason we forgot to test web apps from the home screen, we'll fix it ASAP!" But until then (and I won't hold my breath) there is by definition no reason given for the issue...

Re:Moronic Apple Haters Say Stupid Stuff All The T

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Ok, then, please tell me what about my post that offended you SO much is not true:

"Web apps are slower, and there is NO REASON they should be. iOS apps are getting banned with Apple's new policy, and their alternative is pay $$ or make a web app - which will be SLOWER than it should be."

I was just stating what the article SAID (and has not been disputed), not inferring reasons behind it. Others have looked into it and found that web apps (using the same web browser core) don't use the new Javascript enhancements, do offline caching, asynchronous execution, and other HTML5 features.

All Apple has to do is state "oops, there is a bug, for some reason we forgot to test web apps from the home screen, we'll fix it ASAP!" But until then (and I won't hold my breath) there is by definition no reason given for the issue...

The fact that while your facts are technically true, you left out so many other things that are true that your conclusions may seem true if you ignore those facts, but are in fact bullshit. Like you left out that the web apps are not slower than before the update. Or the fact that people can still use web apps in Safari and suddenly run them much faster than before. Or that most developers don't actually seem to mind the "new" (== some months old) policy, and their apps don't get "banned".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion