With Mountain Lion's iCloud Integration, Apple Strengthens the Garden Wall

snydeq writes "With WWDC around the corner, iOS 6 rumors are taking center stage, but the real action for developers may be around iCloud. Forthcoming OS X Mountain Lion will integrate iCloud into the formal file system, making iCloud usage much easier and thus more common, and thanks to iCloud Documents, which lets apps open and save documents directly in iCloud, developers will be able to better tap iOS-to-OSX document syncing in their apps, a la iWork. But there is a downside to this opportunity: 'For developers, it further enmeshes you in the Apple ecosystem, almost in the way that America Online did in its heyday. Case in point: OS X apps can use the iCloud Documents APIs only if they are sold through the Mac App Store.'"

Comments

Garden Wall?

[rueger]

I don't know y'all, feels more like Kudzu to me.....

Re:Garden Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Garden Wall is what it's called by Apple Fanboys. Apple users call it the Jail Wall. That's why your iOS devices need to be jail-broken, not garden-broken.

Re:Garden Wall?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Garden Wall is what it's called by Apple Fanboys. Apple users call it the Jail Wall. That's why your iOS devices need to be jail-broken, not garden-broken. (Score:1, Informative)

I wish Slashdot would interview the guy who decided to spend the mod point on this comment.

Re:Garden Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

um... yes.

Re:Garden Wall?

[Lisias]

It's an improvement, really.

In the past, Microsoft used to take the bashing alone!

Re:Garden Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well what would you say about the other devices and their owners who need to get rooted... :p

Re:Garden Wall?

[Ukab the Great]

Actually, us true Apple fanboys actually refer to it as the Posh Bunker. Walled garden is merely a media catchphrase.

Re:Garden Wall?

[Hognoxious]

Surely "The Cottage" would be more appropriate?

Re:Garden Wall?

[SurfsUp]

In the past, Microsoft used to take the bashing alone!

That was before we learned that Microsoft and Apple are really Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Apple is just better at it.

Re:Garden Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Garden Wall is what it's called by Apple Fanboys. Apple users call it the Jail Wall. That's why your iOS devices need to be jail-broken, not garden-broken.

Police - or anyone with a piece of spying software - can track
everything you do on your iPhone without needing physical access to your
phone.

The software, called Phone Password Breaker, can download all of the
data from Apple's iCloud service - which backs up all of your pictures,
text messages, emails, calendar appointments, call logs, website you
have visited, and contacts.

As iPhones sync nearly instantaneously with iCloud, anyone who is
listening will have near-instantaneous access to your phone - without
the owner noticing a thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2145908/Beware-iCloud-Snooping-software-lets-police-read-iPhone-real-time-knowing.html

Apple secure do me a favour wide ass open .

Re:Garden Wall?

[Sosarian Avatar]

Several years ago, it was a haven for people that enjoyed the relief from using a UNIX-like OS -- but that had nothing to do with Apple in the vast majority of cases, as they were using BSD or Linux. It certainly has been nice to see facts start ending the brief reign of the rabid Apple retards that would rather let Steve Jobs' corpse rape their dad than admit there could be anything negative about any of Apple's products.

Re:Garden Wall?

[Lisias]

+1 Insightful. =]

Either way

[BitHive]

This signals the beginning of the end for something.

Re:Either way

[Nerdfest]

The large-scale acceptance of iOS's market-only software install was the beginning. This is just the inevitable progression of something that turned out to be very profitable.

Re:Either way

[Grayhand]

"This signals the beginning of the end for something." Common sense. This is similar to the feeding frenzy over Microsoft bundling Explorer. There's nothing that is forcing you to use it. I was far more upset about Apple bundling iTunes with Quicktime. I can't count the number of times I had to delete iTunes after installing Quicktime on Windows machines. This is a non story. Get back to me when they limit hard drive size and force you to use cloud storage. I'll be the first one to drop Mac.

Re:Either way

[lightknight]

Yes, sadly, we are this *holds up index finger & thumb, presses the two tightly together* close to finally segmenting Apple users from the rest of the technological universe; and when that is done, nothing of value will be lost.

Now if only we could convince them that they need Apple's latest invention, the iBrain, complete with 6PB of storage space (for all those memories you want to keep), and the iWallet (more of it 'Just Works,' now with automatic withdrawals to any vendor who can guess your pet's nickname), we will never have to hear from them again.

Re:Either way

[Jeremi]

Yes, sadly, we are this close to finally segmenting Apple users from the rest of the technological universe; and when that is done, nothing of value will be lost.

I think that's a bit harsh -- the Linux users are still useful to have around, if only to keep the web servers running.

(ducks)

Re:Either way

[danbuter]

Apple needs to be careful. While their consumers have been largely ok with the walled garden so far, it will be very easy for them to cross the line into "too much control". At that point, I think they will see a percentage of people leave. Not everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if 10% - 20% drop out.

Re:Either way

[Sosarian Avatar]

Shills are generally paid for -- just disliking a company (like Apple) or pointing out flaws in its behavior/products doesn't mean the person was paid to do so, otherwise just about everyone would have a nicely stuffed bank account.

Not that I'd exactly mind the extra money if one of Apple's many rivals wants to pay me...

Re:Either way

[jbolden]

So far the control has been paired with substantial value adds, and convenience features. There are strong objections from people who don't buy Apple products but how often do you see Apple people objecting to Apple's control. Apple isn't even going to begin losing market share till Apple customers object. And so far, with the exception of a few apps in the app store there hasn't been any kind of blowback among actual customers.

Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly different

[romanval]

the your documents on Google Docs or Office 365 (aside from the apps residing on the host CPU instead of a web app).

Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[grub]

I'm a big Apple fan, but WTF Apple? Not cool.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the perspective of someone developing for iOS but with as much separation between their crap (APIs) and mine as I can get, this doesn't change things a whole lot, really. Apple has always loved getting people enmeshed in their APIs, it's just that in many cases they hadn't had the clout to do it until the past few years. Best as I can do, there's still a bunch of weed roots snuck into more and more of my own classes.
 
It's so bad that when I see they've added new functionality I'm now extremely reluctant to add it if there's any way at all to write it myself, even if I think I should be able to segregate the use of their APIs out from my main code. They have a way of making things that should be easily compartmentalized into terribly messy and ugly APIs that require you integrate them into your basic logic. My guess is this is an overall strategy that comes from the top, because otherwise many of their programmers are cooking-pans-on-the-head-ramming-into-each-other-for-fun level imbeciles. Then again, with the amount of awful bugs I'm experiencing in 10.7, it may well be the latter case.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: you mean the storage the the users has paid for? (either with an iCloud subscription or through the purchase of an Apple device).

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

Well they pay the hosting fees for free apps from which they derive no income.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

Not only has that not changed with the introduction of the iCloud features (it's been $99 since the program was introduced for iOS years ago) and that it's the same whether you use iCloud or not, but that storage has already been allotted to iCloud users (hence the reason developers don't have to pay more to use iCloud features), the interface to it doesn't affect the cost of it.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[bonch]

iCloud's introduction date is irrelevant. Apple has a revenue stream coming from members of the developer program, and paying members are the only ones who can take advantage of Apple's online services. For instance, they're also the only ones who can use push notifications. Put two and two together.

The statement about storage allotment doesn't make sense, because if a developer doesn't use iCloud in their app because they didn't pay for the developer program, then obviously the storage will instead be used by some other app that did pay.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

The statement about storage allotment doesn't make sense, because if a developer doesn't use iCloud in their app because they didn't pay for the developer program, then obviously the storage will instead be used by some other app that did pay.

errr...no, you get the 5GB storage whether you use it through an app or not - say through backing up your device.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

or it will just be used for backups, and if that fills up no apps can use it until...guess what...the user pays for more storage!

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[bonch]

This tangent about user backups is irrelevant. You originally said that Apple pays hosting expenses for apps from which they derive no income, but that's not true because only paid developers can integrate with iCloud. There's more to app iCloud integration than simply storing files; it's an active syncing service that pushes out to all configured devices.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

This tangent about user backups is irrelevant.

No it isn't, the hosting needs to be paid for whether you use it through apps or not, and when the initial free storage is full any more isn't funded by apps it's funded by the user.

You originally said that Apple pays hosting expenses for apps from which they derive no income, but that's not true because only paid developers can integrate with iCloud.

Which is irrelevant because the user pays for the data anyway, otherwise they wouldn't charge for storage because - as you posit - that comes out of the developer fee.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

The expanded disk space is irrelevant to the argument and is a separate product from the sync APIs.

You're only saying that because you can't refute it, it's all part of iCloud, you're trying to separate them and say that use of the APIs is charged to and paid for by the developer through the developer fees (even though the fees haven't changed) while the storage part of iCloud is paid for by the user. So where's the proof? Given that the developer fees haven't changed it certainly looks like you're wrong.

Re:Only app store apps can use iCloud?

[exomondo]

The part of iCloud we were discussing was the developer APIs, which require a paid developer membership to use.

Wrong wrong wrong, even if you pay the $99 for a developer membership you still can't use those APIs if you don't sell your app through the store...nice try retard!

Apple only provides iCloud API access to paying developers

Rubbish again, you're so full of shit you don't even understand the issue. It's nothing to do with whether you are a paying apple developer, it's about whether you sell it in the app store, even if you are a paid developer you still can't necessarily use those APIs!

Next.

What's the bet you're back here posting more bullshit in 5 minutes?

Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what this is.

As a long time Apple user I can say that if things keep going this
way I WILL be looking elsewhere for my next computer purchases.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[ChrisKnight]

Don't lay this on Tim Cook. This was Steve Jobs's plan; Tim is just carrying on with it.

Here's my prediction: The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store. Again, Steve's plan; not Tim's.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Nerdfest]

You can't say you didn't see this coming. This has Job's fingerprints all over it and has probably been planned for quite some time. I think fans have been saying this sort of change wouldn't happen on OS X just because of denial. Yes, for now it's still better than iOS in that you can still install stuff from outside the garden, but with the direction things are heading, even that may go in the future.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

...As a long time Apple user I can say that if things keep going this
way I WILL be looking elsewhere for my next computer purchases.

You can go. Apple doesn't care about you. Nothing will change at Apple unless/until several million users revolt. Even then chances are slim for change. How soon we forget "You're holding it wrong".

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Things will keep going this way... and yes, you'll have to look elsewhere for your computer purchases, because Apple won't even pretend to be selling "computers" before long.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[chartreuse]

Here's my prediction: The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store.

Excellent. Looking forward to seeing if it's reality or the usual paranoid projection. Be seeing you...

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that would kill OS X's utility as a Unix platform.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Nerdfest]

OS X being based on Unix is to help them (not as much development required) not you.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[_xeno_]

And that would kill OS X's utility as a Unix platform.

And? They already killed Mac OS X Server and removed X11 support, I somehow doubt Apple really cares about anyone that uses Mac OS X because it's UNIX.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Sponge Bath]

...anyone that uses Mac OS X because it's UNIX.

Like people who ran Linux on their PS3 with the other OS option, they exist in small enough numbers to be profitably ignored by the vendor.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

I test drove a macbook pro, latest version, last week. It had an X server built in. What's this about them removing X11 support? I fired up Xeyes and they were peeping back at me.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

you simply won't be able to run X11 apps on Mac OS X any more

None of the articles in the results from your linked Google search actually seem to agree with that statement.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read what you quote:

"With Mountain Lion, Apple seems to eliminating its dedicated support for the X11 application, instead redirecting users to the open source XQuartz project, which it will continue to support."

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh lookie, what's this? http://xquartz.macosforge.org/trac/wiki

The penalty for being wrong on slashdot is suicide. Get on it.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store. Again, Steve's plan; not Tim's.

How is that supposed to work? Is Apple going to start selling OSX desktops and laptops that won't run scripts or executables?

You'll pardon me for thinking this is a pretty weak prediction. Here's an alternative: One day Apple will start selling iOS devices in the Macbook or iMac form factor. See how much better that is? If you also assume they'll kill OSX in the process, then you get your doom and gloom AND you don't have to explain how they'd actually go about locking down their OS to be so restrictive yet still somewhat useful.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Grayhand]

Here's my prediction, you are dead wrong. "The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store." More paranoia than reality. After spending better than a decade growing their OS and finally challenging Microsoft on the desktop front they shoot themselves in the foot by forcing all sales through the app store? They'd loose half their customers overnight. First off no one would upgrade to to Mountain Lion and most would hold off buying new equipment. Third party vendors would be shutout so the backlash would be epic. It may be a wet dream over at Apple but no one is that monumentally stupid. The number of pissed off customers would dwarf the Vista revolt. Why lock the barn door while more are trying to squeeze in? There's simply no rational reason to do it and there are major downsides. Sure they will keep trying to make it or attractive to use the app store but shutting out other vendors would be shooting themselves in the foot with a nuke. They'd also be putting an antitrust target on their chests so any gain would be offset by customer backlash and the next ten years in court.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Fulkkari]

The way I see this is going, this might be the case by default. Typical users get their software through Apple. Controls the user experience by denying applications they don't want for their users for whatever reason. On the upside users get safer downloads and applications with at least some level of quality. The fact that applications are being sandboxed and what they can do are controlled by "entitlements" given by Apple will eventually increase the security of OS X. Too long has the access rights of a process equaled the access rights of the user. Whitelisting applications will be much more effective than blacklisting (= virus scanners). I'm not quite sure why most people see this as a bad thing.

For the users on the other side of the spectrum, e.g. developers, I would not worry too much. Unlike iOS, OS X is being used to create applications. Software just don't magically appear in their final form on the doorstep of Apple. You may need to sign your software before being able to run it, but the option will be there. But why should this be enabled by default? Most people will never touch the code.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[ChrisKnight]

"you simply won't be able to run X11 apps on Mac OS X any more"

This is patently false. Apple is no longer supporting X11, but they are recommending that people install an open source X11 for OS X called XQuartz. So, you will be able to run X11 apps in Mountain Lion.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/17/apple-removes-x11-in-os-x-mountain-lion-shifts-support-to-open-source-xquartz/
http://xquartz.macosforge.org/trac/wiki

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[ChrisKnight]

Now your splitting hairs. If you haven't noticed, there is a drive to make OS X more iOS-like. Let's see what happens after Mountain Lion, if it is iOS that they call the next release of OS X I am still right. :)

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[SuricouRaven]

Because it greatly reduces the utility of the device. If Apple controls the whitelist, there are things that Apple won't let you do because it would be incompatible with maximising their profits. For example, they do not permit emulators in the app store. They also do not permit anything that duplicates a function already present in iOS, which is clearly bad for competition. If you want a voice interface, it's Siri or nothing.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[tsa]

Why? You don't have to use iCloud. You can still use all the other clouds instead.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[shutdown -p now]

You have to use iCloud if you want to compete apps which have iPad versions that can open their documents from the cloud.

In other words, it's classic tie-in - using their dominance on the tablet market to get developers in line on the desktop. To remind, from June 1 onward, all apps sold in the Mac App Store have to be sandboxed - in other words, it becomes a full-fledged walled garden, just like iOS.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jasomill]

Here's my prediction: The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store. Again, Steve's plan; not Tim's.

So Xcode will only run on Windows and Linux?

I suppose this would shut up the "it's bullshit that iOS development requires a Mac" crowd, at least.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is already gone, except for us Microsoft/Google/Facebook employees who are paid to shill.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jo_ham]

I certainly could see it coming - I mean, iCloud is free to use, so it's only sensible that Apple allow the free storage and use of their servers to applications from developers that are part of the developer program and use the Mac App Store.

I suppose they could offer access for a fee if not using the App Store, but then they'd be bashed for daring to charge money to access their servers.

This is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. iCloud is aimed squarely at "normal" computer users so that they can do the sorts of things power users have been able to do for a while with services like Dropbox but without having to worry about setting up or managing it or even having to worry about the filesystem.

Slashdot users think the sky is falling and that the OS will become "100% App Store" or something. Can't it be both a curated system and an "old fashioned" regular OS at the same time? You don't have to use the Mac App store (as a developer or as a user), and you don't have to use iCloud.

Before iCloud existed in its current form we had Dropbox and other such services, then Apple announces it and everyone says "lol, why do I need that? I have Dropbox", and now that Apple has released information on the API and the various restrictions for the use of their free cloud service suddenly it's "Apple are evil! They're walling it all off! wahhh!"

I personally think the Mac App Store is a genius move by Apple to make the user experience much more streamlined for the average user, but I also don't see it as a threat to the way I use a computer - all of that stuff is exactly the same as it was, and I can't see it going anywhere any time soon. It's not broken, and doesn't need fixing (ok, Finder needs some fixing, but you get what I mean).

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jo_ham]

Well, you can use Dropbox on iOS too.

iCloud is free to use, so however Apple chooses to implement it is their business.

App sandboxing is for security - not sure why you're trying to spin that as a negative, although it has already had some potential casualties (like apps that listen for specific keyboard shortcuts globally and perform actions while in the background).

And why would they be trying to get developers "in line" on the desktop? If they're already developing apps on the store then they now have the ability to add iCloud integration easily, and if they were developers making apps that aren't distributed through the store then they're exactly the same way off as they were before, still free to integrate with other cloud services if they want. If you're already a developer selling iOS apps then it's hardly a stretch to use the Mac App Store for your desktop app, assuming you want iCloud integration. If you really don't want to then you can just use something else like Dropbox.

What do you think Apple should do? Enable iCloud access for free to any app, regardless of source? Is the requirement to have it distributed through the store to enable use of cloud storage on their servers really all that onerous?

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[shutdown -p now]

iCloud is free to use, so however Apple chooses to implement it is their business.

That would be true even if it weren't free. Their service, their rules. Doesn't mean I can't say that the rules are nasty.

App sandboxing is for security - not sure why you're trying to spin that as a negative, although it has already had some potential casualties (like apps that listen for specific keyboard shortcuts globally and perform actions while in the background).

I don't mind app sandboxing as such, so long as it's something that's not shoved on either the user or on developer. In this case, Apple forces the hands of developers who might have preferred to distribute their apps outside of the app store (e.g. because they need certain features not available in the sandbox), but now have to also consider the fact that not going for sandbox means that they miss on iCloud. A good model would have non-sandboxed apps have a strict superset of features accessible to sandboxed apps - there's simply no reason, technical or ethical, to do otherwise.

What do you think Apple should do? Enable iCloud access for free to any app, regardless of source?

Sure. Dropbox does that on all platforms. SkyDrive incidentally does that on Windows (due to it being transparent - it looks like just another folder in the system to which any app has access as usual).

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jo_ham]

Like you say, it's up to Apple how they offer iCloud, and it's definitively *not* Dropbox - I don't even think they're shooting in the same ballpark. I honestly think they want to eliminate the idea of the filesystem for the normal user, rather than paint iCloud as a Dropbox style service that extends the usefulness of your filesystem as a global network share.

Dropbox and Skydrive (and whatever Google's is called, Gdrive?) are going that way, and I think Apple have decided that simply copying those services isn't going to work for them. All they want to do is make it so that if you read a book on the iPad, your bookmark is updated on your Mac, or if you type a letter in Pages it'll be right there on your Mac without the user thinking about what's going on under the hood.

They tried the Dropbox model with iDisk and it flopped - I think it was just not ready for the internet speeds of the majority of users of the day.

If they were trying to do something like Skydrive or Dropbox with the ability to just store anything as if it's part of your own filesystem then I think the restriction to App Store apps would be foolish, but I just don't think it's that; I think it's just a conduit to join iOS apps to OS X desktop ones.

Also, while I see your point regarding a developer who wants iCloud integration but also wants to distribute outside the App Store, I'm not sure that there will be many of those, if only because the only reason to use iCloud at all is to integrate with an iOS app. For pretty much every other use of cloud services then any other service like Dropbox would be a better solution given the limitations of iCloud (even beyond the App Store restriction). Even if you have an iOS app you could *still* use something like Dropbox, given that it works on iOS too.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[SurfsUp]

That's what this is.

Not really, it's his second. Differentiating the iPad 3 by quadrupling the screen pixels, thus increasing the heat and battery wait in return for no increase in usability, was his first.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[SurfsUp]

One day Apple will start selling iOS devices in the Macbook or iMac form factor.

Absolutely, I agree with you. And guess what they will be up against? Right. Android in the PC form factor.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Fulkkari]

I'm not saying that there aren't any issues. I just think that the security benefits overweigh the downsides of a more controlled environment. From a technological standpoint, this is absolutely the way to go in the consumer market. If this leads to some applications getting rejected, it is not a technological problem. It just means that it needs to be solved in some other way. For instance, allowing users to install root certificates for 3rd party "app stores". This could be the case for instance how MacPorts and other other package management systems would work in the future.

PS. It was probably also a smart move to deny emulators in iOS. I'm already somewhat skeptical about games because of concern for battery life. Running something inside emulators does not sound good until we have phones running on supercapacitors or some better power source.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[TheRaven64]

Apple is no longer shipping their own X11.app, but their own X11.app was always just a random snapshot of XQuartz that typically lagged behind the upstream version, was shipped on the install DVDs but not part of the default install, and not regularly updated. Now they are saying that the official way of running X11 apps on OS X is to use the upstream version. The end result for users is that it is marginally more difficult to install, but they get an up to date version that actually works with modern X11 stuff, rather than the old and buggy version that Apple was shipping. For example, if you use WINE on 10.7, you need to install XQuartz because bugs in Apple's X11 prevent it from working correctly. With 10.8, this confusion won't exist because there will only be XQuartz. I find it difficult to see how this is evil...

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[gnasher719]

And? They already killed Mac OS X Server and removed X11 support, I somehow doubt Apple really cares about anyone that uses Mac OS X because it's UNIX.

You're posting nonsense. MacOS X Server is well and a live. They killed the XServe hardware which sold only about 300,000 units a year from what I heard. They are selling the Mac Mini Server, and MacOS X Server will run just fine on any Mac Pro. X11 support is available, and Apple tells you were to get it.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[mamer-retrogamer]

"you simply won't be able to run X11 apps on Mac OS X any more"

This is patently false. Apple is no longer supporting X11, but they are recommending that people install an open source X11 for OS X called XQuartz.

Which is not a bad thing IMHO. I've been running XQuartz since Leopard because Apple's X11 was so buggy.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[drkstr1]

One day Apple will start selling iOS devices in the Macbook or iMac form factor.

Absolutely, I agree with you. And guess what they will be up against? Right. Android in the PC form factor.

Don't forget about Windows 8! hehe

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[SuricouRaven]

If the user wishes to use a battery-intensive program, then that should be up to them to decide. They'll learn quickly enough. What if they decide to carry one of those battery-powered USB ports as a solution?

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I have no problem with that. I just don't see how you can take OSX, put iOS's restrictions on it, and not have it fall apart. I also don't see how suck a restictive OS would be used for creating the Apps that fuel iOS.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[GameboyRMH]

Yep it's pretty obvious they're transitioning the OS from an open one to a fully closed curated computing system. Anyone who can't see it is neck-deep in denial.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[drkstr1]

I'm not saying that there aren't any issues. I just think that the security benefits overweigh the downsides of a more controlled environment. From a technological standpoint, this is absolutely the way to go in the consumer market. If this leads to some applications getting rejected, it is not a technological problem. It just means that it needs to be solved in some other way. For instance, allowing users to install root certificates for 3rd party "app stores". This could be the case for instance how MacPorts and other other package management systems would work in the future.

PS. It was probably also a smart move to deny emulators in iOS. I'm already somewhat skeptical about games because of concern for battery life. Running something inside emulators does not sound good until we have phones running on supercapacitors or some better power source.

There is an inherent flaw in this thinking, and this flaw also shows us why large powerful governments are a bad idea,. That flaw is trust, or more specifically, trust in a single entity. Think about it. Almost every malware attack vector starts with exploiting a common point of trust (eg. You trust java or flash or your browser). When trust is centralized, the baddies only need to focus their efforts on subverting that single point. This is true in both government, and information security. My point is, creating an eco system that relies on a central point of trust is setting us up for failure. (sorry for typos, using a tablet)

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[drkstr1]

Here's my prediction: The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store. Again, Steve's plan; not Tim's.

So Xcode will only run on Windows and Linux?

I suppose this would shut up the "it's bullshit that iOS development requires a Mac" crowd, at least.

Nope, it won't. This requirement has nothing to do with XCode. We develop for iOS in Eclipse. All the mac mini does is upload the binary with the App Loader utility. It is total bullshit that Apple makes you do that. No rational person should think otherwise.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Guy Harris]

I bet a shot of good scotch and a pint of Guinness on my prediction. Will you bet against me?

Yes.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[Fulkkari]

There is an inherent flaw in this thinking, and this flaw also shows us why large powerful governments are a bad idea,. That flaw is trust, or more specifically, trust in a single entity. Think about it. Almost every malware attack vector starts with exploiting a common point of trust (eg. You trust java or flash or your browser). When trust is centralized, the baddies only need to focus their efforts on subverting that single point. This is true in both government, and information security. My point is, creating an eco system that relies on a central point of trust is setting us up for failure. (sorry for typos, using a tablet)

While I absolutely agree with you that a single authority is a dangerous thing to have, what is even worse is to mix different levels of trust. That is what we have have been living with up to this point. There hasn't really been any restrictions on what applications can do on the system in the context of the user running it. It takes only one malicious or badly written software to compromise the security of your whole system. By sandboxing the different pieces of software in the system, the security of the whole system would no longer be equal to the security of the lowest common denominator. (Up to this point, I rarely install any software simply because I have no control or assurance what it is doing on the system. With iOS I felt for the first time somewhat confident to install 3rd party apps from developers I never heard about)

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[ChrisKnight]

Looking forward to the payout, either way. :)

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[blake1]

It sounds as though global hotkeys may not be restricted. As much as I hate to link to Macworld, here goes - http://www.macworld.com/article/1166857/apps_using_global_hotkeys_will_remain_welcome_in_the_mac_app_store.html#lsrc.rss_main

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[exomondo]

I have no problem with that. I just don't see how you can take OSX, put iOS's restrictions on it, and not have it fall apart.

Surely their target is for everyone to get everything from the app store and from a stability & security standpoint that probably makes sense. Maybe most of their users would be fine with it, who knows.

I also don't see how suck a restictive OS would be used for creating the Apps that fuel iOS.

Charge for a developer unlock seems logical from their perspective.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[exomondo]

What do you think Apple should do? Enable iCloud access for free to any app, regardless of source?

Sure, why not? Pretty much all other cloud providers do it, if you're an iOS user you probably use iCloud to some extent so that would be the service you want applications to tie in to regardless of where the applications come from. There's no reason to lock out developers that don't want to (or can't for whatever reason) use the app store.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jo_ham]

Well, that's the crux of the whole argument - Apple doesn't seem to want to make iCloud into a Dropbox clone, because Dropbox already does it better although it obviously could if it wanted to. It used to have iDisk, but that flopped.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jbolden]

The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store.

We've been hearing about Apple's nefarious plans for a decade it hasn't happened.
Command line installs still (Darwin) work fine in Mountain Lion and won't be via. the app store.

They aren't removing the Unix stuff their developer base likes.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jbolden]

Of course it is a help to them. It is how they picked up a huge swatch of developers and academic users. That's a key niche group of users that is willing to pay hardware premiums.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jbolden]

They didn't remove X11 support. You get an error message asking you if you want to download X11 from the open source XQuartz project. That page XQuartz are the people who created the X11.app in 10.5-7. They are moving from 2.6.3 to 2.7.0. http://www.macosforge.org/ is where Apple hosts all sorts of Unixy stuff like: MacPorts, MacRuby, WebKit...

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jbolden]

It isn't even that. macosforge is Apple. They are shifting their X11 support to their Unix team which supports all sorts of other Unixy stuff like MacRuby and MacPorts.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jbolden]

If you want a voice interface, it's Siri or nothing.

That's not true even on iOS. I have Siri search, Dolphin Sonar and Google search all with their own voice interfaces.

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[jbolden]

Yeah the denial appears to be happening inside of Apple too as they have over the last few years opened up a ton of restrictions on iOS

Re:Tim Cook's first big fuckup.

[exomondo]

Well that doesn't answer the question, iCloud isn't a Dropbox clone and that's not because it's restricted to app store applications, allowing non-app store applications to utilize it will not make it a Dropbox/Skydrive clone.

Anticompetetive

[ohnocitizen]

Any way you slice it, this is unethical. Restricting usage of an API to developers who sell through your platform (and thus give you 30%), giving your own private cloud service filesystem level integration... Imagine if Microsoft made either of these moves.

Re:Anticompetetive

[Nerdfest]

First one to sell an app through the store that is just a shim interface to iCloud wins. Think that would be allowed in the market? Is it anti-competitive to block it?

Re:Anticompetetive

[Sponge Bath]

...sell an app through the store that is just a shim interface to iCloud

EACCES

Re:Anticompetetive

[Jeremi]

Any way you slice it, this is unethical. Restricting usage of an API to developers who sell through your platform (and thus give you 30%), giving your own private cloud service filesystem level integration... Imagine if Microsoft made either of these moves.

Is it access to the API that Apple is restricting, or access to Apple's servers?

If it's the latter, then I don't see an issue... the server's are Apple's property, and so they can allow or deny access to their servers based on whatever terms they care to come up with.

Re:Anticompetetive

[shutdown -p now]

Apple is going to start enforcing sandboxing on Mac App Store in two weeks.

Re:Anticompetetive

[shutdown -p now]

How can you use google app engine and GQL without using google's ecosystem and services?

Apple offers a cloud service and made an API enabling developers to use it. What is the big deal and how it differs from other service based APIs?

No other cloud service API requires you to use a specific OS, and to distribute your client apps through a specific app store (from which the owner gets a hefty cut).

Re:Anticompetetive

[jo_ham]

How is it unethical to restrict access to your own servers for a cloud service for apps that are not sold through your own storefront?

Apple has the right to decide who gets access to their servers. They can set the terms of access, and setting them as "any app sold on the Mac App Store can store user data on our cloud servers" is not unethical or anticompetitive.

Especially since other cloud services still work just fine on both OS X and iOS. No one is forced to use iCloud.

Re:Anticompetetive

[jo_ham]

So? Don't use it then. Apple offers it for free, but you're not obligated to use it.

I'd also argue that "hefty cut" is a tired old quip that has been thoroughly done to death by now - the 30% for hosting, store presence, bandwidth and payment processing is actually a very good deal for the developer. I think the in-app purchase cut is somewhat more debatable, but I believe it exists to prevent developers from giving away the app for free to dodge the initial 30% cut, only to then charge to unlock all the features.

The 30% cut for books and magazines etc I do think is a bit overboard, however.

Re:Anticompetetive

[shutdown -p now]

So? Don't use it then. Apple offers it for free, but you're not obligated to use it.

As noted in another comment, I don't, but it doesn't mean that I can't criticize it - both on the basis of it being far more restrictive than competing services, and also on the basis of it being a clear attempt to create a tie-in between the market where Apple has a monopoly (mobile devices - especially tablets), and their desktop offering.

Re:Anticompetetive

[Paradise Pete]

So you give free access to your servers and services to anyone who asks for it? Cool! What's the ip address? I need to do some work.

Re:Anticompetetive

[Chris Mattern]

Is it access to the API that Apple is restricting, or access to Apple's servers?

And the answer would be "both", unless you believe Apple's lawyers would allow a third party to set up rival iCloud servers.

Re:Anticompetetive

[clifyt]

You mean like Dropbox?

Oh wait, Dropbox has been on iOS and OSX for years...and integrates nicely into software sold through Apple's iStore and the Mac AppStore.

With the exception of having to follow the rules and not sell electronic access through the application unless Apple is handling the transaction (a rule from day one), Dropbox has long been accepted by Apple (when Apple lawyers dropped this rule on Dropbox after DB started the dropbox store in their API, they came to an agreement in a day...the agreement was to follow the rules that Dropbox had originally agreed to.)

So is that what you mean by believing that Apple would allow a third party to set up rival iCloud servers? Because there are several companies that do just this and give APIs and developer kits to integrate their software into apps. Off the top of my head, Dropbox, Box dot Net, Skydrive, Google (docs / Drive), and I know I'm forgetting a few more.

Yeah, Apple wouldn't allow this...oh wait...if they follow the rules, they don't care.

Re:Anticompetetive

[Chris Mattern]

You mean like Dropbox?

Unless Dropbox uses the iCloud API, then, no, I don't mean "like Dropbox."

not

[fermion]

OK. If you use an iOS device all your app comes through the Apple App store. So there is no change there. On Mac OS, 10.8 no one really knows what this OS is going to do. iCloud is fluid. For instance, MobileMe is shutting down in less than 45 days. I have not moved yet. Apple has however setup my mail so that I can use the mobileme interface. This was not something that was supposed to happen, but it did.

The point is that on Mac Apple is clearly going to pushing developers to use the App store, which is what is happening right now. The benefit to users is that the App will appear on all registered computers. The problem is that it is a walled garden. WIll developers have to use the API to store documents on iCloud? WHo knows? WHat I do know is that if it provides integration between iOS and Mac devices, there wil be little complaints.

What I also believe is that users are not going to be using the documents part of iCloud very much. It will quickly require payments to apple as the data grows. The real part of iCloud that streangths the garden wall is that content bought from apple is stored for free.

Native TRIM support for non-Apple SSDs?

[DigiShaman]

With both Snow Leopard and Lion, I had to hack a file just to enabled TRIM on my Intel SSD. I have a feeling I'll have to do that again if I upgrade. Unless they've made attempts to correct that little "exploit".

Apple makes a good product, but only if you buy everything through Apple. I'm quite honestly surprised they even made replacing an HDD with a non-Apple brand even possible. I know some IBM Thinkpads will bitch at POST unless the drive's firmware has been signed by IBM.

Re:Native TRIM support for non-Apple SSDs?

[Analog Penguin]

I'm quite honestly surprised they even made replacing an HDD with a non-Apple brand even possible.

They've sure made it a pain in the ass on the iMac.

Re:Native TRIM support for non-Apple SSDs?

[jo_ham]

Yeah, connecting two jumper pins together is *so difficult*. I'm amazed that any human being can actually do it.

If you're good enough to get into the iMac, then you're good enough to be able to follow Apple's own method for installing drives that don't have the custom temperature sensing firmware and short the pins out.

Re:Native TRIM support for non-Apple SSDs?

[jo_ham]

Good for you, but not everyone is like you. In fact, the vast majority of people are not like you.

I use open source software where it suits my needs (XBMC, VLC, Ubuntu on an old Powerbook, etc) but it certainly can't replace everything I use.

I would wager that "having to pay FURTHER to run some apps" is very much the norm - most people buy software that they need rather than being able to find open source software to fill that need. The number that write their own software is smaller still.
The number of people that build their own computer is also vanishingly small compared to those who buy their machines ready to run.

Also, I'm not sure that "double, triple" in terms of purchase price for equivalent hardware has been true for a very long time. Maybe the Mac Pro, but that's 2 years out of date with a pair of Xeons in it.

My definition of a "good" product is one that does everything I want it to do and represents good value for money for the price I paid for it. Using these criteria, I'm likely to come up with a different product to you, or the next person along. That's why choice is good. Not everyone is going to have the same opinions and values as you.

Grab Apple

[kawabago]

That wall keeps business out too. The problem with walls is that everything just grows around them and what's contained becomes irrelevant.

Re:Grab Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how that hasn't happened yet.... And in fact Apple's greatest success came when they started controlling more of the experience.

Re:Grab Apple

[Swampash]

Yeah man, the most valuable public company in the world sure fucked up good.

It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Sycraft-fu]

Apple doesn't want you to have a computer, they want you to have Apple devices where you buy stuff from Apple. They want you to sit around and consume the content they sell. They've been heading that direction for awhile now, this is just a continuation of it. It isn't likely to be too many more years before they lock it down entirely, and Macs are just large stations for accessing the Apple Store/iTunes.

Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything. This is just another step down that road.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't want you to have a computer, they want you to have Apple devices where you buy stuff from Apple. They want you to sit around and consume the content they sell. They've been heading that direction for awhile now, this is just a continuation of it. It isn't likely to be too many more years before they lock it down entirely, and Macs are just large stations for accessing the Apple Store/iTunes.

Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything. This is just another step down that road.

Apple wants you to buy hardware. All the content, apps, and the walled garden are a means to this end.

Apple's financial reports illustrate this point. They generate little (as a percentage) in non-hardware sales.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[binarylarry]

WHAT?

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats awesome is Microsoft's lame attempts at cloning Apple's latest business strategy.

It's like hearing your grandfather talk about how swell Lil Wayne's new record is.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT?

Do I really need to do the research for you? Come on, man.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/19/apple-reports-record-breaking-q3-2011/

iTunes Store: 5%
Other (who knows what this actually is): 4%
Hardware sales: 91%

Clear enough?

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[PopeRatzo]

They want you to sit around and consume the content they sell.

You have just described our entire culture.

We are no longer meant to be active participants, but merely passive consumers. And the latest innovations, we're not even consumers, but rather the consumables.

Facebook, for example. Its users are not its customers. Its users are the product they are offering to its real customers. This disconnect from the natural relationship of buyer and seller is a trend that leads us to a not-so-great place. The reason that Facebook's users are not its customers, is because people don't have any money, so the only thing they have to offer to the marketplace is their personal information, their habits, their discussions, their personal communications.

How much would you pay to use a service like Facebook? And why do you not have the choice? The notion that advertising is the only way to monetize the Internet is either an example of just how unimaginative our economic overlords really are. And cowardly. Because if it were a traditional buyer-seller relationship, then they'd actually have to offer something of value. They'd have to answer questions, provide a product or service of actual value. But that's too hard. And too honest.

Apple is going this direction too. Its customers are becoming less and less the people who buy their products and more and more the people who use their products to sell stuff to those of us who have their products.

We will see an Mac desktop OS that only allows installation of software purchased not from, but through Apple. Count on it.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[petsounds]

The reason that Facebook's users are not its customers, is because people don't have any money, so the only thing they have to offer to the marketplace is their personal information, their habits, their discussions, their personal communications.

While this sounds very delicious in its sensationalism, the reason Facebook is free is the same reason all social media services are free -- you won't attract a critical mass of users if your service sits behind a paywall. People don't want to use a 'social' service in which their social circle has to pay in order to interact with each other.

This has nothing to do with people's ability to pay or not pay -- some community-driven pay-to-play sites seem to be profitable, e.g. eHarmony.com, Ancestry.com, Second Life. They aren't Facebook-level profitable, but they stay in business. The difference is that those social services are driven by discovery of new social contacts, not bringing your current circle over. And they offer features which people are willing to pay for. Sending messages, sharing photos, writing comments... these features are so ubiquitous now that they essentially have no intrinsic value, except for profile mining in the hands of unethical capitalists like the Facebook team.

Facebook is just a digital mirror of brick-and-mortar corporate conglomerates who offer seemingly much better value than local, customer-focused businesses. And people eat it up, thinking there's no downsides.

While I'm quite ardently against Apple's walled garden increasingly becoming a SuperMAX prison, at least customers are actually buying a product, and Apple's business goal is not selling your information. Their goal is selling hardware, and getting a cut out of every app store purchase. Apple just wants to keep you locked in, but I do believe MOST of the people who work there really are trying to make good products that help people. Every feature rollout on Facebook by contrast is another transparent attempt to get more data about your life.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Anonymous Coward]

Other (who knows what this actually is): 4%

That 4% is everything from apps like Final Cut to Safari's cut from Google ads to printed photo books from iPhoto or Aperture to backpacks sold in the retail stores. Hardware is where the money is.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[tsa]

That door was open already, and kicked to smithereens years ago.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Lisias]

Apple's financial reports illustrate this point. They generate little (as a percentage) in non-hardware sales.

Until its market share growing starts to stagnate, when they'll use the lock down to milk down the customer for content.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

"People don't want to use a 'social' service in which their social circle has to pay in order to interact with each other."
This happens all the time -- it's called going to the pub for a beer. Beer cost money, and people gladly pay it for the social time that comes with it, along with the taste.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Hognoxious]

Have you seen Wall-E? Apple want to be BnL.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[SurfsUp]

Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything.

In other words, exactly what Microsoft wanted, but luckily for us, failed at. Perhaps unlike Apple, Microsoft planned to lock up the entire world in their walled garden. Or maybe that's exactly what Apple dreams of too, how else will they grow to four times the market cap of Exxon?

Speaking of the market, Apple's P/E is stuck below 13 in spite of consistently turning in revenue growth over 50%. There is only one possible interpretation: the market expects Apple to hit the wall. I do too. It seems impossible or at the very least, unwise for Apple to maintain their high margins in the face of steadily increasing Android market share in both phones and tablets. Is the market right? We shall soon see.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Karlt1]

It seems impossible or at the very least, unwise for Apple to maintain their high margins in the face of steadily increasing Android market share in both phones and tablets. Is the market right? We shall soon see.

Where is all of the market share getting Android manufacturers? Most are losing money. Only Samsung and HTC are making any kind of profit and HTC's profit is miniscule and declining. Apple and Samsung make 99% of all profit in the mobile market with Apple alone making 73%.

http://www.cultofandroid.com/10093/samsung-and-apple-all-your-mobile-profits-are-belong-to-us/

(I'm waiting for someone to say that"cultofandroid" must be an Apple fansite)

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[SurfsUp]

Where is all of the market share getting Android manufacturers? Most are losing money.

So you're hoping that they will all give up and go away, and leave Apple in peace to go about its business of separating hipsters from their grocery money? Somehow I don't think so.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[peragrin]

So just like every other company then?

I haven't upgraded to lion yet for this reason. I don't want icloud, I want My-cloud. using my servers that aren't open to inspection by government agencies without a warrant.

the trick is not even android supports that yet.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[PopeRatzo]

Except most of Apple's software is aimed at media production so I don't see how Macs are aimed at "consumers",

Quick, do you think Apple makes more money from selling copies of Logic and Final Cut Pro or from the App Store?

It was definitely true some years ago that Apple's computers were meant for media production, but that's not their main business model any more. And as a content producer who often works on a Mac Pro (Logic) I can tell you that they're not really keeping up with the best of media production software. I love Logic, but I find myself working on Windows and Linux more often than on the Mac for music production.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Karlt1]

I'm simply stating a fact.

But from where I'm looking, the top Android devices cost the consumer as much as the iPhone. Why do I care if the carriers have to pay a larger subsidy to Apple as long as my monthly cost is the same?

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[paiute]

Facebook, for example. Its users are not its customers. Its users are the product they are offering to its real customers.

Dead on. The tragic flaw of the Facebook drama.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Dusty101]

You don't have to use iCloud with Lion at all. I don't.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[shokk]

Everyone just needs to get over it and use Dropbox with TrueCrypt or whatever their private cloud solution is and stop bitching. There's plenty of examples of people's encryption being broken by social engineering. Most people have to sticky note their passwords, so they don't stand a chance. Unless you just keep everything in your head and become interrogation proof, someone will always be able to get whatever info they need. And you're full of crap if you think anyone wants to hack into your pics of lolcats and your last company picnic.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[SurfsUp]

But from where I'm looking, the top Android devices cost the consumer as much as the iPhone.

Therefore you're fooling yourself if you think Android manufacturers are losing money per device. Some are, some aren't, it depends mostly on how efficient the engineering organization is. So if I were Tim Cook, I wouldn't get too smug about the bottom line fortunes of my competitors. Some might exit, yes, but that leaves dozens in for the long haul.

Remember that Dilbert cartoon about the stupid people who wanted to make Dilbert and Dogbert die of thirst by drinking all the water out of their garden hose? It's like that. As long as the slightest bit of air space exists in the Android market, somebody will step in to fill it, because the cost of entry is so low.

Now if I had shorted Apple when they first dropped into number two position in the smartphone market, I already would have made a bunch of money. as of today See, Apple's margins are in clear and present danger, and where Apple's margins go, so goes Apple's stock price. But that effect is masked by the ongoing takeover of the feature phone market by smart phones, including Apple and Android. So Apple might show a few more quarters of growth before that margin issue really begins to bite, so I'm not sure Apple is a good short right now, today. Tempting though. In the long run, Apple's growth prospects are just not looking good to the smart money, which is entirely obvious from the P/E.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[PopeRatzo]

Ableton live still isn't 64bit and pro-tools? pro-tools is stuck in 2005.

Logic, Ableton Live and ProTools cannot touch Reaper from Cockos. 64-bit, has Rea-mote and Rea-route which allow off-loading effects, rendering and certain other tasks to remote Linux machines, and will handle any effect or virtual instrument you can throw at it. None of the other DAWs can say that.

Reaper, which is ridiculously inexpensive (unlimited demo!) and has remarkable support (professional and community) is far and away the best DAW available. Logic has no feature that is missing in Reaper. Ableton has one or two, but the quality just is not there.

Oh, and Reaper is available for all platforms, unlike Logic. And Cockos does not treat its customers as criminals, as does Logic.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[FreshlyShornBalls]

Apple doesn't want you to have a computer, they want you to have Apple devices where you buy stuff from Apple. They want you to sit around and consume the content they sell. They've been heading that direction for awhile now, this is just a continuation of it. It isn't likely to be too many more years before they lock it down entirely, and Macs are just large stations for accessing the Apple Store/iTunes.

Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything. This is just another step down that road.

This is, of course, exactly correct. My question (and I own plenty of Apple products, mind you) is why this is OK, but when Microsoft tries this sort of thing....

Oh, right. That was a different era. When the U.S. government pretended to care about the consumer / voter and competitors pretended to care about competition.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[FreshlyShornBalls]

Oh. That must be why so many companies are NOT rushing to build their own marketplaces. Oh, wait...they are. Now why would they do that?

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Karlt1]

"Therefore you're fooling yourself if you think Android manufacturers are losing money per device. Some are, some aren't, it depends mostly on how efficient the engineering organization is."

You don't have to believe me, you are free to look at the publicly available quarterly reports from Sony-Ericson, HTC (barely profitable), Motorola Mobility (loss money every quarter for the last year and a half), or LG.

"Now if I had shorted Apple when they first dropped into number two position in the smartphone market,"

Apple was only number one by market share for one or two quarters. But if market share is important, how is HP doing in the computer market? They are number one by volume and tried to get out of the market.

"I already would have made a bunch of money. as of today See, Apple's margins are in clear and present danger, and where Apple's margins go, so goes Apple's stock price."

People said the same thing a decade ago. How are Apple's Mac margins compared to every other PC manufacturer?

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[SurfsUp]

How are Apple's Mac margins compared to every other PC manufacturer.

In danger, just like Apple's handset margins. You don't have to believe me, just sit back with a bowl of popcorn and watch the train wreck.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Karlt1]

And they have been saying that for 10 years. But for the last 5 or 6, Apple has been growing faster than the market.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[SurfsUp]

And they have been saying that for 10 years. But for the last 5 or 6, Apple has been growing faster than the market.

That was before Steve Jobs died, and Tim Cook is no Steve jobs. You can just forget the flow of compelling new products, from now on it will be "quadruple the screen pixels and put in a heavier battery" and like that.

Oh, and that was before *free and open* Linux/Android entered the picture. But hang on to your Apple stock if you feel you must, somebody has to.

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[Karlt1]

Oh, and that was before *free and open* Linux/Android entered the picture.

So this is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
How does Android being free and open help the consumer? Is the phone free?

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[doccus]

Wow.. thanks for the heads up on Reaper.. I'm a retired musician, but I still like to get down n dirty.. but after OSX upgrade after upgrade, all my no longer any good licences of those Xpensive sloow behemoths didn't endear me to rejoin the treadmill...

Re:It is just more of Macs becoming iDevices

[jbolden]

First off that feature of screen capture in Preview was there in 10.6 as well. It isn't creating a jpeg it is an entirely different mechanism than the old screen snap designed to allow for memory efficient collections of screen captures (to make video animations)

It supports -- save copy of screen to file, which you can then print
save copy of screen to clipboard, which you can then print.

This is what Mac users WANT

[Gothmolly]

They want it to Just Work. They want to buy it, plug it in, go pointy-clicky and have it work. People have an expectation that computers and technological devices (tablets, phones, etc) work without screwing around with them.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[lightknight]

Yes. In fact, we here this from the same crowd that used AOL (another walled garden). People who believe that ignorance is a strength.

Seriously, it takes less than a week of learning to know how to do 90% of the normal tasks with a computer. And yet these people are fighting it, for what reasons no one can figure out. Might as well as for a car with one button (no steering wheel, no pedals, no dials).

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[ducomputergeek]

Honestly, that's why I bought my first mac over 10 years ago. I wanted a Unix based laptop where all the hardware actually worked and since I've never really looked back. Why? Because for 10 years my macs have pretty much stayed out of my way and let me get work done. Which is something I've grown even more appreciative of as I've gotten older and want to spend time doing things other than messing with computers. Mac App Store, great, let's me know when app updates come out. Also guess what, I bought Cyberduck through the App store. I've used the program for years always meaning to donate, but that was a hassle through paypal since I don't link Paypal to my bank account. With the App store, it was one click and I was more than happy to give the cyberduck project money for their years of work. If updates for the apps I use on a regular basis it lets me know that an update is available with a pretty good overview of what changes have been made.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[SuricouRaven]

But it takes a year to learn what to do if anything goes wrong in even the slightest way. I've ended up as the family tech-support - I long ago lost count of how many times I have been summoned because 'the internet is down' only to discover Mother had knocked the wireless on/off button or put the browser into offline mode, and we went through a Week of Hell when some wannabe hacker tried to break into her email account and triggered gmail's automatic lockout.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[lightknight]

Dude, using a computer is like driving a car, or performing CPR, or riding a bicycle, or learning how to swim. You do it once, you get it over with, you move on with life.

Now, it's true that I do not know your family; I do not know what would prevent them from learning what is considered an essential skill to life (I struggle with my own family). However, I might offer that it's because of learned helplessness, that because you are always there, that they've never felt the need to learn.

Perhaps we need to impress upon them that tech support is not our vocation. It's simply a favor, and not one that may be asked of us incessantly.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, you feed him for life; If you offer to teach a man to fish, but he says he much prefers you do the fishing for him, while he does the eating...well, you swiftly realize what kind of relationship you have there.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[shutdown -p now]

And how does restricting apps that don't come from the Mac App Store from using iCloud help further those goals?

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[Sigg3.net]

People wanted better lives in 1930s Germany. That doesn't mean they wanted fascism.

We who know the technical details have a responsibility to educate those who do not. Choosing a "walled garden" will always be a matter of lacking info and insight.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jo_ham]

It takes less than a week to learn how to strip down an engine and rebuild it. Doesn't mean I want to do that.Ok, bad example since I can do that, but I had to go with a car analogy. Some people just want a computer that works and is simple to use.

You would be amazed at the number of people who, even after a couple of years using a computer, can't go more than one folder deep in a filesystem when organising it themselves. Not everyone is as au fait with computers as the users of slashdot.

No one is "fighting against" computers - people just want to be able to use them, and making them user friendly is only benefiting everyone.

The only people who complain are those who think that having an easy to use "dumbed down" walled garden is somehow a threat to their ego or something. The very fact that it exists (even though they are not forced to use it) is an affront to them for some reason. It doesn't affect them or their computer use at all, it just allows a larger user base to be able to use a computer on their own or with much reduced help from "techy" people.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[trout007]

So true. It's hard for geeks to not understand why other people don't geek out on what they love. Take cars. Most people want something they get into, start, and drive to where they want to go safely. They don't mind filling it with gas but that's about it. Those of us who know what everything on a car does get angry when car makers make things more complex and harder to work on. But the reason they do is because 99% of the people don't work on their car and for the shop that has all of the specialized tools it's no big deal. If the feature makes the car more appealing to the 99% it doesn't matter that it's sitting right in the way of you opening the timing belt cover and you have to take apart your engine to get to it.

Apple is the same way. Most people WANT a computer that prevents them from installing things that aren't guaranteed to work or at least not screw up their system. They don't know that you should click the link that says this toolbar will make your Internet super fast. So Apple is for them.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[PlusFiveTroll]

If my car makes a funny noise I do get underneath it and fix it, that said I fix my own computers. Maybe there is some kind of correlation there.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[PlusFiveTroll]

I'd say stripping down the engine is a pretty good example. If $car_manufacture started shipping their cars with the hood welded shut, you as a person who understood what was going on under the hood might feel offended by that. It doesn't affect your car use and the welded hood cars are pretty good so over time the number of auto repair shops drops drastically. You can actually buy welded hood car for far lower then it's cost since they have a deal with all the gas stations to charge everybody more for gas to subsidize the upfront cost of your car. For your safety before the car starts it electronically checks that every part on your car that is accessible is manufacture approved and has not been replaced by a dangerous 'aftermarket' part. And I'm sure that the problem with Gen 10.8 welded hood car where you press on the accelerator and the breaks stop working for one minute will eventually get fixed, if they would just quit deleting for forum posts about it.

When a customer becomes a sheep they tend to get treated like one.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[PlusFiveTroll]

Trusting Apple with your data is like trusting the Catholic Church with your young boys, Islam with your woman's rights, and the TSA with your passenger safety.

People seemed to have forgot that Apple just about died in between Jobs (and he ain't coming back this time). They had a history of denying hardware problems. Though I think Apple will do good financially for a while, then they'll Balmer in charge at some point and the reality distortion field will collapse.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[Guy Harris]

They want it to Just Work. They want to buy it, plug it in, go pointy-clicky and have it work. People have an expectation that computers and technological devices (tablets, phones, etc) work without screwing around with them.

Or, in my case, I want my laptop to Just Work without screwing around with it, especially in the places where I don't care (life's too short to spend any of it dicking around with, say, sound or trackpad or graphics drivers or tweaking random configuration files), but allow me to sudo^Wscrew around with it, in the places where I care, if I want to. So far, OS X has done pretty well for me on that score.

(And Ubuntu might also do well there as well, at least if I choose my hardware well. I'd mention Fedora, but I largely think of it as "the OS whose SELinux implementation gets in the way of VMware running hgfs"; given that I can scp stuff to and from my Fedora VM without too much trouble, and don't do it very often, and don't run that VM very often in any case, it hasn't been worth the effort to figure out how to beat SELinux into shape there.)

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[Guy Harris]

No they don't at least the few people who I know using them professionally for mixing and mastering.

(One has gone to Windows for now running on a mac pro - learning a new application from scratch (He knows his trade but people don't do what he has without good reason).

The other one is fairly pissed off also.

I suspect what pisses them off isn't the lack of a requirement to screw around with the machine. Perhaps it's some of the consequences of stuff Apple's chosen to do in order to reduce the requirement to screw around with the machine, or perhaps it's something else.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

The problem is that the policies of the Mac App Store prevent or severely cripple certain kinds of applications.

For example, if your app might need to roll out critical security updates on short notice (e.g. is a web browser or anything else that needs to deal with the internet), you can't do that with the Mac App Store: updates need to be approved by Apple, on whatever schedule they choose to do it on. From what I've seen, the timescale is weeks, whereas critical security updates sometimes need to be pushed out on a timescale of days.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

For example, if your app might need to roll out critical security updates on short notice

Apple is sane. You can get exemptions for just about anything from Apple if you work with them. The policies exist to prevent abuse, not use.

A 1x security update will go fast if you let them know it is urgent.
If you frequently need security updates they will put a mechanism in place (assuming you have the market share to justify the hassle).

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

The iPhone app store has been the mechanism by which Apple is able to effectually enforce standards for iOS. The Mac app store is going to play a similar role for OSX. For example the vast majority of applications can and should sandbox. Apple has implemented some new APIs for saving state which is going to allow them to really take advantage of SSD OS wide. They most likely are going to start enforcing those rules. etc...

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

You forgot one more. Manual override the default setting when you right click on the app.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

> You can get exemptions for just about anything
> from Apple if you work with them.

Unless they think of you as a competitor, of course. In which case they will just screw you over.

As a case in point, Opera has repeatedly tried and failed to get an exemption for Opera Mini to ship security updates on a sane schedule in the app store.

> If you frequently need security updates they will
> put a mechanism in place

They haven't in the past, and I have seen no indication that they will do so in the future.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

As a case in point, Opera has repeatedly tried and failed to get an exemption for Opera Mini to ship security updates on a sane schedule in the app store.

Opera mini doesn't even render client side. Why would it need special exemptions?

They haven't in the past, and I have seen no indication that they will do so in the future.

Of course they have given all sorts of apps special treatment. I use some that got special treatment. Gambit Scheme asked for and received special treatment.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

> Why would it need special exemptions?

No idea; I just know they needed to be able to roll out security updates quickly and Apple wouldn't let them.

> Of course they have given all sorts of apps special
> treatment.

I was specifically talking about security update rollout.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

And one more note. Even if one were to get special treatment, Apple can take that away any time it feels like it (and has done so in the past, for apps that did get special treatment in some way for a while). So it's not exactly something one can depend on.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

You can depend on Apple to be careful about protecting the interests of their platform and on average making very good choices. You cannot depend on Apple for any specific policy.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

This is sort of an impossible situation. You've presented a counter example where

a) Your case doesn't make sense on initial examination
b) You don't know the facts

I'm not sure how that proves anything about Apple's security policy. Examples have to hold up.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

You can depend on Apple to be careful about protecting the interests of their platform and on average making choices that benefit Apple.

Whether those choices are "very good" depends on whether you're Apple.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

I'm sorry that the people who were closely involved in this can't discuss the issue in public. I guess you'll just have to go with your preconceptions...

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

I'm not the one being outrageous here. You made some rather strong claims about Apple undermining security of the platform because wanted a competitive advantage. That notwithstanding that Apple has never sold browsers, and freely gives away webkit to "competitors".

Apple doesn't have secrecy rules for developers they bitch about the Apple process all the time quite publicly. This isn't "preconditions" evidence needs to stand up to basic scrutiny like what was being requested.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[jbolden]

No they don't. Apple has been in 1st place in computer customer satisfaction for 9 years. It is the been #1 in phones for 5, etc... The developer community around Apple is fine with them.

To give you to major examples:

Apple on both the iPhone and iPad has had to run their warranty program at a loss for several years. They charge enough to help offset their costs and do this because not honoring warranties loses business.

They sold the iPad 2 at cost to 3rd party retailers (Best Buy...). They did this because Apple concluded what the proper price was for tablets, what the technology required was and decided that they margins needed to be very thin.

Re:This is what Mac users WANT

[BZ]

None of what you said is inconsistent with Apple making decisions that are in Apple's best interest.

It's just that they have a slightly longer-term view of these things than most of their competitors, and thus are more willing to trade off money for customer loyalty as needed.

That doesn't mean that the developer community is always fine with Apple (and in fact there are many cases of Apple developers being completely screwed by Apple when Apple decided that was in its interests, if you care to look). It also doesn't mean that its customers are as well off as they could be. They're just better off than they are with someone like Dell. And I say this as an Apple laptop user for a number of years now. Is it better than the other laptop options for me? Sure; that's why I'm using it. Do I want to be an iOS user? Not particularly, having tried it.

A lot about Apple's Directio Bothers Me,

[DrRobert]

But not this. They are providing a free network support service to vendors that sell through their store. Seems obvious, ethical, and fair. Dropbox is better and simpler anyway because all apps can use it with no API; however Dropbox SELLS its service and gives it away for free as a loss leader.

Re:A lot about Apple's Directio Bothers Me,

[Cinder6]

While I would like it if it were open to everyone, it actually does make sense. Apple needs to pay for iCloud somehow, and making sure that developers don't get a free ride is the easiest way to do it.

Furthermore, this is old news. We've known this since Mountain Lion was announced.

Re:A lot about Apple's Directio Bothers Me,

[arkhan_jg]

Funny that you should mention dropbox. Did you know that apps were being blocked from the iOS app store because they used dropbox integration recently? Turns out, it's because the dropbox SDK could take you to a sign-up page in safari for the free 5GB if you didn't have a dropbox account. It didn't offer you paid upgrade choices at sign-up, but if you really tried you could get to the paid upgrades page via links.

So Apple blocked all apps using the dropbox SDK with no given reason why; turns out, Apple consider that because its possible in safari to get to the paid upgrade page from the dropbox sign in, it violates their 'no external links to spend money in apps that don't go through the app store in-app mechanism and give apple their 30% cut'. So that's apps, using a 2nd app, that violates a rule because it's 'possible' to get to a spend money page in safari, getting blocked from the appstore.

After trying a few variants - as Apple don't say whether given changes will work or not for approval - they hit on a process by which if you don't have the dropbox app installed, it fires up an in-app window to login with; and no prompt or safari link to create a new account. So you have to manually find your way to the dropbox site and sign up for there.

Of course, developers could just use iCloud document sharing, and shift their whole infrastructure into the warm, loving, friendly embrace of Apple and give them their 30% cut across the board and not deal with the risk that their app update will one day get blocked because an SDK you use suddenly falls foul of an arbitrary rule interpretation. Much safer.

Skydrive?

[JBMcB]

Isn't this pretty much exactly how Skydrive works, and isn't that being integrated into Windows 8? Nobody has been complaining about that...

Re:Skydrive?

[shutdown -p now]

The most recent version of SkyDrive just shows up as a folder on your PC. Any app can read and write files to it using normal filesystem APIs, and they get automatically synced. And, of course, said app doesn't have to be distributed through the Windows Store.

Re:Skydrive?

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see what relevance it has to my comment. SkyDrive does not use any special APIs, it's just a folder. Any app, Metro or not, can read and write files there. So you don't need to sell an app through Windows Store to have SkyDrive support in it.

Re:Skydrive?

[Ronin Developer]

Apple isn't mandating you buy an app through the store to use SkyDrive. ICloud is their product. If you want to use it, you play by their rules. Integration with iCloud is vetted before allowing apps to use it. This prevents rouge r poorly designed apps from compromising the integrity of their platform. Sounds reasonable to me.

If you want to use another service with their APIs, you do so on that vendors terms as well. However, if you use a third party service, you lose the basic plug and play feature that apps based on iCloud share. Still it is your choice to use iCloud or not.

People love to whine when Apple dictates their vision. Don't like their vision? Well, nobody is forcing you to buy their products, are they?

Re:Skydrive?

[shutdown -p now]

And iCloud will show up as a folder on your Mac, and any program can open and save files from it just like they were local - it's just the APIs that allow you to automatically sync over iCloud that will be restricted.

Thanks for clarifying that. This sounds much more reasonable.

Do iOS apps get access to those saved files?

BTW, SkyDrive API has a number of limitations (filetypes and usage) - though MS doesn't say what will happen to "nonconforming" apps.

SkyDrive has been revamped lately. I haven't noticed any file restrictions when using it as a plain folder anymore - it eats and syncs whatever you put there. Looking at the docs of SkyDrive API, they talk of restrictions as "SkyDrive restrictions" - I wonder if they are actually still in place. If yes, I'd expect them to go away, since it doesn't really make much sense to make this different between API and SkyDrive client itself.

Re:Am I using iCloud wrong?

[jo_ham]

You can't - it doesn't work like that. It's not DropBox.

Maybe it will have that sort of function in the future, but Apple have tried that before with iDisk and it was a failure, so I expect it will simply continue to work as it does now - as a system that links your apps together so you don't have to worry about the filesystem. This is obviously not aimed at power users.

Doesn't Matter

[Jane Q. Public]

"Don't lay this on Tim Cook. This was Steve Jobs's plan; Tim is just carrying on with it."

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. It is still a bad idea. They are making exactly the same mistakes that Microsoft did, for the same reasons Microsoft made them, and from which Microsoft has not, to this day, recovered.

Cook or Jobs, either one should know better. I could see this coming from a mile away, and they have had plenty of warning. If Apple keeps this up, the results will not be good for them.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. It is still a bad idea.

Yeah, because it really sucks if when your machine gets stolen, you're able to get all your apps and your files back from a server in North Carolina or Oregon. Seriously, doesn't Apple know that people enjoy the hassle of losing data? WTF are they THINKING?

Re:Doesn't Matter

[ChrisKnight]

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. This is a mistake.

I love my MacBook Pro; but I fear that in another generation or two I'm going to have to give them up because I don't like where Apple is taking their OS.

It was ALSO a mistake to for the OP to which I was responding to blame Tim Cook for this descent from walled garden to sealed garden.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Jane Q. Public]

"I love my MacBook Pro; but I fear that in another generation or two I'm going to have to give them up because I don't like where Apple is taking their OS."

Yes, exactly! And when I seem them making the same kind of mistakes -- exactly the mistakes that drove me to OS X instead of Windows in the first place -- I have to wonder what the hell they're thinking. If they keep it up, everybody who is anybody will be on Linux.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[SurfsUp]

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. It is still a bad idea. They are making exactly the same mistakes that Microsoft did, for the same reasons Microsoft made them, and from which Microsoft has not, to this day, recovered.

Isn't that good?

Re:Doesn't Matter

[SurfsUp]

"I love my MacBook Pro; but I fear that in another generation or two I'm going to have to give them up because I don't like where Apple is taking their OS."

Yes, exactly! And when I seem them making the same kind of mistakes -- exactly the mistakes that drove me to OS X instead of Windows in the first place -- I have to wonder what the hell they're thinking. If they keep it up, everybody who is anybody will be on Linux.

Funny you should mention that because it is already well under way, Android is really Linux.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[RulerOf]

You people are sooooo biased. It's obvious that Apple can't do anything right here.

Apple could do all kinds of things right, but they probably never will. They'd just have to do something---hell, anything---that was in the spirit of a free, open system, and we'd probably be happy. But that kind of bullshit isn't as profitable as vendor lock-in, so they won't.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yeah, because it really sucks if when your machine gets stolen, you're able to get all your apps and your files back from a server in North Carolina or Oregon. "

That isn't the bad idea. The App Store lock-in is.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Jane Q. Public]

Not if it results in the demise of Apple, the way it led to a decline at Microsoft. That was my whole point.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[g8oz]

Being a serf does have it's privileges...

Re:here is the bargin

[Nerdfest]

In Apple's case, it's actually give me your freedom and your money.

You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[FlyingGuy]

YOU are geeks / nerds / techies / whatever label you prefer. Apple does not even count you as part of their customer base.

Apple is selling the coolest tech for largest market segment. You buy an apple device and it JUST FUCKING WORKS out of the box. and like it or not that is what people want. They don't want to have to do what you love to do and they HATE doing.

They want a device that just does what they need to do, and like it or not apple devices do just that.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Skuld-Chan]

I was dropping off a bunch of Apple keyboards (I manage a bunch of Mac labs for a school among other things) at the Apple Store. Never had a Dell keyboard die, but that is another story/rant.

You should tell that to the less than two customers who came in with 4s's with stuck/broken home buttons.

Sent with my Galaxy Nexus (which also just works)

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[firesyde424]

You have obviously never had to fix a Mac. Incidentally, Apple branded hardware is nothing more than regular PC hardware with an apple logo on it. Silly fanboi. There is no difference in hardware. I got the same parts in a Dell that you got in a MacBook pro. Mine came without the walled garden and I payed half as much as you did. And let's not forget my Razr, which cost less than your flashy iPhone, does the same stuff and has two hour more talk time.

It also "just works."

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Apple customers don't want to waste their time fixing/hacking computers. It's easier for them to buy Apple Care or to just buy another Apple product when Apple Care runs out.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Excuse me if I find your anecdotal evidence lacking credibility. I have a large number of Mac where I work and they are abused quite regularly. I haven't had these problems you speak of. I do like the USB keyboards from Dell which I use in the server room. I have plenty of spares since the keyboards seem to outlast the Dell computers themselves.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I do agree with you that the motherboards are fabricated by the same people who make the motherboards for Dell and others. However, the motherboards are made to Apple's specifications just like Dell specifies their motherboard designs. I also agree that the individual components are manufactured by third-party vendors that sell to just about everybody.

The key difference between the brands is that Apple wants quality to be associated with their branding and will make design choices and parts selections that ensure that they keep their image. They charge a premium for their equipment so they have enough margin to chose quality over economy.

Dell, on the other hand, wants to offer the most bang for the buck. They are competing against beige box assemblers and make design choices that allows them to offer a reasonably powerful machine at very low cost. Their margins are small so they do cut corners to keep the price low. For the average hobbyist and home user that uses Windows, Dell makes a nice machine. The average user will upgrade to a newer machine in about 3 years and the Dell will *probably* last long enough until a Windows game/program/operating system comes out that will require a new computer anyway.

I prefer Apple, but I do purchase and use both brands (non-Apple usually equals Dell), however lately I've been buying Supermicro instead of Dell. I have powerpc Apples that are still functioning well, and the Apple laptops (even the white plastic MacBooks) are still in use. The Dell laptops haven't faired so well. The Desktop machines are still mostly working, but most of the cheap ass parts were replaced (I believe the chassis and the motherboard are the only original equipment). The laptops however are crap. The new Dells with the smart card reader looks promising (we purchased 5) and we hope they do better than the other Dells.

Overall the Apple branded equipment are better made. I had a couple of lemons that Apple gladly swapped out and the replacements have been trouble free.

Long story - short. Your milage may vary but to say there's little difference between Dell and Apple branded computers is pretty naive.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[ducomputergeek]

Poor windows support? I'm running Windows 7 Pro (Bootcamp partition) and OSX right now via Parallels seamlessly at the moment. I do my android development on the windows side of the house as well as some work in Visual Studio. Sure, if I have to build something large I'll boot into windows, but for most of I work I can run Windows throughout he virtual machine just fine. Furthermore I can travel with just my laptop and do my work from anywhere I have an internet connection (which with my mobile hotspot is pretty much anywhere I have a cell signal).

And restrictive about getting things on a box? Okay a couple times I've had to create ACC versions of MP3's for whatever reason. Usually took less than 5 minutes for iTunes to do the conversions and whatever song I wanted was on the iDevice of my choice. Mostly though, any of the music I want to buy is already on iTunes and for $1.29 a song I get what I want. Click buy once and it automatically syncs and downloads to my iPhone, Mac Book Pro, iMac, and iPad. I've sat and watch it do it to all 4 devices at the same time.

I have no problems connecting to other macs or PC's on my home network. OSX seems to find my HP windows 7 box as well as my FreeBSD file server without any problems.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[SuricouRaven]

I've had one almost-die, but that was due to spilling tea on it. I did discover that those Apple keyboards (at least the wireless ones) are really very hard to repair. Those keycaps do not come off without a fight.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Like it or not, Apple is in the same business as Alienware. Bundling performance components and then inflating the price until it ceases to be a good value.

I sure hope so. They both sell hardware and they have a core market that they spend a lot of money trying to keep satisfied. Alienware sort of went down hill since their acquisition by Dell. It's a shame since their earlier machines were pretty nice.

Similarly, if you actually spend the same amount of money on PC components building one as you spent on a pre-assembled Apple, every aspect of the machine will be superior.

What is your point? I can and have spent money on "superior" parts and assembled a PC. Unfortunately the savings didn't materialize. Not to mention, I'm no longer in college and my time is far too valuable assembling a desktop. If I consider the amount of money that I am being paid for my time, I could have easily purchased several Mac Pros. I only need one therefore I just purchase one already assembled.

I'll take the S2000 thank you.

You can have the S2000. It screams "I have a small penis" a little too loudly for my taste. I prefer the V6 Accord Sports Coupe. It is plenty sporty for me, and it goes plenty fast to shave some time off of my long commute. The gas milage is great and I have trunk space to carry my equipment. Not to mention the reliability if renown and it holds its resale value. Also my car is still in production and has about 30 more hp.

I guess in a way you've proven my point. You seemed obsessed with outward appearance, while I look at the entire package. Sure I can save some money and purchase a computer that has a very thin veneer of being similar to an Apple, but I'll regret it when problems begin to arise (and they will). So for the moment Apple meets my demands and the fact that the machines have eye pleasing designs is just a bonus.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[FlyingGuy]

I am hardly a "fanboi". I own exactly one apple product and that is an iphone. it does exactly what I want, nothing more nothing less.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Guy Harris]

Poor Linux support

Are you serious? Have you been to a Linux conference lately? It's MacBooks as far as the eye can see, because Apple's the only vendor that doesn't have to cut corners on hardware quality.

Poor Windows support.

Seems to me that offering up Windows drivers and a free multi-booting utility is plenty for Apple to do. They're not in the business of making life better for the proles who have to settle for Windows, after all.

The person to whom you're replying was, I suspect, talking about iOS machines (e.g., "Android is more flexible and it shows by the market share." - Android's competing with iOS, not OS X), not Macs.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Guy Harris]

Poor windows support? I'm running Windows 7 Pro (Bootcamp partition) and OSX right now via Parallels seamlessly at the moment. ...

As I said elsewhere, the person to whom you're replying was, I suspect, talking about iOS machines (e.g., "Android is more flexible and it shows by the market share." - Android's competing with iOS, not OS X), not Macs.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[FlyingGuy]

You arrogant little piss ant!

There are people I know personally that I am willing to bet the contents of my 401K that are WAY smarter then you are and they could give a shit less about repairing, hacking, or twiddling with the i[whatever] because that is not their interest.

Just because you get a woody playing with hardware like it was a blow up doll, does not mean the rest of the world does.

Now go sit in your mothers basement and have a great big huge glass of shut the fuck up.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[lightknight]

And there are a fair number people I know who are way smarter than myself; I suppose you imagined I'd put myself on a pedestal, and your intent was to knock me off it.

"not their interest." -> And I believe that this is the heart of your misunderstanding. You believe, wrongly, that acquiring basic technical literacy is akin to a hobby, like gardening or trainspotting. It is not. As for Mac OS X computers acting as vectors for infecting other machines on a corporate network, there is some evidence to support that claim.

Re:You just dont get it, even after all this time.

[Skuld-Chan]

If you live in Portland Oregon please reply - I'd be more than happy to show you my proof :). I probably run the largest Mac labs in town.

Its about having apps screened not about sales

[perpenso]

Any way you slice it, this is unethical. Restricting usage of an API to developers who sell through your platform (and thus give you 30%), giving your own private cloud service filesystem level integration... Imagine if Microsoft made either of these moves.

Its about having apps screened and approved not about sales. Free apps (gratis) from the App Store can use iCloud for storage too.

Re:Its about having apps screened not about sales

[stephanruby]

Its about having apps screened and approved not about sales. Free apps (gratis) from the App Store can use iCloud for storage too.

You mean free to the consumer, not free to the developer. The last I checked, there was still an annual fee for being a developer on iOS, even if you were publishing a free app.

Re:Its about having apps screened not about sales

[BorgDrone]

The annual fee is $99, which is probably just enough to cover costs. Compared to all the other costs involved in developing an application it's negligible.

Re:Its about having apps screened not about sales

[jbolden]

$99 / year which isn't close to covering their costs. Essentially free.

Re:users are the product

[TaoPhoenix]

(At a management meeting)

"Our product is growing vocal about certain issues. We can't have product dissenting from our views. Brainwash half and lock out the other half. Now excuse me while I take a sip of this delicious Coca Cola, whose every refreshing sip makes meetings go better."

(/Bitter)

Re:results

[TaoPhoenix]

(Satire)
Of course they will.

The following companies are Too Big To Fail.
Apple
Google
Facebook
Microsoft

Sorta in that order.

All the rest of the tech world is second class until someone decisively shows that one of the emperors is wearing no clothes.

So of course the results will be quite fine for Apple. Not because of any sanity. But because I said SUDO the results will be fine for Apple.

(/Satire)

I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization

[m_gol]

I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization, at least not for the rest 5-6 years... It would be really difficult to reliably block terminal access which - by definition - bypasses all of Apple's measures like Gatekeeper etc. And for what purpose? It's not that an average Joe is going to play with the terminal anyway, it doesn't harm Apple's business IMO. At least I hope I'm right, it would be sad to have to go back to Linux just after switching to a Mac...

Re:I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization

[shutdown -p now]

It would be really difficult to reliably block terminal access

Why would it be difficult? They can do it in exact same way they did it on iOS, which, after all, is also Darwin-based.

And for what purpose? It's not that an average Joe is going to play with the terminal anyway, it doesn't harm Apple's business IMO.

For the same reason why iOS doesn't have a tucked away setting to allow you to install apps from outside the App Store (unlike, say, Android, which does).

Re:I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization

[m_gol]

It would be really difficult to reliably block terminal access

Why would it be difficult? They can do it in exact same way they did it on iOS, which, after all, is also Darwin-based.

I meant difficult not as in "difficult to implement" but difficult to fit into their whole OS ecosystem. Apple would have to shut down their server flavor, they would have to ditch terminal completely, they'd disable PHP, Apache, X11. They would have to make their OS incompatible with any programming environments as Python, Perl, revision control systems... Finder probably would have to go away (or just be re-implemented so that it can't go into unprotected territories). Their root handling would have to be reimplemented (too easy to hack), etc. It CAN be done but it I doubt they would just ditch it all just in one second (that's why I wrote about 5-6 years which gives about 2 OS X versions; still too small but I'm being cautious). But I may be biased, I have personal interest to believe what I say. ;) Linux GUIs are buggy and I wouldn't like to have to go back.

Re:I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization

[shutdown -p now]

Apple would have to shut down their server flavor, they would have to ditch terminal completely, they'd disable PHP, Apache, X11.

Well, they have already killed server as a separate product, as well as dedicated hardware for it. I hear these days Apple consultants recommend the use of racks of Mac Minis (!) to run it...

As for the rest of it, sure, they'd have to do it - but how many users would it actually affect? 0.01%?..

A better argument is that this small minority is important since they write software for OS X and iOS, and, at the very minimum, the OS has to be open enough to be used as a development platform. Which certainly makes sense, but could be easily tackled by only providing the "consumer" (i.e. locked down) version on Macs out of the box. The full "developer edition" can either be made available exclusively with high-end models (Mac Pro, MacBook Pro). Alternatively, they could simply make it so that you unlock "developer mode" on the machine if you have an active Apple developer account.

But, yeah, I'd also give it a few more years. I think you're overly pessimistic with an estimate of 5-6, judging by how they're already locking down the Mac App Store...

Linux GUIs are buggy and I wouldn't like to have to go back.

Linux UI/DEs are generally stable - perhaps not as polished as OS X or Win7, but mostly in minor things, at least so long as you avoid the well-known train wrecks (such as Unity). They certainly beat XP, and many power users and developers lived with that. The usual problem is with hardware, but that is solved in the same way Apple solves it for OS X - you have to buy dedicated hardware; though in this case the burden falls on you to make research to ensure that it is Linux compatible (or find a company that sells prebuilt systems certified as such).

Re:I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization

[m_gol]

A better argument is that this small minority is important since they write software for OS X and iOS, and, at the very minimum, the OS has to be open enough to be used as a development platform. Which certainly makes sense, but could be easily tackled by only providing the "consumer" (i.e. locked down) version on Macs out of the box. The full "developer edition" can either be made available exclusively with high-end models (Mac Pro, MacBook Pro). Alternatively, they could simply make it so that you unlock "developer mode" on the machine if you have an active Apple developer account.

As long as it's possible, I'm fine with it. (I mean, if you don't have to pay $99/year just to have it unlocked...)

Linux GUIs are buggy and I wouldn't like to have to go back.

Linux UI/DEs are generally stable - perhaps not as polished as OS X or Win7, but mostly in minor things, at least so long as you avoid the well-known train wrecks (such as Unity).

Maybe I should write "inconsistent" instead of "buggy". I've experienced all different f***-ups with GNOME 2 and now Unity (I know, I'm asking for it, but GNOME 2 wasn't awe-some, too). I could write a really long rant about all these design & implementation problems but it would be so off-topic I'm going to stop now.

As for support, sadly, I still encounter various Silverlight content on the web, Flash is being phased-out on Linux, AIR already has been - not really important for server usage, but for desktop it's being inconvenient sometimes.

Re:I don't believe in a complete iOS-ization

[jbolden]

As for the rest of it, sure, they'd have to do it - but how many users would it actually affect? 0.01%?..

I'd be at least 20% and might be closer to 90%. You are forgetting Apple is a Unix with a cool GUI. Those server products are instrumental to how the whole system works.

Bonjour = mDNS and zeroconf
printing = CUPS
xgrid sharing = zilla
web sharing = apache
calendar = webdav

This is one of the great things about OSX. It makes Unix servers safe and easy enough that entirely non technical users use these servers without even thinking about it.

____

In terms of the key issue though iOS isn't secure against a hostile audience. iPhone users don't want full access and those that do jailbreak. iOS is restrictive about interpreters to try and reduce holes. OSX apps are loaded with interpreters. iOS has applications which can jailbreak but the people who know how to jailbreak using those applications know how to jailbreak without them. Performing an anti-interpreter clean up would be impossible on OSX. OSX would need to be secure enough that someone with physical access, shell access and multiple points of attack couldn't compromise the system.

I just don't see that as likely.

Re:results

[Jane Q. Public]

"All the rest of the tech world is second class until someone decisively shows that one of the emperors is wearing no clothes."

Funny thing is: Facebook stock today closed at barely over its opening price. Why?

Sorry, but the Tech Bubble was over 10 years ago. Nobody in their right mind buys stock at 100 times price/earnings ratio, unless they expect the company to grow, very fast.

The problem is: Facebook can't grow very fast. They probably have near their peak audience right now, considering that more and more people are getting fed up with them and their corporate "me first" policies.

And for once, not many people were fooled. Actually, the starting price of 38 was way too high... I would not have bought at a quarter of that much.

So yeah, Zuckerburg was out there actually kinda naked today. He might not have been wearing no clothes, but apparently he was wearing sheer underwear.

Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

When I can encrypt files before they get sent to iCloud using my public key then I might consider giving a shit about this feature. Until then I'm happy keeping my documents and other files in our Git repository.

Big F'ing Deal...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

These alarmist act like we can't do the same thing now with Dropbox and not be tied to a particular OS.

I use my dropbox account way more than my iCloud.

Easy = Bad

[Stiletto]

Only on Slashdot would making software usage "easier and more common" be seen as a bad thing.

Re:Easy = Bad

[shutdown -p now]

The bad thing here is not the use of iCloud as such. It's that the restrictions that come with it tie you in to their ecosystem in other, carefully engineered ways. In this case, once your document is there, you have to get your apps only from Apple sources (iOS/Mac App Store) for them to have access to it.

Re:Easy = Bad

[drdaz]

you have to get your apps only from Apple sources (iOS/Mac App Store) for them to have access to it.

I'll bite.

There's nothing stopping an application from being able to save to the local disk, is there now? You can save your files and use them in other apps just as you always have.

The fact that they're allegedly restricting the use of *their service* to apps which they have approved hardly seems to me like the catastrophe people here are making it out to be.

Re:Move on geeks, app store is good for the rest

[dittbub]

Apple is no AOL.

Re:And yet Apple is popular around here..

[evil_aaronm]

I know - don't feed the trolls. But this is utter BS. "While limited" - how? On my MacBook Pro, I can run the suite of Office tools; I can compile and run common X11 apps; I can even connect serial devices and do bit-level twiddling if I want. I can open a shell and run bash or ksh scripts until the cows come home. I can edit HD video and multi-track audio. So, how am I limited by using Mac OS?

And then implying that all nerds must be SM freaks - referring to the configuration contortions that Linux users often have to go through to get just about anything to work? - is just ridiculous. Because, surely, any self-respecting nerd would rather fuck around trying to get drivers to work for some video card or printer rather than just do some actual work. Seriously? Ok, maybe things are better, now, with Linux; I wouldn't know - I stopped banging my head on the table some years ago, and bought a Mac. Now? I just focus on what I need to do rather than what configuration file I need to play with to get X11 up and running.

Maybe you just don't understand that some of us have more important things to do than mine, refine and then cast the materials needed for every metal and plastic piece of the mobo, then solder them by hand, one eye blindfolded, left handed, if you're normally right handed, to be considered a "true nerd." Maybe an abacus would make you feel more manly. Knock yourself out. I'll just put my formula into a spreadsheet, get my results to my boss, and then move on to the next assignment.

In other words: I can get down and dirty with a Mac, if I need to. Most of the time, I don't need to. I'm cool with that. You keep punching those bit codes into your Altair, though; we're all real impressed.

Re:And yet Apple is popular around here..

[walshy007]

So, how am I limited by using Mac OS?

Hardware support for one. Not even talking about computers, if you plug in a random pcie card to a mac pro what are the odds of success? on linux it tends to be a case of "has the chipset been out for more than 3-6 months"

You are also limited in the updates you receive, I have a g4 mac I'm quite fond of and it can still function using a 3.3 kernel and the latest of packages (with a lightweight DE of course). Mac os X support died for it quite some time ago.

Mac os X is very much a second class citizen in OSS world, for instance if you run JACK on os x coreaudio midi doesn't interact with the jack midi system, still worthwhile for the extra functionality it provides over coreaudio but problematic when using professional audio programs designed for JACK.

Little things like that, everywhere. Hell even it's use of semaphores/mutex's is slightly different than that of linux (one uses named the other doesn't). One of my friends runs os x and loves some of the software i use on linux, if it's close enough to functioning I'll help him port it but it really can be a pain.

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[sammyF70]

genuine question, which indirectly might answer yours : can you easily access iCloud from non-Apple devices?

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[shutdown -p now]

You can integrate any app with Google Docs - it doesn't need to be sold only on Android Marketplace.

(no idea about Office 365)

MacOS 11

[jones_supa]

What I have wanted to ask macheads for a while is, do you see any need for MacOS 11 yet?

Re:MacOS 11

[jo_ham]

How do you mean? As in, the successor to OS X?

I'm not sure what need that would be addressing?

Re:MacOS 11

[jones_supa]

It's of course possible that there is no need. Was just pondering from a neutral standpoint.

Re:MacOS 11

[jo_ham]

Well, OS X has been so named for a decade now, but the versions it's been though (10.0 > 10.7) are akin to Windows changing from 95, 98, 2k, XP, Vista, 7 etc so it wouldn't really mean much to say that the next version of Mac OS would be 11 - it would just be OS X 10.n+1

At this point the name "OS X" is just like the name "Windows". Despite having a number in the name, it doesn't necessarily mean than they'll go up to eleven just to be one louder.

Re:And yet Apple is popular around here..

[binarstu]

I should follow your advice and not "feed the trolls" (i.e., you). Oh well. Oddly, your post is considered "insightful," so I will respond.

Ok, maybe things are better, now, with Linux; I wouldn't know - I stopped banging my head on the table some years ago, and bought a Mac. Now? I just focus on what I need to do rather than what configuration file I need to play with to get X11 up and running.

So your blistering critique of Linux (and Linux users) is based on what, exactly? You admit you "wouldn't know" what using Linux is like. Yet you seem absolutely confident that you are far better off using Apple's software.

I do like the way you state this, though: "Now? I just focus on what I need to do..." That summarizes quite nicely why I use Linux most of the time instead of Windows or OSX.

Re:results

[Jane Q. Public]

Actually this is false, as many publications have shown... repeatedly, time after time.

Mac products tend to be a little -- but only a little -- more expensive that other systems given the same hardware.

Apple tends to choose, in general, premium hardware for its products.

But magazine after magazine, and group after group, who have actually measured hardware quality and performance per dollar, have for many years now saying that Macs are just a little more expensive. And of course that doesn't account for the OS itself.

The notion that Macs are expensive for what they do and people own them just due to some kind of snobbery has been disproven for a long time.

Re:results

[Jane Q. Public]

Pardon me, typo in the tags. That wasn't all supposed to be bold.

Re:Lion Down

[jasomill]

Apple developer tools must be installed from the App store, costs nothing but you still need a credit card. And command-line tools doesn't install by default, which is most of what I want.

You don't need a credit card to download free stuff from the App Store.

And Xcode need not be installed from the App Store: installers for both Xcode and the standalone command-line tools packages are on developer.apple.com/downloads (registration required).

Re:results

[jo_ham]

I can't tell if this is satire.

They are not gaining any new market share they are losing it

This is untrue. They have been increasing their marketshare in computers for the past 6 or so years consecutively, in an industry that is stagnating in growth or even shrinking in some years. In the smartphone arena their marketshare is pretty stagnant, but their real-world numbers are increasing (the size of the market is growing, but their new users are cancelling out that proportional change). They are currently trading share back and forth with all other Android handset makers combined (which mainly means Samsung, who have the lion's share of that). They're certainly not in a position where they're panicking over marketshare and needing to "milk the religiously dedicated apple addict base" because that assumes that the bulk of their products are bought by these addicts, but that brings us to...

The bulk of their products come from apple addicts who funnel a substantial portion of their digital recreational dollars through them, without making real world price comparisons.

That really depends on whether you consider someone an "addict" if they value something that you don't. Just because you think an Apple product is too expensive for what it is doesn't mean that anyone who buys one hasn't weighed up the other options. They may simply have different criteria than you.

It also depends what you mean by "bulk" - if you mean in terms of the different numbers of product lines, then possibly they are all bought by "addicts". If you mean where their money comes from, then you're wide of the mark since that is the iPhone, and it sells far more than the total number of other Mac products combined, so they can't all be being bought by "apple addicts". They've sold over 100 million iPhones, and the numbers keep going up. Far too many to be simply the same fans just buying the new one every time it comes out - they're growing their user base. A large majority of people with an iPhone are first time Apple users, purely through a numbers game (subtract the total number of Apple computers from the total number of iPhones sold). I'm sure a lot of them had iPods, but Macs? The numbers simply don't add up. Hardly a "religiously dedicated apple addict base" (although there will clearly be some of those).

bye bye computers...

[pbjones]

more reason to loose interest in hobby computing. I would guess that my next computer may end up being a Wii.

Re:bye bye computers...

[sydbarrett74]

Why not purchase a Raspberry Pi?

Re:bye bye computers...

[GameboyRMH]

You don't have to lose interest in hobby computing, just consumer electronics. I still do hobby computing, but on regular PC hardware running GNU/Linux and rare niche devices like the N900.

I'll also get into Android once it's possible to set up a rooted Android install without ever using a Google account.

Re:bye bye computers...

[Guy Harris]

You don't have to lose interest in hobby computing, just consumer electronics. I still do hobby computing, but on regular PC hardware running GNU/Linux

And I do it on Apple hardware running OS X.

Re:results

[TheLink]

Funny thing is: Facebook stock today closed at barely over its opening price. Why?

Because FB didn't get conned?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/opinion/21nocera.html

A huge opening-day pop is not a sign of a successful I.P.O., but rather a massively mispriced one. Bankers are rewarding their friends and themselves instead of doing their fiduciary duty to their clients.

Car analogy: If your IPO shoots up a lot, it's like you PAYING someone to list your car for sale at a good price, but instead they under-price it, their close friends buy it and immediately sell it for twice the price.

Re:Lion Down

[jo_ham]

My copy of Lion is using 222MB of Wired Memory as we speak (uptime 2 days), so not sure where you're getting 2GB from. Have you messed up your install?

Replaced GCC with some "in house brew" - that would be the open source Clang project, also adopted by FreeBSD.

Apple didn't just "not like" the licence for Samba, it went GPLv3 so they simply had to change to an alternate solution.

You don't need a credit card to get an AppleID (and thus use the App Store). A few seconds on google shows you that.

Command line tools don't install by default? If you are computer savvy enough to be using a shell then this is the most whiny complaint I've ever heard.

If you really can't get on with OS X then fair enough, but perhaps you should judge it based on facts? Either way, your machine will likely make a good Linux box if you decide to switch.

I'm wondering ...

[Qbertino]

I'm wondering how far they will be able to go with this until they *really* start loosing karma with IT experts, i.e.us. I'm mean really in the way that I say: "Awesome Hardware and value be damned, fully integrated *nix be damned, I'm going back to fiddling around with debian stable on some current UltraBook or sad-and-sorry mac mini rippoff because their OS has become to much of a pain and I'd rather spend 3 weeks configging my Window Manager than finding way around the lockin."

Re:Lion Down

[musikit]

that documentation is old and out of date. i routinely have to make new itunes accounts for testing and never have seen this "none" option is the past 6 months. it is either regional (as i live in japan) or they keep that documentation up just to make people think they can create an itunes account without a credit card.

in fact i just tried that. and following their documenation from itunes 10.6.1 on mac there is no "none" option. i am forced to enter a credit card in order to create an account.

Re:results

[SurfsUp]

Apple is the odd man out in that arrangement. The bulk of their products come from apple addicts who funnel a substantial portion of their digital recreational dollars through them...

Actually, it would seem the addicts are funneling their grocery money through Apple too. A crack dealer should have it so good.

Re:results

[Karlt1]

". The bulk of their products come from apple addicts who funnel a substantial portion of their digital recreational dollars through them,"

So why is it that in the US, most people who can buy an iPhone without switching carriers do so?

From their own financial reports,,,,

Verizon: 51% of all smart phones sold last quarter were iPhones
AT&T: 80% of all smart phones sold were iPhones,
Sprint: 51% of all smart phones sold were iPhones.

That must be a relatively large cult.

But why should I care if the carriers have to pay more to subsidize the iPhone? The price I pay is no more than the equivalent Android.

" without making real world price comparisons. They are not gaining any new market share they are losing it,"

Right, that must be why revenue and profit is not doubling year over year. Ask HP how much good "market share" is when it comes to selling PCs......

Re:results

[Jane Q. Public]

"Car analogy: If your IPO shoots up a lot, it's like you PAYING someone to list your car for sale at a good price, but instead they under-price it, their close friends buy it and immediately sell it for twice the price."

Sure. But when your IPO shoots up NOT AT ALL, it is a sign of an overpriced IPO.

Re:results

[TheRaven64]

The issue is the 'given the same hardware' part. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro, and I actually consider it to be quite good value, but I've tried looking for Macs for people with different requirements to me and it's often difficult because there are big gaps in Apple's lineup. They can get a machine that requires a load of after-market additions to do what they need (and therefore becomes expensive) or they can buy something that is overpowered for their needs (and therefore expensive), or they can buy something from another manufacturer that actually meets their requirements and costs significantly less than buying form Apple.

Re:results

[TheLink]

If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price).

But if you managed to sell your car at a high price and buyers were not tricked or forced into buying it, I doubt you should feel unhappy or guilty. So were the buyers tricked? I don't think most were, they were speculators taking a bet. Maybe you should feel some shame if the price dropped to half or similar... But other than that, enjoy the profits from your sale...

Vaguely related spoof of the day: http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/05/17/a-letter-from-mark-zuckerberg/

What will kill 'the cloud'

[nurb432]

Is the bandwidth overage charges.. As caps lower and overage charges increase, you can forget the 'cloud', be it good or bad it wont matter as no one will be able to afford it and we will *need* to go back to hard CD distributions and local storage.

Re:What will kill 'the cloud'

[GameboyRMH]

Worse than caps, low bandwidth and poor reliability of cellular data is enough to make "the cloud" as far-off a concept as FTL travel. I wish it could work, but it can't.

Re:results

[Jane Q. Public]

"If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price)."

No, that is the way it should work, not the way it has actually worked in recent years.

Facebook was selling for right around 100 p/e. That's an outrageous price, very reminiscent of the "tech bubble". It means that unless Facebook grows pretty quickly, it would take 100 years to earn as much as it was bought for.

And that means that unless it does grow quickly, it's a bad investment. The problem with that scenario is that Facebook is near saturation for what it is; it cannot grow quickly. That ship has already sailed.

The Village

[Dusty101]

Be seeing you!

They have history on their side

[HangingChad]

Because the walled garden worked so well for AOL.

Bad Idea gone worse

[pubwvj]

iCloud is a bad idea. It is insecure, open to hackers, the police and subject to warrantless searches.

Lion was a bad idea because it dropped support for a tremendous amount of software. It got in the way of my being able to do my work. I downgraded back to an OSX level where I can use the tools I need. Mountain Lion is worse. If Apple's going to take away the ability for us to do our work we'll not buy their hardware. I have Apple 17 machines I manage. No New Macs here.

Apple needs to go back to being an open platform where people can produce programs, tools, and access their data. Apple needs to start supporting Classic and PPC code again.

Apple loses.

Re:Bad Idea gone worse

[jbolden]

Apple needs to start supporting Classic and PPC code again.

When did Apple ever tell you they intend to support legacy indefinitely? You might like Z-OS by IBM which does this sort of decades long support arrangements.

Re:Bad Idea gone worse

[pubwvj]

Actually, Steve Jobs once did say that once the features were there they needed to be supported.

Re:Bad Idea gone worse

[jbolden]

That was in the context of introducing new APIs. That was not in the context of dropping support.

Slashdot submitters exaggerate; News at 11

[catmistake]

OS X apps can use the iCloud Documents APIs only if they are sold through the Mac App Store.

I don't use iCloud. I use DropBox. But the complaint is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as calling it racism that an Italian Restaurant owner, of Italian decent, prefers to display photographs of Italian actors and sports heros in their restaurant, and not YOUR heros, regardless of your decent, even if you eat there [citation: Spike Lee].

Apple can do what it wants with its resources. This is not garden walling Apple's users in the least. Mac users will still be free to use any other of the many identical services that came before iCloud, and any that came after. You want total freedom? Use a nice linux distro, put your own server in a data center (easier and cheaper than you think), and make your own cloud. Or ... you know... copy the document off iCloud to a local drive, then copy it back up after you're finished with it using your app that you pirated. Or if you are truly 1337, use a chron job to sync your local documents to iCloud, and only work on local documents, secure in the knowledge that any changes you make locally will soon propagate to iCloud (what? rsync isn't available on the Mac AppStore?).

I'm sick of the malicious exaggerated scrutinizing editorial coming from slashdot submitters. It didn't used to be this way, and it doesn't need to be this way. We're supposed to have news for nerds here... not shill editorial from anti-Apple evangelists. Or maybe its just stupid people causing me to lose patience.

How about Google's garden walling? I use an iOS device... and Google, and many other website hosters, refuse to let me immediately and always load the full version of google.com everytime (unless I log in, set preferences, and allow Google to track my online search habits.) This is far more annoying than anything Apple is doing. It's truly browser bigotry. If a site detects a mobile device browser, more often than not, it won't give you a choice of which style of page you are allowed to load. (And lets all give thanks to web developers that ask the end user the first time they load the site, and allow this preference to be maintained through info kept in a local cookie).

This just in: the manufacturer of the gasoline car you drive requires you fill the tank with gasoline, and refuses to sell you a car that runs on both gas and diesel. I can't believe these car manufacturers... completely wrecking our freedom!

They aren't stopping you from using Dropbox.

[Brannon]

argument over.

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[moss45]

Yes you can, just go to icloud.com and log in.

Re:And yet Apple is popular around here..

[walshy007]

Alsa is where the drivers are, having separation of drivers from audio server makes sense, and alsa -> jack can achieve far lower workable latencies than coreaudio by itself can (which itself would have driver and audio server separation internally, too).

Linux is as bloated or as thin as you want it to be, just because the average person seems to want a bunch of whiz bang features doesn't mean you have to have them.

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[sammyF70]

just tried it, out of curiosity.

This is what I got :
"To use iCloud, first set it up with your Apple ID on a device with iOS5 or a Mac with OS X Lion 10.7.2. Not sure which Apple ID to use? Learn More"

So the answer ist actually "No. You can't"

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[moss45]

So the answer ist actually "No. You can't"

Well your question was, can you access icloud, not setup an account. There's no reason to want an icloud account if you don't have an iOS device or a Mac, which is probably why you can't setup an account online.

Security

[ninetyninebottles]

I can't believe no one has mentioned that this is a move for security. Yup, if you want to go through Apple's cloud service to connect your mobile and desktop app, both apps have to be vetted by Apple and both have to be sandboxed. Apple's mechanism for vetting on iOS is the App store submission process. Apple's mechanism for vetting on OS X and the requirement for sandboxing is the Mac App store.

I'm not a big fan of Apple's model and I wish someone would build a store/repository that worked for both OSS and closed source software and had multiple, configurable inputs to the vetting process, configurable by a user, but even in that case it would be perfectly reasonable for any online service provider to require specific vetting before gaining access to the service.

Apple makes basically very little if anything selling apps in either store. It's about promoting their bread and butter hardware sales business and it's been working great. Occam's razor people... you don't need to invent a conspiracy to understand Apple's business strategy here or predict their next moves. I just wish some people creating competing solutions could look past the "Apple bad" mantra to see in what ways they are winning here and adapt open and inclusive services to offer the same level of security and user convenience.

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[exomondo]

There's no reason to want an icloud account if you don't have an iOS device or a Mac, which is probably why you can't setup an account online.

Of course there is, syncing outlook mail and contacts, safari bookmarks, using itunes match and i'm pretty sure you can use photostream too.

Re:results

[exomondo]

If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price).

Much more likely than 'picking the right price' it means the underwriters support the price by purchasing shares themselves...and the underwriters for Facebook's IPO certainly do seem to have a lot of shares.

Difficult To Talk About This Rationally...

[StoneyMahoney]

I have no idea why everyone is getting so worked up about an entirely optional first-party feature that needs first-party approval and a cut of the sales back to the first-party to pay for it. And why do people who don't use Macs talk about this walled garden thing like it's already happened on the desktop? Newsflash - it hasn't!

Mac Tech Perspective

[StoneyMahoney]

What lock-in?

Re:results

[jbolden]

They are not gaining any new market share they are losing it

Huh? Where are you getting this?

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[moss45]

What are you syncing the contacts to? All of the things you named are for syncing your data between a mac or pc and an ios device.

There is zero reason for wanting to use icloud if you don't own an iOS device or a mac. There are so many other services for windows that do a much better job at a cheaper price. If someone likes apples ecosystem enough to stomach itunes or safari on windows then they already own an iOS device or a mac.

Re:Er.. I'm not sure how this is terribly differen

[exomondo]

What are you syncing the contacts to?

iCloud. Just like you sync your music collection to iCloud with iTunes match. It's a backup/restore mechanism.

There is zero reason for wanting to use icloud if you don't own an iOS device or a mac. There are so many other services for windows that do a much better job at a cheaper price.

Nothing else offers a service like iTunes match so already if you want that you have to go iCloud so unless there is some reason to have your contacts on a different service then you might as well use it for that too. Likewise the Safari bookmark syncing is just like the Google Chrome bookmark syncing, so if you use Safari then iCloud is obviously the way to go.