Silverlight already had Mac/Win parity, and most of the code sits on top of a platform abstraction layer. So it's already proven to have full functionality outside of Windows.
The fundamental problem with this sort of technical argument for Silverlight is it ignores the long term strategy behind Silverlight.
The story of Microsoft and IE is a good example of why people distrust your company so much. A technically interesting browser, which foreshadowed a lot of the developments on the web now, was deliberately left to stagnate for years after Microsoft imposed it as the dominant browser. It was only picked up again after fierce competition from other companies forced Microsoft to resume work on it, and frankly the work on IE7/8 has hardly been inspiring - it's still way behind the other browsers. HTML 5 support doesn't look like it's coming to IE8 - I wonder why not?
Perhaps you'd like to hazard a guess as to the purpose of leaving IE stagnant for several years? From where I'm standing it looks like an attempt to strangle the web, simply because it threatened the dominance of Microsoft on the desktop.
Now, in lieu of developing the web further, Microsoft has chosen to tie things ever closer to their Windows development strategy. Contrast that to the attitude of companies like Palm, Google and Apple to web technology - there is a huge difference.
I'm sure *in theory* Silverlight could have exactly the same functionality on Windows, Mac and Linux, but until I see it actually happen, it's really of no interest. I wouldn't even install it as an end user, because I just don't need it, and it won't work everywhere (my phone for example). With HTML 5 this sort of binary plugin becomes less and less relevant every day.
If I trusted Microsoft, the technical merits of Silverlight might be of some interest to me (it looks interesting technically). However trust is earned, and frankly, Microsoft is nowhere near earning that trust at the moment.
It has been around for a while and I'm sure it'll eventually get to 3.0 compatibility rather quickly
And I'm sure it'll remain consistently at least one version behind the Windows one, and still missing features, just as Microsoft would prefer. Moonlight has not even reached parity with Silverlight 2.0 as a final release, let alone 3.0.
Interesting that they focus on Flash/Flex as the competitor, when really the more important rival for developers' attentions is HTML 5, and the various APIs built on top of the open web (Google Gears etc).
If you're developing a web app, why develop using tech which will only ever work properly on Windows? I guess for a shop which thinks they'll never stop using Microsoft software for everything, it might seem like a good idea.
Presumably Microsoft want to get you all worked up about the absurdity of the EU demanding that they unbundle their browser in consumer editions of Windows.
I doubt the EU is demanding this specifically, and if they are, they've got it wrong.
Meanwhile, the real battle over which browsers OEMs are allowed to install by Microsoft (enforced by secret OEM contracts) will be forgotten.
Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?
Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.
No, it's because Apple has not abused a monopoly to try to enter other markets. When they start to do that (for example in the iTunes space), you can expect the EU start to go after them. Now I'm sure the EU process can be corrupted, and they're far from perfect, but in this case I don't think they have an illegitimate target.
So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to apply leverage to your partners and customers is. Sometimes the radical solution to a monopoly has been to break up the monopolist, however I think fines and sanctions for abusive behaviour are a better remedy, as they set limits on the kind of thing companies think they'll get away with.
In this case, it seems Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they like, and have decided to thumb their nose at the EU by claiming they'll just unbundle IE from retail versions too (I imagine the focus of the investigation is OEM versions). If instead they decided to stop trying to abuse their monopoly position and just produce better software, this problem (and many others) would go away, but I don't think that's in their corporate DNA.
I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right?
Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.
Apple wisely (for now) sticks to producing their own hardware to get round this problem, otherwise I'm sure you'd see Ballmer saying I'm going to fucking kill Apple and putting extreme pressure on the likes of DELL to never bundle Apple products. That would be illegal, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.
OEM versions of Windows are the real battle-ground here - people do not choose their OS, they choose a computer, and MS has cleverly shut off almost all alternatives to them in that space. Having done that, they bundle IE so that they can control competitors like Google by controlling access to the web - classic abuse of monopoly status to attack competitors.
So the problem is not having a monopoly, the problem is abusing it to try to attack competitors - because of Microsoft's track record in that area, and huge existing power, they are not given the benefit of the doubt when bundled software could extend their monopoly in other fields. Forcing them to level the playing field on browsers is a good first step to stop them trying to control the web and tie it to Windows.
Because prudes had trouble distinguishing in the past between an Actress and a Prostitute? Because casting directors used to be sexist? Should we use the male term for all female professions, or is this one special?
I think it's time everyone got with the times and dropped all this 'Actor' bullshit for female actresses. It's absurd and carries baggage from the past that we simply shouldn't care about.
The real sexism is assuming that we can't use a word because if the listener is a misogynistic sexist they might think the actress is actually a lady of ill repute.
Should parents not have the choice as to whether to allow their kids to be exposed to bad language, or are you advocating removing that responsibility from the parents?
Parents may believe they have that choice, and in certain domains (e.g. the dinner table) they do. However children are great at finding stuff they aren't allowed to access, and the internet is full of things they shouldn't see, but they will, whether you want them to or not.
As with their exposure to the rest of the outside world, the best thing you can do is to guide them, and indicate what is acceptable, and what is not. Personally I wouldn't let my kids just go and purchase apps on the store themselves till they were old enough to be responsible about it, but that's just me. By the time you allow them to purchase apps with your credit card I think you really have to let go of controlling their decisions.
Quite apart from the futility of parental controls, Apple don't even have parental controls in place for apps - if they did, this sort of thing would not be an issue, as they'd allow some parents to attempt to control what their children can see, and everyone else would ignore them. As it is, they're trying to ban apps for allowing access to the internet or literature. This isn't hard-core porn or something, it's simply swear-words.
By those standards, this page would be adult-only, most sites which young people frequent would be adult-only, in fact most of the internet would be adult-only.
The approvals process is a joke, which in turn makes Apple look like a joke. Really this sort of nonsense should at least wait till they have some 'Adult' rating systems in place, and then they can mark most of the internet as indecent, or adult, or evil, or whatever they want to call them, and any app that access the internet as the same.
Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE. But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead?
No, they're very much alive. Why do you think Microsoft is now pushing Silverlight and the tie-ins with.Net that brings? The web, in particular HTML 5, is a serious threat to the dominance of Windows, and thus Office.
If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?
Of course not. However if you think that MS is unfairly abusing a monopoly in the OS world to impose restrictions on bundled software, this is a very good way to end that.
Perhaps it meets a definition of censorship, but it's not the kind I consider as important.
Heh. Well, if you think censorship can only take place in government offices, then this is not censorship. In our brave new world where corporations have more influence on us than governments, that means censorship will not henceforth be a problem, and perhaps if enough companies do the right thing then one day works like the Kama Sutra will simply unexist.
Personally, I would call filtering and suppression of content by governments, record labels, publishers, Apple, or any other organisation censorship. However if you want to call it something else, I don't think that would fundamentally alter anyone's position on the matter, would it?
Why do you think that certain decision are arbitrary?
Because they are contradicted by the actions of Apple in other areas - in this case one reviewer is actively searching for bad words, or bad concepts (whatever their criteria are for that), and not allowing apps which allow access to them. Dictionaries have also been rejected.
Other reviewers allow apps which access exactly the same content. That's arbitrary, wouldn't you agree?
I think much of the restrictions and limitations of the iPhone and the App store are simply because Apple doesn't want to rush things (something I agree with), and limiting functionality and imposing restrictions is a good way to control the situation until everything is sorted out.
I'm afraid your perception of Apple's competence, and more specifically the competence of their app store reviewers, does not jive with reality. This is not an example of a patient and slow process trying to weed out problems, it's just an example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
The app has just been allowed on the store with no censorship required - I suspect because of the storm of bad publicity this engendered for Apple, and the obvious hypocrisy of trying to ban things for adult content when you have adult content on the store already, and access to the internet built-in. A parental control system is a farce anyway, for all kinds of reasons, but I guess given the puritanical strands in US culture it's a necessity. I'll be interested to see how they handle Safari with such a system. A blanket ban? A whitelist?
Just like there was no App store at all to begin with. Just like the first iPhone was missing many features that are there now. Just like the NDA issues
Some of those examples you listed Apple probably would have come to anyway (say Exchange support), some, like the NDA and SDK itself, they probably never would have fixed without critical comments from outsiders and developers. So I think constructive criticism of Apple is quite justifiable, especially when their actions are not reasonable (as in this case).
You appear to be defending Apple with the argument of 'well, I trust them', which is not a good position to take with a corporation, because corporations don't have morals and are composed of individuals with all kinds of levels of trustworthiness. The only things that keep them in check are the demands of customers and government regulation.
I'm appalled that you actually care that Apple made an arbitrary decision that you don't agree with. Oh wait. I'm not. I just think you're an idiot.
Whatever. I care because I use and develop applications for their platform. If they start making a lot more decisions like that, it'll make my life uncomfortable to the point where I'll look for alternatives. They have made lots of arbitrary decisions like this which are beyond stupid lately, and if they continue, that makes my life difficult as a user and as a developer. Seems pretty obvious to me why I would care.
If this is the future of the Apple platform, I don't like it. It's not a single arbitrary decision, it's a symptom of an arrogant refusal to adjust a system that is plainly broken. Quite apart from that censorship of this kind is not something I find acceptable. But maybe you don't mind some corporation deciding what content you can access, and what you cannot?
All the app developer needs to do is resubmit. That's the appeals process. Any real developer for the iPhone already knows this.
He already did, as you'd know if you had RTFA, and got the same idiotic responses back. There is no fucking appeals process - every *real* developer for the iPhone already knows this. You send emails to a black hole and occasionally get a response back, or resubmit several times, waiting from days to weeks each time in between, in the hope you find a more reasonable reviewer. Oftentimes people just give in and make changes, whether they agree with them or not, and sometimes they even have no idea exactly what the problem is because the responses are so inscrutable. Take a look on the developer forums under 'Distribution' if you actually have access and don't believe me.
Why would anyone boycott something that is obviously going to be fixed in the next version? This is hardly "shady" or censorship. What Apple are doing is annoying, but lets not blow it out of proportion like people here have done in the past regarding iPhone issues.
I'm appalled you'd stand up and defend this. Go read the original article and see if you still agree with Apple's actions.
It's hypocritical - Apple's Safari can display the exact same file
It's also hypocritical in that other apps with the same content (Stanza, Kindle, etc etc) are allowed through no problem
It's arbitrary - there is no comeback in this process, no appeal, and not even a proper justification
It's censorship - Apple decide which apps can show which content according to some widely variable standard which doesn't apply to everyone
There's no intimation from Apple that this will be fixed, you're reading that into it from other apologists on the net saying 'oh well it's parental controls'. What sort of reason is that when the internet is already on the phone?
There is no proper appeal process, all you get is the same idiot who rejected the app in the first place parroting the same sections of legalese in their over-the-top development contract.
Lastly, it's bullshit, and it makes me rethink any association with Apple, and wonder whether I really want to use their products at all.
Apple really needs to sort out their app approval process, and people need to stop apologising for their obvious hypocrisy and censorship. Parental controls are a nonsense when you give access to the open internet, and censorship doesn't work anyway. Are they planning on censoring the internet now as well, in the hope of avoiding little Johnny finding something bad on his phone? What a lame defence for a hypocritical and arbitrary rejection from Apple.
Apple should strike this clause from their contract and stop trying to censor works of literature and art which are already available on the phone. The same argument could be used to block any app which accesses the internet, or uses a webview from the phone, as they can all potentially show objectionable content.
The worst part of all this is that Apple doesn't feel the need to respond to complaints, and the only way they will is if enough people pick up on this and start mentioning it to Apple at every opportunity as a seriously dumb move.
The business has a pretty tight control over what platforms are being used, they don't need to cater to any platform they haven't put in place.
They don't however have tight control over those platforms. When you tie yourself to one platform, you're beholden to the vendor of that platform and switching to use products from another vendor becomes extraordinarily expensive, if not unthinkable. Avoiding that is the principal advantage of web-apps. If you choose to ignore that, you're ignoring something fundamental about web apps.
I'm not sure they're so far ahead of binary apps in distribution now anyway, when you control all the desktops you can distribute binary apps pretty easily too.
But, because of this standardization, the internal development staff only needs to target one defined platform, they aren't really worried about cross-platform support.
This works really well as a way to cut costs *for the IT department* in the short term. As to whether it cuts costs for the company as a whole (there's the lost productivity involved in enforcing a standard install that you alluded to, and the lack of choice of tools), is another matter, and I'm sure varies with the company/tech involved. Obviously some degree of standardisation is required when managing large numbers of computers, so I'd happily concede that point.
But there is a bigger issue related to this strategy in the long term. In the long term, targeting one platform exclusively leads to the production of tools which are tied tighter and tighter to that platform. So it means you can never switch to a competitor; you can't even consider switching to a competitor unless you're willing to ditch all the internal software that you've built up which will only work on version X of system X. It becomes simply impossible for your business to even think about switching. You might even find that moving to a new version of an operating system has significant costs which you had not anticipated (an XP to Vista migration for example, or IE 6 to IE 8). These are not the normal costs of doing business, they are the costs of doing business if you choose to lock yourself too tightly to one platform.
There is a reason that Microsoft pushed things like Active-X,.NET and IE for web apps, Sun pushes Java everywhere, Apple encourages web pages made for iPhones, etc. It is to tie developers/companies in to using just their products, and it is in the long-term interests of the tool provider, not the company using the tools to work with.
Using web apps for internal software is a good way out of this conundrum, so long as you do not target a specific platform with them. Otherwise, you may as well be writing binary software tied to a specific version of one OS - the end result is the same - lock-in. I understand completely why, in the real world, these decisions are made, but if you look at the situation rationally they are not good investments of time/money over the long-term, and they undermine the very reasons for writing software as a web application in the first place.
Then you are very lucky, and likely don't work for a ginormous company whose only way to not make things in ActiveX is to make them in Java.
: ) Reason no 12939 not to work at a gigantic corporation. Having experienced working in large companies, I sympathise.
The funniest thing about large companies using web-apps for internal software is that most of them produce web-apps which depend on technology which is not truly cross-platform (Active-X, using a certain JVM, depending on a certain browser, etc), thus removing most of the business benefit of using a web application in the first place.
I've had Java disabled for years, and have only ever had to enable it for broadband speed test applets. Aside from that, and some upload plugins (though that's mostly flash or AJAX nowadays) client-side java just isn't used much on the web anymore.
Providing feedback to the "user" is just a waste of time because everything is going to "just work" for them, and they would be too stupid to understand what is going on anyway. There's no attempt to actually engage the user in the process they are trying to achieve with the machine. Speaking of wifi, Vista does this too now I see.
Hmm, well I'm finding your examples a little vague, and you're jumping from system to system in your crticicism, which doesn't help. It's all very well to rail against UI designers for making things complex, but you're not suggesting specific improvements here, you're talking in generalities about areas which can be tricky - maybe there is no simple solution? You haven't explained what was the problem with ripping CDs or connecting to wifi on OS X, which is where you started.
Unlike the Vista example you mentioned, OS X gives you an explicit choice between encryption types when you connect to a network, unless you couldn't see it in the list? What didn't you like about their UI there?
I suspect the problem you have here is the spec for wifi connections is poorly defined, routers differ markedly in their behaviour, and operating systems in their handling of that quirky behaviour, and you happen to have a shitty router that demands a long hex key be typed in to connect. I did have a router which did that once, but got rid of it because it was so annoying. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the OS for that - most modern routers will let you assign a text key instead. Anyway, it sounds like you found workarounds for the problem but just found it frustrating as it felt like you were working round the OS rather than with it?
I disagree that MS is like Apple in this regard, as I find their philosophies differ markedly - Microsoft will typically give you too much esoteric information, or too many choices, which isn't particularly useful either. For example recently I had a problem with a webdav copy on Vista and it gave me a series of hex error codes, which I'm sure means something to someone somewhere at MS, but means absolutely nothing to me. That didn't help any more than too little feedback.
Indeed. The assumption is that diagnosing a problem is something only some sort of "technician" would want to do.
The problem with is that most users don't have the background or the patience to solve many technical problems - the problems are hard, and hand-waving solutions will not make them go away all the time. So the OS tries its best to paper over the cracks and work most of the time, and sometimes undoubtedly they get it wrong. At some point you're going to have to get your hands dirty if you want to solve some problems, that's just the way it is. So if you have a network problem you'll have to try to check the status with utilities and console - I see nothing wrong with that approach - they even have a sort of wizard thing they launch now to help if you can't get a connection.
I do think operating systems have moved on dramatically in ease of use over the last 10 years or so, though admittedly they do have a long way still to go. We do tend to forget that things we take for granted now (seamless switching between wireless and wired connections, remembering networks and reconnecting, handling timeouts etc) just didn't used to work that well, and take a lot of work behind the scenes to do.
I don't find streetview colossally arrogant, or repugnant, I find it useful. It's useful when going on holiday, when looking at houses, when planning a weekend trip, when looking at hotels or places I might like to visit.
For nimby gray-beards like yourself, they have included a feature to remove images, so you can remove your house if you like. Personally, I'm willing to live with the sacrifice of a little perceived obscurity for the huge advances in utility it brings. So please don't assume that your views are held universally.
So, did you see the Import CD button? Did it not appear for you? Did you look in the help menu, which walks you through this feature? Did you look in preferences, which lets you set the import behaviour? Did you look in console? Was there a problem with the CD, or with iTunes?
The assumption is that you couldn't possibly diagnose what the issue is,
No, *your* assumption is that you can't possibly diagnose what the issue is on OS X.
The assumption made by the system's designers is that if you wish to diagnose the issue, you'll have to be willing to do things like look in the Help menu, learn to use console (an app specifically designed to give you all the diagnostic information you could ever want from the computer's logs), and use the provided Utilities to diagnose the issue, etc.
There is certainly no shortage of tools on OS X for diagnosing problems (for your wifi issues, it comes bundled with a suite of networking diagnostics, plus the GUI 'Network Utility' in Utilities if you don't like the command line), but apparently because you don't know about them, they don't exist!
If large banks were allowed to fail, the economy would go into melt-down, many other companies would fail as their debts to those banks were called in to pay creditors. The government would be left providing huge payouts for guaranteed deposits, propping up huge firms which would otherwise go to the wall (as they do already in many industries in the US, aerospace, farming, steel, etc), and generally funding a lot more than they do now, indefinitely.
Supporting large banks for a short time is actually the cheaper option, though I do think it should be coupled with far more draconian oversight in future and a proper separation of speculation from savings. Problems which the current administration has completely avoided addressing.
Taming the human appetite for risk by regulating it is essential for avoiding conflicts like this, not punishing foolishness after the fact with bankruptcy. After all, moral hazard was not the cause of the current crisis, widespread greed and credulity was.
When you look past the mirage of the perfect free market to what we actually have, you see that protectionism, corruption and cartels are rife, and would be far, far worse with less regulation and government intervention.
The benefit is that instead of a pile of text books, all you need to carry around with you is one thin slate. Break it or lose it entirely (not uncommon on college campuses) and it can be replaced with all of your downloaded content.
That's a great benefit indeed, and we're almost at the point where using paper books is a losing proposition - more and more new students will opt for digital alternatives in the coming years. Search is one of the biggest advantages, compared to a paper book with a limited index it's amazing how that alone would transform studies. Plus the other advantages you mentioned of a lightweight, universal reader. This is definitely the future of books.
However this bright future is also a tempting lure towards many possible dystopias; I'd rather not be beholden to a company like Amazon for my content, and buy it locked up in DRM that probably won't work in 10 years. Amazon have already shown themselves to be anti-competitive in the print-on-demand sphere by trying to force everyone to use BookSurge (owned by Amazon), and in the book reading sphere by buying out competitors on the iPhone. They seem intent on locking up this space so that they are the sole conduit for books. Even if they hadn't taken those actions, it's a risk to trust all your content to one company, and an even bigger risk to purchase books in some DRM'd format with obsolescence built-in.
It's insane that digital books have to go through the same parade of stupidity inflicted on digital music before they reach the conclusion that DRM just won't work, and that one company should not have a stranglehold on their customers for life. Perhaps you're comfortable with that, but I don't want content I buy to be effectively rented from an online company. While it's possible to read un-DRM'd content on a kindle, that's not the focus of the device, and they make it harder than it should be. Their obvious focus is on pushing DRM'd books that will only ever work on Amazon devices with an Amazon account and an Amazon subscription. Buy in to this, and you are in danger of being zuned.
Personally I'm waiting for tablets to catch up with their e-ink equivalents and provide a touch screen with appropriate reading software (perhaps Apple will do something in this space). I find the disadvantages of eink outweigh the advantages by a significant margin, plus the software Amazon produces is mediocre, and their industrial design is appalling.
If you code to standards, your only real issue will be IE.
If you don't, well, it's never too late to start.
Adding another Webkit based browser to the mix does not cause much extra pain. You also forgot to include mobile browsers in your list - the beauty of the web is that you don't have to know all the capabilities of the clients which will look at your content ahead of time, and yet your site can still be read by them. Yes it's nice to have things render the same on every browser, but it's not essential, and if that's really your goal, you should give up now, or use Flash or something.
The reason for this browser to exist is to unseat IE as the default way to run google web apps, and prevent Microsoft screwing google (and ruining the web as collatoral damage), as they have done so many times to rivals in the past. With Google threatening Microsoft on multiple fronts, it just doesn't make sense that they rely on MS as their main conduit for users, particularly given the modus operandi of Steve I'm-going-to-fucking-kill-Google Ballmer.
The (old) hope is presumably to reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers, which run Google software without getting in the way too much, for Google or the user.
That's also why you won't see them rush to put Chrome on Linux or OS X - there is no corresponding threat on those platforms, and healthy browsers exist there.
The USA is a vast land with lots of empty space where as England has around 80 million people shoved into a tiny space,
England does not have 80 million people, the UK (this involves more than England) has around 60 million people, and they don't all live in dark satanic mills anymore. Really it's not so much more populated than some US states, particularly if you're looking at the cities - these are roughly comparable between countries for population density.
Given that HTML is already used by all newspapers to present their information, and is suitable for display on most ereaders, it's the obvious choice. If a reader doesn't support HTML properly, it will soon, or no one would buy it. There are even subscription methods based on it (RSS) - all the tech is already in place. It really isn't a technical problem - the problem is that they want a system for charging small amounts to lots of users so that they can remain in business.
That doesn't depend on hardware, it depends on software, and what the newspapers would be doing if they were smart is setting up a system like iTunes for subscribing to papers. I imagine Apple or some software company will beat them to it. Perhaps they'll all just have to transition to an advertising model on the internet and hope that can sustain them.
Slashdot Mirror
Silverlight already had Mac/Win parity, and most of the code sits on top of a platform abstraction layer. So it's already proven to have full functionality outside of Windows.
The fundamental problem with this sort of technical argument for Silverlight is it ignores the long term strategy behind Silverlight.
The story of Microsoft and IE is a good example of why people distrust your company so much. A technically interesting browser, which foreshadowed a lot of the developments on the web now, was deliberately left to stagnate for years after Microsoft imposed it as the dominant browser. It was only picked up again after fierce competition from other companies forced Microsoft to resume work on it, and frankly the work on IE7/8 has hardly been inspiring - it's still way behind the other browsers. HTML 5 support doesn't look like it's coming to IE8 - I wonder why not?
Perhaps you'd like to hazard a guess as to the purpose of leaving IE stagnant for several years? From where I'm standing it looks like an attempt to strangle the web, simply because it threatened the dominance of Microsoft on the desktop.
Now, in lieu of developing the web further, Microsoft has chosen to tie things ever closer to their Windows development strategy. Contrast that to the attitude of companies like Palm, Google and Apple to web technology - there is a huge difference.
I'm sure *in theory* Silverlight could have exactly the same functionality on Windows, Mac and Linux, but until I see it actually happen, it's really of no interest. I wouldn't even install it as an end user, because I just don't need it, and it won't work everywhere (my phone for example). With HTML 5 this sort of binary plugin becomes less and less relevant every day.
If I trusted Microsoft, the technical merits of Silverlight might be of some interest to me (it looks interesting technically). However trust is earned, and frankly, Microsoft is nowhere near earning that trust at the moment.
It has been around for a while and I'm sure it'll eventually get to 3.0 compatibility rather quickly
And I'm sure it'll remain consistently at least one version behind the Windows one, and still missing features, just as Microsoft would prefer. Moonlight has not even reached parity with Silverlight 2.0 as a final release, let alone 3.0.
Interesting that they focus on Flash/Flex as the competitor, when really the more important rival for developers' attentions is HTML 5, and the various APIs built on top of the open web (Google Gears etc).
If you're developing a web app, why develop using tech which will only ever work properly on Windows? I guess for a shop which thinks they'll never stop using Microsoft software for everything, it might seem like a good idea.
Presumably Microsoft want to get you all worked up about the absurdity of the EU demanding that they unbundle their browser in consumer editions of Windows.
I doubt the EU is demanding this specifically, and if they are, they've got it wrong.
Meanwhile, the real battle over which browsers OEMs are allowed to install by Microsoft (enforced by secret OEM contracts) will be forgotten.
Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?
Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.
No, it's because Apple has not abused a monopoly to try to enter other markets. When they start to do that (for example in the iTunes space), you can expect the EU start to go after them. Now I'm sure the EU process can be corrupted, and they're far from perfect, but in this case I don't think they have an illegitimate target.
So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to apply leverage to your partners and customers is. Sometimes the radical solution to a monopoly has been to break up the monopolist, however I think fines and sanctions for abusive behaviour are a better remedy, as they set limits on the kind of thing companies think they'll get away with.
In this case, it seems Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they like, and have decided to thumb their nose at the EU by claiming they'll just unbundle IE from retail versions too (I imagine the focus of the investigation is OEM versions). If instead they decided to stop trying to abuse their monopoly position and just produce better software, this problem (and many others) would go away, but I don't think that's in their corporate DNA.
I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right?
Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.
Apple wisely (for now) sticks to producing their own hardware to get round this problem, otherwise I'm sure you'd see Ballmer saying I'm going to fucking kill Apple and putting extreme pressure on the likes of DELL to never bundle Apple products. That would be illegal, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.
OEM versions of Windows are the real battle-ground here - people do not choose their OS, they choose a computer, and MS has cleverly shut off almost all alternatives to them in that space. Having done that, they bundle IE so that they can control competitors like Google by controlling access to the web - classic abuse of monopoly status to attack competitors.
So the problem is not having a monopoly, the problem is abusing it to try to attack competitors - because of Microsoft's track record in that area, and huge existing power, they are not given the benefit of the doubt when bundled software could extend their monopoly in other fields. Forcing them to level the playing field on browsers is a good first step to stop them trying to control the web and tie it to Windows.
Please explain to me why this is sexist?
Because prudes had trouble distinguishing in the past between an Actress and a Prostitute? Because casting directors used to be sexist? Should we use the male term for all female professions, or is this one special?
I think it's time everyone got with the times and dropped all this 'Actor' bullshit for female actresses. It's absurd and carries baggage from the past that we simply shouldn't care about.
The real sexism is assuming that we can't use a word because if the listener is a misogynistic sexist they might think the actress is actually a lady of ill repute.
Should parents not have the choice as to whether to allow their kids to be exposed to bad language, or are you advocating removing that responsibility from the parents?
Parents may believe they have that choice, and in certain domains (e.g. the dinner table) they do. However children are great at finding stuff they aren't allowed to access, and the internet is full of things they shouldn't see, but they will, whether you want them to or not.
As with their exposure to the rest of the outside world, the best thing you can do is to guide them, and indicate what is acceptable, and what is not. Personally I wouldn't let my kids just go and purchase apps on the store themselves till they were old enough to be responsible about it, but that's just me. By the time you allow them to purchase apps with your credit card I think you really have to let go of controlling their decisions.
Quite apart from the futility of parental controls, Apple don't even have parental controls in place for apps - if they did, this sort of thing would not be an issue, as they'd allow some parents to attempt to control what their children can see, and everyone else would ignore them. As it is, they're trying to ban apps for allowing access to the internet or literature. This isn't hard-core porn or something, it's simply swear-words.
By those standards, this page would be adult-only, most sites which young people frequent would be adult-only, in fact most of the internet would be adult-only.
The approvals process is a joke, which in turn makes Apple look like a joke. Really this sort of nonsense should at least wait till they have some 'Adult' rating systems in place, and then they can mark most of the internet as indecent, or adult, or evil, or whatever they want to call them, and any app that access the internet as the same.
Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE. But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead?
No, they're very much alive. Why do you think Microsoft is now pushing Silverlight and the tie-ins with .Net that brings? The web, in particular HTML 5, is a serious threat to the dominance of Windows, and thus Office.
If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?
Of course not. However if you think that MS is unfairly abusing a monopoly in the OS world to impose restrictions on bundled software, this is a very good way to end that.
Perhaps it meets a definition of censorship, but it's not the kind I consider as important.
Heh. Well, if you think censorship can only take place in government offices, then this is not censorship. In our brave new world where corporations have more influence on us than governments, that means censorship will not henceforth be a problem, and perhaps if enough companies do the right thing then one day works like the Kama Sutra will simply unexist.
Personally, I would call filtering and suppression of content by governments, record labels, publishers, Apple, or any other organisation censorship. However if you want to call it something else, I don't think that would fundamentally alter anyone's position on the matter, would it?
Why do you think that certain decision are arbitrary?
Because they are contradicted by the actions of Apple in other areas - in this case one reviewer is actively searching for bad words, or bad concepts (whatever their criteria are for that), and not allowing apps which allow access to them. Dictionaries have also been rejected.
Other reviewers allow apps which access exactly the same content. That's arbitrary, wouldn't you agree?
I think much of the restrictions and limitations of the iPhone and the App store are simply because Apple doesn't want to rush things (something I agree with), and limiting functionality and imposing restrictions is a good way to control the situation until everything is sorted out.
I'm afraid your perception of Apple's competence, and more specifically the competence of their app store reviewers, does not jive with reality. This is not an example of a patient and slow process trying to weed out problems, it's just an example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
The app has just been allowed on the store with no censorship required - I suspect because of the storm of bad publicity this engendered for Apple, and the obvious hypocrisy of trying to ban things for adult content when you have adult content on the store already, and access to the internet built-in. A parental control system is a farce anyway, for all kinds of reasons, but I guess given the puritanical strands in US culture it's a necessity. I'll be interested to see how they handle Safari with such a system. A blanket ban? A whitelist?
Just like there was no App store at all to begin with. Just like the first iPhone was missing many features that are there now. Just like the NDA issues
Some of those examples you listed Apple probably would have come to anyway (say Exchange support), some, like the NDA and SDK itself, they probably never would have fixed without critical comments from outsiders and developers. So I think constructive criticism of Apple is quite justifiable, especially when their actions are not reasonable (as in this case).
You appear to be defending Apple with the argument of 'well, I trust them', which is not a good position to take with a corporation, because corporations don't have morals and are composed of individuals with all kinds of levels of trustworthiness. The only things that keep them in check are the demands of customers and government regulation.
I'm appalled that you actually care that Apple made an arbitrary decision that you don't agree with. Oh wait. I'm not. I just think you're an idiot.
Whatever. I care because I use and develop applications for their platform. If they start making a lot more decisions like that, it'll make my life uncomfortable to the point where I'll look for alternatives. They have made lots of arbitrary decisions like this which are beyond stupid lately, and if they continue, that makes my life difficult as a user and as a developer. Seems pretty obvious to me why I would care.
If this is the future of the Apple platform, I don't like it. It's not a single arbitrary decision, it's a symptom of an arrogant refusal to adjust a system that is plainly broken. Quite apart from that censorship of this kind is not something I find acceptable. But maybe you don't mind some corporation deciding what content you can access, and what you cannot?
All the app developer needs to do is resubmit. That's the appeals process. Any real developer for the iPhone already knows this.
He already did, as you'd know if you had RTFA, and got the same idiotic responses back. There is no fucking appeals process - every *real* developer for the iPhone already knows this. You send emails to a black hole and occasionally get a response back, or resubmit several times, waiting from days to weeks each time in between, in the hope you find a more reasonable reviewer. Oftentimes people just give in and make changes, whether they agree with them or not, and sometimes they even have no idea exactly what the problem is because the responses are so inscrutable. Take a look on the developer forums under 'Distribution' if you actually have access and don't believe me.
Why would anyone boycott something that is obviously going to be fixed in the next version? This is hardly "shady" or censorship. What Apple are doing is annoying, but lets not blow it out of proportion like people here have done in the past regarding iPhone issues.
I'm appalled you'd stand up and defend this. Go read the original article and see if you still agree with Apple's actions.
http://www.blog.montgomerie.net/whither-eucalyptus
Apple really needs to sort out their app approval process, and people need to stop apologising for their obvious hypocrisy and censorship. Parental controls are a nonsense when you give access to the open internet, and censorship doesn't work anyway. Are they planning on censoring the internet now as well, in the hope of avoiding little Johnny finding something bad on his phone? What a lame defence for a hypocritical and arbitrary rejection from Apple.
Apple should strike this clause from their contract and stop trying to censor works of literature and art which are already available on the phone. The same argument could be used to block any app which accesses the internet, or uses a webview from the phone, as they can all potentially show objectionable content.
The worst part of all this is that Apple doesn't feel the need to respond to complaints, and the only way they will is if enough people pick up on this and start mentioning it to Apple at every opportunity as a seriously dumb move.
The business has a pretty tight control over what platforms are being used, they don't need to cater to any platform they haven't put in place.
They don't however have tight control over those platforms. When you tie yourself to one platform, you're beholden to the vendor of that platform and switching to use products from another vendor becomes extraordinarily expensive, if not unthinkable. Avoiding that is the principal advantage of web-apps. If you choose to ignore that, you're ignoring something fundamental about web apps.
I'm not sure they're so far ahead of binary apps in distribution now anyway, when you control all the desktops you can distribute binary apps pretty easily too.
But, because of this standardization, the internal development staff only needs to target one defined platform, they aren't really worried about cross-platform support.
This works really well as a way to cut costs *for the IT department* in the short term. As to whether it cuts costs for the company as a whole (there's the lost productivity involved in enforcing a standard install that you alluded to, and the lack of choice of tools), is another matter, and I'm sure varies with the company/tech involved. Obviously some degree of standardisation is required when managing large numbers of computers, so I'd happily concede that point.
But there is a bigger issue related to this strategy in the long term. In the long term, targeting one platform exclusively leads to the production of tools which are tied tighter and tighter to that platform. So it means you can never switch to a competitor; you can't even consider switching to a competitor unless you're willing to ditch all the internal software that you've built up which will only work on version X of system X. It becomes simply impossible for your business to even think about switching. You might even find that moving to a new version of an operating system has significant costs which you had not anticipated (an XP to Vista migration for example, or IE 6 to IE 8). These are not the normal costs of doing business, they are the costs of doing business if you choose to lock yourself too tightly to one platform.
There is a reason that Microsoft pushed things like Active-X, .NET and IE for web apps, Sun pushes Java everywhere, Apple encourages web pages made for iPhones, etc. It is to tie developers/companies in to using just their products, and it is in the long-term interests of the tool provider, not the company using the tools to work with.
Using web apps for internal software is a good way out of this conundrum, so long as you do not target a specific platform with them. Otherwise, you may as well be writing binary software tied to a specific version of one OS - the end result is the same - lock-in. I understand completely why, in the real world, these decisions are made, but if you look at the situation rationally they are not good investments of time/money over the long-term, and they undermine the very reasons for writing software as a web application in the first place.
Then you are very lucky, and likely don't work for a ginormous company whose only way to not make things in ActiveX is to make them in Java.
: ) Reason no 12939 not to work at a gigantic corporation. Having experienced working in large companies, I sympathise.
The funniest thing about large companies using web-apps for internal software is that most of them produce web-apps which depend on technology which is not truly cross-platform (Active-X, using a certain JVM, depending on a certain browser, etc), thus removing most of the business benefit of using a web application in the first place.
I've had Java disabled for years, and have only ever had to enable it for broadband speed test applets. Aside from that, and some upload plugins (though that's mostly flash or AJAX nowadays) client-side java just isn't used much on the web anymore.
I doubt you'll notice the difference.
Christ, haven't you pussies read Ender's Game... the realities of war
Ender's Game is teenage pulp fiction; how exactly does it relate to the realities of war?
Providing feedback to the "user" is just a waste of time because everything is going to "just work" for them, and they would be too stupid to understand what is going on anyway. There's no attempt to actually engage the user in the process they are trying to achieve with the machine. Speaking of wifi, Vista does this too now I see.
Hmm, well I'm finding your examples a little vague, and you're jumping from system to system in your crticicism, which doesn't help. It's all very well to rail against UI designers for making things complex, but you're not suggesting specific improvements here, you're talking in generalities about areas which can be tricky - maybe there is no simple solution? You haven't explained what was the problem with ripping CDs or connecting to wifi on OS X, which is where you started.
Unlike the Vista example you mentioned, OS X gives you an explicit choice between encryption types when you connect to a network, unless you couldn't see it in the list? What didn't you like about their UI there?
I suspect the problem you have here is the spec for wifi connections is poorly defined, routers differ markedly in their behaviour, and operating systems in their handling of that quirky behaviour, and you happen to have a shitty router that demands a long hex key be typed in to connect. I did have a router which did that once, but got rid of it because it was so annoying. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the OS for that - most modern routers will let you assign a text key instead. Anyway, it sounds like you found workarounds for the problem but just found it frustrating as it felt like you were working round the OS rather than with it?
I disagree that MS is like Apple in this regard, as I find their philosophies differ markedly - Microsoft will typically give you too much esoteric information, or too many choices, which isn't particularly useful either. For example recently I had a problem with a webdav copy on Vista and it gave me a series of hex error codes, which I'm sure means something to someone somewhere at MS, but means absolutely nothing to me. That didn't help any more than too little feedback.
Indeed. The assumption is that diagnosing a problem is something only some sort of "technician" would want to do.
The problem with is that most users don't have the background or the patience to solve many technical problems - the problems are hard, and hand-waving solutions will not make them go away all the time. So the OS tries its best to paper over the cracks and work most of the time, and sometimes undoubtedly they get it wrong. At some point you're going to have to get your hands dirty if you want to solve some problems, that's just the way it is. So if you have a network problem you'll have to try to check the status with utilities and console - I see nothing wrong with that approach - they even have a sort of wizard thing they launch now to help if you can't get a connection.
I do think operating systems have moved on dramatically in ease of use over the last 10 years or so, though admittedly they do have a long way still to go. We do tend to forget that things we take for granted now (seamless switching between wireless and wired connections, remembering networks and reconnecting, handling timeouts etc) just didn't used to work that well, and take a lot of work behind the scenes to do.
You don't want it. Nobody wants it.
Please don't tell me what I want.
I don't find streetview colossally arrogant, or repugnant, I find it useful. It's useful when going on holiday, when looking at houses, when planning a weekend trip, when looking at hotels or places I might like to visit.
For nimby gray-beards like yourself, they have included a feature to remove images, so you can remove your house if you like. Personally, I'm willing to live with the sacrifice of a little perceived obscurity for the huge advances in utility it brings. So please don't assume that your views are held universally.
Well, they're just examples..
They say rather more about you than OS X.
So, did you see the Import CD button? Did it not appear for you? Did you look in the help menu, which walks you through this feature? Did you look in preferences, which lets you set the import behaviour? Did you look in console? Was there a problem with the CD, or with iTunes?
The assumption is that you couldn't possibly diagnose what the issue is,
No, *your* assumption is that you can't possibly diagnose what the issue is on OS X.
The assumption made by the system's designers is that if you wish to diagnose the issue, you'll have to be willing to do things like look in the Help menu, learn to use console (an app specifically designed to give you all the diagnostic information you could ever want from the computer's logs), and use the provided Utilities to diagnose the issue, etc.
There is certainly no shortage of tools on OS X for diagnosing problems (for your wifi issues, it comes bundled with a suite of networking diagnostics, plus the GUI 'Network Utility' in Utilities if you don't like the command line), but apparently because you don't know about them, they don't exist!
first thing you will want to do is to do a browser check for 'iPhone' or 'iPod'.
If you're going to scrap for user agents, at least use 'Mobile Safari, not iPod or iPhone.
request.user_agent =~ /(Mobile\/.+Safari)/
If large banks were allowed to fail, the economy would go into melt-down, many other companies would fail as their debts to those banks were called in to pay creditors. The government would be left providing huge payouts for guaranteed deposits, propping up huge firms which would otherwise go to the wall (as they do already in many industries in the US, aerospace, farming, steel, etc), and generally funding a lot more than they do now, indefinitely.
Supporting large banks for a short time is actually the cheaper option, though I do think it should be coupled with far more draconian oversight in future and a proper separation of speculation from savings. Problems which the current administration has completely avoided addressing.
Taming the human appetite for risk by regulating it is essential for avoiding conflicts like this, not punishing foolishness after the fact with bankruptcy. After all, moral hazard was not the cause of the current crisis, widespread greed and credulity was.
When you look past the mirage of the perfect free market to what we actually have, you see that protectionism, corruption and cartels are rife, and would be far, far worse with less regulation and government intervention.
The benefit is that instead of a pile of text books, all you need to carry around with you is one thin slate. Break it or lose it entirely (not uncommon on college campuses) and it can be replaced with all of your downloaded content.
That's a great benefit indeed, and we're almost at the point where using paper books is a losing proposition - more and more new students will opt for digital alternatives in the coming years. Search is one of the biggest advantages, compared to a paper book with a limited index it's amazing how that alone would transform studies. Plus the other advantages you mentioned of a lightweight, universal reader. This is definitely the future of books.
However this bright future is also a tempting lure towards many possible dystopias; I'd rather not be beholden to a company like Amazon for my content, and buy it locked up in DRM that probably won't work in 10 years. Amazon have already shown themselves to be anti-competitive in the print-on-demand sphere by trying to force everyone to use BookSurge (owned by Amazon), and in the book reading sphere by buying out competitors on the iPhone. They seem intent on locking up this space so that they are the sole conduit for books. Even if they hadn't taken those actions, it's a risk to trust all your content to one company, and an even bigger risk to purchase books in some DRM'd format with obsolescence built-in.
It's insane that digital books have to go through the same parade of stupidity inflicted on digital music before they reach the conclusion that DRM just won't work, and that one company should not have a stranglehold on their customers for life. Perhaps you're comfortable with that, but I don't want content I buy to be effectively rented from an online company. While it's possible to read un-DRM'd content on a kindle, that's not the focus of the device, and they make it harder than it should be. Their obvious focus is on pushing DRM'd books that will only ever work on Amazon devices with an Amazon account and an Amazon subscription. Buy in to this, and you are in danger of being zuned.
Personally I'm waiting for tablets to catch up with their e-ink equivalents and provide a touch screen with appropriate reading software (perhaps Apple will do something in this space). I find the disadvantages of eink outweigh the advantages by a significant margin, plus the software Amazon produces is mediocre, and their industrial design is appalling.
If you code to standards, your only real issue will be IE.
If you don't, well, it's never too late to start.
Adding another Webkit based browser to the mix does not cause much extra pain. You also forgot to include mobile browsers in your list - the beauty of the web is that you don't have to know all the capabilities of the clients which will look at your content ahead of time, and yet your site can still be read by them. Yes it's nice to have things render the same on every browser, but it's not essential, and if that's really your goal, you should give up now, or use Flash or something.
The reason for this browser to exist is to unseat IE as the default way to run google web apps, and prevent Microsoft screwing google (and ruining the web as collatoral damage), as they have done so many times to rivals in the past. With Google threatening Microsoft on multiple fronts, it just doesn't make sense that they rely on MS as their main conduit for users, particularly given the modus operandi of Steve I'm-going-to-fucking-kill-Google Ballmer.
The (old) hope is presumably to reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers, which run Google software without getting in the way too much, for Google or the user.
That's also why you won't see them rush to put Chrome on Linux or OS X - there is no corresponding threat on those platforms, and healthy browsers exist there.
The USA is a vast land with lots of empty space where as England has around 80 million people shoved into a tiny space,
England does not have 80 million people, the UK (this involves more than England) has around 60 million people, and they don't all live in dark satanic mills anymore. Really it's not so much more populated than some US states, particularly if you're looking at the cities - these are roughly comparable between countries for population density.
Given that HTML is already used by all newspapers to present their information, and is suitable for display on most ereaders, it's the obvious choice. If a reader doesn't support HTML properly, it will soon, or no one would buy it. There are even subscription methods based on it (RSS) - all the tech is already in place. It really isn't a technical problem - the problem is that they want a system for charging small amounts to lots of users so that they can remain in business.
That doesn't depend on hardware, it depends on software, and what the newspapers would be doing if they were smart is setting up a system like iTunes for subscribing to papers. I imagine Apple or some software company will beat them to it. Perhaps they'll all just have to transition to an advertising model on the internet and hope that can sustain them.