Apple does everything in its power to make all aspects of the user experience perfect.
You did, in fact, say that. The jailbreaking situation is an aspect of the user experience which is less than perfect, and is within Apple's power to change. The only way your statement could hold true is if such change would worsen the user experience for everyone else, which is a problem that is easily avoided. Your original statement is false, which is all I have ever been out to prove.
No. They aren't. I have repeatedly stated why they are not. You're correct that it isn't a very good return on Apple's investment for them to legitimize this usage, but that has nothing to do with user experience. As I have demonstrated, Apple can set things up so that the user experience of the 99.99% (which is an exaggeration, but whatever) is exactly the same as it is today, while simultaneously improving the user experience of the.01%. There is no user experience justification whatsoever for their stance on this topic.
And that's fine. My point here isn't "Apple should do this thing", my point is to disprove your claim that Apple always puts user experience first.
Something else Apple excels at. They even looked at the original iPhone icons with a loupe to make sure not one pixel was off. Attention to detail, not something Google is noted for. Apple goes further, trying to ensure that apps don't stray too far from reasonable user interfaces, another reason for the app store.
It is a strength of Apple's. However, they aren't perfect at it (nobody can be, really), and as such should focus their efforts on the area which actually has a significant impact: the device itself.
You still haven't given one good reason why Apple should officially support this jailbreak-equivalent hack you want.
I absolutely have. You've just ignored me. If the procedure is exactly the same, nothing changes for anyone except the users who want to jailbreak (or whatever you'd call it if it were officially available). Those users will have a much superior user experience, everyone else will have the exact same user experience they do now. The result is a net positive, which means that Apple (if they truly are concerned with user experience) has a strong reason to implement this as it helps some while hurting nobody.
How is Congress going to do that? Perhaps there's some legal trick I'm unaware of, but I can't think of any way Congress could actually block a case from being filed in the courts (that seems profoundly unlawful in and of itself, not to mention the public shitstorm that it would raise).
Those moments shape the perception of the product and keep people coming back. Good old-fashioned customer service is getting too rare these days. The feeling that the company actually gives a damn about making you happy is worth a lot.
It's worth nothing next to the actual experience of using the device. Who cares if the packaging is good, when the device has some user interface flaw that annoys you? You won't remember the packaging then.
That is exactly what Apple is doing right now. It is not worth it for Apple to support a tiny fringe customer base that could have a negative impact on the larger customer base.
Except it can't have a negative impact on the larger customer base, no matter how much Apple wishes to claim it. The only possible customers that it could have a negative impact on are those who might buy a used phone from one of the unlockers - which is a group even smaller than the unlockers themselves. Name one negative impact that this could have on the majority of iOS users that is not already present today as a result of jailbreaking. Just one. (Spoiler alert: you won't be able to do it.)
They are part of the interaction with the device, they are part of the user experience.
No they aren't. They are by definition not part of the interaction with the device. Furthermore, even if I were to concede the point for sake of argument, you will spend immensely more time using the device than you will unboxing it, purchasing it, etc. Any facet of the device's function, whatsoever, will have a much larger impact on you than those fleeting moments. So even if we set aside the semantic disagreement we have, it's asinine to judge based on those factors unless all else is equal (which it never, ever is). And equally asinine for a manufacturer to spend any real effort on things such as packaging, unless they have perfected the user experience of their product (which is never the case).
Then you sell your phone and the person who gets it has these problems.
Anyone who buys a used device which is in poor condition would (probably rightfully) blame the previous owner, not Apple. I'll concede that there is an chance (small, but a non-zero chance) that there are users whose experience could be worsened by what you describe, but that user base is even smaller than the user base who would want to install non-sanctioned apps. So by your own argument, Apple should be preserving the user experience of the larger group.
And note that Apple could make a process that is essentially the same as what jailbreaking is now (without having to exploit security flaws). This would change nothing about the experience of the users who buy secondhand from an owner who jailbreaks (those users can have a bad experience today, as they could in the future), and nothing about the experience of the users who don't want to go through a complex and arcane process, except possibly for the better since there wouldn't be as many people trying to find and exploit security holes. The outcomes would be the same as today (more or less), except the users who want to jailbreak could have a documented process, which will not be broken by OS updates. This is an objectively better outcome, but Apple refuses to pursue it. Ergo, there are conditions under which Apple will say "Fuck the user experience", and do what they want to do.
but it should invalidate your warranty since you put it into a state that Apple can't plan support for.
I don't expect Apple (or any manufacturer) to provide support for a device that is in a state other than that which they can plan for. However, voiding warranties for a software change is too extreme. As long as the phone can be reset to factory condition, the warranty should be in force to cover hardware defects.
So you only use electronics? You've never shopped for them, purchased them, unboxed them, set them up, gotten support for them or recycled them? Impressive. You must be rich and have lackeys do all that for you.
No, I just don't call those things part of the user experience (although setting up and getting support are fair inclusions). When you have not yet even used the device, you are not a user. You cannot be said to have a user experience. And when you're getting rid of it, you are no longer a user. Same thing applies.
Which would harm the user experience because poorly written or presented apps, apps that use undocumented APIs that may be closed on the next update, deceptive apps, and many more undesirable traits in apps will be installed by users. When they don't work, who will the users blame? Apple, of course. Even if they don't blame Apple, they are still having a bad experience on Apple's platform, something Apple would like to avoid as much as possible.
This is not true at all. It is quite possible to have the ability to install non-sanctioned apps buried so deep, or beneath such a technical and arcane process, that it will only be accessed by those who are cognizant of and willing to accept the risks. Again, Apple can absolutely do this. But they refuse, and in doing so pass up a chance to make those users' experience better (while making nobody else's worse).
Google and others think the user experience of a product is confined only to the actual use of it.
Probably because it is, to any reasonable person.
Apple does everything in its power to make all aspects of the user experience perfect.
That is not in the least true. Easy example: Apple could make a setting buried deep within iOS, or even an official tool of some kind, to enable the install of non-app store apps. This would greatly benefit the user experience of those who currently have to jailbreak their devices, and harm the user experience of no one. But Apple doesn't do it. Regardless of the reasons you ascribe to their action, they clearly do not do everything in their power to make every part of the user experience perfect.
No, the real question is: how out of whack do one's priorities have to be that they actually care about this? I have never heard of something more petty to complain about.
If anyone cares to any significant extent about the 10 seconds it takes to find a knife/scissors/pair of keys/anything really, then open the tape, they have their priorities incredibly wrong. Packaging simply doesn't matter like this article claims. You get your device out of the packaging, and you're done with it (hopefully) forever, so why on God's green earth would you give any weight to the packaging against any of the numerous pros and cons about the device itself?
After reading this article I'm going to go drink bleach, so I can forget about how damn petty people are.
People who recognize that fixing the problem with a setting change is impractical (and you're right, it is) don't simply give up on it, then when someone figures it out, grumble "well, we never had to do that before". They explain to the kid how yeah, that works, but isn't feasible because of the hassle of changing that setting on every machine. So if what you're saying is true, the submitter is either an idiot (he's obviously not) to not recognize the difference when explained to him, or he's a liar that didn't tell us how things really happened. I personally find it more likely that the people he works with are incompetent, particularly because I've worked with the exact kind of incompetence that the submitter describes (from supposedly seasoned techs).
Uh... no it doesn't. I have no idea where you got your information, but you are woefully misinformed on the doctrines of that religion (as a whole). There may well be some churches that preach what you say, but Christianity overall teaches that nothing except faith will get you to heaven.
First: the poster you replied to said jack shit about having a belief in religion. Second: most people who practice a religion are decent people trying to live good lives. They may well be misguided (which, you should remember before feeling morally superior, is something you can't prove), but even if they are, they deserve to be shown the same respect as any other human being. If you choose to ignore that, you have no place in a civilized society.
Unfortunately, most atheists (or those who post in defense of atheism) on/. are such rabid zealots that they fall into that category.
Then you haven't looked very hard. Big difference: Christianity doesn't require you to pay money before they will reveal all of the church doctrines. Sure, some Christian churches are pretty much scams, but even those don't take it to the egregious level of Scientology.
If a seasoned tech can't fiddle with the settings on a PC to determine that there's a setting which can get the thing to boot WinXP, they're (to be frank) worthless. This sounds not so much like a knowledge issue, and more like some "techs" who have poor problem-solving skills and go by the book for their "troubleshooting".
Clarify, please. Because I think he's right: nobody wants a union for its own sake, they want a union for what it can do for them. If you're getting those benefits from something other than a union, then you'd be crazy to want a union.
He only speaks directly to the hosting, not the actual setup and administration of the VPN software. Those are two separate issues of which he only addressed one.
The summary does not state building their own is not an option. It says that it can't be hosted out of somebody's closet (fair enough), that any service has to be provided by a reliable company. This leaves the possibility of rolling their own solution hosted by Amazon or whoever. If building their own is not an option under any circumstances, that needs to be made more clear by the submitter.
That would be fine, except that newer versions of Java do not necessarily maintain compatibility with the old. I have seen newer Java versions break so many apps it's not even funny. Granted, they're probably poorly-written apps to depend on version so specifically. But it's still the responsibility of Sun (Oracle) to maintain backwards compatibility.
And a modern system can easily take 10 minutes or more sorting out and testing the hardware and RAIDs before it even begins to boot.
I've only ever seen times half that long on server hardware (which isn't what's really being discussed, here). I have never seen a desktop take 5 minutes, let alone 10 minutes, let alone more! I also would bet a large sum that I never will. You're seriously exaggerating.
People do it all the time, but from the perspective of Blizzard's bottom-line it isn't a huge deal. That person still pays for each of the accounts, so the only real difference is that unlike with 5 people (each with one account), all 5 accounts could disappear at once if the person quits. That is a downside, but not enough that it merits bothering much with, imo.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that I never said that.
Apple does everything in its power to make all aspects of the user experience perfect.
You did, in fact, say that. The jailbreaking situation is an aspect of the user experience which is less than perfect, and is within Apple's power to change. The only way your statement could hold true is if such change would worsen the user experience for everyone else, which is a problem that is easily avoided. Your original statement is false, which is all I have ever been out to prove.
No. They aren't. I have repeatedly stated why they are not. You're correct that it isn't a very good return on Apple's investment for them to legitimize this usage, but that has nothing to do with user experience. As I have demonstrated, Apple can set things up so that the user experience of the 99.99% (which is an exaggeration, but whatever) is exactly the same as it is today, while simultaneously improving the user experience of the .01%. There is no user experience justification whatsoever for their stance on this topic.
And that's fine. My point here isn't "Apple should do this thing", my point is to disprove your claim that Apple always puts user experience first.
That means extra effort, development and support liability on Apple's part. For what return? Something that only a fraction of a percent wants to do?
So you admit that Apple doesn't always put user experience first. QED.
Something else Apple excels at. They even looked at the original iPhone icons with a loupe to make sure not one pixel was off. Attention to detail, not something Google is noted for. Apple goes further, trying to ensure that apps don't stray too far from reasonable user interfaces, another reason for the app store.
It is a strength of Apple's. However, they aren't perfect at it (nobody can be, really), and as such should focus their efforts on the area which actually has a significant impact: the device itself.
You still haven't given one good reason why Apple should officially support this jailbreak-equivalent hack you want.
I absolutely have. You've just ignored me. If the procedure is exactly the same, nothing changes for anyone except the users who want to jailbreak (or whatever you'd call it if it were officially available). Those users will have a much superior user experience, everyone else will have the exact same user experience they do now. The result is a net positive, which means that Apple (if they truly are concerned with user experience) has a strong reason to implement this as it helps some while hurting nobody.
How is Congress going to do that? Perhaps there's some legal trick I'm unaware of, but I can't think of any way Congress could actually block a case from being filed in the courts (that seems profoundly unlawful in and of itself, not to mention the public shitstorm that it would raise).
But not to tell the Constitution to take a hike, which is pretty much what the NSL provisions are.
Those moments shape the perception of the product and keep people coming back. Good old-fashioned customer service is getting too rare these days. The feeling that the company actually gives a damn about making you happy is worth a lot.
It's worth nothing next to the actual experience of using the device. Who cares if the packaging is good, when the device has some user interface flaw that annoys you? You won't remember the packaging then.
That is exactly what Apple is doing right now. It is not worth it for Apple to support a tiny fringe customer base that could have a negative impact on the larger customer base.
Except it can't have a negative impact on the larger customer base, no matter how much Apple wishes to claim it. The only possible customers that it could have a negative impact on are those who might buy a used phone from one of the unlockers - which is a group even smaller than the unlockers themselves. Name one negative impact that this could have on the majority of iOS users that is not already present today as a result of jailbreaking. Just one. (Spoiler alert: you won't be able to do it.)
They are part of the interaction with the device, they are part of the user experience.
No they aren't. They are by definition not part of the interaction with the device. Furthermore, even if I were to concede the point for sake of argument, you will spend immensely more time using the device than you will unboxing it, purchasing it, etc. Any facet of the device's function, whatsoever, will have a much larger impact on you than those fleeting moments. So even if we set aside the semantic disagreement we have, it's asinine to judge based on those factors unless all else is equal (which it never, ever is). And equally asinine for a manufacturer to spend any real effort on things such as packaging, unless they have perfected the user experience of their product (which is never the case).
Then you sell your phone and the person who gets it has these problems.
Anyone who buys a used device which is in poor condition would (probably rightfully) blame the previous owner, not Apple. I'll concede that there is an chance (small, but a non-zero chance) that there are users whose experience could be worsened by what you describe, but that user base is even smaller than the user base who would want to install non-sanctioned apps. So by your own argument, Apple should be preserving the user experience of the larger group.
And note that Apple could make a process that is essentially the same as what jailbreaking is now (without having to exploit security flaws). This would change nothing about the experience of the users who buy secondhand from an owner who jailbreaks (those users can have a bad experience today, as they could in the future), and nothing about the experience of the users who don't want to go through a complex and arcane process, except possibly for the better since there wouldn't be as many people trying to find and exploit security holes. The outcomes would be the same as today (more or less), except the users who want to jailbreak could have a documented process, which will not be broken by OS updates. This is an objectively better outcome, but Apple refuses to pursue it. Ergo, there are conditions under which Apple will say "Fuck the user experience", and do what they want to do.
but it should invalidate your warranty since you put it into a state that Apple can't plan support for.
I don't expect Apple (or any manufacturer) to provide support for a device that is in a state other than that which they can plan for. However, voiding warranties for a software change is too extreme. As long as the phone can be reset to factory condition, the warranty should be in force to cover hardware defects.
So you only use electronics? You've never shopped for them, purchased them, unboxed them, set them up, gotten support for them or recycled them? Impressive. You must be rich and have lackeys do all that for you.
No, I just don't call those things part of the user experience (although setting up and getting support are fair inclusions). When you have not yet even used the device, you are not a user. You cannot be said to have a user experience. And when you're getting rid of it, you are no longer a user. Same thing applies.
Which would harm the user experience because poorly written or presented apps, apps that use undocumented APIs that may be closed on the next update, deceptive apps, and many more undesirable traits in apps will be installed by users. When they don't work, who will the users blame? Apple, of course. Even if they don't blame Apple, they are still having a bad experience on Apple's platform, something Apple would like to avoid as much as possible.
This is not true at all. It is quite possible to have the ability to install non-sanctioned apps buried so deep, or beneath such a technical and arcane process, that it will only be accessed by those who are cognizant of and willing to accept the risks. Again, Apple can absolutely do this. But they refuse, and in doing so pass up a chance to make those users' experience better (while making nobody else's worse).
Google and others think the user experience of a product is confined only to the actual use of it.
Probably because it is, to any reasonable person.
Apple does everything in its power to make all aspects of the user experience perfect.
That is not in the least true. Easy example: Apple could make a setting buried deep within iOS, or even an official tool of some kind, to enable the install of non-app store apps. This would greatly benefit the user experience of those who currently have to jailbreak their devices, and harm the user experience of no one. But Apple doesn't do it. Regardless of the reasons you ascribe to their action, they clearly do not do everything in their power to make every part of the user experience perfect.
No, the real question is: how out of whack do one's priorities have to be that they actually care about this? I have never heard of something more petty to complain about.
If anyone cares to any significant extent about the 10 seconds it takes to find a knife/scissors/pair of keys/anything really, then open the tape, they have their priorities incredibly wrong. Packaging simply doesn't matter like this article claims. You get your device out of the packaging, and you're done with it (hopefully) forever, so why on God's green earth would you give any weight to the packaging against any of the numerous pros and cons about the device itself?
After reading this article I'm going to go drink bleach, so I can forget about how damn petty people are.
People who recognize that fixing the problem with a setting change is impractical (and you're right, it is) don't simply give up on it, then when someone figures it out, grumble "well, we never had to do that before". They explain to the kid how yeah, that works, but isn't feasible because of the hassle of changing that setting on every machine. So if what you're saying is true, the submitter is either an idiot (he's obviously not) to not recognize the difference when explained to him, or he's a liar that didn't tell us how things really happened. I personally find it more likely that the people he works with are incompetent, particularly because I've worked with the exact kind of incompetence that the submitter describes (from supposedly seasoned techs).
Uh... no it doesn't. I have no idea where you got your information, but you are woefully misinformed on the doctrines of that religion (as a whole). There may well be some churches that preach what you say, but Christianity overall teaches that nothing except faith will get you to heaven.
First: the poster you replied to said jack shit about having a belief in religion. Second: most people who practice a religion are decent people trying to live good lives. They may well be misguided (which, you should remember before feeling morally superior, is something you can't prove), but even if they are, they deserve to be shown the same respect as any other human being. If you choose to ignore that, you have no place in a civilized society.
Unfortunately, most atheists (or those who post in defense of atheism) on /. are such rabid zealots that they fall into that category.
If an atheist cannot see the stark differences in nature and degree, then he is blinded by a dogmatic opposition towards faith.
True. Unfortunately, most atheists on /. are exactly as you describe.
Then you haven't looked very hard. Big difference: Christianity doesn't require you to pay money before they will reveal all of the church doctrines. Sure, some Christian churches are pretty much scams, but even those don't take it to the egregious level of Scientology.
If a seasoned tech can't fiddle with the settings on a PC to determine that there's a setting which can get the thing to boot WinXP, they're (to be frank) worthless. This sounds not so much like a knowledge issue, and more like some "techs" who have poor problem-solving skills and go by the book for their "troubleshooting".
Clarify, please. Because I think he's right: nobody wants a union for its own sake, they want a union for what it can do for them. If you're getting those benefits from something other than a union, then you'd be crazy to want a union.
Most people (that could afford it) chose to get health insurance of their own free will; they didn't need to be forced.
He only speaks directly to the hosting, not the actual setup and administration of the VPN software. Those are two separate issues of which he only addressed one.
The summary does not state building their own is not an option. It says that it can't be hosted out of somebody's closet (fair enough), that any service has to be provided by a reliable company. This leaves the possibility of rolling their own solution hosted by Amazon or whoever. If building their own is not an option under any circumstances, that needs to be made more clear by the submitter.
That would be fine, except that newer versions of Java do not necessarily maintain compatibility with the old. I have seen newer Java versions break so many apps it's not even funny. Granted, they're probably poorly-written apps to depend on version so specifically. But it's still the responsibility of Sun (Oracle) to maintain backwards compatibility.
And a modern system can easily take 10 minutes or more sorting out and testing the hardware and RAIDs before it even begins to boot.
I've only ever seen times half that long on server hardware (which isn't what's really being discussed, here). I have never seen a desktop take 5 minutes, let alone 10 minutes, let alone more! I also would bet a large sum that I never will. You're seriously exaggerating.
People do it all the time, but from the perspective of Blizzard's bottom-line it isn't a huge deal. That person still pays for each of the accounts, so the only real difference is that unlike with 5 people (each with one account), all 5 accounts could disappear at once if the person quits. That is a downside, but not enough that it merits bothering much with, imo.