We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep freedom away from the iPhone.
No, he just wants to keep porn from it, in this case. It's like saying you don't want OJ Simpson in your home, then someone rewords it to say you don't want black people in your home. No, you just don't want OJ Simpson. Black people are OK, except for him (same with white people, and you don't want Bernie Madoff, or whatever).
Apple isn't diametrically opposed to freedom. On the contrary, Apple products have generated more freedom than Linux and Android have, combined.
Yes, you get a small number of additional choices with Android. But for those choices, you give up much more. If you don't value those as much as you value the choices Android offers that iPhone doesn't, go with Android.
But to couch it entirely in terms of freedom is absurd.
Wow, you are exactly the kind of person Apple loves. How can you even speak with Steve Job's cock rammed so far down your throat?
In other words, you disagree with me, but are incapable of making an actual argument to that end. Same for the person modding you Funny (could even be you, AC).
Apple deliberately leak information all the time. This is a well known "secret". Just do a google search for "How apple leak information".
Yes, but they never, ever leak hardware.
Android has been getting a lot of press recently with all the new android devices coming out. It's very conceivable this was done deliberately as a "leak" as long as there was a promise to return the device.
No, it's not conceivable. It's possible in that technically, the laws of physics allows it, but it's not reasonably possible given how Steve Jobs does things. If Apple wanted to piss on the Android fire, they'd just throw a preview event and show off the phone.
Do really think that these guys would actually pull this thing apart if they didn't have permission?
Do you think they wouldn't pull it apart if Apple didn't say they could? Do you think they even asked permission in the first place?
I'm sure such an act is potentially illegal otherwise.
Yes, it potentially is. Not the disassembly, nor the posting of photos, but the possession of likely stolen goods. The press does tend to get leeway in such matters, and pressing criminal charges against Giz reporters is far beyond a line Apple is likely to cross (before it's brought up, Apple's civil lawsuits where years ago, and were civil, not criminal. It's one thing to fight against leaks in a financial manner. It's something else entirely to attempt to send someone to prison).
there's liking products, and then there is salivating over them
There's also things Gizmodo actually does, then there's metaphors.
I can't defend Gizmodo for doing things that are metaphors, but I can defend things they actually do, and having an opinion that is different than Bullfish's, but is quite in line with a lot of consumers, is pretty easy to defend.
Just because your opinion is different from theirs doesn't make theirs invalid, just like disagreeing with me doesn't make me a troll.
I mean besides all the free hype and boatloads of dollars worth of free marketing, would would really be in it for Apple?
No one ever said the unlikely scenario being presented wouldn't give Apple free advertising, but in case you've missed it, Apple has no problem getting free advertising when they simony announce something. Doing it that way has the added effect of also being something that isn't diametrically opposed to Apple's penchant for secrecy.
The phone is still too big for those of us who want to use it for jogging.
I've seen plenty of people jogging with iPhones and iPod Touches in arm bands. I've jogged with one (sans arm band) just fine.
Something a quarter of the size would be great.
The iPod nano supports Nike+.
Keep the resolution, but shrink the whole thing by half in both dimensions and you'll keep perfect compatibility with existing apps.
No you won't. Not unless you also shrink fingers and increase eyesight. Ok, maybe it'd be fine for those 10 and under, but they don't jog, and of they did, it would be just as big to them as the iPhone is to us.
either that, or this is yet another "accidental" leak by apple.
"Insightful"? Apple never leaks hardware. Ever. They don't want you to see it until they get a crowd together to watch Steve show it off. There's pretty much no way Apple put this out on purpose.
Braun has been highly lauded for their industrial design in the past, and has been a large influence to Johnathan Ive. Aside from looking fairly different from anything else Apple currently sells, it is both Braun-like and Ive-like.
Why do people always seem to think things can only be solved in exactly two ways?
A third (and more likely) way, Gizmodo bought the phone from someone who stole it or maybe found it. "Found it in a bar" is more plausible than "fell off a truck" in this type of situation.
Not sure that there are two phones, but either way, the same sort of thing comes into play, except you're right to think it highly coincidental that two phones were "found" in the same way. Sounds an awful lot like stolen prototypes.
It would be kind of clever for Apple to have planted it/them deliberately, especially if they are fakes (to discredit the rumor sites and/or to make people think they are one thing, then release something entirely different) (note: a fourth option). But it's not really Apple's style.
This is the reason I don't contribute. It's like suddenly being handed the US economy and saying "fix it!"
Are you kidding? Everybody seems to think they are more than qualified to tell you what's wrong with the US economy and that they know exactly how to fix it.
It's clear they don't really care about addressing the problems people are having today. They have already accepted that there will be issues, and they just plan to react and evolve the DRM, but to never remove it. They're in it for the long haul, and if a few eggs get smashed along the way, they're quite fine with that.
Taking a step back from smart phones, and considering something more general, such as wifi-enabled portable entertainment devices, it's possible that Apple could have an undue influence on such a market.
"Undue influence" doesn't just mean "a lot of influence". It means influence that they haven't earned or are not allowed (i.e., it's not due them). Aside from the fact that there are plenty of WiFi-enabled portable entertainment devices, Apple hasn't used underhanded tactics against the market. They just sold more because people wanted them, not because Apple did anything to limit the consumers' choices. In other words, they earned their influence, and they earned with fair and square. Unlike the situation MS found itself in with its Windows monopoly (which in and of itself wasn't illegal), that they used to unduly influence the browser market (which was illegal) and create an IE monopoly.
Now, if Apple has undue influence on this market, are they abusing that influence by restricting these devices to run only those applications that they approve and allow into iTunes?
Just like MS, Sony and Nintendo do on their consoles. The notion of "undue influence" becomes rather absurd when you are applying it to their own products. It should be standard that a company would have total influence over their own products (within regulations, such as safety and emissions regulations on cars and FCC regulations on radio transmissions).
If somehow Apple had a portable computer monopoly, and they used that monopoly to destroy the Android Market (for example), then there might be a case. But they don't have a portable computer monopoly. Not by a long shot. And the Android Market isn't directly targeted by the App Store, because they are not interchangeable the way browsers are. You, by definition, cannot buy iPhone apps on the Android Market any more than you can buy Android apps at the App Store.
Apple's dislike of multitasking has nothing to do with memory capacity, battery life, or performance.
Sort of. Certain apps can be problematic (such as GPS apps, and apps that keep open network connections, as well as the obvious problem of buggy apps). But it's right that memory, cpu, and battery, do not inherently preclude multitasking per se. They do, however, make doing it to Apple's standards much harder. That's why it's taken them so long (and why they've reserved multitasking for their apps only to this point--because they know they can trust themselves to do it "right").
For Apple, it's not about simply getting it working, but about getting it working perfectly. On the first try. Trying early, and redoing things over and over until you get it right is Microsoft's model (and it works well for MS), but it's not Apple's. Apple feels the need to stand head-and-shoulders above the competition, and if they can't do that yet, they'll just wait until they can.
Apple doesn't control for control's sake, and they don't control for competitive advantage over other apps on the same phone. They control because they're afraid if they don't, the user experience will suffer. And given how things have turned out, it seems their fear has served them well in this regard.
Now they're introducing limited multitasking, but it's apparently something opt-in, not what you expect from a normal OS... maybe you get a wake-up message every so often, or something.
The background services (GPS, audio streaming, etc.) require using specific APIs. Serializing the objects in an app (so it can be killed and then restart in the exact same state as when it was killed) requires a little bit of work (I don't know the details, but it's most likely really simple to add to any Cocoa Touch, Objective-C program) but the rest (pausing in the background) is automatic.
No, the restrictions Apple put on multitasking in iPhone OS 4.0 would make the benefits of multi-core minimal at best, and a huge waste of resources.
Even with the current state of affairs, the iPhone would benefit from multi-core. It already runs tasks in the background, and supports multithreaded applications. iPhone OS 4 would benefit even more.
Your choice of phrasing, "minimal at best" is overly vague. It *could* mean "sure, some benefit, but not enough to be worth it", which is a reasonable opinion (not one I agree with, but reasonable). You could also mean (and I think this is what you mean) "technically would speed things up, but not even enough to notice except in extreme or contrived circumstances". Anything dealing with even moderately complex CoreAnimation would benefit. Safari could most certainly see double-digit performance increases. Games are another obvious beneficiary.
However, I do agree that it's not necessary. In fact, that's the first line I wrote in the post you replied to. I said:
If you have infinite batteries... The iPad's battery is also infinite, if you have infinite external batteries (which exist (external batteries, not an infinite number external batteries), and even exist as cases for the iPhone), although with the iPad's > 10 hour battery life, I'm not sure there would be such a market for them.
Reason: Exchangable batteries;) No apple product will ever come anywhere close, because they are intentionally cripled.
Crippled by having such long lasting batteries? The old MBPs got 7-8 hours, the new ones get 8-9 hours or 9-10 hours depending on the model. All without having to buy, carry around and keep charged, extra batteries.
PS. With traveling battery: 8hours of heavy use, this is added to the standard 4.5h on the standard battery.
8-10 hours is with Apple's standard battery, which fits in a case that's less than an inch thick. Is the computer, with even the 4.5 hour (i.e., less than half the battery life of the MacBook Pro or iPad) that thin? It certainly isn't with the "traveling battery" (unless it instead sticks out the backside).
But like I said above, if we're going to count extra/external/oversized batteries, equivalent solutions exist for Apple products, although few people will even need or want them.
There's a pitiful 256 MB of memory inside the chip. Apple may have planned ahead, but I doubt real multitasking is included in those plans.
Except for the fact that the iPhone already does multitask. Even the original iPhone, with 128MB of RAM, multitasked from day one. What it didn't allow (and none will allow until iPhone OS 4) is multitasking third-party apps.
In fact, and this may come as a surprise, but computers have successfully multitasked with much less RAM, even with amounts measured in kilobytes. A lot of iPhone apps are only a few megs, to around 10 megs or so, and most of that is data that doesn't need to reside in memory. 256MB isn't nearly as pitiful as you make it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep freedom away from the iPhone.
No, he just wants to keep porn from it, in this case. It's like saying you don't want OJ Simpson in your home, then someone rewords it to say you don't want black people in your home. No, you just don't want OJ Simpson. Black people are OK, except for him (same with white people, and you don't want Bernie Madoff, or whatever).
Apple isn't diametrically opposed to freedom. On the contrary, Apple products have generated more freedom than Linux and Android have, combined.
Yes, you get a small number of additional choices with Android. But for those choices, you give up much more. If you don't value those as much as you value the choices Android offers that iPhone doesn't, go with Android.
But to couch it entirely in terms of freedom is absurd.
And hold fifty to a hundred movies and play games and browse the web and read books and do art and play music and...
Well, at least DVD players can do that last one.
Um... That link backs up what I said. You did read it, didn't you?
Apple doesn't leak hardware.
Apple never leaks hardware.
You, sir, are an idiot.
Ever.
A monumental idiot.
Thanks for the laugh, Captain Irony.
Wow, you are exactly the kind of person Apple loves. How can you even speak with Steve Job's cock rammed so far down your throat?
In other words, you disagree with me, but are incapable of making an actual argument to that end. Same for the person modding you Funny (could even be you, AC).
Do try harder next time.
Apple deliberately leak information all the time. This is a well known "secret". Just do a google search for "How apple leak information".
Yes, but they never, ever leak hardware.
Android has been getting a lot of press recently with all the new android devices coming out. It's very conceivable this was done deliberately as a "leak" as long as there was a promise to return the device.
No, it's not conceivable. It's possible in that technically, the laws of physics allows it, but it's not reasonably possible given how Steve Jobs does things. If Apple wanted to piss on the Android fire, they'd just throw a preview event and show off the phone.
Do really think that these guys would actually pull this thing apart if they didn't have permission?
Do you think they wouldn't pull it apart if Apple didn't say they could? Do you think they even asked permission in the first place?
I'm sure such an act is potentially illegal otherwise.
Yes, it potentially is. Not the disassembly, nor the posting of photos, but the possession of likely stolen goods. The press does tend to get leeway in such matters, and pressing criminal charges against Giz reporters is far beyond a line Apple is likely to cross (before it's brought up, Apple's civil lawsuits where years ago, and were civil, not criminal. It's one thing to fight against leaks in a financial manner. It's something else entirely to attempt to send someone to prison).
there's liking products, and then there is salivating over them
There's also things Gizmodo actually does, then there's metaphors.
I can't defend Gizmodo for doing things that are metaphors, but I can defend things they actually do, and having an opinion that is different than Bullfish's, but is quite in line with a lot of consumers, is pretty easy to defend.
Just because your opinion is different from theirs doesn't make theirs invalid, just like disagreeing with me doesn't make me a troll.
I mean besides all the free hype and boatloads of dollars worth of free marketing, would would really be in it for Apple?
No one ever said the unlikely scenario being presented wouldn't give Apple free advertising, but in case you've missed it, Apple has no problem getting free advertising when they simony announce something. Doing it that way has the added effect of also being something that isn't diametrically opposed to Apple's penchant for secrecy.
There's no way Apple leaked this on purpose.
The phone is still too big for those of us who want to use it for jogging.
I've seen plenty of people jogging with iPhones and iPod Touches in arm bands. I've jogged with one (sans arm band) just fine.
Something a quarter of the size would be great.
The iPod nano supports Nike+.
Keep the resolution, but shrink the whole thing by half in both dimensions and you'll keep perfect compatibility with existing apps.
No you won't. Not unless you also shrink fingers and increase eyesight. Ok, maybe it'd be fine for those 10 and under, but they don't jog, and of they did, it would be just as big to them as the iPhone is to us.
You're thinking of Redmond.
Whether this is truly a new iPhone or not, Gizmodo's opinion doesn't count for much. They would adore Job's lunch kit if they found it in an alley
What you're saying is that Gizmodo tends to like Apple products, just like most people do, and that makes their opinion less valid?
Oh, I see. You mean that Gizmodo's opinions are often different than yours and that's what makes them suspect. Got it.
either that, or this is yet another "accidental" leak by apple.
"Insightful"? Apple never leaks hardware. Ever. They don't want you to see it until they get a crowd together to watch Steve show it off. There's pretty much no way Apple put this out on purpose.
Braun has been highly lauded for their industrial design in the past, and has been a large influence to Johnathan Ive. Aside from looking fairly different from anything else Apple currently sells, it is both Braun-like and Ive-like.
Why do people always seem to think things can only be solved in exactly two ways?
A third (and more likely) way, Gizmodo bought the phone from someone who stole it or maybe found it. "Found it in a bar" is more plausible than "fell off a truck" in this type of situation.
Not sure that there are two phones, but either way, the same sort of thing comes into play, except you're right to think it highly coincidental that two phones were "found" in the same way. Sounds an awful lot like stolen prototypes.
It would be kind of clever for Apple to have planted it/them deliberately, especially if they are fakes (to discredit the rumor sites and/or to make people think they are one thing, then release something entirely different) (note: a fourth option). But it's not really Apple's style.
This is the reason I don't contribute. It's like suddenly being handed the US economy and saying "fix it!"
Are you kidding? Everybody seems to think they are more than qualified to tell you what's wrong with the US economy and that they know exactly how to fix it.
Mod this guy insightful. This is exactly what I was thinking...
Mod this guy insightful...
Customers are people who pay. And if they don't pay enough to cover the cost of the trouble they cause, then they're not worthwhile, are they?
Hell, even the customers who did pay are being deemed not "worthwhile". That's the problem.
I don't hear a lot of sympathy in your post for Ubisoft either. Why should they care what you want if you don't care what they want?
You're confusing cause and effect. I don't care about Ubisoft's desires specifically because they don't care about mine.
It's clear they don't really care about addressing the problems people are having today. They have already accepted that there will be issues, and they just plan to react and evolve the DRM, but to never remove it. They're in it for the long haul, and if a few eggs get smashed along the way, they're quite fine with that.
Taking a step back from smart phones, and considering something more general, such as wifi-enabled portable entertainment devices, it's possible that Apple could have an undue influence on such a market.
"Undue influence" doesn't just mean "a lot of influence". It means influence that they haven't earned or are not allowed (i.e., it's not due them). Aside from the fact that there are plenty of WiFi-enabled portable entertainment devices, Apple hasn't used underhanded tactics against the market. They just sold more because people wanted them, not because Apple did anything to limit the consumers' choices. In other words, they earned their influence, and they earned with fair and square. Unlike the situation MS found itself in with its Windows monopoly (which in and of itself wasn't illegal), that they used to unduly influence the browser market (which was illegal) and create an IE monopoly.
Now, if Apple has undue influence on this market, are they abusing that influence by restricting these devices to run only those applications that they approve and allow into iTunes?
Just like MS, Sony and Nintendo do on their consoles. The notion of "undue influence" becomes rather absurd when you are applying it to their own products. It should be standard that a company would have total influence over their own products (within regulations, such as safety and emissions regulations on cars and FCC regulations on radio transmissions).
If somehow Apple had a portable computer monopoly, and they used that monopoly to destroy the Android Market (for example), then there might be a case. But they don't have a portable computer monopoly. Not by a long shot. And the Android Market isn't directly targeted by the App Store, because they are not interchangeable the way browsers are. You, by definition, cannot buy iPhone apps on the Android Market any more than you can buy Android apps at the App Store.
Apple's dislike of multitasking has nothing to do with memory capacity, battery life, or performance.
Sort of. Certain apps can be problematic (such as GPS apps, and apps that keep open network connections, as well as the obvious problem of buggy apps). But it's right that memory, cpu, and battery, do not inherently preclude multitasking per se. They do, however, make doing it to Apple's standards much harder. That's why it's taken them so long (and why they've reserved multitasking for their apps only to this point--because they know they can trust themselves to do it "right").
For Apple, it's not about simply getting it working, but about getting it working perfectly. On the first try. Trying early, and redoing things over and over until you get it right is Microsoft's model (and it works well for MS), but it's not Apple's. Apple feels the need to stand head-and-shoulders above the competition, and if they can't do that yet, they'll just wait until they can.
Apple doesn't control for control's sake, and they don't control for competitive advantage over other apps on the same phone. They control because they're afraid if they don't, the user experience will suffer. And given how things have turned out, it seems their fear has served them well in this regard.
Now they're introducing limited multitasking, but it's apparently something opt-in, not what you expect from a normal OS... maybe you get a wake-up message every so often, or something.
The background services (GPS, audio streaming, etc.) require using specific APIs. Serializing the objects in an app (so it can be killed and then restart in the exact same state as when it was killed) requires a little bit of work (I don't know the details, but it's most likely really simple to add to any Cocoa Touch, Objective-C program) but the rest (pausing in the background) is automatic.
No, the restrictions Apple put on multitasking in iPhone OS 4.0 would make the benefits of multi-core minimal at best, and a huge waste of resources.
Even with the current state of affairs, the iPhone would benefit from multi-core. It already runs tasks in the background, and supports multithreaded applications. iPhone OS 4 would benefit even more.
Your choice of phrasing, "minimal at best" is overly vague. It *could* mean "sure, some benefit, but not enough to be worth it", which is a reasonable opinion (not one I agree with, but reasonable). You could also mean (and I think this is what you mean) "technically would speed things up, but not even enough to notice except in extreme or contrived circumstances". Anything dealing with even moderately complex CoreAnimation would benefit. Safari could most certainly see double-digit performance increases. Games are another obvious beneficiary.
However, I do agree that it's not necessary. In fact, that's the first line I wrote in the post you replied to. I said:
"Doesn't need, but would benefit from."
Giant 15.4" old-school dual-core Thinkpad: Battery time: infinite..
If you have infinite batteries... The iPad's battery is also infinite, if you have infinite external batteries (which exist (external batteries, not an infinite number external batteries), and even exist as cases for the iPhone), although with the iPad's > 10 hour battery life, I'm not sure there would be such a market for them.
Reason: Exchangable batteries ;) No apple product will ever come anywhere close, because they are intentionally cripled.
Crippled by having such long lasting batteries? The old MBPs got 7-8 hours, the new ones get 8-9 hours or 9-10 hours depending on the model. All without having to buy, carry around and keep charged, extra batteries.
PS. With traveling battery: 8hours of heavy use, this is added to the standard 4.5h on the standard battery.
8-10 hours is with Apple's standard battery, which fits in a case that's less than an inch thick. Is the computer, with even the 4.5 hour (i.e., less than half the battery life of the MacBook Pro or iPad) that thin? It certainly isn't with the "traveling battery" (unless it instead sticks out the backside).
But like I said above, if we're going to count extra/external/oversized batteries, equivalent solutions exist for Apple products, although few people will even need or want them.
The new MacBook Pros can get 10 hours of battery. And that's without having to settle for an Atom CPU and smaller screen.
There's a pitiful 256 MB of memory inside the chip. Apple may have planned ahead, but I doubt real multitasking is included in those plans.
Except for the fact that the iPhone already does multitask. Even the original iPhone, with 128MB of RAM, multitasked from day one. What it didn't allow (and none will allow until iPhone OS 4) is multitasking third-party apps.
In fact, and this may come as a surprise, but computers have successfully multitasked with much less RAM, even with amounts measured in kilobytes. A lot of iPhone apps are only a few megs, to around 10 megs or so, and most of that is data that doesn't need to reside in memory. 256MB isn't nearly as pitiful as you make it out to be.