A few months ago: APPLE STORED YOUR LOCATION DATA IN PLAIN TEXT!!! HOW STUPID ARE THEY? THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THEY ARE TRACKING YOU!!! PEOPLE WILL BE STALKED USING THIS!!!
Somehow, the OS X and iOS keychain manages to use encryption to protect passwords, the entire disk on iOS (after the 3GS, I think, maybe the 3G) is encrypted, and processes are blocked from reading files outside of their sandbox.
But on Android, it's +5 Insightful to say that plaintext password storage is hunky-dory. In fact, it's preferable! And as referenced by posts below, merely posting a story where someone says, quite meekly, that it might be "desirable", or a "good idea" to up the security on Android is grounds for mocking.
That's exactly my point. The OP is talking about them completely replacing it with something new (or altered significantly), not just making a new-but-compatible VM.
And THAT is the answer to the question "why did Google not buy Sun". It is cheaper to just some nickels and dimes now. And I guess they didn't need Solaris.
Not quite. The reason Google didn't buy Sun is that there's nothing of value for them that they would have gained other than Java. That's a lot of money to spend on just a small subset of Sun's value.
The rest of Sun in no way promotes any of Google's revenue streams.
When has Google ever successfully done something like this? Their products consist almost entirely on either products they bought (like Android) or by utilizing the works of others (Linux, WebKit).
Coming up with a drop-in replacement for Dalvik (or significantly altering it) is nowhere near as easy as your question implies, nor is it something Google has shown themselves proficient at doing.
Personally I'm waiting for the Eee pad slider. That has been delayed like 3 times already but it looks like exactly what I want.
With Apple you get one choice. With Android you'll soon have a couple dozen viable choices.
That's what we heard about the iPod. It never happened. That's because people really don't care that much about choice beyond a certain amount. Look at the 20+ consecutive year-over-year quarterly growth of Mac sales, beating out the PC in growth every single time.
In other words, Apple is outpacing the entire industry in PC sales, and has been for years now.
Further, that competition will tend to drive down the price for the Android ecosystem as compared to Apple.
Not for equivalent hardware. The only way Android tablets will be notably cheaper than iPads is by cutting corners. Apple has the best deals on the planet for components. No one can compete with the iPad on price.
This could be the whole PC evolution playing out again in tablets. It is easy to forget that Apple had an early lead in PCs and then Bill Gates ate them alive by licensing DOS to run on a variety of hardware platforms.
Not quite. The Macintosh never had a lead over PCs. DOS already outsold the Mac long before Compaq cloned the IBM PC.
This situation seems almost like a play-by-play rerun. But to make it worse for Apple, this time around the DOS equivalent is "free" for manufacturers.
The only reason the PC beat the Mac in the early days is because the PC was better suited for the market (which at the time was business). That's it. Today, iOS is better suited for the market, which is primarily consumer.
the embedded language is relatively simple and based on Mathematica 8. It doesn't appear to provided system functionality like ActiveX.
It seems obvious that this "free" CDF thing is used to drive sales of Mathematica, because the only way to compose these documents is to run their rather expensive software ($2500 for a single user commercial license). The player is free though, but honestly I don't see why there needs to be a player at all. Why can't it just export as Flash and HTML5?
No doubt it's meant to, at least in part, drive sales of Mathematica. But why quote the commercial price? If you are using it commercially, the price is generally worth it. However, Wolfram has had student pricing pretty much forever, and even has had for over a year now a "Home Edition" for $295. Not cheap, but for what it is, it's a great price.
I never understood why Apple fans brag that "their" company makes the highest profit off of them.
It's a measure of success. And is particularly useful in countering the whole "Apple is beleaguered" (from a decade ago) or "Apple has lost the PC war to MS, and is losing the handheld war to Google" (from today).
I think you misunderstand (which is far too common).
You said, "Specifically, the Mac mini is the only Mac under $2,400 that doesn't have a built-in monitor." You say that it's cheap as though that's a bad thing.
As for your issues with built-in monitors, you are, as usual, exaggerating an issue. Most people just simply aren't having these horrible problems that you seem to think are so critical.
I guess node 3 imagines that music listeners will re-buy from iTunes Store giving Apple 30%
Whoever said music listeners will re-buy their music from iTunes (and what does the 30% have to do with anything? Do you mention this if they buy their music from Target instead?).
movie viewers will use iTunes rentals or a traditional DVD player
Yes, they will (and do). And also use Netflix.
and gamers will re-buy all their non-Steam games from Mac App Store giving Apple 30%.
Again, the same 30% question arises. Do you think Steam sells games for free?
I never said there aren't people who use optical drives. I just said that most don't. Those that do still want them have plenty of options. What is your mental deficiency that takes *one*, very addressable issue, and turns it into some sort of critical flaw?
Sorry, I was using "never" colloquially, not literally. Apple has done the research and found that their optical drives are rarely used. Fewer and fewer people have "existing CD collections", and those that do, fewer and fewer haven't already ripped their CDs.
Software installations is covered by the Mac App Store. There is still software that is only available on CD/DVD, but that's changing. Apple knows how many MacBook Airs they've sold, and how many superdrives they've sold. They also know how many optical drives have failed, and how many computers that have come in for service had a failed optical drive that the customer didn't even know had failed.
Fair enough. For 'justification' in the minds of consumers (where I used the term 'validation' in my post), I think the way things have worked out are pretty clear so far. Apple's downloads are far more trustworthy than Google's. More apps, more downloads, fewer security issues.
The flip side is to see what Google will do, but aside from adopt a more stringent review process, it will be difficult for them to keep malware (of varying types) from making it to their store. Their model is reactive. I can see why some geeks might prefer reactive, but I think people on the whole prefer proactive. They really just don't care if some app gets held up for a week or two if it means that it's been vetted.
Except that solid state media is *vastly* more expensive than a pressed DVD. Several cents for a DVD vs several dollars for solid state media of the same capacity... hmm. Delivering data such as operating systems, software, films etc. on solid state media would be stupid. If all the stuff I bought on DVD had some on flash instead, I'd be hundreds or thousands poorer.
Why are you acting like this USB drive is something to be concerned about? Apple isn't saying, "let's sell all our software, movies, etc., on USB!" Quite the opposite, they are moving to selling everything as downloads now. They are moving *away* from those "several cent DVDs" (with which you completely ignore all the money involved in printing, packaging, shipping, stocking, etc., which far exceed the price of the disc itself).
USB is the fallback. And, aside from price, it's a superior fallback to optical. Apple is moving away from optical, half their consumer computer product line (or 40% if you want to include the Mac Pro) no longer includes built-in optical, not even as an option.
God forbid someone want to keep something that works rather than just go for the new expensive shiny thing for the hell of it.
Good for you. Buy a PC! Or burn Lion to a DVD. Apple is choosing to go one way, and whenever they've tried similar things in the past, they were usually right. Maybe they're wrong here, who knows. You certainly don't. You know what's good for you, I know what's good for me. Apple knows what they think is good for more of their customers. Only time will tell who's right.
Why are you acting like this is some big issue? The USB option isn't meant to be used very often. It's meant to be a fallback. If Apple finds demand for the USB drive exceeds their expectations, they will likely reconsider things. But they've looked at the numbers. They know how many of their customers have high speed internet, how many have access to an Apple Store, and can estimate how many should be able to find a friend or sympathetic retailer to help them. Their numbers tell them that the USB option is not going to be a big deal.
You completely undermined your entire argument by calling me a fanboy. I've given you nothing but reasonable responses. You are dead set to exaggerate any downsides as though they are the most braindead choices Apple could make.
USB Flash drives are superior in every way, except price, to optical media, yet you say (highlighting yours) "Except for the most obvious way, the simplest way and the way everyone has done it for years, including Apple." As you know, Apple doesn't do things "the most obvious way", "the simplest way", or "the way everyone else has done it for years", even if Apple was one of those companies.
They move on. It's very clear that flash drives are the way forward. Or I should say, it's very clear that *Apple* thinks flash drives are the way forward. Just look at the MacBook Air and Mac mini.
And you also ignore the fact that Lion on a flash drive isn't just the addition of a flash drive, but it's the addition of a low-run, uniquely designed flash drive, that has to be shipped and stocked, and provides a convenience that some people will find worth $40. For everyone else, which is almost everyone, there are ways to acquire Lion that do not involve additional cost.
And one of these ways even includes getting it on DVD. Just not directly from Apple.
You call me a fanboy, but you're the one who won't listen to reason. You are latching onto one little thing, and acting like it trumps all. You call *that* reasonable?
Taking "a few hours" does not constitute a problem.
Unless the public Wi-Fi provider cuts the download after the one-hour session expires. Does Apple's Lion downloader support resuming an incomplete download?
Yes, and this is an extremely contrived scenario. For this to come to play, someone would have to:
1. Have a 64-bit intel Mac. 2. Not have at least a 256kbps dsl line. 3. Have a *very* low data cap, with no way to extend it. 4. Not have access to an Apple Store, or one of the many Apple resellers willing to help you. 5. Not have access to a friend or family's high speed internet connection. 6. Not have access to a free (or even paid, at a reasonable price) WiFi connection capable of delivering Lion in a reasonable amount of time. 7. Want Lion *now*, and be unhappy about waiting a few weeks for a flash drive from Apple.
The set of people for which every one of these things is true is very, *very* small. And for the people in this set, they are very used to finding their slow internet connection being an issue. They know they can't do things like enjoy netflix, youtube, hulu, steam. They know that when they look at software or video downloads, they generally have to give it a pass, or leave the connection running for hours. Some software updates can add up to over 1GB! That's 1/4 of Lion, for a *software update*!
It's not like everything was fine and rosy, then all of a sudden, Lion! These people have option after option after option. There aren't going to be many people for whom at least *one* of those options won't work, and for that very small number, Apple is manufacturing flash drives which will begin arriving in stores in mere *weeks*. The fact that Lion is out now is a testament to how much more quickly digital downloads can be made available than physical objects.
So, everyone is covered, and those that have to wait a few weeks are rare and used to it. The most absurd thing here is that you aren't even one of them, but you are bitching about this as though it's some big deal. Don't you find it odd that the only people complaining about this are the people for whom it doesn't apply? Don't you think that if this was a big deal, there would be people complaining who are *actually* affected by it?
That should clue you in to the fact that your view of reality is highly distorted. You are making claims based on a theory, while completely ignoring what reality has to say when your theory is being put to the test.
Its almost like they dont care about their own platform?
Microsoft used the same strategy on Windows and it worked for them.
Microsoft very much cares about their platform, and have taken many actions to protect it. Where did you get the idea that they feel and have done otherwise?
Why don't you create a Trusted Apps Store if you think it'd be better?
What kind of silliness is this? It's very clear from the countless stories like this that Apple's App Store model is more secure than Google's model. There's no need to make such a store, it already exists.
If you don't trust the app, don't install it. It's that simple. I have my freedom, you have your safety, everybody is happy.
And how, exactly, are people supposed to know whether to trust an app? With something like Apple's App Store, consumers have a much higher level of trust and confidence in the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of the apps than they do with the Google Marketplace.
The last thing they want is for these data to justify Apple's stringent approval process.
How was Apple's method ever not justified? It's not like they were ever forcing people to do anything. People have been voluntarily buying iOS devices for quite some time now, and outside of a few nerd circles, you never hear people complain about the App Store model.
What this story does, however, if further validate Apple's model. While it never had to be justified because it's a reasonable system and entirely voluntary, it did remain to be seen whether it was based on sound reasoning. This story (and the many before it) provide evidence to back up Apple's claims. Even if Google pulls these apps (and, even further, utilized their "kill switch", as they have done before (which draws no ire, although even the mere *existence* of Apple's "kill switch", which they never used, was a huge issue here on Slashdot a few years ago)), the mere fact that these apps got through in the first place and in such great numbers shows Apple's system provides some of the benefits they claim it does.
Apple Stores will help you in their stores no matter where you bought your Mac.
True, but also irrelevant. A lot of people such as myself bought a Mac online or at a third-party store precisely because there is no Apple Store near them. For example, even in a city of 200,000 where broadband is widespread and which has two Best Buy stores and one independent full-line Mac dealer (Fort Wayne, Indiana), the nearest Apple Stores are 100 miles away in Mishawaka and Indianapolis.
Call your "full-line Mac dealer" in Fort Wayne, and ask them if they will help you acquire Lion. I bet they will.
You keep acting like there are no options here. There are plenty.
You keep acting like this is a common situation.
I have cable myself, but my mom only very recently got DSL when it became available in her part of the country. Her Windows PC was way behind on software updates when I took a look at it, which I guessed had something to do with Internet connection or lack thereof. I was operating on the principle that whatever happens to a close relative is probably happening to a lot of other people.
AND THEIR ARE OPTIONS FOR THESE PEOPLE. You keep acting like if your internet connection is slow, you can't get Lion!
They can make for for a few weeks until physical media is available
And until such physical install media becomes available, I'm considering this a sneak preview rather than a release. If we can accept that this is a sneak preview, I'll stop whining.
Only if you accept the that it's a "sneak preview" for a small percentage of people, the rest of us being quite capable of downloading it, going to an Apple Store (or other establishment) to download it, going to a friend's house, etc.
The number of people who will have to wait for the USB offering is very small. And for them, internet life kinda sucks anyway, so having to wait for things is *NORMAL* to them.
Why do you insist on acting like this is going to be even remotely common?
"And for those whom it is a problem, that's the way their life is. They can't watch Netflix, they can't buy TV shows from iTunes or watch Hulu, or buy games on Steam. Even YouTube is a pain."
That's not true. My connection is fast enough that I can handle Netflix streaming, YouTube, and Hulu just fine, but a 4 GB download still takes a few hours.
Taking "a few hours" does not constitute a problem.
What makes it unreasonable? It's $69, for an operating system! Apple makes it very easy to acquire and install Lion, all for $29. If you *really* need it on physical media, you pay the price. And that price is still quite low for an OS.
$40 extra for a 4 GB USB drive doesn't exactly sound like a fair price to me, even if $69 for an operating system is a fair price overall.
You just said "it's not a fair price, even if it's a fair price".
The $40 isn't just for a 4GB USB drive. It's for an OS on a fairly nice 4GB USB drive that will be manufactured in limited quantities, packaged and shipped to stores to be stocked. And it's not a required purchase, it's a convenience for those that need it that way, which the vast majority of their customers won't.
If you want Lion on a USB drive, you are free to do so yourself.
My problem with Apple is their "fuck you, you'll do it our way and like it" attitude. Not including optical drives on some of their machines is another highly dubious decision, given their low cost and not negligible usefulness. I use mine quite often.
Their '"fuck you, you'll do it our way and like it" attitude'? Where they give you many ways of acquiring Lion, including going into a store and downloading it from a local copy there? Or via USB if you really need it? Or offering a DVD drive as an option is "fuck you, you'll do it our way"?
But then Apple does have a history of dismissing things as obsolete before they actually are obsolete (floppy drives and parallel ports for example).
This is quite correct, however. Apple tends to stay ahead of the curve. For example, offering Lion on a USB drive instead of on DVD.
Still contriving examples and acting like they are significant enough to be an issue.
If you want a Mac mini to play DVDs, you can buy an external drive. The *vast* majority of Macs never use their optical drives. By omitting them, Apple is saving people money for something they'll never need. And for those that do need them, they are available as an option.
Somebody with a Mac mini, a cable or satellite box for sports, and a Wii console already connected to the TV might not have another available port on the back of the TV for an upscaling DVD player.
Don't you see how contrived, uncommon, and easily solved this is?
They are offering it on a USB drive in a few weeks.
But at an unreasonable extra cost. And why USB? DVDs can be pressed for pennies.
What makes it unreasonable? It's $69, for an operating system! Apple makes it very easy to acquire and install Lion, all for $29. If you *really* need it on physical media, you pay the price. And that price is still quite low for an OS.
As for "why USB", Apple is phasing out optical drives. Every Lion-compatible Mac can boot off of USB, USB is faster than optical, smaller, more rugged. The *only* compelling argument for optical media is price, and if you *really* want Lion on DVD, you can burn it yourself.
The idea that this is going to be an even remotely common scenario doesn't even deserve a response.
Not having broadband isn't *that* rare. Not having broadband with a generous download limit is even less rare.
That's not the scenario you invented. Your scenario was lugging a desktop Mac into a store. This is not going to be a common occurrence. There are too many things that have to happen to trigger that, and there are plenty of other options that come to play before resorting to that.
Not the least of which is just buying Lion on a USB drive.
As for broadband, it's *very* common. And while there are caps, it's not common to have a cap where a one-time 4GB download is going to be difficult. Sure, it happens, and if it does, there are plenty of ways to work around it.
This is a contrived scenario which is going to affect a very small percentage of people. For those people, there are many options that allow them to upgrade to Lion within their restrictions, and it's not like they aren't used to having to, now and then, go through some amount of hassle or forego some internet activity, due to their lack of broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because it's Android, it's ok...
A few months ago: APPLE STORED YOUR LOCATION DATA IN PLAIN TEXT!!! HOW STUPID ARE THEY? THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THEY ARE TRACKING YOU!!! PEOPLE WILL BE STALKED USING THIS!!!
Somehow, the OS X and iOS keychain manages to use encryption to protect passwords, the entire disk on iOS (after the 3GS, I think, maybe the 3G) is encrypted, and processes are blocked from reading files outside of their sandbox.
But on Android, it's +5 Insightful to say that plaintext password storage is hunky-dory. In fact, it's preferable! And as referenced by posts below, merely posting a story where someone says, quite meekly, that it might be "desirable", or a "good idea" to up the security on Android is grounds for mocking.
And Go is successful?
I don't think simply being JIT is the basis of Oracle's claims against Google.
That's exactly my point. The OP is talking about them completely replacing it with something new (or altered significantly), not just making a new-but-compatible VM.
And THAT is the answer to the question "why did Google not buy Sun". It is cheaper to just some nickels and dimes now. And I guess they didn't need Solaris.
Not quite. The reason Google didn't buy Sun is that there's nothing of value for them that they would have gained other than Java. That's a lot of money to spend on just a small subset of Sun's value.
The rest of Sun in no way promotes any of Google's revenue streams.
When has Google ever successfully done something like this? Their products consist almost entirely on either products they bought (like Android) or by utilizing the works of others (Linux, WebKit).
Coming up with a drop-in replacement for Dalvik (or significantly altering it) is nowhere near as easy as your question implies, nor is it something Google has shown themselves proficient at doing.
They're assuming that everyone has cheap, reliable, easily available broadband.
No, they're just assuming *enough* people have broadband.
This is a common myth.
Personally I'm waiting for the Eee pad slider. That has been delayed like 3 times already but it looks like exactly what I want.
With Apple you get one choice. With Android you'll soon have a couple dozen viable choices.
That's what we heard about the iPod. It never happened. That's because people really don't care that much about choice beyond a certain amount. Look at the 20+ consecutive year-over-year quarterly growth of Mac sales, beating out the PC in growth every single time.
In other words, Apple is outpacing the entire industry in PC sales, and has been for years now.
Further, that competition will tend to drive down the price for the Android ecosystem as compared to Apple.
Not for equivalent hardware. The only way Android tablets will be notably cheaper than iPads is by cutting corners. Apple has the best deals on the planet for components. No one can compete with the iPad on price.
This could be the whole PC evolution playing out again in tablets. It is easy to forget that Apple had an early lead in PCs and then Bill Gates ate them alive by licensing DOS to run on a variety of hardware platforms.
Not quite. The Macintosh never had a lead over PCs. DOS already outsold the Mac long before Compaq cloned the IBM PC.
This situation seems almost like a play-by-play rerun. But to make it worse for Apple, this time around the DOS equivalent is "free" for manufacturers.
The only reason the PC beat the Mac in the early days is because the PC was better suited for the market (which at the time was business). That's it. Today, iOS is better suited for the market, which is primarily consumer.
the embedded language is relatively simple and based on Mathematica 8. It doesn't appear to provided system functionality like ActiveX.
It seems obvious that this "free" CDF thing is used to drive sales of Mathematica, because the only way to compose these documents is to run their rather expensive software ($2500 for a single user commercial license). The player is free though, but honestly I don't see why there needs to be a player at all. Why can't it just export as Flash and HTML5?
No doubt it's meant to, at least in part, drive sales of Mathematica. But why quote the commercial price? If you are using it commercially, the price is generally worth it. However, Wolfram has had student pricing pretty much forever, and even has had for over a year now a "Home Edition" for $295. Not cheap, but for what it is, it's a great price.
I never understood why Apple fans brag that "their" company makes the highest profit off of them.
It's a measure of success. And is particularly useful in countering the whole "Apple is beleaguered" (from a decade ago) or "Apple has lost the PC war to MS, and is losing the handheld war to Google" (from today).
I think you misunderstand (which is far too common).
You said, "Specifically, the Mac mini is the only Mac under $2,400 that doesn't have a built-in monitor." You say that it's cheap as though that's a bad thing.
As for your issues with built-in monitors, you are, as usual, exaggerating an issue. Most people just simply aren't having these horrible problems that you seem to think are so critical.
I guess node 3 imagines that music listeners will re-buy from iTunes Store giving Apple 30%
Whoever said music listeners will re-buy their music from iTunes (and what does the 30% have to do with anything? Do you mention this if they buy their music from Target instead?).
movie viewers will use iTunes rentals or a traditional DVD player
Yes, they will (and do). And also use Netflix.
and gamers will re-buy all their non-Steam games from Mac App Store giving Apple 30%.
Again, the same 30% question arises. Do you think Steam sells games for free?
I never said there aren't people who use optical drives. I just said that most don't. Those that do still want them have plenty of options. What is your mental deficiency that takes *one*, very addressable issue, and turns it into some sort of critical flaw?
Sorry, I was using "never" colloquially, not literally. Apple has done the research and found that their optical drives are rarely used. Fewer and fewer people have "existing CD collections", and those that do, fewer and fewer haven't already ripped their CDs.
Software installations is covered by the Mac App Store. There is still software that is only available on CD/DVD, but that's changing. Apple knows how many MacBook Airs they've sold, and how many superdrives they've sold. They also know how many optical drives have failed, and how many computers that have come in for service had a failed optical drive that the customer didn't even know had failed.
Fair enough. For 'justification' in the minds of consumers (where I used the term 'validation' in my post), I think the way things have worked out are pretty clear so far. Apple's downloads are far more trustworthy than Google's. More apps, more downloads, fewer security issues.
The flip side is to see what Google will do, but aside from adopt a more stringent review process, it will be difficult for them to keep malware (of varying types) from making it to their store. Their model is reactive. I can see why some geeks might prefer reactive, but I think people on the whole prefer proactive. They really just don't care if some app gets held up for a week or two if it means that it's been vetted.
Except that solid state media is *vastly* more expensive than a pressed DVD. Several cents for a DVD vs several dollars for solid state media of the same capacity... hmm. Delivering data such as operating systems, software, films etc. on solid state media would be stupid. If all the stuff I bought on DVD had some on flash instead, I'd be hundreds or thousands poorer.
Why are you acting like this USB drive is something to be concerned about? Apple isn't saying, "let's sell all our software, movies, etc., on USB!" Quite the opposite, they are moving to selling everything as downloads now. They are moving *away* from those "several cent DVDs" (with which you completely ignore all the money involved in printing, packaging, shipping, stocking, etc., which far exceed the price of the disc itself).
USB is the fallback. And, aside from price, it's a superior fallback to optical. Apple is moving away from optical, half their consumer computer product line (or 40% if you want to include the Mac Pro) no longer includes built-in optical, not even as an option.
God forbid someone want to keep something that works rather than just go for the new expensive shiny thing for the hell of it.
Good for you. Buy a PC! Or burn Lion to a DVD. Apple is choosing to go one way, and whenever they've tried similar things in the past, they were usually right. Maybe they're wrong here, who knows. You certainly don't. You know what's good for you, I know what's good for me. Apple knows what they think is good for more of their customers. Only time will tell who's right.
Why are you acting like this is some big issue? The USB option isn't meant to be used very often. It's meant to be a fallback. If Apple finds demand for the USB drive exceeds their expectations, they will likely reconsider things. But they've looked at the numbers. They know how many of their customers have high speed internet, how many have access to an Apple Store, and can estimate how many should be able to find a friend or sympathetic retailer to help them. Their numbers tell them that the USB option is not going to be a big deal.
You completely undermined your entire argument by calling me a fanboy. I've given you nothing but reasonable responses. You are dead set to exaggerate any downsides as though they are the most braindead choices Apple could make.
USB Flash drives are superior in every way, except price, to optical media, yet you say (highlighting yours) "Except for the most obvious way, the simplest way and the way everyone has done it for years, including Apple." As you know, Apple doesn't do things "the most obvious way", "the simplest way", or "the way everyone else has done it for years", even if Apple was one of those companies.
They move on. It's very clear that flash drives are the way forward. Or I should say, it's very clear that *Apple* thinks flash drives are the way forward. Just look at the MacBook Air and Mac mini.
And you also ignore the fact that Lion on a flash drive isn't just the addition of a flash drive, but it's the addition of a low-run, uniquely designed flash drive, that has to be shipped and stocked, and provides a convenience that some people will find worth $40. For everyone else, which is almost everyone, there are ways to acquire Lion that do not involve additional cost.
And one of these ways even includes getting it on DVD. Just not directly from Apple.
You call me a fanboy, but you're the one who won't listen to reason. You are latching onto one little thing, and acting like it trumps all. You call *that* reasonable?
Taking "a few hours" does not constitute a problem.
Unless the public Wi-Fi provider cuts the download after the one-hour session expires. Does Apple's Lion downloader support resuming an incomplete download?
Yes, and this is an extremely contrived scenario. For this to come to play, someone would have to:
1. Have a 64-bit intel Mac.
2. Not have at least a 256kbps dsl line.
3. Have a *very* low data cap, with no way to extend it.
4. Not have access to an Apple Store, or one of the many Apple resellers willing to help you.
5. Not have access to a friend or family's high speed internet connection.
6. Not have access to a free (or even paid, at a reasonable price) WiFi connection capable of delivering Lion in a reasonable amount of time.
7. Want Lion *now*, and be unhappy about waiting a few weeks for a flash drive from Apple.
The set of people for which every one of these things is true is very, *very* small. And for the people in this set, they are very used to finding their slow internet connection being an issue. They know they can't do things like enjoy netflix, youtube, hulu, steam. They know that when they look at software or video downloads, they generally have to give it a pass, or leave the connection running for hours. Some software updates can add up to over 1GB! That's 1/4 of Lion, for a *software update*!
It's not like everything was fine and rosy, then all of a sudden, Lion! These people have option after option after option. There aren't going to be many people for whom at least *one* of those options won't work, and for that very small number, Apple is manufacturing flash drives which will begin arriving in stores in mere *weeks*. The fact that Lion is out now is a testament to how much more quickly digital downloads can be made available than physical objects.
So, everyone is covered, and those that have to wait a few weeks are rare and used to it. The most absurd thing here is that you aren't even one of them, but you are bitching about this as though it's some big deal. Don't you find it odd that the only people complaining about this are the people for whom it doesn't apply? Don't you think that if this was a big deal, there would be people complaining who are *actually* affected by it?
That should clue you in to the fact that your view of reality is highly distorted. You are making claims based on a theory, while completely ignoring what reality has to say when your theory is being put to the test.
Its almost like they dont care about their own platform?
Microsoft used the same strategy on Windows and it worked for them.
Microsoft very much cares about their platform, and have taken many actions to protect it. Where did you get the idea that they feel and have done otherwise?
Why don't you create a Trusted Apps Store if you think it'd be better?
What kind of silliness is this? It's very clear from the countless stories like this that Apple's App Store model is more secure than Google's model. There's no need to make such a store, it already exists.
If you don't trust the app, don't install it. It's that simple. I have my freedom, you have your safety, everybody is happy.
And how, exactly, are people supposed to know whether to trust an app? With something like Apple's App Store, consumers have a much higher level of trust and confidence in the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of the apps than they do with the Google Marketplace.
The last thing they want is for these data to justify Apple's stringent approval process.
How was Apple's method ever not justified? It's not like they were ever forcing people to do anything. People have been voluntarily buying iOS devices for quite some time now, and outside of a few nerd circles, you never hear people complain about the App Store model.
What this story does, however, if further validate Apple's model. While it never had to be justified because it's a reasonable system and entirely voluntary, it did remain to be seen whether it was based on sound reasoning. This story (and the many before it) provide evidence to back up Apple's claims. Even if Google pulls these apps (and, even further, utilized their "kill switch", as they have done before (which draws no ire, although even the mere *existence* of Apple's "kill switch", which they never used, was a huge issue here on Slashdot a few years ago)), the mere fact that these apps got through in the first place and in such great numbers shows Apple's system provides some of the benefits they claim it does.
Apple Stores will help you in their stores no matter where you bought your Mac.
True, but also irrelevant. A lot of people such as myself bought a Mac online or at a third-party store precisely because there is no Apple Store near them. For example, even in a city of 200,000 where broadband is widespread and which has two Best Buy stores and one independent full-line Mac dealer (Fort Wayne, Indiana), the nearest Apple Stores are 100 miles away in Mishawaka and Indianapolis.
Call your "full-line Mac dealer" in Fort Wayne, and ask them if they will help you acquire Lion. I bet they will.
You keep acting like there are no options here. There are plenty.
You keep acting like this is a common situation.
I have cable myself, but my mom only very recently got DSL when it became available in her part of the country. Her Windows PC was way behind on software updates when I took a look at it, which I guessed had something to do with Internet connection or lack thereof. I was operating on the principle that whatever happens to a close relative is probably happening to a lot of other people.
AND THEIR ARE OPTIONS FOR THESE PEOPLE. You keep acting like if your internet connection is slow, you can't get Lion!
They can make for for a few weeks until physical media is available
And until such physical install media becomes available, I'm considering this a sneak preview rather than a release. If we can accept that this is a sneak preview, I'll stop whining.
Only if you accept the that it's a "sneak preview" for a small percentage of people, the rest of us being quite capable of downloading it, going to an Apple Store (or other establishment) to download it, going to a friend's house, etc.
The number of people who will have to wait for the USB offering is very small. And for them, internet life kinda sucks anyway, so having to wait for things is *NORMAL* to them.
Why do you insist on acting like this is going to be even remotely common?
"And for those whom it is a problem, that's the way their life is. They can't watch Netflix, they can't buy TV shows from iTunes or watch Hulu, or buy games on Steam. Even YouTube is a pain."
That's not true. My connection is fast enough that I can handle Netflix streaming, YouTube, and Hulu just fine, but a 4 GB download still takes a few hours.
Taking "a few hours" does not constitute a problem.
What makes it unreasonable? It's $69, for an operating system! Apple makes it very easy to acquire and install Lion, all for $29. If you *really* need it on physical media, you pay the price. And that price is still quite low for an OS.
$40 extra for a 4 GB USB drive doesn't exactly sound like a fair price to me, even if $69 for an operating system is a fair price overall.
You just said "it's not a fair price, even if it's a fair price".
The $40 isn't just for a 4GB USB drive. It's for an OS on a fairly nice 4GB USB drive that will be manufactured in limited quantities, packaged and shipped to stores to be stocked. And it's not a required purchase, it's a convenience for those that need it that way, which the vast majority of their customers won't.
If you want Lion on a USB drive, you are free to do so yourself.
My problem with Apple is their "fuck you, you'll do it our way and like it" attitude. Not including optical drives on some of their machines is another highly dubious decision, given their low cost and not negligible usefulness. I use mine quite often.
Their '"fuck you, you'll do it our way and like it" attitude'? Where they give you many ways of acquiring Lion, including going into a store and downloading it from a local copy there? Or via USB if you really need it? Or offering a DVD drive as an option is "fuck you, you'll do it our way"?
But then Apple does have a history of dismissing things as obsolete before they actually are obsolete (floppy drives and parallel ports for example).
This is quite correct, however. Apple tends to stay ahead of the curve. For example, offering Lion on a USB drive instead of on DVD.
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
Still contriving examples and acting like they are significant enough to be an issue.
If you want a Mac mini to play DVDs, you can buy an external drive. The *vast* majority of Macs never use their optical drives. By omitting them, Apple is saving people money for something they'll never need. And for those that do need them, they are available as an option.
Somebody with a Mac mini, a cable or satellite box for sports, and a Wii console already connected to the TV might not have another available port on the back of the TV for an upscaling DVD player.
Don't you see how contrived, uncommon, and easily solved this is?
They are offering it on a USB drive in a few weeks.
But at an unreasonable extra cost. And why USB? DVDs can be pressed for pennies.
What makes it unreasonable? It's $69, for an operating system! Apple makes it very easy to acquire and install Lion, all for $29. If you *really* need it on physical media, you pay the price. And that price is still quite low for an OS.
As for "why USB", Apple is phasing out optical drives. Every Lion-compatible Mac can boot off of USB, USB is faster than optical, smaller, more rugged. The *only* compelling argument for optical media is price, and if you *really* want Lion on DVD, you can burn it yourself.
The idea that this is going to be an even remotely common scenario doesn't even deserve a response.
Not having broadband isn't *that* rare. Not having broadband with a generous download limit is even less rare.
That's not the scenario you invented. Your scenario was lugging a desktop Mac into a store. This is not going to be a common occurrence. There are too many things that have to happen to trigger that, and there are plenty of other options that come to play before resorting to that.
Not the least of which is just buying Lion on a USB drive.
As for broadband, it's *very* common. And while there are caps, it's not common to have a cap where a one-time 4GB download is going to be difficult. Sure, it happens, and if it does, there are plenty of ways to work around it.
This is a contrived scenario which is going to affect a very small percentage of people. For those people, there are many options that allow them to upgrade to Lion within their restrictions, and it's not like they aren't used to having to, now and then, go through some amount of hassle or forego some internet activity, due to their lack of broadband.
Quite simply, this is a wholly exaggerated issue.