Honestly, nine times out of ten, if a nerd makes nothing but technical claims against some product
Apple prohibits distribution of iPhone and iPad apps used for troubleshooting a wireless local area network. Apple prohibits distribution of web browsers that implement HTML5 features that Apple purposely left out of Safari. Is that still a "technical claim"?
I like how you're trying to "prove me wrong" by making what you seem to think are non-technical complaints.
Your post is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin! First off, Apple doesn't prohibit either of those things specifically. The prohibit programs that can be used for hacking (there are WiFi troubleshooters, just not as exhaustive as they could be), and the prohibit software that runs arbitrary code from the internet (which includes HTML renderers). It's not like they said, "we only want these HTML5 features, and must prohibit them entirely" or "we do not want people to be able to troubleshoot their WiFi networks!". How strange you'd word it that way!
Both of these are for security purposes. And yes, both are "technical" claims.
But let's ignore those two problems for the moment, and pretend like they valid and non-technical claims. How does that refute what I wrote? Did I write that the only way a product will do well is if a nerd can only make technical claims against it? No, I said that was strong sign that it will do well. Not the only sign, just a strong one (9/10, though it's clear that was just rhetoric, I do look forward to you digging up some numbers where it's really 19/20 or something equally laughable as a rebut).
Why do you have such a hard time letting others like things you don't like? Do you know how many people care about non-WebKit browsers and WiFi sniffers? Apple could hire people to walk behind them all day giving them wedgies (you'd think from the vitriol that that's what they are already doing!), and their market share wouldn't move a blip.
The vast majority of people who ride a bus have computer-based content creation as the last thing on their mind.
And the majority of people on Earth don't drive a car. Does this mean we should stop making cars? This meme of "One size should fit all, and niches should not be served" is starting to irritate me.
Are you serious? You're the one who keeps lamenting the fact that iPads exist.
Who here is saying you shouldn't be served? He merely pointed out that this market is so damned small as to be irrelevant. There's a market for cars, and it's huge. There's not a market for "people who want to create while riding on the bus". If there were, and your other premise that netbooks are the only solution for that task, then netbooks would still exist.
With your fingers, or if you want, a stylus. Also, via the dock connector/lightning connector, bluetooth, the audio jack, camera, wifi, keyboard cases... How do you think one does?
netbooks
Those would have been perfect, and I use one, but they're no longer manufactured, and I wonder what to do once it breaks.
You buy something else.
notebooks, ultrabooks, MacBook Airs
Those don't go down to 10".
I didn't know buses had screen size limits.
Why are things so conformist with you that there has to be only one right answer to something?
I don't require only one right answer. I just desire that there exist a right answer.
I gave you six. That list wasn't exhaustive.
The problem with you is that you appear to be incapable of doing something unless things are "just so", and "just so" is not inherently critical to the task at hand. You asked how one can create while on the bus (an entirely contrived situation to begin with, as being able to create on the bus is by no means the sole, or even primary, use for technology).
But fine, I played along with your game and answered your question. And you responded with completely irrelevant "issues" for why, somehow, all those things are impossible.
So, you tell me, what are you going to do when your netbook dies? Is the world going to fold in upon itself? Are you going to stop posting to Slashdot because you'll no longer be able to create while riding on the bus?
No. And worst case, people will just stop creating while riding on the bus! Of course, they won't have to, but let's say they are all like you and cannot use an 11" screen on the bus, only 10" screens (nevermind the keyboard on 9" netbooks is a scrunched down one, and the trackpad is extremely gimped, while an 11" MacBook Air has proper keyboards and fantastic trackpads). Then they'll just wait until they get home, to work, or to school. Or they'll write things down on a pad of paper.
Or they'll do what they are already doing. Most of them weren't creating on the bus to begin with. And those that were still are, they're just using different devices.
Your entire post is side-stepping the issue, and merely hurling insults or saying people who like iOS aren't "real nerds", etc.
The issue is nerds going around insulting people for liking something they don't like. It's rude and pointless.
You make a huge, and insanely flawed, foray into "nerds need to tinker". First off, that premise is absolutely flawed. Not all nerds need to tinker in all things at all times. Some nerds happily run Windows and "tinker" by writing game emulators. Are you going to insult them too?
What about all the nerds that use video game consoles? That LIKE video game consoles? Those are far more closed than iOS! I can promise you it's not only possible, but extremely common, for nerds to like closed things.
Then when it comes to iOS, you make the claim that they have to get their nerd on somewhere else, or that they probably aren't even nerds in the first place. The former is completely meaningless and is begging the question. The latter also begs the question, but more to the point is nothing more than an arrogant insult.
And none of that even matters. It doesn't explain angry nerds such as yourself going around insulting anyone who likes something you don't like. All you've done is demonstrate the problem.
I think you're on to something with, "a gorilla with a few right answers".
Outside of religion and politics, most people never get as rude or tribal as many geeks do. Of course it's always there, but never to the extreme you find in nerd circles. It's not just "I like this, so I'm going to promote it", it's "I like this, and I'm smart, so I must be right".
Throw in a bit of maladjustment, and you end up with a gorilla with a few right answers indeed!
The part I still have trouble with is why enthusiasm seems to so often take a back seat to hatred. If you're having fun customizing your launcher in Android, or tinkering around with a Linux netbook, why waste time insulting others? It's just so damned wasteful and counterproductive.
I suspect it's at least partly due to just a loudmouthed majority making noise far beyond their numbers, but still!
Even ignoring all the elitist snobbery insults in your response, the meat of it doesn't answer my question. It's not why some nerds don't like iOS (or anything else). It's why they go around insulting users of products they don't like, and just all around hating (as you've demonstrated in your post).
Your explanation is also easily contradicted by the fact that tens of millions of nerds happily use iOS (and other) devices, in spite of not being completely open. It's just a subset of nerds, angry nerds, who feel the need to insult anyone who uses something they disapprove of, and spew hatred on forums about products and companies that make products they dislike.
It's not even limited to companies that limit tinkerability. You'll find the same vitriol about GNOME vs KDE, or vi vs emacs, or any damned simple thing, like whether to use tabs or spaces in a programming language, or case sensitivity in a filesystem.
My question is why all the hatred? There's so much wonderfully fantastic technology out there, there's no shortage of awesomeness to go around! What's the compelling motivation to insult people ("2 neurons to rub together") for not reason other than they happen to like some particular product?
I think you were joking (I got a laugh out of it anyway), so I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, but I do want to make a small point. I'm actually not advocating for objectivity primarily. I don't think people need to praise, give equal time to, or even bother with at all, competing platforms to the things they like. First and foremost, I want people to follow their passions. That might be Android or iOS, it might be Linux or Windows. It's mainly the "I like Android (or Google or Linux), therefore I have to say bad things about anyone who likes iOS (or Apple or Windows)" type thing that I find so disappointing.
People like you often complain that the iPad is a "consumption device". Well, guess what? Most people want to consume on their devices. That's why they have them. Consume and communicate
So what device is for people who aren't "most people" and want to create while riding the bus?
iPads, Surface Pro, netbooks, notebooks, ultrabooks, MacBook Airs... There's no shortage of options, all valid.
Why are things so conformist with you that there has to be only one right answer to something? Or that some answers have to be wrong?
I am a technologist. You are an idiot. I serve no master save myself; you serve any master that will have you.
There's something mentally amiss with a large swath of the population here. They call others "fanbois" (with the extra-gay 'i' for good measure), but all they do is spew hatred for the things they don't like.
We're all supposed to be nerds here. Android is awesome, Linux is awesome. But so is Windows and Macs and iPads and all that. And if you happen to simply like something that is not sanctioned by the holy order of a minority here on Slashdot, you're the "fanboy"!
Nerd/geek is supposed to be all about being excited about tech (or other things, but quite commonly tech). I don't understand why all the negativity. I get that there's going to be rivalries to some extent, but here (and a few other places, like Engadget and Google+), the Linux/Android fans are like absurdly exaggerated caricatures of the supposed Apple "fanbois" they are always complaining about!
This even goes to the extreme of Linux enthusiasts hating Ubuntu, or Android fans calling the Raspberry Pi useless. What the hell guys?!
SuperKendall is an Apple fanboi and will make any semi-plausible argument to support his master. Don't take his arguments seriously, he's just here to sell things.
Funny how a person who's views fit reality (that people prefer iPads over netbooks) is a "fanboy" that shouldn't be taken seriously.
No, actually it's not funny. It's sad, to be quite honest. Why are Slashdot nerds so angry and hateful?
The difference between netbooks/chromebooks & a tablet? One has a keyboard attached... one uses a bluetooth keyboard.
That and 10" netbooks tended to be cheaper than a 10" tablet, a Bluetooth keyboard, and a case to keep them together. And netbooks shipped with an operating system that supports tiled or overlapping windows, unlike tablets whose operating systems inherit the all maximized all the time window management policy from the smartphones that they were originally designed for. And when you do need a more precise pointing device, there's more of a culture of using an external mouse with a netbook than with a tablet.
And netbooks got their asses handed to them by the iPad. Why do you think that is? Is it because everyone is stupid and will come to their senses (i.e., somehow come to agree with you instead of having their own preferences)? Or is it because the things that you decry are things that they either don't mind, or specifically prefer?
Honestly, nine times out of ten, if a nerd makes nothing but technical claims against some product, it's almost always guaranteed to be a success. That's because the things we care about are outside of the norm.
A lot of geeks seemed to think that because computers went from nerd to commonplace over the past two decades, that means people all became geeks themselves. They didn't. Most people don't actually want computers (or tablets or phones, etc.) for the same reasons we do. Yes, there's some overlap, but the things that stand out to us do not stand out to them.
People like you often complain that the iPad is a "consumption device". Well, guess what? Most people want to consume on their devices. That's why they have them. Consume and communicate, and engage in "lite" forms of productions (i.e., share photos with Instagram filters). They don't want a mouse. They don't want Blender 3D. They don't want gcc and vim.
It's hilarious to watch geeks extoll the virtues of the netbook over the tablet as an argument that the iPad is a fad, but the netbook is the real product people want. Every quarter, tens of millions of people prove that assertion ass-backwards. I always thought geeks were supposed to be smart, so why do so many of them have such a hard time noticing this contradiction? A contradiction that is easily remedied by a simple adjustment of a few basic assumptions?
I agree completely. Tablets are a fad. The form factor is terrible and the functionality is lacking. I think that most people are going to continue using phones and laptops.
I love the way Slashdotters can make such claims in the face of years of evidence to the contrary. I mean, it can't possibly be that people actually like something that you don't like, can it?! Oh no. It has to be they are just stupid sheep following a fad.
Clubs, doctors offices, and the stores can all ban the use of video recording devices.
Exactly. You don't ban something without a reason. The problem here is that most probably won't, so it's a moot point.
My gym already does in the locker rooms. I'm still confused about the issue you have with it. I can already do everything you are discussing, I just need to wear a backpack while doing it right now. Would you object to anyone walking around with a backpack?
If you don't understand the difference convenience and ubiquity brings, you are beyond hope.
Everything Glass does could be done in the late 1800's and early 1900s. But it's only because it's always on your head and ready to go that this is more troubling. Even a smartphone requires one to get it out of their pocket, and it's much more conspicuous when you use it.
Yes, you can secretly film and photograph things today. But the effort involved means it's not something you need to worry much about. But if someone can just tap the side of their head and film you, and you can't tell one way or the other whether they are doing a common task (looking at you) or an uncommon one (recording you surreptitiously), that's a HUGE difference.
Those $200 netbooks were very popular, they are basically what started the whole netbook fad... The reason they went up in price was because they went up in spec, primarily in order to run windows. Once they were powerful enough to run windows, they were no longer cheap and became considerably heavier too, which took away the original benefits of a netbook.
Wait, they were so popular that manufacturers stopped making them and instead made something else that did worse?
No, the Linux netbooks were never popular. That's why the manufacturers went with Windows versions, which themselves were never notably popular, but did do better than their original Linux versions. Then something truly popular came along, the iPad, which destroyed the netbook market.
People want iPads. No one outside of geeks wanted netbooks. Netbooks were only as popular as they were due to their price. People wanted more, but settled for less, and now they don't have to settle.
So why, exactly, will they start settling now? People don't want gimped laptops.
The problem with this assessment is that you are conflating "it's technically workable" with "it's what people want". Sure, barring anything else, it'd do in a pinch. But people generally have little problem spending more money to buy something they want and not simply the minimum required to technically complete some task.
That's also exactly why the first round of netbooks (that the geeks were so in love with) fizzled. And that's exactly why these will as well. In order to do well, these laptops will have to be more desirable than higher powered laptops and iPads. Otherwise, the only market for them will be people who really want something else, but can't pay for it.
That strikes me as a fairly uninteresting demographic to cater to.
The new generation of $200 laptops are fast, high quality displays...and run Android.
None have high quality displays. None are describable as "fast". None currently run Android and it's completely unlikely that there's all that many people who specifically want Android on their notebooks.
You're on a "making shit up" day, aren't you?
In context of price mentioned in this quote, Android has already surpassed Apple in the tablet market by producing better value tablets.
Yup, making shit up day unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "surpassed". I'd imagine that means something useful, like units sold, profits, users. You know, something objective, and not surpassed as in "I like them better".
Perhaps price is something Jobs should not have dismissed so easily.
Yeah, because Apple's hurting so bad right now! They've only been making money hand over fist, have been growing their market, etc.
Ironically younger Jobs agrees with me "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”"
Or they can go for both, successfully like they are now.
Re:Play is the largest online store, by every metr
on
iTunes Store Turns 10
·
· Score: 0
Yes, it's certainly not like like the iTunes Store is the single most popular music store worldwide or anything..
Its not...that would be Play...that is the point, and Music is just a small potion of what is sold.
Lol. Honestly, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously writing absurd shit like that? iTunes is by far the most popular music store on the planet. I'd be interested to see a citation to the contrary.
You only get that here on Slashdot. In the real world, when I see people play music from a laptop 9 times out of 10 they are using iTunes to do it.
...Then you must be in an Apple store. 80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store. Its what you argue for in thread after thread. Short term hardware profits over long term advertising/content models from Google/Amazon. Its a niche player now.
You're confused. I can promise you that 80% of the world does not use Android phone for their digital music. iPods outnumber Android phones, people listen to music on their PCs as well, and nowhere near 80% of the world uses an Android device.
Not to mention that has fuck-all to do with iTunes, since owning an Android phone does not stop one from using iTunes. In fact, I'd wager that among Android phone owners, iTunes is the number one jukebox app.
itunes is very much part of the iPod success story.
True.
It was a horrible bit of software that should be burned with fire.
I disagree. It's fantastic on Macs, though sometimes quite crap on PCs (and strangely so, on one PC it would run slow as molasses, on another (less powerful even!) PC it runs just fine).
For those of us who used platforms that it didn't work on, it made owning an iPod/iPhone a nightmare,
True.
and used to prop up Apples monopoly in the Mp3 players
False. Apple never had a monopoly on MP3 players.
(thank god they Jobs was stopped with books).
Strange. Not only did Apple not have a monopoly on MP3 players, on music, or anything else, their foray into eBooks was already dominated by Amazon. And stranger still, Apple wasn't "stopped" with books, they actually sell them.
It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.
Sorry, but that's just stupid.
It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.
Again, stupid.
Its still used to update devices!?
But not required for iOS devices. It's still used for non-iOS devices (naturally, since they have no direct internet connectivity).
Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware.
Play is nice, though I much prefer a library-type program like iTunes, it's good to have options. Play even (very loosely speaking) integrates with iTunes or any other jukebox, so again, there are options.
Its one redeeming feature is it popularised 3-plane music players. Personally though I'm using Clementine which is everything right about a music player.
I would assume the two main features you think are "right" about it are that it runs on Linux and doesn't have anything to do with Apple.
But it's relatively unimportant. It's an edge-case (people with old iTunes songs but no access to an optical drive), and every day millions of songs are sold further receding the percentage of music that is affected by this.
If I wear them while biking on a trail, how is it any different than GoPro or the like?
Sure, I can do all sorts of abusive things with them but if I am actively trying to respect people's privacy while wearing them I don't see the problem.
The concern with Glass isn't on biking trails, or anywhere else that a head-mounted or similar camera is often used. No one wears their GoPro to the store, to the club, just walking down the street, at the doctor's office. Glass is designed to be always worn, therefore always potentially recording.
Then combine this with Google, who already has a fairly extensive amount of data about our online selves, now having the potential to collate and correlate that with our offline selves. People don't generally mind the online privacy, as you can still be fairly anonymous when you want, and most privacy violations are invisible and non-impactful offline. It's also much easier to avoid or at least highly minimize the amount of data you send to Google online.
But if you are filmed and tagged from dozens of angles at any time, and this video is uploaded to Google's servers, they now know a lot more about you than most people are comfortable with. And the worst part of this is, that's exactly why Google is doing this. Everything they've ever done since figuring out how to monetize web searches has been about collecting ever more data on everything they possibly can.
Even services like Google 411 and Google Voice are intended to collect speech data. Android is designed to ensure Google has direct access to location, web data, and social connections. They even have an augmented reality game whose sole purpose is to collect data on where people walk.
There are good, or at least useful, things that come from all of this. Google's speech recognition is fantastic, they'll have highly improved walking directions, they can offer tons of free email space for free, etc. You can even decide that the privacy trade-off is worthwhile. But please don't pretend like it doesn't exist. or that it's not taking existing things (like GoPro) to a whole new level.
Citations please. Otherwise, this is just fanboy fantasy bullshit.
You're right that Scroogled is a PR stunt, but the reality behind it is true, even if exaggerated. Google has very little sense of privacy. For them, all the data they can collect on you is fair game for them to analyze any way they want, they just don't give it to others too much. Other tech companies, like MS and Apple, do collect and analyze data, but they show actual respect for the user's privacy.
I'm personally not too worried by Google most of the time (they do cross my own personal lines from time to time, and one recent line-crossing is keeping me from using Android devices, even though I quite like them), but they are in a whole league of their own when it comes to being big brother without the guns. Head and shoulders away from MS (and I don't terribly like defending MS, but they do have some positive qualities).
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
Lovely Slashdot logic: don't trust a company that has never abused their user's privacy (they've done other bad things, but not that), but do trust a company whose almost every product is predicated on the removal of privacy for profit.
But Google uses Linux and you're just a git clone away from compiling the source, so the nerds don't care. (Yet somehow, they deride everyone else who gives away their privacy on Facebook...)
Not accepting that Glass is extremely privacy-invasive is foolish. People would take us nerds more seriously if we weren't so absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, nine times out of ten, if a nerd makes nothing but technical claims against some product
Apple prohibits distribution of iPhone and iPad apps used for troubleshooting a wireless local area network. Apple prohibits distribution of web browsers that implement HTML5 features that Apple purposely left out of Safari. Is that still a "technical claim"?
I like how you're trying to "prove me wrong" by making what you seem to think are non-technical complaints.
Your post is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin! First off, Apple doesn't prohibit either of those things specifically. The prohibit programs that can be used for hacking (there are WiFi troubleshooters, just not as exhaustive as they could be), and the prohibit software that runs arbitrary code from the internet (which includes HTML renderers). It's not like they said, "we only want these HTML5 features, and must prohibit them entirely" or "we do not want people to be able to troubleshoot their WiFi networks!". How strange you'd word it that way!
Both of these are for security purposes. And yes, both are "technical" claims.
But let's ignore those two problems for the moment, and pretend like they valid and non-technical claims. How does that refute what I wrote? Did I write that the only way a product will do well is if a nerd can only make technical claims against it? No, I said that was strong sign that it will do well. Not the only sign, just a strong one (9/10, though it's clear that was just rhetoric, I do look forward to you digging up some numbers where it's really 19/20 or something equally laughable as a rebut).
Why do you have such a hard time letting others like things you don't like? Do you know how many people care about non-WebKit browsers and WiFi sniffers? Apple could hire people to walk behind them all day giving them wedgies (you'd think from the vitriol that that's what they are already doing!), and their market share wouldn't move a blip.
The vast majority of people who ride a bus have computer-based content creation as the last thing on their mind.
And the majority of people on Earth don't drive a car. Does this mean we should stop making cars? This meme of "One size should fit all, and niches should not be served" is starting to irritate me.
Are you serious? You're the one who keeps lamenting the fact that iPads exist.
Who here is saying you shouldn't be served? He merely pointed out that this market is so damned small as to be irrelevant. There's a market for cars, and it's huge. There's not a market for "people who want to create while riding on the bus". If there were, and your other premise that netbooks are the only solution for that task, then netbooks would still exist.
But they don't. That should clue you in.
iPads
How does one create with one of those?
With your fingers, or if you want, a stylus. Also, via the dock connector/lightning connector, bluetooth, the audio jack, camera, wifi, keyboard cases... How do you think one does?
netbooks
Those would have been perfect, and I use one, but they're no longer manufactured, and I wonder what to do once it breaks.
You buy something else.
notebooks, ultrabooks, MacBook Airs
Those don't go down to 10".
I didn't know buses had screen size limits.
Why are things so conformist with you that there has to be only one right answer to something?
I don't require only one right answer. I just desire that there exist a right answer.
I gave you six. That list wasn't exhaustive.
The problem with you is that you appear to be incapable of doing something unless things are "just so", and "just so" is not inherently critical to the task at hand. You asked how one can create while on the bus (an entirely contrived situation to begin with, as being able to create on the bus is by no means the sole, or even primary, use for technology).
But fine, I played along with your game and answered your question. And you responded with completely irrelevant "issues" for why, somehow, all those things are impossible.
So, you tell me, what are you going to do when your netbook dies? Is the world going to fold in upon itself? Are you going to stop posting to Slashdot because you'll no longer be able to create while riding on the bus?
No. And worst case, people will just stop creating while riding on the bus! Of course, they won't have to, but let's say they are all like you and cannot use an 11" screen on the bus, only 10" screens (nevermind the keyboard on 9" netbooks is a scrunched down one, and the trackpad is extremely gimped, while an 11" MacBook Air has proper keyboards and fantastic trackpads). Then they'll just wait until they get home, to work, or to school. Or they'll write things down on a pad of paper.
Or they'll do what they are already doing. Most of them weren't creating on the bus to begin with. And those that were still are, they're just using different devices.
Your entire post is side-stepping the issue, and merely hurling insults or saying people who like iOS aren't "real nerds", etc.
The issue is nerds going around insulting people for liking something they don't like. It's rude and pointless.
You make a huge, and insanely flawed, foray into "nerds need to tinker". First off, that premise is absolutely flawed. Not all nerds need to tinker in all things at all times. Some nerds happily run Windows and "tinker" by writing game emulators. Are you going to insult them too?
What about all the nerds that use video game consoles? That LIKE video game consoles? Those are far more closed than iOS! I can promise you it's not only possible, but extremely common, for nerds to like closed things.
Then when it comes to iOS, you make the claim that they have to get their nerd on somewhere else, or that they probably aren't even nerds in the first place. The former is completely meaningless and is begging the question. The latter also begs the question, but more to the point is nothing more than an arrogant insult.
And none of that even matters. It doesn't explain angry nerds such as yourself going around insulting anyone who likes something you don't like. All you've done is demonstrate the problem.
It's sad and shameful.
I think you're on to something with, "a gorilla with a few right answers".
Outside of religion and politics, most people never get as rude or tribal as many geeks do. Of course it's always there, but never to the extreme you find in nerd circles. It's not just "I like this, so I'm going to promote it", it's "I like this, and I'm smart, so I must be right".
Throw in a bit of maladjustment, and you end up with a gorilla with a few right answers indeed!
The part I still have trouble with is why enthusiasm seems to so often take a back seat to hatred. If you're having fun customizing your launcher in Android, or tinkering around with a Linux netbook, why waste time insulting others? It's just so damned wasteful and counterproductive.
I suspect it's at least partly due to just a loudmouthed majority making noise far beyond their numbers, but still!
Even ignoring all the elitist snobbery insults in your response, the meat of it doesn't answer my question. It's not why some nerds don't like iOS (or anything else). It's why they go around insulting users of products they don't like, and just all around hating (as you've demonstrated in your post).
Your explanation is also easily contradicted by the fact that tens of millions of nerds happily use iOS (and other) devices, in spite of not being completely open. It's just a subset of nerds, angry nerds, who feel the need to insult anyone who uses something they disapprove of, and spew hatred on forums about products and companies that make products they dislike.
It's not even limited to companies that limit tinkerability. You'll find the same vitriol about GNOME vs KDE, or vi vs emacs, or any damned simple thing, like whether to use tabs or spaces in a programming language, or case sensitivity in a filesystem.
My question is why all the hatred? There's so much wonderfully fantastic technology out there, there's no shortage of awesomeness to go around! What's the compelling motivation to insult people ("2 neurons to rub together") for not reason other than they happen to like some particular product?
I think you were joking (I got a laugh out of it anyway), so I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, but I do want to make a small point. I'm actually not advocating for objectivity primarily. I don't think people need to praise, give equal time to, or even bother with at all, competing platforms to the things they like. First and foremost, I want people to follow their passions. That might be Android or iOS, it might be Linux or Windows. It's mainly the "I like Android (or Google or Linux), therefore I have to say bad things about anyone who likes iOS (or Apple or Windows)" type thing that I find so disappointing.
People like you often complain that the iPad is a "consumption device". Well, guess what? Most people want to consume on their devices. That's why they have them. Consume and communicate
So what device is for people who aren't "most people" and want to create while riding the bus?
iPads, Surface Pro, netbooks, notebooks, ultrabooks, MacBook Airs... There's no shortage of options, all valid.
Why are things so conformist with you that there has to be only one right answer to something? Or that some answers have to be wrong?
I am a technologist. You are an idiot. I serve no master save myself; you serve any master that will have you.
There's something mentally amiss with a large swath of the population here. They call others "fanbois" (with the extra-gay 'i' for good measure), but all they do is spew hatred for the things they don't like.
We're all supposed to be nerds here. Android is awesome, Linux is awesome. But so is Windows and Macs and iPads and all that. And if you happen to simply like something that is not sanctioned by the holy order of a minority here on Slashdot, you're the "fanboy"!
Nerd/geek is supposed to be all about being excited about tech (or other things, but quite commonly tech). I don't understand why all the negativity. I get that there's going to be rivalries to some extent, but here (and a few other places, like Engadget and Google+), the Linux/Android fans are like absurdly exaggerated caricatures of the supposed Apple "fanbois" they are always complaining about!
This even goes to the extreme of Linux enthusiasts hating Ubuntu, or Android fans calling the Raspberry Pi useless. What the hell guys?!
SuperKendall is an Apple fanboi and will make any semi-plausible argument to support his master. Don't take his arguments seriously, he's just here to sell things.
Funny how a person who's views fit reality (that people prefer iPads over netbooks) is a "fanboy" that shouldn't be taken seriously.
No, actually it's not funny. It's sad, to be quite honest. Why are Slashdot nerds so angry and hateful?
The difference between netbooks/chromebooks & a tablet? One has a keyboard attached... one uses a bluetooth keyboard.
That and 10" netbooks tended to be cheaper than a 10" tablet, a Bluetooth keyboard, and a case to keep them together. And netbooks shipped with an operating system that supports tiled or overlapping windows, unlike tablets whose operating systems inherit the all maximized all the time window management policy from the smartphones that they were originally designed for. And when you do need a more precise pointing device, there's more of a culture of using an external mouse with a netbook than with a tablet.
And netbooks got their asses handed to them by the iPad. Why do you think that is? Is it because everyone is stupid and will come to their senses (i.e., somehow come to agree with you instead of having their own preferences)? Or is it because the things that you decry are things that they either don't mind, or specifically prefer?
Honestly, nine times out of ten, if a nerd makes nothing but technical claims against some product, it's almost always guaranteed to be a success. That's because the things we care about are outside of the norm.
A lot of geeks seemed to think that because computers went from nerd to commonplace over the past two decades, that means people all became geeks themselves. They didn't. Most people don't actually want computers (or tablets or phones, etc.) for the same reasons we do. Yes, there's some overlap, but the things that stand out to us do not stand out to them.
People like you often complain that the iPad is a "consumption device". Well, guess what? Most people want to consume on their devices. That's why they have them. Consume and communicate, and engage in "lite" forms of productions (i.e., share photos with Instagram filters). They don't want a mouse. They don't want Blender 3D. They don't want gcc and vim.
It's hilarious to watch geeks extoll the virtues of the netbook over the tablet as an argument that the iPad is a fad, but the netbook is the real product people want. Every quarter, tens of millions of people prove that assertion ass-backwards. I always thought geeks were supposed to be smart, so why do so many of them have such a hard time noticing this contradiction? A contradiction that is easily remedied by a simple adjustment of a few basic assumptions?
I agree completely. Tablets are a fad. The form factor is terrible and the functionality is lacking. I think that most people are going to continue using phones and laptops.
I love the way Slashdotters can make such claims in the face of years of evidence to the contrary. I mean, it can't possibly be that people actually like something that you don't like, can it?! Oh no. It has to be they are just stupid sheep following a fad.
Give me a break.
Clubs, doctors offices, and the stores can all ban the use of video recording devices.
Exactly. You don't ban something without a reason. The problem here is that most probably won't, so it's a moot point.
My gym already does in the locker rooms. I'm still confused about the issue you have with it. I can already do everything you are discussing, I just need to wear a backpack while doing it right now. Would you object to anyone walking around with a backpack?
If you don't understand the difference convenience and ubiquity brings, you are beyond hope.
Everything Glass does could be done in the late 1800's and early 1900s. But it's only because it's always on your head and ready to go that this is more troubling. Even a smartphone requires one to get it out of their pocket, and it's much more conspicuous when you use it.
Yes, you can secretly film and photograph things today. But the effort involved means it's not something you need to worry much about. But if someone can just tap the side of their head and film you, and you can't tell one way or the other whether they are doing a common task (looking at you) or an uncommon one (recording you surreptitiously), that's a HUGE difference.
Those $200 netbooks were very popular, they are basically what started the whole netbook fad...
The reason they went up in price was because they went up in spec, primarily in order to run windows. Once they were powerful enough to run windows, they were no longer cheap and became considerably heavier too, which took away the original benefits of a netbook.
Wait, they were so popular that manufacturers stopped making them and instead made something else that did worse?
No, the Linux netbooks were never popular. That's why the manufacturers went with Windows versions, which themselves were never notably popular, but did do better than their original Linux versions. Then something truly popular came along, the iPad, which destroyed the netbook market.
People want iPads. No one outside of geeks wanted netbooks. Netbooks were only as popular as they were due to their price. People wanted more, but settled for less, and now they don't have to settle.
So why, exactly, will they start settling now? People don't want gimped laptops.
The problem with this assessment is that you are conflating "it's technically workable" with "it's what people want". Sure, barring anything else, it'd do in a pinch. But people generally have little problem spending more money to buy something they want and not simply the minimum required to technically complete some task.
That's also exactly why the first round of netbooks (that the geeks were so in love with) fizzled. And that's exactly why these will as well. In order to do well, these laptops will have to be more desirable than higher powered laptops and iPads. Otherwise, the only market for them will be people who really want something else, but can't pay for it.
That strikes me as a fairly uninteresting demographic to cater to.
It wasn't greed, it was NeXT computers were really expensive to make.
The new generation of $200 laptops are fast, high quality displays...and run Android.
None have high quality displays. None are describable as "fast". None currently run Android and it's completely unlikely that there's all that many people who specifically want Android on their notebooks.
You're on a "making shit up" day, aren't you?
In context of price mentioned in this quote, Android has already surpassed Apple in the tablet market by producing better value tablets.
Yup, making shit up day unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "surpassed". I'd imagine that means something useful, like units sold, profits, users. You know, something objective, and not surpassed as in "I like them better".
Perhaps price is something Jobs should not have dismissed so easily.
Yeah, because Apple's hurting so bad right now! They've only been making money hand over fist, have been growing their market, etc.
Ironically younger Jobs agrees with me "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”"
Or they can go for both, successfully like they are now.
Yes, it's certainly not like like the iTunes Store is the single most popular music store worldwide or anything..
Its not...that would be Play...that is the point, and Music is just a small potion of what is sold.
Lol. Honestly, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously writing absurd shit like that? iTunes is by far the most popular music store on the planet. I'd be interested to see a citation to the contrary.
You only get that here on Slashdot. In the real world, when I see people play music from a laptop 9 times out of 10 they are using iTunes to do it.
...Then you must be in an Apple store. 80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store. Its what you argue for in thread after thread. Short term hardware profits over long term advertising/content models from Google/Amazon. Its a niche player now.
You're confused. I can promise you that 80% of the world does not use Android phone for their digital music. iPods outnumber Android phones, people listen to music on their PCs as well, and nowhere near 80% of the world uses an Android device.
Not to mention that has fuck-all to do with iTunes, since owning an Android phone does not stop one from using iTunes. In fact, I'd wager that among Android phone owners, iTunes is the number one jukebox app.
itunes is very much part of the iPod success story.
True.
It was a horrible bit of software that should be burned with fire.
I disagree. It's fantastic on Macs, though sometimes quite crap on PCs (and strangely so, on one PC it would run slow as molasses, on another (less powerful even!) PC it runs just fine).
For those of us who used platforms that it didn't work on, it made owning an iPod/iPhone a nightmare,
True.
and used to prop up Apples monopoly in the Mp3 players
False. Apple never had a monopoly on MP3 players.
(thank god they Jobs was stopped with books).
Strange. Not only did Apple not have a monopoly on MP3 players, on music, or anything else, their foray into eBooks was already dominated by Amazon. And stranger still, Apple wasn't "stopped" with books, they actually sell them.
It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.
Sorry, but that's just stupid.
It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.
Again, stupid.
Its still used to update devices!?
But not required for iOS devices. It's still used for non-iOS devices (naturally, since they have no direct internet connectivity).
Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware.
Play is nice, though I much prefer a library-type program like iTunes, it's good to have options. Play even (very loosely speaking) integrates with iTunes or any other jukebox, so again, there are options.
Its one redeeming feature is it popularised 3-plane music players. Personally though I'm using Clementine which is everything right about a music player.
I would assume the two main features you think are "right" about it are that it runs on Linux and doesn't have anything to do with Apple.
But it's relatively unimportant. It's an edge-case (people with old iTunes songs but no access to an optical drive), and every day millions of songs are sold further receding the percentage of music that is affected by this.
If I wear them while biking on a trail, how is it any different than GoPro or the like?
Sure, I can do all sorts of abusive things with them but if I am actively trying to respect people's privacy while wearing them I don't see the problem.
The concern with Glass isn't on biking trails, or anywhere else that a head-mounted or similar camera is often used. No one wears their GoPro to the store, to the club, just walking down the street, at the doctor's office. Glass is designed to be always worn, therefore always potentially recording.
Then combine this with Google, who already has a fairly extensive amount of data about our online selves, now having the potential to collate and correlate that with our offline selves. People don't generally mind the online privacy, as you can still be fairly anonymous when you want, and most privacy violations are invisible and non-impactful offline. It's also much easier to avoid or at least highly minimize the amount of data you send to Google online.
But if you are filmed and tagged from dozens of angles at any time, and this video is uploaded to Google's servers, they now know a lot more about you than most people are comfortable with. And the worst part of this is, that's exactly why Google is doing this. Everything they've ever done since figuring out how to monetize web searches has been about collecting ever more data on everything they possibly can.
Even services like Google 411 and Google Voice are intended to collect speech data. Android is designed to ensure Google has direct access to location, web data, and social connections. They even have an augmented reality game whose sole purpose is to collect data on where people walk.
There are good, or at least useful, things that come from all of this. Google's speech recognition is fantastic, they'll have highly improved walking directions, they can offer tons of free email space for free, etc. You can even decide that the privacy trade-off is worthwhile. But please don't pretend like it doesn't exist. or that it's not taking existing things (like GoPro) to a whole new level.
I think what you mean is, "if it disagrees with me, it's a shill post".
Ironic that an AC would complain about someone else's lack of established posting history...
Citations please. Otherwise, this is just fanboy fantasy bullshit.
You're right that Scroogled is a PR stunt, but the reality behind it is true, even if exaggerated. Google has very little sense of privacy. For them, all the data they can collect on you is fair game for them to analyze any way they want, they just don't give it to others too much. Other tech companies, like MS and Apple, do collect and analyze data, but they show actual respect for the user's privacy.
I'm personally not too worried by Google most of the time (they do cross my own personal lines from time to time, and one recent line-crossing is keeping me from using Android devices, even though I quite like them), but they are in a whole league of their own when it comes to being big brother without the guns. Head and shoulders away from MS (and I don't terribly like defending MS, but they do have some positive qualities).
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
Lovely Slashdot logic: don't trust a company that has never abused their user's privacy (they've done other bad things, but not that), but do trust a company whose almost every product is predicated on the removal of privacy for profit.
But Google uses Linux and you're just a git clone away from compiling the source, so the nerds don't care. (Yet somehow, they deride everyone else who gives away their privacy on Facebook...)
Not accepting that Glass is extremely privacy-invasive is foolish. People would take us nerds more seriously if we weren't so absurd.