OK, because everyone seems to forget this, every time the 'monopoly' work is brought up.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly.
They are not being sued because everyone uses them, they're being sued because they used their monopoly status to limit competition.
Apple never had a monopoly in music players or music downloads. They lead both of those markets, but never abused that status in any legally reasonable sense. Apple wasn't blocking Real from selling music. In fact, they weren't even blocking Real from selling music compatible with the iPod. They have no obligation whatsoever to allow third party music on the iPod.
Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod. That is how it is a monopoly. Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.
During the time in question, there were multiple DRM restricted music stores. Apple is the sole source of FairPlay DRM, but that's not a monopoly. That's having control over one's own product, which is generally how things are expected to work.
That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If iTunes was the only place to buy music, it could be a monopoly. Just because some artists are exclusive to one store does not make that store a monopoly.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.
Haven't they learned anything from all of Microsoft's troubles?
"Troubles"? You mean both companies being wildly successful? We should all be so lucky to have such problems!
Or does Jobs think he's immune to all of that nonsense because Apple Lovers don't complain much.
Um... they don't complain all that much because they aren't bothered by things that irk you. That's why they are Apple users in the first place. You basically just tried to make the fact that people are happy with Apple seem like a bad thing.
Whatever Apple does is the right way to do it. Pass the Kool-Aid please.
You know, just because people have different opinions than you, that doesn't make them cultists. In fact, *you're* the one making a moral/ethical plea with regards to how Apple manages their iOS ecosystem, if you want to go down this "kool-aid" road...
Ms aims to stop at the manufacturer level, but if they really wanted they could ship devices with nothing but firmware to let people flash the roms themselves. It's quite impossible to prevent distribution.
If that were the way Android was distributed, it would certainly prevent distribution to well over 99.9+% of its current market.
After a certain point (which Barnes and Noble is clearly large enough to afford), I don't see how this helps much. It's not like you can do much more with 500 lawyers than you can with 100. What are the extra lawyers going to do? Tag-team every 5 minutes so they don't wear themselves out?
Research and expertise and focus do benefit from small initial increases in the number of lawyers. So the OPs point stands. For you or me, we probably can't even afford one lawyer to defend us for a full trial of this sort. Barnes and Noble can easily afford several.
It's part of the iOS security model. You're right that this model can be hacked. It's commonly referred to as 'jailbreaking'.
However, if the user never jailbreaks their iOS device, this security model remains in place. There's also always the potential for remotely exploitable flaws, but that's no different than any other network-capable OS. By confining the new javascript implementation to Safari, Apple is blocking local exploits.
Also, it's technically feasible that WebKit2 can allow third-party access to the new engine without compromising iOS's security model.
Then wouldn't you correct them instead of saying 'the test is flawed'? I mean just about any test is flawed if you look at the results in the wrong context.
I would if the original authors hadn't made the claim that this did apply to mobile Safari itself.
The people who disseminate disinformation by coming to conclusions without actually looking at the source just make it even more difficult for everyone to understand what's going on.
I don't really disagree with this, but it's not feasible to read the source of every story one reads. That's the whole point of having news organizations in the first place.
I'm not sure why you're directing so much ire my direction. I can only reply to what people are posting, not what they should be posting. If they are making claims that Safari on the iPhone 4 is slower than Chrome on the Nexus S (or not realizing specific distinctions, or whatever), this isn't my fault.
Your problem with me seems to be that I'm blaming the testers instead of the posters (who are getting their info from those relaying the story, who are getting their story from the site itself). Fair enough. I don't think the blame you are trying to assign is as clearcut as you are making it out to be. Even the testers themselves have extended their claims beyond what they can reasonably be applied to. The chain of blame starts with them, and when they had the chance to correct the course of the direction their article has gone on the web, they instead *bolstered* it.
It seems a bit much to blame people who are working on third-hand information when even the people with first-hand information are making similarly unfounded claims.
The tests are flawed as a way to measure web performance between iOS and Android, which is what all the stories and commenters are relating this as. Even the site itself makes the unsupported claim that mobile Safari won't be much faster than the UIWebView that apps use.
But even with your minor correction, you aren't addressing the actual problem, just shifting the blame.
It's just that you thought they were saying web browsing on the iphone is slower than the nexus s, which they are not.
No, that's exactly what they are saying. They updated their article to explicitly make this claim.
if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
And that's the best way to run a test. You run a set of well-defined tests and make precise measurements, then you just "estimate" what the real results of a proper test would be...
There's no way around the fact that this test is flawed. "Estimating" and guessing at the results of a proper test is nonsense. Any Slashdotter who has any respect for scientific methodology should be ashamed to be playing so loose here in order to make their favorite product look better than some other. There's a word for this that gets thrown at anyone who says nice things about Apple. You know the one.
Read between the lines. Apple fanbois are crying that the test is flawed
The test *IS* flawed. I notice a strong correlation on Slashdot of when someone makes a statement that reflects reality, they get called a "fanboi" by an AC.
when what the test ACTUALLY reveals is so much more interesting than what they set out to show in the first place.
In other words, the test was flawed. Does that make you an "Apple fanboi"?
And, this "much more interesting thing" that they showed was already well known.
I'd have to disagree with Eric Zeman... this is exactly the kind of stuff that's important. If you write an app that relies on the rendering engines as available to a custom app, you would want to know if you're being hog-tied.
But that's not what's being claimed here.
Basically, Apple is gaming the benchmarks and deliberately slowing down stuff when it's for 3rd party developers. It's no different that that old quake3/quack3 trick, and the old tricks Microsoft did to guarantee Office ran faster on Windows than competing productivity suites.
Where do you get the idea that this is being done to deliberately slow down third party apps?
You're right, it does demonstrate something we already know. That people will use flawed "tests" to confirm their biases. This test did not use Safari on the iPhone, which makes it highly flawed.
Your personal "less methodical and quantitative observation" is rather silly. You are more efficient at using your Nexus S than your friends appear to you when using their iPhones? You're telling me a geek feels superior to those around him? Wow, I've never heard of such a thing!
But back to your initial claim, "when it comes to working efficiently", that doesn't even make any sense here. Even if Mobile Safari (which was not tested, and has been shown to be notably improved by other third party tests) was much slower than a browser on Android, that would not be sufficient to back your claim.
If your kids don't think their actions have consequences, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't think it should be expected that children will make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. Given that children will make mistakes, it seems like a good idea for Apple to help reduce the negative impact of some easy-to-make mistakes.
After all, what's better, to make it easy for a child to unknowingly (or even knowingly) make $1,500 in in app purchases, and just punish them after the fact for it, or make it harder to make that mistake in the first place? It's not like children are going to comprehend the amount of money involved even if they do know they are racking up an actual bill.
You and others are completely missing his point. He's not saying you *can't* find stuff to fill a 3TB drive, but that 3TB is now overkill for most people. Even 500GB is far more than most people use.
There was once a time when no matter how much storage you had, an average person would *need* more. Then it became the average person would *want* more. Now the average person has more than enough space.
That doesn't mean there are those with above average storage requirements. They are generally "hoarders" and/or AV pros or enthusiast. But now, as you are saying, you have enough space for all the video and audio you want, you are now moving onto compressing them less. At some point computer storage will be so vast you will be able to store raw, uncompressed data, assuming storage continues to increase sufficiently to do so.
But for most people? They're already well served by their current drives. They aren't storing TV shows and movies, but as cloud services like Netflix and Hulu mature, and new entrants to the cloud like the rumored iTunes service arrive, these people may never feel the need to store non-personal media locally.
It's absolutely impossible to have a rational discussion with someone like you. You "discuss" things like Fox News. You only look at things from one point of view. You "accept" that there are other points of view, but they just all happen to be wrong or trivial (i.e., iPad is an "expensive" (a negative) "toy" (triviality)).
And I don't think the iPad is "bad" or anything like that. I just believe it's still an expensive toy
Yes, because "expensive toy" isn't a put-down...
Further, it's impossible to use an iPad with one hand, like while standing on the train, which is when it could be most useful.
This is the funniest thing about your posts. You always come up with one thing that is completely not apropos of anything and completely non sequitur to itself.
Can you use your netbook with one hand on the train? Which completely begs the question of whether you only have one hand on a train in the first place. Even standing on a commuter train, one can spare a second hand to scroll text and click on links, etc., as needed.
You start with the conclusion, then spout out whatever scenario fits that conclusion, consistency be damned! How is an iPad better than a netbook? I answer this, so you reply that it's worse than an eink reader. If I tell you how it's better than an ereader, you tell me it's not as good as a netbook!
I'd like to hear you justify physical paperback books. Oh, it's easier to flip to a page? Well, you can't fit thousands of books in one paperback! It's only $5 to replace if you lose it? But can it surf the web?
Then take the other position and defend an ereader against a paperback. You can download any book you want without going to the store? Well, my paperback doesn't run out of batteries. You can look up words inline? Well, I can read my paperback in direct sunlight.
don't act like people who buy them are trendy fools tricked by "coolness"
All I asked was how multitouch made web browsing easier.
You've failed yet again to answer my very simple question. (Regarding your non-answer: touch != mutitouch)
You'd think with replies as long as yours, you could manage to address my questions.
You're being deliberately obtuse. I answered your question. The *multitouch* interface of the iPad removes an abstraction barrier between the user and the content. Just because a non-multitouch touch interface does that (although not nearly as well), does not invalidate my answer.
don't care if people don't like Apple or their products
Apparently you do.
Actually, I don't whatsoever. If you hate Apple and don't want to buy one of their products, I'm perfectly happy for you, and wish you the best with whatever products you do buy. But I do care when you give people shit for liking something you don't. You're a standard arrogant geek who thinks anyone who has a different opinion from you is wrong. I don't tell you what to like, or that you are wrong for liking it. If you want to run a CLI on a netbook, what do I care? If you want to use a TabletPC, good for you. I truly, honestly, and completely don't care. It doesn't harm me in the least, and gives you what you prefer.
On the other hand, if I say that I prefer the iPad to a netbook, you ask me to justify my choices to you. Why is that?
It's more convenient than a notebook or a netbook, and it's better than on a phone. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that not everyone is like you? This is a very simple concept.
Reading books and viewing photos and videos is far more enjoyable on an iPad than on a netbook.
Reading is not nearly as pleasant on my iPad as it is on the eInk devices I've seen.
You asked why it's better than a netbook.
And the form factor is not comfortable for reading.
It's *fantastic* form factor for reading. Vastly superior to a netbook.
And how often do people "view photos" when they're on the way to work or on a plane?
What is your problem? Every time I tell you of a scenario it's better, you bring up one where it's irrelevant. Do you think the only time I use my iPad is at work or on a plane? What about when I'm visiting friends and family, or they are visiting me.
This is why I say you aren't simply asking honest questions, but have a clear agenda. You are Fox News.
Are you telling me that "viewing photos" is a major reason for owning an iPad instead of a netbook costing only 1/4 as much?
Ignoring your faulty math, yes, it's *A* major reason. I listed more than one, and my list wasn't complete. But given your reluctance to engage in an honest discussion, I don't expect any of that to matter to you.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, because everyone seems to forget this, every time the 'monopoly' work is brought up.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly.
They are not being sued because everyone uses them, they're being sued because they used their monopoly status to limit competition.
Apple never had a monopoly in music players or music downloads. They lead both of those markets, but never abused that status in any legally reasonable sense. Apple wasn't blocking Real from selling music. In fact, they weren't even blocking Real from selling music compatible with the iPod. They have no obligation whatsoever to allow third party music on the iPod.
It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Just because it makes no sense doesn't mean he didn't mean it. You have read the posts here, right?
Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod. That is how it is a monopoly. Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.
During the time in question, there were multiple DRM restricted music stores. Apple is the sole source of FairPlay DRM, but that's not a monopoly. That's having control over one's own product, which is generally how things are expected to work.
That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If iTunes was the only place to buy music, it could be a monopoly. Just because some artists are exclusive to one store does not make that store a monopoly.
You think someone with an opinion on technology different from yours is ignorant? You must be a geek.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.
Haven't they learned anything from all of Microsoft's troubles?
"Troubles"? You mean both companies being wildly successful? We should all be so lucky to have such problems!
Or does Jobs think he's immune to all of that nonsense because Apple Lovers don't complain much.
Um... they don't complain all that much because they aren't bothered by things that irk you. That's why they are Apple users in the first place. You basically just tried to make the fact that people are happy with Apple seem like a bad thing.
Whatever Apple does is the right way to do it. Pass the Kool-Aid please.
You know, just because people have different opinions than you, that doesn't make them cultists. In fact, *you're* the one making a moral/ethical plea with regards to how Apple manages their iOS ecosystem, if you want to go down this "kool-aid" road...
Ms aims to stop at the manufacturer level, but if they really wanted they could ship devices with nothing but firmware to let people flash the roms themselves. It's quite impossible to prevent distribution.
If that were the way Android was distributed, it would certainly prevent distribution to well over 99.9+% of its current market.
After a certain point (which Barnes and Noble is clearly large enough to afford), I don't see how this helps much. It's not like you can do much more with 500 lawyers than you can with 100. What are the extra lawyers going to do? Tag-team every 5 minutes so they don't wear themselves out?
Research and expertise and focus do benefit from small initial increases in the number of lawyers. So the OPs point stands. For you or me, we probably can't even afford one lawyer to defend us for a full trial of this sort. Barnes and Noble can easily afford several.
The word "lots", you're not using it right.
For context, the tsunami in Japan was 10 meters. The tsunami from the Cascadia Subduction Zone is estimated to be about 30 meters.
It's part of the iOS security model. You're right that this model can be hacked. It's commonly referred to as 'jailbreaking'.
However, if the user never jailbreaks their iOS device, this security model remains in place. There's also always the potential for remotely exploitable flaws, but that's no different than any other network-capable OS. By confining the new javascript implementation to Safari, Apple is blocking local exploits.
Also, it's technically feasible that WebKit2 can allow third-party access to the new engine without compromising iOS's security model.
Then wouldn't you correct them instead of saying 'the test is flawed'? I mean just about any test is flawed if you look at the results in the wrong context.
I would if the original authors hadn't made the claim that this did apply to mobile Safari itself.
The people who disseminate disinformation by coming to conclusions without actually looking at the source just make it even more difficult for everyone to understand what's going on.
I don't really disagree with this, but it's not feasible to read the source of every story one reads. That's the whole point of having news organizations in the first place.
I'm not sure why you're directing so much ire my direction. I can only reply to what people are posting, not what they should be posting. If they are making claims that Safari on the iPhone 4 is slower than Chrome on the Nexus S (or not realizing specific distinctions, or whatever), this isn't my fault.
Your problem with me seems to be that I'm blaming the testers instead of the posters (who are getting their info from those relaying the story, who are getting their story from the site itself). Fair enough. I don't think the blame you are trying to assign is as clearcut as you are making it out to be. Even the testers themselves have extended their claims beyond what they can reasonably be applied to. The chain of blame starts with them, and when they had the chance to correct the course of the direction their article has gone on the web, they instead *bolstered* it.
It seems a bit much to blame people who are working on third-hand information when even the people with first-hand information are making similarly unfounded claims.
The tests are flawed as a way to measure web performance between iOS and Android, which is what all the stories and commenters are relating this as. Even the site itself makes the unsupported claim that mobile Safari won't be much faster than the UIWebView that apps use.
But even with your minor correction, you aren't addressing the actual problem, just shifting the blame.
It's just that you thought they were saying web browsing on the iphone is slower than the nexus s, which they are not.
No, that's exactly what they are saying. They updated their article to explicitly make this claim.
if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
And that's the best way to run a test. You run a set of well-defined tests and make precise measurements, then you just "estimate" what the real results of a proper test would be...
There's no way around the fact that this test is flawed. "Estimating" and guessing at the results of a proper test is nonsense. Any Slashdotter who has any respect for scientific methodology should be ashamed to be playing so loose here in order to make their favorite product look better than some other. There's a word for this that gets thrown at anyone who says nice things about Apple. You know the one.
Read between the lines. Apple fanbois are crying that the test is flawed
The test *IS* flawed. I notice a strong correlation on Slashdot of when someone makes a statement that reflects reality, they get called a "fanboi" by an AC.
when what the test ACTUALLY reveals is so much more interesting than what they set out to show in the first place.
In other words, the test was flawed. Does that make you an "Apple fanboi"?
And, this "much more interesting thing" that they showed was already well known.
I'd have to disagree with Eric Zeman... this is exactly the kind of stuff that's important. If you write an app that relies on the rendering engines as available to a custom app, you would want to know if you're being hog-tied.
But that's not what's being claimed here.
Basically, Apple is gaming the benchmarks and deliberately slowing down stuff when it's for 3rd party developers. It's no different that that old quake3/quack3 trick, and the old tricks Microsoft did to guarantee Office ran faster on Windows than competing productivity suites.
Where do you get the idea that this is being done to deliberately slow down third party apps?
You're right, it does demonstrate something we already know. That people will use flawed "tests" to confirm their biases. This test did not use Safari on the iPhone, which makes it highly flawed.
Your personal "less methodical and quantitative observation" is rather silly. You are more efficient at using your Nexus S than your friends appear to you when using their iPhones? You're telling me a geek feels superior to those around him? Wow, I've never heard of such a thing!
But back to your initial claim, "when it comes to working efficiently", that doesn't even make any sense here. Even if Mobile Safari (which was not tested, and has been shown to be notably improved by other third party tests) was much slower than a browser on Android, that would not be sufficient to back your claim.
If your kids don't think their actions have consequences, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't think it should be expected that children will make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. Given that children will make mistakes, it seems like a good idea for Apple to help reduce the negative impact of some easy-to-make mistakes.
After all, what's better, to make it easy for a child to unknowingly (or even knowingly) make $1,500 in in app purchases, and just punish them after the fact for it, or make it harder to make that mistake in the first place? It's not like children are going to comprehend the amount of money involved even if they do know they are racking up an actual bill.
You and others are completely missing his point. He's not saying you *can't* find stuff to fill a 3TB drive, but that 3TB is now overkill for most people. Even 500GB is far more than most people use.
There was once a time when no matter how much storage you had, an average person would *need* more. Then it became the average person would *want* more. Now the average person has more than enough space.
That doesn't mean there are those with above average storage requirements. They are generally "hoarders" and/or AV pros or enthusiast. But now, as you are saying, you have enough space for all the video and audio you want, you are now moving onto compressing them less. At some point computer storage will be so vast you will be able to store raw, uncompressed data, assuming storage continues to increase sufficiently to do so.
But for most people? They're already well served by their current drives. They aren't storing TV shows and movies, but as cloud services like Netflix and Hulu mature, and new entrants to the cloud like the rumored iTunes service arrive, these people may never feel the need to store non-personal media locally.
It's absolutely impossible to have a rational discussion with someone like you. You "discuss" things like Fox News. You only look at things from one point of view. You "accept" that there are other points of view, but they just all happen to be wrong or trivial (i.e., iPad is an "expensive" (a negative) "toy" (triviality)).
And I don't think the iPad is "bad" or anything like that. I just believe it's still an expensive toy
Yes, because "expensive toy" isn't a put-down...
Further, it's impossible to use an iPad with one hand, like while standing on the train, which is when it could be most useful.
This is the funniest thing about your posts. You always come up with one thing that is completely not apropos of anything and completely non sequitur to itself.
Can you use your netbook with one hand on the train? Which completely begs the question of whether you only have one hand on a train in the first place. Even standing on a commuter train, one can spare a second hand to scroll text and click on links, etc., as needed.
You start with the conclusion, then spout out whatever scenario fits that conclusion, consistency be damned! How is an iPad better than a netbook? I answer this, so you reply that it's worse than an eink reader. If I tell you how it's better than an ereader, you tell me it's not as good as a netbook!
I'd like to hear you justify physical paperback books. Oh, it's easier to flip to a page? Well, you can't fit thousands of books in one paperback! It's only $5 to replace if you lose it? But can it surf the web?
Then take the other position and defend an ereader against a paperback. You can download any book you want without going to the store? Well, my paperback doesn't run out of batteries. You can look up words inline? Well, I can read my paperback in direct sunlight.
don't act like people who buy them are trendy fools tricked by "coolness"
All I asked was how multitouch made web browsing easier.
You've failed yet again to answer my very simple question. (Regarding your non-answer: touch != mutitouch)
You'd think with replies as long as yours, you could manage to address my questions.
You're being deliberately obtuse. I answered your question. The *multitouch* interface of the iPad removes an abstraction barrier between the user and the content. Just because a non-multitouch touch interface does that (although not nearly as well), does not invalidate my answer.
don't care if people don't like Apple or their products
Apparently you do.
Actually, I don't whatsoever. If you hate Apple and don't want to buy one of their products, I'm perfectly happy for you, and wish you the best with whatever products you do buy. But I do care when you give people shit for liking something you don't. You're a standard arrogant geek who thinks anyone who has a different opinion from you is wrong. I don't tell you what to like, or that you are wrong for liking it. If you want to run a CLI on a netbook, what do I care? If you want to use a TabletPC, good for you. I truly, honestly, and completely don't care. It doesn't harm me in the least, and gives you what you prefer.
On the other hand, if I say that I prefer the iPad to a netbook, you ask me to justify my choices to you. Why is that?
It's more convenient than a notebook or a netbook, and it's better than on a phone. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that not everyone is like you? This is a very simple concept.
Reading is not nearly as pleasant on my iPad as it is on the eInk devices I've seen.
You asked why it's better than a netbook.
And the form factor is not comfortable for reading.
It's *fantastic* form factor for reading. Vastly superior to a netbook.
And how often do people "view photos" when they're on the way to work or on a plane?
What is your problem? Every time I tell you of a scenario it's better, you bring up one where it's irrelevant. Do you think the only time I use my iPad is at work or on a plane? What about when I'm visiting friends and family, or they are visiting me.
This is why I say you aren't simply asking honest questions, but have a clear agenda. You are Fox News.
Are you telling me that "viewing photos" is a major reason for owning an iPad instead of a netbook costing only 1/4 as much?
Ignoring your faulty math, yes, it's *A* major reason. I listed more than one, and my list wasn't complete. But given your reluctance to engage in an honest discussion, I don't expect any of that to matter to you.