Not that I am trying to defend MS here, but everybody seems to be suggesting that MS is equating Open Source with non-commercial. However it seems from the above that MS makes specific mention that Open Source developers do not need a license either way.
It is important to note that open source developers, whether commercial or non-commercial, will not need a patent license for the development of implementations of these protocols"
This is really turning the tables in the whole cell phone racket... I mean industry. This will only turn the tables on the industry if it sales in significant numbers, something I greatly doubt. The vast majority of users are concerned about out of the box functionality, not hackability. If it fails to sale in great numbers then to the industry it is just an irrelevant toy.
It is of note that software freedom (of the type discussed in this forum) is only a feature if you use/want it. Otherwise it is just an inconvenience (as brought about by the assumptions that it brings, like if you need x feature just code it, etc.)
Many of the items on this list are a matter of judgement and tradeoffs.
Many people consider the harder to scratch glass screen a feature, not something that needs "upgrading" to plastic.
Multitasking is something Apple is intentionally not allowing as it can impact performance and batter life (i.e. they decided that not allowing it would benefit more users than allowing it would help). App signing is a similar decision.
If you have a Mac with iLife 08 (or are willing to download one of the several ring tone utilities) you can add all the ringtones you want for free.
Apple is selling a phone and they are making a number of decisions to make it work better for most users at the expense of a few users. You may not agree with the decisions, but all designs involve tradeoffs so you should be able to understand the decisions.
Of course I would like to have much better Bluetooth, copy/paste etc, but no device has all the features I want (I always want something). All in all I think it is a well done full featured device that I would rather use now than wait another number of months or years for more features to be added.
Yes, however I am responding to the fact that many phones initially claimed to be bricked (and described as such) were later recovered (i.e. not bricked), and that those there were either actually bricked, or initially reported as bricked, were generally unlocked and not just jailbroken. As for jailbroken, that is the term that is being used and everyone understands the meaning in this context.
As as early adopter I thought I might add my 2 cents worth.
I have enjoyed my iPhone for the last year. Now that the price has been lowered iPhone market share will likely increase faster. That means higher market share for Safari (including mobile) in general, and the iPhone in particular. This means more sites will be optimized for the iPhone (and more sites will support Safari). Therefore Apple releasing a cheaper iPhone in no way hurts me, but can help me.
Jailbreaking didn't (for most involved users) "brick" the phone. Some unlocked phones were bricked (a step beyond jailbreaking) but phones that were just jailbroken were not harmed (and almost all or almost all bricked phones were later recovered). The biggest problem is that updates undo the jailbreak. However the solution is just to disable automatic updates in iTunes and wait to install an update until each new update can be jailbroken. It is not a big deal. Also, it looks like Apple Stores will restore "bricked" phones by restoring them to the normal firmware (they have signs to that effect in the stores ).
I don't necessarily disagree. I was really responding specifically to the parents suggestion where he said:
Really Linux needs a hardware OEM to champion it on their hardware and work towards making it an ideal desktop, including feature parity with OS X (and interoperability where possible). Basically what would be needed is an Apple like company that had one executive who could make hard decisions and break compatibility with other Linux distros. I do think that one company taking on a project as focused as the parent suggests would be a company that wanted the OS as a primary method of differentiation, and in such a case would be less likely to choose a completely OSS solution. Obviously a number of companies, such as IBM, Intel, and others, have decided to support Linux as a group with the intention of differentiating based on hardware, or services, with the OS being a shared commodity. I think that is valid as well (as you describe), but that is different than what the parent was suggesting.
As a side note, Apple has a partially OSS solution where they both benefit from the OSS community and from differentiation. That is clearly also a valid business model.
The trouble with this is, they would want to do it (as a business) to sell hardware, thus they would be making all those hard decisions and doing all that work on Linux to have software to differentiate and sell their hardware. However since others would be entitled to use their software their hard won advantage disappears quickly.
I may be wrong (of course) but although I see companies making money supporting Linux, or using Linux as a base for their hardware, but I don't see them creating a complete differentiating Linux software stack since that differentiation cannot be maintained.
This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. Not that I remotely agree with this statement, but for those in the OSS community that do, why did you choose a license that allows (evil) users to use your code who do not also generate original programs of their own. Why not switch to a license that states that nobody can use your code unless they first release code for their own original project. It would eliminate of large number of those pesky leaches (users).
I'm afraid too many users (and stores) over here are too lazy to try something new. Realizing that I am NOT a Windows fan and do not use it myself. It is not lazy to go with a product you are familiar with. We all have limited time in our lives and therefore most of the time we choose that which is familiar, only occasionally investing the time to go with something new.
Not only is it human nature, it is also prudent. Implying that those who don't choose to put their time and energy where you would are lazy is condescending at best, or implies you must be lazy for not putting your time where others might think important at worst.
I keep several browsers on my computer that I keep updated. I am sure at some point I will forget to uncheck the box for Firefox and be briefly irritated. However what really bothers me about this is Mozilla calling Apple on using a similar (but more severe) tactic of increasing market share by displaying and preselecting options that are to their advantage, but then a few months later employ a similar strategy. It reeks of politics where you cry foul when you your opponents employ strategies which everyone knows you would employ if you could.
I just get tired of Mac snobs bragging about how secure their systems are. Apple finally decided they didn't know how to design a secure OS, so they scrapped the whole shebang and switched to an OS that had a security system designed in from the start. The security may not be perfect, but it can be adjusted and improved without damaging backward compatibility. I am not trying to be negative, but just pointing out that say you get tired of Mac users bragging about their OS being more secure, but then make arguments about how it is more secure. I am a Mac user. From my viewpoint I have trouble understanding why a Windows user that does not use software that requires WIndows (i.e. most home users) would put up with all the extra hassle of viruses and the hassle and performance hits using anti-virus software involves. To me the question of whether the lack on viruses and malware on the Mac is due to superior intrinsic OS security, because of lower market-share, or both is not the point. Whatever the cause the result is that I, as a Mac user, do not have to deal with viruses or anti-virus software. And that is a good thing. Now, before anybody responds without having read my post in it's entirety, I do understand that for many users Windows is either required, or the best tool for their particular job, and in such cases putting up with the virus/anti-virus nuisance is warranted.
People who can afford to live in fantasy worlds would find that Microsoft and Apple products are better suited to dreamers who don't need to do actual work. Wow. What a coincidence. I have also found that insulting people really helps to get them to listen to the details of my arguments.
I know some MS users can be very defensive about this, and will even insist that what makes their choice "superior" is that no CLI knowledge is required, but that is just not true.. The question is, is the CLI required for what the typical user wants to do. If the answer is no for Windows (or OS X), but yes for Linux then I think that is an important distinction.
I think glossing over the whole question of whether Linux is simple and user friendly enough for a typical (non-technical user) by talking about how there is no really perfect OS (no shit) does a disservice to Linux. The question should be, is Linux as good (useful AND usable) as the others for a typical user, and is it as good as it could be?
On one hand their products are hindered by backwards compatibility required by the business community, yet on another hand, their products are becoming irrelevant thanks to web platforms like Google apps, and virtualization tools like Parallels and VMware. I rather think that virtualization tools like Paralles and VMware work to increase the importance of Windows products by making it easier to use native Windows products on the Mac rather than native Mac ones.
Apple needs to think different 'ahead' of time a bit more rather than meeting the current hardware conceptual needs. Microsoft tends to design for things others aren't even considering or thinking about, and they keep kind of quiet about it, because it isn't a current selling point in general terms, and it lets them keep leapfrogging other OSes. Many people do not see Vista as more advanced than other OSs, and I would bet that few see Vista as leapfrogging anything (obviously an opinion, I have not done polls).
Either way, you mention that MS is working on next generation technologies but they are secretive so nobody knows about them. Few companies are more secretive than Apple so you have no real knowledge what they are working on. You simply assume they are not. This seems like a baseless assumption.
However my real point is not that MS doesn't spend large amounts of money and manpower on GUI research, but they are undisciplined so the GUIs they actually implement are often a mess. The hardest thing about designing a good GUI is not developing new technology and saying yes to it, it is saying no to keep the overall GUI consistent and simple.
I would say that a consistent well integrated GUI based on yesterdays concepts will be much easier to use than an unfocused 'everything but the kitchen sink' GUI using tomorrow technologies.
Part of Apples "magic" is that they actually use and release this sort of technology in a usable way, instead of just sitting on it. The willingness and ability to do that deserves much more credit than you give.
Others then follow Apple.
Shit, Apple just announced they were ditching Carbon for the fully 64 bit version of OSX. Just to clarify. This is not an example of Apple breaking backwards compatibility. Apple is not "ditching" Carbon. Carbon will still be there and apps that depend on it will still run. They are just not updating Carbon to be 64 bit capable.
I disagree with this. Most of the benchmarks showed Classic to be running applications at around 90% of native speed, in some cases greater than 100% as a result of OS X improved underpinning. Also this does not jive with the experiences of myself or others I have known.
I will agree the Classic was an interim solution (or a kludge) since it mixed interfaces with OS X and therefore increased UI complexity. However, when judged solely on the ability to allow one to continue to use OS 9 applications in OS X, it worked remarkably well.
Slashdot Mirror
It is important to note that open source developers, whether commercial or non-commercial, will not need a patent license for the development of implementations of these protocols"
It is of note that software freedom (of the type discussed in this forum) is only a feature if you use/want it. Otherwise it is just an inconvenience (as brought about by the assumptions that it brings, like if you need x feature just code it, etc.)
All we have to do is wait until the App Store is ACTUALLY available and then we will know what is available, both then, and a year later.
No need to guess.
Many of the items on this list are a matter of judgement and tradeoffs.
Many people consider the harder to scratch glass screen a feature, not something that needs "upgrading" to plastic.
Multitasking is something Apple is intentionally not allowing as it can impact performance and batter life (i.e. they decided that not allowing it would benefit more users than allowing it would help). App signing is a similar decision.
If you have a Mac with iLife 08 (or are willing to download one of the several ring tone utilities) you can add all the ringtones you want for free.
Apple is selling a phone and they are making a number of decisions to make it work better for most users at the expense of a few users. You may not agree with the decisions, but all designs involve tradeoffs so you should be able to understand the decisions.
Of course I would like to have much better Bluetooth, copy/paste etc, but no device has all the features I want (I always want something). All in all I think it is a well done full featured device that I would rather use now than wait another number of months or years for more features to be added.
Just my opinions of course.
Yes, however I am responding to the fact that many phones initially claimed to be bricked (and described as such) were later recovered (i.e. not bricked), and that those there were either actually bricked, or initially reported as bricked, were generally unlocked and not just jailbroken. As for jailbroken, that is the term that is being used and everyone understands the meaning in this context.
As as early adopter I thought I might add my 2 cents worth.
I have enjoyed my iPhone for the last year. Now that the price has been lowered iPhone market share will likely increase faster. That means higher market share for Safari (including mobile) in general, and the iPhone in particular. This means more sites will be optimized for the iPhone (and more sites will support Safari). Therefore Apple releasing a cheaper iPhone in no way hurts me, but can help me.
Jailbreaking didn't (for most involved users) "brick" the phone. Some unlocked phones were bricked (a step beyond jailbreaking) but phones that were just jailbroken were not harmed (and almost all or almost all bricked phones were later recovered). The biggest problem is that updates undo the jailbreak. However the solution is just to disable automatic updates in iTunes and wait to install an update until each new update can be jailbroken. It is not a big deal. Also, it looks like Apple Stores will restore "bricked" phones by restoring them to the normal firmware (they have signs to that effect in the stores ).
As a side note, Apple has a partially OSS solution where they both benefit from the OSS community and from differentiation. That is clearly also a valid business model.
The trouble with this is, they would want to do it (as a business) to sell hardware, thus they would be making all those hard decisions and doing all that work on Linux to have software to differentiate and sell their hardware. However since others would be entitled to use their software their hard won advantage disappears quickly.
I may be wrong (of course) but although I see companies making money supporting Linux, or using Linux as a base for their hardware, but I don't see them creating a complete differentiating Linux software stack since that differentiation cannot be maintained.
It this the time to point out that Apple's kernel is open for interested users to "dink" with.
Not only is it human nature, it is also prudent. Implying that those who don't choose to put their time and energy where you would are lazy is condescending at best, or implies you must be lazy for not putting your time where others might think important at worst.
I keep several browsers on my computer that I keep updated. I am sure at some point I will forget to uncheck the box for Firefox and be briefly irritated. However what really bothers me about this is Mozilla calling Apple on using a similar (but more severe) tactic of increasing market share by displaying and preselecting options that are to their advantage, but then a few months later employ a similar strategy. It reeks of politics where you cry foul when you your opponents employ strategies which everyone knows you would employ if you could.
That seems like a very odd choice...
Are we sure. It looks to me to be a feature of Address Book that in no way requires an iPhone.
And rest assured, this is by design. Apple is as excited about Linux as Microsoft is, probably even less so.
How Apple feels regarding Linux aside, I seriously doubt that Apple designed any of their APIs with an eye towards Linux incompatibility.Part of Apples "magic" is that they actually use and release this sort of technology in a usable way, instead of just sitting on it. The willingness and ability to do that deserves much more credit than you give. Others then follow Apple.
I disagree with this. Most of the benchmarks showed Classic to be running applications at around 90% of native speed, in some cases greater than 100% as a result of OS X improved underpinning. Also this does not jive with the experiences of myself or others I have known. I will agree the Classic was an interim solution (or a kludge) since it mixed interfaces with OS X and therefore increased UI complexity. However, when judged solely on the ability to allow one to continue to use OS 9 applications in OS X, it worked remarkably well.