However, they're probably not defenses that Adobe or people who support the general concept of "openness" would appreciate.
AppleInsider claims it's due to the new multitasking features in iPhone OS 4.0. I don't know if I fully buy that, though the argument that Apple's policy change is part of the 4.0 release seems to support the idea (if they merely wanted to cut out Adobe from the beginning, they could have changed their policy much earlier).
Personally, I think it's a UI-based decision. Apple's whole schtick is focused on a consistent interface that functions smoothly and easily to the end user, rather than trying to pack in as many little features as possible. (Feel free to debate the merits of this type of thinking; it's certainly not for everyone but it seems to be working for them.)
Apple does not want a flood of half-assed iPhone and iPad apps written in a "write once, run on any number of systems and interfaces" manner. In Steve's opinion, if you want sell an iPhone app, write an iPhone app, with all the care and diligence to the iPhone's interface which that entails. Now, I'm sure it would be possible to use Flash's cross-compiling feature to make some wonderful, perfectly native-UIed iPhone apps, but I'm also willing to bet that 99% of the time this feature would be used to half-assedly convert some Flash game to an iPhone game. Again, feel free to debate the merits of such a closed ecosystem, but you can't exactly claim there's no rational basis behind the rules.
Well, was there a time when vertebrates ever had six limbs? I thought we'd just happened to pop out of the water that way; given that we vertebrates have all kept our basic layout since then, I wouldn't really say evolution ever had the opportunity to try six limbs on a large land creature.
Obviously more legs doesn't necessarily mean better. Why not eight, like the last guy said? There's an advantage to redundancy but like you said there are disadvantages as well. It just seems to me like six would be a happier medium between the two.
You need three points on the ground to remain relatively stable without getting into balance issues. Of course a good robot could balance itself on two - hell even a Segway can do it - but lets say in a complex situation like trying to climb a steep rocky hill in Afghanistan in a hurry you want as much stability as possible (note a person in that situation will be using their hands for additional stability too). To move while doing that requires at least one more limb, for a total of four. If there is have a failure in just one limb, you've reduced the robot's stability by quite a bit. I just seems to me like six would be worth it in varied terrain - I mean, if all you're going to do is bound across the plains all day like a gazelle the extra limbs may not be useful, but I'm imagining these things in more steep, mountainous areas as well, where extra footing could be a huge asset.
Wouldn't six be more stable, distribute weight better, and be more redundant in case of failure of a limb?
The only advantages I can think of to four is better efficiency (maybe? Having to move fewer limbs should be a plus, but on the other hand they'll each also have to be more powerful) and a slightly more compact form. Is it worth it? I'd certainly find a couple extra limbs convenient; you'd think a military robot in potentially harsh conditions would also find a couple spares very useful.
Apple is rapidly becoming a company that produces only content delivery hardware.
Shit! They cancelled their "Macintosh" products?
Oh wait, I just checked their website and they all still seem to be there. It appears that Apple added some media-consumption devices to their lineup in the past decade or so, but their full-fledged-computer business also still seems to be going strong - and 90% of that product line is made of metal, not plastic. You had me worried there for a second!
Duplicating the existing software means making another phone app, browser, etc. It has no bearing on media services (ie. Netflix) as suggested by the author of the article. I gave you a couple of already existent examples. A content provider can push their own content to their iPhone OS apps all they want, there's no restriction there (aside from occasional restrictions imposed by AT&T about streaming things over the 3G connection, but I think those have all been lifted).
I mean, half the damned purpose of this iPad is to consume content from other media providers, as shown in the original demo!
YES. When connected to your computer the iPad will mount a "Shared Documents" folder that contains files used by apps on the iPad. This is in the SDK.
Does the iPad support Microsoft Exchange email?
Not likely.
YES. The iPhone does, the iPod Touch does, and the iPad runs the same OS so why the hell wouldn't it? The article even points this out, but then basically say "but you never know... it might not!"
Does the iPad support VPN and configuration management?
Not likely.
See above.
Can you use media services other than iTunes on the iPad?
Uhm.. New to Apple's stuff? The answer is big NO!
How do you get that? There are plenty of media services/apps (Rhapsody, Pandora, etc.) you can use on the iPhone OS that are not connected to Apple. The author of the article complains there's no Netflix app - but how is that Apple's fault? Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose. The only issue is the inability to play in the background - something that primarily affects music apps.
Can the iPad be used for videoconferencing?
There is no camera.
Article acknowledges this and mentions the potential for third-party cameras. Apple allows video capture apps already, so software-wise this shouldn't be an issue. The question is whether the dock connector can support a camera - and this is the one question the article might be right about when they say there's no way to know yet.
Will the iPad's internal storage be upgradable?
There's different storage versions for a reason. Need more space? Buy the larger version (again, in case you have bought the smaller one)
You're right about this one. Why was this even a question to begin with?
Will the iPad allow multiple apps to run simultaneously?
No.
Other than the usual Apple apps (ie. the iPod app) there was nothing that ran in the background in the demo. No reason to assume otherwise. If multitasking ever comes about (ie. as rumored for iPhone OS 4.0) it will be announced when they release the beta SDK for that OS revision.
Will Apple allow the use of Flash on the iPad?
No.
Again, why was this even a question? Apple has explicitly stated it won't.
This article was the worst bit of speculative rubbish I've seen in a while. One out of the "Eight key questions" was actually legit.
Seriously, Apple is worse than Microsoft in locking down things. The whole iPad is completely locked.
This is an appliance, not a full-blown computer (Apple does sell those too, you know). Nor is it half as incapable of things as you claimed.
Making lesson plans a work-for-hire is only going to make them more restricted. As it is now, most teachers are happy to share their work for free, and when they move from school to school or district to district, they are able to bring what works best for them with them. Once you start letting schools (or districts) consider this stuff proprietary/copyrighted information belonging to the school, they'll end up wreaking havoc (or at least trying to) trying to protect their interests whenever a teacher leaves their district, or helps someone at a conference by "giving away" the school's intellectual property.
It seems moot anyway. IANAL, but copyright law leaves a specific exemption for educational purposes. A teacher can copy whatever the hell he or she wishes for use in the classroom, and that seems like it would include lesson plans. I could see making your own plans available online and charging a small convenience/thank you fee for them, but if another teacher gets ahold of your lesson plans through some other means I don't see what recourse you would have anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
However, they're probably not defenses that Adobe or people who support the general concept of "openness" would appreciate.
AppleInsider claims it's due to the new multitasking features in iPhone OS 4.0. I don't know if I fully buy that, though the argument that Apple's policy change is part of the 4.0 release seems to support the idea (if they merely wanted to cut out Adobe from the beginning, they could have changed their policy much earlier).
Personally, I think it's a UI-based decision. Apple's whole schtick is focused on a consistent interface that functions smoothly and easily to the end user, rather than trying to pack in as many little features as possible. (Feel free to debate the merits of this type of thinking; it's certainly not for everyone but it seems to be working for them.)
Apple does not want a flood of half-assed iPhone and iPad apps written in a "write once, run on any number of systems and interfaces" manner. In Steve's opinion, if you want sell an iPhone app, write an iPhone app, with all the care and diligence to the iPhone's interface which that entails. Now, I'm sure it would be possible to use Flash's cross-compiling feature to make some wonderful, perfectly native-UIed iPhone apps, but I'm also willing to bet that 99% of the time this feature would be used to half-assedly convert some Flash game to an iPhone game. Again, feel free to debate the merits of such a closed ecosystem, but you can't exactly claim there's no rational basis behind the rules.
Well, was there a time when vertebrates ever had six limbs? I thought we'd just happened to pop out of the water that way; given that we vertebrates have all kept our basic layout since then, I wouldn't really say evolution ever had the opportunity to try six limbs on a large land creature.
Obviously more legs doesn't necessarily mean better. Why not eight, like the last guy said? There's an advantage to redundancy but like you said there are disadvantages as well. It just seems to me like six would be a happier medium between the two.
You need three points on the ground to remain relatively stable without getting into balance issues. Of course a good robot could balance itself on two - hell even a Segway can do it - but lets say in a complex situation like trying to climb a steep rocky hill in Afghanistan in a hurry you want as much stability as possible (note a person in that situation will be using their hands for additional stability too). To move while doing that requires at least one more limb, for a total of four. If there is have a failure in just one limb, you've reduced the robot's stability by quite a bit. I just seems to me like six would be worth it in varied terrain - I mean, if all you're going to do is bound across the plains all day like a gazelle the extra limbs may not be useful, but I'm imagining these things in more steep, mountainous areas as well, where extra footing could be a huge asset.
Wouldn't six be more stable, distribute weight better, and be more redundant in case of failure of a limb? The only advantages I can think of to four is better efficiency (maybe? Having to move fewer limbs should be a plus, but on the other hand they'll each also have to be more powerful) and a slightly more compact form. Is it worth it? I'd certainly find a couple extra limbs convenient; you'd think a military robot in potentially harsh conditions would also find a couple spares very useful.
Apple is rapidly becoming a company that produces only content delivery hardware.
Shit! They cancelled their "Macintosh" products?
Oh wait, I just checked their website and they all still seem to be there. It appears that Apple added some media-consumption devices to their lineup in the past decade or so, but their full-fledged-computer business also still seems to be going strong - and 90% of that product line is made of metal, not plastic. You had me worried there for a second!
Duplicating the existing software means making another phone app, browser, etc. It has no bearing on media services (ie. Netflix) as suggested by the author of the article. I gave you a couple of already existent examples. A content provider can push their own content to their iPhone OS apps all they want, there's no restriction there (aside from occasional restrictions imposed by AT&T about streaming things over the 3G connection, but I think those have all been lifted). I mean, half the damned purpose of this iPad is to consume content from other media providers, as shown in the original demo!
Can you save and transfer documents to the iPad?
Most likely.
YES. When connected to your computer the iPad will mount a "Shared Documents" folder that contains files used by apps on the iPad. This is in the SDK.
Does the iPad support Microsoft Exchange email?
Not likely.
YES. The iPhone does, the iPod Touch does, and the iPad runs the same OS so why the hell wouldn't it? The article even points this out, but then basically say "but you never know... it might not!"
Does the iPad support VPN and configuration management?
Not likely.
See above.
Can you use media services other than iTunes on the iPad?
Uhm.. New to Apple's stuff? The answer is big NO!
How do you get that? There are plenty of media services/apps (Rhapsody, Pandora, etc.) you can use on the iPhone OS that are not connected to Apple. The author of the article complains there's no Netflix app - but how is that Apple's fault? Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose. The only issue is the inability to play in the background - something that primarily affects music apps.
Can the iPad be used for videoconferencing?
There is no camera.
Article acknowledges this and mentions the potential for third-party cameras. Apple allows video capture apps already, so software-wise this shouldn't be an issue. The question is whether the dock connector can support a camera - and this is the one question the article might be right about when they say there's no way to know yet.
Will the iPad's internal storage be upgradable?
There's different storage versions for a reason. Need more space? Buy the larger version (again, in case you have bought the smaller one)
You're right about this one. Why was this even a question to begin with?
Will the iPad allow multiple apps to run simultaneously?
No.
Other than the usual Apple apps (ie. the iPod app) there was nothing that ran in the background in the demo. No reason to assume otherwise. If multitasking ever comes about (ie. as rumored for iPhone OS 4.0) it will be announced when they release the beta SDK for that OS revision.
Will Apple allow the use of Flash on the iPad?
No.
Again, why was this even a question? Apple has explicitly stated it won't. This article was the worst bit of speculative rubbish I've seen in a while. One out of the "Eight key questions" was actually legit.
Seriously, Apple is worse than Microsoft in locking down things. The whole iPad is completely locked.
This is an appliance, not a full-blown computer (Apple does sell those too, you know). Nor is it half as incapable of things as you claimed.
Don't you mean Quint-boots? I mean, surely you could boot both Mac OS X 10.5 and Mac OS X 10.6 on there, right? (Rolleyes)
Making lesson plans a work-for-hire is only going to make them more restricted. As it is now, most teachers are happy to share their work for free, and when they move from school to school or district to district, they are able to bring what works best for them with them. Once you start letting schools (or districts) consider this stuff proprietary/copyrighted information belonging to the school, they'll end up wreaking havoc (or at least trying to) trying to protect their interests whenever a teacher leaves their district, or helps someone at a conference by "giving away" the school's intellectual property.
It seems moot anyway. IANAL, but copyright law leaves a specific exemption for educational purposes. A teacher can copy whatever the hell he or she wishes for use in the classroom, and that seems like it would include lesson plans. I could see making your own plans available online and charging a small convenience/thank you fee for them, but if another teacher gets ahold of your lesson plans through some other means I don't see what recourse you would have anyway.
Wouldn't fucking your clone just be masturbation?