RAM, Flash, CPU power (although that's getting close)
These aren't particularly restrictive.
the extremely restrictive sandbox, the lack of arbitrarily windowed multi-processing apps.
Well these are artificial limitations, Apple's apps already can get privileges and functionality not available to other applications (see private APIs).
Touch input not being good for locating a text cursor. (compared with mouse/trackpad)
Keyboard is a pretty good tool for doing this.
If you're going to use a foldy cover to prop the iPad up, and a keyboard so it physically resembles a laptop, why not just use a laptop.
Because development isn't the only thing I do, why carry 2 devices when I could just carry 1 if it weren't artificially limited.
we'd have all been better off if Stallman had created a viable hardware business, because the problem—one that Stallman never appreciated—is the lack of well documented, open hardware that anyone can program.
That's exactly right, to solve the issue of proprietary software systems you need to start at the bottom, not in the middle. Creating a FOSS operating system just means people use proprietary hardware with proprietary drivers to run a FOSS operating system upon which they run proprietary application software. 30 years on and it still doesn't solve the problem he was initially complaining about which was proprietary drivers. If you have open hardware then you can even write FOSS drivers for systems like OSX and Windows if you like.
And many of us unrelentingly believe that tracking and spying is wrong, counter to liberty, and at least in the US, not constitutional for many reasons.
Well you can believe whatever you want, it isn't going to make any difference until you actually do something about it. Cell phones (even ones that aren't smartphones) are easily tracked, CCTV is everywhere in public places, license plate readers are pretty common, internet traffic is analyzed (and Tor is of course no guarantee of privacy), etc... So unless you're actually doing something about these things then saying you believe it's wrong doesn't make you much different from the people who aren't fussed either way.
Modern Mac Book Pros have two Thunderbolt ports, two USB-C ports and a full sized HDMI. So I guess it's 1 USB and 1 Ethernet port short of a "real" pro machine.
Actually his point was USB-A (which is what most devices are), you'd think they'd at least provide a single USB-A for almost all the USB devices out there.
Adding Physical Ethernet would actually make the system thicker.
By what? 1mm - 1.5mm? If you really care about that then you've probably already gone with a Macbook or an Air rather than the Pro as they are thinner and lighter.
But this is an Apple thread so we must be upset that the professionals that require an Ethernet port need to spend $29 for a dongle.
Why must we? And who is upset? Is there a reason you're trying to take a criticism and make it out as though it's some emotional issue and a critical problem? Also it's not about buying a dongle, it's about actually needing one at all.
Those that allow integration with the operating system to make it a first-class citizen. There are many camera applications superior to Apple's one but you can't quickly access them because this is allowed only for Apple applications.
What makes you think the Live Photo is not a type of burst photo usable via standard Photos SDK?
Nothing, I never said it isn't, you incorrectly inferred that.
Any app will be able to work with Live Photos - they mentioned Facebook was already adding support.
Right and the existing applications that did cinemagraphs couldn't integrate with the OS at the same level. Not only can you not change the default camera application but you cannot add callbacks to the existing one to use 3rd party functionality. So instead you have to wait until they take the functionality of these 3rd party applications, integrate it into their own offerings and make those other ones redundant. You're stuck with the limitations of Apple's default applications, same as with email, any kind of OS-provided "email" option defaults to their email client and you can't change that even if you don't use it. Same goes for web browsers.
I certainly appreciate the portability of the new MacBook pros with fewer big giant outdated ports littered all over the sides of them.
His point is that they are *not* outdated. You really think having a full-size HDMI, ethernet and 3 USB-A ports (FWIW my macbook air has 2 USB-A ports) makes it any less portable?
Live photos, you mean like Cinemagraph that was available since 2012 on Nokia Lumia phones?
There's actually a whole bunch of cinemagraph apps on the iOS app store already. Now they will all be shafted because Apple uses their private APIs to create a copy of these and make it a first-class citizen with the operating system. This "private APIs" crap should really end, Microsoft did the same thing in the 90s to make their products a better experience on their OS than competitors' products.
For me personally, XCode doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a touch screen device with limited screen real-estate. I'd prefer to use a Macbook.
It's 12.9 inches, the Macbook Air comes in 11" and 13" models that are much lower resolution and the Macbook Pro comes in a 13" version that has pretty much the same resolution. In fact the only Macbook with more screen real-estate is the 15" Macbook Pro Retina, every other one has equal or less. Not to mention it has the attached keyboard.
Like any setup you can lock your data in to a particular provider if you store it in a proprietary format or restricted location from which you can't extract it. This is hardly a new thing with SaaS and is certainly not broadly applicable to SaaS in general, in fact it's really only applicable to a small niche.
You keep pointing at consumer stuff; that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about business software like ERP.
Of course, because you said "SaaS" - which is a LOT more than just business ERP software.
Google for "SaaS lock-in"; there's countless IT industry articles talking about this.
It's a very limited subset of SaaS though, and hardly that it's all designed to lock you in and extract monthly payments from you.. Particularly when you consider that the recommendation is that you "make sure your ERP vendor lets you have access to your raw data and download it at any time", if you can do that then it clearly isn't "designed to lock you in" at all.
And if services like DropBox were just storage then maybe you would have a point, but clearly they are not.
I don't know where you ever got the idea that storage is anything like application software.
I don't know where you got the idea that there was no application software driving platforms like DropBox.
If you're going to be this obtuse, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
No I think it's quite clear you are pretending not to understand as a way to avoid the question I've asked twice already and you have continued to avoid. If cloud storage is too difficult a concept for you to understand I will give you other examples: Google/Apple/Bing Maps, Siri/Cortana Voice assistants. So the question remains, what is this "lock in"?
No you can't just redefine it because it disproves your argument.
Google Docs isn't representative of SaaS
No now you're moving the goalposts because your argument has been disproven.
SaaS is mainly about business software.
That is absolute garbage, nowhere is this claim at all substantiated.
Irrespective of all this, you still failed to back up your claim about "lock in". You were so intent on trying to redefine the term that you forgot to answer the question.
It's all designed to lock you in and extract monthly payments from you.
How so? I've never had any problems taking documents from Google Docs and opening them in LibreOffice or MS Office. I'm perfectly able to sync my DropBox files between my computers and even other cloud storage providers. I have also never had any problem moving my applications between Node.js hosting providers. What exactly is this "lock in" you are describing?
Huh? How so? The only way this claim would be valid is if large amounts of FOSS software had actually adopted GPLv3.
He said "restrictions in Open Source systems, such as the Anti-TiVo addition", indicating it is not limited to that. Indeed limitations in many (not all because of the existence of the AGPL) free software systems (a kind of Open Source) include the necessity to distribute the source code for derived works with the binaries but if that program is hosted on a server and access is provided as a service then the distribution clauses do not apply.
Now Digital Restrictions Malware is everywhere, most people have turned into cattle that will buy whatever the corporations are selling.
Rubbish. People wanted their music on any of their devices so Apple - of all companies - made the push to make their extensive music catalog DRM-free to their users. Now people want on-demand music and videos on all their connected devices so Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, etc provide this, whether or not there is a DRM component is irrelevant. The freedom to do something is a means to an end but you're so fixated on the ideological aspects of DRM that you ignore the most important thing: what end users want.
Exactly! It's very much like Open Source software, the advocates tell you it's great because you can see the source and see what it does but that is completely disingenuous argument given that very few people are going to understand the full breadth and consequences of what they are seeing. Now of course in pharmaceuticals the consequences of not understanding it are likely much more dire.
Maybe you should paint the car with one of the very many colors that are available and put some nice wheels on it to match.
Sure, I'll do that on my project car where I'm doing it just for the fun of it but for most people in most use cases the computer operating system is a tool to do a job.
No, it should have been offered at an affordable price.
Then get cracking on starting a research center and clinical trials, patent your results, freely license them and let's see if it's sustainable. There's always a bunch of keyboard warriors telling everybody that the experts in the field are doing it wrong and that *this* is how it should be. Maybe if you SJWs actually *did* something rather than just whining about it you might succeed or perhaps you might realize that reality doesn't quite match your idealized view of what it should be. Either way you're not going to find out until you try.
Not only that, but what happens when you end up with drugs that work incredibly well, only they include a very nasty (and deadly) side effect that wasn't found in the clinical trials? (See Fen-Phen.) Who pays in that case?
If it's based on the Open Source model then nobody pays because nobody is directly responsible. The idea is the information is available free and the end user is the one that has to make the decision because they have all the information.
I'm not opposed this kind of movement, but I'm going to remain skeptical about its viability until the above two problems can be solved.
It's all really going to have to come with an Open Source Software -style "no warranty" disclaimer and when it comes to healthcare you can bet if something goes wrong the first thing will be the question of "who can we blame and sue for millions of dollars". I'm sure it will be a legal mess to have a drug manufacturing company that is completely absolved of responsibility - and of course needs to be due to the low profit margins - or even worse for everybody to have a pill press and make their drugs themselves.
Open source tends to work because just anybody can pick up a programming book and learn to code, and know really quickly whether or not it will work.
And even if it works most of the time but has some critical crash in a few niche cases it's going to be useful and can potentially be patched, the consequence of a drug working most of the time but having some critical side effect in a few niche cases is much more severe. You can't just say "hit 'save' more frequently and if something goes wrong just restart your system".
Social sites need to know your identity in order to show any content, most sites offering customization that users typically end up using, and many sites have forums and other interactive content.
Right, in that case I will grant them that but not just every site by default. If they need it they can ask for it and I will make that decision.
They are not doing the work for free, they get paid. If they want a good ROI, don't include shitty DRM.
I didn't say anything about DRM, it was strictly that you are sold a license, you are not sold the software. It really isn't that hard to understand and it also has nothing to do with DRM whatsoever.
It's also possible for Apple to go back to single-button mice and cooperative multi-tasking. Lotsa people here still bitch about those as if they were current issues, too.
WTF are you on about? I was being sarcastic, clearly the fact that it we have seen vulnerabilities in Safari in the past is no guarantee that we will not see vulnerabilities in the future.
That's playing the Jump to Conclusions Game again.
No I didn't jump to any conclusion at all, you obviously misread. All I said is that we have seen such vulnerabilities before and dismissing it on the basis that we have seen it before is just mindblowingly stupid.
That iOS 9 is going to have it's own patches doesn't mean you can have your phone rooted just by visiting a web site.
It also doesn't mean that can't happen, we've seen it before.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone" != "the average user".
"Anyone" is a generalization, used in this case to apply to 97-98% of computer users. So fairly accurate.
there's hope in the form of the Mykroft project ( https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... )
Thanks for the link, that looks really cool!
RAM, Flash, CPU power (although that's getting close)
These aren't particularly restrictive.
the extremely restrictive sandbox, the lack of arbitrarily windowed multi-processing apps.
Well these are artificial limitations, Apple's apps already can get privileges and functionality not available to other applications (see private APIs).
Touch input not being good for locating a text cursor. (compared with mouse/trackpad)
Keyboard is a pretty good tool for doing this.
If you're going to use a foldy cover to prop the iPad up, and a keyboard so it physically resembles a laptop, why not just use a laptop.
Because development isn't the only thing I do, why carry 2 devices when I could just carry 1 if it weren't artificially limited.
we'd have all been better off if Stallman had created a viable hardware business, because the problem—one that Stallman never appreciated—is the lack of well documented, open hardware that anyone can program.
That's exactly right, to solve the issue of proprietary software systems you need to start at the bottom, not in the middle. Creating a FOSS operating system just means people use proprietary hardware with proprietary drivers to run a FOSS operating system upon which they run proprietary application software. 30 years on and it still doesn't solve the problem he was initially complaining about which was proprietary drivers. If you have open hardware then you can even write FOSS drivers for systems like OSX and Windows if you like.
And many of us unrelentingly believe that tracking and spying is wrong, counter to liberty, and at least in the US, not constitutional for many reasons.
Well you can believe whatever you want, it isn't going to make any difference until you actually do something about it. Cell phones (even ones that aren't smartphones) are easily tracked, CCTV is everywhere in public places, license plate readers are pretty common, internet traffic is analyzed (and Tor is of course no guarantee of privacy), etc... So unless you're actually doing something about these things then saying you believe it's wrong doesn't make you much different from the people who aren't fussed either way.
It's irrational to use a tablet rather than a laptop for coding.
Why? If it has a keyboard (which this does) then what's the difference?
Modern Mac Book Pros have two Thunderbolt ports, two USB-C ports and a full sized HDMI. So I guess it's 1 USB and 1 Ethernet port short of a "real" pro machine.
Actually his point was USB-A (which is what most devices are), you'd think they'd at least provide a single USB-A for almost all the USB devices out there.
Adding Physical Ethernet would actually make the system thicker.
By what? 1mm - 1.5mm? If you really care about that then you've probably already gone with a Macbook or an Air rather than the Pro as they are thinner and lighter.
But this is an Apple thread so we must be upset that the professionals that require an Ethernet port need to spend $29 for a dongle.
Why must we? And who is upset? Is there a reason you're trying to take a criticism and make it out as though it's some emotional issue and a critical problem? Also it's not about buying a dongle, it's about actually needing one at all.
What private API's?
Those that allow integration with the operating system to make it a first-class citizen. There are many camera applications superior to Apple's one but you can't quickly access them because this is allowed only for Apple applications.
What makes you think the Live Photo is not a type of burst photo usable via standard Photos SDK?
Nothing, I never said it isn't, you incorrectly inferred that.
Any app will be able to work with Live Photos - they mentioned Facebook was already adding support.
Right and the existing applications that did cinemagraphs couldn't integrate with the OS at the same level. Not only can you not change the default camera application but you cannot add callbacks to the existing one to use 3rd party functionality. So instead you have to wait until they take the functionality of these 3rd party applications, integrate it into their own offerings and make those other ones redundant. You're stuck with the limitations of Apple's default applications, same as with email, any kind of OS-provided "email" option defaults to their email client and you can't change that even if you don't use it. Same goes for web browsers.
I certainly appreciate the portability of the new MacBook pros with fewer big giant outdated ports littered all over the sides of them.
His point is that they are *not* outdated. You really think having a full-size HDMI, ethernet and 3 USB-A ports (FWIW my macbook air has 2 USB-A ports) makes it any less portable?
Don't recall Live Photos or Force Touch on a Samsung...
"Live Photos" is just a cinemagraph which has been around for years on Android, Windows Phone and even iOS.
Live photos, you mean like Cinemagraph that was available since 2012 on Nokia Lumia phones?
There's actually a whole bunch of cinemagraph apps on the iOS app store already. Now they will all be shafted because Apple uses their private APIs to create a copy of these and make it a first-class citizen with the operating system. This "private APIs" crap should really end, Microsoft did the same thing in the 90s to make their products a better experience on their OS than competitors' products.
For me personally, XCode doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a touch screen device with limited screen real-estate. I'd prefer to use a Macbook.
It's 12.9 inches, the Macbook Air comes in 11" and 13" models that are much lower resolution and the Macbook Pro comes in a 13" version that has pretty much the same resolution. In fact the only Macbook with more screen real-estate is the 15" Macbook Pro Retina, every other one has equal or less. Not to mention it has the attached keyboard.
Here's an article for you: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/...
Like any setup you can lock your data in to a particular provider if you store it in a proprietary format or restricted location from which you can't extract it. This is hardly a new thing with SaaS and is certainly not broadly applicable to SaaS in general, in fact it's really only applicable to a small niche.
You keep pointing at consumer stuff; that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about business software like ERP.
Of course, because you said "SaaS" - which is a LOT more than just business ERP software.
Google for "SaaS lock-in"; there's countless IT industry articles talking about this.
It's a very limited subset of SaaS though, and hardly that it's all designed to lock you in and extract monthly payments from you.. Particularly when you consider that the recommendation is that you "make sure your ERP vendor lets you have access to your raw data and download it at any time", if you can do that then it clearly isn't "designed to lock you in" at all.
I'm not redefining anything. Storage != software.
And if services like DropBox were just storage then maybe you would have a point, but clearly they are not.
I don't know where you ever got the idea that storage is anything like application software.
I don't know where you got the idea that there was no application software driving platforms like DropBox.
If you're going to be this obtuse, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
No I think it's quite clear you are pretending not to understand as a way to avoid the question I've asked twice already and you have continued to avoid. If cloud storage is too difficult a concept for you to understand I will give you other examples: Google/Apple/Bing Maps, Siri/Cortana Voice assistants. So the question remains, what is this "lock in"?
Those aren't SaaS providers.
Of course they are.
DropBox is cloud storage, not SaaS at all.
No you can't just redefine it because it disproves your argument.
Google Docs isn't representative of SaaS
No now you're moving the goalposts because your argument has been disproven.
SaaS is mainly about business software.
That is absolute garbage, nowhere is this claim at all substantiated.
Irrespective of all this, you still failed to back up your claim about "lock in". You were so intent on trying to redefine the term that you forgot to answer the question.
It's all designed to lock you in and extract monthly payments from you.
How so? I've never had any problems taking documents from Google Docs and opening them in LibreOffice or MS Office. I'm perfectly able to sync my DropBox files between my computers and even other cloud storage providers. I have also never had any problem moving my applications between Node.js hosting providers. What exactly is this "lock in" you are describing?
Huh? How so? The only way this claim would be valid is if large amounts of FOSS software had actually adopted GPLv3.
He said "restrictions in Open Source systems, such as the Anti-TiVo addition", indicating it is not limited to that. Indeed limitations in many (not all because of the existence of the AGPL) free software systems (a kind of Open Source) include the necessity to distribute the source code for derived works with the binaries but if that program is hosted on a server and access is provided as a service then the distribution clauses do not apply.
Now Digital Restrictions Malware is everywhere, most people have turned into cattle that will buy whatever the corporations are selling.
Rubbish. People wanted their music on any of their devices so Apple - of all companies - made the push to make their extensive music catalog DRM-free to their users. Now people want on-demand music and videos on all their connected devices so Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, etc provide this, whether or not there is a DRM component is irrelevant. The freedom to do something is a means to an end but you're so fixated on the ideological aspects of DRM that you ignore the most important thing: what end users want.
Exactly! It's very much like Open Source software, the advocates tell you it's great because you can see the source and see what it does but that is completely disingenuous argument given that very few people are going to understand the full breadth and consequences of what they are seeing. Now of course in pharmaceuticals the consequences of not understanding it are likely much more dire.
Maybe you should paint the car with one of the very many colors that are available and put some nice wheels on it to match.
Sure, I'll do that on my project car where I'm doing it just for the fun of it but for most people in most use cases the computer operating system is a tool to do a job.
No, it should have been offered at an affordable price.
Then get cracking on starting a research center and clinical trials, patent your results, freely license them and let's see if it's sustainable. There's always a bunch of keyboard warriors telling everybody that the experts in the field are doing it wrong and that *this* is how it should be. Maybe if you SJWs actually *did* something rather than just whining about it you might succeed or perhaps you might realize that reality doesn't quite match your idealized view of what it should be. Either way you're not going to find out until you try.
Not only that, but what happens when you end up with drugs that work incredibly well, only they include a very nasty (and deadly) side effect that wasn't found in the clinical trials? (See Fen-Phen.) Who pays in that case?
If it's based on the Open Source model then nobody pays because nobody is directly responsible. The idea is the information is available free and the end user is the one that has to make the decision because they have all the information.
I'm not opposed this kind of movement, but I'm going to remain skeptical about its viability until the above two problems can be solved.
It's all really going to have to come with an Open Source Software -style "no warranty" disclaimer and when it comes to healthcare you can bet if something goes wrong the first thing will be the question of "who can we blame and sue for millions of dollars". I'm sure it will be a legal mess to have a drug manufacturing company that is completely absolved of responsibility - and of course needs to be due to the low profit margins - or even worse for everybody to have a pill press and make their drugs themselves.
Open source tends to work because just anybody can pick up a programming book and learn to code, and know really quickly whether or not it will work.
And even if it works most of the time but has some critical crash in a few niche cases it's going to be useful and can potentially be patched, the consequence of a drug working most of the time but having some critical side effect in a few niche cases is much more severe. You can't just say "hit 'save' more frequently and if something goes wrong just restart your system".
Social sites need to know your identity in order to show any content, most sites offering customization that users typically end up using, and many sites have forums and other interactive content.
Right, in that case I will grant them that but not just every site by default. If they need it they can ask for it and I will make that decision.
They are not doing the work for free, they get paid. If they want a good ROI, don't include shitty DRM.
I didn't say anything about DRM, it was strictly that you are sold a license, you are not sold the software. It really isn't that hard to understand and it also has nothing to do with DRM whatsoever.
It's also possible for Apple to go back to single-button mice and cooperative multi-tasking. Lotsa people here still bitch about those as if they were current issues, too.
WTF are you on about? I was being sarcastic, clearly the fact that it we have seen vulnerabilities in Safari in the past is no guarantee that we will not see vulnerabilities in the future.
That's playing the Jump to Conclusions Game again.
No I didn't jump to any conclusion at all, you obviously misread. All I said is that we have seen such vulnerabilities before and dismissing it on the basis that we have seen it before is just mindblowingly stupid.
That iOS 9 is going to have it's own patches doesn't mean you can have your phone rooted just by visiting a web site.
It also doesn't mean that can't happen, we've seen it before.