Are you implying that cultural differences are "whim and eccentricity"?
No, but insisting on, say, putting Chinese characters into a French e-commerce application would count as a "whim and eccentricity". So would spelling your name as "3'mi1e 20la".
Software should have to satisfy real world user input,
It's not just about the "user input", it's what happens with it. If a Chinese user enters Chinese characters for his name, the people actually trying to fill his order won't be able to read or pronounce his name; they can't even write it down or type it. That's why the correct thing to do is to refuse accepting Chinese characters in the first place.
The database itself doesn't care if the value of the "last_name" field
No, but the users of the database do.
Where do you propose people who don't have a legal last name get one?
In some cases, they can just make one up. In other cases, there may be standard ways of dealing with the issue (e.g., Iceland). In yet other cases, it's a good idea to get one legally (e.g., when immigrating to the US).
It probably does, but not because it rejects non-standard names. In fact, having a well-defined model of what a name is and rejecting input that doesn't conform to it is necessary for security.
At the very least it will be a block to compatibility
No, a "block to compatibility" would be to accept arbitrary inputs as names. Compatibility requires some standardization, and that requires rejecting things that the software doesn't know about.
Software in the Internet age NEEDS to be 100% correct
Software can never be 100% correct; it's not even well-defined what that means. But accepting arbitrary inputs as names is probably not correct anyway.
Software shouldn't have to satisfy every whim and excentricity. If you don't have a well-defined first name and last name that consists of extended alphanumeric characters in Unicode and starts with a letter, well, then get one, OK? And while you're at it, come up with decent Romanized and ASCII (traditional Latin) versions of your name, conformant with one of the common Romanization systems of your language; you will need that too if you want to travel internationally. Single letter names are also a potential problem because they are confusable with abbreviations, so consider using a variant spelling ("O" -> "Oh").
This isn't because programmers have some sort of hangups about names, it's because people themselves need to be able to refer to individuals in some reasonable and standardized way, they need to be able to write your name, alphabetize it, and correct errors.
Me, I don't buy my stuff from Apple -- because even as a major conduit, they are neither the only nor the largest option out there.
I suggest you look at market share figures some time.
Could you explain that danger again? Apple can only establish a monopoly if there's no competition -- and I hate to break it to you, but there's plenty of competition out there.
Maybe if you're a total nerd and tinkerer. For most users, Apple has a pretty unique combination with iTunes and iPad; that's pretty much the only combo that my non-technical friends and relatives are capable of using. Kindle kind of comes close, but just for books, and even it isn't really competitive.
"TV networks are forced to do that by government rules."
Stop nit-picking. You know perfectly well that any television broadcaster can lay own arbitrary rules for the content it allows.
Unlike Apple, broadcasters (and cable companies) are regulated and are forced to provide some kinds of access and content even if they don't want to.
Complain all you want, just don't expect expect people to take you seriously when the entire premise of your argument is "they might maybe one day become a monopoly and We should stop that now".
Fortunately, just because you're a moron doesn't mean everybody is.
No, "what matters" is that the US is in Afghanistan and Iraq at least as much for Europe's benefit as it is there for its own benefit. The West as a whole simply cannot afford for oil shipments from the gulf to become unreliable, or for Afghanistan and its neighboring countries to become the center of a fundamentalist Islamic empire. European economies would collapse either if there were a drop in Middle Eastern oil shipments, or if the US were to stop consuming as much as it does. And European voters would scream bloody murder if any of that happened.
"What matters" is also that the current mess in the Middle East and Afghanistan is the direct result of the choices expansionist European nations made during the 19th and 20th centuries. Europe hasn't lifted a finger to try to fix the problems it created, it's just leaning back and letting America do its dirty work.
Sorry, but if the US at least gets some cheap oil out of its military actions, I don't have a problem with that, at all.
Stable governments don't appear out of nowhere; they happen when nations do economically well and their citizens get educated and see the benefits of stability and cooperation.
Afghanistan is a longshot; chances are the US will not stay long enough to make it work and it will fall apart again. But they do have at least a chance now and having naturals resources helps.
That's quite analogous to what happened with PCs: in principle, there was lots of different hardware you could run things on and there was lots of different software you could run on it. But a few hardware vendors and one software vendor managed to eliminate almost all choice.
Apple has full control over the web browser since they wrote it and can approve/not approve any third party browsers. If they don't like HTML-based eBooks, they can just make it easy to rip them off (in the guise of a feature of replicating HTML5 offline content) or screw otherwise with what HTML5 offline readers can do.
They can also approve or disapprove any app at any moment, or force concessions from software vendors. Getting the Kindle and B&N Apps onto the iPad may well have required concessions from Amazon and B&N not to compete with them in certain ways. Same with PDF-based readers.
Apple has successfully eliminated pretty much all free market mechanisms surrounding the iPad and iPad software, and they likely have anti-competitive deals in place with publishers, eBook reader software vendors, and others.
People will not want to carry around half a dozen devices. And Nook and Kindle have such a poor user experience that they are not in the same league.
Android may succeed, but only if it can deliver the content; right now, it cannot (as Apple commentators gleefully pointed out: Android devices can play HD, but there is no legal HD movies for them).
The only platform that has both decent hardware and reasonable content is the iPad.
Microsoft managed to establish a monopoly on operating systems because there were a small number of computer manufacturers. The barrier to entry into manufacturing was high, and on top of that,
Barriers to entry for PCs were also low; the hard part was getting into the distribution channels. It's analogous now: anybody can publish, but for commercial success, you need connections to movie studios, publishing houses, and music distributors. Apple has many of those, few other companies do.
You mean the US may lose the war by attrition? Of course. The question is whether that is "their best hope". Do you seriously think that Afghanistan will be better off with US troops?
Nations where the US made a commitment of staying for many decades after wars have generally been doing well.
You say that as if it's totally inevitable; it's not. Afghanistan has a decent chance to turn its natural resources into education and infrastructure, and, long-term, economic success. They need to be tough, negotiate skillfully, and they need to give up most of their tradition, history, religion, and culture if they want to take advantage of it. If they fail, they'll have another century of hardship ahead of them.
That's the deal the West effectively gives them, and it's not a bad deal. It's also what voters in the US, Europe and Japan vote for.
That article doesn't contradict what I said: "most of the oil from the Middle East goes to Europe, Japan, and Asia". You see, despite the holier-than-thou attitude of Europeans, the West is in this together: Western economies need each other and they need oil (and despite bogus per-capita calculations, European economies use energy at about the same rate as the US economy). A threat to European oil supplies is a threat to the US economy.
Currently, indeed, 50% of the Iraqi oil exports go to the US, and US (and UK) companies profit handsomely from it. Given how expensive the Iraq war was, I have no problem with that, and I hope it will continue until the US has been significantly compensated for the expenses of this war.
I think Americans would be overjoyed if Europe would take care of its own backyard. Until that happens, this is the way it has to go down.
This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?
Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.
That's why people need to understand the danger that Apple poses now, before Apple succeeds in establishing a Microsoft-like monopoly over media, content, and apps.
just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm"
TV networks are forced to do that by government rules.
or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".
Individual physical stores can't impose worldwide controls over products or content; those that do get big enough to do so are just as much of a concern as Apple is.
Just because other companies are sleazy and dangerous doesn't mean we should stop complaining about Apple.
Those corporations will ask for the local gov to take out a loan to build roads, dams, power, export networks.
If they're smart, they are going to say to the corporations "we let you build it, but only if we get cheap power from you".
Will the taxes collected and "haircuts, food, transportation, cell phones" balance the loans?
Well, the people engaging in that economic activity have received the benefit and that can't be retroactively taken away.
Have a look and South America, Africe ect. Loans where cheap but long term you need to pay out a lot more.
Some countries have been doing well, others haven't. It's an imperfect and dangerous world, but they now have a better opportunity than they did before. If they screw up, they are probably no worse off than they were before.
Well, I sure hope not. It's not like the US went to Afghanistan for fun, and if we can get some of our money back and at the same time generate economic activity and jobs, all the better.
Also, Somaila's got some rich Uranium reserves... And I am 100% percent sure every big "human rights" hotspot od last century, and "terrorism" hotspot of 21st is "minerally supported".
Even if that is the case... the problem with that would be what? People need to build an economy after a war, and it's not like these places have much in the way of agriculture or highly educated population; mining is one of the few options. And most spots on earth that haven't been sucked dry by Europeans yet do have some mineral resources. A trillion dollars in lithium is not that much; that's less than the war will end up costing.
Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations.
And those corporations employ people, people who need haircuts, food, transportation, cell phones, and other stuff, people who pay taxes, people who need to get educated, people who get salaries.
And while it might be nice for Afghanis if Afghanistan could become the Switzerland of Asia--you know, build nice hotels, make world-class chocolate, and handle large, shady monetary transactions anonymously--that's not in the cards. This may not be quite as good, but it still beats the Taliban and... well, whatever economic basis Afghanistan had before.
Yes. They're trying to make it easier for their users. That's what you apparently fail to grasp. Not everyone wants to manage files.
That's your interpretation of what they are trying to do. If that is what they are trying to do, they are failing, because the cure is worse than the disease.
Since Apple isn't staffed by morons, there is a more likely interpretation: they are trying to prevent you from using your device with third party services that undermine their revenue model.
But Android's explanations of what the apps are doing needs help, and most people probably aren't going to even pay attention to them.. You know, like how most people just click "Yes" to Windows when it asks them for permission for something?
And you know this... how? In my experience with family and friends, people do not install apps without understanding those warnings. And the warnings are actually pretty clear: "This application wants to read your private data" or "This application uses services that cost you money, including text messages."
But regardless of whether people click "Yes" or not, the permission system still protects them, since it serves to restrict permissions relative to the one-size-fits-all model of iOS. Furthermore, the permission system makes a meaningful security review possible, both by staff and by other users, and applications that request permissions that tend to be quickly identified and down-rated in the market.
"This is a very fanboyish attempt to justify lock-in." This is a very poor ad hominem attack.
Well, I didn't make it, but I have to say: he is right. Apple's industrial design and engineering are pretty nice, so their devices aren't awful. Nevertheless, they know what they are doing when they put restrictions on them in order to drive people to their revenue-generating services and add-ons, and they know what they are doing when they falsely market the resulting restrictions as "ease of use". And you are eating it all up and repeating their marketing b.s., justifying it with ideas about users and usability that you fabricate out of thin air.
Apple could deliver exactly the same user experience they do today without the restrictions they implement. In fact, they could simply have a button in the preferences that basically says "Jailbreak this phone." They don't--not because it would be bad for users--they don't because it would be bad for their revenue. Of course, Apple has a right to screw their users if they like, but people like me have a right to tell their users about it too.
Exactly. Because, really, as a user, does it benefit you to have to name a file or document or whatever with an extension and all that? Especially when we've seen that it's possible to make an easy to use interface which involves simply a "+" button?
Except that it doesn't work that way: on iPhone files do have names, and there are file managers, but instead of one of them, there is a separate, inconsistent one in each application that stores data.
Simple yes. And not a problem. Connect it to iTunes, let it backup your device.
So in order to back up my device while traveling... I need to travel with a laptop. Instead of one device, I now need to carry two. And for what? A function that could easily be provided over WiFi or 3G to some online service of my choosing.
Say the iPhone worked more like you wanted. "hey, look, check out this cool-looking new keyboard add-on app for my phone!... oh, there's a list of APIs. Sound? File sys access? Network? um... sounds like that social fart app. If it's fine for the fart, it's probably fine for a keyboard. let's hit allow."
By your reasoning, we shouldn't have seat belts because some people are too stupid to put them on.
In fact, in my experience, people do pay attention to those messages, in particular when it says "access private data" or "services that cost you money". And if the user who installs it doesn't pay attention, the reviewers for the store do and rate or report it accordingly. That's in contrast to iPhone, where everybody is left guessing as to what the application actually does.
Finally, the Android security model restricts permissions relative to the iPhone security model, so even if you always click "yes", you are never any worse off.
The reason Apple doesn't have such a fine-grained security model is... because they can't; the iPhone OS is technically not capable of it. You're trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
Wow, pages upon pages of apologetics, obscurifications, and presumptions about users. The fact remains that iOS has numerous limitations and restrictions, no file or data management, and a simplistic all-or-nothing security model. These are not obscure and affect many regular users.
(And people should care. Apple's business model and software is a threat to software developers and innovation, and their billion dollar ad campaigns are luring people in with false statements like "the world's most advanced...".)
The only conclusion that I can come up with for this is that there may be some agreement or licensing issue with syncing over WiFi that is holding it up. For a company like Apple, implementing that in software would be trivial.
You're grasping at straws here. Other platforms offer this without getting sued, and it's not like Apple has shied away from infringing on other people's patents. You can even get it for a jailbroken iPhone. If Apple really were worried, they could simply let third party developers offer the function.
Apple is very big on consistency, for good reasons.
Apple pays lip service to consistency; that's different from delivering it.
All convenience aside, I am very glad that they automatically back your device up each time you plug in. It's saved my butt a couple times.
Why should I constantly plug in my iPad? Where am I supposed to plug in my iPad when I'm traveling? You can lose weeks of data on iOS devices because they don't sync over the air like other devices do. It's a ridiculous restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that cultural differences are "whim and eccentricity"?
No, but insisting on, say, putting Chinese characters into a French e-commerce application would count as a "whim and eccentricity". So would spelling your name as "3'mi1e 20la".
Software should have to satisfy real world user input,
It's not just about the "user input", it's what happens with it. If a Chinese user enters Chinese characters for his name, the people actually trying to fill his order won't be able to read or pronounce his name; they can't even write it down or type it. That's why the correct thing to do is to refuse accepting Chinese characters in the first place.
The database itself doesn't care if the value of the "last_name" field
No, but the users of the database do.
Where do you propose people who don't have a legal last name get one?
In some cases, they can just make one up. In other cases, there may be standard ways of dealing with the issue (e.g., Iceland). In yet other cases, it's a good idea to get one legally (e.g., when immigrating to the US).
Then it's designed to fail
You bet it is. All software can and will fail.
and probably also has security holes
It probably does, but not because it rejects non-standard names. In fact, having a well-defined model of what a name is and rejecting input that doesn't conform to it is necessary for security.
At the very least it will be a block to compatibility
No, a "block to compatibility" would be to accept arbitrary inputs as names. Compatibility requires some standardization, and that requires rejecting things that the software doesn't know about.
Software in the Internet age NEEDS to be 100% correct
Software can never be 100% correct; it's not even well-defined what that means. But accepting arbitrary inputs as names is probably not correct anyway.
Software shouldn't have to satisfy every whim and excentricity. If you don't have a well-defined first name and last name that consists of extended alphanumeric characters in Unicode and starts with a letter, well, then get one, OK? And while you're at it, come up with decent Romanized and ASCII (traditional Latin) versions of your name, conformant with one of the common Romanization systems of your language; you will need that too if you want to travel internationally. Single letter names are also a potential problem because they are confusable with abbreviations, so consider using a variant spelling ("O" -> "Oh").
This isn't because programmers have some sort of hangups about names, it's because people themselves need to be able to refer to individuals in some reasonable and standardized way, they need to be able to write your name, alphabetize it, and correct errors.
Me, I don't buy my stuff from Apple -- because even as a major conduit, they are neither the only nor the largest option out there.
I suggest you look at market share figures some time.
Could you explain that danger again? Apple can only establish a monopoly if there's no competition -- and I hate to break it to you, but there's plenty of competition out there.
Maybe if you're a total nerd and tinkerer. For most users, Apple has a pretty unique combination with iTunes and iPad; that's pretty much the only combo that my non-technical friends and relatives are capable of using. Kindle kind of comes close, but just for books, and even it isn't really competitive.
"TV networks are forced to do that by government rules."
Stop nit-picking. You know perfectly well that any television broadcaster can lay own arbitrary rules for the content it allows.
Unlike Apple, broadcasters (and cable companies) are regulated and are forced to provide some kinds of access and content even if they don't want to.
Complain all you want, just don't expect expect people to take you seriously when the entire premise of your argument is "they might maybe one day become a monopoly and We should stop that now".
Fortunately, just because you're a moron doesn't mean everybody is.
No, "what matters" is that the US is in Afghanistan and Iraq at least as much for Europe's benefit as it is there for its own benefit. The West as a whole simply cannot afford for oil shipments from the gulf to become unreliable, or for Afghanistan and its neighboring countries to become the center of a fundamentalist Islamic empire. European economies would collapse either if there were a drop in Middle Eastern oil shipments, or if the US were to stop consuming as much as it does. And European voters would scream bloody murder if any of that happened.
"What matters" is also that the current mess in the Middle East and Afghanistan is the direct result of the choices expansionist European nations made during the 19th and 20th centuries. Europe hasn't lifted a finger to try to fix the problems it created, it's just leaning back and letting America do its dirty work.
Sorry, but if the US at least gets some cheap oil out of its military actions, I don't have a problem with that, at all.
Stable governments don't appear out of nowhere; they happen when nations do economically well and their citizens get educated and see the benefits of stability and cooperation.
Afghanistan is a longshot; chances are the US will not stay long enough to make it work and it will fall apart again. But they do have at least a chance now and having naturals resources helps.
That's quite analogous to what happened with PCs: in principle, there was lots of different hardware you could run things on and there was lots of different software you could run on it. But a few hardware vendors and one software vendor managed to eliminate almost all choice.
Apple has full control over the web browser since they wrote it and can approve/not approve any third party browsers. If they don't like HTML-based eBooks, they can just make it easy to rip them off (in the guise of a feature of replicating HTML5 offline content) or screw otherwise with what HTML5 offline readers can do.
They can also approve or disapprove any app at any moment, or force concessions from software vendors. Getting the Kindle and B&N Apps onto the iPad may well have required concessions from Amazon and B&N not to compete with them in certain ways. Same with PDF-based readers.
Apple has successfully eliminated pretty much all free market mechanisms surrounding the iPad and iPad software, and they likely have anti-competitive deals in place with publishers, eBook reader software vendors, and others.
Apple is a serious threat.
People will not want to carry around half a dozen devices. And Nook and Kindle have such a poor user experience that they are not in the same league.
Android may succeed, but only if it can deliver the content; right now, it cannot (as Apple commentators gleefully pointed out: Android devices can play HD, but there is no legal HD movies for them).
The only platform that has both decent hardware and reasonable content is the iPad.
Microsoft managed to establish a monopoly on operating systems because there were a small number of computer manufacturers. The barrier to entry into manufacturing was high, and on top of that,
Barriers to entry for PCs were also low; the hard part was getting into the distribution channels. It's analogous now: anybody can publish, but for commercial success, you need connections to movie studios, publishing houses, and music distributors. Apple has many of those, few other companies do.
No we're not. We stop buying their watered down crud, and they'll quickly relax the rules.
Yeah, like that worked for Microsoft Windows.
You mean the US may lose the war by attrition? Of course. The question is whether that is "their best hope". Do you seriously think that Afghanistan will be better off with US troops?
Nations where the US made a commitment of staying for many decades after wars have generally been doing well.
You say that as if it's totally inevitable; it's not. Afghanistan has a decent chance to turn its natural resources into education and infrastructure, and, long-term, economic success. They need to be tough, negotiate skillfully, and they need to give up most of their tradition, history, religion, and culture if they want to take advantage of it. If they fail, they'll have another century of hardship ahead of them.
That's the deal the West effectively gives them, and it's not a bad deal. It's also what voters in the US, Europe and Japan vote for.
That article doesn't contradict what I said: "most of the oil from the Middle East goes to Europe, Japan, and Asia". You see, despite the holier-than-thou attitude of Europeans, the West is in this together: Western economies need each other and they need oil (and despite bogus per-capita calculations, European economies use energy at about the same rate as the US economy). A threat to European oil supplies is a threat to the US economy.
Currently, indeed, 50% of the Iraqi oil exports go to the US, and US (and UK) companies profit handsomely from it. Given how expensive the Iraq war was, I have no problem with that, and I hope it will continue until the US has been significantly compensated for the expenses of this war.
I think Americans would be overjoyed if Europe would take care of its own backyard. Until that happens, this is the way it has to go down.
This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?
Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.
That's why people need to understand the danger that Apple poses now, before Apple succeeds in establishing a Microsoft-like monopoly over media, content, and apps.
just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm"
TV networks are forced to do that by government rules.
or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".
Individual physical stores can't impose worldwide controls over products or content; those that do get big enough to do so are just as much of a concern as Apple is.
Just because other companies are sleazy and dangerous doesn't mean we should stop complaining about Apple.
Those corporations will ask for the local gov to take out a loan to build roads, dams, power, export networks.
If they're smart, they are going to say to the corporations "we let you build it, but only if we get cheap power from you".
Will the taxes collected and "haircuts, food, transportation, cell phones" balance the loans?
Well, the people engaging in that economic activity have received the benefit and that can't be retroactively taken away.
Have a look and South America, Africe ect. Loans where cheap but long term you need to pay out a lot more.
Some countries have been doing well, others haven't. It's an imperfect and dangerous world, but they now have a better opportunity than they did before. If they screw up, they are probably no worse off than they were before.
Only conspiracy theorists could come up with the option that it was only a way to put oil resources between American hands. Crazy.
Yeah, in particular since most of the oil from the Middle East goes to Europe, Japan, and Asia.
Well, I sure hope not. It's not like the US went to Afghanistan for fun, and if we can get some of our money back and at the same time generate economic activity and jobs, all the better.
Their best hope was that all the dopes would get bored and get out.
Best hope for what? Be governed by fundamentalist, corrupt, mysogynist tribal madmen? Live under a communist regime?
Also, Somaila's got some rich Uranium reserves... And I am 100% percent sure every big "human rights" hotspot od last century, and "terrorism" hotspot of 21st is "minerally supported".
Even if that is the case... the problem with that would be what? People need to build an economy after a war, and it's not like these places have much in the way of agriculture or highly educated population; mining is one of the few options. And most spots on earth that haven't been sucked dry by Europeans yet do have some mineral resources. A trillion dollars in lithium is not that much; that's less than the war will end up costing.
Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations.
And those corporations employ people, people who need haircuts, food, transportation, cell phones, and other stuff, people who pay taxes, people who need to get educated, people who get salaries.
And while it might be nice for Afghanis if Afghanistan could become the Switzerland of Asia--you know, build nice hotels, make world-class chocolate, and handle large, shady monetary transactions anonymously--that's not in the cards. This may not be quite as good, but it still beats the Taliban and ... well, whatever economic basis Afghanistan had before.
Yes. They're trying to make it easier for their users. That's what you apparently fail to grasp. Not everyone wants to manage files.
That's your interpretation of what they are trying to do. If that is what they are trying to do, they are failing, because the cure is worse than the disease.
Since Apple isn't staffed by morons, there is a more likely interpretation: they are trying to prevent you from using your device with third party services that undermine their revenue model.
But Android's explanations of what the apps are doing needs help, and most people probably aren't going to even pay attention to them.. You know, like how most people just click "Yes" to Windows when it asks them for permission for something?
And you know this... how? In my experience with family and friends, people do not install apps without understanding those warnings. And the warnings are actually pretty clear: "This application wants to read your private data" or "This application uses services that cost you money, including text messages."
But regardless of whether people click "Yes" or not, the permission system still protects them, since it serves to restrict permissions relative to the one-size-fits-all model of iOS. Furthermore, the permission system makes a meaningful security review possible, both by staff and by other users, and applications that request permissions that tend to be quickly identified and down-rated in the market.
"This is a very fanboyish attempt to justify lock-in." This is a very poor ad hominem attack.
Well, I didn't make it, but I have to say: he is right. Apple's industrial design and engineering are pretty nice, so their devices aren't awful. Nevertheless, they know what they are doing when they put restrictions on them in order to drive people to their revenue-generating services and add-ons, and they know what they are doing when they falsely market the resulting restrictions as "ease of use". And you are eating it all up and repeating their marketing b.s., justifying it with ideas about users and usability that you fabricate out of thin air.
Apple could deliver exactly the same user experience they do today without the restrictions they implement. In fact, they could simply have a button in the preferences that basically says "Jailbreak this phone." They don't--not because it would be bad for users--they don't because it would be bad for their revenue. Of course, Apple has a right to screw their users if they like, but people like me have a right to tell their users about it too.
Exactly. Because, really, as a user, does it benefit you to have to name a file or document or whatever with an extension and all that? Especially when we've seen that it's possible to make an easy to use interface which involves simply a "+" button?
Except that it doesn't work that way: on iPhone files do have names, and there are file managers, but instead of one of them, there is a separate, inconsistent one in each application that stores data.
Simple yes. And not a problem. Connect it to iTunes, let it backup your device.
So in order to back up my device while traveling... I need to travel with a laptop. Instead of one device, I now need to carry two. And for what? A function that could easily be provided over WiFi or 3G to some online service of my choosing.
Say the iPhone worked more like you wanted. "hey, look, check out this cool-looking new keyboard add-on app for my phone! ... oh, there's a list of APIs. Sound? File sys access? Network? um... sounds like that social fart app. If it's fine for the fart, it's probably fine for a keyboard. let's hit allow."
By your reasoning, we shouldn't have seat belts because some people are too stupid to put them on.
In fact, in my experience, people do pay attention to those messages, in particular when it says "access private data" or "services that cost you money". And if the user who installs it doesn't pay attention, the reviewers for the store do and rate or report it accordingly. That's in contrast to iPhone, where everybody is left guessing as to what the application actually does.
Finally, the Android security model restricts permissions relative to the iPhone security model, so even if you always click "yes", you are never any worse off.
The reason Apple doesn't have such a fine-grained security model is... because they can't; the iPhone OS is technically not capable of it. You're trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
Apple has better consistency than most other smartphones. They at least really try
Whereas... Google is asking their developers to develop inconsistent applications? Or what? What are you saying?
20 years ago, Apple had a slight advantage in this area when they created written guidelines. These days, everybody is doing the same thing.
Wow, pages upon pages of apologetics, obscurifications, and presumptions about users. The fact remains that iOS has numerous limitations and restrictions, no file or data management, and a simplistic all-or-nothing security model. These are not obscure and affect many regular users.
(And people should care. Apple's business model and software is a threat to software developers and innovation, and their billion dollar ad campaigns are luring people in with false statements like "the world's most advanced ...".)
The only conclusion that I can come up with for this is that there may be some agreement or licensing issue with syncing over WiFi that is holding it up. For a company like Apple, implementing that in software would be trivial.
You're grasping at straws here. Other platforms offer this without getting sued, and it's not like Apple has shied away from infringing on other people's patents. You can even get it for a jailbroken iPhone. If Apple really were worried, they could simply let third party developers offer the function.
Apple is very big on consistency, for good reasons.
Apple pays lip service to consistency; that's different from delivering it.
All convenience aside, I am very glad that they automatically back your device up each time you plug in. It's saved my butt a couple times.
Why should I constantly plug in my iPad? Where am I supposed to plug in my iPad when I'm traveling? You can lose weeks of data on iOS devices because they don't sync over the air like other devices do. It's a ridiculous restriction.