You're somehow forgetting that there IS an ecosystem around OSX and there's still a point a point beyond that for Apple shipping OS X machines. Namely, right now Apple's one of the biggest sellers of notebooks in their price range.
Yet, if Apple wanted to go the route where they were pandering to the lowest possible common denominator, they'd have had a 500 dollar desktop and a 300 dollar netbook on the market years ago.
This doesn't fit the Apple philosophy of putting together competent products.
(Before people yell at me about how some OEM or home builder can produce a PC that's just as good as an Mac for cheaper, sure, but we're now no longer talking about the shitty super low end of the market anymore).
It makes more sense to leave OSX or OS 11 or whatever's in the pipeline for Apple alone on that basis. They're just going to be relying on them less as their core business. Given though, that the Mac is going to be the platform to develop on for iOS, it makes no sense to neglect the platform.
Software and patents are compatible, ASSUMING that the patent office had a competency in evaluating software patents.
Hardware designs are of no cost to draw up either, but those are patentable.
At their core, hardware patents and software patents are just patents on novel and innovative uses of mathematics.
The problem isn't the patent concept itself, but rather a huge flaw in the system in which it's implemented.
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a truly unique and innovative algorithm should be open for everyone to make money off of. That stifles innovation too. Why bother sharing something unique if Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, et al, can just swoop down and reimplement your work and not pay you a damn dime?
I also don't think that it's reasonable that the current system we have where patents is acceptable either. Patent trolls and trivial patents on obvious concepts are a flaw in our implementation of patent protection, but not a flaw in the concept of patents themselves.
What I'm asking for, in short, is for the patent office to do it's damn job, which is to sanely regulate patents that encourage people and companies to patent that which puts bread on the table, but also not allow patents to be used as a cudgel against people.
I think you're wrong that Lion's iOS like slide in it's UI is a glitch, and that consumers are going to demand things like broad bluetooth support and filesystem access/management. So far, Android tablets haven't hit in the market, and wireless usage indicates most users aren't using their Android phones as smart phones, but rather as feature phones that happen to have Android. So I don't think there's much demand for Android in the tablet form factor.
I think increased abstraction away from the bare metal will occur on OSX, however, unlike iOS I think it'll be braindead simple to peel back the layers for several reasons.
First, it'll alienate current OSX users on a level I don't think Apple's happy with. While Apple is an iconoclast and willing to piss off it's users, see the FCPX debacle, this seems like a bridge too far.
Second, support for OSX would be a huge pain if you couldn't touch deeper into the OS itself. There goes all sorts of traditional markets for OSX, education, video, audio, etc.
Third, how do would Apple expect to have anyone develop for OSX if it weren't possible for developers to shoot themselves in the foot? I don't think an iOS like application development paradigm where you pay Apple for access to your own hardware would work for reasons outlined above.
After working in support and around a lot of non-tech types, I think Steve Jobs has a point when he said that users don't understand the filesystem and other things us geeks take for granted, but I think Apple would be stupid if it took us geeks for granted.
I mean, I think what the parent's saying about management is largely true. They're out to save their own asses, but you're right that there's something else going on behind the scenes. They really do need to look after our own interests too. It wouldn't add up if it turned out somehow you had a rockstar manager but completely incompetent boobs for subordinates.
My old boss was friggin' awesome on this point. She made it a point to highlight the accomplishments of her team and not just present it as if she was some sort of managerial genius.
Google's attempting to not necessarily take down Facebook or twitter, I don't think anyway. It'd be insane. Facebook had some advantages that Google+ does not, namely, no matter how bad the Facebook UI will get, it will NEVER be as horrible as the best days on MySpace, which is the social media giant it uprooted. Now I'm speaking strictly in terms of UI, in terms of privacy and other issues, Facebook has a long way to go, but Google+ isn't looking to chase FB on those fronts(except for the exclusion of apps; which I think is a benefit for G+).
Instead what I think they're trying to do is coexist and yet dictate some terms, but not try to be this domineering force in the social media market. Hence, a church bakesale. Come see what we've got, it's tasty, if you don't like it, no big deal.
I mean seriously, how on earth is sliding your finger across the screen to unlock the device something so amazingly innovative that Apple should be able to patent it?!
When no one else does it and everyone rushes to copy your design?
The average consumer never benefits when a single manufacturer focussed on the premium end of the market is given free reign of entire classes of device
Then vote with your wallet and tell device makers that you don't want them to jump on a dime everytime Apple makes a move in the market.
Windows mobile phones don't have slide to unlock. S2U2 mimics the iOS lock screen. In fact, there's an entire suite of apps to make WinMo look like iOS.
I was confused briefly because when I went to go google "Slide to unlock Windows Mobile" I didn't actually find anything that was native to Windows Mobile.
Between the wholesale theft of the UI and the whole "Smart Case" incident, I think Apple's got a reasonable claim here.
Yes, patents bad, boo hoo. When you're a small independent startup, sure, let's talk about how crappy patents are. When you're a billion dollar a year mega corporation, pay the damn licensing fees.
Actually if you read the report, it's saying the opposite.
It's like an analyst saying, "5% of your customers will buy this ridiculous upsell, do not shove it in their face. Be reasonable with your expectations with inapp purchases."
You're blind if you think that Google has creative vision.
Just because Mercedes sells a few orders of magnitude less cars than Honda doesn't mean that Mercedes isn't setting the pace for automotive innovation.
So, anyway... limits? They exist on both platforms. I would argue that there are less of them on Android, but iOS makes up by being more pleasant to work with (just generally smoother). What matters in practice is which limits you hit, and that depends on what you need from your phone/tablet.
I think this sums up the phone OS fanboy wars.
OTOH, I think we should all get together and laugh at people clinging desperately onto BlackBerry, WinMo/WinPhone 7 and Symbian.
only on/. could a phone sell millions, have a strong app ecosystem and be backed by one of the richest tech companies in the world and have it be declared a "failure."
By your logic, the 3DO should've been the most successful games console of the mid 90's, as anyone could license and build the 3DO hardware.
But you're not alone here. I'd still buy an iPad over a TouchPad any day of the week... But the TouchPad feels like the first real adult response to the iPad. Gingerbread/Honeycomb tablets are over priced or too small, and quite frankly I couldn't figure out how to get out of the browser and check out apps or other day to day system behavior. The playbook's the same way.
OTOH, the TouchPad's not just open, but ELEGANT. It's not about open or closed, it's about usability. The TouchPad's got rough edges, but it is proof that Apple's not the only one doing right in the industry. I might even buy one to play with if they announce a TouchPad 2 and I can get one for relatively cheaply.
Let's assume that Gruber's wrong(I have no reason to believe he is; I'm a huge Gruber fanboy and his logic's pretty good).
This means that 61% of the tablet market is owned by 1 vendor, and between Moto, HTC, B&N, RIM, Samsung, etc. that's at least 5 with the distinct possibility of way more vendors fighting for 39% of market share.
1 vendor, Apple, owns *atleast* a solid plurality of tablet market share if not an outright majority.
the problem with COD multiplayer since COD4 from a gameplay perspective is that unless you pick it up RIGHT AWAY and grind like mad, you're not going to really have a fun time. Unless you think eating unbalanced unlockable weapons for dinner is a good time.
He's placing the blame on shitty games on us, the gamers.
Rightfully so. When a COD game can sell millions just on it's name alone, something's wrong.
Although I think that his take on it is a little wrong. But I think Rage is kind of the right direction away from just the traditional walk, shoot, maybe hide behind some cover paradigm. If Rage for iOS is anything to go by, it'll not only be rich and fun with a good sense of humor but the racing aspects will be a nice touch.
Yes, HL2(and ep 2) had those annoying boat and car scenes, but I trust Carmack and co to get this one right.
Slashdot Mirror
You're incredibly off the rails here.
You're somehow forgetting that there IS an ecosystem around OSX and there's still a point a point beyond that for Apple shipping OS X machines. Namely, right now Apple's one of the biggest sellers of notebooks in their price range.
Yet, if Apple wanted to go the route where they were pandering to the lowest possible common denominator, they'd have had a 500 dollar desktop and a 300 dollar netbook on the market years ago.
This doesn't fit the Apple philosophy of putting together competent products.
(Before people yell at me about how some OEM or home builder can produce a PC that's just as good as an Mac for cheaper, sure, but we're now no longer talking about the shitty super low end of the market anymore).
Steve Jobs made the point that what we think of computers today are like trucks. Not everyone needs a truck, and less people need them. They'll still be around, and much like how Mercedes-Benz's most visible product is their line of cars, they're also in the truck and utility vehicle manufacturing biz.
It makes more sense to leave OSX or OS 11 or whatever's in the pipeline for Apple alone on that basis. They're just going to be relying on them less as their core business. Given though, that the Mac is going to be the platform to develop on for iOS, it makes no sense to neglect the platform.
I disagree.
Software and patents are compatible, ASSUMING that the patent office had a competency in evaluating software patents.
Hardware designs are of no cost to draw up either, but those are patentable.
At their core, hardware patents and software patents are just patents on novel and innovative uses of mathematics.
The problem isn't the patent concept itself, but rather a huge flaw in the system in which it's implemented.
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a truly unique and innovative algorithm should be open for everyone to make money off of. That stifles innovation too. Why bother sharing something unique if Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, et al, can just swoop down and reimplement your work and not pay you a damn dime?
I also don't think that it's reasonable that the current system we have where patents is acceptable either. Patent trolls and trivial patents on obvious concepts are a flaw in our implementation of patent protection, but not a flaw in the concept of patents themselves.
What I'm asking for, in short, is for the patent office to do it's damn job, which is to sanely regulate patents that encourage people and companies to patent that which puts bread on the table, but also not allow patents to be used as a cudgel against people.
I think you're wrong that Lion's iOS like slide in it's UI is a glitch, and that consumers are going to demand things like broad bluetooth support and filesystem access/management. So far, Android tablets haven't hit in the market, and wireless usage indicates most users aren't using their Android phones as smart phones, but rather as feature phones that happen to have Android. So I don't think there's much demand for Android in the tablet form factor.
I think increased abstraction away from the bare metal will occur on OSX, however, unlike iOS I think it'll be braindead simple to peel back the layers for several reasons.
First, it'll alienate current OSX users on a level I don't think Apple's happy with. While Apple is an iconoclast and willing to piss off it's users, see the FCPX debacle, this seems like a bridge too far.
Second, support for OSX would be a huge pain if you couldn't touch deeper into the OS itself. There goes all sorts of traditional markets for OSX, education, video, audio, etc.
Third, how do would Apple expect to have anyone develop for OSX if it weren't possible for developers to shoot themselves in the foot? I don't think an iOS like application development paradigm where you pay Apple for access to your own hardware would work for reasons outlined above.
After working in support and around a lot of non-tech types, I think Steve Jobs has a point when he said that users don't understand the filesystem and other things us geeks take for granted, but I think Apple would be stupid if it took us geeks for granted.
kind of agree with you and the parent.
I mean, I think what the parent's saying about management is largely true. They're out to save their own asses, but you're right that there's something else going on behind the scenes. They really do need to look after our own interests too. It wouldn't add up if it turned out somehow you had a rockstar manager but completely incompetent boobs for subordinates.
My old boss was friggin' awesome on this point. She made it a point to highlight the accomplishments of her team and not just present it as if she was some sort of managerial genius.
Google's attempting to not necessarily take down Facebook or twitter, I don't think anyway. It'd be insane. Facebook had some advantages that Google+ does not, namely, no matter how bad the Facebook UI will get, it will NEVER be as horrible as the best days on MySpace, which is the social media giant it uprooted. Now I'm speaking strictly in terms of UI, in terms of privacy and other issues, Facebook has a long way to go, but Google+ isn't looking to chase FB on those fronts(except for the exclusion of apps; which I think is a benefit for G+).
Instead what I think they're trying to do is coexist and yet dictate some terms, but not try to be this domineering force in the social media market. Hence, a church bakesale. Come see what we've got, it's tasty, if you don't like it, no big deal.
I mean seriously, how on earth is sliding your finger across the screen to unlock the device something so amazingly innovative that Apple should be able to patent it?!
When no one else does it and everyone rushes to copy your design?
The average consumer never benefits when a single manufacturer focussed on the premium end of the market is given free reign of entire classes of device
Then vote with your wallet and tell device makers that you don't want them to jump on a dime everytime Apple makes a move in the market.
Windows mobile phones don't have slide to unlock. S2U2 mimics the iOS lock screen. In fact, there's an entire suite of apps to make WinMo look like iOS.
I was confused briefly because when I went to go google "Slide to unlock Windows Mobile" I didn't actually find anything that was native to Windows Mobile.
name some.
Plus, what about the smart case thing?
Samsung got caught. they stole the look and feel of iOS2 and 3.
Between the wholesale theft of the UI and the whole "Smart Case" incident, I think Apple's got a reasonable claim here.
Yes, patents bad, boo hoo. When you're a small independent startup, sure, let's talk about how crappy patents are. When you're a billion dollar a year mega corporation, pay the damn licensing fees.
What? Liking someone's music that other people, possibly a lot of other people, and desiring to go see that person perform makes them "lemmings?"
It's social networking. They were being social.
I don't know if you're some sort of ubertroll or just... not well adjusted.
uh, i fail to see how this makes your point. I mean, he advertised a giant block party, and surprise, people who were into his music showed up.
This kind of backs up the parent's point that social networking is fun when you're doing it to keep up with things you like.
Actually to most people it's just a job, not a lifestyle.
The entry into that lifestyle is horribly full of casual misogyny. I think though, we're going to see a chance.
Computing and development are one of the few career paths that start as a hobby and wind up being a way to make a living.
Actually if you read the report, it's saying the opposite.
It's like an analyst saying, "5% of your customers will buy this ridiculous upsell, do not shove it in their face. Be reasonable with your expectations with inapp purchases."
You're blind if you think that Google has creative vision.
Just because Mercedes sells a few orders of magnitude less cars than Honda doesn't mean that Mercedes isn't setting the pace for automotive innovation.
So, anyway... limits? They exist on both platforms. I would argue that there are less of them on Android, but iOS makes up by being more pleasant to work with (just generally smoother). What matters in practice is which limits you hit, and that depends on what you need from your phone/tablet.
I think this sums up the phone OS fanboy wars.
OTOH, I think we should all get together and laugh at people clinging desperately onto BlackBerry, WinMo/WinPhone 7 and Symbian.
only on /. could a phone sell millions, have a strong app ecosystem and be backed by one of the richest tech companies in the world and have it be declared a "failure."
By your logic, the 3DO should've been the most successful games console of the mid 90's, as anyone could license and build the 3DO hardware.
I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE Apple fanboy.
But you're not alone here. I'd still buy an iPad over a TouchPad any day of the week... But the TouchPad feels like the first real adult response to the iPad. Gingerbread/Honeycomb tablets are over priced or too small, and quite frankly I couldn't figure out how to get out of the browser and check out apps or other day to day system behavior. The playbook's the same way.
OTOH, the TouchPad's not just open, but ELEGANT. It's not about open or closed, it's about usability. The TouchPad's got rough edges, but it is proof that Apple's not the only one doing right in the industry. I might even buy one to play with if they announce a TouchPad 2 and I can get one for relatively cheaply.
Let's assume that Gruber's wrong(I have no reason to believe he is; I'm a huge Gruber fanboy and his logic's pretty good).
This means that 61% of the tablet market is owned by 1 vendor, and between Moto, HTC, B&N, RIM, Samsung, etc. that's at least 5 with the distinct possibility of way more vendors fighting for 39% of market share.
1 vendor, Apple, owns *atleast* a solid plurality of tablet market share if not an outright majority.
What TF2 does right that COD doesn't is that you can run around with the standard weapons and still murder everyone in sight.
COD(MW2 anyway) on the other hand, doesn't even let you shoot down aircraft unless you've been grinding for quite awhile.
the problem with COD multiplayer since COD4 from a gameplay perspective is that unless you pick it up RIGHT AWAY and grind like mad, you're not going to really have a fun time. Unless you think eating unbalanced unlockable weapons for dinner is a good time.
He's placing the blame on shitty games on us, the gamers.
Rightfully so. When a COD game can sell millions just on it's name alone, something's wrong.
Although I think that his take on it is a little wrong. But I think Rage is kind of the right direction away from just the traditional walk, shoot, maybe hide behind some cover paradigm. If Rage for iOS is anything to go by, it'll not only be rich and fun with a good sense of humor but the racing aspects will be a nice touch.
Yes, HL2(and ep 2) had those annoying boat and car scenes, but I trust Carmack and co to get this one right.
Except the iPad 2's not vulnerable to those attack vectors.
That's the only reason why the PDF exploit was any sort of real news.
A one way out of Detroit isnt suspicious. It means you've got the good sense not to come back.
uh, no, the IBM PC back in the 70's and 80's was when PC = Intel box running DOS/Windows.
PC is shorthand not just for Personal Computer, but also, "IBM compatible Personal Computer."