Erm, no. It's been Steve Job's and Apple's stance for a long time that DRM is a bad thing, even before Amazon sold music. The problem is that publishers want DRM on their products and when they enter into agreements they usually insist on DRM as part of the deal. Do you see any other major player offering DRM-free movies?
If only Steve Jobs had some influence with movie studios like Pixar, he could persuade them to make their movies available DRM-free...
My book club picked a book from Tor, which seems to be a Macmillan subdivision. I had sent the preview to my Kindle, and went to buy it yesterday. It was no longer available, so after thinking "WTF?" for a while, I bought a used paperback copy instead.
Way to go, Macmillan!
Since Amazon say 60% of their book sales are Kindle, I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.
So iPhone spyware isn't a problem because you don't object to it? Well, then, Android malware isn't a problem because I don't run it.
Seriously, though, OS X doesn't have a malware problem, yet it's capable of running software from places other than Apple. Hence Apple's own products show that you don't need to be locked into a single source of software in order to have security.
So why is the iPad a "poor computer" and not an "insanely great Kindle?"
Because it's double the price even though it uses LCD? Because unlike the Kindle, I can't install whatever content I want from wherever I want?
In all seriousness, if the iPad was the price of a Kindle I'd be tempted to switch and put up with the downsides, but at double the price it's a tough sell.
Android handles this the right way: it allows multi-tasking, but apps are required to let the OS close them down gracefully to recover resources, in a least-recently-used manner. The OS will reactivate them if data comes in.
So you can forget about your text editor, IM or spreadsheet, go off and browse the web, and if the system runs low on memory they'll be shut down to make space for your browser or Flash plugin--automatically persisting their data to storage. If an IM message comes in, the system restores the IM app to deal with it.
Apple's non-solution of simply not allowing multi-tasking is probably because they wanted to keep the familiar OS X application model to make life easy for developers.
Apple has gambled (and I am increasingly thinking they're right on target) that a tablet is not a computer - it's a computing device.
The trouble is, a "computing device" appears to be more expensive than a computer while doing less and locking you into Apple for all your software. That's a bit of a hard combination to swallow.
I mean, if the thing was (say) $300 it might be palatable as a Kindle alternative, but at $500 I just don't see it.
Also, I should point out that Android seems to have all of the disadvantages of a closed system, and all of the disadvantages of an open system at the same time. For example, app developers on Android can publish without approval, but so can malware developers. There has already been one app pulled because it was a phishing app.
Thank goodness there hasn't been any malware on iPhone, eh? Oh, wait, never mind.
Apple's control over iPhone apps isn't to protect the user or the network; it's to protect Apple's revenue stream. They're a phone and fart app company that also makes computers.
Yeah, but the iPad has no HDMI output, so there's no point making it support higher resolution video than it can display on its screen. Nanny knows best.
Like I already said, I wish I shared your faith that Apple would never lock down OS X. But I remember how the initial iPhone presentations talked about how it was running OS X, and how everyone assumed that meant real OS X and open development, not some special crippled version of OS X. I also remember last week, when so many people assumed that the Apple tablet would be running OS X. And I remember how Steve Jobs' original vision of the Macintosh was a sealed box...
So basically, you're part of the problem. You've somehow swallowed the line that BlackBerry, Android and Symbian phones are a danger to the network because they can run software that hasn't been approved by a single vendor.
I wish I could believe you. But think about how many OS X users also happily bought into the iPhone, even though it's locked down and intentionally crippled.
Here's my scenario:
Apple turns on the existing digital signature support in the next OS X, so that apps that aren't signed produce huge unfriendly warning dialogs--rather like the dialogs they introduced warning that you're opening something you downloaded from the Internet.
Then they announce the OS X app store, which requires signed apps--but at this stage it's completely optional.
Then they announce a cheaper OS X Home Edition which only runs the signed apps, and reserve the full OS X for high-end machines like the MacBook Pro and MacPro.
Then they start charging for store access and dev kit access.
Sure, they won't lock down OS X overnight. They don't need to. They can slowly boil the frog.
And you may think I'm being paranoid--but fact is, everyone assumed the iPhone would be open eventually, and bought it on the assumption that there would be uncontrolled development like there is on OS X. That hasn't happened.
As soon as step 3 happens, I'm switching to Linux. (I'll start planning my switch when step 2 happens.)
The sad thing is, I confidently predict that the Apple tablet will be crippled the same way as the iPhone--which means that I won't be buying one no matter how good it is, even though I'm a long time Mac user.
Besides, it'll be a lot less embarrassing if, when we find alien intelligence, we don't have to explain to them why we're committing collective suicide.
Once they look at what we're like as a species, they'll understand.
I haven't seen all that many non-IPv6 apps. Maybe that's because I don't use Windows? Again, it's a lot of work to solve a problem that doesn't seem to exist, at least in my world, and does nothing to solve the major problems that do definitely exist.
Well, you could do something like that... but it's an awful lot of work to do for very little gain. Fact is, the client machines aren't what's holding up IPv6. Mac, Linux and Windows all support it. Even my Nintendo Wii uses IPv6. What's holding up deployment is the fact that my ISP doesn't provide native IPv6 support, and a lot of home routers don't handle it.
If you mean the Internet backbone... Yes, it's possible to encapsulate IPv4 and route it across an IPv6-only backbone by making the routers at both ends handle 4to6. Some Asian ISPs have tried it.
However, in practice it's not the growth in new backbone connections and backbone routers that's exhausting the IPv4 address space; it's all the new client devices.
Well, theoretically you'll be able to set up a tunnel to give your computer access to IPv6 servers in spite of your IPv4-only router and LAN. It might be quite a pain, though. I'd strongly advise upgrading your LAN and router now, setting up the router to handle IPv6 tunneling, and being ready in advance. That's what I did. I have IPv6 connectivity right now, even though my ISP is still IPv4-only. When they finally get a clue and start supporting IPv6, I'll just turn off the router's tunneling feature and leave everything else the same.
Slashdot Mirror
If only Steve Jobs had some influence with movie studios like Pixar, he could persuade them to make their movies available DRM-free...
My book club picked a book from Tor, which seems to be a Macmillan subdivision. I had sent the preview to my Kindle, and went to buy it yesterday. It was no longer available, so after thinking "WTF?" for a while, I bought a used paperback copy instead.
Way to go, Macmillan!
Since Amazon say 60% of their book sales are Kindle, I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.
So iPhone spyware isn't a problem because you don't object to it? Well, then, Android malware isn't a problem because I don't run it.
Seriously, though, OS X doesn't have a malware problem, yet it's capable of running software from places other than Apple. Hence Apple's own products show that you don't need to be locked into a single source of software in order to have security.
I think the Kindle DX is too expensive as well.
Because it's double the price even though it uses LCD? Because unlike the Kindle, I can't install whatever content I want from wherever I want?
In all seriousness, if the iPad was the price of a Kindle I'd be tempted to switch and put up with the downsides, but at double the price it's a tough sell.
Android handles this the right way: it allows multi-tasking, but apps are required to let the OS close them down gracefully to recover resources, in a least-recently-used manner. The OS will reactivate them if data comes in.
So you can forget about your text editor, IM or spreadsheet, go off and browse the web, and if the system runs low on memory they'll be shut down to make space for your browser or Flash plugin--automatically persisting their data to storage. If an IM message comes in, the system restores the IM app to deal with it.
Apple's non-solution of simply not allowing multi-tasking is probably because they wanted to keep the familiar OS X application model to make life easy for developers.
The trouble is, a "computing device" appears to be more expensive than a computer while doing less and locking you into Apple for all your software. That's a bit of a hard combination to swallow.
I mean, if the thing was (say) $300 it might be palatable as a Kindle alternative, but at $500 I just don't see it.
Thank goodness there hasn't been any malware on iPhone, eh? Oh, wait, never mind.
Apple's control over iPhone apps isn't to protect the user or the network; it's to protect Apple's revenue stream. They're a phone and fart app company that also makes computers.
Yeah, but the iPad has no HDMI output, so there's no point making it support higher resolution video than it can display on its screen. Nanny knows best.
Like I already said, I wish I shared your faith that Apple would never lock down OS X. But I remember how the initial iPhone presentations talked about how it was running OS X, and how everyone assumed that meant real OS X and open development, not some special crippled version of OS X. I also remember last week, when so many people assumed that the Apple tablet would be running OS X. And I remember how Steve Jobs' original vision of the Macintosh was a sealed box...
And how many Symbian, Android and BlackBerry viruses are there?
Again, the idea that you need locked-down single vendor control of apps to achieve security is nonsense.
Hmm, that Lenovo S10-3t looks nice. If only it came with an operating system.
So basically, you're part of the problem. You've somehow swallowed the line that BlackBerry, Android and Symbian phones are a danger to the network because they can run software that hasn't been approved by a single vendor.
I wish I could believe you. But think about how many OS X users also happily bought into the iPhone, even though it's locked down and intentionally crippled.
Here's my scenario:
Sure, they won't lock down OS X overnight. They don't need to. They can slowly boil the frog.
And you may think I'm being paranoid--but fact is, everyone assumed the iPhone would be open eventually, and bought it on the assumption that there would be uncontrolled development like there is on OS X. That hasn't happened.
As soon as step 3 happens, I'm switching to Linux. (I'll start planning my switch when step 2 happens.)
The Wii supports IPv6. The DS Lite doesn't. I don't know about the DSi.
Mono is why I switched to Kubuntu and KDE.
The sad thing is, I confidently predict that the Apple tablet will be crippled the same way as the iPhone--which means that I won't be buying one no matter how good it is, even though I'm a long time Mac user.
Once they look at what we're like as a species, they'll understand.
It is? I thought the existing homebrew solutions all relied on putting Linux on the PS3, which isn't supported with the current PS3 Slim.
I haven't seen all that many non-IPv6 apps. Maybe that's because I don't use Windows? Again, it's a lot of work to solve a problem that doesn't seem to exist, at least in my world, and does nothing to solve the major problems that do definitely exist.
Well, you could do something like that... but it's an awful lot of work to do for very little gain. Fact is, the client machines aren't what's holding up IPv6. Mac, Linux and Windows all support it. Even my Nintendo Wii uses IPv6. What's holding up deployment is the fact that my ISP doesn't provide native IPv6 support, and a lot of home routers don't handle it.
Done for netatalk. Supposedly they're working on it for netatalk 2.1, due out maybe some time this year.
If you mean the Internet backbone... Yes, it's possible to encapsulate IPv4 and route it across an IPv6-only backbone by making the routers at both ends handle 4to6. Some Asian ISPs have tried it.
However, in practice it's not the growth in new backbone connections and backbone routers that's exhausting the IPv4 address space; it's all the new client devices.
Well, yes, if you insist on having your modem and router in one box, you're going to cut down your options a lot.
Well, theoretically you'll be able to set up a tunnel to give your computer access to IPv6 servers in spite of your IPv4-only router and LAN. It might be quite a pain, though. I'd strongly advise upgrading your LAN and router now, setting up the router to handle IPv6 tunneling, and being ready in advance. That's what I did. I have IPv6 connectivity right now, even though my ISP is still IPv4-only. When they finally get a clue and start supporting IPv6, I'll just turn off the router's tunneling feature and leave everything else the same.