But second of all, even if you are right, then Apple would have to be the dumbest development company ever. Here's a company that has a 30 year history of making products that have API's (yes, even the Apple ][ had API's of a sort), but on their latest computer, the one they saw had a huge strategic impact, they never gave it a thought?
I don't thinkt hat's what GP meant. When OS X first came out, even minor new versions sometimes broke third-party apps. The iPhone update to 1.2.1 broke almost all third-party apps. That's just how it works early in the life of a product. The app team notices a missing feature, the SDK team implements it, the interface changes, other apps break. Had Apple released the SDK with the iPhone, they would have been screwed: Either break third-party apps, or maintain APIs that don't make a lot of sense anymore.
Here's what Glenn Fleishman, who obviously has an inside source, had to say on this:>
In my article on the SDK's near-term announcement, I noted that there could be two levels of iPhone apps with different certficiation requirements: ones that access the cell data network might require a high level; ones that use only Wi-Fi, a low level of approval (signed to ensure the program's origin, but not certified, perhaps). So there's a chance that we will be able to run and even distribute our own, uncertified code as long as it doesn't access the cell network. That would work for me.
And your "moving target" theory is just BS. 1) OS X as a platform has been around for long enough, and Apple took pride in announcing that their phone and new iPod runs on the same platform, and being the first non-smart phone to require some 800mb of OS codes.
And the desktop version doesn't have multitouch, so it's different APIs. Seeing how the 1.2.1 update broke most third-party apps, it's very obvious that Apple is still moving around a lot of bits in their APIs.
Third-party RAM obviously isn't covered, but putting in third-party RAM will not make the rest of your computer uncovered. Anyway, if it is an issue (and it's not), just put in the original RAM before giving the thing to Apple if it breaks.
I'm wondering about the same thing. I'm hoping there's a way to run unsigned, unsandboxed code on such an iPhone. I'd love to write a few small apps for my iPhone, but I don't want to get Apple's "permission" for this...
Possibly the security issues of SIM unlocks, chat and VOIP apps, where by security, Apple means "our security that we make a lot of money from contracts and people send a lot of SMS messages":-)
Seriously though, with the announcement of an unlocked iPhone in France, I wonder whether Apple will still go after the SIM unlock hacks so vigorously.
The announcement certainly is long overdue. The SDK, I can understand why they didn't rush it. Even the update to 1.2.1 has broken a huge percentage of all unofficial third-party apps. Obviously, Apple is still changing things around in the SDK. It would be a bad idea to publish an SDK that is in such an unrefined state. You just can't go and break third-party apps with every minor revision of your OS.
Had Apple committed to the APIs in 1.0.2, they would not have been able to change the APIs so dramatically for 1.2.1. Had they done what must be done, third-party devs and users would have been outraged because all of their apps stopped working.
I work on an app with an SDK, and something like this is a constant struggle between progress and compatibility. I understand why Apple wants to let the APIs mature a bit before opening them to other developers. I don't understand why Apple didn't just come out and say so right from the beginning.
In other iPhone news, the International Herald Tribune writes that Apple will sell official unlocked iPhones in France, to comply with local laws:
Apple said Tuesday that it had signed France Télécom's wireless unit, Orange, to be the U.S. company's exclusive seller of the iPhone in France, agreeing for the first time to sell a version of the device that consumers can use on any network.
The move, which ended a month of speculation, is a concession to a French law that forbids bundling the sale of a mobile phone and a mobile operator.
So thanks to European laws, Americans will soon be able to import updatable unlocked iPhones, As I predicted.
This leaves us with only one question: What will we complain about now?:-)
Most apps that you can easily install in Ubuntu look like crap (at least that was the case about a year ago when I set up my MythTV box, which I've replaced about two months ago with a Mac mini).
Also, Macs come with iLife, and a whole bunch of other apps. I kind of doubt anything on Ubuntu can compete with the likes of Garage Band, iPhoto or iMovie.
First of all, option-clicking the "zoom to fit" button often maximizes.
However, if you often want to maximize, you're probably doing something a bit wrong. "Zoom to fit" tries to zoom the window to fit its contents. There is hardly ever a need to make a window bigger than "zoom to fit" made it. So don't. The space around the window is not wasted, you can use it for windows from other applications. I usually have Adium, Skype and a list of mailboxes with unread counts down the right side of the screen so I can always see who's online and who sent me mail. when working on code, I have java.sun.com open in a small window next to my window with the code, so I can quickly jump there and look up some API, or keep checking out Sun's examples when coding.
The wasted screen space is inside maximized windows, not outside zoomed windows.
There are many ways you can use the empty space around your windows, I'm sure you can figure out something:-)
So Windows has got "zoom to fit" now? And they god rid of these stupid windows-within-windows? No, wait, still same old.
Same is true of Windows XP, I'd say that "integration between applications" is even better with first party apps than Mac apps.
In my experience using both, no. Examples?
Can do that from IE/Firefox/Opera/Safari/many other apps (ex: photoshop) to Outlook/Outlook Express (only email clients I've used) on Windows as well.
Drag and drop in Mac OS X is simply much more mature. For example, I can't open a.gif by dragging it to the Photoshop tab in the Windows start bar. WTF??? Drag a folder into an open dialog in Windows, and it actually tries to copy the folder. When would I ever want to do that???
Wha? I have a prev-gen Mac mini, and it is perfectly snappy. Not to mention that 10.4 was Apple's first Intel release, so it's likely that 10.5 will be better optimized and run faster than 10.4 (that has also been the pattern with the PPC releases).
To know what window is front-most you have window colors. Focused windows are traditionally marked as such in a distinctive manner. Drop shadows are just eye candy.
No. Drop shadows make your brain perceive the topmost window to be literally a bit above all other windows, which makes it a bit easier to find the topmost window. It's not an obvious thing, but it makes your brain think less, which is a good thing.
I agree that ESC should revert the name. Until that is fixed, instead of hitting esc, hit Cmd-A, Delete, Return. Finder will revert the empty name to the previous name.
Or you could follow simple logic: Windows has over 90% market share = hackers are going to focus their efforts on the 90% of the market share. Do you honestly believe that there are no major holes in OS X, or for that matter, Linux? If so, then you are very naive my friend.
Do you honestly believe that there is only one factor contributing to the current situation? If it only were the 90/10 situation, you'd expect Mac OS X to have 10% as many viruses as Windows. Or maybe 1% as many. That's not the case: OS X has 0 viruses. Even System 7 had a few viruses. Even HyperCard had its own viruses! OS X has none.
Why is IIS hacked more often than Apache, even though there are more Apache installations than IIS installations? Maybe popularity is only one of the contributing factors, and not the only one.
Although Apple doesn't do serialization or verification, the discs that come with a computer are different from the retail box versions of the OS. They're not the crummy 'software restore' discs like you get with some PCs -- they do have a regular OS installer on them -- but the installer is fixed so that it looks for the machine ID and refuses to run on a different model computer.
This is not true, and I have no idea where you got that impression. The discs that came with your Mac work on all other Macs with compatible processor architecture (except possibly newer Macs which may contain hardware the installer disc does not know about). Were you by chance trying to install an Intel version on a PPC Mac?
Who told you that the warranty won't cover third-party RAM? They're wrong. Installing RAM into a MacBook Pro is easy, it's described in the manual as an user-installabe part, and in fact, except for the Mac mini, I always order the lowest amount of RAM from Apple and upgrade it myself. AppleCare never had an issue with that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing we can somewhat easily get a license to sign apps, but will not be able to access the cell phone parts of the phone.
I don't thinkt hat's what GP meant. When OS X first came out, even minor new versions sometimes broke third-party apps. The iPhone update to 1.2.1 broke almost all third-party apps. That's just how it works early in the life of a product. The app team notices a missing feature, the SDK team implements it, the interface changes, other apps break. Had Apple released the SDK with the iPhone, they would have been screwed: Either break third-party apps, or maintain APIs that don't make a lot of sense anymore.
And the desktop version doesn't have multitouch, so it's different APIs. Seeing how the 1.2.1 update broke most third-party apps, it's very obvious that Apple is still moving around a lot of bits in their APIs.
Third-party RAM obviously isn't covered, but putting in third-party RAM will not make the rest of your computer uncovered. Anyway, if it is an issue (and it's not), just put in the original RAM before giving the thing to Apple if it breaks.
I'm wondering about the same thing. I'm hoping there's a way to run unsigned, unsandboxed code on such an iPhone. I'd love to write a few small apps for my iPhone, but I don't want to get Apple's "permission" for this...
Possibly the security issues of SIM unlocks, chat and VOIP apps, where by security, Apple means "our security that we make a lot of money from contracts and people send a lot of SMS messages" :-)
Seriously though, with the announcement of an unlocked iPhone in France, I wonder whether Apple will still go after the SIM unlock hacks so vigorously.
The announcement certainly is long overdue. The SDK, I can understand why they didn't rush it. Even the update to 1.2.1 has broken a huge percentage of all unofficial third-party apps. Obviously, Apple is still changing things around in the SDK. It would be a bad idea to publish an SDK that is in such an unrefined state. You just can't go and break third-party apps with every minor revision of your OS.
Had Apple committed to the APIs in 1.0.2, they would not have been able to change the APIs so dramatically for 1.2.1. Had they done what must be done, third-party devs and users would have been outraged because all of their apps stopped working.
I work on an app with an SDK, and something like this is a constant struggle between progress and compatibility. I understand why Apple wants to let the APIs mature a bit before opening them to other developers. I don't understand why Apple didn't just come out and say so right from the beginning.
In other iPhone news, the International Herald Tribune writes that Apple will sell official unlocked iPhones in France, to comply with local laws:
Apple said Tuesday that it had signed France Télécom's wireless unit, Orange, to be the U.S. company's exclusive seller of the iPhone in France, agreeing for the first time to sell a version of the device that consumers can use on any network.The move, which ended a month of speculation, is a concession to a French law that forbids bundling the sale of a mobile phone and a mobile operator.
So thanks to European laws, Americans will soon be able to import updatable unlocked iPhones, As I predicted.
This leaves us with only one question: What will we complain about now? :-)
They removed AAC support from newer players? That is pretty strange...
Creative Adds AAC to Zen
"Creative has integrated AAC support to its Zen MP3 players, PC Pro reports."
SanDisk Sansas support AAC, too.
Most apps that you can easily install in Ubuntu look like crap (at least that was the case about a year ago when I set up my MythTV box, which I've replaced about two months ago with a Mac mini).
Also, Macs come with iLife, and a whole bunch of other apps. I kind of doubt anything on Ubuntu can compete with the likes of Garage Band, iPhoto or iMovie.
Yes, you're wrong. Even freaking Zunes play AAC. It's becoming hard to find MP3 players that don't support the format.
So? It's still an advantage for Macs. Oh, wait, maybe they don't allow this because it is an advantage for Macs??? SUE THEM!!!
First of all, option-clicking the "zoom to fit" button often maximizes.
However, if you often want to maximize, you're probably doing something a bit wrong. "Zoom to fit" tries to zoom the window to fit its contents. There is hardly ever a need to make a window bigger than "zoom to fit" made it. So don't. The space around the window is not wasted, you can use it for windows from other applications. I usually have Adium, Skype and a list of mailboxes with unread counts down the right side of the screen so I can always see who's online and who sent me mail. when working on code, I have java.sun.com open in a small window next to my window with the code, so I can quickly jump there and look up some API, or keep checking out Sun's examples when coding.
The wasted screen space is inside maximized windows, not outside zoomed windows.
There are many ways you can use the empty space around your windows, I'm sure you can figure out something :-)
So Windows has got "zoom to fit" now? And they god rid of these stupid windows-within-windows? No, wait, still same old.
Same is true of Windows XP, I'd say that "integration between applications" is even better with first party apps than Mac apps.In my experience using both, no. Examples?
Can do that from IE/Firefox/Opera/Safari/many other apps (ex: photoshop) to Outlook/Outlook Express (only email clients I've used) on Windows as well.Drag and drop in Mac OS X is simply much more mature. For example, I can't open a .gif by dragging it to the Photoshop tab in the Windows start bar. WTF??? Drag a folder into an open dialog in Windows, and it actually tries to copy the folder. When would I ever want to do that???
Wha? I have a prev-gen Mac mini, and it is perfectly snappy. Not to mention that 10.4 was Apple's first Intel release, so it's likely that 10.5 will be better optimized and run faster than 10.4 (that has also been the pattern with the PPC releases).
No. Drop shadows make your brain perceive the topmost window to be literally a bit above all other windows, which makes it a bit easier to find the topmost window. It's not an obvious thing, but it makes your brain think less, which is a good thing.
I would be, because it seems 10.5 can't write to ZFS.
I agree that ESC should revert the name. Until that is fixed, instead of hitting esc, hit Cmd-A, Delete, Return. Finder will revert the empty name to the previous name.
>Why does "The Steve" need to bash M$ & Vista at every opportunity?
Highlighting comnpetitive advantages in a lighthearted way.
Do you honestly believe that there is only one factor contributing to the current situation? If it only were the 90/10 situation, you'd expect Mac OS X to have 10% as many viruses as Windows. Or maybe 1% as many. That's not the case: OS X has 0 viruses. Even System 7 had a few viruses. Even HyperCard had its own viruses! OS X has none.
Why is IIS hacked more often than Apache, even though there are more Apache installations than IIS installations? Maybe popularity is only one of the contributing factors, and not the only one.
It's version 5 of OS X.
This is not true, and I have no idea where you got that impression. The discs that came with your Mac work on all other Macs with compatible processor architecture (except possibly newer Macs which may contain hardware the installer disc does not know about). Were you by chance trying to install an Intel version on a PPC Mac?
Who told you that the warranty won't cover third-party RAM? They're wrong. Installing RAM into a MacBook Pro is easy, it's described in the manual as an user-installabe part, and in fact, except for the Mac mini, I always order the lowest amount of RAM from Apple and upgrade it myself. AppleCare never had an issue with that.