The presentation program in NeoOffice is excellent. Apple should be contributing to this instead of their not-invented-here iWorks. Their customers would be a lot happier.
I don't think Apple could just take NeoOffice and do whatever it wants with it without a huge outcry from the community. But to reach something like Keynote, you need to do exactly that.
Not sure how you think Apple working with the NeoOffice guys would work...
I don't think Apple wants to compete with the whole of Office. They want to compete for the people who use Office, but don't really need it and would be happier with a simpler, more graphics-oriented solution.
I use Mellel for papers and the like. If the thing you're writing is highly structured (wich chapters and footnotes and endnotes and citations), nothing beats Mellel, in my opinion. It's small, cheap, fast, and does everything you would want, easily. Rearrange chapters? Drag and drop them in the outline. Change the font of all second level chapters? Easy. Multiple languages? No problem, even mixing rtl and ltr.
I know I sound like a shill, but I'm actually a paying customer and have no ties - financial or otherwise - to the company making Mellel. Check the app out. It's one of the reasons I use a Mac.
By the way, Here is what happened when the best female kickboxer in the world fought a male kickboxer.
Wow, I just watched the movie, and she actually held up a lot better than I expected. It seems she lost not because of lack of strength, but because of technique. If she had been more careful, she could have hold out a lot longer and maybe even won.
That doesn't mean that you can't pick a random man and still find a lot of women who are stronger than he is.
Nobody disputes that.
Actually, they do. You might want to read the article and some of the comments. Actually, even the/. blurb is enough: The sentence "The machine isn't that strong, much less so than a muscular man. Even women should be able to beat it." clearly implies that women are always weaker than men.
By the way, I find it fascinating that a statement such as mine - which you actually think nobody disputes - prompts so many replies. It's almost as if some males feel threatened by the fact that there are females stronger than them.
It is demonstrable that at a given body weight the average male will have more upper body muscle mass than the average female. Women also have a higher minimum safe body fat percentage.
Nobody disputes that. If you pick a random woman and a random man and test their strength, odds are that the man is stronger. That doesn't mean that you can't pick a random man and still find a lot of women who are stronger than he is.
With men, if you aren't benching 700 pounds you really don't stand out from the crowd.
Uh, 700 pounds is utterly absurd. I actually don't think I personally know even a single person who bench-presses 300 kg.
Which reminds me of the boxing match between Regina Halmich and Stefan Raab (on german TV or youtube). Now granted, Halmich used to box professionally, but Raab must be easily twice her weight, and she beat him to a pulp.
That's a comedian against a professional boxer? And when you said "beat him to a pulp", you meant that he looked no more exhausted than a normal guy after a jog?
Uh... I'm not sure what you've seen, but when I've seen it, he was barely capable of standing, and the ref had to stop the match because he was afraid Raab could get injured if he continued.
He wasn't even able to land a punch due to her superior technique.
Actually, he was, but it's hard to really see because she hardly even budges. Seems she's used to harder punches from her female opponents.
The difference in strenght between men and women generally seems to be overestimated. I'm a pretty big guy (80 kg, 1.87 m), but even I know a few normal, non-bodybuilding women who could easily kick my ass. Which reminds me of the boxing match between Regina Halmich and Stefan Raab (on german TV or youtube). Now granted, Halmich used to box professionally, but Raab must be easily twice her weight, and she beat him to a pulp.
Sure, on average, men are stronger than women, but Joss Whedon isn't too far off.
Constantly changing back would lead to the article being locked. Being tenacious does not matter one bit if the article can't just be changed anymore. Right, but without the evidence that they have a conflict of interest, it's a crapshoot whose changes get locked into place.
I've usually found the Wikipedia editors to be surprisingly objective and reasonable. Do you have examples of where the locked version was "The Wrong Version"?
And again, the history and the discussions are there for a reason. Check them out, especially if the article is locked.
But my original point was that Apple occasionally says that games are a "good thing" but they rarely follow up on it.
Yeah, exactly. They say gaming is important if they have some major stuff to show at a Keynote, but I don't think they ever intended to actually do anything other than showcasing stuff that happens anyway.
Please check out the change history. In most of the cases, the changes were reverted within minutes. It doesn't matter who makes the edits, if the edits are wrong or uncalled for, they will be reverted.
Constantly changing back would lead to the article being locked. Being tenacious does not matter one bit if the article can't just be changed anymore.
If you doubt the information in a Wikipedia article, check out its history. It's there for a reason.
Well, when talking about Apple and gaming, it's kind of important to keep in mind Apple's history. During the early years of the Mac, Apple was scared that people would perceive it as a toy. This is kind of what happened to the Amiga 500, by the way: A powerful desktop computer that was mainly used for gaming. Apple, however, wanted a "serious" computer, a business computer. Macs didn't look very serious next to DOS computers with their green screens and text input, so Apple discouraged game development on Macs so as not to give people the impression that Macs were toys.
Later, Apple tried to change that and introduced the Pippin, a Mac-compatible gaming console, to increase the Mac gaming market share. It failed. Then, there were the Sprockets on pre-OS-X systems. Basically, that was Apple's gaming API, and it didn't survive the move to OS X.
After that, Apple never really did anything for gaming. I think they've basically given up caring too much. Gaming is nice, but Apple doesn't really need it to survive, and after their ambivalent past and many failed steps to get gaming on the Mac, I think they've just stopped caring.
Could be a lot of reasons. My guess is that they simply didn't have enough time. Apple actually had to delay Mac OS X because they moved engineers to the iPhone (of course, that's their story, but I doubt they'd use that excuse if it wasn't true). What's more, shipping an SDK is a ton of work. The software I work on has an SDK, and we don't actually keep it compatible between major versions of the software, but even so, documenting everything is a tremendous amount of work. And I think Apple would also want to ship a toolchain.
My guess is that an SDK will come, but that Apple simply doesn't have the resources and the priorities to make it happen right now.
What the hell are you talking about? Below is my original post, please feel free to point out where I claimed it was a complete alternative to the iPhone.
Sure. Here:
"If you want to build/install third party apps on a smartphone, why not buy something a little more open?"
You're clearly telling people who want to install apps on their iPhones to buy "something a little more open," i.e. an OpenMoko phone, which you actually name in the next paragraph - despite the fact that - as you you yourself explain in other posts - they are only selling dev phones.
Also, there's no reason to get excited. Please calm down. I'm not trying to insult you personally, just pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. Just because we're on the Internet doesn't mean you need to behave like a jerk. Unless you want to, of course. In that case, go right ahead.
Why must every OSX article refer to "fear of the command line" or some other silly reference to it. It's been seven fucking years since OSX debuted. It's UNIX. Get over it people - we're all fairly comfortable with sh by now.
Most users of Mac OS X don't even know that the Terminal exists, and neither should they have to.
Of course, they probably also don't care about being able to install stuff on their iPhones.
Your argument makes no sense. First you ask why people buy iPhones and not this. Then people point out that it's not finished and can't even reliable make calls. Then you complain that people are stupid because of course it's not finished. So how is it an alternative to the iPhone?
Yeah. Although it's funny how all that crapware is always for Windows. Maybe Gruber had it right after all. The "iMac demographic" is a lot less forgiving towards crapware than the Windows demographic.
Because something else with touchscreen and video and etc WILL come out, and I have no doubt it will be better.
I guess that depends on your definition of "better." Will another phone make it easier to install apps? Sure. Will it run on other providers? I guess. Will it have a multitouch screen? Probably not. Will it have the polish and attention to detail the iPhone's UI has? Most certainly not.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Apple could just take NeoOffice and do whatever it wants with it without a huge outcry from the community. But to reach something like Keynote, you need to do exactly that.
Not sure how you think Apple working with the NeoOffice guys would work...
I don't think Apple wants to compete with the whole of Office. They want to compete for the people who use Office, but don't really need it and would be happier with a simpler, more graphics-oriented solution.
I use Mellel for papers and the like. If the thing you're writing is highly structured (wich chapters and footnotes and endnotes and citations), nothing beats Mellel, in my opinion. It's small, cheap, fast, and does everything you would want, easily. Rearrange chapters? Drag and drop them in the outline. Change the font of all second level chapters? Easy. Multiple languages? No problem, even mixing rtl and ltr.
I know I sound like a shill, but I'm actually a paying customer and have no ties - financial or otherwise - to the company making Mellel. Check the app out. It's one of the reasons I use a Mac.
Wow, I just watched the movie, and she actually held up a lot better than I expected. It seems she lost not because of lack of strength, but because of technique. If she had been more careful, she could have hold out a lot longer and maybe even won.
Actually, they do. You might want to read the article and some of the comments. Actually, even the /. blurb is enough: The sentence "The machine isn't that strong, much less so than a muscular man. Even women should be able to beat it." clearly implies that women are always weaker than men.
By the way, I find it fascinating that a statement such as mine - which you actually think nobody disputes - prompts so many replies. It's almost as if some males feel threatened by the fact that there are females stronger than them.
Nobody disputes that. If you pick a random woman and a random man and test their strength, odds are that the man is stronger. That doesn't mean that you can't pick a random man and still find a lot of women who are stronger than he is.
Uh, 700 pounds is utterly absurd. I actually don't think I personally know even a single person who bench-presses 300 kg.
That's a comedian against a professional boxer? And when you said "beat him to a pulp", you meant that he looked no more exhausted than a normal guy after a jog?
Uh... I'm not sure what you've seen, but when I've seen it, he was barely capable of standing, and the ref had to stop the match because he was afraid Raab could get injured if he continued.
He wasn't even able to land a punch due to her superior technique.
Actually, he was, but it's hard to really see because she hardly even budges. Seems she's used to harder punches from her female opponents.
You seem to think that's impossible in real life?
The difference in strenght between men and women generally seems to be overestimated. I'm a pretty big guy (80 kg, 1.87 m), but even I know a few normal, non-bodybuilding women who could easily kick my ass. Which reminds me of the boxing match between Regina Halmich and Stefan Raab (on german TV or youtube). Now granted, Halmich used to box professionally, but Raab must be easily twice her weight, and she beat him to a pulp.
Sure, on average, men are stronger than women, but Joss Whedon isn't too far off.
I've usually found the Wikipedia editors to be surprisingly objective and reasonable. Do you have examples of where the locked version was "The Wrong Version"?
And again, the history and the discussions are there for a reason. Check them out, especially if the article is locked.
But my original point was that Apple occasionally says that games are a "good thing" but they rarely follow up on it.
Yeah, exactly. They say gaming is important if they have some major stuff to show at a Keynote, but I don't think they ever intended to actually do anything other than showcasing stuff that happens anyway.
Please check out the change history. In most of the cases, the changes were reverted within minutes. It doesn't matter who makes the edits, if the edits are wrong or uncalled for, they will be reverted.
Constantly changing back would lead to the article being locked. Being tenacious does not matter one bit if the article can't just be changed anymore.
If you doubt the information in a Wikipedia article, check out its history. It's there for a reason.
As far as I can tell, at least some of the edits were reverted within minutes of being made, anyway.
Well, when talking about Apple and gaming, it's kind of important to keep in mind Apple's history. During the early years of the Mac, Apple was scared that people would perceive it as a toy. This is kind of what happened to the Amiga 500, by the way: A powerful desktop computer that was mainly used for gaming. Apple, however, wanted a "serious" computer, a business computer. Macs didn't look very serious next to DOS computers with their green screens and text input, so Apple discouraged game development on Macs so as not to give people the impression that Macs were toys.
Later, Apple tried to change that and introduced the Pippin, a Mac-compatible gaming console, to increase the Mac gaming market share. It failed. Then, there were the Sprockets on pre-OS-X systems. Basically, that was Apple's gaming API, and it didn't survive the move to OS X.
After that, Apple never really did anything for gaming. I think they've basically given up caring too much. Gaming is nice, but Apple doesn't really need it to survive, and after their ambivalent past and many failed steps to get gaming on the Mac, I think they've just stopped caring.
Mac + Bootcamp + Windows == Windows PC. There's no HAL.
Could be a lot of reasons. My guess is that they simply didn't have enough time. Apple actually had to delay Mac OS X because they moved engineers to the iPhone (of course, that's their story, but I doubt they'd use that excuse if it wasn't true). What's more, shipping an SDK is a ton of work. The software I work on has an SDK, and we don't actually keep it compatible between major versions of the software, but even so, documenting everything is a tremendous amount of work. And I think Apple would also want to ship a toolchain.
My guess is that an SDK will come, but that Apple simply doesn't have the resources and the priorities to make it happen right now.
Sure. Here:
"If you want to build/install third party apps on a smartphone, why not buy something a little more open?"You're clearly telling people who want to install apps on their iPhones to buy "something a little more open," i.e. an OpenMoko phone, which you actually name in the next paragraph - despite the fact that - as you you yourself explain in other posts - they are only selling dev phones.
Also, there's no reason to get excited. Please calm down. I'm not trying to insult you personally, just pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. Just because we're on the Internet doesn't mean you need to behave like a jerk. Unless you want to, of course. In that case, go right ahead.
Not to mention the AppleTV. People are hacking them, and Apple doesn't seem to mind.
Most users of Mac OS X don't even know that the Terminal exists, and neither should they have to.
Of course, they probably also don't care about being able to install stuff on their iPhones.
Your argument makes no sense. First you ask why people buy iPhones and not this. Then people point out that it's not finished and can't even reliable make calls. Then you complain that people are stupid because of course it's not finished. So how is it an alternative to the iPhone?
Because having a nice, usable phone is a higher priority than being able to easily install apps.
Yeah. Although it's funny how all that crapware is always for Windows. Maybe Gruber had it right after all. The "iMac demographic" is a lot less forgiving towards crapware than the Windows demographic.
Except GP is wrong, so you'll be spreading misinformation. Not that it matters, you've already made up your mind anyway.
It's not religion. It's just a mix of taste and different priorities.
I guess that depends on your definition of "better." Will another phone make it easier to install apps? Sure. Will it run on other providers? I guess. Will it have a multitouch screen? Probably not. Will it have the polish and attention to detail the iPhone's UI has? Most certainly not.