And if I was going over my data cap regularly, then maybe I'd start to worry, but I'm not. Why should I get all Chicken Little about things that aren't problems?
Because comments to other stories mention people finding out that they are "going over [their] data cap regularly".
Yes, some people will hit their data caps, but not many. Hence, it's not a problem. By your logic, nothing is good, since everything has limits that people will hit at one point or another.
Quit being such a priss, and learn to enjoy life. You worry too much about things that don't even effect you.
What's not obvious is how many minutes of monthly usage you can get from 5 GB, and that depends on the bitrate coming down from OnLive's server. Another Slashdot user pointed out that HSPA+ phones can burn through a 5 GB allowance in ten minutes.
And if this was streaming a Blu-ray movie losslessly, you might have a point. But it's not, it's just a remote session, which people have been doing via 3G on iPads for a couple years now without issue. There's no way this is something to fret over.
As do I on my netbook.
Which has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. People are buying iPads over netbooks. And even if it were the other way around, this topic is about iPads.
On your iPad, if you need a keyboard to compose a longer comment, do you want to get up and go to where your Bluetooth keyboard is?
Nope, I just type it on the iPad. It's really quite easy.
If you need to use Eclipse, Visual Studio, XCode, IDLE, or another comparable developer tool, do you want to get up and go to where your PC is?
If I need to do something real quick, I don't see why I would have to. If I'm sitting down for a proper coding session, of course I'm going to use the computer where the tools are. This isn't a religious issue.
The iPad onscreen keyboard is quite good. It's slower than a physical keyboard, but I don't have to type at a constant 60-90WPM to be happy. 20-40 is just fine. And if I was going over my data cap regularly, then maybe I'd start to worry, but I'm not. Why should I get all Chicken Little about things that aren't problems?
How so? I have a 250GB limit on my home Internet connection. As for lag, people play video games via OnLive. And how would it drain battery? You can stream Netflix via 3G for many hours without worrying about the battery.
Even a capped 3GB 3G connection will last for quite some time before hitting the limit. It's not like you somehow have to use this 24/7, nor are you limited to 3G.
If you're within range of Wi-Fi, you're probably in a position to use a full-fledged MacBook Air instead of an iPad. If you're not, how fast will OnLive eat up the 5 GB/mo cap of 3G/4G Internet?
So? I don't understand some nerds. "You have 5GB bandwidth, therefore anything that uses it is useless!" Um, you have it in order to use it. How is this not obvious?
Same goes for the MacBook Air comment. So what? If I'm using my iPad, why would I want to go over to my Air if I don't have to? I'm sitting in a comfy chair right now, browsing/. On my iPad, if I need to use Flash (super rare these days, but let's just pretend), do I want to get up and go to where my notebook or desktop are? Why?
There's a difference between killing and rebranding. Aside from the Zune hardware I don't see a single thing I would consider "killed" by Microsoft. And I'd even accept that idea that the Zune isn't being killed but instead reintroduced in a slightly more integrated format.
And that's exactly what the headline said, they are killing the brands.
You listed them. They may "do the same thing" if you completely ignore rate and magnitude. By your logic, getting hit by a spray bullets and hit by a nerf dart are the same, since they all do the same thing (hit you with force).
I was going to make a pithy comment about the way you're using modern hardware to run emacs all over the place, but I just can't bring myself to do it. You've already suffered enough.
You do realise that not all Flash content will migrate, right? A lot of it isn't being looked after by their authors any more.
So? That content will simply become left behind.
Flash will be like DOSBox. You don't see people claiming that DOS support will be around forever because old DOS games aren't ported to Win32 or Mac do you? Of course not. Some people will install an emulator of some sort, like DOSBox, but most won't, and they won't be missing anything of importance.
Same thing with Flash. It's been dealt its death blow, and is now coasting into the great digital beyond. YouTube even went from having HTML5 as a beta to as a default, at least for Mac users (all new Macs no longer come with Flash), and obviously for iOS users, of which now number in the hundreds of millions.
You keep grasping at straws. Who is at risk for downloading Xcode? It's an absurd parallel.
Once you quit making up bullshit imaginary scenarios, you'll see that there's really nothing evil, nefarious, onerous, or otherwise significantly negative about how this works.
If you don't see the difference between "everybody gets the development kit automatically" and "you can only get the development kit if you register", which an apple account requires, then there is a serious problem.
Who said there's no difference? In fact, I pointed out that there is a difference: that it's now more accessible than before.
"Ooh, people have to get an Apple ID!" It's not like there aren't hundreds of millions of people with such accounts--more accounts than Macs. I don't see how this is a problem.
They could very easily include it on the default install and even offer to automatically delete it if it hasn't been used by the time the disk is full if they are worried it will take too much space.
They could do millions of things, all of which people like you would find something to bitch about. What's wrong with the way it works now? In your imagined scenario, everyone would have to download the Xcode tools (Lion is primarily available via download only), and have the system delete it afterwards. Xcode is something that 90%+ users have no idea what it is and will never use.
Where you come from, all computers may be connected via fast links to the internet. That is nowhere near true in much of the world.
No one said it is. So what? This is the same tired complaint that was thrown around when Lion came out. It hasn't turned out to be much of a problem. All Macs come with a functional OS install. No Mac will cease to function without Mountain Lion, and OS updates themselves can exceed 1GB.
Are there places and circumstances where this can become a problem? Sure. But it's really not that big of a deal. I can never understand this line of reasoning. "Something bad *can* happen, therefore the entire model is bad". Somehow this only seems to ever apply to the system a person has an irrational hatred of.
Besides, how are MS developer tools distributed? How are many Linux distro dev tools distributed? How is Android's SDK distributed? They're all distributed via the Internet. Some of these *may* also have official physical distribution options (which are not stocked in stores). If you really are somewhere that you can't download a couple of gigs in a reasonable amount of time, you can always have someone send it to you on disc or flash drive. Apple will not go after you for doing this.
But you have not created a major distro that does this for Android smartphones in a more polished and well supported fashion.
Your running of multiple Xservers on the same computer on different ports or screens does fuck-all for a phone. So, yeah, it's big news (for nerds at least), and pretty damned interesting. For all the crap Canonical gets, at least they are trying new things, even though there is no shortage of people giving them shit for doing so.
Well, since there's no longer an install DVD, Xcode can't be on it. It's completely free, and they aren't going to "tighten the screws". It's all about simplifying the process for finding, downloading, buying, etc., software.
Xcode is arguably much more accessible to install now than it has ever been in broad terms, since a computer today is more likely to be connected to a high speed network, and discs are usually packed away and often lost. Let alone the fact that the version on the disc is likely to be out of date, leading to then downloading the updated version of Xcode anyway (which, on the Mac App Store is now a delta update, vs the old way which was not).
Wow, someone's a little in love with their $600 portable porn and games machine.
And someone has an overinflated sense of self-importance. You asshats go around telling people they are wrong for liking something just because you don't like it. It's fucking pathetic.
Software is special because it's purely mathematical
No, it's not. Not any more than a mouse trap, for example, is.
If by works just fine, you mean helps to uphold rent seeking behavior, then sure. It's quite annoying that the standard often used for 'works just fine' is 'hasn't completely halted progress.'
Computing progress is fantastic. I don't know which planet you are living on.
'Reasonable' terms are often quite unreasonable. And the solution is very easy. DON'T allow patents on software.
Why? What does that solve, and how is that not going to be worse that the thing it solves?
And that doesn't even solve the "problem". GSM, for example, is a standard that has patents on physical hardware. Why is software so special that it should be exempt from patents altogether?
If they won't do that, there's also the solution of not having their standards directive allow for standards that require royalties, just as they don't allow for standards that refuse to grant someone a license.
Then you tell the EU it can't use GSM phones, H.264 video, and countless other standards that you pay for every day without realizing it, because FRAND is not the evil monster you think it is. It works fantastically. If someone wants to write software that says you can't use patented technologies, *THAT PERSON* is the one who's causing the issue. And that is an ideological stance that is counter to reality.
Reality is the world in which we live. Pretending we live in some other world does not make it so.
Also, there could be a requirement for an alternative that is FOSS compatible, such as a one time fee that allows for downstream users (which I believe is what happened with SAMBA)
That would make no sense. For something like H.264 or GSM, Google could just pay a one time fee for each standard, and all of a sudden every Chrome user gets H.264 and every Motorola phone gets GSM, for no additional charge in perpetuity?
The simple fact is that FRAND works just fine. That's reality. Pretending like it's some sort of assault on freedom, or free software, is ass backwards.
The problem is that "fair and reasonable" completely locks out all free software.
No, it doesn't. The only major software license I'm aware of that is completely locked out is GPLv3 software with the patent clause.
This is not about ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Only when people choose a license that is ideologically based, like the GPL.
A "reasonable" price between two giant corporations is too expensive for free software (and most small businesses).
Untrue. See H.264, GSM, and countless other FRAND standards.
They add cost, and slashdot types tend to see anything that costs any money at all as somehow impossible to ever pay. I honestly don't know how such people eat. Maybe they collect their food on the ground or something. For everyone else, we have little trouble finding a way to pay for the things we need, and that includes people and small organizations paying for things like rent, lights, promotions, communications, and licensing technology.
Did you know that a lot of software, including software from small companies, requires paying the programmers who write it? By your reasoning, this would be impossible.
Can you afford to write free software when the reasonable license for a patent is in 5 digit figures?
I dunno, ask Mozilla. They make millions per year, yet they act like they can't even pay the FREE license for H.264. That's nothing but pure ideology.
It takes a strange worldview to claim that "reasonable" is an extreme position.
FRAND is reasonable. This is because private concerns exist. Without FRAND, we end up with lame standards that tiptoe around patents (like all Theora, and now WebM vs H.264). We also wouldn't have a worldwide GSM standard. Even with local variations, the standard is pretty reliable and useful. If each cell phone manufacturer and network only used standards which were not patent encumbered, we'd have a much less robust wireless market.
This is, like I said, because private concerns exist. If they didn't, then Free Software would be the way to go, mainly because it would be the only way to go. No one is locking out Free Software, unless the free software writers themselves prohibit the use of patented technologies. The FRAND patent holders will gladly (and in fact, are legally required to) allow Free Software users to obtain a license for the patents.
I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong about FS/OSS. They are fantastic, and I use plenty of such software. It's the ideological purity I'm addressing. It ignores the real world, and leads to absurd statements like that "reasonable" is something that "doesn't reflect the real world", which is a bit much. Especially considering the "real world" works just fine with FRAND, and so few people use free software that would are affected by FRAND issues that it's of insignificant impact.
They can expect to be slapped around a little for trying to bully the rightful owner of this "intellectual property".
They might be the legal owner, but Apple did buy the trademark from the company. It's not like buying a car randomly off the street. It's like buying a car from a legitimate new car dealer and expecting it to be a legal sale.
Apple isn't trying to bully anyone. They bought the copyright. If Proview Taiwan didn't have the legal right to sell the trademark for Proview Mainland, then Proview is the ones who committed fraud, and Proview is trying to shakedown Apple.
The "iPad" Proview is claiming the rights to is an iMac clone from many years ago. It's extremely apparent that Proview is simply trying to cash in on a random confluence of events (possibly orchestrated towards the end to deliberately bring about this scenario, by making Apple *think* they bought the rights, cue Ackbar).
As for the end result, the ultimate end result is going to be Apple will own the iPad trademark in China. The only question is whether they will have to pay any more money to do so. In moral terms (which Slashdot posters like to pretend they don't care about, all the while making posts about companies like Apple, MS, Google, and things like Linux, Open Source, and Free Software, that are almost purely moral), Proview is being far more shady than Apple on this.
Legality, which is not strongly tied to morality (*especially* in China of all places!), is a separate matter.
Go back and fit it into the context of what I said: tablets suck for document production, and I'll add: gaming and coding to the lot. This is a toy in comparison to the cranky laptop I'm using at this moment.
You don't get it. That is arrogance. Calling an iPad a "toy" is completely and utter bullshit arrogance. Millions of people use them to type and play games just fine.
You have swallowed the fanboi KoolAid. Jim Jones would have welcomed you on your way to Guyana.
Go fuck yourself. Calling people a fanboi (with the 'i', to make it more gay, what an asshole) because they like something you don't is pure nerd arrogance.
Well, I'm definitely right right now, and for the near future. Worrying about the far future is a bit silly, without strong reason to. Especially when you can simply jump ship when actual problems arise.
As for iOS, of the two scenarios (fully lock down OS X, or unlock iOS GateKeeper style), I think the iOS unlocking is far more likely, but I won't get my hopes up until something concrete arises (no point in getting my hopes up about something so unclear, just the same as no point in getting worked up over something negative).
GateKeeper is the missing piece for Apple if they ever plan to open up iOS more than it currently is, and I think as the iPad grows in popularity, as it further encroaches upon the PC, it my need to be opened more. Hard to say though. I like the iPad as it is, so I'm not going to worry much, but I definitely would like to see it more open (GateKeeper style).
Yes, Microsoft will put Office onto Metro. It'll make people comfortable. My own seemingly anecdotal experience is met with the test of lots of experience. Arrogant as fuck? No. Considered opinion. But you have no clue of my credentials, nor I, yours.
Experience gives you grounds for suggestions, but it counts for nothing when it comes to telling people they are using the wrong tool, when that tool is largely subjective.
Hammers and screwdrivers and drills are largely objective. A drill bit isn't very effective at screwing in a screw, nor is a screwdriver all that good for pounding in a nail. But an iPad is quite good for typing on, and typing isn't the only thing it's used for, so you have to take the device as a whole. For example, let's say that the iPad, without an external keyboard, is 75% as good (using a good objective test) as a PC for typing, but a person subjectively values other aspects, even text-pertienent aspects like iCloud integration or lack of distractions, greater than the loss in typing suitability.
Quite simply, it's arrogant as fuck to tell people they are doing it wrong. They've all used PCs, they know what typing on a PC is like. You're not bringing any knowledge that they don't already have. You're just asserting your own personal opinion on others. I.e., arrogance, plain and simple.
If computers are tools, use the right one.
They aren't the simplistic tools that your analogy portrays them as. There is rarely a "right one". Only religious nerds and simple-minded neophytes think in those terms. Everyone else just uses whatever they like, which means the "right one" is going to be a personal decision, not something someone else can prescribe for them.
This is an important distinction, and worth understanding. That's why Apple has sold over 40 million iPads, when the stereotypical Slashdotter proclaimed the device would be a dud. That proclamation was based on the mistake that a person's own opinion applies to everyone else, merely by virtue of their nerdliness.
Slashdot Mirror
And if I was going over my data cap regularly, then maybe I'd start to worry, but I'm not. Why should I get all Chicken Little about things that aren't problems?
Because comments to other stories mention people finding out that they are "going over [their] data cap regularly".
Yes, some people will hit their data caps, but not many. Hence, it's not a problem. By your logic, nothing is good, since everything has limits that people will hit at one point or another.
Quit being such a priss, and learn to enjoy life. You worry too much about things that don't even effect you.
On the desktop.
What's not obvious is how many minutes of monthly usage you can get from 5 GB, and that depends on the bitrate coming down from OnLive's server. Another Slashdot user pointed out that HSPA+ phones can burn through a 5 GB allowance in ten minutes.
And if this was streaming a Blu-ray movie losslessly, you might have a point. But it's not, it's just a remote session, which people have been doing via 3G on iPads for a couple years now without issue. There's no way this is something to fret over.
As do I on my netbook.
Which has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. People are buying iPads over netbooks. And even if it were the other way around, this topic is about iPads.
On your iPad, if you need a keyboard to compose a longer comment, do you want to get up and go to where your Bluetooth keyboard is?
Nope, I just type it on the iPad. It's really quite easy.
If you need to use Eclipse, Visual Studio, XCode, IDLE, or another comparable developer tool, do you want to get up and go to where your PC is?
If I need to do something real quick, I don't see why I would have to. If I'm sitting down for a proper coding session, of course I'm going to use the computer where the tools are. This isn't a religious issue.
The iPad onscreen keyboard is quite good. It's slower than a physical keyboard, but I don't have to type at a constant 60-90WPM to be happy. 20-40 is just fine. And if I was going over my data cap regularly, then maybe I'd start to worry, but I'm not. Why should I get all Chicken Little about things that aren't problems?
Life's too short to be such a priss.
How so? I have a 250GB limit on my home Internet connection. As for lag, people play video games via OnLive. And how would it drain battery? You can stream Netflix via 3G for many hours without worrying about the battery.
Even a capped 3GB 3G connection will last for quite some time before hitting the limit. It's not like you somehow have to use this 24/7, nor are you limited to 3G.
If you're within range of Wi-Fi, you're probably in a position to use a full-fledged MacBook Air instead of an iPad. If you're not, how fast will OnLive eat up the 5 GB/mo cap of 3G/4G Internet?
So? I don't understand some nerds. "You have 5GB bandwidth, therefore anything that uses it is useless!" Um, you have it in order to use it. How is this not obvious?
Same goes for the MacBook Air comment. So what? If I'm using my iPad, why would I want to go over to my Air if I don't have to? I'm sitting in a comfy chair right now, browsing /. On my iPad, if I need to use Flash (super rare these days, but let's just pretend), do I want to get up and go to where my notebook or desktop are? Why?
Am I just destined to be forever uncool by being associated with a failed MS product?
Well, somebody has to take on that role. I thought it was going to be the Zune tattoo guy, but maybe you can be his stand-in.
Unless you are the Zune tattoo guy, in which case, keep up the good work!
There's a difference between killing and rebranding. Aside from the Zune hardware I don't see a single thing I would consider "killed" by Microsoft. And I'd even accept that idea that the Zune isn't being killed but instead reintroduced in a slightly more integrated format.
And that's exactly what the headline said, they are killing the brands.
What are your options here?
You listed them. They may "do the same thing" if you completely ignore rate and magnitude. By your logic, getting hit by a spray bullets and hit by a nerf dart are the same, since they all do the same thing (hit you with force).
I was going to make a pithy comment about the way you're using modern hardware to run emacs all over the place, but I just can't bring myself to do it. You've already suffered enough.
Actually, no apparently. And, if I do, I have native apps on my iPad for them ... none of them are running Flash.
Awesome, so the solution to replacing a small proprietary plugin like Flash is to buy an entirely proprietary OS and/or device.
You've mistaken causality. People aren't buying iPads to replace Flash, they are buying iPads because they want iPads.
That it's also replacing Flash is a resulting effect from that, not the other way around.
You do realise that not all Flash content will migrate, right? A lot of it isn't being looked after by their authors any more.
So? That content will simply become left behind.
Flash will be like DOSBox. You don't see people claiming that DOS support will be around forever because old DOS games aren't ported to Win32 or Mac do you? Of course not. Some people will install an emulator of some sort, like DOSBox, but most won't, and they won't be missing anything of importance.
Same thing with Flash. It's been dealt its death blow, and is now coasting into the great digital beyond. YouTube even went from having HTML5 as a beta to as a default, at least for Mac users (all new Macs no longer come with Flash), and obviously for iOS users, of which now number in the hundreds of millions.
You keep grasping at straws. Who is at risk for downloading Xcode? It's an absurd parallel.
Once you quit making up bullshit imaginary scenarios, you'll see that there's really nothing evil, nefarious, onerous, or otherwise significantly negative about how this works.
If you don't see the difference between "everybody gets the development kit automatically" and "you can only get the development kit if you register", which an apple account requires, then there is a serious problem.
Who said there's no difference? In fact, I pointed out that there is a difference: that it's now more accessible than before.
"Ooh, people have to get an Apple ID!" It's not like there aren't hundreds of millions of people with such accounts--more accounts than Macs. I don't see how this is a problem.
They could very easily include it on the default install and even offer to automatically delete it if it hasn't been used by the time the disk is full if they are worried it will take too much space.
They could do millions of things, all of which people like you would find something to bitch about. What's wrong with the way it works now? In your imagined scenario, everyone would have to download the Xcode tools (Lion is primarily available via download only), and have the system delete it afterwards. Xcode is something that 90%+ users have no idea what it is and will never use.
Where you come from, all computers may be connected via fast links to the internet. That is nowhere near true in much of the world.
No one said it is. So what? This is the same tired complaint that was thrown around when Lion came out. It hasn't turned out to be much of a problem. All Macs come with a functional OS install. No Mac will cease to function without Mountain Lion, and OS updates themselves can exceed 1GB.
Are there places and circumstances where this can become a problem? Sure. But it's really not that big of a deal. I can never understand this line of reasoning. "Something bad *can* happen, therefore the entire model is bad". Somehow this only seems to ever apply to the system a person has an irrational hatred of.
Besides, how are MS developer tools distributed? How are many Linux distro dev tools distributed? How is Android's SDK distributed? They're all distributed via the Internet. Some of these *may* also have official physical distribution options (which are not stocked in stores). If you really are somewhere that you can't download a couple of gigs in a reasonable amount of time, you can always have someone send it to you on disc or flash drive. Apple will not go after you for doing this.
But you have not created a major distro that does this for Android smartphones in a more polished and well supported fashion.
Your running of multiple Xservers on the same computer on different ports or screens does fuck-all for a phone. So, yeah, it's big news (for nerds at least), and pretty damned interesting. For all the crap Canonical gets, at least they are trying new things, even though there is no shortage of people giving them shit for doing so.
Well, since there's no longer an install DVD, Xcode can't be on it. It's completely free, and they aren't going to "tighten the screws". It's all about simplifying the process for finding, downloading, buying, etc., software.
Xcode is arguably much more accessible to install now than it has ever been in broad terms, since a computer today is more likely to be connected to a high speed network, and discs are usually packed away and often lost. Let alone the fact that the version on the disc is likely to be out of date, leading to then downloading the updated version of Xcode anyway (which, on the Mac App Store is now a delta update, vs the old way which was not).
Why was there a big push for Unity if you're not going to use it in a small form factor? Why not just stick with a real desktop?
Perhaps because Unity isn't as mature and feature-complete for use on a smartphone as Android is.
Wow, someone's a little in love with their $600 portable porn and games machine.
And someone has an overinflated sense of self-importance. You asshats go around telling people they are wrong for liking something just because you don't like it. It's fucking pathetic.
Software is special because it's purely mathematical
No, it's not. Not any more than a mouse trap, for example, is.
If by works just fine, you mean helps to uphold rent seeking behavior, then sure. It's quite annoying that the standard often used for 'works just fine' is 'hasn't completely halted progress.'
Computing progress is fantastic. I don't know which planet you are living on.
'Reasonable' terms are often quite unreasonable. And the solution is very easy. DON'T allow patents on software.
Why? What does that solve, and how is that not going to be worse that the thing it solves?
And that doesn't even solve the "problem". GSM, for example, is a standard that has patents on physical hardware. Why is software so special that it should be exempt from patents altogether?
If they won't do that, there's also the solution of not having their standards directive allow for standards that require royalties, just as they don't allow for standards that refuse to grant someone a license.
Then you tell the EU it can't use GSM phones, H.264 video, and countless other standards that you pay for every day without realizing it, because FRAND is not the evil monster you think it is. It works fantastically. If someone wants to write software that says you can't use patented technologies, *THAT PERSON* is the one who's causing the issue. And that is an ideological stance that is counter to reality.
Reality is the world in which we live. Pretending we live in some other world does not make it so.
Also, there could be a requirement for an alternative that is FOSS compatible, such as a one time fee that allows for downstream users (which I believe is what happened with SAMBA)
That would make no sense. For something like H.264 or GSM, Google could just pay a one time fee for each standard, and all of a sudden every Chrome user gets H.264 and every Motorola phone gets GSM, for no additional charge in perpetuity?
The simple fact is that FRAND works just fine. That's reality. Pretending like it's some sort of assault on freedom, or free software, is ass backwards.
The problem is that "fair and reasonable" completely locks out all free software.
No, it doesn't. The only major software license I'm aware of that is completely locked out is GPLv3 software with the patent clause.
This is not about ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Only when people choose a license that is ideologically based, like the GPL.
A "reasonable" price between two giant corporations is too expensive for free software (and most small businesses).
Untrue. See H.264, GSM, and countless other FRAND standards.
They add cost, and slashdot types tend to see anything that costs any money at all as somehow impossible to ever pay. I honestly don't know how such people eat. Maybe they collect their food on the ground or something. For everyone else, we have little trouble finding a way to pay for the things we need, and that includes people and small organizations paying for things like rent, lights, promotions, communications, and licensing technology.
Did you know that a lot of software, including software from small companies, requires paying the programmers who write it? By your reasoning, this would be impossible.
Can you afford to write free software when the reasonable license for a patent is in 5 digit figures?
I dunno, ask Mozilla. They make millions per year, yet they act like they can't even pay the FREE license for H.264. That's nothing but pure ideology.
It takes a strange worldview to claim that "reasonable" is an extreme position.
FRAND is reasonable. This is because private concerns exist. Without FRAND, we end up with lame standards that tiptoe around patents (like all Theora, and now WebM vs H.264). We also wouldn't have a worldwide GSM standard. Even with local variations, the standard is pretty reliable and useful. If each cell phone manufacturer and network only used standards which were not patent encumbered, we'd have a much less robust wireless market.
This is, like I said, because private concerns exist. If they didn't, then Free Software would be the way to go, mainly because it would be the only way to go. No one is locking out Free Software, unless the free software writers themselves prohibit the use of patented technologies. The FRAND patent holders will gladly (and in fact, are legally required to) allow Free Software users to obtain a license for the patents.
I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong about FS/OSS. They are fantastic, and I use plenty of such software. It's the ideological purity I'm addressing. It ignores the real world, and leads to absurd statements like that "reasonable" is something that "doesn't reflect the real world", which is a bit much. Especially considering the "real world" works just fine with FRAND, and so few people use free software that would are affected by FRAND issues that it's of insignificant impact.
They can expect to be slapped around a little for trying to bully the rightful owner of this "intellectual property".
They might be the legal owner, but Apple did buy the trademark from the company. It's not like buying a car randomly off the street. It's like buying a car from a legitimate new car dealer and expecting it to be a legal sale.
Apple isn't trying to bully anyone. They bought the copyright. If Proview Taiwan didn't have the legal right to sell the trademark for Proview Mainland, then Proview is the ones who committed fraud, and Proview is trying to shakedown Apple.
The "iPad" Proview is claiming the rights to is an iMac clone from many years ago. It's extremely apparent that Proview is simply trying to cash in on a random confluence of events (possibly orchestrated towards the end to deliberately bring about this scenario, by making Apple *think* they bought the rights, cue Ackbar).
As for the end result, the ultimate end result is going to be Apple will own the iPad trademark in China. The only question is whether they will have to pay any more money to do so. In moral terms (which Slashdot posters like to pretend they don't care about, all the while making posts about companies like Apple, MS, Google, and things like Linux, Open Source, and Free Software, that are almost purely moral), Proview is being far more shady than Apple on this.
Legality, which is not strongly tied to morality (*especially* in China of all places!), is a separate matter.
Go back and fit it into the context of what I said: tablets suck for document production, and I'll add: gaming and coding to the lot. This is a toy in comparison to the cranky laptop I'm using at this moment.
You don't get it. That is arrogance. Calling an iPad a "toy" is completely and utter bullshit arrogance. Millions of people use them to type and play games just fine.
You have swallowed the fanboi KoolAid. Jim Jones would have welcomed you on your way to Guyana.
Go fuck yourself. Calling people a fanboi (with the 'i', to make it more gay, what an asshole) because they like something you don't is pure nerd arrogance.
Well, I'm definitely right right now, and for the near future. Worrying about the far future is a bit silly, without strong reason to. Especially when you can simply jump ship when actual problems arise.
As for iOS, of the two scenarios (fully lock down OS X, or unlock iOS GateKeeper style), I think the iOS unlocking is far more likely, but I won't get my hopes up until something concrete arises (no point in getting my hopes up about something so unclear, just the same as no point in getting worked up over something negative).
GateKeeper is the missing piece for Apple if they ever plan to open up iOS more than it currently is, and I think as the iPad grows in popularity, as it further encroaches upon the PC, it my need to be opened more. Hard to say though. I like the iPad as it is, so I'm not going to worry much, but I definitely would like to see it more open (GateKeeper style).
Yes, Microsoft will put Office onto Metro. It'll make people comfortable. My own seemingly anecdotal experience is met with the test of lots of experience. Arrogant as fuck? No. Considered opinion. But you have no clue of my credentials, nor I, yours.
Experience gives you grounds for suggestions, but it counts for nothing when it comes to telling people they are using the wrong tool, when that tool is largely subjective.
Hammers and screwdrivers and drills are largely objective. A drill bit isn't very effective at screwing in a screw, nor is a screwdriver all that good for pounding in a nail. But an iPad is quite good for typing on, and typing isn't the only thing it's used for, so you have to take the device as a whole. For example, let's say that the iPad, without an external keyboard, is 75% as good (using a good objective test) as a PC for typing, but a person subjectively values other aspects, even text-pertienent aspects like iCloud integration or lack of distractions, greater than the loss in typing suitability.
Quite simply, it's arrogant as fuck to tell people they are doing it wrong. They've all used PCs, they know what typing on a PC is like. You're not bringing any knowledge that they don't already have. You're just asserting your own personal opinion on others. I.e., arrogance, plain and simple.
If computers are tools, use the right one.
They aren't the simplistic tools that your analogy portrays them as. There is rarely a "right one". Only religious nerds and simple-minded neophytes think in those terms. Everyone else just uses whatever they like, which means the "right one" is going to be a personal decision, not something someone else can prescribe for them.
This is an important distinction, and worth understanding. That's why Apple has sold over 40 million iPads, when the stereotypical Slashdotter proclaimed the device would be a dud. That proclamation was based on the mistake that a person's own opinion applies to everyone else, merely by virtue of their nerdliness.
In a word: arrogance.