Is there something safari doesn't support that gap.com would need?
Windows.
Seriously, this kind of thing seems to be caused by Windows-based web designers (Fools, the whole lot!) not taking the time to test on a Mac. They can say "We support Netscape 7/Mozilla/Firefox on Mac OS X", without actually testing it, because it should work exactly as well as the Windows version. So, it probably isn't that the site would break in Safari, as they just haven't bothered to try it.
I couldn't tell you why they would choose to actively lock out untested browsers, though.
What Apple has to be scared shitless about, however, is Microsoft killing Office for OS X.
Microsoft's Mac Business Unit is one of the most profitable parts of the company, and the second largest Mac-only developer in the world (guess who the first is?). That isn't something you just "kill". Of course it could happen, but not so suddenly as you describe.
A good idea would be to build a maglev between NYC and Chicago. Why? That is a profitable route and would prove that a train that does 300 MPH and is evergy efficient can be profitable and good for society.
Well, you know, I think eradicating malaria and AIDS (things the Gates Foundation is already funding) is good for society. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that would be better for society than building a flashy new maglev train in the richest nation in the world.
According to the article, Apple immediately removed the link to this software. With their teams of lawyers you figure they could have performed a proper review of the claim and seen it was just another case of Goliath bullying around innocent people.
Why would they bother? The link has virtually no value to Apple, and there is no incentive for them to throw their lawyers at somebody else's problem.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Blu-Ray also supposed to use AACS? My impression was that the formats were identical except for the physical media.
I believe his point was the definition of "intuitive".
Words taken out of context aren't much of a point, but ok.
The first definition isn't right for this context, so let's look at the second: obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation.
Intuition. Hmm. What is intuition? instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes). (WordNet)
Is anyone born with "instinctive knowledge" of computer interfaces? No. But we do develop instincts, or intuition, for them. How do we do that? Could it be through reasoning and observation? And that scary word I used previously, interaction?
No? Then why is Apple's main selling point a promise that their UI will fix that?
What on earth are you talking about?
No, Apple says nothing about their interfaces making up for being lazy and unwilling to learn. Nor does anyone else, for that matter. It just isn't something you can do with an interface; there is always some degree of learning involved. As is often said: "The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned." At best, you can make an interface that is easy to learn, with increasing returns as the user progresses.
Also, you might notice that I didn't mention Apple in my post at all. The only Apple-specific thing in this thread is the shrillness of the complaint.
I poked my way through quite a few menues and found nothing helpfull.
And instead of admitting that maybe, just maybe, this could be because you haven't learned where that particular system keeps things, you go off on the assumption that it is completely flawed and incomprehensible. "I don't understand it, therefore it is impossible to understand."
Your whole experience sounds like someone approaching a unix shell, typing "dir", and walking away in anger when it doesn't act like DOS.
So I have to read a manual to resize a window, and to get a bunch of bouncing icons that are standing in my way to stop doing so?
No. I didn't say that, or anything like it. I was pointing out that most of the things you tried, you tried because they work on some other system, not because you had any indication whatsoever that they would work on Mac OS X. Some things do work the same, some don't. Figuring out which ones do and which ones don't is something that every new user has to do, no matter how well-designed an interface is. Instead of accepting that things might be different to what you are used to, you quickly get mad at it for being different. I don't think that's very conducive to completing the task at hand, and it probably won't help you in subsequent tasks.
You don't have to read a manual. You just have to be willing to learn by interaction, as you have been doing since the day you were born.
Simplicity may be the goal, but that doesn't tell us anything about how to achieve it. There is a right way, and a wrong way. The wrong way is to just go around cutting things out arbitrarily. The right way is to remove only what you know is unneccesary. GNOME pisses people off by doing the former, while claiming to do the latter.
I found it pretty hard to use. Sure, windows and buttons were flying around bouncing and being transparent and doing assorted acrobatics, but my task was not at all made easier by all the eye candy.
Your task would have been made easier had you known what the fuck you were doing instead of assuming that anything you tried would be right. Rather than accept the fact that you don't know how things worked, and act accordingly, you blame the system for not behaving like something else. In short, you were lazy and unwilling to learn. There isn't much that a UI can do to fix that.
Can't these portals release software without trying to take over your computer?
In a word: No.
It is completely impossible for them to do leave your computer alone. It just isn't in their blood. The entire "portal" concept requires them to be in your way as you try to do anything. At one time it was enough to be the first thing you see when you opened your browser (the "home page"), then they had to be everpresent on every page you went to (the "tool bar"), now they're moving to be there, right on your desktop, always.
The guy you replied to was, so I just assumed you were.
I can't really speak for him, but I wasn't trying to take the stance that podcasting itself is "unsuccessful" or is going to fade away any time soon. People will continue to do it as long as it is doable, like most things, popular and unpopular. But popularity doesn't magically turn into profit, and profit is the most common way to measure success.
To clarify: the original suggestion was that most podcasting-based startups (which may include directories, hosting services, podcast networks, and individual podcasters) are basically worthless. BigCos will buy a few of them up among all the hype, but unless your company is among them, you're probably going to get burned when the hype dies down.
Actually, they couldn't have without a business model. They would have gone dry and been scooped up in less than a year. I think getting bought by BigCo had been the plan for del.icio.us for a long time now. Yeah, they could have run ads or something and maybe covered costs, but from day one they were more valuable to Yahoo or Google or Microsoft or somebody else than they would have been independent.
That isn't to say there's no room for startups to compete: just that for most, the prospects of getting bought out are much better.
Podcasting is already extremely popular, and is very useful in the real world.
That doesn't mean there's much money in it. Podcasting right now is a fad, with tons of people trying to make a quick buck off of the popularity. A handfull will actually succeed, probably using very traditional business models, a few more will get bought up by BigCo, and the vast majority will fall by the wayside, wondering why The Revolution didn't last.
I want a pony, and it's name is inline-block.
on
The Future of HTML
·
· Score: 1
So when you say "it is Mozilla's fault for not implementing specs from 2003", what you really mean is "is it Mozilla's fault for not implementing unfinished specifications"?
Mozilla implements unfinished specifications all the time! Parts of CSS 3? Yup. The canvas tag? It's hardly safe to hide behind the done-ness of the specification, when Gecko already supports quite a few draft specs.
Anyhow, it was largely a rhetorical question. I was trying to point out that even so-called "standards-compliant" browsers can have plenty of holes in their support, and that these holes rarely overlap.
Until CSS 2.1 reaches final recommendation status, you are complaining that you can't use properietary Internet Explorer code in all browsers, which doesn't seem that reasonable to me.
Calling it "proprietary Internet Explorer code" is a strawman. If display: inline-block is "proprietary IE code", then the Canvas tag must be "proprietary Safari code", right? But I can use it in Firefox.
That's like saying if google delisted your website, it's ok if everyone who has a bookmark for your site can't reach you any more.
Uh, no. It's more like if you asked Google to delist your site, they delisted your site, and then you got mad that people couldn't find you through Google anymore.
I'm not saying that the situation is "ok": Podkeyword's approach, whether malicious or not, was stupid to begin with and this kind of thing was bound to happen eventually. But for the podcaster to not know that most of his traffic was comming from someone else's feed is negligent. If he had a problem with what Podkeyword was doing, he had plenty of time to opt-out.
True, it was his actions that caused him to lose listeners, and he realized it. But at any time, this podkeyword thing could have pulled his listing or redirect it to someone else's show entirely, and that was the problem.
Except that didn't happen, and there is no evidence that it would have. So instead of facing up to his own mistakes, he's throwing around accusations and inflammatory neologisms. He's assuming malice because he is angry, not because there is evidence of it. Is Podkeyword's approach stupid and problematic? Hell yeah. Is it "hijacking"? No.
Re:why did they choose windows first, instead...
on
Google Earth Beta for Mac
·
· Score: 3, Informative
why did they choose windows first, instead...of a solution that was cross platform, like Java or python or perl?
Google didn't develop it from scratch. They bought up a company called Keyhole. Google Earth is basically a free version of Keyhole's $400 product, which is now "Google Earth Pro".
Furthermore, the 'service' registered his show on legitimate directory services as coming from them. I can't see any way to make that look legitimate.
Even the article itself points out that this is done by the search engines slurping up podkeyword's OPML feed. You could conclude that this is malicious hijacking, but it isn't something the accused site actually went to search engines and did manually. You could conclude that it's the fault of the search engines for assuming that OPML feeds are reliable and accurate, which I don't think they do for any other kind of content. You could conclude that it's the fault of the original podcast publisher for not registering his own show, which seems like a huge oversight for someone who has supposedly put a lot of hard work into the podcast. It isn't black and white.
Is podcastkeyword.com just trying to cash in on the podcast craze? Probably. Are they doing anything illegal, or even just malicious, in the process? Doubtful.
Yes, he lost listeners. Or so he says, and I find it quite plausible.
He only lost listeners through his own actions. Apparently, 75% of his traffic had come from iTunes users subscribing to someone else's RSS feed. He told them to knock it off, and lost those listeners. Or to put it another way: 75% of his listeners found him through the site he is bitching about.
Re:Everything since HTML has been too complex
on
The Future of HTML
·
· Score: 1
In all modern browsers, all but the most obscure and least tested features of CSS render the same.
Ah, but who decides what is "most obscure"? In my experience, each browser maker has it's own opinion on what is important to implement first, and what is obscure. display: inline-block, my personal pet-peeve, is not all that obscure (CSS 2.1), works in Safari, but doesn't work in Firefox/Mozilla. Whose fault is this? Mine for using "obscure" features? Or Mozilla's for not implementing specs from 2003?
It looks to me that it will do everything Aperature will do...
You're not looking hard enough. Portfolio doesn't have anything like Aperture's nondestructive image processing. You'd need Photoshop for that. Aperture is more like a cross between Portfolio and Photoshop.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there something safari doesn't support that gap.com would need?
Windows.
Seriously, this kind of thing seems to be caused by Windows-based web designers (Fools, the whole lot!) not taking the time to test on a Mac. They can say "We support Netscape 7/Mozilla/Firefox on Mac OS X", without actually testing it, because it should work exactly as well as the Windows version. So, it probably isn't that the site would break in Safari, as they just haven't bothered to try it.
I couldn't tell you why they would choose to actively lock out untested browsers, though.
What Apple has to be scared shitless about, however, is Microsoft killing Office for OS X.
Microsoft's Mac Business Unit is one of the most profitable parts of the company, and the second largest Mac-only developer in the world (guess who the first is?). That isn't something you just "kill". Of course it could happen, but not so suddenly as you describe.
A good idea would be to build a maglev between NYC and Chicago. Why? That is a profitable route and would prove that a train that does 300 MPH and is evergy efficient can be profitable and good for society.
Well, you know, I think eradicating malaria and AIDS (things the Gates Foundation is already funding) is good for society. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that would be better for society than building a flashy new maglev train in the richest nation in the world.
According to the article, Apple immediately removed the link to this software. With their teams of lawyers you figure they could have performed a proper review of the claim and seen it was just another case of Goliath bullying around innocent people.
Why would they bother? The link has virtually no value to Apple, and there is no incentive for them to throw their lawyers at somebody else's problem.
Apple says nothing about their interfaces making up for being lazy and unwilling to learn.
That's SO untrue, you simply must not be paying attention.
Wow! Your stunning use of capitalization has convinced me! Thanks for showing me the error of my ways!
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Blu-Ray also supposed to use AACS? My impression was that the formats were identical except for the physical media.
I believe his point was the definition of "intuitive".
Words taken out of context aren't much of a point, but ok.
The first definition isn't right for this context, so let's look at the second: obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation.
Intuition. Hmm. What is intuition? instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes). (WordNet)
Is anyone born with "instinctive knowledge" of computer interfaces? No. But we do develop instincts, or intuition, for them. How do we do that? Could it be through reasoning and observation? And that scary word I used previously, interaction?
Perhaps we could call this process "learning."
No? Then why is Apple's main selling point a promise that their UI will fix that?
What on earth are you talking about?
No, Apple says nothing about their interfaces making up for being lazy and unwilling to learn. Nor does anyone else, for that matter. It just isn't something you can do with an interface; there is always some degree of learning involved. As is often said: "The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned." At best, you can make an interface that is easy to learn, with increasing returns as the user progresses.
Also, you might notice that I didn't mention Apple in my post at all. The only Apple-specific thing in this thread is the shrillness of the complaint.
I poked my way through quite a few menues and found nothing helpfull.
And instead of admitting that maybe, just maybe, this could be because you haven't learned where that particular system keeps things, you go off on the assumption that it is completely flawed and incomprehensible. "I don't understand it, therefore it is impossible to understand."
Your whole experience sounds like someone approaching a unix shell, typing "dir", and walking away in anger when it doesn't act like DOS.
So I have to read a manual to resize a window, and to get a bunch of bouncing icons that are standing in my way to stop doing so?
No. I didn't say that, or anything like it. I was pointing out that most of the things you tried, you tried because they work on some other system, not because you had any indication whatsoever that they would work on Mac OS X. Some things do work the same, some don't. Figuring out which ones do and which ones don't is something that every new user has to do, no matter how well-designed an interface is. Instead of accepting that things might be different to what you are used to, you quickly get mad at it for being different. I don't think that's very conducive to completing the task at hand, and it probably won't help you in subsequent tasks.
You don't have to read a manual. You just have to be willing to learn by interaction, as you have been doing since the day you were born.
The goal is simplicity in all things.
Simplicity may be the goal, but that doesn't tell us anything about how to achieve it. There is a right way, and a wrong way. The wrong way is to just go around cutting things out arbitrarily. The right way is to remove only what you know is unneccesary. GNOME pisses people off by doing the former, while claiming to do the latter.
I found it pretty hard to use. Sure, windows and buttons were flying around bouncing and being transparent and doing assorted acrobatics, but my task was not at all made easier by all the eye candy.
Your task would have been made easier had you known what the fuck you were doing instead of assuming that anything you tried would be right. Rather than accept the fact that you don't know how things worked, and act accordingly, you blame the system for not behaving like something else. In short, you were lazy and unwilling to learn. There isn't much that a UI can do to fix that.
Can't these portals release software without trying to take over your computer?
In a word: No.
It is completely impossible for them to do leave your computer alone. It just isn't in their blood. The entire "portal" concept requires them to be in your way as you try to do anything. At one time it was enough to be the first thing you see when you opened your browser (the "home page"), then they had to be everpresent on every page you went to (the "tool bar"), now they're moving to be there, right on your desktop, always.
Why should I care? I'm not talking about money.
The guy you replied to was, so I just assumed you were.
I can't really speak for him, but I wasn't trying to take the stance that podcasting itself is "unsuccessful" or is going to fade away any time soon. People will continue to do it as long as it is doable, like most things, popular and unpopular. But popularity doesn't magically turn into profit, and profit is the most common way to measure success.
To clarify: the original suggestion was that most podcasting-based startups (which may include directories, hosting services, podcast networks, and individual podcasters) are basically worthless. BigCos will buy a few of them up among all the hype, but unless your company is among them, you're probably going to get burned when the hype dies down.
'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days...
...as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'"
i.e., the hype.
i.e., you can do stuff.
In summary: Web 2.0: You can use The Hype to Do Stuff!
Delicious could have said no, we aren't selling.
Actually, they couldn't have without a business model. They would have gone dry and been scooped up in less than a year. I think getting bought by BigCo had been the plan for del.icio.us for a long time now. Yeah, they could have run ads or something and maybe covered costs, but from day one they were more valuable to Yahoo or Google or Microsoft or somebody else than they would have been independent.
That isn't to say there's no room for startups to compete: just that for most, the prospects of getting bought out are much better.
Podcasting is already extremely popular, and is very useful in the real world.
That doesn't mean there's much money in it. Podcasting right now is a fad, with tons of people trying to make a quick buck off of the popularity. A handfull will actually succeed, probably using very traditional business models, a few more will get bought up by BigCo, and the vast majority will fall by the wayside, wondering why The Revolution didn't last.
So when you say "it is Mozilla's fault for not implementing specs from 2003", what you really mean is "is it Mozilla's fault for not implementing unfinished specifications"?
Mozilla implements unfinished specifications all the time! Parts of CSS 3? Yup. The canvas tag? It's hardly safe to hide behind the done-ness of the specification, when Gecko already supports quite a few draft specs.
Anyhow, it was largely a rhetorical question. I was trying to point out that even so-called "standards-compliant" browsers can have plenty of holes in their support, and that these holes rarely overlap.
Until CSS 2.1 reaches final recommendation status, you are complaining that you can't use properietary Internet Explorer code in all browsers, which doesn't seem that reasonable to me.
Calling it "proprietary Internet Explorer code" is a strawman. If display: inline-block is "proprietary IE code", then the Canvas tag must be "proprietary Safari code", right? But I can use it in Firefox.
That's like saying if google delisted your website, it's ok if everyone who has a bookmark for your site can't reach you any more.
Uh, no. It's more like if you asked Google to delist your site, they delisted your site, and then you got mad that people couldn't find you through Google anymore.
I'm not saying that the situation is "ok": Podkeyword's approach, whether malicious or not, was stupid to begin with and this kind of thing was bound to happen eventually. But for the podcaster to not know that most of his traffic was comming from someone else's feed is negligent. If he had a problem with what Podkeyword was doing, he had plenty of time to opt-out.
True, it was his actions that caused him to lose listeners, and he realized it. But at any time, this podkeyword thing could have pulled his listing or redirect it to someone else's show entirely, and that was the problem.
Except that didn't happen, and there is no evidence that it would have. So instead of facing up to his own mistakes, he's throwing around accusations and inflammatory neologisms. He's assuming malice because he is angry, not because there is evidence of it. Is Podkeyword's approach stupid and problematic? Hell yeah. Is it "hijacking"? No.
why did they choose windows first, instead...of a solution that was cross platform, like Java or python or perl?
Google didn't develop it from scratch. They bought up a company called Keyhole. Google Earth is basically a free version of Keyhole's $400 product, which is now "Google Earth Pro".
Furthermore, the 'service' registered his show on legitimate directory services as coming from them. I can't see any way to make that look legitimate.
Even the article itself points out that this is done by the search engines slurping up podkeyword's OPML feed. You could conclude that this is malicious hijacking, but it isn't something the accused site actually went to search engines and did manually. You could conclude that it's the fault of the search engines for assuming that OPML feeds are reliable and accurate, which I don't think they do for any other kind of content. You could conclude that it's the fault of the original podcast publisher for not registering his own show, which seems like a huge oversight for someone who has supposedly put a lot of hard work into the podcast. It isn't black and white.
Is podcastkeyword.com just trying to cash in on the podcast craze? Probably. Are they doing anything illegal, or even just malicious, in the process? Doubtful.
Yes, he lost listeners. Or so he says, and I find it quite plausible.
He only lost listeners through his own actions. Apparently, 75% of his traffic had come from iTunes users subscribing to someone else's RSS feed. He told them to knock it off, and lost those listeners. Or to put it another way: 75% of his listeners found him through the site he is bitching about.
In all modern browsers, all but the most obscure and least tested features of CSS render the same.
Ah, but who decides what is "most obscure"? In my experience, each browser maker has it's own opinion on what is important to implement first, and what is obscure. display: inline-block, my personal pet-peeve, is not all that obscure (CSS 2.1), works in Safari, but doesn't work in Firefox/Mozilla. Whose fault is this? Mine for using "obscure" features? Or Mozilla's for not implementing specs from 2003?
It looks to me that it will do everything Aperature will do...
You're not looking hard enough. Portfolio doesn't have anything like Aperture's nondestructive image processing. You'd need Photoshop for that. Aperture is more like a cross between Portfolio and Photoshop.
Maybe to be more inclusive the article should read "Rapshody Targets non-windows users" instead of linux.
And maybe to be more accurate it should read "Rhapsody Flails Around Aimlessly in the Dark In Search of User Base".