Why should I care if Apple knows what I do or where I go? They don't make their money by selling other companies access to me. They make money by selling electronics to me.
You don't know what you're talking about. You have no idea why Google's mapping services are no longer available. You don't know if it was Apple's decision, you don't know if it was Google's decision, you don't know if it was a mutual decision--and you don't know what factors played into that decision. You do know, however, that Apple is evil and therefore, ipso facto, everything's their fault. The end.
You're right, Google isn't obligated to provide anything to iOS. But I suspect they do so because it's making them more money than their entire Android operation. Why is Apple not providing...something to Android? I'm not sure what they could be providing, but if you do think of something the answer would probably be because Google infringed many of Apple's patents when creating Android. Oh, sure you may not agree. But a court of law sure did. The Big Steve vowed to destroy Android because of how blatantly they stole from Apple.
Yes, I have heard of iAd. And you raise a good point. But the fact that it represents about 0.000001% of Apple's revenue, I somehow trust more that they won't succumb to shady privacy practices. Perhaps you think that's silly. I don't.
No. Apple's business is selling things to me. It isn't selling my information to others. That's Google's model. There really is a difference. I'm not imagining it.
And you know that the reason turn-by-turn wasn't available in the iOS Maps app is because Apple just...didn't get around to it or something. You know that it wasn't that Google withheld that service from Apple. Or that Google and Apple argued over ads or other conditions. It basically just didn't have it because Steve Jobs was a dick and Google is open and FREEDOM AMERICA.
The really big players here are Facebook and Google. They both have fantastic amounts of data about you and their business model is entirely advertising-based. I don't think it's "false" or unfair to point this out and express some concern over it.
Your insinuation that the iPhone is substandard, overpriced, lacking innovation and giving little value for money is simply wrong. The 5 is almost certainly the best smartphone on the market today. As was the 4S before it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that it's at least a contender for the top spot is seriously missing something important about personal technology.
Yes, you are a slashdot product. But you'd be even more so if they started selling your information to advertisers or other third parties.
Also, I don't mind if Google wants to recommend a restaurant to me. I at least have some kind of relationship with them. But I'd rather they not allow third parties to grab my personal data to be used later for unknown purposes. That's the kind of thing Apple won't do.
Why is Apple always the villain around here? Remember that one time when Google implemented turn-by-turn directions for iOS maps app? Yeah, me neither. Besides, I trust Apple more. With them, I'm the customer. With Goolge I'm the product...with my personal information being sold to advertisers. Google already reads my email, knows my web searches, sees my RSS feeds and more. I want them also knowing where I go?
Many tech pundits should be surprised. They were so busy writing about what a disappointment iPhone 4S was that they neglected to notice the fact that preorders sold out in one day.
Gawker doesn't suggest that "every iPad owner in the US" may have been exposed. It says every iPad 3G owner may have been exposed. I don't think that's splitting hairs, either, given the short time the 3G model has been available. Things are bad enough without making them seem worse.
Yes, I am a card carrying member of the nerd set. I would never be totally without a more "open" computing device, but that doesn't mean I never want to trade tinkerability and "control" for appliance-like reliability and consistency. Sometimes I do. And I think it's just fine--progress, even--if a few internet devices make that tradeoff. it's not like we're looking at the death of open computing.
You're missing the point entirely. Many people find it more freeing to use a device which does only a few things reliably and well instead of traditional PC with its impressive list of features, non-uniform experience, requiring more knowledge, etc.
Slashdot is largely populated by a tech elite who, if they had their way, would always choose a phone with a command prompt and who wonder why the rest of the world isn't building robots in their basements. But there's a big world out there and sometimes it's okay for the technology to go to them instead of making them always come to it.
I don't think anyone much cares what it's called. Give people something fun and useful with features that are easy to discover and use, something that works as expected every time and doesn't require you to have a bachelor's in software engineering to keep working... they are going to want it and enjoy it. And good for them, I say.
I don't see a future for me where I have no "open computing" device. Like everyone here, I'm too old school for that. But would I get an iPad? Hell yes. I can't recompile the kernel of my television, either, but I still want one.
Oh dear! Nerds have a device or two that isn't for them! That IS a shame.
Perhaps we could aim a few products at the non-technical people out there for once? Computers haven't gotten any easier to use in the last two frickin' decades. Maybe, just maybe, we could allow a few products for them without declaring that the goddamn sky is falling? Hmm?
I think Google should partner with a technology company to provide the hardware instead of Dell. Dell has no R&D to speak of. They take off-the-shelf parts, brand them and sell a warranty. This partnership is on a fast train to also-ran city.
If only m.gmail.com worked with my gmail hosted address which uses my personal domain name. Actually, if only Apple's gmail setup wizard thingy worked with it! The only solution is to use Safari or to set up POP. I chose the latter and I'm not terribly pleased with it.
I like this line of thinking, however, two small points must be made:
1. There's no way for the IT department to say "sorry, you're in 56k land now" when the student is complaining to his/her parents/dean/professor/pope that they can't get their homework done on our network even though they pay $20k a year in tuition. The only way to limit individual network ports is to do it on a moment-by-moment throttling, not "use it up, you're screwed until the first of next month."
2. It takes a lot more than downloading a television episode to cause the kind of problems we're talking about. We're talking about having gigs of media files downloading and uploading day and night. It's commonplace.
I'm sure the administrators didn't go out and tell everyone exactly what was going to happen.
Bullshit it was "underhand[ed]." When it first happened we - I mean they - blocked the ports in question. But only until they could figure out how to shape the traffic and bring some usability back. At that point, the entire thing was written up in the university paper. No secrets. Nothing underhanded whatsoever.
I don't oversimplify. On the campus I'm referring to, there was no ban. Only a bandwidth throttle for certain kinds of traffic. if your campus is different, I can't speak to that.
As a practical matter, it does on my network. I'm not the RIAA and I don't lose any sleep over people sharing their 12 gig music collection 24/7. But I know quite well what the vast majority of P2P traffic is on university campuses. I'd be willing to bet the same is true of home users, too. What's your guess?
Maybe the answer really is to simply bandwidth cap each network jack. I'm not a network admin, so I don't know what's involved in that, but that sounds fair. Nobody wants to police our user's content. We just want students to be able to search the library form the dorm. With P2P unchecked, they can't.
The solution cannot be to simply throttle all traffic from dorms. People in dorms are often doing academic work. We cannot lump those packets together with music and movie sharing and then simply throttle the whole thing down to where we know it's going to crawl. That solution does not work. We have to have a way to segregate it.
I'm no fan of cable companies, but someone has to speak up about the problems associated with P2P. I'm aware of some educational institutions that saw their newly upgraded networks come to a complete grinding halt - simply because of P2P sharing. They had no choice but to shape their traffic so that other business could get done. They didn't ban it or shut it off. They simply said X amount of our bandwidth can be used for it during business hours and Y amount at other times. And now look what's happened: P2P clients have deliberately foiled such attempts by encryption. Great. Now those institutions will be crippled once again by dorms full of students sharing their entire music collection to the world, many not even aware that they are doing it.
I don't want to kill P2P. I am no fan of cable companies or the RIAA or the MPAA. But don't blame network admins when they have to fight back on this stuff!
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I care if Apple knows what I do or where I go? They don't make their money by selling other companies access to me. They make money by selling electronics to me.
You don't know what you're talking about. You have no idea why Google's mapping services are no longer available. You don't know if it was Apple's decision, you don't know if it was Google's decision, you don't know if it was a mutual decision--and you don't know what factors played into that decision. You do know, however, that Apple is evil and therefore, ipso facto, everything's their fault. The end.
Yeah, and that app uses services made available to it (or not) by Google.
You're right, Google isn't obligated to provide anything to iOS. But I suspect they do so because it's making them more money than their entire Android operation. Why is Apple not providing ...something to Android? I'm not sure what they could be providing, but if you do think of something the answer would probably be because Google infringed many of Apple's patents when creating Android. Oh, sure you may not agree. But a court of law sure did. The Big Steve vowed to destroy Android because of how blatantly they stole from Apple.
Yes, I have heard of iAd. And you raise a good point. But the fact that it represents about 0.000001% of Apple's revenue, I somehow trust more that they won't succumb to shady privacy practices. Perhaps you think that's silly. I don't.
No. Apple's business is selling things to me. It isn't selling my information to others. That's Google's model. There really is a difference. I'm not imagining it.
And you know that the reason turn-by-turn wasn't available in the iOS Maps app is because Apple just ...didn't get around to it or something. You know that it wasn't that Google withheld that service from Apple. Or that Google and Apple argued over ads or other conditions. It basically just didn't have it because Steve Jobs was a dick and Google is open and FREEDOM AMERICA.
The really big players here are Facebook and Google. They both have fantastic amounts of data about you and their business model is entirely advertising-based. I don't think it's "false" or unfair to point this out and express some concern over it.
Your insinuation that the iPhone is substandard, overpriced, lacking innovation and giving little value for money is simply wrong. The 5 is almost certainly the best smartphone on the market today. As was the 4S before it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that it's at least a contender for the top spot is seriously missing something important about personal technology.
Yes, you are a slashdot product. But you'd be even more so if they started selling your information to advertisers or other third parties.
Also, I don't mind if Google wants to recommend a restaurant to me. I at least have some kind of relationship with them. But I'd rather they not allow third parties to grab my personal data to be used later for unknown purposes. That's the kind of thing Apple won't do.
Why is Apple always the villain around here? Remember that one time when Google implemented turn-by-turn directions for iOS maps app? Yeah, me neither. Besides, I trust Apple more. With them, I'm the customer. With Goolge I'm the product...with my personal information being sold to advertisers. Google already reads my email, knows my web searches, sees my RSS feeds and more. I want them also knowing where I go?
Many tech pundits should be surprised. They were so busy writing about what a disappointment iPhone 4S was that they neglected to notice the fact that preorders sold out in one day.
Gawker doesn't suggest that "every iPad owner in the US" may have been exposed. It says every iPad 3G owner may have been exposed. I don't think that's splitting hairs, either, given the short time the 3G model has been available. Things are bad enough without making them seem worse.
Yes, I am a card carrying member of the nerd set. I would never be totally without a more "open" computing device, but that doesn't mean I never want to trade tinkerability and "control" for appliance-like reliability and consistency. Sometimes I do. And I think it's just fine--progress, even--if a few internet devices make that tradeoff. it's not like we're looking at the death of open computing.
You're missing the point entirely. Many people find it more freeing to use a device which does only a few things reliably and well instead of traditional PC with its impressive list of features, non-uniform experience, requiring more knowledge, etc.
Slashdot is largely populated by a tech elite who, if they had their way, would always choose a phone with a command prompt and who wonder why the rest of the world isn't building robots in their basements. But there's a big world out there and sometimes it's okay for the technology to go to them instead of making them always come to it.
I don't think anyone much cares what it's called. Give people something fun and useful with features that are easy to discover and use, something that works as expected every time and doesn't require you to have a bachelor's in software engineering to keep working... they are going to want it and enjoy it. And good for them, I say.
I don't see a future for me where I have no "open computing" device. Like everyone here, I'm too old school for that. But would I get an iPad? Hell yes. I can't recompile the kernel of my television, either, but I still want one.
Oh dear! Nerds have a device or two that isn't for them! That IS a shame.
Perhaps we could aim a few products at the non-technical people out there for once? Computers haven't gotten any easier to use in the last two frickin' decades. Maybe, just maybe, we could allow a few products for them without declaring that the goddamn sky is falling? Hmm?
Google is a technology company in the area of software. They need a technology company to design the hardware. Dell isn't such a company.
I think Google should partner with a technology company to provide the hardware instead of Dell. Dell has no R&D to speak of. They take off-the-shelf parts, brand them and sell a warranty. This partnership is on a fast train to also-ran city.
If only m.gmail.com worked with my gmail hosted address which uses my personal domain name. Actually, if only Apple's gmail setup wizard thingy worked with it! The only solution is to use Safari or to set up POP. I chose the latter and I'm not terribly pleased with it.
I like this line of thinking, however, two small points must be made:
1. There's no way for the IT department to say "sorry, you're in 56k land now" when the student is complaining to his/her parents/dean/professor/pope that they can't get their homework done on our network even though they pay $20k a year in tuition. The only way to limit individual network ports is to do it on a moment-by-moment throttling, not "use it up, you're screwed until the first of next month."
2. It takes a lot more than downloading a television episode to cause the kind of problems we're talking about. We're talking about having gigs of media files downloading and uploading day and night. It's commonplace.
I'm sure the administrators didn't go out and tell everyone exactly what was going to happen.
Bullshit it was "underhand[ed]." When it first happened we - I mean they - blocked the ports in question. But only until they could figure out how to shape the traffic and bring some usability back. At that point, the entire thing was written up in the university paper. No secrets. Nothing underhanded whatsoever.
I like it. The kids who complain that our network sucks can simply be told to turn off their P2P video sharing occasionally or shut the hell up.
I don't oversimplify. On the campus I'm referring to, there was no ban. Only a bandwidth throttle for certain kinds of traffic. if your campus is different, I can't speak to that.
P2P sharing != Music/movies sharing
As a practical matter, it does on my network. I'm not the RIAA and I don't lose any sleep over people sharing their 12 gig music collection 24/7. But I know quite well what the vast majority of P2P traffic is on university campuses. I'd be willing to bet the same is true of home users, too. What's your guess?
Maybe the answer really is to simply bandwidth cap each network jack. I'm not a network admin, so I don't know what's involved in that, but that sounds fair. Nobody wants to police our user's content. We just want students to be able to search the library form the dorm. With P2P unchecked, they can't.
The solution cannot be to simply throttle all traffic from dorms. People in dorms are often doing academic work. We cannot lump those packets together with music and movie sharing and then simply throttle the whole thing down to where we know it's going to crawl. That solution does not work. We have to have a way to segregate it.
I'm no fan of cable companies, but someone has to speak up about the problems associated with P2P. I'm aware of some educational institutions that saw their newly upgraded networks come to a complete grinding halt - simply because of P2P sharing. They had no choice but to shape their traffic so that other business could get done. They didn't ban it or shut it off. They simply said X amount of our bandwidth can be used for it during business hours and Y amount at other times. And now look what's happened: P2P clients have deliberately foiled such attempts by encryption. Great. Now those institutions will be crippled once again by dorms full of students sharing their entire music collection to the world, many not even aware that they are doing it.
I don't want to kill P2P. I am no fan of cable companies or the RIAA or the MPAA. But don't blame network admins when they have to fight back on this stuff!