You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
(The answer you're looking for is "never".)
And by doing so, Apple has created the most successful app store ever.
Successful for Apple, not so much for consumers or developers! See, as a consumer, that a particular vendor earns the most profits just means that I'm getting screwed. As a developer, the fact that I make LESS on iOS than on other platforms makes their store seem, well, not at all successful.
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises! It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Do Safeway and Target ban magazines from their rack for including mail-in subscription cards? Apple does the equivalent.
Does Target ban the sale of blueray players that include support for netflix/hulu/amazon (allowing the user to purchase video content from other stores)? Apple does the equivalent.
It's called "commerce" and you go where the money is. On mobile, the money is on iOS
Don't be stupid. For all but a few vendors, iOS is NOT the place for app developers interested in earning real money. Do somereading.
The truth is that people go where they *think* the money is -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That won't last forever. Apple won't be able to get away with their abusive practices for much longer.
I see. Still, other phones can't do some things a BlackBerry can do. I hesitate to offer any as I'm likely to get shouted down as pale analogs of whatever I suggest will be offered as evidence against the point.
Take MDM, for example. Just about every smartphone features it, but none come close to the level of control or number of features offered by RIM. iMessage was touted as a BBM killer even though it was laughably incomplete in comparison. I've yet to see true push email on anything other than a BB (SMS trigged pull, delayed response, idle, etc. aren't push!) but half-assed solutions on other platforms are billed as "push" and users believe it.
I've even seen people compare the ability of their phone to act as a wifi hotspot to features like bridge. Really. Another user thought that Balance and the ability to add a second user account were completely identical!
I could point to older features that never found their way to iOS and Android like AutoText, but that's not very exciting. The point, of course, is that the competition never really matched BB on features. Features, that is, that a lot of users simply don't want to live without. There are unique BB features that you won't find on alternative platforms. BB10 makes this more apparent, of course, but it's as true today as it was in 2005.
Switch accounts in less than a second with a swipe and a tap, and you might be able to argue a case, but you still won't get features like (for example) preventing copy/paste between work and personal accounts.
Balance is oh-so-much more than a simple user account!
If it doesn't come with a fully functional Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Angry Birds etc then it is virtually dead. Not barely working apps but fully working apps that are equal to their iOS / Android counterparts
Wow, it's a good that that BB10 will have all of that. You've got all of that on the PlayBook now. (one exception: no official twitter app. You can run the Android version on the PlayBook though).
As for quality, hell, the Facebook app on older BlackBerry phones kicks the shit out of the ridiculously poor iOS and Android versions. (Seriously, look it up.)
All the other stuff people are talking about here -- "connect to an Exchange server" and "view Excel spreadsheets" seem to be the most common -- can already be done by every other phone in existence. Those aren't awesome things your BB does.
Ummm... Yes, they are. You've been able to do those things for years. Yes, you've been able to connect to an Exchange Server without BES since before the iPhone even existed.
Reading nothing but the ridiculous comments here you'd think that the BB was little more than an inert lump of ugly plastic.
RIM continued to sell a shitload of their pieces of crap for years and years before they really went under
They never really went under. Their user base grew every quarter until the most recent. They've reported only two quarterly losses, both very small, the most recent less than the increase we saw to their cash reserves. I'd hesitate to call their products "crap" when they still do some things that the current market leaders never managed, and does some things better than either iOS and Android.
They did basically cede North America, but they knew they had to for the time being and focused on emerging markets that players like Apple are just starting to notice. That was a pretty smart move.
It's just not in their DNA to build something user friendly,
Except for smartphones. Their UI was widely praised. The BlackBerry killed the PDA market for a reason, after all. Their old UI is still well-loved by users that care about productivity over pretty transitions. (Remember, even aging executives could use a BlackBerry -- if that's not user-friendly, I don't know what is!) The BB10 UI has been near universally praised, as has the physical design of the Z10 -- and that's just from the dev alpha's and the leaks!
sexy and fun
The 9900 is a gorgeous design that, yes, has been called 'sexy'. Even the harshest critics praised the UI on the PlayBook, which is undoubtedly fun to use.
I'd say it's in RIM's DNA to build something sexy, fun, and user friendly. I know the meme, but it doesn't seem to match reality. A bit like "Macs are better for graphics" and other similar nonsense bandied about as "common knowledge".
I maintain that they should be focusing on mobile security and management software, and should have been for the past several years.
It's a good think that they've been doing just that. As always they offer the best and most comprehensive MDM solution on the market and (obviously) they're still light-years ahead of the competition when it comes to mobile security.
They could have parleyed their reputation on to the entire mobile market for business handhelds, instead of floating a NEW hand held in an already contentious market.
Yeah, it's a shame they didn't introduce innovative (and unrivaled) features like Balance or expand their MDM tools to cover other platforms in addition to BBOS and BB10. (Oh, wait, they did!)
Selling it as a phone that combines the security and safety of an enterprise phone with the features an fun of a "home" phone is the right approach.
It was the right approach 3 years ago when everybody else did it, too: iOS, Android and Windows Phone 7 & 8 have that already.
Yeah, because "security" is synonymous with iOS, Android, and WP. What color is the sky in your world?
RIM still offers the only enterprise-ready smartphone and still offers the best and most comprehensive MDM solution. iOS and Android aren't even close *today* let alone three years ago!
This is to say nothing about features like Balance that truly separate business and personal use in an unobtrusive way that, quite frankly, other platforms simply can't manage.
Blackberry needs to take 1 or 2 billion dollars and pay people to develop or port apps to their platform
Why? Developers have been flocking to the platform. BB10 will have >70,000 apps at launch. RIM's new developer tools are great and have been very well received. Their developer outreach program has also been a phenomenal success.
Why on earth would they spend a billion or two to pay developers to do what they're already doing?
Google Translate doesn't do too bad taking "meaningless" collections of symbols in one language and outputting "meaningless" symbols in another language.
Yep, and at no time need Google Translate understand a single word.
Obviously it's a lossy process, but so is human translation. Humans are just better at translation, for now.
It doesn't matter which one is better. Google Translate could work better than the best human translator for all it matters. The difference is that the human translator will understand what it is that they're translating, and the computer will not. The computer can not. Not now, nor in the future. The very premise Kurzweil bases his 2045 prediction on is fundamentally flawed.
Singularity nuts just can't seem to face this seemingly obvious fact: syntax is insufficient for semantics. It drives them crazy. It cuts at the heart of what they think are their "rational" beliefs. It forces them to confront the worst of their fears: that they truly believe in something laughably absurd. Kurzweil and the singularity crowd are like the atheist version of scientology. It amazes me that such a thing exists, but, here it is...
Does your team write bad code? Do they think that their code is bad?
Why do you think that your team writes bad code?
I'll bet a nickle that the problem isn't your team. I'll bet that you're the type to write a factory factory factory under the banner of "flexibility" and not understand why everyone groans at your "superior" code.
. Symbolic computation at the level of the brain IS what subjective experience is made of.
Prove it. What process gives rise to phenomenal experience? How do you know that such a process is sufficient?
Yeah, Kurzweil hasn't spent much time thinking about that either. He's a loon who's 30 years out of step with the rest of the world. Computationalism is LONG dead.
What does that even mean? P-zombies are a thought experiment, not something anyone actually believes exist. Well, maybe the solipsists, but they tend not to talk about these sorts of things, for obvious reasons:)
The symbols the brain receives are grounded in specific physical interactions with the world
Are you sure about that? See Searle's reply to the robot reply.
Therefore it is sufficient to compute with corresponding higher-level symbols
Re-encoding one meaningless collection of symbols in to another doesn't magically make meaning appear. Imagine translating a message in something like Morse code in to Russian. We can still compute against the higher-level symbols, but at no point will the symbols be meaningful.
The nasty fact that the Kurzweil nuts don't want to accept is that syntax alone is insufficient for semantics. You won't find meaning at the lower-level, like you suggest, for obvious reasons nor will any amount of processing magically create meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
And the user is better off for it!
You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
(The answer you're looking for is "never".)
And by doing so, Apple has created the most successful app store ever.
Successful for Apple, not so much for consumers or developers! See, as a consumer, that a particular vendor earns the most profits just means that I'm getting screwed. As a developer, the fact that I make LESS on iOS than on other platforms makes their store seem, well, not at all successful.
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises! It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Apple fan's typical response to flagrant abuse.
"Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
Do Safeway and Target ban magazines from their rack for including mail-in subscription cards? Apple does the equivalent.
Does Target ban the sale of blueray players that include support for netflix/hulu/amazon (allowing the user to purchase video content from other stores)? Apple does the equivalent.
It's called "commerce" and you go where the money is. On mobile, the money is on iOS
Don't be stupid. For all but a few vendors, iOS is NOT the place for app developers interested in earning real money. Do some reading.
The truth is that people go where they *think* the money is -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That won't last forever. Apple won't be able to get away with their abusive practices for much longer.
I am always accidentally closing applications,
How? Do you accidentally swipe up from the bottom bezel to shrink the app, then accidentally touch it again and swipe up to the top bezel?
(remember how version 2 of the software was going to make it so much greater, then it was delayed for months and finally did almost nothing)
No? I remember how version 2 brought substantial and dramatic changes to, well, just about everything.
Are you sure you're using a PlayBook?
I see. Still, other phones can't do some things a BlackBerry can do. I hesitate to offer any as I'm likely to get shouted down as pale analogs of whatever I suggest will be offered as evidence against the point.
Take MDM, for example. Just about every smartphone features it, but none come close to the level of control or number of features offered by RIM. iMessage was touted as a BBM killer even though it was laughably incomplete in comparison. I've yet to see true push email on anything other than a BB (SMS trigged pull, delayed response, idle, etc. aren't push!) but half-assed solutions on other platforms are billed as "push" and users believe it.
I've even seen people compare the ability of their phone to act as a wifi hotspot to features like bridge. Really. Another user thought that Balance and the ability to add a second user account were completely identical!
I could point to older features that never found their way to iOS and Android like AutoText, but that's not very exciting. The point, of course, is that the competition never really matched BB on features. Features, that is, that a lot of users simply don't want to live without. There are unique BB features that you won't find on alternative platforms. BB10 makes this more apparent, of course, but it's as true today as it was in 2005.
Not even close.
Switch accounts in less than a second with a swipe and a tap, and you might be able to argue a case, but you still won't get features like (for example) preventing copy/paste between work and personal accounts.
Balance is oh-so-much more than a simple user account!
What did you see as a weakness? The intuitive gesture suite? The emphasis on multitasking?
I honestly can't think of any Android UI advantages. Do you just really like being forced to use a task manager?
If it doesn't come with a fully functional Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Angry Birds etc then it is virtually dead. Not barely working apps but fully working apps that are equal to their iOS / Android counterparts
Wow, it's a good that that BB10 will have all of that. You've got all of that on the PlayBook now. (one exception: no official twitter app. You can run the Android version on the PlayBook though).
As for quality, hell, the Facebook app on older BlackBerry phones kicks the shit out of the ridiculously poor iOS and Android versions. (Seriously, look it up.)
Research, it's easy.
All the other stuff people are talking about here -- "connect to an Exchange server" and "view Excel spreadsheets" seem to be the most common -- can already be done by every other phone in existence. Those aren't awesome things your BB does.
Ummm... Yes, they are. You've been able to do those things for years. Yes, you've been able to connect to an Exchange Server without BES since before the iPhone even existed.
Reading nothing but the ridiculous comments here you'd think that the BB was little more than an inert lump of ugly plastic.
for a while you could buy a playbook for something like $99. It was crashy and didn't have a lot of software
Crashy? On what planet? I have two in my house. They get restarted when we get an OS update. I don't know that either one has ever crashed.
RIM continued to sell a shitload of their pieces of crap for years and years before they really went under
They never really went under. Their user base grew every quarter until the most recent. They've reported only two quarterly losses, both very small, the most recent less than the increase we saw to their cash reserves. I'd hesitate to call their products "crap" when they still do some things that the current market leaders never managed, and does some things better than either iOS and Android.
They did basically cede North America, but they knew they had to for the time being and focused on emerging markets that players like Apple are just starting to notice. That was a pretty smart move.
It's just not in their DNA to build something user friendly,
Except for smartphones. Their UI was widely praised. The BlackBerry killed the PDA market for a reason, after all. Their old UI is still well-loved by users that care about productivity over pretty transitions. (Remember, even aging executives could use a BlackBerry -- if that's not user-friendly, I don't know what is!) The BB10 UI has been near universally praised, as has the physical design of the Z10 -- and that's just from the dev alpha's and the leaks!
sexy and fun
The 9900 is a gorgeous design that, yes, has been called 'sexy'. Even the harshest critics praised the UI on the PlayBook, which is undoubtedly fun to use.
I'd say it's in RIM's DNA to build something sexy, fun, and user friendly. I know the meme, but it doesn't seem to match reality. A bit like "Macs are better for graphics" and other similar nonsense bandied about as "common knowledge".
Did I say something inaccurate?
As far as I can tell, that's just the way things are. Stating the facts shouldn't mark me as a shill!
I maintain that they should be focusing on mobile security and management software, and should have been for the past several years.
It's a good think that they've been doing just that. As always they offer the best and most comprehensive MDM solution on the market and (obviously) they're still light-years ahead of the competition when it comes to mobile security.
They could have parleyed their reputation on to the entire mobile market for business handhelds, instead of floating a NEW hand held in an already contentious market.
Yeah, it's a shame they didn't introduce innovative (and unrivaled) features like Balance or expand their MDM tools to cover other platforms in addition to BBOS and BB10. (Oh, wait, they did!)
Selling it as a phone that combines the security and safety of an enterprise phone with the features an fun of a "home" phone is the right approach.
It was the right approach 3 years ago when everybody else did it, too: iOS, Android and Windows Phone 7 & 8 have that already.
Yeah, because "security" is synonymous with iOS, Android, and WP. What color is the sky in your world?
RIM still offers the only enterprise-ready smartphone and still offers the best and most comprehensive MDM solution. iOS and Android aren't even close *today* let alone three years ago!
This is to say nothing about features like Balance that truly separate business and personal use in an unobtrusive way that, quite frankly, other platforms simply can't manage.
Blackberry needs to take 1 or 2 billion dollars and pay people to develop or port apps to their platform
Why? Developers have been flocking to the platform. BB10 will have >70,000 apps at launch. RIM's new developer tools are great and have been very well received. Their developer outreach program has also been a phenomenal success.
Why on earth would they spend a billion or two to pay developers to do what they're already doing?
While it's not at all what you want, there is an electronics equivalent to erector set: Snap Circuits.
It's a real shame we didn't have things like this when we were kids. It would have saved many small appliances from destruction.
When did all the computer science programs turn in to trade schools for programmers?
Meh, why fight it. Lower that bar!
Google Translate doesn't do too bad taking "meaningless" collections of symbols in one language and outputting "meaningless" symbols in another language.
Yep, and at no time need Google Translate understand a single word.
Obviously it's a lossy process, but so is human translation. Humans are just better at translation, for now.
It doesn't matter which one is better. Google Translate could work better than the best human translator for all it matters. The difference is that the human translator will understand what it is that they're translating, and the computer will not. The computer can not. Not now, nor in the future. The very premise Kurzweil bases his 2045 prediction on is fundamentally flawed.
Singularity nuts just can't seem to face this seemingly obvious fact: syntax is insufficient for semantics. It drives them crazy. It cuts at the heart of what they think are their "rational" beliefs. It forces them to confront the worst of their fears: that they truly believe in something laughably absurd. Kurzweil and the singularity crowd are like the atheist version of scientology. It amazes me that such a thing exists, but, here it is...
Get your team to write "Good Code", eh?
Does your team write bad code? Do they think that their code is bad?
Why do you think that your team writes bad code?
I'll bet a nickle that the problem isn't your team. I'll bet that you're the type to write a factory factory factory under the banner of "flexibility" and not understand why everyone groans at your "superior" code.
. Symbolic computation at the level of the brain IS what subjective experience is made of.
Prove it. What process gives rise to phenomenal experience? How do you know that such a process is sufficient?
Yeah, Kurzweil hasn't spent much time thinking about that either. He's a loon who's 30 years out of step with the rest of the world. Computationalism is LONG dead.
What does that even mean? P-zombies are a thought experiment, not something anyone actually believes exist. Well, maybe the solipsists, but they tend not to talk about these sorts of things, for obvious reasons :)
The symbols the brain receives are grounded in specific physical interactions with the world
Are you sure about that? See Searle's reply to the robot reply.
Therefore it is sufficient to compute with corresponding higher-level symbols
Re-encoding one meaningless collection of symbols in to another doesn't magically make meaning appear. Imagine translating a message in something like Morse code in to Russian. We can still compute against the higher-level symbols, but at no point will the symbols be meaningful.
The nasty fact that the Kurzweil nuts don't want to accept is that syntax alone is insufficient for semantics. You won't find meaning at the lower-level, like you suggest, for obvious reasons nor will any amount of processing magically create meaning.
Subjective experience.
Simple as that.
There's a reason people think Kurzweil is a nut -- he's about 30 years behind. Computationalism has been dead for a LONG time.
And that bit about the exercise machine was kind of cool.
Indeed! Who knew there was a machine that exercises for you? Where's the story about that?
Either the brain is an organic computer, or Cartesian Dualism is true.
False dichotomy is false.
Whatever it is about the brain that causes consciousness, it cannot be mere computation. See the uncomfortable fact above.
Sorry, Chalmers, but sub-symbolic computation IS symbolic computation.
You'll need to do better than that.