So, because part of the site doesn't cater to your specific needs, it sucks? Have you considered that you are not the target audience for that particular page? Most people fill their tech specs page with too much technical info when all someone wants to know is the weight, if a specific feature is included, etc. If you want more details, then the developer site should tell you what you need to know, and there's always Google.
The changes and possibilities with the iPad GUI are pretty significant, IMHO. Besides, why does a product have to be ground-breaking? What's wrong with evolution of a great product?
Sounds a bit like something is wrong with the PowerPoint interface, aside from the general bloat and usability issues. It's seems similar the same problem Adobe are currently having with Flash. Adobe needs to come up with an excellent HTML5 authoring tool and put Flash on the back-burner as a vector animation and on-line games platform, perhaps.
As long as you connect to any Apple server for any reason at all, it's not just about your property. You are free to do what you like with your iPhone, but why should you expect Apple to allow you to update the device etc. using their services if you want to do things that Apple doesn't want to support?
Apple sells their hardware under the assumption that the user will want to agree to use Apple's services. Whether you consider the iPhone to be a brick without Apple's support is besides the point. You don't have to buy an expensive, useless brick; that is your right as a consumer.
I, however, find Apple's terms and conditions to be reasonable, so I'm quite happy to rely on their services to keep my brick functional.
You know, as a web developer, the iPad makes the perfect tool when meeting with clients. More so than any clunky laptop, netbook, or MS tablet. It has an appropriate screen size, is easy to show or hand around, and is easy for the client to use. People keep going on about how this is a great thing to have around the house or to take away on holiday, but it will also be an important business tool for many. That's always seemed obvious to me.
Because it's easier to use, much better for reading than the wide screen of most laptops, easier to hold than a laptop, and lighter to carry around? Why would I want Flash? It does have a keyboard, BTW. You can even buy one of many 3rd party or Apple physical keyboards if you need that on occasions.
If I get an iPad, I want it to be portable. Getting a Bluetooth keyboard on top of that defeats that purpose, since suddenly you're carrying around two things (at which point a netbook becomes a better investment).
Well, if you plan on using the keyboard all the time, then obviously the iPad isn't for you. But what makes you think that most people will want to use the keyboard all the time?
Honestly, the number one reason it sells to well is that it is very simple to use and that Apple's sales and marketing teams are amongst the best in the industry. That's it.
This is a big myth. Sony has a very powerful brand, good design aesthetics, and knows how to make use of large amounts of money for marketing. Why aren't they as successful as Apple? If you think Apple's success is only down to marketing, you are talking pure moonshine.
If that's the case, perhaps many of them are only netbook users because nothing like the iPad existed at the time they were looking to buy such a device.
The mistake here is in thinking that simply more functionality is the key to a great product. It isn't. Who cares how much functionality you have if much of that functionality doesn't function very well. The name of the competing product says it all; people were interested in netbooks a while back because they offered a way to get on the web, even if the performance and functionality in other areas was lacking. That was OK because many people didn't need additional functionality.
The problem is that normal people see the shortcomings of products designed by techies. The techies are blind to those problems because to them it's normal. It's like someone who's proud that they have to push start their car, since it implies that it's not some modern auto that can't be push started.
Techies often don't know a crap product when they see it because they're so used to putting up with problems where a normal person wouldn't. Many techies are like mechanics who just love their old Jaguars, and love its engineering, even if it breaks down often and requires a lot of maintenance.
If you think Apple makes crap products, and not just products that don't always suit a niche for more advanced users, then I think you have a poor understanding about what role technologies serves in society.
I was under the impression that there are companies from many different countries involved in this sort of thing. BP is based in the UK. The rig was made in Korea. The wellhead (the thing that failed, BTW) was made in the USA. And there are more companies involved than just those three.
Why not? This is all about web technologies and that includes such things as usability. It seems to me that usability isn't a big deal to him. If he can't grasp such basics, that makes me wonder how valid his arguments are on the related subject.
If he really believes in the validity of his arguments, perhaps he should put the time in to present it more clearly so that people will take him more seriously and take the time to read it. It's not like there isn't a whole world of opinions out there on this subject, all competing for attention. I'm certainly not going to read every single one of them.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for most sites I encounter. Any decent web dev should be developing sites that still work without hover, the same way they should work as much as possible without CSS or JS.
Hypocrisy is putting forth a set of philosophical arguments against Flash while performing the exact same business practices that he's decrying.
But he isn't performing the exact same business practices that he's decrying. Maybe you don't get what he's decrying, but it's certainly not propitiatory technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
So, because part of the site doesn't cater to your specific needs, it sucks? Have you considered that you are not the target audience for that particular page? Most people fill their tech specs page with too much technical info when all someone wants to know is the weight, if a specific feature is included, etc. If you want more details, then the developer site should tell you what you need to know, and there's always Google.
But it would allow them to see better colour in general. And the receptor is thought to be close to yellow.
Perhaps try a basic neuroscience textbook? I don't think they work the way you think they do.
The changes and possibilities with the iPad GUI are pretty significant, IMHO. Besides, why does a product have to be ground-breaking? What's wrong with evolution of a great product?
Sounds a bit like something is wrong with the PowerPoint interface, aside from the general bloat and usability issues.
It's seems similar the same problem Adobe are currently having with Flash. Adobe needs to come up with an excellent HTML5 authoring tool and put Flash on the back-burner as a vector animation and on-line games platform, perhaps.
If you don't want to just roll over and accept things, then why not focus on Linux and forget about Apple?
As long as Linux is still around as an alternative, I'm not too worried about how open or closed Apple is.
As long as you connect to any Apple server for any reason at all, it's not just about your property. You are free to do what you like with your iPhone, but why should you expect Apple to allow you to update the device etc. using their services if you want to do things that Apple doesn't want to support?
Apple sells their hardware under the assumption that the user will want to agree to use Apple's services. Whether you consider the iPhone to be a brick without Apple's support is besides the point. You don't have to buy an expensive, useless brick; that is your right as a consumer.
I, however, find Apple's terms and conditions to be reasonable, so I'm quite happy to rely on their services to keep my brick functional.
You know, as a web developer, the iPad makes the perfect tool when meeting with clients. More so than any clunky laptop, netbook, or MS tablet. It has an appropriate screen size, is easy to show or hand around, and is easy for the client to use. People keep going on about how this is a great thing to have around the house or to take away on holiday, but it will also be an important business tool for many. That's always seemed obvious to me.
Because it's easier to use, much better for reading than the wide screen of most laptops, easier to hold than a laptop, and lighter to carry around? Why would I want Flash? It does have a keyboard, BTW. You can even buy one of many 3rd party or Apple physical keyboards if you need that on occasions.
If I get an iPad, I want it to be portable. Getting a Bluetooth keyboard on top of that defeats that purpose, since suddenly you're carrying around two things (at which point a netbook becomes a better investment).
Well, if you plan on using the keyboard all the time, then obviously the iPad isn't for you. But what makes you think that most people will want to use the keyboard all the time?
Honestly, the number one reason it sells to well is that it is very simple to use and that Apple's sales and marketing teams are amongst the best in the industry. That's it.
This is a big myth. Sony has a very powerful brand, good design aesthetics, and knows how to make use of large amounts of money for marketing. Why aren't they as successful as Apple? If you think Apple's success is only down to marketing, you are talking pure moonshine.
If that's the case, perhaps many of them are only netbook users because nothing like the iPad existed at the time they were looking to buy such a device.
The mistake here is in thinking that simply more functionality is the key to a great product. It isn't. Who cares how much functionality you have if much of that functionality doesn't function very well. The name of the competing product says it all; people were interested in netbooks a while back because they offered a way to get on the web, even if the performance and functionality in other areas was lacking. That was OK because many people didn't need additional functionality.
The problem is that normal people see the shortcomings of products designed by techies. The techies are blind to those problems because to them it's normal. It's like someone who's proud that they have to push start their car, since it implies that it's not some modern auto that can't be push started.
Techies often don't know a crap product when they see it because they're so used to putting up with problems where a normal person wouldn't. Many techies are like mechanics who just love their old Jaguars, and love its engineering, even if it breaks down often and requires a lot of maintenance.
If you think Apple makes crap products, and not just products that don't always suit a niche for more advanced users, then I think you have a poor understanding about what role technologies serves in society.
Yes, they will both have reliable support for H.264 in HTML5 within one year. That's my bet.
I was under the impression that there are companies from many different countries involved in this sort of thing. BP is based in the UK. The rig was made in Korea. The wellhead (the thing that failed, BTW) was made in the USA. And there are more companies involved than just those three.
H.264 is open, just not free. Jobs wasn't ranting against patents, either.
Why not? This is all about web technologies and that includes such things as usability. It seems to me that usability isn't a big deal to him. If he can't grasp such basics, that makes me wonder how valid his arguments are on the related subject.
If he really believes in the validity of his arguments, perhaps he should put the time in to present it more clearly so that people will take him more seriously and take the time to read it. It's not like there isn't a whole world of opinions out there on this subject, all competing for attention. I'm certainly not going to read every single one of them.
HTML5
Do you really think it's going to take even a year for reliable video support to be in at least Safari and Chrome?
I don't buy that. Online video is not going to be a complete replacement for Blu-ray anytime soon. Apples knows this.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for most sites I encounter. Any decent web dev should be developing sites that still work without hover, the same way they should work as much as possible without CSS or JS.
Advice from someone who requires horizontal scrolling to read the text they're quoting? I don't think so.
Hypocrisy is putting forth a set of philosophical arguments against Flash while performing the exact same business practices that he's decrying.
But he isn't performing the exact same business practices that he's decrying. Maybe you don't get what he's decrying, but it's certainly not propitiatory technologies.