It is a stumbling block when other phones have that feature as standard - why bother waiting and paying more for it? Because it has 3G? Well no - 3G was old news years ago.
I may only use it rarely, but when I do decide to use it, I don't want to have to go "Oh, I can't do that because I bought an Apple phone". I expect a phone to just work.
Moreover, if I didn't need all these new features, then I wouldn't bother looking for a new phone in the first place.
Like, say, the Motorola Razor or the LG Envy, which are at a similar price point with probably a tenth of the functionality.
I'm curious - what list of ten times as many features does the Iphone have?
(There is also the question of whether the Iphone is still tied into a contract - typically with other phones, you get them free with a contract, or you pay for them and aren't tied to a contract.)
My non-smart phone works fine, and even has some features that the Iphone lacks. But either way, they are still "mobile computers" just as much as an Iphone.
Of course this is typical of people promoting Apple products - make some false claim about being a first or different, but then qualify it with "But, but, it's different somehow". If you think the Iphone is better than every other phone on the market, than let's have some objective reasons rather than vague subjective but ultimately meaningless if not downright false comparisons about "mobile computer / Ipod with phone" vs "Phone with features".
My non-smart phone is primarily used for non-voice purposes, and the phone is an added bonus.
that desktop computers look much like the original Macintosh
Heh. In what way? Thankfully my computer isn't a "two-colour GUI with one button mouse and no command line". Many other computers influenced today's platforms at least as much (e.g., the Amiga), and thankfully even todays "Mac" isn't based on the Macintosh, but is derived from Next and Unix.
The iPhone is not primarily a phone. It's a mobile computer that happens to have a phone in it.
Just about all phones are "mobile computers" these days. And this is especially true for smart phones, which have been around for years.
The phone industry has been heading towards a direction of "mobile computer that happens to be a phone" for years, long before Apple decided to play catch-up.
In what way? The other comment points out how it differs in many fundamental respects, so the only thing I see in common is things like hyperlinks, which existed years before the Web, and was available on various platforms (e.g., the Amiga's Amigaguide).
Though actually these numbers just mean that the OP I replied to was even more incorrect than I thought, since he said: One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.
So most people use Linux, and not OS X - and whether it's Windows or Linux that is most used, either way the Mac is still a niche platform even among developers.
The original question was about open source software - the point being about what have Mac developers given back to the open source community. Do any of these exist, and if not, why not?
Moreover they eventually spawn clones like OpenOffice, some of which are open source. I realize that clones aren't strictly ports
What is OpenOffice a clone of? And I think that is scraping the barrel - if I write a closed source commercial piece of software, and then someone writes an open source free software, I hardly get to claim the credit for contributing to the open source community, merely on the basis that both of them are word processors or whatever!
One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.
I think the point is that this is a crucial part of the step. So if it's true that Mac open source software hasn't got ported to other platforms, then it must be that Mac developers tend not to release their software as open source - or the software that does get released as open source isn't good or unique or interesting enough to be worth porting. This is presumably what is meant by "have given nothing useful back".
If few Mac open source projects have been ported to a particular platform, blame the users of that platform, not the people who don't use it.
Yeah it could be that there's some really really good Mac-only open source software that doesn't have equivalent on other platforms, and hasn't been ported, because developers of other platforms are just lazy. Can you give me an example where this is the case?
Agreed, and why don't we see anything in the article about Google employees spending time on open source projects for other platforms? That might be an interesting story, far more so than what platform they happen to write for, but it seems to be yet another case of giving a free advertisement just for Apple.
Of course, I'd expect MacWorld to focus on the Apple products, but this has misled CNET into thinking that Google has a special focus on the Mac, just because it can list a handful of pet open source projects that Google developers work on in their 20% time.
The headline should be "Google gets serious about Open Source", not "Google gets serious about the Mac".
If 90% of women had no problem appearing in naked pictures / video as long as their faces were blurred, porn on the internet would be old hat,
On that note, it's mad that porn - images of people who freely consent to it - is often demonised, yet coercing everyone into having their naked bodies viewed by random men is okay...
Are we still bitching that the iPhone doesn't have MMS?
I'm not bitching - because I have a phone that does MMS, and lots more beside.
As discussed elsewhere ad nauseum, every major carrier in the US supports email address translation to 'dumb', phones. Phones that can only do SMS/MMS actually do have an email address. Even if the user doesn't know it. It's like [their phone number]@[carrier specific domain]. So like 5551234567@wireless.att.net, or 5551234567@tmobile.net, etc, etc, etc. You can find out exactly what the domain part is on your own. Ask the Google. -snip-
Seriously, is the best you can come up with for the Iphone is to say of other phones "They suck"? This is the standard of debate?
Let's have actual examples of where the Iphone is better than every other phone that's available.
Other phones out there don't "suck". I agree with the other poster, I can only assume that people are used to the poor standard of phones that the US market seems to have, hence they are wowed by now-ancient features like email and web browsing, but in places like Europe it's a different matter.
The iPhone has not even been out one year and you're trying to make the argument that the reason the other manufacturers sell more is because of better design?
I don't know why they sell more, but they sell more, suggesting people don't think "they suck". And it is Apple who should have the unfair advantage, due to all the free advertising and hype (when was there last a Slashdot story on speculation on a Nokia product? I don't even see them for actual released products, let alone speculation!)
But they're the first one to do it right.
What does that mean? I hear this all the time:
"Apple were first with X" "Er, actually this company did it first" "But but... Apple did it right!" [or some other irrelevant reason why the previous company doesn't count]
Why would the email need to be "push"? Does anyone actually take pictures with their cell phones that are so amazing that they need to be seen instantly?
This is a mentality that seems specific to the Iphone - "I don't have a need for that functionality, therefore no one should have it".
I have found such functionality useful - I don't want to be in a situation where I miss out, because Apple decided for me that I didn't need it (especially when it's a basic feature in far cheaper phones - what am I paying more for?)
'my god, he's a genius!!!' because, well you, know 99.5% of all phones could do this for the past few years
Indeed, and in response to that, I can hear the claims that the Iphone "does it better", or that it "just works" (well my phone already works, with this functionality, without having to wait for a newer version - that's what I call just working).
[PS - since when did they increase the minimum time on Slashdot between posts? 4 mins, and I'm still waiting...]
Or they just buy one of the many other 3G phones that have been around for years.
What is this article anyway? We don't get even a single story for other companies like Nokia and Motorola when they actually ship a new product, but Apple gets yet-another-Iphone story merely over speculation...
Hmm. So a CGI still or film would be a "pseudo-photograph".
I think so - it has to be "realistic" (although how realistic I'm not sure, I'm sure I saw articles saying someone was convicted for what was claimed to be obvious photoshop jobs - but of course, we can't know, because we're not allowed to see the image!)
This new law would extend it to all non-photographic images too, realistic or not, including drawings and cartoons (I'm not sure if ASCII art is covered...).
Which is why the only valid definition HAS to be "REAL kids were involved, with REAL abuse". (Meaning that photoshopping innocent kid pics to look like porn should not be a crime either.)
I agree. It's worrying how they subtely change their argument - first it's "Well we have to criminalise photos because children were abused, that's reasonable", "Oh, we have to criminalise realistic faked images, because how would we possibly be expected to prove a child was actually abused"... "Well it's accepted it's justified to criminalise fictional images, so this is just closing a loophole for drawings and cartoons".
there's a pretty clear divide between "very young yet very physically mature" and "child".
There is, but this new proposed law does not seem to distinguish between them. The consultation response doesn't bother to mention age at all, and I fear that they will use the same 18 age limit as for normal child porn law.
I don't think people are complaining about "photos of girls that may or may not be jailbait", they're talking about "when little sally got fingered".
I've seen nothing to suggest this is the case. I hope you're right.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a stumbling block when other phones have that feature as standard - why bother waiting and paying more for it? Because it has 3G? Well no - 3G was old news years ago.
I may only use it rarely, but when I do decide to use it, I don't want to have to go "Oh, I can't do that because I bought an Apple phone". I expect a phone to just work.
Moreover, if I didn't need all these new features, then I wouldn't bother looking for a new phone in the first place.
Like, say, the Motorola Razor or the LG Envy, which are at a similar price point with probably a tenth of the functionality.
I'm curious - what list of ten times as many features does the Iphone have?
(There is also the question of whether the Iphone is still tied into a contract - typically with other phones, you get them free with a contract, or you pay for them and aren't tied to a contract.)
Except they aren't. Smart phones are awful.
My non-smart phone works fine, and even has some features that the Iphone lacks. But either way, they are still "mobile computers" just as much as an Iphone.
Of course this is typical of people promoting Apple products - make some false claim about being a first or different, but then qualify it with "But, but, it's different somehow". If you think the Iphone is better than every other phone on the market, than let's have some objective reasons rather than vague subjective but ultimately meaningless if not downright false comparisons about "mobile computer / Ipod with phone" vs "Phone with features".
My non-smart phone is primarily used for non-voice purposes, and the phone is an added bonus.
that desktop computers look much like the original Macintosh
Heh. In what way? Thankfully my computer isn't a "two-colour GUI with one button mouse and no command line". Many other computers influenced today's platforms at least as much (e.g., the Amiga), and thankfully even todays "Mac" isn't based on the Macintosh, but is derived from Next and Unix.
The iPhone is not primarily a phone. It's a mobile computer that happens to have a phone in it.
Just about all phones are "mobile computers" these days. And this is especially true for smart phones, which have been around for years.
The phone industry has been heading towards a direction of "mobile computer that happens to be a phone" for years, long before Apple decided to play catch-up.
It's actually illegal to buy and sell Office secondhand, you don't buy "Office" you buy a licence to use Office and it's non-transferable.
Thankfully, it's not Microsoft that decide the laws of the land.
In what way? The other comment points out how it differs in many fundamental respects, so the only thing I see in common is things like hyperlinks, which existed years before the Web, and was available on various platforms (e.g., the Amiga's Amigaguide).
Your references for these numbers, Anonymous?
Though actually these numbers just mean that the OP I replied to was even more incorrect than I thought, since he said: One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.
So most people use Linux, and not OS X - and whether it's Windows or Linux that is most used, either way the Mac is still a niche platform even among developers.
The original question was about open source software - the point being about what have Mac developers given back to the open source community. Do any of these exist, and if not, why not?
Moreover they eventually spawn clones like OpenOffice, some of which are open source. I realize that clones aren't strictly ports
What is OpenOffice a clone of? And I think that is scraping the barrel - if I write a closed source commercial piece of software, and then someone writes an open source free software, I hardly get to claim the credit for contributing to the open source community, merely on the basis that both of them are word processors or whatever!
One should ask those 20.000 guys/gals who are advanced to work on number 1 technology company why they have chosen OS X rather than some other OS like Linux.
Actually, most of them are using Windows.
Is this proof that Windows is the best, then?
Excel and Photoshop are open source?
Sure, but:
He makes the source available
I think the point is that this is a crucial part of the step. So if it's true that Mac open source software hasn't got ported to other platforms, then it must be that Mac developers tend not to release their software as open source - or the software that does get released as open source isn't good or unique or interesting enough to be worth porting. This is presumably what is meant by "have given nothing useful back".
If few Mac open source projects have been ported to a particular platform, blame the users of that platform, not the people who don't use it.
Yeah it could be that there's some really really good Mac-only open source software that doesn't have equivalent on other platforms, and hasn't been ported, because developers of other platforms are just lazy. Can you give me an example where this is the case?
Agreed, and why don't we see anything in the article about Google employees spending time on open source projects for other platforms? That might be an interesting story, far more so than what platform they happen to write for, but it seems to be yet another case of giving a free advertisement just for Apple.
Of course, I'd expect MacWorld to focus on the Apple products, but this has misled CNET into thinking that Google has a special focus on the Mac, just because it can list a handful of pet open source projects that Google developers work on in their 20% time.
The headline should be "Google gets serious about Open Source", not "Google gets serious about the Mac".
If 90% of women had no problem appearing in naked pictures / video as long as their faces were blurred, porn on the internet would be old hat,
On that note, it's mad that porn - images of people who freely consent to it - is often demonised, yet coercing everyone into having their naked bodies viewed by random men is okay...
There have been loads of exceptions - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Timeline_of_Mars_exploration .
I presume the OP meant the recent US mars missions, but even there, there have been failures.
Are we still bitching that the iPhone doesn't have MMS?
I'm not bitching - because I have a phone that does MMS, and lots more beside.
As discussed elsewhere ad nauseum, every major carrier in the US supports email address translation to 'dumb', phones. Phones that can only do SMS/MMS actually do have an email address. Even if the user doesn't know it. It's like [their phone number]@[carrier specific domain]. So like 5551234567@wireless.att.net, or 5551234567@tmobile.net, etc, etc, etc. You can find out exactly what the domain part is on your own. Ask the Google. -snip-
Wait - is this the Apple "just works" way?
Unbelievable.
They use them but they suck.
... Apple did it right!" [or some other irrelevant reason why the previous company doesn't count]
Seriously, is the best you can come up with for the Iphone is to say of other phones "They suck"? This is the standard of debate?
Let's have actual examples of where the Iphone is better than every other phone that's available.
Other phones out there don't "suck". I agree with the other poster, I can only assume that people are used to the poor standard of phones that the US market seems to have, hence they are wowed by now-ancient features like email and web browsing, but in places like Europe it's a different matter.
The iPhone has not even been out one year and you're trying to make the argument that the reason the other manufacturers sell more is because of better design?
I don't know why they sell more, but they sell more, suggesting people don't think "they suck". And it is Apple who should have the unfair advantage, due to all the free advertising and hype (when was there last a Slashdot story on speculation on a Nokia product? I don't even see them for actual released products, let alone speculation!)
But they're the first one to do it right.
What does that mean? I hear this all the time:
"Apple were first with X"
"Er, actually this company did it first"
"But but
All of these places had 3g networks in place well ahead of the US.
They also already have 3G phones to use on them.
Why would the email need to be "push"? Does anyone actually take pictures with their cell phones that are so amazing that they need to be seen instantly?
This is a mentality that seems specific to the Iphone - "I don't have a need for that functionality, therefore no one should have it".
I have found such functionality useful - I don't want to be in a situation where I miss out, because Apple decided for me that I didn't need it (especially when it's a basic feature in far cheaper phones - what am I paying more for?)
'my god, he's a genius!!!' because, well you, know 99.5% of all phones could do this for the past few years
Indeed, and in response to that, I can hear the claims that the Iphone "does it better", or that it "just works" (well my phone already works, with this functionality, without having to wait for a newer version - that's what I call just working).
[PS - since when did they increase the minimum time on Slashdot between posts? 4 mins, and I'm still waiting...]
Sure using email may be preferable, but then you're limited to other people who can read email with attachments on their phones.
If I'm spending large amounts of money on a phone, I don't expect limitations. I don't want to go "Oh dear, I can't do that because I have an Iphone".
Or they just buy one of the many other 3G phones that have been around for years.
What is this article anyway? We don't get even a single story for other companies like Nokia and Motorola when they actually ship a new product, but Apple gets yet-another-Iphone story merely over speculation...
Hmm. So a CGI still or film would be a "pseudo-photograph".
... "Well it's accepted it's justified to criminalise fictional images, so this is just closing a loophole for drawings and cartoons".
I think so - it has to be "realistic" (although how realistic I'm not sure, I'm sure I saw articles saying someone was convicted for what was claimed to be obvious photoshop jobs - but of course, we can't know, because we're not allowed to see the image!)
This new law would extend it to all non-photographic images too, realistic or not, including drawings and cartoons (I'm not sure if ASCII art is covered...).
Which is why the only valid definition HAS to be "REAL kids were involved, with REAL abuse". (Meaning that photoshopping innocent kid pics to look like porn should not be a crime either.)
I agree. It's worrying how they subtely change their argument - first it's "Well we have to criminalise photos because children were abused, that's reasonable", "Oh, we have to criminalise realistic faked images, because how would we possibly be expected to prove a child was actually abused"
there's a pretty clear divide between "very young yet very physically mature" and "child".
There is, but this new proposed law does not seem to distinguish between them. The consultation response doesn't bother to mention age at all, and I fear that they will use the same 18 age limit as for normal child porn law.
I don't think people are complaining about "photos of girls that may or may not be jailbait", they're talking about "when little sally got fingered".
I've seen nothing to suggest this is the case. I hope you're right.
What the heck IS a "psuedo-photograph"???
I'm not entirely sure, but basically it's a faked photo of some kind (e.g., photoshopped job). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-photograph .
The Government claims that these images are "often very realistic".
That's right, this is a ban on "very realistic non-realistic images" of children...