Secondly, for a post to get +5 Insightful only requires a few moderators to mark it up.
Of course, only a select few readers get mod points.
It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating.
And what is groupthink but a consensus of/. opinion. You argue that the sample is biased and not representative of the/. majority. With karma and meta-moderation, you have an uphill battle. My post has received up and down mods because there are obviously quite a few of you/bots that disagree with me. It is controversial. The post I linked to contained ONLY up mods... as many up mods as is possible on/. Not controversial.
It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.
I'm not saying the point should not be argued. I'm saying that arguing the iPod's dominance and iTunes content has no effect on the competition, and being subsequently being modded up for it, will demonstrate typical/. hypocrisy.
Sure enough, in one post, iPod/iTunes is a one/two knock out punch that crushes the competition in the phone market... 100% positive mods. In another, iPod/iTunes is irrelevant to antitrust concerns and has no effect on other players in the phone market... also 100% positive mods.
The mods have applied typical/. doublethink.... Just as predicted.
The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.
It isn't schtick in this case, it's an accurate prediction. It's schtick when you attach it to something you know everyone agrees on in order to get modded up like you're some sort of underdog. We all know it's just preaching to the choir. In those cases, you're right, it's lame. In this case, I have 10 replies coming to Apple's defense and/or telling me I'm a moron.
Conversely, iPod owners do not suddenly find themselves in possession of a free iPhone. These are quite obviously completely different situations.
No, my logic is perfectly sound. It is you have it backwards. iPhone owners are in possession of a free iPod. And given it is an iPod, it will play all the tunes sold from the second largest US music retailer behind Wal-Mart, and by far, the dominant player in online music sales. Yet that offers iPhone no advantage over other phone manufacturers to whom Apple steadfastly refuses to license Fairplay? I'm surprised we haven't seen an antitrust suit already.
They would be leveled against Apple the same way they were leveled against Microsoft. Microsoft uses its legal monopoly in OSes to illegally create a monopoly in browsers. Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market. And before you argue that iPod dominance and a content distribution network does not give them an advantage in the phone market, allow me to point out that/.'ers have been awarded +5 insightful to people for saying exactly that with positive Apple spin. I'm sure/. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though.
you immediately see if you've made a mistake before submitting a command.
Well, the problem with that is that you have to look at the darned device to do anything. Speaker independent voice recognition works quite well already on a Nokia N95. You hold a button, speak a name from your address book, and it not only displays and speaks what it thinks you want for confirmation, but it also has a list of next best guesses. You're not going Captain Picard with the thing, but it works well with minimal input. In noisy areas, just hold it close and speak up. You can't say that with most "smart" phones like iPhone and it doesn't demand your eyeballs if, for instance, you really need to place a call while driving. I use it all the time in preference to the keyboard because it beats flipping through the hundreds of address book entries in my phone. I like that direction in UI and hope we continue to see more of it rather than dwell on how glossy and cool our phones look.
AFAIK, Apple thoroughly customized the version of Java that comes bundled with OS X
Apple also consistently stays one version out of date because of this, leaving Apple's java-dev list full of bleeding edgers who quote Jobs ad nauseam on his "best platform for java" quip.
Will GTA be OK as long as it doesn't have a sex scene? Aren't you glad we have Apple will decide what is morally correct and enforce their interpretation on your applications? Maybe they'll get keen on Jesus next and require a hail mary motion to unlock the device via the accelerometer.
With the iPhone, you get an iPod as well. Show me any other mobile device that has so clearly dominated its market in the last 10 years. If nothing else than a digital distribution channel, this is a huge advantage over any Android-based phone.
Careful now... You might have Microsoft complaining to the DOJ that Apple is using its monopoly position in portable music players to give them an unfair advantage in another market. Last I heard, such things are against antitrust laws.
But Apple would allow it, though probably make sure it was limited to WiFi. Losing on point after point, don't you just feel even more stupid retreating to a position I wasn't even talking about in the first place?
You've already conceded that Apple would probably make needless restrictions. In the meantime, Symtella works just fine on AT&T's network. Enjoy writing crippled apps for your iPhone. When they revoke your key because they want to Sherlock your Watson, enjoy explaining where it went to your user base. Only a hater would worry about such things instead of blindly trusting Apple. <sarcasm/>
Developing a generic Limewire style P2P client for a handheld is insanely lame
Lame huh...? I guess 70% of the internet is also lame. I think your retort is lame. I think you spent the rest of your lengthy post avoiding the point I was making because you know your retort is lame. Nothing runs on an iPhone without Apple's permission, and that permission can be revoked at any time... screwing you and your customers. THAT is lame.
The control part, yes, I find it completely unreasonable. But you go ahead and spend months developing an app only to have Apple say, "Sorry, but that's not the kind of application we want to see running on our hardware." I don't see any serious developer staking their livelihood to a certificate that can be revoked any time Apple decides your app no longer fits their strategy. You go right ahead though.
You have no idea if Apple's signing program will have any of the problems you lay out.
Go ahead sport, give it a try. Spend a month or two producing a P2P app only to have Apple laugh in your face. Go for it. The problem I've laid out is quite clear in the announcement. Apple will be deciding what runs on the iPhone... not developers.
As a developer myself, I am THRILLED with what was demonstrated is it went far beyond what I thought they would have right out of the gate.
You're obviously new to this whole process. I'm way ahead of you, having given it a whirl on a S60 3rd edition phone. Phone simulators are worthless shit for debugging. Apple isn't innovating anything. Every bit of this monumental failure is directly out of Nokia's playbook.
Unhappy you can't do system work on the phone?
No, I'm unhappy that I have to ask Apple's permission to develop or run an application. You really don't get it. This isn't about security, it's about control. What developer is going to spend months developing software only to have Apple revoke their key because Apple doesn't like Strip Poker/P2P/VOIP/or most importantly... a little competition. Maybe Apple wants to change their 30% rate... it was a starter rate after all... Don't like it? Fine, we'll be revoking that key now. You are entirely at their mercy. So go ahead, develop apps for them. Good luck to you. You'll need it.
Hardly. Apps are only allowed if they are G-rated enough and don't create conflict with Apple partners like a file sharing app or unrestricted VOIP might. Go ahead, try getting your eDonkey or Hymn port onto an iPhone. You'll see. Further, how on Earth are you going to "simulate" the pinchy thing with a damned mouse? Oh wait, Nokia's dilapidated SDK uses a 'simulator' so Apple should too. Apple has done exactly what they should have avoided. They're following Nokia and making all the same mistakes as Nokia. They will not become the leader by following the leader.
Here's a free tip Apple: Please port the real Mac OS X to your iPhone hardware and stop handing us this cheap imitation. Put XCode on the iPhone. Give me a bluetooth keyboard/mouse driver on the iPhone. I should be able to develop an app for my phone, ON MY PHONE. No extra hardware, simulator, or certificates required. Would the desktop PC market have ever taken off if developers needed time on a mainframe to create apps and permission from the PC manufacturer to distribute it?
Apple, you blew it with the Macintosh once already. You're blowing it again. It seems history does repeat itself.
How many here would decry the Chinese and assorted third world countries for censorship of the internet, and yet, here we (in the US) act no differently.
It sounds as thought the great firewall of America will be installed sooner or later. Apparently all it would take is a judge and software that has already been developed, tested, and deployed by American companies in China. Not that it's anything new... we've been censoring the internet for more than a decade now in the name of copyright with the 1997 NET Act. It appears the nationalist crowd has modded you flamebait early... maybe some sane meta-mods will take care of that.
And yes, part of that inherently means "fewer features".
Apple delivers on features in spades with their OS and hardware. They are, more often than not, delivering features years before other hardware and software vendors. Take a look at the Mac Mini, released in July of 2005. It's now March 2008 and there is FINALLY a comparable PC and it still looks like something out of the 80s. I'm a hardcore Apple fan, but you are making excuses for a lousy, rushed product. A glass phone? WTF were they thinking? And we're STILL waiting on a real SDK even though that was due "by February."
Deficient eh? I use Omniweb. Same issues I'm sure, but I'm comfortable with it. I have something I feel is far more secure than a colored URL bar and Extended Validation box that begs for attention... I have an encrypted system wide keychain that is not going to have a username/password for paypa|.com. I might not catch that pipe as a lower case L... I my not catch a cyrillic character that looks just like an 'a' in there, but my keychain aware browser certainly will. It won't have a password for that domain, and that will instantly alert me to the fact that something is fishy. Proceed to open a new window and manually enter the address as a test... I rely on my keychain so much, I generally don't know the password for most websites I use, so I therefore cannot be suckered into revealing it. I'm sure Safari can be configured the same way.
Instead of railing on Apple for not adopting the technologically deficient solution of other browser makers, perhaps they should instead focus on what is IMHO a superior approach to security... No dice on Windows Safari, sure, but on the Mac I have no fear of phishers.
The point about it costing the recipient had little to do with bandwidth. Hint, Time=Money.
No, Blkdeath is an extremist administrator... He's kinda like the soup nazi, but with email. His words and actions are indefensible. He should grow up and stop acting like a child throwing a tantrum. There's no need for you to defend him. You make a much better point.
Even still, we're not talking about hours of sifting here. Even if you get 400 emails a day and 90% of it is spam, it wouldn't take more than a minute or two for you to manually sift through it. About $5 of your time if you're making $150 an hour. Odds are you spent more than that on the Starbucks you're drinking while you sift through email. It's minor nuisance at best.
Spam is nowhere near the nuisance that false positives have become for me. I have three different email addresses that my contacts have to CC to just to insure I get all my fucking email... They practically need a template just to send me email. Some have just given up... I mean three addresses? It's ridiculous. Personally, I'd rather sift through spam in one mailbox than have to log into and check three different accounts. Childish people like Blkdeath are killing email by unloading their frustrations on every user on the network. Assholes like Blkdeath are much worse than spammers IMO.
You want to spread your message? PUT UP A WEBPAGE OR SEND OUT A SNAIL MAIL!
Someone has an obvious double standard. NIMBY.
I find that your entire argument about "I can't talk to my friends" lacks a certain sincerity.
Because some of us have friends. You obviously lack social skills, so I doubt you have all that many yourself. I'll leave you with one last analogy that maybe a friendless person like yourself will be able to understand:
You're at a bar/club/library... wherever... you see an attractive girl and you walk over to say hello. Should you be arrested? You're obviously making an unsolicited attempt to sell yourself, and according to you, that should be against the law. So go ahead.... shout, cry, twist logic... that is the essence of your position.
How the hell do they know an email is unsolicited? Duh? Because the users who got it
Before a user gets it, Mr. "actively clean this shit for everyone." I'm tired of not receiving email, and having friends not receive mine, because some dipshit like yourself decided my single message was the tip of a bulk email iceburg. Assholes like you are ruining email.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, only a select few readers get mod points.
It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating.And what is groupthink but a consensus of /. opinion. You argue that the sample is biased and not representative of the /. majority. With karma and meta-moderation, you have an uphill battle. My post has received up and down mods because there are obviously quite a few of you /bots that disagree with me. It is controversial. The post I linked to contained ONLY up mods... as many up mods as is possible on /. Not controversial.
It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.I'm not saying the point should not be argued. I'm saying that arguing the iPod's dominance and iTunes content has no effect on the competition, and being subsequently being modded up for it, will demonstrate typical /. hypocrisy.
Sure enough, in one post, iPod/iTunes is a one/two knock out punch that crushes the competition in the phone market... 100% positive mods. In another, iPod/iTunes is irrelevant to antitrust concerns and has no effect on other players in the phone market... also 100% positive mods.
The mods have applied typical /. doublethink.... Just as predicted.
The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.It isn't schtick in this case, it's an accurate prediction. It's schtick when you attach it to something you know everyone agrees on in order to get modded up like you're some sort of underdog. We all know it's just preaching to the choir. In those cases, you're right, it's lame. In this case, I have 10 replies coming to Apple's defense and/or telling me I'm a moron.
No, my logic is perfectly sound. It is you have it backwards. iPhone owners are in possession of a free iPod. And given it is an iPod, it will play all the tunes sold from the second largest US music retailer behind Wal-Mart, and by far, the dominant player in online music sales. Yet that offers iPhone no advantage over other phone manufacturers to whom Apple steadfastly refuses to license Fairplay? I'm surprised we haven't seen an antitrust suit already.
They would be leveled against Apple the same way they were leveled against Microsoft. Microsoft uses its legal monopoly in OSes to illegally create a monopoly in browsers. Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market. And before you argue that iPod dominance and a content distribution network does not give them an advantage in the phone market, allow me to point out that /.'ers have been awarded +5 insightful to people for saying exactly that with positive Apple spin. I'm sure /. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though.
Perhaps in the US. In China, execution is clearly a viable option for failure to enforce quality control measures.
So says the Omniweb browser, with its unparalleled cookie controls.
Well, the problem with that is that you have to look at the darned device to do anything. Speaker independent voice recognition works quite well already on a Nokia N95. You hold a button, speak a name from your address book, and it not only displays and speaks what it thinks you want for confirmation, but it also has a list of next best guesses. You're not going Captain Picard with the thing, but it works well with minimal input. In noisy areas, just hold it close and speak up. You can't say that with most "smart" phones like iPhone and it doesn't demand your eyeballs if, for instance, you really need to place a call while driving. I use it all the time in preference to the keyboard because it beats flipping through the hundreds of address book entries in my phone. I like that direction in UI and hope we continue to see more of it rather than dwell on how glossy and cool our phones look.
Apple also consistently stays one version out of date because of this, leaving Apple's java-dev list full of bleeding edgers who quote Jobs ad nauseam on his "best platform for java" quip.
At least grandpa can use unsigned types.
Will GTA be OK as long as it doesn't have a sex scene? Aren't you glad we have Apple will decide what is morally correct and enforce their interpretation on your applications? Maybe they'll get keen on Jesus next and require a hail mary motion to unlock the device via the accelerometer.
Careful now... You might have Microsoft complaining to the DOJ that Apple is using its monopoly position in portable music players to give them an unfair advantage in another market. Last I heard, such things are against antitrust laws.
You've already conceded that Apple would probably make needless restrictions. In the meantime, Symtella works just fine on AT&T's network. Enjoy writing crippled apps for your iPhone. When they revoke your key because they want to Sherlock your Watson, enjoy explaining where it went to your user base. Only a hater would worry about such things instead of blindly trusting Apple. <sarcasm />
Lame huh...? I guess 70% of the internet is also lame. I think your retort is lame. I think you spent the rest of your lengthy post avoiding the point I was making because you know your retort is lame. Nothing runs on an iPhone without Apple's permission, and that permission can be revoked at any time... screwing you and your customers. THAT is lame.
The control part, yes, I find it completely unreasonable. But you go ahead and spend months developing an app only to have Apple say, "Sorry, but that's not the kind of application we want to see running on our hardware." I don't see any serious developer staking their livelihood to a certificate that can be revoked any time Apple decides your app no longer fits their strategy. You go right ahead though.
Go ahead sport, give it a try. Spend a month or two producing a P2P app only to have Apple laugh in your face. Go for it. The problem I've laid out is quite clear in the announcement. Apple will be deciding what runs on the iPhone... not developers.
As a developer myself, I am THRILLED with what was demonstrated is it went far beyond what I thought they would have right out of the gate.You're obviously new to this whole process. I'm way ahead of you, having given it a whirl on a S60 3rd edition phone. Phone simulators are worthless shit for debugging. Apple isn't innovating anything. Every bit of this monumental failure is directly out of Nokia's playbook.
Unhappy you can't do system work on the phone?No, I'm unhappy that I have to ask Apple's permission to develop or run an application. You really don't get it. This isn't about security, it's about control. What developer is going to spend months developing software only to have Apple revoke their key because Apple doesn't like Strip Poker/P2P/VOIP/or most importantly... a little competition. Maybe Apple wants to change their 30% rate... it was a starter rate after all... Don't like it? Fine, we'll be revoking that key now. You are entirely at their mercy. So go ahead, develop apps for them. Good luck to you. You'll need it.
Hardly. Apps are only allowed if they are G-rated enough and don't create conflict with Apple partners like a file sharing app or unrestricted VOIP might. Go ahead, try getting your eDonkey or Hymn port onto an iPhone. You'll see. Further, how on Earth are you going to "simulate" the pinchy thing with a damned mouse? Oh wait, Nokia's dilapidated SDK uses a 'simulator' so Apple should too. Apple has done exactly what they should have avoided. They're following Nokia and making all the same mistakes as Nokia. They will not become the leader by following the leader.
Here's a free tip Apple: Please port the real Mac OS X to your iPhone hardware and stop handing us this cheap imitation. Put XCode on the iPhone. Give me a bluetooth keyboard/mouse driver on the iPhone. I should be able to develop an app for my phone, ON MY PHONE. No extra hardware, simulator, or certificates required. Would the desktop PC market have ever taken off if developers needed time on a mainframe to create apps and permission from the PC manufacturer to distribute it?
Apple, you blew it with the Macintosh once already. You're blowing it again. It seems history does repeat itself.
It sounds as thought the great firewall of America will be installed sooner or later. Apparently all it would take is a judge and software that has already been developed, tested, and deployed by American companies in China. Not that it's anything new... we've been censoring the internet for more than a decade now in the name of copyright with the 1997 NET Act. It appears the nationalist crowd has modded you flamebait early... maybe some sane meta-mods will take care of that.
Apple delivers on features in spades with their OS and hardware. They are, more often than not, delivering features years before other hardware and software vendors. Take a look at the Mac Mini, released in July of 2005. It's now March 2008 and there is FINALLY a comparable PC and it still looks like something out of the 80s. I'm a hardcore Apple fan, but you are making excuses for a lousy, rushed product. A glass phone? WTF were they thinking? And we're STILL waiting on a real SDK even though that was due "by February."
C'mon.
Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it.
Deficient eh? I use Omniweb. Same issues I'm sure, but I'm comfortable with it. I have something I feel is far more secure than a colored URL bar and Extended Validation box that begs for attention... I have an encrypted system wide keychain that is not going to have a username/password for paypa|.com. I might not catch that pipe as a lower case L... I my not catch a cyrillic character that looks just like an 'a' in there, but my keychain aware browser certainly will. It won't have a password for that domain, and that will instantly alert me to the fact that something is fishy. Proceed to open a new window and manually enter the address as a test... I rely on my keychain so much, I generally don't know the password for most websites I use, so I therefore cannot be suckered into revealing it. I'm sure Safari can be configured the same way.
Instead of railing on Apple for not adopting the technologically deficient solution of other browser makers, perhaps they should instead focus on what is IMHO a superior approach to security... No dice on Windows Safari, sure, but on the Mac I have no fear of phishers.
Oh no... better that nerds verbally abuse each other than crap themselves with mentos! (^_^)
One of my favorite demonstrations in high school was the electrified pickle.
Too bad the youtube version of this video requires you to log in and be over 18...
And some chemistry videos are just scams (^_^)
No, Blkdeath is an extremist administrator... He's kinda like the soup nazi, but with email. His words and actions are indefensible. He should grow up and stop acting like a child throwing a tantrum. There's no need for you to defend him. You make a much better point.
Even still, we're not talking about hours of sifting here. Even if you get 400 emails a day and 90% of it is spam, it wouldn't take more than a minute or two for you to manually sift through it. About $5 of your time if you're making $150 an hour. Odds are you spent more than that on the Starbucks you're drinking while you sift through email. It's minor nuisance at best.
Spam is nowhere near the nuisance that false positives have become for me. I have three different email addresses that my contacts have to CC to just to insure I get all my fucking email... They practically need a template just to send me email. Some have just given up... I mean three addresses? It's ridiculous. Personally, I'd rather sift through spam in one mailbox than have to log into and check three different accounts. Childish people like Blkdeath are killing email by unloading their frustrations on every user on the network. Assholes like Blkdeath are much worse than spammers IMO.
Someone has an obvious double standard. NIMBY.
I find that your entire argument about "I can't talk to my friends" lacks a certain sincerity.Because some of us have friends. You obviously lack social skills, so I doubt you have all that many yourself. I'll leave you with one last analogy that maybe a friendless person like yourself will be able to understand:
You're at a bar/club/library... wherever... you see an attractive girl and you walk over to say hello. Should you be arrested? You're obviously making an unsolicited attempt to sell yourself, and according to you, that should be against the law. So go ahead.... shout, cry, twist logic... that is the essence of your position.
Before a user gets it, Mr. "actively clean this shit for everyone." I'm tired of not receiving email, and having friends not receive mine, because some dipshit like yourself decided my single message was the tip of a bulk email iceburg. Assholes like you are ruining email.