My take is that it's an "oh, crap! my machine isn't working and the instructions for fixing it are on the net!" feature. That, or a pre-emptive strike in case of a virus some day. Boot into safari mode, browse the internet for the wisdom it contains, maybe connect to apple.com for an update, etc.
Fear not! Once you get out of your teens you'll find you have much less desire to expose your ignorance and lack of eloquence. It's just a phase you're going through.
I'm sure glad I went to school in the 80's where I could choose to use my RPN calculator. If I was forced to use a TI it would have taken me twice as long to finish a test.
I think, though, that the other 99% of calls have better quality. So, improve reception for 99% of the calls by sacrificing quality for 1%? Sounds like a decent trade-off. Unless you're that 1%.
It's not so much the iphone is poorly designed, or other phones are poorly designed. The fact is (or seems to be...), there's a hard problem to solve in the smart phone arena and Apple, like others, have so far failed to solve the problem.
So, they haven't designed a flaw into the device; instead, they've failed to design a solution to an inherent problem that nobody else has solved either.
It's not quite the same thing. It's more like the CEO of a car company saying "all cars allow some road noise in, it's a problem for the whole industry". It's not so much that Apple has done anything wrong, but more like they've failed to fully solve a problem that everyone else has also failed to solve.
The point that I think people are missing is that the fanboys were right to a degree -- the devices didn't *need* whatever feature-of-the-day was hot at the time. If the device needed it and didn't have it, people wouldn't have bought the device. Yet, the devices continued to sell.
Now, as for the device being better with feature-of-the-day -- yes. The iPad would likely be better with multiprocessing for all apps, for instance. Does it *need* it, a million plus people say no.
I disagree. I've met very few people outside of techie circles who want a custom option or two. Kids, yeah. Geeks, yeah. My mom? Sisters? Cousins? People I interact with in professional offices (doctors, lawyers, etc). Not so much. They want to do what they want to do (doctoring, lawyering, planting gardens, sharing information with friends). None of that -- in the strictest sense -- requires "using a computer". The computer is just a device they have to use in order to do what they really want to do.
Outside of computer geeks, nobody wants to "use a computer". They just don't. They want services that a computer provides, but as soon as a better device comes along that provides those services they'll drop the computer like a hot potato. I've met orders of magnitude more people like that than I have people who want options and ports and freedom to compile their own code.
Where did he get the design for the original imac, the ipod and ipad?
Maybe he didn't invent a lot of that stuff, but the world of computers and consumer electronics would be considerably different (and arguably, not nearly as interesting) without his involvement.
Working 60 hours is a choice. You can choose to work for companies that don't expect that, or you can choose to work for companies that do. Not all software companies are sweat shops.
Me? I rarely work more than 40.0 hours. Often it's more like 38 or so, depending on how you count. Though to be honest I spend a few hours here and there on some weekends, and also several after hours thinking about work. And I always work extra hours when extra hours are necessary to get the job done. But my butt is rarely in the office chair more than 40 hours a week.
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
BUT... if we were to extend the analogy a bit, the car that Apple produces would likely be an order of magnitude or two easier to use (how? I dunno, that's an alternate universe I haven't visited yet). And people would say "you know, I don't mind having to go to a special Apple gas station because the car is _exactly_ what I want in a car. And I don't care about repairing it because Apple cars don't need repair nearly as often as Chevrolets. It's easier to park and I can go way longer between fillups.
It's not really all that far fetched -- electric cars are coming down the road (so to speak) and you'll be forced to get "fuel" at care-specific electrical charging stations, and you probably won't be able to get it serviced by the guy down the streat. People will put up with that because the car delivers more of what they want in a car.
One mans "lock you out" is another mans "push for open standards".
Apple isn't trying to lock anyone out of anything. They are trying to sell as many devices as they can before the competition catches up. In their mind that means they must block flash so people don't get the impression that the iPad is dog slow (which is what would happen if flash was enabled, most likely).
This plan will almost certainly work. Lesser companies will come out with tablets sporting fancy UIs, usb ports, video cameras and Flash support, and they will be slow, heavy, and with limited battery life. And once again the consumer will be slapped in the face with the reality that Apple really does know a thing or two about making consumer devices after all.
You lost me on the "just as fancy" part. The wePad will be heavier. It will be more expensive. It will have less battery life. It likely won't have a UI finely tuned to the multi-touch experience. How is that "just as fancy"?
re "If this thing can run Firefox and VLC then it will beat the snot out of the iPad for those of us that are interested in more than just the Walled Garden."
Hard to believe, I know, but you're actually in a very, very small club. Apple knows where the money is and it's not people who particularly care about open software. It's people who are actually quite happy in a walled garden, for better or worse.
What is the problem with making the platform open in the first place? Possibly because that will end up creating a product that is harder to use and not deliver a satisfactory end user experience. We've been down this road for a decade and I've not seen a single line of people clamoring for tablets that run some sort of open OS. The market just isn't there, and like it or not Apple is in business to make money.
Seriously. Look at the facts -- nobody wants the type of tablet that swims in your head. At least not enough people to justify the expense of building it. Those types of tablets exist and nobody is buying them.
Re:Sigh...not this shit again
on
iPad Jailbroken
·
· Score: 1
I really don't understand. Seriously. Why is it absurd? Apple, as a company, should have the right to make whatever products they want (within the realm of public safety, I suppose). The market will decide if it's a worthwhile product and vote with their pocketbooks. If a large percentage of people want a locked down device, why can't a company provide that?
Who are you (or the government, or anybody else) to force Apple to make a product to match _your_ vision rather than their own?
Not a more open iPad, a more open desktop-in-tablet-form. The iPad isn't really a tablet based on the traditional description of a tablet. All it shares with "tablets" is the tablet form factor. The user experience is decidedly non-traditional-tablet-like.
I recall Apple saying that. I can't remember where I saw it, but they actually said something to the effect the price could drop if there's not enough demand.
Apparently, that won't be necessary.
By your logic I must assume the iPad isn't a tablet either. Apparently your idea of a tablet is "runs software not designed for a tablet and doesn't have a keyboard".
If you got a normal tablet you wouldn't have all the functionality of the ipad. Kinda like saying "if you get a toaster oven you get all the functionality of a two-slice toaster". Sometimes what you want is just a two-slice toaster that is implemented really well.
Slashdot Mirror
My take is that it's an "oh, crap! my machine isn't working and the instructions for fixing it are on the net!" feature. That, or a pre-emptive strike in case of a virus some day. Boot into safari mode, browse the internet for the wisdom it contains, maybe connect to apple.com for an update, etc.
Being presumed innocent and actually _being_ innocent are two different things entirely.
Fear not! Once you get out of your teens you'll find you have much less desire to expose your ignorance and lack of eloquence. It's just a phase you're going through.
I'm sure glad I went to school in the 80's where I could choose to use my RPN calculator. If I was forced to use a TI it would have taken me twice as long to finish a test.
> Why not install Mac OS X
I don't think that hardware is supported anymore.
That's a tricky sticking point for some people.
My G5 runs Tiger just fine.
I think, though, that the other 99% of calls have better quality. So, improve reception for 99% of the calls by sacrificing quality for 1%? Sounds like a decent trade-off. Unless you're that 1%.
It's not so much the iphone is poorly designed, or other phones are poorly designed. The fact is (or seems to be...), there's a hard problem to solve in the smart phone arena and Apple, like others, have so far failed to solve the problem. So, they haven't designed a flaw into the device; instead, they've failed to design a solution to an inherent problem that nobody else has solved either.
It's not quite the same thing. It's more like the CEO of a car company saying "all cars allow some road noise in, it's a problem for the whole industry". It's not so much that Apple has done anything wrong, but more like they've failed to fully solve a problem that everyone else has also failed to solve.
The point that I think people are missing is that the fanboys were right to a degree -- the devices didn't *need* whatever feature-of-the-day was hot at the time. If the device needed it and didn't have it, people wouldn't have bought the device. Yet, the devices continued to sell. Now, as for the device being better with feature-of-the-day -- yes. The iPad would likely be better with multiprocessing for all apps, for instance. Does it *need* it, a million plus people say no.
eventually, probably. What's your point?
I disagree. I've met very few people outside of techie circles who want a custom option or two. Kids, yeah. Geeks, yeah. My mom? Sisters? Cousins? People I interact with in professional offices (doctors, lawyers, etc). Not so much. They want to do what they want to do (doctoring, lawyering, planting gardens, sharing information with friends). None of that -- in the strictest sense -- requires "using a computer". The computer is just a device they have to use in order to do what they really want to do. Outside of computer geeks, nobody wants to "use a computer". They just don't. They want services that a computer provides, but as soon as a better device comes along that provides those services they'll drop the computer like a hot potato. I've met orders of magnitude more people like that than I have people who want options and ports and freedom to compile their own code.
Where did he get the design for the original imac, the ipod and ipad? Maybe he didn't invent a lot of that stuff, but the world of computers and consumer electronics would be considerably different (and arguably, not nearly as interesting) without his involvement.
Working 60 hours is a choice. You can choose to work for companies that don't expect that, or you can choose to work for companies that do. Not all software companies are sweat shops.
Me? I rarely work more than 40.0 hours. Often it's more like 38 or so, depending on how you count. Though to be honest I spend a few hours here and there on some weekends, and also several after hours thinking about work. And I always work extra hours when extra hours are necessary to get the job done. But my butt is rarely in the office chair more than 40 hours a week.
consumers will never know. Do you know any non-geek consumers that have the slightest clue about the GIF thing?
Video providers will simply re-encode their videos and the consumer will be none the wiser.
BUT... if we were to extend the analogy a bit, the car that Apple produces would likely be an order of magnitude or two easier to use (how? I dunno, that's an alternate universe I haven't visited yet). And people would say "you know, I don't mind having to go to a special Apple gas station because the car is _exactly_ what I want in a car. And I don't care about repairing it because Apple cars don't need repair nearly as often as Chevrolets. It's easier to park and I can go way longer between fillups.
It's not really all that far fetched -- electric cars are coming down the road (so to speak) and you'll be forced to get "fuel" at care-specific electrical charging stations, and you probably won't be able to get it serviced by the guy down the streat. People will put up with that because the car delivers more of what they want in a car.
One mans "lock you out" is another mans "push for open standards".
Apple isn't trying to lock anyone out of anything. They are trying to sell as many devices as they can before the competition catches up. In their mind that means they must block flash so people don't get the impression that the iPad is dog slow (which is what would happen if flash was enabled, most likely).
This plan will almost certainly work. Lesser companies will come out with tablets sporting fancy UIs, usb ports, video cameras and Flash support, and they will be slow, heavy, and with limited battery life. And once again the consumer will be slapped in the face with the reality that Apple really does know a thing or two about making consumer devices after all.
You lost me on the "just as fancy" part. The wePad will be heavier. It will be more expensive. It will have less battery life. It likely won't have a UI finely tuned to the multi-touch experience. How is that "just as fancy"?
Hard to believe, I know, but you're actually in a very, very small club. Apple knows where the money is and it's not people who particularly care about open software. It's people who are actually quite happy in a walled garden, for better or worse.
What is the problem with making the platform open in the first place? Possibly because that will end up creating a product that is harder to use and not deliver a satisfactory end user experience. We've been down this road for a decade and I've not seen a single line of people clamoring for tablets that run some sort of open OS. The market just isn't there, and like it or not Apple is in business to make money. Seriously. Look at the facts -- nobody wants the type of tablet that swims in your head. At least not enough people to justify the expense of building it. Those types of tablets exist and nobody is buying them.
I really don't understand. Seriously. Why is it absurd? Apple, as a company, should have the right to make whatever products they want (within the realm of public safety, I suppose). The market will decide if it's a worthwhile product and vote with their pocketbooks. If a large percentage of people want a locked down device, why can't a company provide that? Who are you (or the government, or anybody else) to force Apple to make a product to match _your_ vision rather than their own?
Not a more open iPad, a more open desktop-in-tablet-form. The iPad isn't really a tablet based on the traditional description of a tablet. All it shares with "tablets" is the tablet form factor. The user experience is decidedly non-traditional-tablet-like.
They did it for the iphone, didn't they? I recall prices dropping rather dramatically shortly after launch.
I recall Apple saying that. I can't remember where I saw it, but they actually said something to the effect the price could drop if there's not enough demand. Apparently, that won't be necessary.
By your logic I must assume the iPad isn't a tablet either. Apparently your idea of a tablet is "runs software not designed for a tablet and doesn't have a keyboard".
If you got a normal tablet you wouldn't have all the functionality of the ipad. Kinda like saying "if you get a toaster oven you get all the functionality of a two-slice toaster". Sometimes what you want is just a two-slice toaster that is implemented really well.