Yes. All the major version number updates: 2.0 and 3.0 (and presumably will for 4.0 as well). IIRC 2.0 was initially one price then Apple later dropped the price. 3.0 was/is $4.95 (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/software-update.html)
The Corona guys think their system is going to be allowed by Apple. The section is a little bit unclear on that point: we'll have to wait and see what Apple does in terms of actually rejecting things. It's a bit hard to see how they'd actually figure it out anyway - they don't have access to the source.
I suspect the real reason for that section is that Apple wants all GUIs to be developed specifically for the iPhone/iPad. They don't want any multi-platform apps that aren't customized for the iPhone.
That's not entirely unreasonable either. Java applications, for example, have always been an imperfect match to the native UI, particularly on the OSes that weren't the primary development platform.
I think you mean "exactly like they did for all the iPod Touch updates...."
All the iPhone updates have been free.
BTW - I'm not suggesting there's a conspiracy to release an emulation based iPad now and charge for an upgrade to a native executing one later, just pointing out that software upgrades for the iPad are likely not to be free.
Absolutely, you can write great cross-platform apps if you try, and write crappy native apps if you don't. But it's a lot easier to get your UI right if you're not targeting an app to multiple platforms. Apple wants people to develop for their platform, not to develop for "mobile phones," one of which is the iPhone.
I've never seen a ported piece of software that was as good as a natively written one. They frequently don't make any attempt to match the UI or, if they do, they do it poorly. They're also usually slower and buggier.
You're right, it is about control, but it's not about forcing everyone to use XCode because Apple thinks it's the best. It's about blocking a flood of crappy ported apps and instead making everyone code their UI specifically for the iPhone/iPad.
"Constricting developers because you're going to change the platform? Really?"
That's actually not such a bad speculation. Apple HAS switched platforms before, and a key to that capability is having the apps written in XCode. It's not unlikely at all that they want to maintain the ability to switch the processor in the iPhone/iPad line, and they won't have to bother writing emulators if they can just tell all the app developers to recompile.
Where the article goes off the rails is when he starts speculating about that other processor already existing in the iPad.
It always runs Mail and usually Safari and the iPod bits in the background. Have you noticed your video slowing down every five minutes when Mail checks for new messages?
Remember you're talking about an article written by a journalist about a study, not the study.
I haven't hunted down their paper because nobody thinks it's important to actually cite the source, but the graph reproduced in the Discover article, presumably from an actual paper, does seem to show that there is a significant difference between the scores of Williams subjects compared to normal controls in the racial bias assessment test they used.
Careful. I tried several of them and I had a strong preference for whatever was associated with good words first.
The test itself looks like an ongoing research study using random web surfers as guinea pigs. Just because it's at a Harvard address doesn't mean it's validated, objective or even worth the five minutes it takes to do.
Not really. Williams syndrome children, even omitting all their other problems, trust everyone. They wouldn't do well fending for themselves in a pure Darwinian environment.
Wow. You're right up there with the time cube and electric universe people.
Tourette syndrome is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder. It is not caused by visual stimuli and there is no evidence that visual stimuli can trigger or exacerbate Tourette's.
To say nothing of burns caused by a low power LED.
Hm. Do we stipulate a twenty pound chunk of quantum fluctuation (only until we can derive even that from something simpler) or an omnipotent supreme being with a sadistic streak?
Go ahead. Compare any price plan with what you could use IM for. Remember, unlimited doesn't mean unlimited.
For example, I have 2500 messages per month. It costs me $15 to get that (it's not available unbundled). That's actually the maximum plan my carrier offers, BTW. 2500 SMS messages adds up to about 400 KB. Even at the extortionary international roaming data rates my carrier charges (the highest data rates I could find from them at 3 cents / KB) that would cost you $12 AND you wouldn't suddenly get charged 25 times more if you went over the limit, and would get charged less if you didn't hit the limit.
Of course, if you were actually paying that data rate you'd be in another country and then texts would be a minimum of 50 cents each no matter what plan you were on so those 2500 messages would actually cost you $1250 compared to the $12 they would cost by IM.
I suppose the closest case would be if you were going to send one text (15 cents). That would probably cost you the whole 3 cents for 1 KB of data because the phone company only rounds up.
Yay, more unedited crap posted to the Internet. Photos are one thing, but imagine the sheer wasted resources posting 720p video to YouTube straight and raw from millions of phones.
"Currently, developers use the in-application ads to monetize free applications."
"Those folks won't tap on the ads, and even if they do, they won't buy stuff. Epic fail."
Those two statements seem to be contradictory. There are ad supported apps and have been for some time, so either the developers who use those ads are a) deluding themselves or b) making enough money to justify them.
There are even older examples. This web site for example, shows ads to non-subscribers and an ad free version to those willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. All the major version number updates: 2.0 and 3.0 (and presumably will for 4.0 as well). IIRC 2.0 was initially one price then Apple later dropped the price. 3.0 was/is $4.95 (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/software-update.html)
The Corona guys think their system is going to be allowed by Apple. The section is a little bit unclear on that point: we'll have to wait and see what Apple does in terms of actually rejecting things. It's a bit hard to see how they'd actually figure it out anyway - they don't have access to the source.
I suspect the real reason for that section is that Apple wants all GUIs to be developed specifically for the iPhone/iPad. They don't want any multi-platform apps that aren't customized for the iPhone.
That's not entirely unreasonable either. Java applications, for example, have always been an imperfect match to the native UI, particularly on the OSes that weren't the primary development platform.
Someone moderated that insightful?
I think you mean "exactly like they did for all the iPod Touch updates...."
All the iPhone updates have been free.
BTW - I'm not suggesting there's a conspiracy to release an emulation based iPad now and charge for an upgrade to a native executing one later, just pointing out that software upgrades for the iPad are likely not to be free.
Absolutely, you can write great cross-platform apps if you try, and write crappy native apps if you don't. But it's a lot easier to get your UI right if you're not targeting an app to multiple platforms. Apple wants people to develop for their platform, not to develop for "mobile phones," one of which is the iPhone.
It's about blocking crappy ports.
I've never seen a ported piece of software that was as good as a natively written one. They frequently don't make any attempt to match the UI or, if they do, they do it poorly. They're also usually slower and buggier.
You're right, it is about control, but it's not about forcing everyone to use XCode because Apple thinks it's the best. It's about blocking a flood of crappy ported apps and instead making everyone code their UI specifically for the iPhone/iPad.
"Constricting developers because you're going to change the platform? Really?"
That's actually not such a bad speculation. Apple HAS switched platforms before, and a key to that capability is having the apps written in XCode. It's not unlikely at all that they want to maintain the ability to switch the processor in the iPhone/iPad line, and they won't have to bother writing emulators if they can just tell all the app developers to recompile.
Where the article goes off the rails is when he starts speculating about that other processor already existing in the iPad.
It always runs Mail and usually Safari and the iPod bits in the background. Have you noticed your video slowing down every five minutes when Mail checks for new messages?
They are. Major software upgrades for the iPad are probably not going to be free (except maybe the first one).
Remember you're talking about an article written by a journalist about a study, not the study.
I haven't hunted down their paper because nobody thinks it's important to actually cite the source, but the graph reproduced in the Discover article, presumably from an actual paper, does seem to show that there is a significant difference between the scores of Williams subjects compared to normal controls in the racial bias assessment test they used.
"Exactly, but neither can we conclude that the true mean does _not_ differ from 50% in Williams children."
Actually, you can't tell whether you can conclude that unless you know the power of the study.
And to be fair, the summary says "suggests that they also don't have any racial bias," which it does.
Careful. I tried several of them and I had a strong preference for whatever was associated with good words first.
The test itself looks like an ongoing research study using random web surfers as guinea pigs. Just because it's at a Harvard address doesn't mean it's validated, objective or even worth the five minutes it takes to do.
Williams syndrome sufferers are wonderful people (I know one) but they have shorter life expectancy and in general can't live fully independent lives.
As serious genetic disorders go it's not the worst, but it's not something you'd want to have.
Not really. Williams syndrome children, even omitting all their other problems, trust everyone. They wouldn't do well fending for themselves in a pure Darwinian environment.
Regardless, Williams syndrome children apparently don't exhibit this preference.
Wow. You're right up there with the time cube and electric universe people.
Tourette syndrome is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder. It is not caused by visual stimuli and there is no evidence that visual stimuli can trigger or exacerbate Tourette's.
To say nothing of burns caused by a low power LED.
Hm. Do we stipulate a twenty pound chunk of quantum fluctuation (only until we can derive even that from something simpler) or an omnipotent supreme being with a sadistic streak?
Usually you'd consider the first hand accounts (milliwatt laser) to be more reliable than the hearsay.
Go ahead. Compare any price plan with what you could use IM for. Remember, unlimited doesn't mean unlimited.
For example, I have 2500 messages per month. It costs me $15 to get that (it's not available unbundled). That's actually the maximum plan my carrier offers, BTW. 2500 SMS messages adds up to about 400 KB. Even at the extortionary international roaming data rates my carrier charges (the highest data rates I could find from them at 3 cents / KB) that would cost you $12 AND you wouldn't suddenly get charged 25 times more if you went over the limit, and would get charged less if you didn't hit the limit.
Of course, if you were actually paying that data rate you'd be in another country and then texts would be a minimum of 50 cents each no matter what plan you were on so those 2500 messages would actually cost you $1250 compared to the $12 they would cost by IM.
I suppose the closest case would be if you were going to send one text (15 cents). That would probably cost you the whole 3 cents for 1 KB of data because the phone company only rounds up.
They're really scummy but that sounds like an issue with Firefox.
Yay, more unedited crap posted to the Internet. Photos are one thing, but imagine the sheer wasted resources posting 720p video to YouTube straight and raw from millions of phones.
That's hilarious. SMS is obscenely expensive, very unreliable, limited to phones, and very expensive. Yes, expensive is in there twice for a reason.
"Currently, developers use the in-application ads to monetize free applications."
"Those folks won't tap on the ads, and even if they do, they won't buy stuff. Epic fail."
Those two statements seem to be contradictory. There are ad supported apps and have been for some time, so either the developers who use those ads are a) deluding themselves or b) making enough money to justify them.
There are even older examples. This web site for example, shows ads to non-subscribers and an ad free version to those willing to pay.
And both those things should work very well under the multitasking that Apple is supporting.
They just updated their entire notebook line today.
Notebooks and desktops are a mature product. You can't have revolutionary new notebooks released every other year.