The iPad handles a stylus just fine, it's just that most people don't know about it because it's not an advertised feature. This also makes trolls think that the iPad cannot use a stylus at all.
If they have anyone as cynical as that working there, they'll just make the bottle smaller, like they did with Innocent Smoothies, which are now down to 750mL cartons instead of 1L. Price is unaffected, of course.
It's not "astroturfing" when it's using actual, published numbers.
Apple is one of the few PC vendors growing their marketshare at the moment in hardware (and this is *not* including iOS devices - those are measured separately). It's not a torrent, but it is measurable, non-negligable, year-on-year growth for the past few years.
Just because you personally don't know anyone who bought one doesn't make anything that contradicts your single-data-point-anecdotal opinion automatically an astroturf attempt.
But then, you won't believe me because I'm contradicting you. First google hit though:
I have found that iOS5 is actually pretty fast on my 3GS - it's nothing like the trainwreck of iOS4 on the 3G that made it unusable before the patches (and then just very slow after that).
Many of the points you raise are things I would agree with. I will also add my own - the requirement to go in and out of the settings app to turn wireless and/or bluetooth on and off. Sometimes I just want to knock the wifi off briefly and it would be nice to be able to put that slider on the lock screen, or the new notification centre - I know you can do this on Android, and I have been hoping Apple would address this in an update.
The new Reminders thing also has a glaring missing feature (or it's just unintuitive and I haven't found a reliable way to do it yet - like those "hidden" gestures) - I want to be able to set a reminder that appears on the notification screen indefinitely until I complete it and manually remove it. So far all I seem to be able to do is set ones with timers (so it will warn me at X time on Y date only), or set a permanent reminder, but this then doesn't show up on the notification screen - you have to go back into the app to see it! Not much of a reminder!
It is one of the big UI issues with multi-monitor Mac setups, especially now that we have huge screens (it wasn't so bad for me in the old days with a 22" cinema and a 20" CRT next to each other - I used the CRT for holding palettes and other such stuff while using Motion/DVD SP etc), but if you're using that second (or more) screen as your active viewer, like typing a document or working on an image et, the fact that the app's menu bar (and all of the computer's info like time, network, UI widgets etc) are on the 'primary' display means you have to move.
It's pretty much a holdover from the old days, where the Mac was designed with the overlapping window model (rather than maximised apps). I think they are tentatively trying to change it by introducing Full Screen Apps, that are essentially like extra desktops (you slide the main desktop away and bring in the full screen app, and vice versa to flip between them), but this is not going to work for many people.
I'm not really sure what they can do about it - changing to a "menu on each window" model would be a brutal change, almost as much as this Unity switch in Ubuntu.
Perhaps put in the ability to flip between modes, depending on preference.
Wait, you're trying to say that slashdot is a *pro* Apple site?
Goodness!
This does sound like quite a serious security hole, so I expect it to be patched. Of course, slashdot will report the patching of this hole as "Apple patches iOS to prevent jailbreaking", just like the last time they closed the security vulnerability that was also used to provide jailbreaking ability.
If they don't close the hole, slashdot will crow about how "insecure" iOS is.
Y'know, classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Just another day!
Again, there is something about the broadness of the trademark application that has caused Apple to respond - they clearly don't go around suing everyone with an apple for a logo or an apple in their name.
The Australian case a few years ago with a grocery store/one stop shop with an apple for a logo also caused a reaction - since the trademark was broad and covered computing too. Once it was scaled back to not overlap with Apple's trademarked areas, all was well.
They don't do this for fun, as much as slashdot anti-Apple folk would have you believe.
Depends how broad the trademark filing is - if it was thrown out like a blanket, and happens to cover the areas where Apple already has a trademark, they are going to have to defend their own against it.
They don;t have a trademark in the food sector.
This happened with another store a few years ago with an apple for a logo, who applied for a blanket trademark across all areas, requiring Apple to defend their trademark in the computing sector.
Apple need to defend their trademark *in the relevant area*.
One assumes that they are aware of AppleBees, and that AppleBees' trademarks are only in the food service sector.
If the trademark applied for in the case of this new place, way back in the mists of time (this story is ancient, and has been posted with a troll summary for page hits and ad revenue) was too broad (ie, that it covered several areas, including computers/IT without it needing to) then Apple are obligated to defend their own trademark or risk losing it for the precise reasons you outline.
It may be "silly" to the outside observer, and it sure makes for a juicy snack for the rabid, frothing neckbeards while they wait for their moms to microwave some more Hot Pockets, but it's part of the legal system regarding trademarks.
Put it this way, do you think they are going to do *anything* (or risk not doing anything) that would put their trademark at risk?
It depends on how the other business files their trademark. Yes, it's obvious they are not a computer maker, but if they file for their trademark to cover all trade areas then that's when Apple can say "wait, you'll infringe if you are in the computer area".
The same thing happened a couple of years ago with Woolworth Australia I think, or someone like that, as a grocery store with an apple for a logo who filed a broad trademark covering many business areas.
There's nothing to stop you starting a restaurant called "Apple restaurant" and filing a trademark that covers you in the food industry. If you file broadly and Apple doesn't respond to the part that covers the sections they already cover then it weakens Apple's future defence of their trademark in that area. The idea of "you must defend your trademark or risk losing it" is to prevent trademark squatting (unless you're willing to spend all the money necessary to defend a bunch of trademarks that you *may* use one day).
Anti-Trust Division say "Apple are not a monopoly, go away and read the definitions before you come crying to us.... oh, also this has nothing to do with only allowing app installs via the App Store, I suggest you put less faith in baseless trolling slashdot summaries in future... thank you, have a nice day. To hear this message in Spanish, press 8"
Where does it say Apple is disallowing installations of apps from anywhere other than the app store?
The troll summary may suggest that's what Apple "might do" in the future (with absolutely zero evidence to support it), but it doesn't mean they are doing it.
Sandboxing is a common security method, why is it suddenly evil because Apple wants to ensure it is used for apps sold via the store?
You said that Apple's margin was "high" when in reality it's right in line with other retail systems (and a lot lower than many traditional channels) - and as such, noted that Google does the same if you want the same sort of service.
If you want to just go it alone (do all the hosting, payment processing, web presence etc) yourself with android, you're of course free to do so, but I will wager that it will cost more in terms of hassle (and I'll bet financially too) than just going with the "high" margin 30%.
Developers are *snapping Apple's (and Google's) hand off* for the 35/70 split that their respective app stores provide.
You can do it yourself, but why would you want to, unless you're someone like Amazon? We're talking about small developers here, often just one dev, or a small team etc - you're trying to paint the $99 dev fee and the 30% gross cut to take all the hassle out of it as a downside of these stores when it's really the exact opposite.
That developer fee is a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of the cost of developing an app.
That "high margin" of 30% for each sale is actually a bargain (especially if your app is cheap) to remove the burdens of hosting, delivery, payment processing etc. (especially the payment processing for small transactions).
That 30% is also exactly what Google charges for the Marketplace. But that's not "high margin" I guess, since it's for Android.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even accurate - styluses work just fine with the iPad, should she choose to go with that solution.
(Other tablets are available, etc etc).
The iPad handles a stylus just fine, it's just that most people don't know about it because it's not an advertised feature. This also makes trolls think that the iPad cannot use a stylus at all.
Yup, with that answer you just proved you're dragging an inferiority complex around behind you like a boat anchor.
Just let it go, you'll feel much better when you don't evaluate your own self worth based on other people's computing choices.
The Fire costs $100 to make? Goodness, no wonder it's getting mixed reviews.
You think /. is a pro-Apple site?
What's it like in mirror universe? Is property cheap?
The iPad also has some other things that make it cost more than the Fire, besides bundling a cloud service.
If they have anyone as cynical as that working there, they'll just make the bottle smaller, like they did with Innocent Smoothies, which are now down to 750mL cartons instead of 1L. Price is unaffected, of course.
Mining.
Hilarious, slashdot. All about the discussion... yeah...
*shakes head sadly*
It's not "astroturfing" when it's using actual, published numbers.
Apple is one of the few PC vendors growing their marketshare at the moment in hardware (and this is *not* including iOS devices - those are measured separately). It's not a torrent, but it is measurable, non-negligable, year-on-year growth for the past few years.
Just because you personally don't know anyone who bought one doesn't make anything that contradicts your single-data-point-anecdotal opinion automatically an astroturf attempt.
But then, you won't believe me because I'm contradicting you. First google hit though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/24/apple-sales-growth-pc-market
I have found that iOS5 is actually pretty fast on my 3GS - it's nothing like the trainwreck of iOS4 on the 3G that made it unusable before the patches (and then just very slow after that).
Many of the points you raise are things I would agree with. I will also add my own - the requirement to go in and out of the settings app to turn wireless and/or bluetooth on and off. Sometimes I just want to knock the wifi off briefly and it would be nice to be able to put that slider on the lock screen, or the new notification centre - I know you can do this on Android, and I have been hoping Apple would address this in an update.
The new Reminders thing also has a glaring missing feature (or it's just unintuitive and I haven't found a reliable way to do it yet - like those "hidden" gestures) - I want to be able to set a reminder that appears on the notification screen indefinitely until I complete it and manually remove it. So far all I seem to be able to do is set ones with timers (so it will warn me at X time on Y date only), or set a permanent reminder, but this then doesn't show up on the notification screen - you have to go back into the app to see it! Not much of a reminder!
It is one of the big UI issues with multi-monitor Mac setups, especially now that we have huge screens (it wasn't so bad for me in the old days with a 22" cinema and a 20" CRT next to each other - I used the CRT for holding palettes and other such stuff while using Motion/DVD SP etc), but if you're using that second (or more) screen as your active viewer, like typing a document or working on an image et, the fact that the app's menu bar (and all of the computer's info like time, network, UI widgets etc) are on the 'primary' display means you have to move.
It's pretty much a holdover from the old days, where the Mac was designed with the overlapping window model (rather than maximised apps). I think they are tentatively trying to change it by introducing Full Screen Apps, that are essentially like extra desktops (you slide the main desktop away and bring in the full screen app, and vice versa to flip between them), but this is not going to work for many people.
I'm not really sure what they can do about it - changing to a "menu on each window" model would be a brutal change, almost as much as this Unity switch in Ubuntu.
Perhaps put in the ability to flip between modes, depending on preference.
Wait, you're trying to say that slashdot is a *pro* Apple site?
Goodness!
This does sound like quite a serious security hole, so I expect it to be patched. Of course, slashdot will report the patching of this hole as "Apple patches iOS to prevent jailbreaking", just like the last time they closed the security vulnerability that was also used to provide jailbreaking ability.
If they don't close the hole, slashdot will crow about how "insecure" iOS is.
Y'know, classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Just another day!
Again, there is something about the broadness of the trademark application that has caused Apple to respond - they clearly don't go around suing everyone with an apple for a logo or an apple in their name.
The Australian case a few years ago with a grocery store/one stop shop with an apple for a logo also caused a reaction - since the trademark was broad and covered computing too. Once it was scaled back to not overlap with Apple's trademarked areas, all was well.
They don't do this for fun, as much as slashdot anti-Apple folk would have you believe.
Look up trademark law and you'll....
oh never mind.
sure sure, Apple = evil. Got it.
Depends how broad the trademark filing is - if it was thrown out like a blanket, and happens to cover the areas where Apple already has a trademark, they are going to have to defend their own against it.
They don;t have a trademark in the food sector.
This happened with another store a few years ago with an apple for a logo, who applied for a blanket trademark across all areas, requiring Apple to defend their trademark in the computing sector.
Apple need to defend their trademark *in the relevant area*.
One assumes that they are aware of AppleBees, and that AppleBees' trademarks are only in the food service sector.
If the trademark applied for in the case of this new place, way back in the mists of time (this story is ancient, and has been posted with a troll summary for page hits and ad revenue) was too broad (ie, that it covered several areas, including computers/IT without it needing to) then Apple are obligated to defend their own trademark or risk losing it for the precise reasons you outline.
It may be "silly" to the outside observer, and it sure makes for a juicy snack for the rabid, frothing neckbeards while they wait for their moms to microwave some more Hot Pockets, but it's part of the legal system regarding trademarks.
Put it this way, do you think they are going to do *anything* (or risk not doing anything) that would put their trademark at risk?
It depends on how the other business files their trademark. Yes, it's obvious they are not a computer maker, but if they file for their trademark to cover all trade areas then that's when Apple can say "wait, you'll infringe if you are in the computer area".
The same thing happened a couple of years ago with Woolworth Australia I think, or someone like that, as a grocery store with an apple for a logo who filed a broad trademark covering many business areas.
There's nothing to stop you starting a restaurant called "Apple restaurant" and filing a trademark that covers you in the food industry. If you file broadly and Apple doesn't respond to the part that covers the sections they already cover then it weakens Apple's future defence of their trademark in that area. The idea of "you must defend your trademark or risk losing it" is to prevent trademark squatting (unless you're willing to spend all the money necessary to defend a bunch of trademarks that you *may* use one day).
Interesting, so you don;t think any of those explanations is a rational response to a bug report in a company's software?
Maybe just because it's Apple.
Tell me, if a bug was found in the Linux kernel, would you think it was rational for Red Hat's stock to go down in price?
The term is "Mac" or "Macintosh".
MAC means something else, depending on whether you are a woman who likes expensive makeup or an IT nerd.
Oh also, cool story bro.
Investors are not stupid?
Investors realise that potential software bugs are not a reason to "abandon ship"?
Investors realise that no software/hardware/product is created perfect and will occasionally need fixing?
Investors believe in magic.
One of those, probably.
Anti-Trust Division say "Apple are not a monopoly, go away and read the definitions before you come crying to us.... oh, also this has nothing to do with only allowing app installs via the App Store, I suggest you put less faith in baseless trolling slashdot summaries in future... thank you, have a nice day. To hear this message in Spanish, press 8"
Where does it say Apple is disallowing installations of apps from anywhere other than the app store?
The troll summary may suggest that's what Apple "might do" in the future (with absolutely zero evidence to support it), but it doesn't mean they are doing it.
Sandboxing is a common security method, why is it suddenly evil because Apple wants to ensure it is used for apps sold via the store?
You said that Apple's margin was "high" when in reality it's right in line with other retail systems (and a lot lower than many traditional channels) - and as such, noted that Google does the same if you want the same sort of service.
If you want to just go it alone (do all the hosting, payment processing, web presence etc) yourself with android, you're of course free to do so, but I will wager that it will cost more in terms of hassle (and I'll bet financially too) than just going with the "high" margin 30%.
Developers are *snapping Apple's (and Google's) hand off* for the 35/70 split that their respective app stores provide.
You can do it yourself, but why would you want to, unless you're someone like Amazon? We're talking about small developers here, often just one dev, or a small team etc - you're trying to paint the $99 dev fee and the 30% gross cut to take all the hassle out of it as a downside of these stores when it's really the exact opposite.
That developer fee is a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of the cost of developing an app.
That "high margin" of 30% for each sale is actually a bargain (especially if your app is cheap) to remove the burdens of hosting, delivery, payment processing etc. (especially the payment processing for small transactions).
That 30% is also exactly what Google charges for the Marketplace. But that's not "high margin" I guess, since it's for Android.