No, my point to you was that in any Apple thread, regardless of what it's really about, there's always a flurry of/. posts about how Apple doesn't innovate, only steals, about how they take concepts that Linux and OSS was doing years ago and then "claim to invent" them and call them "magical" etc, and yet here you are claiming that Apple *are* the innovators and inventors of the smartphone.
I'm not under any illusion that Apple were not the first to make a smartphone, or mp3 player, or all-in-one computer, or tablet, or online music store - it's only the rabid Apple haters who claim that's what Apple fans believe. What I tend to point out is that they are very good at popularising what was formerly a niche, or at the very least getting into a market just as it's about to go huge - something they have proved many times with many "hits" (and a few flops too, along the way).
It's just amusing to see an Apple Troll claiming that the smartphone was all Apple's innovation for once. (It wasn't of course, but I guess it's true now - you Apple Haters are so vehement about being right that it must be).
Well that's the point isn't it - despite doing the same things (apart from tighter control on the App Store, which is really the only difference), they're the same. Yet I've already seen it on this thread a few times: "this is what you get with Apple: censorship, third world slave labour and outsourcing!" in serious posts, as if every other mass market product in the world is made in the utopian ideal of well paid/well treated factory workers in local factories.
Point out the issues with globalisation and capitalism, but not from a starting position of hypocrisy ("This is why I have an Android phone").
Why? Apple is under no obligation to assist you in your "free dialogue" - they are not the government; they are within their rights to choose to carry or not carry specific products in their store and can tell you to get lost if you say things they disagree with.
In the same way that you cannot force a local shop owner to put up posters that he doesn't agree with in his own store - you can put them up, but you have no recourse if he takes them down and bans you from his store.
Whether it's a smart move on Apple's part to give the developer all this free publicity is another matter, but in terms of what they *can* do, they are well covered.
Yeah, so much censorship, deciding what to carry in a privately owned store. They're still free to promote their app in other ways, on different devices. Hell, they can even make it an HTML5 app for the iPhone. Nothing at all stopping them doing that. What they can't do is sell it/give it away in the App Store, since that's Apple's decision. Subtle, but there it is.
I take it all Android phones are made in the US, right? Not made in the same factories as iPhones? Right?
Not that it makes outsourcing any better, but assuming any Android handsets *are* made in the same factories, the workers that make them are being paid less than the ones building iPhones sitting just across from them. I'm not sure how Samsung can "take the moral high ground" on that one.
Either way, silly of Apple to pull the app - it was clearly what the developers were hoping would happen. From no name to "from the makers that got banned from the App Store...." in one easy move. Genius marketing move- one worthy of the sort of Machiavellian scheming that/. likes to accuse Apple of being the master of. How ironic.
Who says it's a justification of Apple to point out that they get singled out in this sort of thing.
1) Person A is doing bad things!
2) Well, Person B does identical things, perhaps you should criticise them too.
1) You're just trying to justify Person A's actions!
2) Err? I guess you could try and twist it that way. Am I not allowed to mention Person B's infractions at all when talking about this? Does mentioning them somehow make it look like I'm trying to give Person A a pass?
Your entire argument was "cheaper is always better" with no qualifying statements, no context (other than the parent post) and no other specifics.
It was quickly pointed out to you that this was not a solid argument, and you then tried to throw pedantry at him as an excuse for calling you out (ie, you claimed that your argument was obvious and subtle, and encompassing everything you just put into *this* reply to me - that it was all there in your three word reply.
Where was this response before? It's infinitely better than a lame ad hominem. It took longer to write, I guess, but other than that it's way ahead of cheap debate.
Yes, which is why I o back to my earlier point about it being optional. Just because they are adding things that cater to home users/less advanced users does not mean they are exclusively focusing on that.
Windows 7 has been a success for them, but they want more than just power users and people who muddle through - they want to make it accessible to more people.
It's very simple - not everyone (in fact, I'd imagine that the vast majority of computer users) are like us, which is why the "Full Screen Richness" is optional. On Lion a full screen app doesn't have to be run that way.
They have some tweaking to do (scrollbars really need their arrows back), but they have added an interface that makes the computer easier to use for dedicated tasks, and a way to easily get to them and swap between them.
You're not forced to use it that way, but the option is there because not everyone wants to be juggling multiple apps at the same time. Just because that's traditionally how computers haven been doesn't mean it has to be the only way.
I personally do not use any of the full screen app capability in Lion - I work similarly to you (and I use Hide almost exclusively to quickly flip between stacks of windows) but we are not the target demographic for that feature.
You miss his point entirely - his point was not that Apple invented those concepts by any stretch of the imagination (hell, Classic and OS X were about as *far* from fullscreen as you could be in an OS), but that they released a new version of OS X very recently with those two features as key selling points.
Very coincidental, I think?
Either way it's a bit of a no brainer - it's Apple's attempt to streamline desktop computing to make it easy enough for anyone to use and there are a lot more users who want that in a computer. It doesn't mean (on either platform) that the 'old' way is going - it mentions it right in TFA that you can go back to classic view, and you can run 'fullscreen ready' apps in OS X in the old way (which I do - I prefer the layered window approach with Command+H being my usual method of task switching).
Just like the mp3 player, the tablet, a online music store, the large-screen-multitouch smartphone, the all-in-one desktop computer, Apple didn't "invent" the App Store, but they did make it the current popular thing.
I certainly get it; it's you who seem to be attempting to furiously back pedal.
Your entire argument was an attack on the OP's intelligence and an attempt to dismiss his (accurate) argument by trying to claim that he had only just learned the word "pedantic" and thus was attempting to apply it erroneously (he wasn't).
The best you could do was call him an immature little shit; in fact all but the immature part of that descriptor appeared before any attempt at an argument (which was tissue thin at best anyway).
You can try and skirt around it all you like, but you can't really escape it. Just like with the OP, your tactic appears to be "backpedal and make out that my opponent is wrong, even in the face of clear defeat due to self-damning evidence". You're trying to claim I do not understand what an ad hominem attack is, from a losing position. Verbal abuse is not an ad hominem, but your post clearly is.
Since you seem to want to try and "put me in my place" I'll quote your post back to you and point out the important bits.
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Here you dismiss the poster's argument by questioning his understanding of the word "need" in the phrase 'Do people *need* power windows and power locks [in a car]' - that by your argument, he only has one narrow definition of and that this must be his interpretation, rather than addressing the argument itself. You didn't choose to address it by discussing the definition of "need" in this context, you went right to stating his "ignorance" and by extension, your superior argument - that you win because the OP is not smart enough to understand the argument.
This is an ad hominem, there's no getting away from it.
This thread is one of the prime reasons for the inability to delete/. comments - once you put it up there, you have to own it.
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Was your reply, verbatim, to this:
Do people *need* power windows and power locks?
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of an ad hominem. You didn't address the point, you simply tried to win your argument by calling him a pedantic shit, who only learned the meaning of the term "pedantic" very recently and thus wants to show off his new found knowledge (ie, you attacked his intelligence). Then you questioned his maturity for good measure.
At no point did you seek to address any of his post - you simply pulled out one line and then attacked his character and intelligence, and claiming pedantry for calling you out on a three word reply that you subsequently tried to claim had all the detail in it necessary of a fully fledged argument.
Yep, ad hominem.
As to your second point, I believe I addressed that - his argument was in no way dishonest. You tried to wrap up the argument with "cheaper is better" and he called you on it.
No, that's really not what you're doing; you're simply lashing out with a vulgar ad hominem attack when nothing even close to that was directed at you.
You were called on your argument with a little sarcasm, but no vulgarity or obscenity, and no "lack of respect". Your choice of reply was telling.
Ah, and now we see the real you. You got called on your poor argument and rather than man up and accept it, your response is to go for the ad hominem. It says a lot.
It's hardly pedantry to point out that you didn't qualify your original statement at all, and instead try to make it everyone else's fault that they didn't infer "what you really meant".
So there's no scrutiny of apps that go into the repo?
That makes me feel so much better. I'll think twice about using the Ubuntu software thing in the future. Thanks for the warning that it's untrustworthy.
It seems to be highly variable. I live in Nottingham, and I looked at moving about half a mile closer to the university on a large road in a house set back slightly from the roadway. The best I could get was 20Mb DSL, however in the house I've been in for some time now which is practically next door I've been running 50Mb cable (could go higher, just have 50Mb for cost reasons) - it all seems to be related to how the fibre has been laid out and the locations of some of the houses, even in fibre-equipped areas.
BT finally seems to be answering the call though, with their previous fastest speed being 20Mb over DSL, they are now pushing out their own fibre option in the wake of Virgin clearly holding the top spot and threatening to push even further ahead. With BT finally doing this, I expect a much more rapid uptake of fibre and post-20Mb speeds in the UK over the next couple of years. I was offered 100Mb from Virgin this year but turned it down since 50 is fine for us in the house at the moment for the price, and we're already more than twice as fast as anything BT (or any other ISP ) has to offer us in the area.
Even the cheapy "student bundle deal" for TV and internet (I live in a heavily student area so close to the uni) that gets pushed through the letter box from Virgin offers 30Mb as the internet speed - I'm pretty sure that's no accident.
No, but the argument is "this cheap and shitty laptop could only manage to use half of the gig connection, so therefore no one needs gig speeds for the home".
An argument that is easily destroyed by saying "ok, do you live alone? Do you have more than one person using a computer at the same time?"
It's not just servers. I share a house with 4 other people and we can all watch HD streaming video on the connection we have, just. If the bandwidth goes up a little, or people start using off-site backup more frequently I can see a market for a consumer-level gig connection. I know you can already get them in some other European countries (here in the UK, the best you can get on a consumer budget is 100Mb (soon to be 200Mb) from Virgin cable).
One shitty laptop might choke on a gig connection, but three or four computers will happily share it.
" an isolated compound in the middle of nowhere" - if by that you mean "in the middle of Cupertino, about 10 minutes from their current HQ, surrounded on all sides by the rest of the city because it's right in the middle of the city" then I guess I can see your point... possibly.
Essentially if this was in NYC, it would have been the equivalent of building it in Central Park (except that currently the location has HP's old office buildings and a giant parking lot instead of fields and trees)
They're building it in the middle of Cupertino - I'm not sure how it can be any *less* "(relatively) remote".
Ego aside, they're also turning what is tarmac and buildings into a giant park with a building in the middle (and some auxiliary buildings surrounded by trees at the edge). Sure they *could* have just moved into HP's old buildings, but why is it immediately "all about Steve;s ego" if they want to build something to their own specifications? It's not like it's costing them jobs to do it - quite the opposite - it's creating jobs outside of Apple, albeit for the time it takes to build.
Apple (in fact, Steve Jobs, in his pitch to the Cupertino city council meeting) mentioned very specifically an increase in the number of busses it already promotes for its current HQ. They want to subsidise many more public busses for commuting.
I'm not sure how having 12,000 (with some obviously using cars) people in one place "precludes the concentration of population that makes public transportation feasible". A work place pretty much assures a steady stream of people who want to go to and from the same place on a daily basis.
Perhaps that professor believes that public transport only works if all of the buildings are jammed up against each other for maximum efficiency of office space per unit worker.
Maybe she thinks downtown busses are not capable of crossing over land that is flanked by green areas to get to Apple's building. Who knows.
That was exactly the point - they wanted to pay the rate that everyone else did, but Nokia was asking for too much, effectively charging Apple more than it should by asking for things Apple valued as "key" technologies that it placed at high value.
Whether Apple or Nokia (or somewhere between) is in the right in terms of the value of those patents is what the lawsuit is for.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my point to you was that in any Apple thread, regardless of what it's really about, there's always a flurry of /. posts about how Apple doesn't innovate, only steals, about how they take concepts that Linux and OSS was doing years ago and then "claim to invent" them and call them "magical" etc, and yet here you are claiming that Apple *are* the innovators and inventors of the smartphone.
I'm not under any illusion that Apple were not the first to make a smartphone, or mp3 player, or all-in-one computer, or tablet, or online music store - it's only the rabid Apple haters who claim that's what Apple fans believe. What I tend to point out is that they are very good at popularising what was formerly a niche, or at the very least getting into a market just as it's about to go huge - something they have proved many times with many "hits" (and a few flops too, along the way).
It's just amusing to see an Apple Troll claiming that the smartphone was all Apple's innovation for once. (It wasn't of course, but I guess it's true now - you Apple Haters are so vehement about being right that it must be).
Well that's the point isn't it - despite doing the same things (apart from tighter control on the App Store, which is really the only difference), they're the same. Yet I've already seen it on this thread a few times: "this is what you get with Apple: censorship, third world slave labour and outsourcing!" in serious posts, as if every other mass market product in the world is made in the utopian ideal of well paid/well treated factory workers in local factories.
Point out the issues with globalisation and capitalism, but not from a starting position of hypocrisy ("This is why I have an Android phone").
Why? Apple is under no obligation to assist you in your "free dialogue" - they are not the government; they are within their rights to choose to carry or not carry specific products in their store and can tell you to get lost if you say things they disagree with.
In the same way that you cannot force a local shop owner to put up posters that he doesn't agree with in his own store - you can put them up, but you have no recourse if he takes them down and bans you from his store.
Whether it's a smart move on Apple's part to give the developer all this free publicity is another matter, but in terms of what they *can* do, they are well covered.
Yeah, so much censorship, deciding what to carry in a privately owned store. They're still free to promote their app in other ways, on different devices. Hell, they can even make it an HTML5 app for the iPhone. Nothing at all stopping them doing that. What they can't do is sell it/give it away in the App Store, since that's Apple's decision. Subtle, but there it is.
I take it all Android phones are made in the US, right? Not made in the same factories as iPhones? Right?
Not that it makes outsourcing any better, but assuming any Android handsets *are* made in the same factories, the workers that make them are being paid less than the ones building iPhones sitting just across from them. I'm not sure how Samsung can "take the moral high ground" on that one.
Either way, silly of Apple to pull the app - it was clearly what the developers were hoping would happen. From no name to "from the makers that got banned from the App Store...." in one easy move. Genius marketing move- one worthy of the sort of Machiavellian scheming that /. likes to accuse Apple of being the master of. How ironic.
Hey, it's better than "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" and that cost $30 million dollars to make.
There's clearly a market for fart apps if someone read the script for that film and signed a cheque for that much.
Yeah, much easier when you don't have any apps to worry about!
Well, apart from the ones that send SMS messages to the wrong people. I wish I could get that one on iPhone.
So wait *now* they are the innovators and inventors of the smartphone?
Ok.
You heard it here first: slashdot admits Apple invented the smartphone and put in all the innovation. No backsies.
Who says it's a justification of Apple to point out that they get singled out in this sort of thing.
1) Person A is doing bad things!
2) Well, Person B does identical things, perhaps you should criticise them too.
1) You're just trying to justify Person A's actions!
2) Err? I guess you could try and twist it that way. Am I not allowed to mention Person B's infractions at all when talking about this? Does mentioning them somehow make it look like I'm trying to give Person A a pass?
1) Whatever fanboi!
No, you response to the original poster. You last reply to me would have been a much better response than the one you used!
Your entire argument was "cheaper is always better" with no qualifying statements, no context (other than the parent post) and no other specifics.
It was quickly pointed out to you that this was not a solid argument, and you then tried to throw pedantry at him as an excuse for calling you out (ie, you claimed that your argument was obvious and subtle, and encompassing everything you just put into *this* reply to me - that it was all there in your three word reply.
Where was this response before? It's infinitely better than a lame ad hominem. It took longer to write, I guess, but other than that it's way ahead of cheap debate.
Yes, which is why I o back to my earlier point about it being optional. Just because they are adding things that cater to home users/less advanced users does not mean they are exclusively focusing on that.
Windows 7 has been a success for them, but they want more than just power users and people who muddle through - they want to make it accessible to more people.
It's very simple - not everyone (in fact, I'd imagine that the vast majority of computer users) are like us, which is why the "Full Screen Richness" is optional. On Lion a full screen app doesn't have to be run that way.
They have some tweaking to do (scrollbars really need their arrows back), but they have added an interface that makes the computer easier to use for dedicated tasks, and a way to easily get to them and swap between them.
You're not forced to use it that way, but the option is there because not everyone wants to be juggling multiple apps at the same time. Just because that's traditionally how computers haven been doesn't mean it has to be the only way.
I personally do not use any of the full screen app capability in Lion - I work similarly to you (and I use Hide almost exclusively to quickly flip between stacks of windows) but we are not the target demographic for that feature.
You miss his point entirely - his point was not that Apple invented those concepts by any stretch of the imagination (hell, Classic and OS X were about as *far* from fullscreen as you could be in an OS), but that they released a new version of OS X very recently with those two features as key selling points.
Very coincidental, I think?
Either way it's a bit of a no brainer - it's Apple's attempt to streamline desktop computing to make it easy enough for anyone to use and there are a lot more users who want that in a computer. It doesn't mean (on either platform) that the 'old' way is going - it mentions it right in TFA that you can go back to classic view, and you can run 'fullscreen ready' apps in OS X in the old way (which I do - I prefer the layered window approach with Command+H being my usual method of task switching).
Just like the mp3 player, the tablet, a online music store, the large-screen-multitouch smartphone, the all-in-one desktop computer, Apple didn't "invent" the App Store, but they did make it the current popular thing.
I certainly get it; it's you who seem to be attempting to furiously back pedal.
Your entire argument was an attack on the OP's intelligence and an attempt to dismiss his (accurate) argument by trying to claim that he had only just learned the word "pedantic" and thus was attempting to apply it erroneously (he wasn't).
The best you could do was call him an immature little shit; in fact all but the immature part of that descriptor appeared before any attempt at an argument (which was tissue thin at best anyway).
You can try and skirt around it all you like, but you can't really escape it. Just like with the OP, your tactic appears to be "backpedal and make out that my opponent is wrong, even in the face of clear defeat due to self-damning evidence". You're trying to claim I do not understand what an ad hominem attack is, from a losing position. Verbal abuse is not an ad hominem, but your post clearly is.
Since you seem to want to try and "put me in my place" I'll quote your post back to you and point out the important bits.
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Here you dismiss the poster's argument by questioning his understanding of the word "need" in the phrase 'Do people *need* power windows and power locks [in a car]' - that by your argument, he only has one narrow definition of and that this must be his interpretation, rather than addressing the argument itself.
You didn't choose to address it by discussing the definition of "need" in this context, you went right to stating his "ignorance" and by extension, your superior argument - that you win because the OP is not smart enough to understand the argument.
This is an ad hominem, there's no getting away from it.
This thread is one of the prime reasons for the inability to delete /. comments - once you put it up there, you have to own it.
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Was your reply, verbatim, to this:
Do people *need* power windows and power locks?
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of an ad hominem. You didn't address the point, you simply tried to win your argument by calling him a pedantic shit, who only learned the meaning of the term "pedantic" very recently and thus wants to show off his new found knowledge (ie, you attacked his intelligence). Then you questioned his maturity for good measure.
At no point did you seek to address any of his post - you simply pulled out one line and then attacked his character and intelligence, and claiming pedantry for calling you out on a three word reply that you subsequently tried to claim had all the detail in it necessary of a fully fledged argument.
Yep, ad hominem.
As to your second point, I believe I addressed that - his argument was in no way dishonest. You tried to wrap up the argument with "cheaper is better" and he called you on it.
No, that's really not what you're doing; you're simply lashing out with a vulgar ad hominem attack when nothing even close to that was directed at you.
You were called on your argument with a little sarcasm, but no vulgarity or obscenity, and no "lack of respect". Your choice of reply was telling.
Ah, and now we see the real you. You got called on your poor argument and rather than man up and accept it, your response is to go for the ad hominem. It says a lot.
It's hardly pedantry to point out that you didn't qualify your original statement at all, and instead try to make it everyone else's fault that they didn't infer "what you really meant".
If you're going to debate, own your statements.
So there's no scrutiny of apps that go into the repo?
That makes me feel so much better. I'll think twice about using the Ubuntu software thing in the future. Thanks for the warning that it's untrustworthy.
It seems to be highly variable. I live in Nottingham, and I looked at moving about half a mile closer to the university on a large road in a house set back slightly from the roadway. The best I could get was 20Mb DSL, however in the house I've been in for some time now which is practically next door I've been running 50Mb cable (could go higher, just have 50Mb for cost reasons) - it all seems to be related to how the fibre has been laid out and the locations of some of the houses, even in fibre-equipped areas.
BT finally seems to be answering the call though, with their previous fastest speed being 20Mb over DSL, they are now pushing out their own fibre option in the wake of Virgin clearly holding the top spot and threatening to push even further ahead. With BT finally doing this, I expect a much more rapid uptake of fibre and post-20Mb speeds in the UK over the next couple of years. I was offered 100Mb from Virgin this year but turned it down since 50 is fine for us in the house at the moment for the price, and we're already more than twice as fast as anything BT (or any other ISP ) has to offer us in the area.
Even the cheapy "student bundle deal" for TV and internet (I live in a heavily student area so close to the uni) that gets pushed through the letter box from Virgin offers 30Mb as the internet speed - I'm pretty sure that's no accident.
No, but the argument is "this cheap and shitty laptop could only manage to use half of the gig connection, so therefore no one needs gig speeds for the home".
An argument that is easily destroyed by saying "ok, do you live alone? Do you have more than one person using a computer at the same time?"
It's not just servers. I share a house with 4 other people and we can all watch HD streaming video on the connection we have, just. If the bandwidth goes up a little, or people start using off-site backup more frequently I can see a market for a consumer-level gig connection. I know you can already get them in some other European countries (here in the UK, the best you can get on a consumer budget is 100Mb (soon to be 200Mb) from Virgin cable).
One shitty laptop might choke on a gig connection, but three or four computers will happily share it.
" an isolated compound in the middle of nowhere" - if by that you mean "in the middle of Cupertino, about 10 minutes from their current HQ, surrounded on all sides by the rest of the city because it's right in the middle of the city" then I guess I can see your point... possibly.
Essentially if this was in NYC, it would have been the equivalent of building it in Central Park (except that currently the location has HP's old office buildings and a giant parking lot instead of fields and trees)
They're building it in the middle of Cupertino - I'm not sure how it can be any *less* "(relatively) remote".
Ego aside, they're also turning what is tarmac and buildings into a giant park with a building in the middle (and some auxiliary buildings surrounded by trees at the edge). Sure they *could* have just moved into HP's old buildings, but why is it immediately "all about Steve;s ego" if they want to build something to their own specifications? It's not like it's costing them jobs to do it - quite the opposite - it's creating jobs outside of Apple, albeit for the time it takes to build.
Apple (in fact, Steve Jobs, in his pitch to the Cupertino city council meeting) mentioned very specifically an increase in the number of busses it already promotes for its current HQ. They want to subsidise many more public busses for commuting.
I'm not sure how having 12,000 (with some obviously using cars) people in one place "precludes the concentration of population that makes public transportation feasible". A work place pretty much assures a steady stream of people who want to go to and from the same place on a daily basis.
Perhaps that professor believes that public transport only works if all of the buildings are jammed up against each other for maximum efficiency of office space per unit worker.
Maybe she thinks downtown busses are not capable of crossing over land that is flanked by green areas to get to Apple's building. Who knows.
That was exactly the point - they wanted to pay the rate that everyone else did, but Nokia was asking for too much, effectively charging Apple more than it should by asking for things Apple valued as "key" technologies that it placed at high value.
Whether Apple or Nokia (or somewhere between) is in the right in terms of the value of those patents is what the lawsuit is for.
"Hidden" because it's not listed in the Utilities folder.
So, about as hidden as putting something in a room and closing the door. Oh look, it's hidden!
This really isn't really front page news. It's a nice tidbit for a hints site, but it's not trail blazing news.