1$ for every little app doesn't really bother me about the iphone. What bothers me is the proprietary cable (30$oem), proprietary airplay, airprint, all that... I like the phone, but I agree they are falling behind. Next phone I get is not likely to be apple. Walled garden is a double-edged sword, and now the pastures seem greener on the other side..
If you're going to base your "bothering" on something, at least make sure you're bothered by facts. The iOS device cable, both new style and old 30 poj style, costs $19 from Apple, not 30, and you can pick up many third party versions of the old style one.
Hyperbole serves no one. Hate with frothing rage for having a proprietary connector all you want, just do it honestly.
a couple of bucks here and there for apps is peanuts.
Ah, another Apple user happy to be nickel and dimed for everything.
I know, paying for things that people make might be alien to you. For the rest of us, we realise that money can be exchanged for goods and/or services. I'm happy to support developers, especially at the low prices they charge for typical mobile applications.
I get value from a product that I pay money for, the developer gets paid. Of course I'm happy about that. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
You'll notice how careful he was not to say "Android-style notification system", which would have made it much more clear.
I was?
I thought it was obvious that it was a feature borrowed directly from Android, given that the whole comment was about what I wish the iPhone had that Android has, and given that the Android notification centre has that feature, I logically assumed that the iOS version would have too.
You're looking for conspiracy and coverup where none exists. Don't be so jumpy. It gets tiresome to have to put disclaimers everywhere. My comment features this direct quote:
...what I want the iPhone to do that Android does...
I'm not sure how that's being "careful not to mention" that it's an Android feature. I mentioned Android by name specifically and directly compared it to iOS, noting that the feature is missing from iOS.
Sorry, next time I'll add "I wish iOS had this feature that Android totally has in Android, and totally isn't in iOS but when they announce it for iOS I'll totally mention that it's originally from Android every time I mention it otherwise people will think I'm trying to hide the fact that it's totally from Android".
my friends pay money for every little thing I download for free with my android phone. sucks to be them
I know, paying developers for their time! What fools they are! In the grand scheme of things (given the cost of the phone and the plan), a couple of bucks here and there for apps is peanuts.
In all seriousness, what I want the iPhone to do that Android does is be able to control the hardware from a quick access screen - ie, turn the wifi or bluetooth on and off quickly without having to use the main settings app. When Apple announced they were bringing the swipe-down-from-top notification centre thing to iOS I really hoped that the ability to add those sorts of things to it would be there, but it seems not.
That's the tip of Apple's cock about to thrust into your anus. But it's there to stop Larry Ellison from stealing your appendix and wearing it as a hat. They're doing you a favor. For more protection you'll need to take the whole shaft, then get your children to suck Apple's balls while it's thrusting deep into your lower intestine. But Apple's not going to pull out. Ever. They're like the Ron Jeremy of computing. Forever fucking you.
Did you post the same thing when Firefox started blocking Java on the same day?
You also forgot to log in! Be more careful next time when clicking submit.
*Apple* fails to disable Java so Macs are vulnerable?
So Oracle is not responsible for Java making Macs vulnerable??? It's Apple's fault???
Huh???
That's exactly what happened when Apple decided to stop shipping a Java VM by default with OS X, instead falling back to the position that every other OS uses - that if you need it, you get it from Oracle. That didn't stop slashdot frothing about how Apple was "killing Java" and "taking it away from Mac users" when it was really the opposite - shipping and updating their own version meant that the Mac version was always behind the current release, especially with bug fixes. Leaving it to Oracle meant it was better for everyone.
Just look at the way the driveby jailbreaking exploit was reported. It wasn't "Apple fixes exploit that allows remote root access on iOS" it was "Apple closes hole that allows people to Jailbreak" while simultaneously hammering Apple for relying on security through obscurity in their products.
I dont actually use a mac, for this very reason so no I did not know I could disable it. how many other mac users know they can disable apple watching their PCs without them knowing about it? how many of them even know apple is monitoring their PCs?? I am not a fan of regulation but one where companies who sell electronic devices must have these types of things opt in rather than opt out would be a great first step.
Haha, hilarious!
"I don't use a mac for the reason that I believe it does something that it doesn't actually do".
The summary is flamebait of the highest order. Don't believe everything you read about Apple that is posted on slashdot, especially in the headlines and summaries of posted articles. Usually the truth is somewhat different.
And made Microsoft nice stack of money in the process.
Sort of. If they'd kept the non-voting shares and sold later they'd have made billions. As it was, they sold much earlier than that and got much less. Not that they were treating it as an investment in the first place.
It's ironic — when Bill Gates agreed to port Office to the Mac nearly 20 years ago, it was seen as a lifeline for the beleaguered manufacturer. Now, Microsoft is knocking on the door of Apple's business and Cupertino seems disinclined to answer.
This conclusion absolutely does not follow from the sentence that came before it.
It's also false. Office was a Mac application before it was a Windows one. If anything it was ported to Windows.
Use of 'neckbeard' : -1 retarded All pervading sense of smug superiority: -1 puke-making Projection of own faults onto others: -1 typical
Yep, it's another iSheep bleating away.
Pssst, you forgot to log in!
How embarrassing for you! Did I touch a nerve by being too close to the truth? Razors aren't that expensive, you know.
I see you didn't attempt to actually refute the argument, merely decided to snipe anonymously from the sidelines. Good job! You're giving your argument real weight!
why the hell is this on slashdot? Seriously - I love apple products but this is ridiculous.
A:) It was inevitable that Apple would bring out a 128GB product B:) I fully believe Ipads are eating into ultrabooks, surfaces and general notebook sales - but capacity is not why! Convenience is why.
Ultrabooks and notebooks still have their uses and are NOT comparable to Ipads. The only thing people have been questioning is if their usage really requires the limitations (size) of ultrabooks.
The surface and Surface Pro will likely fail on their own merits, just like the XP tablets from before.
Redundant article is redundant.
It's on slashdot for the same reason that "Firefox releases n+1 version!!" - the articles that appear on slashdot are based on submissions by its users into a queue. If you want to see more interesting stuff come up then you should either vote in the firehose or submit stories of your own.
Given how ignorant of the specs most bashers on slashdot seem to be (witness in this very article's comment threads the "fact" that iPads can't connect to cameras and don't have access to physical keyboards), then I think that slashdot headlines are the only knowledge about Apple products that the typical slashdot user gets. They'd be lost without them!
In short, Apple is a big player in the technology world and just released an upgraded version of one of the best selling electronic devices it has ever made and you expect slashdot *not* to cover that? I guess there's not much room on the board due to all those announcements about Firefox n+1 or XBMC n+1.
iPads do connect to digital cameras, USB cards, printers, scanners, keyboards etc.
Out of interest, what mid range consumer camera is that, bought in the mid 2000's, that has more than 64 GB of storage and crucially what is the storage medium?
Apple users face a wall of neckbeard rage for Apple daring to become successful and daring to make products they they don't want to use. I think more tellingly, which explains the extreme levels of bitterness on display and the level of irrational vehemence and rage directed at people they have never met and have no personal interaction with, Apple has demystified the computer and smartphone/tablet so that the nerds are no longer the only people who can use them. They're not special any more.
I know a lot of Apple users, and none of them spend time foaming and frothing about how anyone who uses a non-Apple product is literally functionally retarded, or brainwashed. They just own a product that works for them, and will offer opinions on it if asked (or they'll defend their product choice if attacked by raging neckbeards). Sure, there are going to be a few who will crow about their supposed superiority, but the signal to noise on that is very small. On the other hand, you can't have a single Apple story on slashdot or other technology sites without a horde of Apple-bashing zealots coming out of the woodwork to call anyone who uses an Apple product a brainless retard who is clearly an inferior person due to their choice of computer or smartphone.
OK, let me spell out exactly what I meant since everyone missed the point.
No matter what Apple does they are going to be criticized here.
Was it really that difficult?
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of you furiously back-pedalling trying to make your argument fit now that you realise it doesn't match reality because you blew your wad without reading the article first.
Why are you commenting? This has nothing to do with the UK.
Maybe you social media marketing shills should read the headlines more carefully.
Because the OP I was replying to... wait, I'll just quote him, it's easier:
As someone who owned a iPhone locked to the O2 to service in the UK, and had to *jailbreak it* to use on an alternative network, what do you think they are going lock the phones down with a padlock.
I am sorry if your favourite mega-corporation treats its customers like cattle
I was replying to him that I also have a phone on O2 and that I didn't need to jailbreak to unlock it, as he claimed. I was just putting right a factually incorrect statement by an Apple basher. Apparently this is not wanted on slashdot. I mean, if you're happy to live in an ignorant echo chamber then so be it. I just figured people would actually want to hear true things.
The link shows in that case they jailbroke the phone to unlock it (not always the case as there have been unlocks that did not require jailbreaking, or your carrier may just unlock it also).
But it also shows that the original point - jailbreaking has nothing to do with unlocking - is correct. Jailbreaking is a totally different thing and not covered by this edict; in fact jailbreaking has been explicitly declared legal.
So can you please stop digging the hole?
The insanity that comes with protecting a mega corporation is sometimes frightening especially when Apple are not coming out and protecting *their* users, in fact they tried the very same behaviour only a year ago...and were only stopped by EFF.
The sad fact is waffle aside I personally needed to *jailbreak* a phone, to enable functionality I wanted. You can't change that empirical fact that's just weird. Apple implicated the restrictions not the carrier:)
I'm not "protecting a mega corporation" I'm "correcting lies posted on the internet by a troll".
While the side effect looks like I'm protecting the mega corporation, it's really more of a side benefit.
I'm sorry you were late to the smartphone race, in *context* of this article Apple used to have carrier exclusive deals these were preserved through software locks on the phone. You should check your facts before attacking other people. Its against the law here;)
Late to the party? The phone I had unlocked was an iPhone 3G 8 GB. I phoned O2 and said "can you unlock my phone please" and they said "ok". About half an hour after that I got a text that told me my phone was unlocked and to just resync it with iTunes. Job done. I had it done on a 3GS too. Neither have ever been jailbroken.
Sorry, what was your point again? Oh right, Apple bashing at any cost.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
As someone who owned a iPhone locked to the O2 to service in the UK, and had to *jailbreak it* to use on an alternative network, what do you think they are going lock the phones down with a padlock.
I am sorry if your favourite mega-corporation treats its customers like cattle
You did? How odd. I also own an iPhone on the O2 network in the UK and didn't have to jailbreak it to unlock it.
Could this be why the general public doesn't trust science and instead rely on ancient mystical texts to make sense of the world they live in? Maybe a push to show the "hoi poloi" are perfectly capable of replicating the results researchers have observed would advance the cause of science?
Not really. Also, it wouldn't matter - being a skilled synthetic chemist is a lot more than simply following the instructions, no matter how well they are written out.
Perhaps you could make it easy enough for an undergrad with some reasonable lab experience to do it, but the problem with public perception of science is not optimistic yield reports and poor experimental write up in research papers.
Watching scientists work should be like hearing one guy say, "Hey, check this out!" and another guy saying, "wow, that's cool, I can't get it." and another saying, "oh, you need to do it like this!"
If someone can't say, "that doesn't work like you said it did," then scientific progress is going to be hampered.
It's how it works though. Usually it's "hey look at this, and this happens because of x reason" and you come back with "I don't think that works the way you think because of y systematic error or z error in your technique". I've personally done this before with published papers, and it doesn't necessarily invalidate them so much as add more information to the table.
And finally, each of us has an "ontology" (ie - a representation of knowledge) which is used to convey information. If I tell you a recipe, I'm actually calling out bits of your ontology by name: add 3 cups of flour, mix, bake at 400 degrees, &c.
This assumes that your ontology is the same as mine, or similar enough that the differences are not relevant. If I say "mix", I assume that your mental image of "mix" is the same as mine....but people screw up recipes, don't understand assembly instructions, and are confused by small nuanced differences in documentation.
Does this happen in chemistry?
It absolutely happens - chemistry is like cooking in that respect. Especially some of the trickier synthetic chemistry where your technique really matters. Chemists of different skill levels are going to get vastly different results from following the same prep.
What these guys are doing is no different to what grad students do all the time - papers are a great source of preps for compounds that you want to use as building blocks for other things you want to do if your starting materials are either not readily available from a supplier or they're absurdly expensive. The only difference is that they're walking through this process and publicly giving their impressions rather than simply noting down the modifications you needed to make to get it to work in your lab book for the next time you need it.
Could as well say "Bloggers do what tens of thousands of grad students do every day."
That's about the face of it. The only difference is that they're blogging their progress rather than simply trying to get an intermediate step to work because you wanted to make something that is on the route to what you're really studying and you just want a decent prep for it.
I think the general rule of thumb is "subtract at least 15% from the expected yield and assume at least one crucial step has been inadequately documented" and "ignore esoteric and exotic purification method and just recrystalise it".
Slashdot Mirror
1$ for every little app doesn't really bother me about the iphone. What bothers me is the proprietary cable (30$oem), proprietary airplay, airprint, all that... I like the phone, but I agree they are falling behind. Next phone I get is not likely to be apple. Walled garden is a double-edged sword, and now the pastures seem greener on the other side..
If you're going to base your "bothering" on something, at least make sure you're bothered by facts. The iOS device cable, both new style and old 30 poj style, costs $19 from Apple, not 30, and you can pick up many third party versions of the old style one.
Hyperbole serves no one. Hate with frothing rage for having a proprietary connector all you want, just do it honestly.
a couple of bucks here and there for apps is peanuts.
Ah, another Apple user happy to be nickel and dimed for everything.
I know, paying for things that people make might be alien to you. For the rest of us, we realise that money can be exchanged for goods and/or services. I'm happy to support developers, especially at the low prices they charge for typical mobile applications.
I get value from a product that I pay money for, the developer gets paid. Of course I'm happy about that. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
You'll notice how careful he was not to say "Android-style notification system", which would have made it much more clear.
I was?
I thought it was obvious that it was a feature borrowed directly from Android, given that the whole comment was about what I wish the iPhone had that Android has, and given that the Android notification centre has that feature, I logically assumed that the iOS version would have too.
You're looking for conspiracy and coverup where none exists. Don't be so jumpy. It gets tiresome to have to put disclaimers everywhere. My comment features this direct quote:
...what I want the iPhone to do that Android does...
I'm not sure how that's being "careful not to mention" that it's an Android feature. I mentioned Android by name specifically and directly compared it to iOS, noting that the feature is missing from iOS.
Sorry, next time I'll add "I wish iOS had this feature that Android totally has in Android, and totally isn't in iOS but when they announce it for iOS I'll totally mention that it's originally from Android every time I mention it otherwise people will think I'm trying to hide the fact that it's totally from Android".
Better?
my friends pay money for every little thing I download for free with my android phone. sucks to be them
I know, paying developers for their time! What fools they are! In the grand scheme of things (given the cost of the phone and the plan), a couple of bucks here and there for apps is peanuts.
In all seriousness, what I want the iPhone to do that Android does is be able to control the hardware from a quick access screen - ie, turn the wifi or bluetooth on and off quickly without having to use the main settings app. When Apple announced they were bringing the swipe-down-from-top notification centre thing to iOS I really hoped that the ability to add those sorts of things to it would be there, but it seems not.
Other than that, I'm happy with it.
Ah yes, the 500 million is a waste, but the 20 to 40 *billion* given to oil companies is money well spent. Mhmm.
They should swap those figures around, then maybe we'd start seeing much increased benefits from renewable resources.
That's the tip of Apple's cock about to thrust into your anus. But it's there to stop Larry Ellison from stealing your appendix and wearing it as a hat. They're doing you a favor. For more protection you'll need to take the whole shaft, then get your children to suck Apple's balls while it's thrusting deep into your lower intestine. But Apple's not going to pull out. Ever. They're like the Ron Jeremy of computing. Forever fucking you.
Did you post the same thing when Firefox started blocking Java on the same day?
You also forgot to log in! Be more careful next time when clicking submit.
*Apple* fails to disable Java so Macs are vulnerable?
So Oracle is not responsible for Java making Macs vulnerable??? It's Apple's fault???
Huh???
That's exactly what happened when Apple decided to stop shipping a Java VM by default with OS X, instead falling back to the position that every other OS uses - that if you need it, you get it from Oracle. That didn't stop slashdot frothing about how Apple was "killing Java" and "taking it away from Mac users" when it was really the opposite - shipping and updating their own version meant that the Mac version was always behind the current release, especially with bug fixes. Leaving it to Oracle meant it was better for everyone.
Just look at the way the driveby jailbreaking exploit was reported. It wasn't "Apple fixes exploit that allows remote root access on iOS" it was "Apple closes hole that allows people to Jailbreak" while simultaneously hammering Apple for relying on security through obscurity in their products.
I dont actually use a mac, for this very reason so no I did not know I could disable it. how many other mac users know they can disable apple watching their PCs without them knowing about it? how many of them even know apple is monitoring their PCs?? I am not a fan of regulation but one where companies who sell electronic devices must have these types of things opt in rather than opt out would be a great first step.
Haha, hilarious!
"I don't use a mac for the reason that I believe it does something that it doesn't actually do".
The summary is flamebait of the highest order. Don't believe everything you read about Apple that is posted on slashdot, especially in the headlines and summaries of posted articles. Usually the truth is somewhat different.
No, you are the IT equivalent of the cast of Glee.
Young, geeky, bullied by retards who hate them for liking something that the retards don't like? ;)
And made Microsoft nice stack of money in the process.
Sort of. If they'd kept the non-voting shares and sold later they'd have made billions. As it was, they sold much earlier than that and got much less. Not that they were treating it as an investment in the first place.
It's ironic — when Bill Gates agreed to port Office to the Mac nearly 20 years ago, it was seen as a lifeline for the beleaguered manufacturer. Now, Microsoft is knocking on the door of Apple's business and Cupertino seems disinclined to answer.
This conclusion absolutely does not follow from the sentence that came before it.
It's also false. Office was a Mac application before it was a Windows one. If anything it was ported to Windows.
Use of 'neckbeard' : -1 retarded
All pervading sense of smug superiority: -1 puke-making
Projection of own faults onto others: -1 typical
Yep, it's another iSheep bleating away.
Pssst, you forgot to log in!
How embarrassing for you! Did I touch a nerve by being too close to the truth? Razors aren't that expensive, you know.
I see you didn't attempt to actually refute the argument, merely decided to snipe anonymously from the sidelines. Good job! You're giving your argument real weight!
why the hell is this on slashdot? Seriously - I love apple products but this is ridiculous.
A:) It was inevitable that Apple would bring out a 128GB product
B:) I fully believe Ipads are eating into ultrabooks, surfaces and general notebook sales - but capacity is not why! Convenience is why.
Ultrabooks and notebooks still have their uses and are NOT comparable to Ipads. The only thing people have been questioning is if their usage really requires the limitations (size) of ultrabooks.
The surface and Surface Pro will likely fail on their own merits, just like the XP tablets from before.
Redundant article is redundant.
It's on slashdot for the same reason that "Firefox releases n+1 version!!" - the articles that appear on slashdot are based on submissions by its users into a queue. If you want to see more interesting stuff come up then you should either vote in the firehose or submit stories of your own.
Given how ignorant of the specs most bashers on slashdot seem to be (witness in this very article's comment threads the "fact" that iPads can't connect to cameras and don't have access to physical keyboards), then I think that slashdot headlines are the only knowledge about Apple products that the typical slashdot user gets. They'd be lost without them!
In short, Apple is a big player in the technology world and just released an upgraded version of one of the best selling electronic devices it has ever made and you expect slashdot *not* to cover that? I guess there's not much room on the board due to all those announcements about Firefox n+1 or XBMC n+1.
What is this? 1998?
iPads do connect to digital cameras, USB cards, printers, scanners, keyboards etc.
Out of interest, what mid range consumer camera is that, bought in the mid 2000's, that has more than 64 GB of storage and crucially what is the storage medium?
>5) I've yet to hear sneering from an Ultrabook owner directed at someone who doesn't have one
ahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
You think it's the *Apple fans* who are the elitist, sneering, hate-people-for-using-different-stuff-to-them types?
What planet are you living on?
For a typical anti-Apple bash, just scroll up in this thread, or click this:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3417259&cid=42729875
Apple users face a wall of neckbeard rage for Apple daring to become successful and daring to make products they they don't want to use. I think more tellingly, which explains the extreme levels of bitterness on display and the level of irrational vehemence and rage directed at people they have never met and have no personal interaction with, Apple has demystified the computer and smartphone/tablet so that the nerds are no longer the only people who can use them. They're not special any more.
I know a lot of Apple users, and none of them spend time foaming and frothing about how anyone who uses a non-Apple product is literally functionally retarded, or brainwashed. They just own a product that works for them, and will offer opinions on it if asked (or they'll defend their product choice if attacked by raging neckbeards). Sure, there are going to be a few who will crow about their supposed superiority, but the signal to noise on that is very small. On the other hand, you can't have a single Apple story on slashdot or other technology sites without a horde of Apple-bashing zealots coming out of the woodwork to call anyone who uses an Apple product a brainless retard who is clearly an inferior person due to their choice of computer or smartphone.
Such is life.
OK, let me spell out exactly what I meant since everyone missed the point.
No matter what Apple does they are going to be criticized here.
Was it really that difficult?
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of you furiously back-pedalling trying to make your argument fit now that you realise it doesn't match reality because you blew your wad without reading the article first.
Why are you commenting? This has nothing to do with the UK.
Maybe you social media marketing shills should read the headlines more carefully.
Because the OP I was replying to... wait, I'll just quote him, it's easier:
As someone who owned a iPhone locked to the O2 to service in the UK, and had to *jailbreak it* to use on an alternative network, what do you think they are going lock the phones down with a padlock.
I am sorry if your favourite mega-corporation treats its customers like cattle
I was replying to him that I also have a phone on O2 and that I didn't need to jailbreak to unlock it, as he claimed. I was just putting right a factually incorrect statement by an Apple basher. Apparently this is not wanted on slashdot. I mean, if you're happy to live in an ignorant echo chamber then so be it. I just figured people would actually want to hear true things.
The link shows in that case they jailbroke the phone to unlock it (not always the case as there have been unlocks that did not require jailbreaking, or your carrier may just unlock it also).
But it also shows that the original point - jailbreaking has nothing to do with unlocking - is correct. Jailbreaking is a totally different thing and not covered by this edict; in fact jailbreaking has been explicitly declared legal.
So can you please stop digging the hole?
The insanity that comes with protecting a mega corporation is sometimes frightening especially when Apple are not coming out and protecting *their* users, in fact they tried the very same behaviour only a year ago...and were only stopped by EFF.
The sad fact is waffle aside I personally needed to *jailbreak* a phone, to enable functionality I wanted. You can't change that empirical fact that's just weird. Apple implicated the restrictions not the carrier :)
I'm not "protecting a mega corporation" I'm "correcting lies posted on the internet by a troll".
While the side effect looks like I'm protecting the mega corporation, it's really more of a side benefit.
You did? How odd. I also own an iPhone on the O2 network in the UK and didn't have to jailbreak it to unlock it.
Anything else you want to lie about?
http://www.smartphonetracker.co.uk/apple-iphone/iphone-3G/iphone3g-guides/298079/how_to_jailbreak_and_unlock_an_iphone_3g.html
I'm sorry you were late to the smartphone race, in *context* of this article Apple used to have carrier exclusive deals these were preserved through software locks on the phone. You should check your facts before attacking other people. Its against the law here ;)
Late to the party? The phone I had unlocked was an iPhone 3G 8 GB. I phoned O2 and said "can you unlock my phone please" and they said "ok". About half an hour after that I got a text that told me my phone was unlocked and to just resync it with iTunes. Job done. I had it done on a 3GS too. Neither have ever been jailbroken.
Sorry, what was your point again? Oh right, Apple bashing at any cost.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
As someone who owned a iPhone locked to the O2 to service in the UK, and had to *jailbreak it* to use on an alternative network, what do you think they are going lock the phones down with a padlock.
I am sorry if your favourite mega-corporation treats its customers like cattle
You did? How odd. I also own an iPhone on the O2 network in the UK and didn't have to jailbreak it to unlock it.
Anything else you want to lie about?
This has nothing, zero, nada, nil, to do with jailbreaking.
It refers to the sim unlock that enables you to use the phone on a carrier other than the one who sold you the phone (eg, AT&T).
Again, nothing to do with jailbreaking in the slightest.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
Could this be why the general public doesn't trust science and instead rely on ancient mystical texts to make sense of the world they live in? Maybe a push to show the "hoi poloi" are perfectly capable of replicating the results researchers have observed would advance the cause of science?
Not really. Also, it wouldn't matter - being a skilled synthetic chemist is a lot more than simply following the instructions, no matter how well they are written out.
Perhaps you could make it easy enough for an undergrad with some reasonable lab experience to do it, but the problem with public perception of science is not optimistic yield reports and poor experimental write up in research papers.
That doesn't sound like a very good system.
Watching scientists work should be like hearing one guy say, "Hey, check this out!" and another guy saying, "wow, that's cool, I can't get it." and another saying, "oh, you need to do it like this!"
If someone can't say, "that doesn't work like you said it did," then scientific progress is going to be hampered.
It's how it works though. Usually it's "hey look at this, and this happens because of x reason" and you come back with "I don't think that works the way you think because of y systematic error or z error in your technique". I've personally done this before with published papers, and it doesn't necessarily invalidate them so much as add more information to the table.
And finally, each of us has an "ontology" (ie - a representation of knowledge) which is used to convey information. If I tell you a recipe, I'm actually calling out bits of your ontology by name: add 3 cups of flour, mix, bake at 400 degrees, &c.
This assumes that your ontology is the same as mine, or similar enough that the differences are not relevant. If I say "mix", I assume that your mental image of "mix" is the same as mine. ...but people screw up recipes, don't understand assembly instructions, and are confused by small nuanced differences in documentation.
Does this happen in chemistry?
It absolutely happens - chemistry is like cooking in that respect. Especially some of the trickier synthetic chemistry where your technique really matters. Chemists of different skill levels are going to get vastly different results from following the same prep.
What these guys are doing is no different to what grad students do all the time - papers are a great source of preps for compounds that you want to use as building blocks for other things you want to do if your starting materials are either not readily available from a supplier or they're absurdly expensive. The only difference is that they're walking through this process and publicly giving their impressions rather than simply noting down the modifications you needed to make to get it to work in your lab book for the next time you need it.
Could as well say "Bloggers do what tens of thousands of grad students do every day."
That's about the face of it. The only difference is that they're blogging their progress rather than simply trying to get an intermediate step to work because you wanted to make something that is on the route to what you're really studying and you just want a decent prep for it.
I think the general rule of thumb is "subtract at least 15% from the expected yield and assume at least one crucial step has been inadequately documented" and "ignore esoteric and exotic purification method and just recrystalise it".