Well you're the one who said "bad and evil." I simply agreed that, in general, allowing ideas we don't like or agree with to be expressed is preferable to suppressing them. We do make exceptions, such as hate speech, or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But that doesn't necessarily make that speech "evil" (if there is such a thing); it's just an example of the common good trumping an individual's freedom, like conscription, or taxes.
As for your political sign analogy, if I put one (or a thousand) signs in my yard, that's self-expression. If I provide space in my yard for others to display whatever signs they like, but specifically prohibit you from displaying a particular sign because I don't like the content of it, then I'm censoring you.
People load that word up with all sorts of baggage, but it simply means... well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of the word censor:
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
If I consider your speech objectionable and decide to suppress it on those grounds, I'm censoring you.
Whether others consider that act to be "bad or evil" would probably depend on how they feel about censorship in general, and the content of your sign in particular.
Baloney. You can put your damn sign up in your own f@cking yard. If I come take it away from your yard, that's censorship.
Your right....but it does make Apple's App Store a violation of monopoly laws. If the only apps allowed are those via Apple's approval. And an app can be refused based on content, religious beliefs, sexual choices, etc, etc. Then you've basically got an unfair infringement on competition and business.
This case alone might be the proverbial straw to break the camels back. And with a good set of lawyers could force Apple to break open the app store.
Wrong. It is their f@cking ecosystem of devices and apps. Start your own damn iEcosystem and let in anything you want. Not a monopoly. Next!
No. I stand by my statement that the theories of creationism have zippo evidence. Discussing "problems inherent in interpretations of data used to support evolution" may be science, but it is NOT evidence of creationism. You really need God to show up and start showing his stuff.
You don't seem to understand the word "theory." It is not inferior to "law." It is something different. The "laws" of gravity were explained by Newton's "theories," then explained further by Einstein's "theories." A law is an observation; a theory is an explanation of the observation. The "theory" of evolution has tonnage of evidence which validates it. The theories of creationism have zippo.
He is incorrect in his use of 'requires' but in fact it is a guideline designed to trick the user into thinking the app has loaded when it actually hasn't.
Bullshit. It is not a trick. It is advice to better the user interface. Here's the money quote: "In general, try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately."
They want your application useable immediately, not just displaying something.
What app is that?
I'd plug it, but with all the anti-apple haters here, I see no reason to draw fire.
Fair enough, but given Apples fairly arbitrary approval process it is generally wise to stick to their guidelines.
I suppose your use of the speculative and biased "fairly arbitrary" buttresses your point in your mind.
Wow, talk about oversensitive! You are shown you are wrong in your use of "must," and you just can't take it. BTW, note the "try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately." That is NOT what you said in your post. They're talking about user interface responsiveness, not "tricking users into thinking the phone is faster than it is." Your hate is showing.
Apple requires apps to include a screenshot to be displayed before the app completely opens, to trick users into thinking the phone is faster than it is. The practical effect is that every single app is 20-100kB larger and starts a fraction of a second slower, but "Apple Users" don't care about that, they just want it to be prettier.
You are misinformed or a liar. I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN. In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.
As I hope you realize, scaling the graphics and scaling the game are two completely different things. Just scaling up the graphics does nothing - you're just watching a bigger TV. Tablet-optimized means designed for a bigger screen. For example, more game elements in view (e.g. Angry Birds HD). That's where 65K advantage comes in.
You'd have a point if that were accurate. The 37 apps mentioned are the ones listed under "Featured Tablet Apps". There are lots of other apps out there for tablets that aren't featured--the accurate criticism here is that there isn't a good way to get a complete list of which apps are designed for tablets.
Criticism noted. I have no knowledge of actual number of apps. I was using the data in the article, which I believe is the subject of this whole thread.
The point may well be moot, though, as Android was designed from the ground up to scale well to all sorts of resolutions. The upshot here is that for most apps, where the programmers did their job right, the phone apps scale very well to the tablet resolution (so well, in fact, many phone apps look like they were made for the tablet all along). In comparison, iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing and look like crap, making it absolutely necessary that developers write iPad-specific versions of their apps.
Now you're the one who needs schooling. Yes, the original, very old iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing - that was an intermediate step to allow porting of apps. Anyone designing with iOS 3.0 or greater should know better and at least do the resolution independent stuff (same applies for Retina display); the new apps are written as such. However, the tablet-optimized is more important in the LAYOUT of the user interface or content. It is obvious when done right and there are tonnage such for the iPad.
And it's not like you can even play Flash games using flash on a tablet, since none of them integrate keyboards or mice which PC flash games require to operate...
Damn, I really wanted to be able to click on the target and win a free iPod, iPad, or whatever the fake giveaway of the week was.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you bother to post a response. Why did you even read any comments if you're so anti-Apple? Troll alert!
Whoosh!
If they publish one more study putting down violence in my video games, I'm going to kick there motherfucking assholes!
I have proof there is not god. Unfortunately, there isn't enough room in this comment box for it and I don't want to link to a pdf.
Yea, that was the pun; I intentionally misspelled it.
Must have been during some years when you got refunds. It was early in the 2000's
Every day since this story broke, I get yet another apology letter or two from another major company.
A virgin full of seamen, please!
They cash the checks independent of processing paper. At one time, they even had you send the check to a different mailing address.
Well you're the one who said "bad and evil." I simply agreed that, in general, allowing ideas we don't like or agree with to be expressed is preferable to suppressing them. We do make exceptions, such as hate speech, or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But that doesn't necessarily make that speech "evil" (if there is such a thing); it's just an example of the common good trumping an individual's freedom, like conscription, or taxes.
As for your political sign analogy, if I put one (or a thousand) signs in my yard, that's self-expression. If I provide space in my yard for others to display whatever signs they like, but specifically prohibit you from displaying a particular sign because I don't like the content of it, then I'm censoring you.
People load that word up with all sorts of baggage, but it simply means ... well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of the word censor:
If I consider your speech objectionable and decide to suppress it on those grounds, I'm censoring you.
Whether others consider that act to be "bad or evil" would probably depend on how they feel about censorship in general, and the content of your sign in particular.
Baloney. You can put your damn sign up in your own f@cking yard. If I come take it away from your yard, that's censorship.
Your right....but it does make Apple's App Store a violation of monopoly laws. If the only apps allowed are those via Apple's approval. And an app can be refused based on content, religious beliefs, sexual choices, etc, etc. Then you've basically got an unfair infringement on competition and business.
This case alone might be the proverbial straw to break the camels back. And with a good set of lawyers could force Apple to break open the app store.
Wrong. It is their f@cking ecosystem of devices and apps. Start your own damn iEcosystem and let in anything you want. Not a monopoly. Next!
No. I stand by my statement that the theories of creationism have zippo evidence. Discussing "problems inherent in interpretations of data used to support evolution" may be science, but it is NOT evidence of creationism. You really need God to show up and start showing his stuff.
basically, god and silver, intrinsically, have no real value either.
Nice typo.
You don't seem to understand the word "theory." It is not inferior to "law." It is something different. The "laws" of gravity were explained by Newton's "theories," then explained further by Einstein's "theories." A law is an observation; a theory is an explanation of the observation. The "theory" of evolution has tonnage of evidence which validates it. The theories of creationism have zippo.
Yes, but note that the text of the proposed law talks about ID, *NOT* creationism. 6000 years, 7 days, etc. is creationism, not ID.
Bullshit. ID is just codeword for creationism. The 6000 years thing is just one particular creationist myth.
Really, calling propaganda "Operation Earnest Voice"? I think a few braincells just exploded.
Actually, the name is perfect, since the name is also propaganda.
He is incorrect in his use of 'requires' but in fact it is a guideline designed to trick the user into thinking the app has loaded when it actually hasn't.
Bullshit. It is not a trick. It is advice to better the user interface. Here's the money quote: "In general, try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately."
They want your application useable immediately, not just displaying something.
What app is that?
I'd plug it, but with all the anti-apple haters here, I see no reason to draw fire.
Fair enough, but given Apples fairly arbitrary approval process it is generally wise to stick to their guidelines.
I suppose your use of the speculative and biased "fairly arbitrary" buttresses your point in your mind.
"The singular of data is not anecdote."
Nor is the singular "rampant speculation, pulled out of my ass."
Wow, talk about oversensitive! You are shown you are wrong in your use of "must," and you just can't take it. BTW, note the "try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately." That is NOT what you said in your post. They're talking about user interface responsiveness, not "tricking users into thinking the phone is faster than it is." Your hate is showing.
Apple requires apps to include a screenshot to be displayed before the app completely opens, to trick users into thinking the phone is faster than it is. The practical effect is that every single app is 20-100kB larger and starts a fraction of a second slower, but "Apple Users" don't care about that, they just want it to be prettier.
You are misinformed or a liar. I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN. In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.
I'm afraid you're just drinking a different flavor of Kool-Aid.
As I hope you realize, scaling the graphics and scaling the game are two completely different things. Just scaling up the graphics does nothing - you're just watching a bigger TV. Tablet-optimized means designed for a bigger screen. For example, more game elements in view (e.g. Angry Birds HD). That's where 65K advantage comes in.
You'd have a point if that were accurate. The 37 apps mentioned are the ones listed under "Featured Tablet Apps". There are lots of other apps out there for tablets that aren't featured--the accurate criticism here is that there isn't a good way to get a complete list of which apps are designed for tablets.
Criticism noted. I have no knowledge of actual number of apps. I was using the data in the article, which I believe is the subject of this whole thread.
The point may well be moot, though, as Android was designed from the ground up to scale well to all sorts of resolutions. The upshot here is that for most apps, where the programmers did their job right, the phone apps scale very well to the tablet resolution (so well, in fact, many phone apps look like they were made for the tablet all along). In comparison, iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing and look like crap, making it absolutely necessary that developers write iPad-specific versions of their apps.
Now you're the one who needs schooling. Yes, the original, very old iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing - that was an intermediate step to allow porting of apps. Anyone designing with iOS 3.0 or greater should know better and at least do the resolution independent stuff (same applies for Retina display); the new apps are written as such. However, the tablet-optimized is more important in the LAYOUT of the user interface or content. It is obvious when done right and there are tonnage such for the iPad.
To be fair - Apple had a year head start.
And sometimes that's all it takes. In a "death match" all advantages count.
And it's not like you can even play Flash games using flash on a tablet, since none of them integrate keyboards or mice which PC flash games require to operate...
Damn, I really wanted to be able to click on the target and win a free iPod, iPad, or whatever the fake giveaway of the week was.