If you will assume with me that the iPad represents a new product line and not an extension to the iPhone or the iPod, then you need to view the product in the context of the coming decade, not the coming year. And in that context I highly doubt it matters much if the store is open. Right now, on the iPhone/iPod Touch, you can write write a productivity app that works offline, is snappy and has a native look and feel: all with HTML5. The only downside is that the performance is not as good as a native app. Not very important for most apps, but it is a problem for graphics apps like games. But given the trajectory of JavaScript performance, do you really think this is going to be an issue for much longer?
HTML5 apps can't be prevented by Apple or anyone else. And they have the added benefit for the developers that they work on multiple platforms.
Further, I actually don't think that the primary target of the iPad is who we think it is. It was announced as a media device because that is the market that Apple has experience with and because the press loves consumer devices (most of them are so dumb that when a product isn't intended for them they claim it is useless). Look at environments like hospitals, industry, etc. where "instant on" is a whole lot more important than speed. The iPad, with the proper software (which won't be installed through a store - this would be managed by the enterprise agreement), would be a major step up compared to the current tablets in use. Health care alone accounts for 17% of GDP; this is likely to grow with our aging population. Do you really think Apple doesn't want part of that market?
Anyhow, point is, it the store is open or closed, it doesn't really matter in the long term.
I think the Acid 2 test is great in all as a way to test if a browser supports CSS well. But it seems as though IE is now targeted at Acid 2... What I mean by that is that, from the few days of playing with IE8 I've noticed a great deal of problems with some really basic CSS (like padding) when in "standards mode". Sites that function perfectly in all modern browsers fall apart in IE8 (Google Maps come to mind). And, it might be just me, but it seems as though the IE team worked very hard to pass Acid 2, not to build a browser that renders CSS correctly and as a result passes Acid2.
I also find the "CakePHP vs PHP5" question to not make any sense, I'm sorry. Maybe just me, but that made perfect sense. One option available to a programmer at the beginning of an application is to not use a framework at all. There is a number of reasons why the person may choose to do this. Maybe none of the frameworks do what you want to do with the application, maybe you can make them more efficient not using the framework. Or maybe there is a business decision that would drive you to not use a framework.
I can tell you from personal experience that when we started on Heap CRM http://heap.wbpsystems.com/ we looked at Java, some of the PHP5 frameworks, etc. And it was business decision to (in our case) to write our own internal framework.
Dvorak is all about the hits... He mentions his blog about every 3 minutes, he spent the last 6 months trying to convince everyone that he was the lone person that thinks the iPhone is terrible (this was before the thing was actually released). Now I'm not saying that he doesn't hold some of these beliefs. He may very well think the iPhone sucks or that SaaS sucks or whatever. I'm just saying that Dvorak doesn't decide what to write based on what he thinks, it's based on what he thinks will get the biggest reaction, therefor get dugg or slashdotted or whatever, so that he gets (wait for it) more hits.
So seriously, which one is it. I work in "Web 2.0" and I have no idea if its about the technology (AJAX) or about the community. Can site that is a community be web 2.0 without ajax; how about without RSS. Can an application be AJAX based and still not be Web 2.0?
Given the way people are reacting Apple probably should have done that. What really ticks me off is that Apple has pulled off the impossible they convinced a record label to remove DRM, I'm sure it was an impossible sale. And now, nerves as they are, I am possitive that their is some executive who was against the deal going "SEE! SEE! They Just want to Pirate".
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that when someone writes something this littered with factual errors the best thing to do is just ignore it. By slash-dotting it we are giving the article some credence.
In the eyes of the RIAA, we are all pirates. I've never downloaded anything illegally (really), but I have most of my music on two computers and a couple of iPods, so I have no doubt in their mind I should have bought four copies (f fair use basically).
Yes!
Now, I'm biased because I develop web applications, but the question in my mind isn't if you should have a copy of BBEdit online. It's if you should have a CRM, ERP, SCM or any other application where you SHARE data online. In to the second point I think yes. With SSL you are just as secure as on your own machine. There is no reason to believe that it is any more likely for web app provider to read your data then a desktop app to be sending data back to the mother-ship.
I might add that a web app is backed-up while, we know, most computer users do not back up their data.
I think the real reason why we should be concerned about advertising in wikipedia is influence not obtrusiveness. The reason why many people, myself included, may have problems with major media outlets is because we feel that they are influenced by powerful large companies that can bring or take millions of dollars. With adwords, you don't have that problem. You have a large number of advertisers that have disparate interests. I would be far more concerned if google or apple "sponsored" wikipedia without ads, even though I think very highly of both those companies, because there may come a time where they want something in return.
I've always hatted the way people use the terms "Form" and "Function" as if they were separated by some sort ravine. Form is a part of function. Without "form" no one can use the product and won't matter how many "functions" it has. The ease of use of the iPod and the simplicity of it's design are perhaps frivolous to you, but it is what makes the product great. From my own personal experience I can tell you my company recently released a CRM and we spent a hell of lot more time on "form" then "function."
Slashdot Mirror
If you will assume with me that the iPad represents a new product line and not an extension to the iPhone or the iPod, then you need to view the product in the context of the coming decade, not the coming year. And in that context I highly doubt it matters much if the store is open. Right now, on the iPhone/iPod Touch, you can write write a productivity app that works offline, is snappy and has a native look and feel: all with HTML5. The only downside is that the performance is not as good as a native app. Not very important for most apps, but it is a problem for graphics apps like games. But given the trajectory of JavaScript performance, do you really think this is going to be an issue for much longer?
HTML5 apps can't be prevented by Apple or anyone else. And they have the added benefit for the developers that they work on multiple platforms.
Further, I actually don't think that the primary target of the iPad is who we think it is. It was announced as a media device because that is the market that Apple has experience with and because the press loves consumer devices (most of them are so dumb that when a product isn't intended for them they claim it is useless). Look at environments like hospitals, industry, etc. where "instant on" is a whole lot more important than speed. The iPad, with the proper software (which won't be installed through a store - this would be managed by the enterprise agreement), would be a major step up compared to the current tablets in use. Health care alone accounts for 17% of GDP; this is likely to grow with our aging population. Do you really think Apple doesn't want part of that market?
Anyhow, point is, it the store is open or closed, it doesn't really matter in the long term.
I think the Acid 2 test is great in all as a way to test if a browser supports CSS well. But it seems as though IE is now targeted at Acid 2... What I mean by that is that, from the few days of playing with IE8 I've noticed a great deal of problems with some really basic CSS (like padding) when in "standards mode". Sites that function perfectly in all modern browsers fall apart in IE8 (Google Maps come to mind). And, it might be just me, but it seems as though the IE team worked very hard to pass Acid 2, not to build a browser that renders CSS correctly and as a result passes Acid2.
Dvorak is all about the hits... He mentions his blog about every 3 minutes, he spent the last 6 months trying to convince everyone that he was the lone person that thinks the iPhone is terrible (this was before the thing was actually released). Now I'm not saying that he doesn't hold some of these beliefs. He may very well think the iPhone sucks or that SaaS sucks or whatever. I'm just saying that Dvorak doesn't decide what to write based on what he thinks, it's based on what he thinks will get the biggest reaction, therefor get dugg or slashdotted or whatever, so that he gets (wait for it) more hits.
So seriously, which one is it. I work in "Web 2.0" and I have no idea if its about the technology (AJAX) or about the community. Can site that is a community be web 2.0 without ajax; how about without RSS. Can an application be AJAX based and still not be Web 2.0?
Given the way people are reacting Apple probably should have done that. What really ticks me off is that Apple has pulled off the impossible they convinced a record label to remove DRM, I'm sure it was an impossible sale. And now, nerves as they are, I am possitive that their is some executive who was against the deal going "SEE! SEE! They Just want to Pirate".
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that when someone writes something this littered with factual errors the best thing to do is just ignore it. By slash-dotting it we are giving the article some credence.
Microsoft = Evil = -1 Linux = Not so much Linux Wins!
You know you could just develop web applications and then they work on anything. Just a thought.
In the eyes of the RIAA, we are all pirates. I've never downloaded anything illegally (really), but I have most of my music on two computers and a couple of iPods, so I have no doubt in their mind I should have bought four copies (f fair use basically).
Yes! Now, I'm biased because I develop web applications, but the question in my mind isn't if you should have a copy of BBEdit online. It's if you should have a CRM, ERP, SCM or any other application where you SHARE data online. In to the second point I think yes. With SSL you are just as secure as on your own machine. There is no reason to believe that it is any more likely for web app provider to read your data then a desktop app to be sending data back to the mother-ship. I might add that a web app is backed-up while, we know, most computer users do not back up their data.
I think the real reason why we should be concerned about advertising in wikipedia is influence not obtrusiveness. The reason why many people, myself included, may have problems with major media outlets is because we feel that they are influenced by powerful large companies that can bring or take millions of dollars. With adwords, you don't have that problem. You have a large number of advertisers that have disparate interests. I would be far more concerned if google or apple "sponsored" wikipedia without ads, even though I think very highly of both those companies, because there may come a time where they want something in return.
I've always hatted the way people use the terms "Form" and "Function" as if they were separated by some sort ravine. Form is a part of function. Without "form" no one can use the product and won't matter how many "functions" it has. The ease of use of the iPod and the simplicity of it's design are perhaps frivolous to you, but it is what makes the product great. From my own personal experience I can tell you my company recently released a CRM and we spent a hell of lot more time on "form" then "function."