What is in your home is under your responsibility. For the rest, you have to trust someone.
I disagree with your premise. Presuming you have network connectivity, you are "trusting" all the vendors that stand between your data and the internet. Windows, Linux, MacOS, even ssh, all have a history of exploits. You are trusting Microsoft or Apple or some open source developer. You are also trusting the vendor who makes your router or modem. You are also trusting your locksmith or lockmaker and security system installer.
I understand the concern with control over your data in the cloud - but nothing stops you from limiting or encrypting the data you send into it.
imposing a (non-trivial) price on the development tools is a serious matter.
$99 is cheap for development tools, by any objective measure. You'll drop $600-700 on a phone but sneeze at $100 for the development tools? I'm not asking you to drop $6 billion or so on the controlling share of a company - just a Franklin.
Besides, you don't even need the official development tools - if you have a jailbroken (for free!) iPhone you can use one of the free compilers. Just don't expect the Apple magic shiny stuff.
since iphone too require you to pay to develop for it, it is NOT a general-purpose computer, thus it is not a smartphone.
That's a funny definition of a general-purpose computer. People have been running proprietary computers for decades and have considered them "multi-purpose". And since when does "smartphone" get defined in terms of it being general-purpose? Nokia Symbian, Blackberry, Apple, Windows Mobile... these are all smart phones.
iphones still cannot do basic smartphone stuff like run arbitrary code
First of all, they will run arbitrary code right out of the box if you have the developer kit.
But I presume you mean that you can't download any old binary off of any old web site and run it. Apple would argue this is a feature, but I digress.
You certainly can run arbitrary code if you aren't completely retarded and just jailbreak the stupid thing. It's been 4 generations in 4 years, and all of them have been rooted successfully.
Well, no flash player is going to hold all of my music, but 8GB (or even 4GB) will hold days worth of music. I used to travel with a 512MB shuffle and not suffer greatly, and I was once the proud owner of the original 5GB iPod and thought it impossibly huge in capacity:) Of course, I rate my music so it's easy to just put a playlist on there with my "favorites".
I can't imagine spending all of my time ripping my CD collection again with anything but a transparent encoder.
Good point on the 5GB/mo internet - this would, I suppose, let you stream your home collection. I seriously doubt the hydrogen audio guys are doing the comparison to help the video game developer community, but I'll fully accept that I could be wrong there.
I'm currently trying to screw around with all of the "smart" phone OSs out there, just 'cause I'm a big fat dork. I found the jailbreak on Apple to be very easy - just downloaded a free app that told me exactly what to do and when. When I was done, bam, unlocked jailbroken phone. The problem you describe is called a a "tethered" jailbreak, meaning you need to tether it to a PC any time you want to reboot it in a rooted state. This sometimes is the first way that people figure out how to jailbreak after a new release, but I think currently there are no problems doing an "untethered" jailbreak even with the latest firmware.
I don't know the intricacies of the App Store on the iOS, but it seems that Apple has a similar link strategy to Google. You often click a button on a web site which directs you to the correct App Store page.
I knew about the "sideloading" or whatever the Android lingo is for installing unknown sources. But then you are back to the PC model, where you have to be careful about what you download because of trojans/worms/viruses. I've rarely had problems on PCs except for one open source app that got compromised, but my parents and friends seem to always have some kind of malware haunting their systems. I think I can see how people would be willing to give up sideloading for added security.
As a big fat dork (well, not that fat), I really do appreciated Google's openness. I'm going to grab myself an Android phone to play with next (haven't tried Gingerbread). I'm sure as a geek I'll enjoy dicking with the software. But I already can install almost anything on the iPhone, which is also running unix, so to a faux geek there is not much practical difference except for ideology. A true kernel hacking geek could do far more with Android, but that ain't me:)
I also want to screw with a WebOS device.
Blackberry wasn't much fun.
Anyway, my point was only that Apple makes a device for a different market than "hardcore geek". They are targeting mass-market people with extra cash. Android targets those people as well, but mostly gets the geek and low-end markets. This makes neither company "good" or "evil" - just different marketing strategies.
I wouldn't go so far as demonlapin and say that they "rejected" it... they basically stuck to two houses of legislature. But they definitely tweaked it. Remember that they had a trial run with the Articles of Confederation.
But yeah, they definitely were trying to improve upon the parliamentary system.
Wake me when the US voting system actually gives a third party a chance to play any role.
There are usually several 3rd parties on our ballots... they just don't get any votes. For a while there was "United We Stand" or whatever that Ross Perot party was called. The Greens have been on for several elections. And the Libertarians usually seem to make it on.
There is a strong incumbency advantage in the US, but the sad fact is that something like 2/3 of voters feel some strong attachment to either the Repubs or the Dems. Unless we abandon our plurality system, it will be hard to convince people to dilute their vote by casting it for a 3rd party. In some governments, the "big tent" is at the legislative level. In the US it is at the party level. I see little difference, though the US seems to have a bit more stability in government than the average parliamentary system.
Yes, it can be updated by the BBC and remotely disabled by Google if found to be malware.
Cool, that's a neat new feature I wasn't aware of (I've never had the opportunity to play with an Android 3.0 phone... do they sell them yet?). I was only aware of the method when you have to enable the "Unknown Sources" setting, which is obviously not a good idea unless you know what you are doing.
Google's own phones and many third party ones are not locked down and can easily be rooted by simply downloading an app from the market itself.
Apple phones are easy to root as well. I don't think we need to go there.
Because you can only get apps through the app store Apple dictates which ones you can have. They also have a large influence on the price and how you pay, since app store fees and payment methods are mandatory.
I think they'd argue that they are controlling the user experience. They can make sure the apps are all somewhat consistent so that the store is easy to use. Having only one store also simplifies things - there's no web surfing trying to figure out where to get such-and-such app.
Ordinary users do make use of this feature.
Not on an iPhone:)
So what happens when a vulnerability is found in the BBC coverage app? Can a new version of the app be pushed out? Can it be remotely disabled? Did they use APIs that make the phone more vulnerable? If it were distributed through a controlled app store and certain minimum features were enforced, they would have options. Android is the wild west.... perfect for geeks and even perfectly usable for most smartphone users, even more capable than the iPhone - but not quite as polished a user experience as the iPhone. Just because you don't value user experience as highly in the hierarchy of desired features doesn't mean it's a wrong choice.
Sony cameras have no though and I see that sort of thing as being exactly the same as locking out unapproved apps.
Again, I don't want to defend all manufacturers - or even just Apple - with a blanket statement, but I can certainly see an argument for locking things like unauthorized batteries out. Battery quality control has been a headache for these companies, causing fires in their laptops. They certainly can and do abuse the ability to lock out competition (like with printer ink!), but there is at least a basis their argument. Even with printer ink, you can buy the more expensive printers meant for office settings and the refills are quite reasonable. The cheap (or free) printers need expensive ink because they don't make any money on the printer.
But "a PC in phone form" or "a PC in pocket-size media player form" is exactly what some people want.
That's true, but it's not very many people (in percentage terms). Apple has decided not to go after that market. You may disagree with them, but they are very successful in the market they have chosen. I understand geeks getting frustrated by having a device that is so close to their ideal, but frankly jailbreaking the thing is only a minor inconvenience.
I agree with you, as a geek, that all of those things are worthy uses of a kick-ass low-power pocket computer. However, it IS a phone. It is marketed as nothing but a phone. If you really want to dick with it, you can jailbreak it. AND, there is competition with similar hardware that is also ripe for dicking around with.
In short, while I understand the frustration with Apple, I don't think lashing out at them for responding (very successfully) to market demand is really warranted.
I certainly would be pissed if my fridge refused to accept meat because Steve Jobs is a vegetarian.
I'd argue that this is a bad analogy. Your fridge runs some kind of program. It keeps shit cold. Have you ever thought, "damn, this fridge sucks - I can't screw around with the temperature cycle!" Don't you think that someone with experience in temperature control or the food industry has maybe thought this? Why is your fridge different from a cell phone.
It's all perspective - you are a geek interested in dicking with your phone. Fair enough. But you don't want to dick with the program in your fridge. Also cool. But why judge people who just want a phone appliance, or the company that supplies said appliance?
Because that's what it is. Only difference is form factor, use case, and power envelope.
Is that all? LOL...
People can replace the software on their car (many companies specialize in it)
You might say that they "jailbreak" it.
Well, look at what you just said. "it all depends on the end user." For Apple, at least in their perspective it doesn't. All users are locked down and it is non-negotiable.
That's not what I meant. I meant, it all depends on the perspective of the end user. Apple is not after the hardware geek market. Most of their users are looking for an email/web/video toaster. That is the market they cater to, and thus far the market has rewarded them handsomely. This does not make the iOS "evil" - it is simply a matter of supply and demand. It is not what you are looking for, and that is fine - but far from evil.
Actual ownership of your device. Sorta like how your PC doesn't try and fight you.
You betray your influence...:) You seem to see the iPhone as a PC in phone form. I think most see it as a phone with some extra features, or at least an appliance of some sort. People don't "own" their car software, dishwasher software, oven software, fridge software, TV software, etc. The PC is the exception to the rule. It's not necessarily "evil" for an appliance-style device to be locked down - it all depends on the end user. Some people still get pissed that they can't service their $5 FM radio...
I'm actually a little bit torn. I have a friend who is a chiropractor, and he honestly believes in his trade. And I think most of them do... I mean, why would you go through all that training and certification if you thought it was quackery?
And they do see results. Why? Because the placebo effect is real. Sure, a chiropractor probably isn't actually accomplishing anything, but if the patient thinks they are, they might see their pain symptoms go away.
So, yeah, they can't claim to be doing anything that has been proven science behind it, but on the other hand they are improving people's lives.
Now, pain is one thing... cancer is another. Anyone claiming that rubbing and cracking will cure cancer belongs in jail.
But then why build 12 submarines and 100 bombers? Why not 2 and 20?
I presume those numbers are derived from some kind of process. And I'm sure there is some wiggle room.
But in general, you want to have many items of the same type rather than several different types at the same time. It saves on maintenance and training.
They also won't all get built at the same time... the existing 18 Ohio class subs were built over 21 years. Those subs were designed to last 50 years(!), so they have until almost 2030 to build the first one. I'm almost certain that the costs quoted include the entire cost of the subs over a long period of time - not just the construction costs. So the comparison isn't really $110 billion vs $0... it's $110 billion vs some large number that it would cost to refurbish and maintain some portion of the existing subs. These things cost a few billion each to construct, so it's not possible that the $110 billion number is just construction costs.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will need some to deter nuclear threats from others, but do we really need to duplicate the entire nuclear triad for another 50 years?
That's why continued reductions treaties with Russia are important. Neither country is going to do this themselves. It's not as if both countries aren't actively reducing their arsenals.
Regarding the expenditures on bombers and subs... The thing about those is you need to always be building one or the industry dies. You can build it very, very slowly, but you need to be making one at some minimum rate or you'll lose the huge investment you put into learning to build them in the first place. Aircraft carriers are similar. The problem is that when you do this, your development costs don't get spread out so the cost looks enormous - but you have to spend that money or get out of the sub/airplane/ship business altogether.
There's an argument for that, but I don't think we're ready to give up our military power just yet.
Slashdot Mirror
You might not - it needs the old crap all scraped off, new gutters, and a bunch of rot replaced. :) But yeah, that's about $5000 high for my roof.
What is in your home is under your responsibility. For the rest, you have to trust someone.
I disagree with your premise. Presuming you have network connectivity, you are "trusting" all the vendors that stand between your data and the internet. Windows, Linux, MacOS, even ssh, all have a history of exploits. You are trusting Microsoft or Apple or some open source developer. You are also trusting the vendor who makes your router or modem. You are also trusting your locksmith or lockmaker and security system installer.
I understand the concern with control over your data in the cloud - but nothing stops you from limiting or encrypting the data you send into it.
when in fact it was his men that did all the hard work.
The men! Sheesh! It's us munitions workers that deserve all the credit! :)
I think if someone is sponsoring something (like a $20,000 roof), they can be excused for the ambiguity of their language :)
imposing a (non-trivial) price on the development tools is a serious matter.
$99 is cheap for development tools, by any objective measure. You'll drop $600-700 on a phone but sneeze at $100 for the development tools? I'm not asking you to drop $6 billion or so on the controlling share of a company - just a Franklin.
Besides, you don't even need the official development tools - if you have a jailbroken (for free!) iPhone you can use one of the free compilers. Just don't expect the Apple magic shiny stuff.
since iphone too require you to pay to develop for it, it is NOT a general-purpose computer, thus it is not a smartphone.
That's a funny definition of a general-purpose computer. People have been running proprietary computers for decades and have considered them "multi-purpose". And since when does "smartphone" get defined in terms of it being general-purpose? Nokia Symbian, Blackberry, Apple, Windows Mobile... these are all smart phones.
ftfy
Not really - you just totally changed the argument from "you can't do that" to "you can do that, but I think it's too expensive".
Since value is relative, I'll just stop. Unless you'd like me to say "nuh-uh!" and then we can go back and forth like that for a while.
iphones still cannot do basic smartphone stuff like run arbitrary code
First of all, they will run arbitrary code right out of the box if you have the developer kit.
But I presume you mean that you can't download any old binary off of any old web site and run it. Apple would argue this is a feature, but I digress.
You certainly can run arbitrary code if you aren't completely retarded and just jailbreak the stupid thing. It's been 4 generations in 4 years, and all of them have been rooted successfully.
That makes a lot of sense.
Well, no flash player is going to hold all of my music, but 8GB (or even 4GB) will hold days worth of music. I used to travel with a 512MB shuffle and not suffer greatly, and I was once the proud owner of the original 5GB iPod and thought it impossibly huge in capacity :) Of course, I rate my music so it's easy to just put a playlist on there with my "favorites".
I can't imagine spending all of my time ripping my CD collection again with anything but a transparent encoder.
That tone won't get you in any faster :)
Good point on the 5GB/mo internet - this would, I suppose, let you stream your home collection. I seriously doubt the hydrogen audio guys are doing the comparison to help the video game developer community, but I'll fully accept that I could be wrong there.
I agree that the results are interesting, but in an age of 3TB hard drives and 8GB low-end MP3 players, I'm sure as hell not ripping to 96kbps! :)
I have to assume this is for streaming...
I'm currently trying to screw around with all of the "smart" phone OSs out there, just 'cause I'm a big fat dork. I found the jailbreak on Apple to be very easy - just downloaded a free app that told me exactly what to do and when. When I was done, bam, unlocked jailbroken phone. The problem you describe is called a a "tethered" jailbreak, meaning you need to tether it to a PC any time you want to reboot it in a rooted state. This sometimes is the first way that people figure out how to jailbreak after a new release, but I think currently there are no problems doing an "untethered" jailbreak even with the latest firmware.
I don't know the intricacies of the App Store on the iOS, but it seems that Apple has a similar link strategy to Google. You often click a button on a web site which directs you to the correct App Store page.
I knew about the "sideloading" or whatever the Android lingo is for installing unknown sources. But then you are back to the PC model, where you have to be careful about what you download because of trojans/worms/viruses. I've rarely had problems on PCs except for one open source app that got compromised, but my parents and friends seem to always have some kind of malware haunting their systems. I think I can see how people would be willing to give up sideloading for added security.
As a big fat dork (well, not that fat), I really do appreciated Google's openness. I'm going to grab myself an Android phone to play with next (haven't tried Gingerbread). I'm sure as a geek I'll enjoy dicking with the software. But I already can install almost anything on the iPhone, which is also running unix, so to a faux geek there is not much practical difference except for ideology. A true kernel hacking geek could do far more with Android, but that ain't me :)
I also want to screw with a WebOS device.
Blackberry wasn't much fun.
Anyway, my point was only that Apple makes a device for a different market than "hardcore geek". They are targeting mass-market people with extra cash. Android targets those people as well, but mostly gets the geek and low-end markets. This makes neither company "good" or "evil" - just different marketing strategies.
I wouldn't go so far as demonlapin and say that they "rejected" it... they basically stuck to two houses of legislature. But they definitely tweaked it. Remember that they had a trial run with the Articles of Confederation.
But yeah, they definitely were trying to improve upon the parliamentary system.
Wake me when the US voting system actually gives a third party a chance to play any role.
There are usually several 3rd parties on our ballots... they just don't get any votes. For a while there was "United We Stand" or whatever that Ross Perot party was called. The Greens have been on for several elections. And the Libertarians usually seem to make it on.
There is a strong incumbency advantage in the US, but the sad fact is that something like 2/3 of voters feel some strong attachment to either the Repubs or the Dems. Unless we abandon our plurality system, it will be hard to convince people to dilute their vote by casting it for a 3rd party. In some governments, the "big tent" is at the legislative level. In the US it is at the party level. I see little difference, though the US seems to have a bit more stability in government than the average parliamentary system.
Yes, it can be updated by the BBC and remotely disabled by Google if found to be malware.
Cool, that's a neat new feature I wasn't aware of (I've never had the opportunity to play with an Android 3.0 phone... do they sell them yet?). I was only aware of the method when you have to enable the "Unknown Sources" setting, which is obviously not a good idea unless you know what you are doing.
Google's own phones and many third party ones are not locked down and can easily be rooted by simply downloading an app from the market itself.
Apple phones are easy to root as well. I don't think we need to go there.
and life itself.
Agreed! Finally, LIFE!
Because you can only get apps through the app store Apple dictates which ones you can have. They also have a large influence on the price and how you pay, since app store fees and payment methods are mandatory.
I think they'd argue that they are controlling the user experience. They can make sure the apps are all somewhat consistent so that the store is easy to use. Having only one store also simplifies things - there's no web surfing trying to figure out where to get such-and-such app.
Ordinary users do make use of this feature.
Not on an iPhone :)
So what happens when a vulnerability is found in the BBC coverage app? Can a new version of the app be pushed out? Can it be remotely disabled? Did they use APIs that make the phone more vulnerable? If it were distributed through a controlled app store and certain minimum features were enforced, they would have options. Android is the wild west.... perfect for geeks and even perfectly usable for most smartphone users, even more capable than the iPhone - but not quite as polished a user experience as the iPhone. Just because you don't value user experience as highly in the hierarchy of desired features doesn't mean it's a wrong choice.
Sony cameras have no though and I see that sort of thing as being exactly the same as locking out unapproved apps.
Again, I don't want to defend all manufacturers - or even just Apple - with a blanket statement, but I can certainly see an argument for locking things like unauthorized batteries out. Battery quality control has been a headache for these companies, causing fires in their laptops. They certainly can and do abuse the ability to lock out competition (like with printer ink!), but there is at least a basis their argument. Even with printer ink, you can buy the more expensive printers meant for office settings and the refills are quite reasonable. The cheap (or free) printers need expensive ink because they don't make any money on the printer.
But "a PC in phone form" or "a PC in pocket-size media player form" is exactly what some people want.
That's true, but it's not very many people (in percentage terms). Apple has decided not to go after that market. You may disagree with them, but they are very successful in the market they have chosen. I understand geeks getting frustrated by having a device that is so close to their ideal, but frankly jailbreaking the thing is only a minor inconvenience.
You are kind of proving my point! :)
I agree with you, as a geek, that all of those things are worthy uses of a kick-ass low-power pocket computer. However, it IS a phone. It is marketed as nothing but a phone. If you really want to dick with it, you can jailbreak it. AND, there is competition with similar hardware that is also ripe for dicking around with.
In short, while I understand the frustration with Apple, I don't think lashing out at them for responding (very successfully) to market demand is really warranted.
LOL, but I don't like EULAs!
I certainly would be pissed if my fridge refused to accept meat because Steve Jobs is a vegetarian.
I'd argue that this is a bad analogy. Your fridge runs some kind of program. It keeps shit cold. Have you ever thought, "damn, this fridge sucks - I can't screw around with the temperature cycle!" Don't you think that someone with experience in temperature control or the food industry has maybe thought this? Why is your fridge different from a cell phone.
It's all perspective - you are a geek interested in dicking with your phone. Fair enough. But you don't want to dick with the program in your fridge. Also cool. But why judge people who just want a phone appliance, or the company that supplies said appliance?
Because that's what it is. Only difference is form factor, use case, and power envelope.
Is that all? LOL...
People can replace the software on their car (many companies specialize in it)
You might say that they "jailbreak" it.
Well, look at what you just said. "it all depends on the end user." For Apple, at least in their perspective it doesn't. All users are locked down and it is non-negotiable.
That's not what I meant. I meant, it all depends on the perspective of the end user. Apple is not after the hardware geek market. Most of their users are looking for an email/web/video toaster. That is the market they cater to, and thus far the market has rewarded them handsomely. This does not make the iOS "evil" - it is simply a matter of supply and demand. It is not what you are looking for, and that is fine - but far from evil.
Actual ownership of your device. Sorta like how your PC doesn't try and fight you.
You betray your influence... :) You seem to see the iPhone as a PC in phone form. I think most see it as a phone with some extra features, or at least an appliance of some sort. People don't "own" their car software, dishwasher software, oven software, fridge software, TV software, etc. The PC is the exception to the rule. It's not necessarily "evil" for an appliance-style device to be locked down - it all depends on the end user. Some people still get pissed that they can't service their $5 FM radio...
I'm actually a little bit torn. I have a friend who is a chiropractor, and he honestly believes in his trade. And I think most of them do... I mean, why would you go through all that training and certification if you thought it was quackery?
And they do see results. Why? Because the placebo effect is real. Sure, a chiropractor probably isn't actually accomplishing anything, but if the patient thinks they are, they might see their pain symptoms go away.
So, yeah, they can't claim to be doing anything that has been proven science behind it, but on the other hand they are improving people's lives.
Now, pain is one thing... cancer is another. Anyone claiming that rubbing and cracking will cure cancer belongs in jail.
But then why build 12 submarines and 100 bombers? Why not 2 and 20?
I presume those numbers are derived from some kind of process. And I'm sure there is some wiggle room.
But in general, you want to have many items of the same type rather than several different types at the same time. It saves on maintenance and training.
They also won't all get built at the same time... the existing 18 Ohio class subs were built over 21 years. Those subs were designed to last 50 years(!), so they have until almost 2030 to build the first one. I'm almost certain that the costs quoted include the entire cost of the subs over a long period of time - not just the construction costs. So the comparison isn't really $110 billion vs $0... it's $110 billion vs some large number that it would cost to refurbish and maintain some portion of the existing subs. These things cost a few billion each to construct, so it's not possible that the $110 billion number is just construction costs.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will need some to deter nuclear threats from others, but do we really need to duplicate the entire nuclear triad for another 50 years?
That's why continued reductions treaties with Russia are important. Neither country is going to do this themselves. It's not as if both countries aren't actively reducing their arsenals.
Regarding the expenditures on bombers and subs... The thing about those is you need to always be building one or the industry dies. You can build it very, very slowly, but you need to be making one at some minimum rate or you'll lose the huge investment you put into learning to build them in the first place. Aircraft carriers are similar. The problem is that when you do this, your development costs don't get spread out so the cost looks enormous - but you have to spend that money or get out of the sub/airplane/ship business altogether.
There's an argument for that, but I don't think we're ready to give up our military power just yet.