You know, there's nothing stopping you from buying an iPhone, installing Linux on it, and running whatever the hell you want. Your analogy would only be accurate if Moleskine had to add chemicals to their paper to make the inks of various pens show up, and they announced they were no longer putting the special Bic Pen chemical in their notebooks.
Re:It seems so weird to me for apple to dump adobe
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And even the fanboys must know this is true. The ONLY people who take Apple desktops/laptops seriously are the people who NEED to run photoshop
This hasn't been true for a decade, which is why five years ago Apple stopped using LCD monitors on their laptops and iMacs that were easily calibrated for true colors. Photographs whined a bit, and Apple's market share continued to grow.
A lot of the comments here are "I'm a compsci guy who runs Linux on his netbook--I think you're crazy to want an Ipad." This misses the point that iPads are about having a convenient device that makes casual computing tasks like reading or surfing the web or playing sudoko or displaying recipes very easy. People here approach the iPad as a crippled laptop, while people who buy them are buying a device that makes those casual and fun tasks very easy and accessible. It's not about smug Apple owners, it's about mistaking the purpose of the device.
If it's not about rights, then why is Adobe suing Apple to allow Flash? Adobe has an interest in Apple's success?
It's a fair argument that excluding Flash weakens or limits the platform, though I argue below that they're not. But a truly huge amount of the opposition to excluding Flash has taken the language of the rights of Flash developers to deploy on the platform.
So we are pointing out that Apple is handcuffing the functionality of their devices in terms of how they can be used and who can use them. And that the stated reasons for doing so -- that flash/java is buggy and promotes bad apps -- do not actually hold up to examination.
Besides apps in Objective C, Apple has blessed the use of toolkits to write web-app style apps that are HTML/JavaScript/CSS, and take advantage of HTML5 on the webkit engine. Such apps can be sold through the app store just like native apps, and are downloaded and installed just like native apps. In other words, they've blessed an easy and accessible way to develop apps for the iPhone, so excluding Flash is not about creating a walled development garden.
Not at all. I think the comment I was responding to really catches an crucial aspect of Ipad sales that a lot of people here are missing. Why do you hope I'm being sarcastic?
That would be accurate if the iPhone were the only mobile device, and the only potential outlet for Flash developers. There's Android, there's Blackberry, there's the whole freaking Internet. You can't arbitrarily draw the monopoly line around the iPhone when there's perfectly functional equivalents to it.
After a conversation with an iPhone developer, I understand that there are valid technical reasons that Flash won't play well in the iPhone OS environment, especially when 4.0 comes out. Undoubtedly, money and marketshare are large considerations, but this is not entirely a capricious business decision on Apple's part.
The right to sell Flash apps for the iPhone is an example of a positive right--your right implies an obligation on another party's part to facilitate it (as opposed to a negative right, where other parties are simply obligated to abstain from preventing your exercise of the right).
Freedom of speech is a negative right--you can talk all you want, and I'm only doing something wrong if I prevent you from talking. Health Care is a positive right (if you think it's a right, as most do in Canada)--your right to health care creates an obligation on me to fund it through my taxes.
More negative rights should be the default, but casually sanctifying positive rights is a recipe for less freedom, not more, because you're placing active obligations on everyone else. Flash devs don't want the right to write Flash apps, they want the right to be supported by Apple on the iPhone, and that's what Apple is denying.
Bogost's point is that it's not an issue of freedom. "Freedom" simply isn't applicable here, and trying to discuss it in those terms just betrays the sense of entitlement and "I have a right..." that Bogost identifies. You don't have the freedom to write iApps in Flash in the same sense that I don't have the freedom to sell the shoes I make through Sears. They could sell my shoes, but its entirely within their discretion not to do so.
It's not a laptop replacement. It's a device for shallow activities with a computer--an iPhone with a larger screen. Everything you love about your iPhone is applicable to the iPad, plus it's got a nicer screen. That's it.
Someone please enlighten me as to why this things sells so good.
Several times I've suggested to my mother that she could use a laptop in the kitchen to hold and display all her recipes and look things up if she needs to, and she refuses because there's a psychological barrier to entry with any computer that you need to know how to work the computer to get to do the easy, convenient things. The iPad, because it acts like a multi-purpose device rather than a general computing platform, eliminates that psychological barrier to entry. It makes doing things like displaying recipes and playing sudoko accessible and portable in a way that a laptop doesn't.
This seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding of a lot of geeks about the iPad: They think it's something power users will use. It's not. It's for reading books on the train/bus, it's for looking something up or checking your email while sitting on the couch watching TV, it's for playing killer sudoko with your coffee, it's for displaying a recipe in the kitchen. Much of what you're paying for is the convenient form factor and the general fit-and-finish of the device, and the rest is the fact that you can read, check email, display a recipe or play sudoko on the same device. That's it.
Is it overpriced? Sure, for people who find it easy to do all those things and more on a netbook or a laptop. For the average consumer and user of casual computing, it's a more convenient way to do those things.
Stop thinking of it as an overpriced netbook. It's not.
I wouldn't hire a criminal to do legitimately what he did unlawfully, except with very stringent controls in place. I might hire the Spanish hackers in question for their expertise, but it would be a zero trust relationship--say, paid for each reproducible and unknown vulnerability they found and documented.
They can always find jobs in other fields where their lawbreaking isn't at the heart of their job.
Any rebuttal that ends with "LOL" is sure to be devastating.
"Those people" is a functional definition, not an intrinsic one like race or sexual orientation, so I'm perfectly comfortable saying "those people". They're self-selecting by acting criminal. They break laws. Someone who's broken laws in the past is not, in general, trustworthy of not breaking the same laws again. As someone observed above, part of the consequences of breaking a law is that you need to regain that trust with a long period of demonstrating that you've reformed. Sucks to be you, but you shouldn't have broken the laws in the first place.
[To forestall another respondent's point: I'm talking about laws that you deliberately break for criminal gain, not negligent vehicular homicide--also I'd like avoid crossing the street in front of that person]
It's a fair point. I was thinking of things like paying them when they produce verifiable use cases of security holes--something where the work product is a reproducible vulnerability (and thus easily checked), or a theoretical approach to a security problem. In other words, something where the work stands on its own as a valuable thing. You wouldn't trust such consultants with auditing or verifying something themselves.
The question, of course, is "can you trust them?" and only they can answer that.
From the article:
When it became clear that Panda wasn't interested in hiring him, Netkairo changed his tune, Corrons said, claiming he had found vulnerabilities in the company's cloud anti-virus software and hinting that he planned to publish the information.
When it became clear that Panda wasn't interested in hiring him, Netkairo changed his tune, Corrons said, claiming he had found vulnerabilities in the company's cloud anti-virus software and hinting that he planned to publish the information.
This is why you don't hire criminals, ex or otherwise. Pretty much by definition, they don't have normal social controls in their heads that make them worthwhile employees.
I can see Panda potentially using them as consultants of a sort, and very carefully maintaining an arms-length relationship with them that's clearly about paying them for specific analyses or something. But hire them as employees? It'd be like planting land mines under the office carpet.
We cancelled our cable about a year ago just because weren't watching much TV at all. Saved ourselves about $50/month. For us, it wasn't about the ads or the cost, it was just that we weren't really using it.
Short answer: they won't choose an iPad over a laptop, netbook, or desktop, because of the obvious problems you identify. They choose an iPad because they make significant use of their iPhone for games, reading, or casual web browsing, and want something better than that, meaning mainly a large screen and easier typing. Or they're tired of sitting in front of the TV with a laptop when an Ipad seems to fulfill all the same functions in a much lighter and smaller form factor.
Where did you get the idea that an iPad is supposed to be a replacement for a PC? The idea that Jobs is pushing is that the new ecosystem is casual computing for which a full-blooded PC or MacBook is overkill.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, there's nothing stopping you from buying an iPhone, installing Linux on it, and running whatever the hell you want. Your analogy would only be accurate if Moleskine had to add chemicals to their paper to make the inks of various pens show up, and they announced they were no longer putting the special Bic Pen chemical in their notebooks.
And even the fanboys must know this is true. The ONLY people who take Apple desktops/laptops seriously are the people who NEED to run photoshop
This hasn't been true for a decade, which is why five years ago Apple stopped using LCD monitors on their laptops and iMacs that were easily calibrated for true colors. Photographs whined a bit, and Apple's market share continued to grow.
I'm going to keep waving my hands, because I'm not an iPhone dev. You going to cry about that, too?
Sure, they could do that. Or they could just say "no thanks, don't want the headache."
A lot of the comments here are "I'm a compsci guy who runs Linux on his netbook--I think you're crazy to want an Ipad." This misses the point that iPads are about having a convenient device that makes casual computing tasks like reading or surfing the web or playing sudoko or displaying recipes very easy. People here approach the iPad as a crippled laptop, while people who buy them are buying a device that makes those casual and fun tasks very easy and accessible. It's not about smug Apple owners, it's about mistaking the purpose of the device.
If it's not about rights, then why is Adobe suing Apple to allow Flash? Adobe has an interest in Apple's success?
It's a fair argument that excluding Flash weakens or limits the platform, though I argue below that they're not. But a truly huge amount of the opposition to excluding Flash has taken the language of the rights of Flash developers to deploy on the platform.
So we are pointing out that Apple is handcuffing the functionality of their devices in terms of how they can be used and who can use them. And that the stated reasons for doing so -- that flash/java is buggy and promotes bad apps -- do not actually hold up to examination.
Besides apps in Objective C, Apple has blessed the use of toolkits to write web-app style apps that are HTML/JavaScript/CSS, and take advantage of HTML5 on the webkit engine. Such apps can be sold through the app store just like native apps, and are downloaded and installed just like native apps. In other words, they've blessed an easy and accessible way to develop apps for the iPhone, so excluding Flash is not about creating a walled development garden.
Not at all. I think the comment I was responding to really catches an crucial aspect of Ipad sales that a lot of people here are missing. Why do you hope I'm being sarcastic?
It's as if Sears was the only place to buy shoes
That would be accurate if the iPhone were the only mobile device, and the only potential outlet for Flash developers. There's Android, there's Blackberry, there's the whole freaking Internet. You can't arbitrarily draw the monopoly line around the iPhone when there's perfectly functional equivalents to it.
After a conversation with an iPhone developer, I understand that there are valid technical reasons that Flash won't play well in the iPhone OS environment, especially when 4.0 comes out. Undoubtedly, money and marketshare are large considerations, but this is not entirely a capricious business decision on Apple's part.
The right to sell Flash apps for the iPhone is an example of a positive right--your right implies an obligation on another party's part to facilitate it (as opposed to a negative right, where other parties are simply obligated to abstain from preventing your exercise of the right).
Freedom of speech is a negative right--you can talk all you want, and I'm only doing something wrong if I prevent you from talking. Health Care is a positive right (if you think it's a right, as most do in Canada)--your right to health care creates an obligation on me to fund it through my taxes.
More negative rights should be the default, but casually sanctifying positive rights is a recipe for less freedom, not more, because you're placing active obligations on everyone else. Flash devs don't want the right to write Flash apps, they want the right to be supported by Apple on the iPhone, and that's what Apple is denying.
Bogost's point is that it's not an issue of freedom. "Freedom" simply isn't applicable here, and trying to discuss it in those terms just betrays the sense of entitlement and "I have a right..." that Bogost identifies. You don't have the freedom to write iApps in Flash in the same sense that I don't have the freedom to sell the shoes I make through Sears. They could sell my shoes, but its entirely within their discretion not to do so.
This is an awesome comment.
It is a terrible laptop replacement
It's not a laptop replacement. It's a device for shallow activities with a computer--an iPhone with a larger screen. Everything you love about your iPhone is applicable to the iPad, plus it's got a nicer screen. That's it.
Someone please enlighten me as to why this things sells so good.
Several times I've suggested to my mother that she could use a laptop in the kitchen to hold and display all her recipes and look things up if she needs to, and she refuses because there's a psychological barrier to entry with any computer that you need to know how to work the computer to get to do the easy, convenient things. The iPad, because it acts like a multi-purpose device rather than a general computing platform, eliminates that psychological barrier to entry. It makes doing things like displaying recipes and playing sudoko accessible and portable in a way that a laptop doesn't.
This seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding of a lot of geeks about the iPad: They think it's something power users will use. It's not. It's for reading books on the train/bus, it's for looking something up or checking your email while sitting on the couch watching TV, it's for playing killer sudoko with your coffee, it's for displaying a recipe in the kitchen. Much of what you're paying for is the convenient form factor and the general fit-and-finish of the device, and the rest is the fact that you can read, check email, display a recipe or play sudoko on the same device. That's it.
Is it overpriced? Sure, for people who find it easy to do all those things and more on a netbook or a laptop. For the average consumer and user of casual computing, it's a more convenient way to do those things.
Stop thinking of it as an overpriced netbook. It's not.
Hans Reiser led the police to body of the ex-wife he murdered.
I wouldn't hire a criminal to do legitimately what he did unlawfully, except with very stringent controls in place. I might hire the Spanish hackers in question for their expertise, but it would be a zero trust relationship--say, paid for each reproducible and unknown vulnerability they found and documented.
They can always find jobs in other fields where their lawbreaking isn't at the heart of their job.
The CEO of Enron is dead.
Any rebuttal that ends with "LOL" is sure to be devastating.
"Those people" is a functional definition, not an intrinsic one like race or sexual orientation, so I'm perfectly comfortable saying "those people". They're self-selecting by acting criminal. They break laws. Someone who's broken laws in the past is not, in general, trustworthy of not breaking the same laws again. As someone observed above, part of the consequences of breaking a law is that you need to regain that trust with a long period of demonstrating that you've reformed. Sucks to be you, but you shouldn't have broken the laws in the first place.
[To forestall another respondent's point: I'm talking about laws that you deliberately break for criminal gain, not negligent vehicular homicide--also I'd like avoid crossing the street in front of that person]
It's a fair point. I was thinking of things like paying them when they produce verifiable use cases of security holes--something where the work product is a reproducible vulnerability (and thus easily checked), or a theoretical approach to a security problem. In other words, something where the work stands on its own as a valuable thing. You wouldn't trust such consultants with auditing or verifying something themselves.
How typical of /.: A comment made in a specific context is uselessly generalized and found to be a useless generalization.
However, I'll cop to not specifically saying "criminals whose crime was deliberate and relevant to the employment opportunity under discussion."
From the article:
Clearly in these guy's case, you can't.
From the article:
This is why you don't hire criminals, ex or otherwise. Pretty much by definition, they don't have normal social controls in their heads that make them worthwhile employees.
I can see Panda potentially using them as consultants of a sort, and very carefully maintaining an arms-length relationship with them that's clearly about paying them for specific analyses or something. But hire them as employees? It'd be like planting land mines under the office carpet.
>>> (1.0/3)*3
1.0
We cancelled our cable about a year ago just because weren't watching much TV at all. Saved ourselves about $50/month. For us, it wasn't about the ads or the cost, it was just that we weren't really using it.
Short answer: they won't choose an iPad over a laptop, netbook, or desktop, because of the obvious problems you identify. They choose an iPad because they make significant use of their iPhone for games, reading, or casual web browsing, and want something better than that, meaning mainly a large screen and easier typing. Or they're tired of sitting in front of the TV with a laptop when an Ipad seems to fulfill all the same functions in a much lighter and smaller form factor.
Where did you get the idea that an iPad is supposed to be a replacement for a PC? The idea that Jobs is pushing is that the new ecosystem is casual computing for which a full-blooded PC or MacBook is overkill.