Sure, if they want to break compatibility with basically every application currently on the Mac, and have their spat with Adobe finally push Adobe fully over to Window.
In a move from "now" to "locked", yes. In a move from "now" to "app store" to "locked", not necessarily. How many deprecation steps have there been in the last ten years? Carbon is dead, PPC is dead, i386 is dying. Doesn't seem to take that old to phase out old Apple tech. Interestingly enough Adobe has been burnt just about every step of the way and Apple never seemed to care enough.
Asking somebody to back up their statements is "wishful thinking"?
I'm not making absolute predictions that are bound to come true, I'm looking at the trends, there is no way to back that up besides explaining the reasoning. Wishful thinking is dismissing concerns about the future on the basis that it hasn't happened yet and for unstated reasons is unlikely to happen.
But to start bitching now before Apple has done any of these things indicates a predisposition towards criticizing Apple.
It might to you, no reason to project on others. Looking for options once things are already down the drain does not work for everyone. Many of us look at the trends and are considering what to do if things continue this way. That might be as simple as a preference towards cross platform software, yes that is a prudent thing anyway but doubly so if your vendor is going in a direction that won't work for you.
It's doable from the command-line and there's several apps you can download to do it with a GUI.
It was an example of Apple severely restricting options, there are ways around it but it certainly indicates where Apple is moving in regards to streamlining.
Between those two? Unification. The closer they get the less reason there is to maintain separate OSes.
Between those two and the hardcore streamlining and touting the benefits of lockdown?
Why won't it happen, Apple has everything to gain, next to nothing to lose (short term and probably long term as well)? You call this paranoia, I call what you do wishful thinking. You insist they won't do it but give absolutely no justification besides "it hasn't happened yet and they say it won't".
Why is the paranoia of non-mac users posting in a web forum to be believed?
Because extrapolating from existing trends isn't paranoia. Not trusting market driven statements (of course we aren't making an iPhone 4 don't put off your iPhone purchase because of these silly rumors) isn't paranoia.
One the trend is locked down devices with iOS.Another is moving OS X in the direction of those devices UI wise.
Apple has stated that the lock down is a positive feature that keeps users safe, improves quality and doesn't get in the way of what most people do. iOS device users, generally agree.
This is in-line with another trend: streamlining the user experience for the most common options to the point of excluding second tier ones (can't easily tell Time Machine to use part of a drive, even though it would be a reasonable and simple feature).
Tell me one good reason why Apple wouldn't want to bring enhanced security, quality and ease of use to the desktop if they can get enough developers to continue building apps for it? Besides the fact that they deny it.
They'd have to deny shell usage, direct access to the file system, prevent browsers from downloading executables, etc.
Why wouldn't they deny shell usage for the average user and put a fancy way to access files on top of your jailed file system? Browsers don't need to do anything, just prevent users from being able to actually run them.
I can't see it happening on OS X- they need something for developers to develop on, after all.
What would prevent them from selling devkits with severe (legal) restrictions?
It's not whether or not they can do it or want to do it, because it's pretty clear that they can and want to. It's whether they have a critical mass of app developers who will put up with these restrictions, if they do, it will happen.
In the comments of this article? Really? Because Apple stated so? Apple denies things that are announced the next month on a regular basis, why is their statement on the future of OS X to be believed?
My idea was to do this bitching in a tasteful manner that results in requests to be in on the beta of an HTPC game or at least confirmation that there's a market.
Rather roundabout way to do it, isn't it?;)
I can't say that I'm fond of (any) DRM schemes so more power to you. Just don't fixate so much on what you can't use and more on what is already there and (probably) under served.
Absolutely, just stay out of the splitscreen trap. Heck, even spitscreen should work. Resolution is great and a reasonable playing distance (far enough to pack all the people around the screen without too much fuss, basically what that favorite picture of yours shows) should do for 3-4 on a 19".
Then do you recommend that all indie multiplayer video games either A. be one-switch games or B. require an expensive $2,400 network-of-PCs?
Do you recommend just bitching about console DRM?
With the absurd questions of the way... Yes you will have to compromise, swallow your pride and design for what you have a mid-sized high-res display optimized for closer distance viewing, convince people to get those gamepads and group up at the monitor, you will not have the couch "experience", forget it. Work with what you have, you are way better of then if this were the NES years.
$2400 network? Really? So not only do you want a particular screen size, viewing distance and a control scheme subsidized (and that's what bringing even a profit-making console like the Wii into a sizable portion of the homes comes down to) by someone without compensating them, you also want hi-specs! Entitlement much? 4 netbooks using ad-hock networking works out to just about $1200, that's still a lot of money but half of what you quoted.
Realistically a netbook will be downright comparable to a Nintendo 3DS both price and multiplayer-ability wise. It's heavier, but not heavy enough to pose a problem to anyone with a bakcpack, that also gives a bigger screen. If you have the millions of marketing dollars to convince parents that a netbook is both a good way to get the kids of off their computer and shut them up about that 3DS you have a market. If you don't, why do you expect someone to do that for you without compensation?
Developing a compelling HTPC game to drive purchases of HTPCs and the connection of gaming laptops to HDTVs was my business plan before some other Slashdot users talked me out of it.
That is much more ambitious. Current desktop/gaming laptop monitors are plenty big and hi-res. If you can shoehorn the control scheme to work well enough with what the PCs have you just lowered the barrier of entry to downloading a demo version (that is, next to nothing). Only require a gamepad for two-player multiplayer and you just might get somewhere.
Unlike the lack of high-definition CRTs, the restriction against indie games on Wii and PS3 is not technical but purely an arbitrary business decision.
The decision to stop developing CRT and push flat panels despite their limitations at the time was a business decision as well (but neither of them is an arbitrary one). The result on the developer is identical: most people have neither CRTs or a general purpose computer hooked up to their TV.
Rare did, and Goldeneye 007 sold eight million copies.
They designed the game for the console, had they designed it to be played with mouse and keyboard it would have gone nowhere. In the end it's all about working around the limitations (arbitrary or not) that are in place.
So the major labels have access to all the buttons of a gamepad, but smaller developers are limited to A. one-switch gaming or B.
C. Having a game good enough that people will pick a bunch of cheap USB gamepads. At least pick something that's harder to do, like motion control, gamepads are a piece of cake for the PC.
In what way is this fair?
Just like creating a light gun accessory for the PS3 and asking where all the 1080p CRTs, it's not about fairness, it's about where the market stands.
Must I post the design document for a console-style game on my web site and then whine on forums about how the gatekeepers are keeping YOU from playing this game?
Would you do the same with your light gun controlled game document. Or one that required a 100" screen (why doesn't everyone have a projector, it's not fair!). Or, to reverse the roles, about the lack of a keyboard and mouse if you had the greatest hardcore FPS design even and only had access to a gamepad controlled console? What about a game that requires precise brain wave control, why has no one made a good controller yet!
But if the majority of set-top devices are appliances rather than computers, and the majority of computers have screens too small for the intended application, where does that leave a small business that wants to, say, self-publish a video game that it has developed?
Not developing a game and looking for a market afterwards would be a good start. It's like creating a light gun accessory for the PS3 and asking where all the 1080p CRTs are.
If you are out there to make money/capture a big audience outside of the console infrastructure you develop around the end user controlled devices that are already there. Mystic Mine for example could be played by 3-4 people on a netbook.
That is basically my point, the appliances aren't replacing PCs, just augmenting them (hell, the iPad is basically designed to require a PC to sync to). I don't see the need for an unrestricted general purpose computer going away, there are too many niches to serve by an App Store model.
This is about hardware, not software. FSF has a longstanding position that different things can and should be treated differently - applications and value added libraries, underlaying platforms, broadly applicable libraries, fundamental libraries, fonts, documentation, persuasive writing, etc. are all treated differently. Some slightly differently (fonts have a GPL exception at the moment) some clearly non-free by the software standards (persuasive writing).
Furthermore, it's not even free hardware or hardware that can run Free operating systems very well, it's about active endorsement. Why should this particular type of endorsement as free as software?
Many of the people who DO know that difference, still choose iPhones, iPads and iPods because they don't care that the device is locked down in some manner.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a large group that does not know the difference. Or that there isn't a sizable group that does and does NOT choose the locked down platform precisely because it is locked down.
Slashdot Mirror
In a move from "now" to "locked", yes. In a move from "now" to "app store" to "locked", not necessarily. How many deprecation steps have there been in the last ten years? Carbon is dead, PPC is dead, i386 is dying. Doesn't seem to take that old to phase out old Apple tech. Interestingly enough Adobe has been burnt just about every step of the way and Apple never seemed to care enough.
I'm not making absolute predictions that are bound to come true, I'm looking at the trends, there is no way to back that up besides explaining the reasoning. Wishful thinking is dismissing concerns about the future on the basis that it hasn't happened yet and for unstated reasons is unlikely to happen.
What exactly have they promised? That you will always be in control of your computer? Or that you will be in control of OS X?
It might to you, no reason to project on others. Looking for options once things are already down the drain does not work for everyone. Many of us look at the trends and are considering what to do if things continue this way. That might be as simple as a preference towards cross platform software, yes that is a prudent thing anyway but doubly so if your vendor is going in a direction that won't work for you.
There is also the problem of data and/or software migration to consider.
It was an example of Apple severely restricting options, there are ways around it but it certainly indicates where Apple is moving in regards to streamlining.
Between those two? Unification. The closer they get the less reason there is to maintain separate OSes.
Between those two and the hardcore streamlining and touting the benefits of lockdown?
Why won't it happen, Apple has everything to gain, next to nothing to lose (short term and probably long term as well)? You call this paranoia, I call what you do wishful thinking. You insist they won't do it but give absolutely no justification besides "it hasn't happened yet and they say it won't".
Will OS 11 be Unix? Or iOS Desktop Edition? Would it help them sell appliances if they were Unix branded?
Because extrapolating from existing trends isn't paranoia. Not trusting market driven statements (of course we aren't making an iPhone 4 don't put off your iPhone purchase because of these silly rumors) isn't paranoia.
One the trend is locked down devices with iOS.Another is moving OS X in the direction of those devices UI wise.
Apple has stated that the lock down is a positive feature that keeps users safe, improves quality and doesn't get in the way of what most people do. iOS device users, generally agree.
This is in-line with another trend: streamlining the user experience for the most common options to the point of excluding second tier ones (can't easily tell Time Machine to use part of a drive, even though it would be a reasonable and simple feature).
Tell me one good reason why Apple wouldn't want to bring enhanced security, quality and ease of use to the desktop if they can get enough developers to continue building apps for it? Besides the fact that they deny it.
Why wouldn't they deny shell usage for the average user and put a fancy way to access files on top of your jailed file system? Browsers don't need to do anything, just prevent users from being able to actually run them.
What would prevent them from selling devkits with severe (legal) restrictions?
It's not whether or not they can do it or want to do it, because it's pretty clear that they can and want to. It's whether they have a critical mass of app developers who will put up with these restrictions, if they do, it will happen.
In the comments of this article? Really? Because Apple stated so? Apple denies things that are announced the next month on a regular basis, why is their statement on the future of OS X to be believed?
Rather roundabout way to do it, isn't it? ;)
I can't say that I'm fond of (any) DRM schemes so more power to you. Just don't fixate so much on what you can't use and more on what is already there and (probably) under served.
Absolutely, just stay out of the splitscreen trap. Heck, even spitscreen should work. Resolution is great and a reasonable playing distance (far enough to pack all the people around the screen without too much fuss, basically what that favorite picture of yours shows) should do for 3-4 on a 19".
Do you recommend just bitching about console DRM?
With the absurd questions of the way... Yes you will have to compromise, swallow your pride and design for what you have a mid-sized high-res display optimized for closer distance viewing, convince people to get those gamepads and group up at the monitor, you will not have the couch "experience", forget it. Work with what you have, you are way better of then if this were the NES years.
$2400 network? Really? So not only do you want a particular screen size, viewing distance and a control scheme subsidized (and that's what bringing even a profit-making console like the Wii into a sizable portion of the homes comes down to) by someone without compensating them, you also want hi-specs! Entitlement much? 4 netbooks using ad-hock networking works out to just about $1200, that's still a lot of money but half of what you quoted.
Realistically a netbook will be downright comparable to a Nintendo 3DS both price and multiplayer-ability wise. It's heavier, but not heavy enough to pose a problem to anyone with a bakcpack, that also gives a bigger screen. If you have the millions of marketing dollars to convince parents that a netbook is both a good way to get the kids of off their computer and shut them up about that 3DS you have a market. If you don't, why do you expect someone to do that for you without compensation?
Who do you think lobbied for laws that let government meddle in software licensing?
That is much more ambitious. Current desktop/gaming laptop monitors are plenty big and hi-res. If you can shoehorn the control scheme to work well enough with what the PCs have you just lowered the barrier of entry to downloading a demo version (that is, next to nothing). Only require a gamepad for two-player multiplayer and you just might get somewhere.
The decision to stop developing CRT and push flat panels despite their limitations at the time was a business decision as well (but neither of them is an arbitrary one). The result on the developer is identical: most people have neither CRTs or a general purpose computer hooked up to their TV.
They designed the game for the console, had they designed it to be played with mouse and keyboard it would have gone nowhere. In the end it's all about working around the limitations (arbitrary or not) that are in place.
C. Having a game good enough that people will pick a bunch of cheap USB gamepads. At least pick something that's harder to do, like motion control, gamepads are a piece of cake for the PC.
Just like creating a light gun accessory for the PS3 and asking where all the 1080p CRTs, it's not about fairness, it's about where the market stands.
Would you do the same with your light gun controlled game document. Or one that required a 100" screen (why doesn't everyone have a projector, it's not fair!). Or, to reverse the roles, about the lack of a keyboard and mouse if you had the greatest hardcore FPS design even and only had access to a gamepad controlled console? What about a game that requires precise brain wave control, why has no one made a good controller yet!
It's both, the Document Foundation doesn't require copyright assignment because it, among other things, slows down development.
Not developing a game and looking for a market afterwards would be a good start. It's like creating a light gun accessory for the PS3 and asking where all the 1080p CRTs are.
If you are out there to make money/capture a big audience outside of the console infrastructure you develop around the end user controlled devices that are already there. Mystic Mine for example could be played by 3-4 people on a netbook.
That is basically my point, the appliances aren't replacing PCs, just augmenting them (hell, the iPad is basically designed to require a PC to sync to). I don't see the need for an unrestricted general purpose computer going away, there are too many niches to serve by an App Store model.
You were specifically talking about price, don't shift the goalposts.
Does it replace the $279 netbook for filling taxes and typing up homework?
This is about hardware, not software. FSF has a longstanding position that different things can and should be treated differently - applications and value added libraries, underlaying platforms, broadly applicable libraries, fundamental libraries, fonts, documentation, persuasive writing, etc. are all treated differently. Some slightly differently (fonts have a GPL exception at the moment) some clearly non-free by the software standards (persuasive writing).
Furthermore, it's not even free hardware or hardware that can run Free operating systems very well, it's about active endorsement. Why should this particular type of endorsement as free as software?
As I said, I don't see the "Works with Windows" in that way but I can understand the viewpoint.
Many of the people who DO know that difference, still choose iPhones, iPads and iPods because they don't care that the device is locked down in some manner.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a large group that does not know the difference. Or that there isn't a sizable group that does and does NOT choose the locked down platform precisely because it is locked down.
If, and only if, you actually happen to build your infrastructure right at the release of that version and are willing to pay to be a *.0 tester.