I would suggest with the multitude of iPhone users saying the app disappeared from their phone (avforums for exampple), and Apple's lack of comment other than the app was removed from the app store, that it's exactly what happened.
That unauthorizedApps ref is for CoreLocation, to prevent apps from unauthorized apps from using it. It has nothing to do with blacklisted apps on the device or from the app store. (clbl stands for CoreLocation Black List).
Picking between two parties in an election isn't a problem for a large number of people either, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
How about when Google Voice was turned away from the app store? Was that a problem for any of the users of that device?
Maybe iDevice users do want to read a magazine devoted to Android but can't because it was also banned?
And the back and forth over apps that use the camera... ugh.
It's easy to defend a platform as "isn't a problem for a large number of people" by pointing out the good side while ignoring some of the reasons it's not good enough for a large number of people. The walled garden is more than just trying to keep malicious software out of users' hands. It's about what Apple as a whole thinks is good for you. And allowing an app then banning it is nothing more than bait and switch, such as the app that allowed you to use the camera by using the volume buttons.
p.s. enjoy your Wikileaks app... oh wait, you can't anymore. Do you still like the walled garden?
Most devices will allow (with permission) use of the GPS and other local features through the browser, which would add some horsepower to your thoughts. But the reason I like apps on my smartphones is I want to use the browser for browsing.
The good news is there are some wonderful multi-platform tools like Appcelerator, Phonegap (this one pushes to the browser for now though), Rhomobile, DragonRad, that allow the developer to write once and compile many.
You're right about the revenue model. Good for developers/entrepreneurs, not as good for the consumer. I totally agree with the mentality of offering an ad-supported and potentially less featureful app for free, with a low price on the full ad-free version.
Nah, Firefox has rejected X.264 outright, much like Google is doing. Good point on XP, although it's falling out of favor fast. IE8 will run on XP, but IE9 won't.
Of note, I agree with them (Google, Mozille, et. al.) in principle, but if there's something out there in X.264 and I want to watch it, then I want to watch it.
MS Java didn't force anybody to use it. It was language support added to Visual Studio. As a matter of fact, nobody I ever knew used it.
Microsoft's implementation of HTML in IE wasn't all that off, it was their jscript and css rendering that were horrible. If you want to talk about forced, those two might fit the bill, as IE had huge market share and web developers/designers had to branch code to work in IE and other browsers.
Silverlight, Flash, AIR.... any of the platform within the browser are all optional, and I treat them (as a developer) as nonexistant. If any developers do use them for the web, they should ALWAYS offer an alternate path with just HTML/CSS/Javascript (unless it's corprate intranet, then I couldn't care less).
I have no problem at all with Google changing the format of Youtube videos... that's theirs to decide. But if Chrome absolutely will not support H.264 then I'll likely stop using it.
CP/M had died out before I started college in 1989 (in the US), and I didn't know anybody with an Atari ST (though I wished I had at the time). The only think I saw like GEM was I think DosShell (or something like that name) which wasn't as nice as the images I just saw of GEM on Wikipedia.
So I suppose I should clarify further in that they were hardly common in the US, where Apple is and likes to file suit (against GEM back in the day as a matter of fact).
Hmmm, all I asked was that the GP wasn't suggesting Mac did GUI first. I really don't care about the rest, I'm just sick of the CoA folks saying Apple was first when in fact they were far from it. NLS and PARC were there LONG before the Lisa and eventually the Macintosh.
Slashdot Mirror
I like your initial comparison... it's why I at least don't start with Google.
I've also found that if I want concise results I use Bing, if I want tons of links (and sometimes I do) I use Google.
Bing is new yet, so this might not work for me two years from now, but so far so good.
Ahh for want of mod points, +1 Frickin Funny.
I would suggest with the multitude of iPhone users saying the app disappeared from their phone (avforums for exampple), and Apple's lack of comment other than the app was removed from the app store, that it's exactly what happened.
That unauthorizedApps ref is for CoreLocation, to prevent apps from unauthorized apps from using it. It has nothing to do with blacklisted apps on the device or from the app store. (clbl stands for CoreLocation Black List).
So no, I'm not fibbing, you're just incorrect.
NDrive was remotely removed from iPhones.
Try researching first.. NDrive was apparently remotely removed by Apple.
Now do that math with Photoshop.
As a developer I can say with certainty that I'd never promote any of my apps through a store that takes 30%.
Picking between two parties in an election isn't a problem for a large number of people either, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
How about when Google Voice was turned away from the app store? Was that a problem for any of the users of that device?
Maybe iDevice users do want to read a magazine devoted to Android but can't because it was also banned?
And the back and forth over apps that use the camera... ugh.
It's easy to defend a platform as "isn't a problem for a large number of people" by pointing out the good side while ignoring some of the reasons it's not good enough for a large number of people. The walled garden is more than just trying to keep malicious software out of users' hands. It's about what Apple as a whole thinks is good for you. And allowing an app then banning it is nothing more than bait and switch, such as the app that allowed you to use the camera by using the volume buttons.
p.s. enjoy your Wikileaks app... oh wait, you can't anymore. Do you still like the walled garden?
These are not RVs, they're mobile homes. Only they call them manufactured homes now as mobile homes have the negative stigma mentioned above.
Sadly, some trailer homes cost more than the average house (property value not included in either).
He was responding to the mention of Apple products in the OPs description. Get over it.
Ack, and forgot to add a device and a webapp (see Evernote for example) to me is the best of all worlds.
Most devices will allow (with permission) use of the GPS and other local features through the browser, which would add some horsepower to your thoughts. But the reason I like apps on my smartphones is I want to use the browser for browsing.
The good news is there are some wonderful multi-platform tools like Appcelerator, Phonegap (this one pushes to the browser for now though), Rhomobile, DragonRad, that allow the developer to write once and compile many.
You're right about the revenue model. Good for developers/entrepreneurs, not as good for the consumer. I totally agree with the mentality of offering an ad-supported and potentially less featureful app for free, with a low price on the full ad-free version.
Nah, Firefox has rejected X.264 outright, much like Google is doing. Good point on XP, although it's falling out of favor fast. IE8 will run on XP, but IE9 won't.
Of note, I agree with them (Google, Mozille, et. al.) in principle, but if there's something out there in X.264 and I want to watch it, then I want to watch it.
Because I have a limit on how much new shit I'll pick up in a given time period :)
MS Java didn't force anybody to use it. It was language support added to Visual Studio. As a matter of fact, nobody I ever knew used it.
Microsoft's implementation of HTML in IE wasn't all that off, it was their jscript and css rendering that were horrible. If you want to talk about forced, those two might fit the bill, as IE had huge market share and web developers/designers had to branch code to work in IE and other browsers.
Silverlight, Flash, AIR.... any of the platform within the browser are all optional, and I treat them (as a developer) as nonexistant. If any developers do use them for the web, they should ALWAYS offer an alternate path with just HTML/CSS/Javascript (unless it's corprate intranet, then I couldn't care less).
IE will support anything you have a codec for. Sadly, that may wind up being the way I have to go.
Or maybe I'll tweak the Mozilla source. Right now I'm not sure.
But a company loses my interest the moment they start limiting my choice under the guise of my best interests.
How are any of those forced?
I have no problem at all with Google changing the format of Youtube videos... that's theirs to decide. But if Chrome absolutely will not support H.264 then I'll likely stop using it.
I want choice.
I'd rather have the option of using both,
Strangely, IE9 would be your browser of choice then.
And I say strangely only because this is /. and here choice is always good as long as that choice has nothing at all to do with Microsoft.
I guess you didn't infer "everyone else who had a computer from that statement.
and 1990ish was when I actually saw my first Macintosh (a roommate's). Before that I saw Apple ][s, Commodores, etc...
Why would "they had to wait for the Mac to come out so they could see how it was done" when there were plenty of examples before it?
CP/M had died out before I started college in 1989 (in the US), and I didn't know anybody with an Atari ST (though I wished I had at the time). The only think I saw like GEM was I think DosShell (or something like that name) which wasn't as nice as the images I just saw of GEM on Wikipedia.
So I suppose I should clarify further in that they were hardly common in the US, where Apple is and likes to file suit (against GEM back in the day as a matter of fact).
Hmmm, all I asked was that the GP wasn't suggesting Mac did GUI first. I really don't care about the rest, I'm just sick of the CoA folks saying Apple was first when in fact they were far from it. NLS and PARC were there LONG before the Lisa and eventually the Macintosh.
So it is in fact fanboyism.
Only if people didn't listen to podcasts through their browser, or podcast apps on the desktop, or on their Androids, or on their Blackberries....
Not to worry though, I'm trying to beat Jobs to the iDouchebag trademark. That'll show him!
Care to elaborate?