The expert quoted is telling the details for the very best possible human vision. Turns out typical 20/20 vision is around 270 ppi for something at 12 inches from the face. So Apple is giving a perfectly valid claim, IMO.
Yeah, and on top of that the guy says "significantly lower resolution." I doubt that 80% of iPhone users of the current iPhone have eyes still good enough to differentiate between neighboring pixels when holding the device 12 inches from their face. Some people love to split hairs, and/.ers love to post links to the hair-splitter blogs.
Not just the summary. The article itself is misleading (it doesn't once mention that the virus effects Windows PCs and not iPads). This one: http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-features/49519-nefarious-ipad-virus-masquerades-as-itunes-update is slightly better, as it doesn't fail to mention the fact that Windows PCs are being infected and not iPads. The iPad is only the phishing-hook to get a user to click the link (something like: you need to update your iTunes for your new iPad, click here to do so...)
Let's not forget what we are talking about here. Real censorship is a moral issue.
We are only talking about preferences of a consumer product that is, in the grand scheme of your life, pretty unimportant. This debate isn't a whole lot different than Coke vs. Pepsi. If you like the apps that Apple has in the app store, and you don't need some of things that Android does that the iPhone doesn't, then the iPhone is probably a better choice, simply because you will be happier with it. If you really care about the closed nature of the app store or need some features of Android that aren't available on the iPhone, then Android is a better choice. Let's not make a false analogy between companies selling us consumer products for our consumption and real oppression, however.
Give me a break. There is absolutely no reason why a console vendor couldn't publicly release the SDK and allow a programmer to turn the console into a development device in the same way the iPhone SDK does for the iPhone. The consoles are definitely more locked down than the iPhone and unnecessarily so. The bottom line is that the console vendors have been exerting even more tight control than Apple does with the iPhone and virtually nobody complains.
No, I agree, I've been convinced. His whole, "Google Portfolio," as some people have called it, is now completely trashed (although, I would hire him, if he's good, and he probably is and just had a few too many.)
Anyway, I concede the point. Gizmodo was way out of line. I heard Chen on NPR tonight and neither he, nor the guy interviewing him (Neal Conan, I think, but I may be misremembering) mentioned the fact that Chen had just ruined the poor engineer's life.
"everyone is sympathizing with "that poor undergrad working for Apple"
Now, you just said in the post above that people sympathize with Russia, not the KGB ("Americans don't sympathize with the KGB".) And when I claimed that you said the engineer was Russia, you said, "No. Just Apple with Russia."
So let's sum this up:
"everyone is sympathizing with "that poor undergrad working for Apple", "Americans don't sympathize with the KGB", therefore your analogy clearly makes the poor undergrad out to be not the KGB, since we sympathize with him, but to be Russia.
I guess my point is: he was probably fired before Gizmodo released his name, and he won't be getting good references from Apple for his next job, so even if his name hadn't been released he'd probably have a hard time getting another tech job.
References allow your previous employer to tell your prospective one whether or not you were a good employee. I doubt you would get a great recommendation from Apple even if they were light on the details if you lost a prototype. And a bad review from Apple is probably akin to un-employable.
Apple knows that it was remote-wiped. Apple owns Mobile Me. Apple knows which engineers have prototypes and what their mobile me account names are and which device serials are tied to which mobile me accounts. Seems like a very quick database call to find out who remote wiped a prototype.
In your Analogy you equated Apple with the KGB and Russia (who Americans apparently have sympathy for) with the engineer. So for your post to make sense the engineer needs to now become CEO of Apple so all that sympathy and good will can be directed towards Apple. The analogy doesn't really fit.
Seriously, how does this further harm the guy who lost it? Apple, of course, knows exactly who has which prototypes. All they would have to do is call the few individuals who have one back in to the office, see if they still have one, and punish the guy who doesn't have one anymore. There is no way Apple didn't already know who he was. Also, the phone was remotely disabled, which either means A.) the engineer who lost the phone did it using mobile me, or B.) Apple did it.
If A.) then apple need only check who, of the handful of people allowed to take a prototype phone of the campus, used mobile me to disable it.
If B.) then he had already admitted to Apple that he had lost it so that Apple could disable it.
Either way, his job security has nothing to do with what Gizmodo did or did not do in regards to releasing his name. If there is bad form involved the bad form is on Gizmodo for scooping this in the first place (not in releasing his name) and probably costing the guy his job because of the mere fact that they reported they had the phone rather than just returning the device (which of course they do because that is their business, to get scoops like this) or on the dude who found it at a bar and sold it to Gizmodo for $5k. I don't believe for a second his sob story about calling Apple and their not returning his calls and then not wanting to give it to a guy at the Apple store.
If he was really so conscientious that he felt he couldn't trust giving it to an Apple Store employee, then he wouldn't have sold it for $5k to Gizmodo.
Disclaimer: I doubt Apple is about to change chips, and so this is simply a hypothetical discussion.
It would be trivial to have developers compile to some large universal binary that basically contained binaries for each supported architecture and then on App Store submission, simply strip out each version and deliver the correct one to each individual device. In fact, I would wager they are doing that now already so that when an iPhone user downloads a Universal iPad/iPhone app they don't have to get all the extra high res graphics and code for the iPad version. This is a really simple engineering problem.
Did you actually use the Opera Mini for iPhone before you posted that? It really is pretty terrible.
First, it has only two zooms, out and in. When you are zoomed out the text is unreadable since it is basically just an image trying to look like text. Contrast that with Mobile Safari where I, at least, can read a webpage even if it is zoomed out (because it is actually rendering the text rather than rendering it to an image, compressing the image and then transmitting it across the internet.) The zoom in is also a problem because it is often too far in. The bottom line is that Opera Mini is an inferior experience.
I'm not saying anything about normal Opera. I don't personally like it, but I see how some people could. Opera Mini on iPhone, however, is not good.
Oh, and also it apparently strips out the https security from the secure websites you use--or at least acts as a middle man, which means you are trusting Opera servers with your bank account info if you use it for such things.
There is a difference between an app and a platform plugin. You wouldn't have a Flash app, it would have to be a plugin to the embedded safari component.
This isn't about competing apps. It is about security and code execution. Allowing a 3rd party to execute arbitrary code (think, javascript engine) is a potential security vulnerability and Apple wants to be the only one responsible for security issues, for better or worse. Opera Mini gets around this by executing the javascript on their own servers, rendering the result, and sending it to the app. Even if the experience were far better than Safari, Apple would still allow it because there is no danger to the iPhone in terms of code execution. Opera Mini is simply not in violation of the developer agreement and therefore was allowed, end of story.
There is a difference between allowing an application that is not very good and allowing a platform addition via a plugin (Flash) that potentially makes the entire device unstable and is not very good.
Remember that originally Apple didn't want to allow 3rd party native apps and embraced developing open-standards web-based apps using javascript and the public didn't want it. Flash isn't allowed because it would have to be an addition to the platform (and not a separate app) that would be controlled by a 3rd party.
Also, Apple allowed Opera Mini because it is not in violation of the developer agreement. Plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
The expert quoted is telling the details for the very best possible human vision. Turns out typical 20/20 vision is around 270 ppi for something at 12 inches from the face. So Apple is giving a perfectly valid claim, IMO.
Yeah, and on top of that the guy says "significantly lower resolution." I doubt that 80% of iPhone users of the current iPhone have eyes still good enough to differentiate between neighboring pixels when holding the device 12 inches from their face. Some people love to split hairs, and /.ers love to post links to the hair-splitter blogs.
Oh, sorry richy freeway, just saw that you said "and the article." It's too early in the morning.
Not just the summary. The article itself is misleading (it doesn't once mention that the virus effects Windows PCs and not iPads). This one: http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-features/49519-nefarious-ipad-virus-masquerades-as-itunes-update is slightly better, as it doesn't fail to mention the fact that Windows PCs are being infected and not iPads. The iPad is only the phishing-hook to get a user to click the link (something like: you need to update your iTunes for your new iPad, click here to do so...)
Let's not forget what we are talking about here. Real censorship is a moral issue.
We are only talking about preferences of a consumer product that is, in the grand scheme of your life, pretty unimportant. This debate isn't a whole lot different than Coke vs. Pepsi. If you like the apps that Apple has in the app store, and you don't need some of things that Android does that the iPhone doesn't, then the iPhone is probably a better choice, simply because you will be happier with it. If you really care about the closed nature of the app store or need some features of Android that aren't available on the iPhone, then Android is a better choice. Let's not make a false analogy between companies selling us consumer products for our consumption and real oppression, however.
...and you had to walk 15 miles uphill in the snow--both ways--to purchase it. We know.
Give me a break. There is absolutely no reason why a console vendor couldn't publicly release the SDK and allow a programmer to turn the console into a development device in the same way the iPhone SDK does for the iPhone. The consoles are definitely more locked down than the iPhone and unnecessarily so. The bottom line is that the console vendors have been exerting even more tight control than Apple does with the iPhone and virtually nobody complains.
No, I agree, I've been convinced. His whole, "Google Portfolio," as some people have called it, is now completely trashed (although, I would hire him, if he's good, and he probably is and just had a few too many.)
Anyway, I concede the point. Gizmodo was way out of line. I heard Chen on NPR tonight and neither he, nor the guy interviewing him (Neal Conan, I think, but I may be misremembering) mentioned the fact that Chen had just ruined the poor engineer's life.
Yeah. I've been thinking about this all afternoon. You're right. Those guys are rotten.
Ah, didn't know that. I stand corrected.
Let's use your words:
"everyone is sympathizing with "that poor undergrad working for Apple"
Now, you just said in the post above that people sympathize with Russia, not the KGB ("Americans don't sympathize with the KGB".) And when I claimed that you said the engineer was Russia, you said, "No. Just Apple with Russia."
So let's sum this up:
"everyone is sympathizing with "that poor undergrad working for Apple", "Americans don't sympathize with the KGB", therefore your analogy clearly makes the poor undergrad out to be not the KGB, since we sympathize with him, but to be Russia.
I think your writing skills need improvement.
I guess my point is: he was probably fired before Gizmodo released his name, and he won't be getting good references from Apple for his next job, so even if his name hadn't been released he'd probably have a hard time getting another tech job.
References allow your previous employer to tell your prospective one whether or not you were a good employee. I doubt you would get a great recommendation from Apple even if they were light on the details if you lost a prototype. And a bad review from Apple is probably akin to un-employable.
Apple knows that it was remote-wiped. Apple owns Mobile Me. Apple knows which engineers have prototypes and what their mobile me account names are and which device serials are tied to which mobile me accounts. Seems like a very quick database call to find out who remote wiped a prototype.
In your Analogy you equated Apple with the KGB and Russia (who Americans apparently have sympathy for) with the engineer. So for your post to make sense the engineer needs to now become CEO of Apple so all that sympathy and good will can be directed towards Apple. The analogy doesn't really fit.
Seriously, how does this further harm the guy who lost it? Apple, of course, knows exactly who has which prototypes. All they would have to do is call the few individuals who have one back in to the office, see if they still have one, and punish the guy who doesn't have one anymore. There is no way Apple didn't already know who he was. Also, the phone was remotely disabled, which either means A.) the engineer who lost the phone did it using mobile me, or B.) Apple did it.
If A.) then apple need only check who, of the handful of people allowed to take a prototype phone of the campus, used mobile me to disable it.
If B.) then he had already admitted to Apple that he had lost it so that Apple could disable it.
Either way, his job security has nothing to do with what Gizmodo did or did not do in regards to releasing his name. If there is bad form involved the bad form is on Gizmodo for scooping this in the first place (not in releasing his name) and probably costing the guy his job because of the mere fact that they reported they had the phone rather than just returning the device (which of course they do because that is their business, to get scoops like this) or on the dude who found it at a bar and sold it to Gizmodo for $5k. I don't believe for a second his sob story about calling Apple and their not returning his calls and then not wanting to give it to a guy at the Apple store.
If he was really so conscientious that he felt he couldn't trust giving it to an Apple Store employee, then he wouldn't have sold it for $5k to Gizmodo.
Read the engadget story. They are simply reporting that gizmodo reported it. They don't actually have the phone.
Disclaimer: I doubt Apple is about to change chips, and so this is simply a hypothetical discussion.
It would be trivial to have developers compile to some large universal binary that basically contained binaries for each supported architecture and then on App Store submission, simply strip out each version and deliver the correct one to each individual device. In fact, I would wager they are doing that now already so that when an iPhone user downloads a Universal iPad/iPhone app they don't have to get all the extra high res graphics and code for the iPad version. This is a really simple engineering problem.
Ah, I see now, I had meant to reply to the parent thread written by Tim C. Not to you. I must have clicked the wrong Reply button. My apologies.
Sorry, I clicked Reply on yours and had meant to reply to someone else's.
Did you actually use the Opera Mini for iPhone before you posted that? It really is pretty terrible.
First, it has only two zooms, out and in. When you are zoomed out the text is unreadable since it is basically just an image trying to look like text. Contrast that with Mobile Safari where I, at least, can read a webpage even if it is zoomed out (because it is actually rendering the text rather than rendering it to an image, compressing the image and then transmitting it across the internet.) The zoom in is also a problem because it is often too far in. The bottom line is that Opera Mini is an inferior experience.
I'm not saying anything about normal Opera. I don't personally like it, but I see how some people could. Opera Mini on iPhone, however, is not good.
Oh, and also it apparently strips out the https security from the secure websites you use--or at least acts as a middle man, which means you are trusting Opera servers with your bank account info if you use it for such things.
There is a difference between an app and a platform plugin. You wouldn't have a Flash app, it would have to be a plugin to the embedded safari component.
This isn't about competing apps. It is about security and code execution. Allowing a 3rd party to execute arbitrary code (think, javascript engine) is a potential security vulnerability and Apple wants to be the only one responsible for security issues, for better or worse. Opera Mini gets around this by executing the javascript on their own servers, rendering the result, and sending it to the app. Even if the experience were far better than Safari, Apple would still allow it because there is no danger to the iPhone in terms of code execution. Opera Mini is simply not in violation of the developer agreement and therefore was allowed, end of story.
There is a difference between allowing an application that is not very good and allowing a platform addition via a plugin (Flash) that potentially makes the entire device unstable and is not very good.
Remember that originally Apple didn't want to allow 3rd party native apps and embraced developing open-standards web-based apps using javascript and the public didn't want it. Flash isn't allowed because it would have to be an addition to the platform (and not a separate app) that would be controlled by a 3rd party.
Also, Apple allowed Opera Mini because it is not in violation of the developer agreement. Plain and simple.