That's a pretty strange attitude to have. Surely the point of writing websites is to get your content to people who want to see it. Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not going to make them change their browser. Fuck microsoft, indeed, but be aware of the market share their browsers command.
It is a public format, in so much as the vast, vast majority of desktop users can view it. Their mandate is to get the content to people. It's that simple. Windows Media Player does just that. Getting them to stop using it makes it harder for folks to get the content, which is against their mandate. I'm all for F/OSS, but forcing folks to change their behaviour is not doing the movement any good.
The iPod isn't as perfect as you make it out to be. Plenty of them go wrong, there are all sorts of problems with the battery, some stop being recognised, etc. Windows smart-phones sync with their desktop host without user action, btw. And Windows is more than 10% of the desktop market, and the Treo supports corporate email software. And has other custom apps. I'm not bashing the iPhone, I'm just getting a bit peeved that people are making it out to be some sort of holy grail of telephony, when in fact it's crippled by design, and only does a few things really well, and those few things are only available to a tiny minority of desktop users out there.
The Treo obviously is targetted at consumers. It's a piece of consumer electronics. Trying to equate the amount of marketing dollars spent advertising a product with how good the product is smacks of naivety somewhat.
Active Directory and Exchange Server work very well for many, many companies out there. They get support from the vendors, and they work seamlessly with the client software (usually Windows with Exchange). LDAP is great, but IMAP doesn't offer the same functionality as Exchange does. Exchange isn't "poorer quality" - it's very good at what it does. Hiring someone to develop or integrate software for the company to use means they have to rely on that person for support, which can cause problems if that person leaves. Whereas if they get it from, say, Microsoft, then they have one place to get support that's not going anywhere, and a whole heap of information on the internet about exactly-similar setups.
Most managers don't have a good idea about technology. That's very true. However many IT managers *do*, and they still use the ol' MS way. In the companies I've worked for, it's very uncommon for the global address book (which is literally global) to not be up-to-date. The most well-functioning IT infrastructures I've seen in companies were Active Directory-based. You simply can't beat it if you're running Windows. And most companies want to run Windows, because of the support from MS and the ease of finding IT-support workers. And because it runs Office, which most people are familiar with and want to use. And which most of the companies they do business with use. Going out on a limb to do the "right thing" means incurring productivity and functionality penalties from having to adjust to new systems. Companies are companies, not ideological movements, and will do what's best for them, which is MS, at the moment at least.
Or use Exchange, and then not have to make any sacrifices at all. Businesses don't want to lose the competitive edge they have, so cutting back on functionality, especially functionality as important as group calendars, is a deal-breaker. Exchange isn't re-inventing the wheel, it's clearly better than the solution you suggested, functionality-wise at least. I'm not trolling for MS or anything, it's just that companies don't give a rat's ass about F/OSS (often to their detriment) - they look at feature lists.
Because if they want something that's not available in the open-source world that is available in the closed-source world, even if that's a support contract, software, whatever, then as a business the temptation is to go for the closed-source alternative just to maintain a competitive edge. The offerings from the F/OSS world aren't exactly the same as those from the closed-source world (sometimes worse, sometimes better), so questions like yours need a little bit more refining before they actually reflect the real world.
No, the parent was implying that people who talk-up Microsoft are fanboys. I'm saying that not everyone who talks-up MS are MS fanboys. He asked a question, I answered. I'm not defending MS fanboys. I'm not defending fanboys of any colour - they all suck when they're put in a position to admit their camp-of-choice is not necessarily the best, and their allegiance prevents them, at which point the debate is no longer rational, and is no longer a debate of the facts, which is all I care about.
It's not really an API any more than AJAX is an API for your OS of choice... And the fact they can't be unlocked means whether it uses a SIM or not (which it obviously has to) is kind of irrelevant.
No actual phone SDK, no GPS, no synching with major office software, etc. Being able to sync perfectly with the desktop OS with 10% market share is still only syncing perfectly with 10% of the market share, no matter how well it does it, or how great it looks when it's doing it. It doesn't do anything other phones can't do (and which do other things the iPhone can't).
The "third-party development" doesn't touch the phone, any more than a website touches the computer it's running on. It'll make loads of web-integration tools possible, but seeing as it's hardware, you'd expect custom apps to be able to use the hardware. As it is, all they can interface with is the screen and the speaker. Compare that to pretty much every other phone on the market, and it does look a bit shallow, to say the least.
I'm not railing on Apple - I'd be shitting candy if they bought out a phone which was as capable as some of the other smart-phones on the market, and looked as good as the iPhone, but it's looking more like a cluster-fuck of conflicting interests, corporate shennanigans, locked-in, locked-down needlessly-expensive technology.
I've found myself defending Microsoft quite a few times. It's not because I'm a die-hard Bill's-cock-sucking cheerleader, but because I actively like engaging in rational debate, and when someone says something to me, framed as fact, which is clearly not true, I will point out the inaccuracy of their statement. That's not being a fanboy, but being rational. I do the same for Mac, Linux, my fridge, Pluto, whatever. I like technology, so I want to get to the bottom of the discussion, not get to the bottom of the discussion with "my team" on top, as I don't have a team.
Fanboys aren't always logical. They may be logical 99.9% of the time, but that 0.1% will cause someone like me to call them out on their bullshit. That's the problem with fanboys, in my opinion. I'm a technologist, not an appleologist or a linuxologist or a windowsologist. I couldn't give a flying fuck what logo is on the software/hardware/candy I use, as long as it does what I want it to. I want to be proven wrong. I want to learn. I don't want to be using the second-best technology just because my favourite CEO says it's the best when real-world application tells me, and others, otherwise.
Feel free to drive while impaired, if you're on your own private road. Unfortunately others have to deal with your decisions, which is why speeding already is illegal. It's not for revenue generation, but to try and protect other folks. The fact you seem to think speeding is fine demonstrates you need to learn more about the causes of road accidents, and realise that you might very well kill others when you kill yourself by speeding. Talking on the phone is just as bad as driving drunk, though I suppose you think that's perfectly fine, too.
How about others' freedom to not die because you don't give a shit?
Seeing as many of those downloads will be from web developers and plain ol' interested folks wanting to see what all the fuss is about. If all those FireFox downloads were actual FireFox users, FireFox would be the most-used browser on the market, or at least have a larger-than-25%-or-whatever share. Downloads!=users, especially for software as buggy as Safari.
(And I'm not flaming anyone or anything here, just pointing out the fact that 1m of anything only equates to 1m of exactly that, and nothing else)
(I didn't want to explain the whole Britain/UK difference, but thanks for picking me up on it;))
I see what you're saying, but there has been no consent given from those who've had their picture taken, and as the images are of people's faces, it can be used to identify folks. You can send them a notarised copy of the ID page of your passport, for example, or just turn up at their offices to point it out. Copies would *still* have to be turned over to the individuals, in the same way copies of existing CCTV tapes have to be sent to anyone on them, when requested.
Apple have done PLENTY in their existance to lock their users into their products. PLENTY. Saying anything else is ignoring a whole bunch of stuff.
As a hardware manufacturer, it's up to them to release the phone. They can have it unlocked if they want. The locking is performed by the phone network, true, but the manufacturer accepts it or not. It comes down to commission paid by the network to the seller of the phones to decrease the price of the handset to the consumer. That's why you can get otherwise-expensive handsets for free. This isn't a case of Apple being strong-armed into being the bad guy, this is Apple trying to make money. You also remember that Apple have painted themselves into a corner, in that they need a carrier to offer the same level of reliability that they need to keep the Apple Experience going. With other products, that was no issue, as it was Apple looking after the product from selling to operating. You can imagine that would go down the pan if their phones appeared on networks that could not keep the experience going.
Saying this is somehow not Apple's fault is ridiculous.
If the phone companies & networks work the same in the US as they do over this side of the pond, that $600 will be the subsidised price of the handset, not the actual cost. If they ever did offer it without a contract (which they won't, as that would not make the phone an out-of-the-box Apple Experience®, and thus sacrilege), it would be more. Yikes.
Well, clearly this isn't the phone for you. I'm not being rude here, but this phone seems to just be a way to get Flikr, MySpace, Digg, Yahoogle or even the venerable/. in your pocket, in a pretty package, not actually a smartphone.
Using it for commercial reasons is a different issue entirely to CCTV, which I'm sure is what you're referring to. And in Britain (which you seem to have confused with England), we have the Data Protection Act, which would require Google to send to anyone who asked a copy of any and all images they hold of the applicant. Don't think that just because of the CCTV that people's privacy is somehow undermined - it's there to help the population, not screw them over. But don't let me harsh your knee-jerky buzz.
If you think those are as killer as apps could get on a phone, you need some help. Seriously. I'm thinking about killer apps like routing calls through wifi instead of the cell network, or voip using unlimited data plan instead of voice calls, etc. Web 2.0 is bullshit. It's a marketing term people throw about in meetings to make it seem like they somehow understand technology, when really they're just referring to techniques and technologies people have been using for years. It's all bullshit, and no proper SDK on the iPhone is bullshit too.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be confusing physical and logical networks...
That's a pretty strange attitude to have. Surely the point of writing websites is to get your content to people who want to see it. Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not going to make them change their browser. Fuck microsoft, indeed, but be aware of the market share their browsers command.
It is a public format, in so much as the vast, vast majority of desktop users can view it. Their mandate is to get the content to people. It's that simple. Windows Media Player does just that. Getting them to stop using it makes it harder for folks to get the content, which is against their mandate. I'm all for F/OSS, but forcing folks to change their behaviour is not doing the movement any good.
The iPod isn't as perfect as you make it out to be. Plenty of them go wrong, there are all sorts of problems with the battery, some stop being recognised, etc. Windows smart-phones sync with their desktop host without user action, btw. And Windows is more than 10% of the desktop market, and the Treo supports corporate email software. And has other custom apps. I'm not bashing the iPhone, I'm just getting a bit peeved that people are making it out to be some sort of holy grail of telephony, when in fact it's crippled by design, and only does a few things really well, and those few things are only available to a tiny minority of desktop users out there.
The Treo obviously is targetted at consumers. It's a piece of consumer electronics. Trying to equate the amount of marketing dollars spent advertising a product with how good the product is smacks of naivety somewhat.
If by "sweet" you mean "something 14-year-olds will love", then yes, it's sweet!
Active Directory and Exchange Server work very well for many, many companies out there. They get support from the vendors, and they work seamlessly with the client software (usually Windows with Exchange). LDAP is great, but IMAP doesn't offer the same functionality as Exchange does. Exchange isn't "poorer quality" - it's very good at what it does. Hiring someone to develop or integrate software for the company to use means they have to rely on that person for support, which can cause problems if that person leaves. Whereas if they get it from, say, Microsoft, then they have one place to get support that's not going anywhere, and a whole heap of information on the internet about exactly-similar setups.
Most managers don't have a good idea about technology. That's very true. However many IT managers *do*, and they still use the ol' MS way. In the companies I've worked for, it's very uncommon for the global address book (which is literally global) to not be up-to-date. The most well-functioning IT infrastructures I've seen in companies were Active Directory-based. You simply can't beat it if you're running Windows. And most companies want to run Windows, because of the support from MS and the ease of finding IT-support workers. And because it runs Office, which most people are familiar with and want to use. And which most of the companies they do business with use. Going out on a limb to do the "right thing" means incurring productivity and functionality penalties from having to adjust to new systems. Companies are companies, not ideological movements, and will do what's best for them, which is MS, at the moment at least.
Or use Exchange, and then not have to make any sacrifices at all. Businesses don't want to lose the competitive edge they have, so cutting back on functionality, especially functionality as important as group calendars, is a deal-breaker. Exchange isn't re-inventing the wheel, it's clearly better than the solution you suggested, functionality-wise at least. I'm not trolling for MS or anything, it's just that companies don't give a rat's ass about F/OSS (often to their detriment) - they look at feature lists.
Because if they want something that's not available in the open-source world that is available in the closed-source world, even if that's a support contract, software, whatever, then as a business the temptation is to go for the closed-source alternative just to maintain a competitive edge. The offerings from the F/OSS world aren't exactly the same as those from the closed-source world (sometimes worse, sometimes better), so questions like yours need a little bit more refining before they actually reflect the real world.
No, the parent was implying that people who talk-up Microsoft are fanboys. I'm saying that not everyone who talks-up MS are MS fanboys. He asked a question, I answered. I'm not defending MS fanboys. I'm not defending fanboys of any colour - they all suck when they're put in a position to admit their camp-of-choice is not necessarily the best, and their allegiance prevents them, at which point the debate is no longer rational, and is no longer a debate of the facts, which is all I care about.
It's not really an API any more than AJAX is an API for your OS of choice... And the fact they can't be unlocked means whether it uses a SIM or not (which it obviously has to) is kind of irrelevant.
It doesn't have GPS, btw.
No actual phone SDK, no GPS, no synching with major office software, etc. Being able to sync perfectly with the desktop OS with 10% market share is still only syncing perfectly with 10% of the market share, no matter how well it does it, or how great it looks when it's doing it. It doesn't do anything other phones can't do (and which do other things the iPhone can't).
The "third-party development" doesn't touch the phone, any more than a website touches the computer it's running on. It'll make loads of web-integration tools possible, but seeing as it's hardware, you'd expect custom apps to be able to use the hardware. As it is, all they can interface with is the screen and the speaker. Compare that to pretty much every other phone on the market, and it does look a bit shallow, to say the least.
I'm not railing on Apple - I'd be shitting candy if they bought out a phone which was as capable as some of the other smart-phones on the market, and looked as good as the iPhone, but it's looking more like a cluster-fuck of conflicting interests, corporate shennanigans, locked-in, locked-down needlessly-expensive technology.
Good work ;) That's exactly what I'm talking about :) It took me until your last line to realise you were joking, which is both funny and scary :)
I've found myself defending Microsoft quite a few times. It's not because I'm a die-hard Bill's-cock-sucking cheerleader, but because I actively like engaging in rational debate, and when someone says something to me, framed as fact, which is clearly not true, I will point out the inaccuracy of their statement. That's not being a fanboy, but being rational. I do the same for Mac, Linux, my fridge, Pluto, whatever. I like technology, so I want to get to the bottom of the discussion, not get to the bottom of the discussion with "my team" on top, as I don't have a team.
Fanboys aren't always logical. They may be logical 99.9% of the time, but that 0.1% will cause someone like me to call them out on their bullshit. That's the problem with fanboys, in my opinion. I'm a technologist, not an appleologist or a linuxologist or a windowsologist. I couldn't give a flying fuck what logo is on the software/hardware/candy I use, as long as it does what I want it to. I want to be proven wrong. I want to learn. I don't want to be using the second-best technology just because my favourite CEO says it's the best when real-world application tells me, and others, otherwise.
... already has support for closed-captions.
Feel free to drive while impaired, if you're on your own private road. Unfortunately others have to deal with your decisions, which is why speeding already is illegal. It's not for revenue generation, but to try and protect other folks. The fact you seem to think speeding is fine demonstrates you need to learn more about the causes of road accidents, and realise that you might very well kill others when you kill yourself by speeding. Talking on the phone is just as bad as driving drunk, though I suppose you think that's perfectly fine, too.
How about others' freedom to not die because you don't give a shit?
You can park it sideways in a parking space, for one, so no more parallel parking. :)
Seeing as many of those downloads will be from web developers and plain ol' interested folks wanting to see what all the fuss is about. If all those FireFox downloads were actual FireFox users, FireFox would be the most-used browser on the market, or at least have a larger-than-25%-or-whatever share. Downloads!=users, especially for software as buggy as Safari.
(And I'm not flaming anyone or anything here, just pointing out the fact that 1m of anything only equates to 1m of exactly that, and nothing else)
At what temperature?
Because Canada hates freedom. It's that simple.
(I didn't want to explain the whole Britain/UK difference, but thanks for picking me up on it ;))
I see what you're saying, but there has been no consent given from those who've had their picture taken, and as the images are of people's faces, it can be used to identify folks. You can send them a notarised copy of the ID page of your passport, for example, or just turn up at their offices to point it out. Copies would *still* have to be turned over to the individuals, in the same way copies of existing CCTV tapes have to be sent to anyone on them, when requested.
Apple have done PLENTY in their existance to lock their users into their products. PLENTY. Saying anything else is ignoring a whole bunch of stuff.
As a hardware manufacturer, it's up to them to release the phone. They can have it unlocked if they want. The locking is performed by the phone network, true, but the manufacturer accepts it or not. It comes down to commission paid by the network to the seller of the phones to decrease the price of the handset to the consumer. That's why you can get otherwise-expensive handsets for free. This isn't a case of Apple being strong-armed into being the bad guy, this is Apple trying to make money. You also remember that Apple have painted themselves into a corner, in that they need a carrier to offer the same level of reliability that they need to keep the Apple Experience going. With other products, that was no issue, as it was Apple looking after the product from selling to operating. You can imagine that would go down the pan if their phones appeared on networks that could not keep the experience going.
Saying this is somehow not Apple's fault is ridiculous.
If the phone companies & networks work the same in the US as they do over this side of the pond, that $600 will be the subsidised price of the handset, not the actual cost. If they ever did offer it without a contract (which they won't, as that would not make the phone an out-of-the-box Apple Experience®, and thus sacrilege), it would be more. Yikes.
Well, clearly this isn't the phone for you. I'm not being rude here, but this phone seems to just be a way to get Flikr, MySpace, Digg, Yahoogle or even the venerable /. in your pocket, in a pretty package, not actually a smartphone.
Using it for commercial reasons is a different issue entirely to CCTV, which I'm sure is what you're referring to. And in Britain (which you seem to have confused with England), we have the Data Protection Act, which would require Google to send to anyone who asked a copy of any and all images they hold of the applicant. Don't think that just because of the CCTV that people's privacy is somehow undermined - it's there to help the population, not screw them over. But don't let me harsh your knee-jerky buzz.
If you think those are as killer as apps could get on a phone, you need some help. Seriously. I'm thinking about killer apps like routing calls through wifi instead of the cell network, or voip using unlimited data plan instead of voice calls, etc. Web 2.0 is bullshit. It's a marketing term people throw about in meetings to make it seem like they somehow understand technology, when really they're just referring to techniques and technologies people have been using for years. It's all bullshit, and no proper SDK on the iPhone is bullshit too.