"Apparently we have that. The new ARM processors when put with the new hardware decoders are capable of this, as we'll see. Apparently Apple was waiting for just this breakthrough to enable this platform and as soon as it was able, made it."
Fanboyism never ends. Just because Apple said it doesn't mean it's so nor was there any "breakthrough" recently that Apple was waiting for. Apple has never claimed realistic battery life ratings.
Curious that you seem to think this distinguishes entrepreneurs from workers. It does not. There are many "workers" that invest sweat equity for a share of success as well but that does not make them entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, many entrepreneurs aren't willing to give up a regular paycheck.
Funny, the vast majority of those people have had no problem with computers up 'til now. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that they need something even more dumbed down.
No, the iPad isn't for them, either, it's for Apple's insatiable need for control.
I've never heard a runner refer to himself as a marathoner nor a cyclist refer to himself as a biker. Regardless, the suggested ban doesn't keep anyone from using sports drinks while exercising.
"Rather, Apple kept control over it for battery life and security reasons."
You don't know this, it's only speculation. Once Apple committed to it's overly simple UI, allowing multiple programs to run became a problem. Apple didn't originally provide an SDK for 3rd party development and, from the sound of their initial comments, didn't intend to. I believe lack of true multitasking had nothing to do with battery life or security.
I would expect Apple to do what most companies do---use their patent portfolios defensively. Apple doesn't though, they use it as a weapon. There's nothing that says that Apple is obligated to enforce patents, doing so is within their rights but it doesn't make them ethical. What goes around comes around. Nothing I like more than seeing patent scumbags get what they have coming and that includes Apple.
Curiously, everything you described that "suggests" that Apple was being magnanimous could also be said of Microsoft. They are a large company with a substantial investment in IP and Bill Gates was most surely just giving Sun a heads up on their Office infringement, right?
If the iPhone is OS X then that means that only the kernel matters. In that case, I see no reason why OS X apps can't be recompiled for linux. Of course, the iPhone isn't OS X, a platform is more than just a kernel.
"This is exactly an attempt to erase the freedoms granted under the GPL."
"One egregious attempt to retroactively take back rights expressly provided to you by the distribution terms of the Second Life viewer."
Where does the GPL grant the freedom to violate terms of service? Distribution terms are not rights to violate terms of service.
"Changing your MAC address is routine networking for many people whose network admins tie their access credentials to their MAC addresses.
Someone might want to protect their privacy while cybersexing (snicker) or someone may even want to leak important information to the public using Second Life (I do have a fantasy to modify the open source Quake 3 engine to trickle out a stream of data out in the least significant bits of player movement. Can you imagine the Chinese trying to figure that one out?)"
How does the GPL authorize you to do these things?
"These aren't just obscure corner cases or open source zealotry, these are things I personally expect to have from open source software."
Who cares what you expect? Open source doesn't promise any of that.
"I realize this isn't a GPL violation, but distributing the client under the GPL and then telling me I can't protect my privacy..."
The client is distributed under the GPL, the service isn't.
"...is a bit like giving me an "open source cellular handset" and then telling me exactly what audio codec I'm allowed to use for voice conversations so spy software can analyze my calls for content, you know, unless I build my own cellular network."
As open source advocates are fond of saying when it suits them, if you don't like it then don't use it. You can always write your own.
One can argue that their approach may not be the best one, but it's within their right to take that approach.
"So the lesson here is one should not put too much stock on arguments about static vs. dynamic linking, linking vs. network protocols, or other such technical details, because judges will most likely find that none of those details are really the essential issue."
According to an RMS recollection of an FSF attorney opinion.
I find it interesting that Apple, in choosing to implement a touchscreen model inherently incompatible with web browsing, now defines how every touchscreen device works according to the author. You need to look no further than that to tell you how tainted his opinions are. Touchscreen devices before and after the iPhone have had no problem with this.
Prior to the iPhone, many touchscreen devices had complete compatibility with a traditional desktop. Apple chose to introduce a device that broke this horribly and authors such as this one now accept that whatever Apple has done defines how a touchscreen works.
Apple is accountable for this problem. They won't be held to it and they won't fix it yet they will still be applauded as an innovator. Touchscreen machines, even finger-only ones, could behave differently and they all used to.
Slashdot Mirror
"Apparently we have that. The new ARM processors when put with the new hardware decoders are capable of this, as we'll see. Apparently Apple was waiting for just this breakthrough to enable this platform and as soon as it was able, made it."
Fanboyism never ends. Just because Apple said it doesn't mean it's so nor was there any "breakthrough" recently that Apple was waiting for. Apple has never claimed realistic battery life ratings.
Curious that you seem to think this distinguishes entrepreneurs from workers. It does not. There are many "workers" that invest sweat equity for a share of success as well but that does not make them entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, many entrepreneurs aren't willing to give up a regular paycheck.
That suggests the iPad has user interface value.
Aside from Apple, who has developed and shipped an iPad app? No one.
That suggests the iPad has strengths.
Love how this is all stated as fact.
If only Android had targeted touch interfaces from the beginning...
Nothing that isn't already provided by an iPhone or iPod touch.
I'm sure they will be well served by mobile Safari's incompatibilities with many webpage concepts and lack of flash.
Funny, the vast majority of those people have had no problem with computers up 'til now. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that they need something even more dumbed down.
No, the iPad isn't for them, either, it's for Apple's insatiable need for control.
Apparently cranberries don't make you smart.
I've never heard a runner refer to himself as a marathoner nor a cyclist refer to himself as a biker. Regardless, the suggested ban doesn't keep anyone from using sports drinks while exercising.
You obviously haven't tasted salt substitutes, especially potassium chloride.
"Rather, Apple kept control over it for battery life and security reasons."
You don't know this, it's only speculation. Once Apple committed to it's overly simple UI, allowing multiple programs to run became a problem. Apple didn't originally provide an SDK for 3rd party development and, from the sound of their initial comments, didn't intend to. I believe lack of true multitasking had nothing to do with battery life or security.
"...the assertion that the iPhone is like a mid 1980's computer because of a lack of pre-emptive multitasking is fallacious."
It is not. The iPhone kernel is capable of multitasking but iPhone apps, in general, are not. The iPhone is made up of more than just a kernel.
...because consumers only play games.
That is not chording and it doesn't improve speed unless the typist makes those specific errors.
I would expect Apple to do what most companies do---use their patent portfolios defensively. Apple doesn't though, they use it as a weapon. There's nothing that says that Apple is obligated to enforce patents, doing so is within their rights but it doesn't make them ethical. What goes around comes around. Nothing I like more than seeing patent scumbags get what they have coming and that includes Apple.
Curiously, everything you described that "suggests" that Apple was being magnanimous could also be said of Microsoft. They are a large company with a substantial investment in IP and Bill Gates was most surely just giving Sun a heads up on their Office infringement, right?
If the iPhone is OS X then that means that only the kernel matters. In that case, I see no reason why OS X apps can't be recompiled for linux. Of course, the iPhone isn't OS X, a platform is more than just a kernel.
Way to misunderstand.
Who said netbooks are "trying to be shoe horned into Internet devices by manufactures"? Apple is trying to portray them that way.
Apple always told me that wasn't a problem with their OS. Now it is?
Curious how you know what the general public likes about the iPad. None of them have used one.
So is every other device by your standard.
The iPad OS was specifically made for the iPhone, not the iPad.
"This is exactly an attempt to erase the freedoms granted under the GPL."
"One egregious attempt to retroactively take back rights expressly provided to you by the distribution terms of the Second Life viewer."
Where does the GPL grant the freedom to violate terms of service? Distribution terms are not rights to violate terms of service.
"Changing your MAC address is routine networking for many people whose network admins tie their access credentials to their MAC addresses.
Someone might want to protect their privacy while cybersexing (snicker) or someone may even want to leak important information to the public using Second Life (I do have a fantasy to modify the open source Quake 3 engine to trickle out a stream of data out in the least significant bits of player movement. Can you imagine the Chinese trying to figure that one out?)"
How does the GPL authorize you to do these things?
"These aren't just obscure corner cases or open source zealotry, these are things I personally expect to have from open source software."
Who cares what you expect? Open source doesn't promise any of that.
"I realize this isn't a GPL violation, but distributing the client under the GPL and then telling me I can't protect my privacy..."
The client is distributed under the GPL, the service isn't.
"...is a bit like giving me an "open source cellular handset" and then telling me exactly what audio codec I'm allowed to use for voice conversations so spy software can analyze my calls for content, you know, unless I build my own cellular network."
As open source advocates are fond of saying when it suits them, if you don't like it then don't use it. You can always write your own.
One can argue that their approach may not be the best one, but it's within their right to take that approach.
"So the lesson here is one should not put too much stock on arguments about static vs. dynamic linking, linking vs. network protocols, or other such technical details, because judges will most likely find that none of those details are really the essential issue."
According to an RMS recollection of an FSF attorney opinion.
I find it interesting that Apple, in choosing to implement a touchscreen model inherently incompatible with web browsing, now defines how every touchscreen device works according to the author. You need to look no further than that to tell you how tainted his opinions are. Touchscreen devices before and after the iPhone have had no problem with this.
Prior to the iPhone, many touchscreen devices had complete compatibility with a traditional desktop. Apple chose to introduce a device that broke this horribly and authors such as this one now accept that whatever Apple has done defines how a touchscreen works.
Apple is accountable for this problem. They won't be held to it and they won't fix it yet they will still be applauded as an innovator. Touchscreen machines, even finger-only ones, could behave differently and they all used to.