"It's fun to nitpick the phrasing of a sentence, but at the end of that day what he's saying should resonate to all of us that prefer Google's homepage to Yahoo's."
Funny how it doesn't though.
I don't think anyone in the world can honestly say they prefer browsing on an iPhone over a "full-size web browser".
If Apple had stuck with the limitations of the first generation iPod it would have been a failure. It's popular to see this quote somehow disproving Apple criticism but it does no such thing.
Imagine how the iPod could have today's dominant position while only working on a computer platform with a 10% marketshare. The first iPod was lame.
Yes, you anecdotal evidence of one possible sale is proof that there was no damage and all upside. That's some real genius thinking.
I hope you aren't suggesting that this case of plagiarism is, in fact, a creative "mashup" work. Literature and music/video performance are not analogous.
It sure seems like these comments are relevant to plagiarism, I just am not seeing how. Anyway, it's good to know that popular music isn't corrupted by those seeking fame and fortune like academia is! With insight like that, maybe Mensa is in your future.
Modern sampling has nothing in common with the age old practice of borrowing from others in musical composition. Sampling steals the performance, that's the difference.
"What does Flash do for you when you're traveling/away from home/etc? Usually I'm looking up restaurants and using Google Maps. If I'm at the gym, I'm reading news articles on my iPhone. If you're away from home with a focus on doing something else, what use is Flash, really? It has some merit for video, which is being addressed with HTML5, but you don't seriously want to use interactive Flash games when you're on the go."
That's quite a pathetic Flash apology. I guess Flash does nothing for you when you don't have any use for it, that's true. If you have a focus on something else, why do you need an iPad at all? BTW, google maps uses Flash.
Other smartphones don't have a problem with this. The iPhone's inability to consider this is evidence of poor design, not good design.
Curiously, OS X doesn't close an app or discontinue its processing when the window closes. Your point isn't even legitimate when it comes to Apple products!
"What about free installation of apps? What if the user installs an app that screws the machine up? Tough luck?"
Never been a problem for other smartphones. This is another trumped up problem from Apple that doesn't actually exist.
"says the armchair-technologist."
pot calling kettle black.
"Whenever someone says something that somehow defends Apple and/or some of their product, some idiots start waving the fanboy-cultist card...."
I remember when Steve told us that we absolutely didn't want 3rd party apps because we couldn't afford the risk of them taking down the device or even the cellular network. Apple fanboys ate up that lie. Now the app store is Apple's #1 lynchpin in spite of the fact that it doesn't allow true 3rd party development.
Apple claims the iPhone offers the best mobile browsing experience yet it needs countless add-on apps to substitute for the stuff that Safari can't do. How can that be? What does that say about the iPad's websurfing superiority over a netbook?
"And I bet that iPad is better at many key things than a laptop is. Things like watching movies or surfing the web. iPod touch is already my websurfer of choice, and iPad would be even better."
No rational person would believe that an iPad is better for web surfing or movie watching than a laptop. That you claim to disqualifies your opinions.
It's true that a device incapable of sophisticated use won't be slowed down by sophisticated use. I'm sure it will be great comfort to those that need background processing to know that the task they need but can't have isn't slowing their machine down.
How do you know that iWork on the iPad is "perfectly doable"? If the bigger screen is such a game changer, imagine how much better a laptop would be!
Saying something is not possible on the iPhone doesn't say much. The iPhone doesn't define what's possible with computers except for apologists like you. The iPhone was a huge step back in computing and smartphone capability when it was first introduced. Apple doesn't define what is possible.
When I got my iPhone, the only thing that made it better as a websurfer was the size of its screen. Apple broke compatibility with websites with their implementation of the touchscreen. There are plenty of devices that offer that size screen today that don't suffer from the iPhone's limitations.
"With the iPad we are still stuck at the point where we stare at paper-specs and use them to determine the value and use of the device."
No we aren't, we have people like you to make it sound better than it is.
"iPad is order of magnitude more capable than the touch is."
You mean for every capability of the iPod touch, the iPad has ten?
"The mistake people are doing is staring at the hardware-specs, and proclaiming the iPad as "nothing but oversized iPod touch", when the key thing is the software."
Which, for the most part, is the same.
"It's no surprise that the people who complain about the iPad are people who haven't used one."
The ones who praise it haven't used one either. The ones who've used one are Apple employees and paid shills.
I've used an iPhone, I know what an iPad will be like.
"Every time a net neutrality article comes up, I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today, as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right?"
That's a stupid question to ask since it isn't about "handling control of the internet over to the government". Maybe next time you'll be educated enough not to ask that question.
If the users must give up the ability to run whatever software they desire in order to avoid all these terrible problems, then how does Apple manage to avoid them with OS X?
Give your false dichotomy a rest. This is about Apple controlling the entire platform, not about Windows failures.
I find it interesting that the very feature that Apple told us we didn't want and the iPhone couldn't afford, namely "3rd party" (and I use the term loosely) apps, is now one of the biggest differentiators and selling points of the platform and the kingpin for Apple's lockdown strategy (app store) with the iPad. Talk about an epic flipflop...
"Tivo-ization" was never a threat to anyone's freedom. It was a threat to RMS's agenda. Tivo never advertised its hardware as able to run arbitrary software and it complied fully with the GPL.
The iPad is what GPL fanatics work themselves into a frenzy pretending the Tivo to be.
Yes, that's true but neither Apple nor the FSF will go along with it. Apple will most certainly push it as a general purpose computer, they already are and have claimed the same for the iPhone, and the FSF considers a Tivo to be a general purpose computer. Don't expect people to be rational, expect them to take whatever viewpoint suits their agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's fun to nitpick the phrasing of a sentence, but at the end of that day what he's saying should resonate to all of us that prefer Google's homepage to Yahoo's."
Funny how it doesn't though.
I don't think anyone in the world can honestly say they prefer browsing on an iPhone over a "full-size web browser".
"That's what puts the iPad in competition with netbooks - it's a netbook that is easy to use, which is where it will find its market."
The iPad is not a netbook by ANY definition of netbook. Whether the iPad is easy to use is a matter of perspective.
If Apple had stuck with the limitations of the first generation iPod it would have been a failure. It's popular to see this quote somehow disproving Apple criticism but it does no such thing.
Imagine how the iPod could have today's dominant position while only working on a computer platform with a 10% marketshare. The first iPod was lame.
Yes, you anecdotal evidence of one possible sale is proof that there was no damage and all upside. That's some real genius thinking.
I hope you aren't suggesting that this case of plagiarism is, in fact, a creative "mashup" work. Literature and music/video performance are not analogous.
Yes, it is laughably absurd. The world is filled with new creative expression.
That's nonsense.
It sure seems like these comments are relevant to plagiarism, I just am not seeing how. Anyway, it's good to know that popular music isn't corrupted by those seeking fame and fortune like academia is! With insight like that, maybe Mensa is in your future.
Modern sampling has nothing in common with the age old practice of borrowing from others in musical composition. Sampling steals the performance, that's the difference.
"What does Flash do for you when you're traveling/away from home/etc? Usually I'm looking up restaurants and using Google Maps. If I'm at the gym, I'm reading news articles on my iPhone. If you're away from home with a focus on doing something else, what use is Flash, really? It has some merit for video, which is being addressed with HTML5, but you don't seriously want to use interactive Flash games when you're on the go."
That's quite a pathetic Flash apology. I guess Flash does nothing for you when you don't have any use for it, that's true. If you have a focus on something else, why do you need an iPad at all? BTW, google maps uses Flash.
That says a lot about you, doesn't it?
"This is why buck naked fornicators do not enter your home over the broadcast airways."
No, that's not why.
"How do you "minimize" an app in iPad?"
Other smartphones don't have a problem with this. The iPhone's inability to consider this is evidence of poor design, not good design.
Curiously, OS X doesn't close an app or discontinue its processing when the window closes. Your point isn't even legitimate when it comes to Apple products!
"What about free installation of apps? What if the user installs an app that screws the machine up? Tough luck?"
Never been a problem for other smartphones. This is another trumped up problem from Apple that doesn't actually exist.
"says the armchair-technologist."
pot calling kettle black.
"Whenever someone says something that somehow defends Apple and/or some of their product, some idiots start waving the fanboy-cultist card...."
The shoe fits in this case.
It doesn't matter how usable a device is that can't be used for much. I know how to use my notebook already. Anything new is less usable to me.
I remember when Steve told us that we absolutely didn't want 3rd party apps because we couldn't afford the risk of them taking down the device or even the cellular network. Apple fanboys ate up that lie. Now the app store is Apple's #1 lynchpin in spite of the fact that it doesn't allow true 3rd party development.
Apple claims the iPhone offers the best mobile browsing experience yet it needs countless add-on apps to substitute for the stuff that Safari can't do. How can that be? What does that say about the iPad's websurfing superiority over a netbook?
"And I bet that iPad is better at many key things than a laptop is. Things like watching movies or surfing the web. iPod touch is already my websurfer of choice, and iPad would be even better."
No rational person would believe that an iPad is better for web surfing or movie watching than a laptop. That you claim to disqualifies your opinions.
It's true that a device incapable of sophisticated use won't be slowed down by sophisticated use. I'm sure it will be great comfort to those that need background processing to know that the task they need but can't have isn't slowing their machine down.
How do you know that iWork on the iPad is "perfectly doable"? If the bigger screen is such a game changer, imagine how much better a laptop would be!
Saying something is not possible on the iPhone doesn't say much. The iPhone doesn't define what's possible with computers except for apologists like you. The iPhone was a huge step back in computing and smartphone capability when it was first introduced. Apple doesn't define what is possible.
When I got my iPhone, the only thing that made it better as a websurfer was the size of its screen. Apple broke compatibility with websites with their implementation of the touchscreen. There are plenty of devices that offer that size screen today that don't suffer from the iPhone's limitations.
"With the iPad we are still stuck at the point where we stare at paper-specs and use them to determine the value and use of the device."
No we aren't, we have people like you to make it sound better than it is.
"iPad is order of magnitude more capable than the touch is."
You mean for every capability of the iPod touch, the iPad has ten?
"The mistake people are doing is staring at the hardware-specs, and proclaiming the iPad as "nothing but oversized iPod touch", when the key thing is the software."
Which, for the most part, is the same.
"It's no surprise that the people who complain about the iPad are people who haven't used one."
The ones who praise it haven't used one either. The ones who've used one are Apple employees and paid shills.
I've used an iPhone, I know what an iPad will be like.
"Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose."
Perhaps, but they aren't free to distribute it. Apple has to approve any app for the platform. If they see it as competition, they will deny it.
"This is an appliance, not a full-blown computer..."
Funny, Steve said it was better than a netbook in every way.
How large do the buttons have to be in order for drag and drop to work?
I would say it stops short of replacing everything the user associates with FreeBSD.
Darwin isn't OS X.
"Just because a behavior is banned doesn't mean people have actually stopped doing it."
It means the BAN is ineffective which is what is claimed. That much is undeniable.
"Every time a net neutrality article comes up, I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today, as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right?"
That's a stupid question to ask since it isn't about "handling control of the internet over to the government". Maybe next time you'll be educated enough not to ask that question.
If the users must give up the ability to run whatever software they desire in order to avoid all these terrible problems, then how does Apple manage to avoid them with OS X?
Give your false dichotomy a rest. This is about Apple controlling the entire platform, not about Windows failures.
I find it interesting that the very feature that Apple told us we didn't want and the iPhone couldn't afford, namely "3rd party" (and I use the term loosely) apps, is now one of the biggest differentiators and selling points of the platform and the kingpin for Apple's lockdown strategy (app store) with the iPad. Talk about an epic flipflop...
"Tivo-ization" was never a threat to anyone's freedom. It was a threat to RMS's agenda. Tivo never advertised its hardware as able to run arbitrary software and it complied fully with the GPL.
The iPad is what GPL fanatics work themselves into a frenzy pretending the Tivo to be.
Yes, that's true but neither Apple nor the FSF will go along with it. Apple will most certainly push it as a general purpose computer, they already are and have claimed the same for the iPhone, and the FSF considers a Tivo to be a general purpose computer. Don't expect people to be rational, expect them to take whatever viewpoint suits their agenda.