It's a game changer...which would require another $300 device and possibly early termination fees to end your current wireless contract. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that if someone did it tomorrow Apple would have plenty of time to address it before losing too many customers.
They'd have to move very slowly to really impact sales. You have to take into account that most people aren't likely to drop a $300 phone and buy another (I assume comparably priced) just for one killer app - certainly not quickly enough to make it difficult for Apple to adjust and either have it ported or offer a compelling alternative. And that's with the scenario that the new phone with the killer app is on the same carrier - if not, then you also have to figure for a good chunk of time before the owner's contract comes up.
Don't be quick to dismiss Apple - they've managed to keep the iPod line consistently updated instead of just sitting on their lead waiting for the competition to catch up, and if there's anything that knocks the iPod off the top of the hill I'll bet you a dollar it's going to be the iPhone.
Seeing the way the economy is going I should probably save these $.02, but I'd rather not ride out the effects the "slap in the face" you seem to be advocating would cause - major depression on par with the late 20s/early 30s that we were lucky enough to put an end to the last time by getting into a world war. I'd rather just pay the taxes to bail out these assholes and put stricter regulation in place.
Hey, weren't we supposed to be talking about the RIAA?
Quick quiz: What's the screen resolution of an iPhone?
480 x 320 pixels. A quick screenshot of PS3's tools palette shows that the tools alone take up 57x399 pixels. Sure, you could try to make them smaller, but now you have to take into account that the end of your finger isn't going to be able to hit a small target on the touch screen. Ok, now you have to use a stylus. And Adobe still has to entirely rework the interface for PS, since it's designed to work with a point-and-click interface and not a touch screen. And assume that they went ahead and made that investment of time and money into rewriting PS for iPhone - what kind of work do you think you're going to do on it? How much photo editing do you really need to do away from a desktop? How much layout and design just can't wait until you can get to a desktop?
Of course, that's all putting aside your misconception that the OS X on the iPhone is the same as the desktop OS X.
Don't blame a majority of web publishers'/designers' inability to use CSS properly with a failure of CSS itself - you'd be amazed what knowledgeable, talented people can do with CSS and clean HTML. The problem is, it takes skill (and time) - two things which corporate web designers often lack.
As far as width, CSS really needs some kind of functional column specification. One of the reasons you tend to see fixed-width sites is that a few lines of 1440-pixel-wide text isn't nearly as easy to read as a few more lines of 500-pixel-wide text. Sure, there are other reasons, including lazy designers, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Arial is a piss-poor clone of Helvetica, and is far from being a good typeface. Designers with a formal design background should know that the list above is only standard because it's a list of default fonts installed on Windows for the last 10-15 years - it's a lot more to do with consistency, as opposed to quality, typefaces.
Bad designers are going to find ways of doing bad design whether you give them embedded fonts or not, and embedded fonts won't prevent the web from being legible. If I had to guess, I'd say they'd actually help (if only a little) by allowing designers to not have to do image replacements for headers/menus - that would mean just a bit more separation of content from presentation.
Also, could we please, please as a society agree to never use Comic Sans again for anything?:)
What monopolistic practices? They're a monopoly because they only make Apple products? I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company - they sell the complete system, which apparently is a difficult concept for a lot of./ readers to understand.
I'm sure they do exist - the only thing is, you have to wade through numerous anti-rabid-Apple-fanboy comments to get to a single rabid-Apple-fanboy comment on any given Apple related article.
Just because Apple makes their own OS is exactly what should allow them to "squash anyone who wants to license Apple's OS and sell their own hardware." Why should Apple, (or anyone else) be forced to license a product to a competitor just because the competitor thinks it would make its competing product better? I think you're the one with the faulty logic here...
Maybe they'll start to worry more about market share once they're done counting the piles and piles of money they're currently making. Seriously, how hard is it to grasp that market share != financial success, and financial success != market share?
...the overwhelming majority of people who espouse that view tend to have had no experience working with CEOs and other executives of large companies, so have no idea of how little it actually takes to be a CEO.
I have, and I know from experience how little it actually takes to be an executive in a large company.
Not being able to use a logo you developed barely qualifies as damage. And at the risk of being labeled a "rabid fanboi" too just because I disagree with you and have a slightly better grasp of IP law, Apple's opposition is ethical, reasonable, and absolutely necessary - trademarks must be defended (which is what Apple is doing here) or else they can be dismissed.
IMO, the two logos are probably different enough to stand on their own, but Apple can't afford to risk losing its trademark through a lack of defense.
It's already hitting the network for mail, what's another few KB every once in a while? The phone wouldn't need constant weather updates - likely a quick server hit to update the temp/conditions every hour or two would be enough to make it useful.
Sure it's fun to joke about, especially in a forum like/., and sure, there are a lot of people out there who do unthinkably stupid things, but thinking everyone is stupid is exactly contempt. Acknowledging that not everyone has the same level of expertise in whatever subject you happen to be talking about doesn't mean that everyone else is just stupid.
Sure it will, but that's not a valid comparison. The product in your analogy is clearly an attempt to duplicate McDonald's logo (and branding). The calendar in question used the group's logo, not Ford's, and didn't try to represent it as a product of Ford. Would you expect McDonalds to sue you for selling a calendar featuring photos you took of Big Macs and Quarter Pounders?
Slashdot Mirror
It's a game changer...which would require another $300 device and possibly early termination fees to end your current wireless contract. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that if someone did it tomorrow Apple would have plenty of time to address it before losing too many customers.
They'd have to move very slowly to really impact sales. You have to take into account that most people aren't likely to drop a $300 phone and buy another (I assume comparably priced) just for one killer app - certainly not quickly enough to make it difficult for Apple to adjust and either have it ported or offer a compelling alternative. And that's with the scenario that the new phone with the killer app is on the same carrier - if not, then you also have to figure for a good chunk of time before the owner's contract comes up.
Don't be quick to dismiss Apple - they've managed to keep the iPod line consistently updated instead of just sitting on their lead waiting for the competition to catch up, and if there's anything that knocks the iPod off the top of the hill I'll bet you a dollar it's going to be the iPhone.
You think Production is bad, get a job on their QA team...
Seeing the way the economy is going I should probably save these $.02, but I'd rather not ride out the effects the "slap in the face" you seem to be advocating would cause - major depression on par with the late 20s/early 30s that we were lucky enough to put an end to the last time by getting into a world war. I'd rather just pay the taxes to bail out these assholes and put stricter regulation in place.
Hey, weren't we supposed to be talking about the RIAA?
He's one hoopy frood.
And you overlooked the part where I said:
But by all means, distort facts and cling to your deal-breaker scenario as evidence that the device is crippled.
Simple-minded stupidity, indeed.
Quick quiz: What's the screen resolution of an iPhone?
480 x 320 pixels. A quick screenshot of PS3's tools palette shows that the tools alone take up 57x399 pixels. Sure, you could try to make them smaller, but now you have to take into account that the end of your finger isn't going to be able to hit a small target on the touch screen. Ok, now you have to use a stylus. And Adobe still has to entirely rework the interface for PS, since it's designed to work with a point-and-click interface and not a touch screen. And assume that they went ahead and made that investment of time and money into rewriting PS for iPhone - what kind of work do you think you're going to do on it? How much photo editing do you really need to do away from a desktop? How much layout and design just can't wait until you can get to a desktop?
Of course, that's all putting aside your misconception that the OS X on the iPhone is the same as the desktop OS X.
A developer who asks "where's Photoshop" when discussing a phone shouldn't expect anyone to listen to his/her opinions.
Don't blame a majority of web publishers'/designers' inability to use CSS properly with a failure of CSS itself - you'd be amazed what knowledgeable, talented people can do with CSS and clean HTML. The problem is, it takes skill (and time) - two things which corporate web designers often lack.
As far as width, CSS really needs some kind of functional column specification. One of the reasons you tend to see fixed-width sites is that a few lines of 1440-pixel-wide text isn't nearly as easy to read as a few more lines of 500-pixel-wide text. Sure, there are other reasons, including lazy designers, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Arial is a piss-poor clone of Helvetica, and is far from being a good typeface. Designers with a formal design background should know that the list above is only standard because it's a list of default fonts installed on Windows for the last 10-15 years - it's a lot more to do with consistency, as opposed to quality, typefaces.
Bad designers are going to find ways of doing bad design whether you give them embedded fonts or not, and embedded fonts won't prevent the web from being legible. If I had to guess, I'd say they'd actually help (if only a little) by allowing designers to not have to do image replacements for headers/menus - that would mean just a bit more separation of content from presentation.
Also, could we please, please as a society agree to never use Comic Sans again for anything? :)
What monopolistic practices? They're a monopoly because they only make Apple products? I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company - they sell the complete system, which apparently is a difficult concept for a lot of ./ readers to understand.
The thought of a random sampling of Slashdotters trying to "fix" a page layout is truly frightening!
Obiwan's Helpful Stock Tip #1:
Never take advice from someone who used the term "iTurd" in the previous sentence.
I'm sure they do exist - the only thing is, you have to wade through numerous anti-rabid-Apple-fanboy comments to get to a single rabid-Apple-fanboy comment on any given Apple related article.
Just because Apple makes their own OS is exactly what should allow them to "squash anyone who wants to license Apple's OS and sell their own hardware." Why should Apple, (or anyone else) be forced to license a product to a competitor just because the competitor thinks it would make its competing product better? I think you're the one with the faulty logic here...
Like a balloon...and something bad happens!
Does it matter? What would they do, submit more posts complaining about it that will also remain hidden?
So this company's software policy is based not on tangible, measurable factors but on the pet peeves of its IT staff? Fantastic.
Maybe they'll start to worry more about market share once they're done counting the piles and piles of money they're currently making. Seriously, how hard is it to grasp that market share != financial success, and financial success != market share?
I have, and I know from experience how little it actually takes to be an executive in a large company.
Well, at least you're taking the high road...
I assume it's more in the sense of "hack writer" than "hacker"
Not being able to use a logo you developed barely qualifies as damage. And at the risk of being labeled a "rabid fanboi" too just because I disagree with you and have a slightly better grasp of IP law, Apple's opposition is ethical, reasonable, and absolutely necessary - trademarks must be defended (which is what Apple is doing here) or else they can be dismissed.
IMO, the two logos are probably different enough to stand on their own, but Apple can't afford to risk losing its trademark through a lack of defense.
It's already hitting the network for mail, what's another few KB every once in a while? The phone wouldn't need constant weather updates - likely a quick server hit to update the temp/conditions every hour or two would be enough to make it useful.
Sure it's fun to joke about, especially in a forum like /., and sure, there are a lot of people out there who do unthinkably stupid things, but thinking everyone is stupid is exactly contempt. Acknowledging that not everyone has the same level of expertise in whatever subject you happen to be talking about doesn't mean that everyone else is just stupid.
Sure it will, but that's not a valid comparison. The product in your analogy is clearly an attempt to duplicate McDonald's logo (and branding). The calendar in question used the group's logo, not Ford's, and didn't try to represent it as a product of Ford. Would you expect McDonalds to sue you for selling a calendar featuring photos you took of Big Macs and Quarter Pounders?