It's not that I don't get updates, it's that I control them. I have a Mac, an iPad, and an iPod Touch. At the office, we use Windows computers. No updates are installed directly on any of these devices the moment they come out.
The workstations at the office are vetted, tested, and controlled by the IT department. For my personal devices, I always read the change-logs first to find out what the updates are supposed to fix or add.
There have been numerous patches that break functionality in some iOS apps; you can tell when you read the reviews immediately after an update is posted. Some even have surreptitiously changed from "freeware" to "crappy-in-your-face-ad-ware," masquerading the change as "bug fixes." (The latest Angry Birds paid app introduced annoying interstitial ads, along with some new features I did not really care for. A lot of users now feel cheated after updating in good faith an app that they paid for not to have ads.)
Some updates have even completely broken the applications they were intended to fix; and even some--from Apple themselves--have caused laptops or devices to completely brick for some users. You hear about this in the news, in reviews, and you can evaluate whether that new widget is worth the risk, or whether you are really at risk for that security vulnerability; or, you know, if you should skip this one and wait for the next patch that corrects the problems.
Remember when Google introduced some new-fangled "Buzz" features to GMail with an automatic and silent background update? How did that go among users?
Yes, this happens to all operating systems, I do not single out ChromeOS as having any inherent properties of instability (though that's a topic on itself). The key point is that the user should have the choice. If the user decides to trust Google and allow all updates to silently install, well let him have it. However, no user should rely on the whims of a manufacturer, and trust implicitly the intentions and goals of a corporation in an unregulated market.
moreover, the idea is that since this is a linux machine essentially only running a browser with no user installed software it has a greater chance of being stable than a mac, PC, or linux box where the end users most often have admin rights and can and do install all sorts of untested software. no data to back that up, but it seems like a reasonable theory.
That sounds like a reasonable theory on the surface, but it requires complete and utter trust on the service provider. Some people implicitly trust Google, that's fine for them; but a lot of people distrust a company whose business model revolves around collecting and mining behavioural data on their users.
If Google were making money from their products, I would feel different, because our goals would be somewhat aligned: I want an application that works, and they want happy users who continue purchasing their applications.
However, Google doesn't make money from their products; they make money from the user data collected from the products they give away for free. This means that while I want an application that works, their interest is in getting data that makes them money. Since the application is free, my satisfaction is not really a priority; for the barrier is low enough to always encourage users to participate. Especially if they don't really understand the extent of their relationship with Google.
I use my iPad for that, and it wakes up instantaneously with it's Wi-Fi connection active. I can also use it for browsing the web and installing useful or entertaining apps.
Oh, and if you aim for the previous model, it's cheaper lighter, and faster.
If you read the blog post, the owner explains that they repeatedly asked Apple for a validation of their business model, and that the only response they received was that their app did not violate policy. Moreover, he suggests that Apple acted in bad faith by implementing iBooks to destroy his business model, without alerting him of their intentions.
He also states that they went through considerable trouble and expense to build an application, only to give it away for free and depend on revenue from a "middle-man" business model, where they would resell e-books that publishers were already selling.
He further states that all publishers had moved to an "agent" model where they require all resellers be bound to the same price, of which they get a 30% commission, so his margins were already razor-thin.
This all strikes me as very flawed business model from the beginning. This is not an app developer, this is a re-seller--a middle-man-- that happens to give away an app in order to sell e-books from it. The fact that he developed the app is immaterial, since it was not the product that he sold.
Did they really expect Apple to have their lawyers and business executives analyse their company's business model to make sure that it would be successful? Is it really Apple's fault that they didn't see the flaw in their "middle-man" re-seller model?
If his e-book reader is such a novel and marvelous app, as he suggests in his blog post, then why doesn't he just sell the app and let it stand on its own merit? He suggests that iBooks is just gimmicky with its page-turning animations, and that his app is superior; well, then he should be able to make money out of it. His business model was broken, not his app.
Please read your own argument again and try to see the paradox in it.
"Honeycomb source will be opened up in the future, when it is actually ready for commercial use."
I'd say that Google felt it was "ready for commercial use" since they released it as a commercial product.
Android 3 is either ready for commercial use, or not. In the latter case, it should not be released, or released as a prototype or "test" product. Its source code cannot be considered as an independent and unrelated attribute of the product, for there is a direct correlation between source code and compiled object code.
Is Android object-code or byte-code? If the former, how does disassembling the machine code gives you insight into the "basic organization and function names"?
That's the real problem that I see, but apparently the apologists do not. How can embarrassingly bad code--bad enough to compel them to fight against a potential PR nightmare rather than release it--actually inspire confidence in the robustness of the end product?
If Google say that Honeycomb source is crap, they are saying any product using it is crap. That should serve as a warning to all those early adopters opting for a Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1
Spinning this as some sort of personal obsession for perfection ignores the direct correlation between source code and object code, and the fact that this alleged obsession did not prevent them from knowingly releasing an unpolished or unfinished software as a commercial product hoping that nobody notices.
You may be right, but the typical person scrounging around the Internet high-valued for coupons is not the typical customer who pays for $200.00 worth of extras.
That seems to be a complaint from some sellers who have tried using Groupon in the past.
- Groupon is targeting the hard-core bargain hunter, they get 50% from every sale, and 100% if the customer fails to redeem the coupon.
- On the side of the vendor providing the offer, the concept is sold to them by Groupon as a loss-leader to up-sell premium products or services.
- What they are not told is that the typical hard-core bargain hunter targeted by Groupon is a cheapskate and will try to get the most value out of the coupon, and avoid up-sells as much as he or she can.
- In reality, Groupon's service should be considered as an advertising expense, and is therefore geared towards the large chains and "big box" retailers that can afford it.
- Groupon's model is somewhat dependent on the small "mom and pop" shops not understanding the difference between loss-leader and advertising expense, and falling for the promise of exposure at least once.
That's why you'll hear that a lot of small businesses do no repeat offers, while the Groupon site seems to be chuck-full of offers from large chains.
I imagine it comes from the same sort of people who see a button in their calendar that says "invite," and rather than suggesting an action, they assume it's a noun Soon enough they don't "invite" others to meetings, they send "invites" to them.
It also conveys a sense of meaning and purpose to life and the universe. It is far more comforting to imagine an all-powerful being guiding providence by will alone, who offers eternal afterlife to those believers who are deemed worthy to receive it; than to imagine a cold and uncaring universe, with no design or purpose, operating by mere quantum chance, and an existence that to some seem arbitrarily short and cosmically pointless.
Some people feel this way and religion provides their needed hope that there's a reason for it all.
Wait a minute. It is well understood that the biggest threat on the Windows platform comes from fly-by automagic installation of viruses and worms, or from trojans that then infect the rest of the system in order to continue propagating or give root access to remote attackers.
It is also understood that amidst all these critical threats there is a huge number of other annoyances of much less immediate danger, that require user intervention to act on their payload or do anything "useful" at all.
So far, the OS X platform has attracted a variety of this second class of threats, of which "MAC Defender" is another one. This does not put the platform in the same threat scenario as the latter, more critical threats.
Really? And why is that? Because in the Internet nobody would think of abusing your generosity in ways that could harm your reputation, or your financial or legal standing?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?
-dZ.
It's not that I don't get updates, it's that I control them. I have a Mac, an iPad, and an iPod Touch. At the office, we use Windows computers. No updates are installed directly on any of these devices the moment they come out.
The workstations at the office are vetted, tested, and controlled by the IT department. For my personal devices, I always read the change-logs first to find out what the updates are supposed to fix or add.
There have been numerous patches that break functionality in some iOS apps; you can tell when you read the reviews immediately after an update is posted. Some even have surreptitiously changed from "freeware" to "crappy-in-your-face-ad-ware," masquerading the change as "bug fixes." (The latest Angry Birds paid app introduced annoying interstitial ads, along with some new features I did not really care for. A lot of users now feel cheated after updating in good faith an app that they paid for not to have ads.)
Some updates have even completely broken the applications they were intended to fix; and even some--from Apple themselves--have caused laptops or devices to completely brick for some users. You hear about this in the news, in reviews, and you can evaluate whether that new widget is worth the risk, or whether you are really at risk for that security vulnerability; or, you know, if you should skip this one and wait for the next patch that corrects the problems.
Remember when Google introduced some new-fangled "Buzz" features to GMail with an automatic and silent background update? How did that go among users?
Yes, this happens to all operating systems, I do not single out ChromeOS as having any inherent properties of instability (though that's a topic on itself). The key point is that the user should have the choice. If the user decides to trust Google and allow all updates to silently install, well let him have it. However, no user should rely on the whims of a manufacturer, and trust implicitly the intentions and goals of a corporation in an unregulated market.
That sounds like a reasonable theory on the surface, but it requires complete and utter trust on the service provider. Some people implicitly trust Google, that's fine for them; but a lot of people distrust a company whose business model revolves around collecting and mining behavioural data on their users.
If Google were making money from their products, I would feel different, because our goals would be somewhat aligned: I want an application that works, and they want happy users who continue purchasing their applications.
However, Google doesn't make money from their products; they make money from the user data collected from the products they give away for free. This means that while I want an application that works, their interest is in getting data that makes them money. Since the application is free, my satisfaction is not really a priority; for the barrier is low enough to always encourage users to participate. Especially if they don't really understand the extent of their relationship with Google.
-dZ.
Until the day when Google releases a hastily tested update that silently and automatically installs, and bricks your device.
What, is there no chance of this ever happening with silent and unconditional installations on the aggressive schedule that Google typically follows?
Choice. We've heard of it.
-dZ.
I use my iPad for that, and it wakes up instantaneously with it's Wi-Fi connection active. I can also use it for browsing the web and installing useful or entertaining apps.
Oh, and if you aim for the previous model, it's cheaper lighter, and faster.
-dZ.
And my iPad 2 does that instantaneously. Oh, and the Wi-Fi wakes up with it.
-dZ.
I thought they would give it up after the lukewarm response to their beta devices.
That's Google for you, not afraid of failure--even when it's staring at them squarely in the face.
-dZ.
If you read the blog post, the owner explains that they repeatedly asked Apple for a validation of their business model, and that the only response they received was that their app did not violate policy. Moreover, he suggests that Apple acted in bad faith by implementing iBooks to destroy his business model, without alerting him of their intentions.
He also states that they went through considerable trouble and expense to build an application, only to give it away for free and depend on revenue from a "middle-man" business model, where they would resell e-books that publishers were already selling.
He further states that all publishers had moved to an "agent" model where they require all resellers be bound to the same price, of which they get a 30% commission, so his margins were already razor-thin.
This all strikes me as very flawed business model from the beginning. This is not an app developer, this is a re-seller--a middle-man-- that happens to give away an app in order to sell e-books from it. The fact that he developed the app is immaterial, since it was not the product that he sold.
Did they really expect Apple to have their lawyers and business executives analyse their company's business model to make sure that it would be successful? Is it really Apple's fault that they didn't see the flaw in their "middle-man" re-seller model?
If his e-book reader is such a novel and marvelous app, as he suggests in his blog post, then why doesn't he just sell the app and let it stand on its own merit? He suggests that iBooks is just gimmicky with its page-turning animations, and that his app is superior; well, then he should be able to make money out of it. His business model was broken, not his app.
-dZ.
Right, because embarrassing source code cannot possibly lead to embarrassing object code that is mitigated by mere obscurity.
Of course, since it's Google, this is A Good Thing.
-dZ.
What? Apple just released the source to their latest modifications to WebKit, as they do with the other open source project in which they participate.
I don't remember an instance when Apple or Microsoft used open as bait.
-dZ.
Please read your own argument again and try to see the paradox in it.
"Honeycomb source will be opened up in the future, when it is actually ready for commercial use."
I'd say that Google felt it was "ready for commercial use" since they released it as a commercial product.
Android 3 is either ready for commercial use, or not. In the latter case, it should not be released, or released as a prototype or "test" product. Its source code cannot be considered as an independent and unrelated attribute of the product, for there is a direct correlation between source code and compiled object code.
-dZ.
Is Android object-code or byte-code? If the former, how does disassembling the machine code gives you insight into the "basic organization and function names"?
-dZ.
That may be true (and I agree), but Facebook started after Google. It is Google's Microsoft Moment now. Facebook will get its chance soon enough.
-dZ.
That's the real problem that I see, but apparently the apologists do not. How can embarrassingly bad code--bad enough to compel them to fight against a potential PR nightmare rather than release it--actually inspire confidence in the robustness of the end product?
If Google say that Honeycomb source is crap, they are saying any product using it is crap. That should serve as a warning to all those early adopters opting for a Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1
Spinning this as some sort of personal obsession for perfection ignores the direct correlation between source code and object code, and the fact that this alleged obsession did not prevent them from knowingly releasing an unpolished or unfinished software as a commercial product hoping that nobody notices.
-dZ.
You may be right, but the typical person scrounging around the Internet high-valued for coupons is not the typical customer who pays for $200.00 worth of extras.
That seems to be a complaint from some sellers who have tried using Groupon in the past.
-dZ.
>> It's a complex model.
It's actually a rather simple model:
That's why you'll hear that a lot of small businesses do no repeat offers, while the Groupon site seems to be chuck-full of offers from large chains.
-dZ.
I what you did there.
Actually, hope is synomous with "I don't know if it's going to happen, but I want it to."
I imagine it comes from the same sort of people who see a button in their calendar that says "invite," and rather than suggesting an action, they assume it's a noun Soon enough they don't "invite" others to meetings, they send "invites" to them.
Perhaps it is advanced English?
-dZ.
Wow, are you trying to compete with the AC above ranting about Hawaii savages?
-dZ.
It also conveys a sense of meaning and purpose to life and the universe. It is far more comforting to imagine an all-powerful being guiding providence by will alone, who offers eternal afterlife to those believers who are deemed worthy to receive it; than to imagine a cold and uncaring universe, with no design or purpose, operating by mere quantum chance, and an existence that to some seem arbitrarily short and cosmically pointless.
Some people feel this way and religion provides their needed hope that there's a reason for it all.
-dZ.
Wait a minute. It is well understood that the biggest threat on the Windows platform comes from fly-by automagic installation of viruses and worms, or from trojans that then infect the rest of the system in order to continue propagating or give root access to remote attackers.
It is also understood that amidst all these critical threats there is a huge number of other annoyances of much less immediate danger, that require user intervention to act on their payload or do anything "useful" at all.
So far, the OS X platform has attracted a variety of this second class of threats, of which "MAC Defender" is another one. This does not put the platform in the same threat scenario as the latter, more critical threats.
-dZ.
Isn't "rolling your own" the same as "developing a more direct competitor to it"?
Or a sound system that sounds good to me even if technically it's goodness is an illusion.
LOL! Damn you, auto-correct!
-dZ.
Really? And why is that? Because in the Internet nobody would think of abusing your generosity in ways that could harm your reputation, or your financial or legal standing?