I wasn't "getting worked up" about anything. I was asking reasonable questions. If you do not see fragmentation as a problem inherent in a platform touting unification, then fine, that's your prerogative; but insulting those who do, is childish and unproductive--especially when the closest thing to an argument you provide is "that's how it's always been so it can't be bad."
Well, actually, in the case of the Android phones (or sandboxed systems in general), it is slightly reversed: instead of a single base system with many applications installing cross-dependent libraries, you have various systems with numerous applications requiring libraries or features available in different variations or degrees on each base system. So the "cross-dependencies" are between a single app and the various operating system versions or devices on which it will run, and not between apps themselves.
So, my application cannot depend on a feature from 2.1 if I target 1.5; if I want to make use of such feature, my application still must work without it. Is this correct?
Correspondingly, then, if I target 2.1 because my application requires a specific feature, then I cannot expect customers with 1.5 to use it, right? How is this not fragmentation?
Are you implying that every single feature, on every single version, on every single device is optional, so that I can just make my application use it if it's there, but not if it isn't?
Then how do applications differentiate? How do they actually do anything right or better? How do they take advantage of new technology or paradigms? And, more importantly, how is this not a problem or flaw in the ecosystem?
For better or worse, this is precisely the situation that Steve Jobs is forcibly attempting to avoid.
It then invalidates the entire "Android Platform" as a single, unified ecosystem. When each user has to think of their own flavor of Android phone as a unique model and platform, one which contains its own set of apps and features, then to the consumer (and to the market in general) they are not the same phone. Ergo, fragmentation.
I know that the Android designer tried to play this off by comparing it to Apple, but there is really no comparison. Older versions of the iPhone may still be in circulation, and yes, they will not support the latest forthcoming multi-tasking features of the iPhone OS 4.0, but these are mature devices that were purchased three years ago by people who would very likely understand that a newer model may be shinier. In the case of Android phones, we're talking about platform changes that occur weekly (according to the article), or at least very close to each other. Plus, Apple stops selling one model when a newer comes out; while some manufacturers still sell devices with very old versions of Android which are not upgradable.
Not only that, but most, if not all, apps in the Apple App Store will run in all flavors of the iPhone, and they all look exactly the same and have the same physical characteristics. It is plain to anybody that an iPhone 1.0 is still just as much iPhone as a 3GS. In the case of a Droid vs. a Nexus One vs. whatever other Android device exist, this is much less clear. The devices not only look different, but are fundamentally different--at least to the general observer: some are touch-aware, others are not; some support multi-touch, some do not; some have cameras, others have physical keyboards, etc.
Ultimately, what everyone took for granted as being Android's very advantage in the market and its biggest strength, may turn out to be its most obvious flaw: that it is freely available to any device manufacturer, that it is open and customizable, and that it provides access to different sets of hardware and features.
I do not equate anything with quality, it stands on its own. The quantity I expect is that which is sufficient to enjoy. I do not go to a fine restaurant looking for a "value meal."
When I go to a fine restaurant, I order at least three courses, but usually four or five. All of them together, each in small portions, are enough to satisfy a "common appetite". Moreover, the many courses intensify the experience by offering a variety of tastes and textures as opposed to, say, a large trough of pasta that feeds four.
Wait, do you seriously blog about how your roommate's cooking is not as good as yours, mostly because of your "level of dedication", being a culinary arts student?
>> For example, surveying an area for public wifi spots.
Perhaps that is as it should be. Remember, if people are expecting it not be allowed now (which is why they are complaining), why would this they be expecting it to be legal?
Wait, wait, wait! What is an expectation of privacy? Is it when people actively seek to be anonymous? Is it when people think their actions are not being scrutinised or exploited? What is it?
I posit that if a large corporation, or the government, performs a massive, large-scale collection of information--whether freely available or not--and at least some people take this as an intrusion of privacy and argue about it, that these people had an expectation of privacy. They certainly had an expectation of this information not being exploited in such ways.
Why would they be complaining about it if they were perfectly in agreement and understanding that such information was even available freely for someone to collect and exploit?
This is how laws and regulations are enacted: someone crossed a line, which heretofore was not acknowledged by the masses as being an issue, and it gets prohibited, restricted, or regulated henceforth.
I say that Google did cross this line, and the fact that so many people--including entire governments--are reacting so negatively means, in fact, that they were expecting Google, and any other large corporation, to exercise restrain and not do this. This, in my opinion, is an expectation of privacy.
Your platform comparisons have a fundamental flaw: Windows is not the iPhone (or iPad), and Microsoft is not Apple. By this I mean that Windows is an operating system and Microsoft is a company making this operating system, while the iPhone is an integrated device, which includes an operating system, but it also includes the hardware, applications, a PC sync'ing mechanism, and an App Store--it is all of these--and Apple is a company providing this entire set up.
Can you see the difference between a company that provides an operating system which can be installed in many sort of computers, designed, built and sold independently by other manufacturers; and a company that provides a fully integrated software/hardware ecosystem? It's like comparing Goodyear to Ford: one makes a component of a motor vehicle, the other makes the vehicle itself.
Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in the Personal Computer Operating Systems market. This is a very broad market definition, it's like saying Goodyear has a monopoly in Automobile Tires (not that they do), and implies that they are the sole provider for all cars, and thus exerting influence on the independent manufacturers themselves.
Apple on the other hand does not have a monopoly in the Mobile Device Operating Systems market, not by any stretch of the imagination. The iPhone has a small-ish market share within the Mobile Device market. Of this, I grant you, Apple has a monopoly in the Apple Mobile Device market, but this is their own market share, and it is a rather narrow category. It's like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Ford motor vehicles--and that, say, Toyota cannot sell Ford automobiles.
If you take these differences into consideration, you'll notice that your argument cannot stand any more.
>> Would it be okay for MS to warn you that your are about to install virus?
It is their operating system, so I do not see a problem with this.
>> Wouldn't it be nice if MS stopped you from loosing data by refusing to allow you to export your documents to other formats?
Microsoft does, indeed, this very thing, and such is their right as software manufacturers. But lets be clear, they do this within their own software. For instance, MS Word will not allow me to export to Open Office format, nor does it support iWork's Pages. They do not, however, prevent the rest of my computer, i.e. those parts not controlled by their software within my machine, from doing so. When I purchase Microsoft's software I consent to this limitation.
>> If MS tried to control your PC in the same way, would you tolerate it? Would you take it from Dell?
I agree that if MS tried to control the PC--which is not owned or devised by them--as they have tried in the past, this would be wrong. But that is because, as explained above, they only supply a component of the entire PC system, which is independently produced.
Regarding Dell, I suppose they could start doing that, since they are designing and building the machine itself. It is their right. However, I suspect that, like you implied, many people wouldn't like it, and so they would purchase from a different manufacturer. Likewise it is with the iPhone: those who do not like the control Apple is exerting, are free to not purchase one, and go to a competitor, of which there are many. Such is the advantage of an open market and competition.
>> [N]obody has to have an iPad, iPhone, iPod or Mac. No really, you do not. So their control is "harmless". For now.
True. If Apple, by deception, artifice, or anti-competitive behaviour attempts to destroy the competition (as Microsoft was accused of doing once) and it becomes the only purveyor of Mobile Devices, and attempts to manipulate prices artificially to its advantage, then yes they are an anti-competitive monopoly and should be stopped or punished by the appropriate authorities.
He's not claiming PCs are going away, but that the PC as the center of multimedia consumption is going away. I agree, devices like the iPhone and now the iPad will take media consumption into the living room and integrate better with the lifestyles of users, while the PC will become simple another tool to create content.
Or are you implying that Jobs is saying that media would only be consumed but never created?
No, this thread is based on a couple of circular strawmen argument, that people who do not currently use an iPad will not buy one, and that people who have additional needs outside the iPad will never use one either.
I need a way to get to work, yet I bought a toaster and a blender, which do nothing for this. At the office, I sometimes need to print documents, yet I still carry a cell phone with me, which does not have access to the printer.
The iPad offers a certain set of features. Yes, it is a limited set, but that set is well devised and implemented. People will buy it and use it for those features, and if they have additional needs which the iPad does not fulfill, I suspect they will either use a separate device, or compromise somehow.
The comment that, if someone doesn't have a Wi-Fi printer, they won't be able to print from the iPad, ergo they won't buy one, is stupid. There may have been a time when that same person did not have a printer and yet bought a PC. Someone purchasing an iPad for the actual features that it offers, may purchase a Wi-Fi printer if they feel the need. Or they may discovered that they only wanted to print because that's the only way they could make their daily news portable to take the bathroom, and now with the iPad, this need is fulfilled differently.
Face it, whether you like it or not--whether the geek world admits it or not--the iPad is a useful device to many people, and it will sell well. It is not for everyone, apparently not for you, nor is it intended to replace ever other device you already own. But to some people, it will replace most (if not all) the activities that they currently do on a laptop, for lack a better device.
It's actually aimed at grannies. They spend $80 to $120 on an electronic picture frame to put a slideshow of their grandchildren. For a few hundred more, they get a fancier one that can also serve as a calendar, clock, and even *gasp* a web browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you laughing at Pac-Man?? You know, he doesn't like that.
-dZ.
They make good soup!
-dZ.
I think he's trying to avoid pointing out the fact that he noticed that--*gasp!*--their skin colour is different.
-dZ.
So, tell me, Oh Wise One, how do do you properly spell 'Kernel'?
-dZ.
Again with the insults? I guess we can't discuss this like adults. Good luck to you, then.
-dZ.
I wasn't "getting worked up" about anything. I was asking reasonable questions. If you do not see fragmentation as a problem inherent in a platform touting unification, then fine, that's your prerogative; but insulting those who do, is childish and unproductive--especially when the closest thing to an argument you provide is "that's how it's always been so it can't be bad."
-dZ.
Well, actually, in the case of the Android phones (or sandboxed systems in general), it is slightly reversed: instead of a single base system with many applications installing cross-dependent libraries, you have various systems with numerous applications requiring libraries or features available in different variations or degrees on each base system. So the "cross-dependencies" are between a single app and the various operating system versions or devices on which it will run, and not between apps themselves.
-dZ.
You know, sir, I took all that from the original little sentence. There is something to be said (briefly, ha!) for concision.
-dZ.
So, my application cannot depend on a feature from 2.1 if I target 1.5; if I want to make use of such feature, my application still must work without it. Is this correct?
Correspondingly, then, if I target 2.1 because my application requires a specific feature, then I cannot expect customers with 1.5 to use it, right? How is this not fragmentation?
Are you implying that every single feature, on every single version, on every single device is optional, so that I can just make my application use it if it's there, but not if it isn't?
Then how do applications differentiate? How do they actually do anything right or better? How do they take advantage of new technology or paradigms? And, more importantly, how is this not a problem or flaw in the ecosystem?
For better or worse, this is precisely the situation that Steve Jobs is forcibly attempting to avoid.
-dZ.
It then invalidates the entire "Android Platform" as a single, unified ecosystem. When each user has to think of their own flavor of Android phone as a unique model and platform, one which contains its own set of apps and features, then to the consumer (and to the market in general) they are not the same phone. Ergo, fragmentation.
I know that the Android designer tried to play this off by comparing it to Apple, but there is really no comparison. Older versions of the iPhone may still be in circulation, and yes, they will not support the latest forthcoming multi-tasking features of the iPhone OS 4.0, but these are mature devices that were purchased three years ago by people who would very likely understand that a newer model may be shinier. In the case of Android phones, we're talking about platform changes that occur weekly (according to the article), or at least very close to each other. Plus, Apple stops selling one model when a newer comes out; while some manufacturers still sell devices with very old versions of Android which are not upgradable.
Not only that, but most, if not all, apps in the Apple App Store will run in all flavors of the iPhone, and they all look exactly the same and have the same physical characteristics. It is plain to anybody that an iPhone 1.0 is still just as much iPhone as a 3GS. In the case of a Droid vs. a Nexus One vs. whatever other Android device exist, this is much less clear. The devices not only look different, but are fundamentally different--at least to the general observer: some are touch-aware, others are not; some support multi-touch, some do not; some have cameras, others have physical keyboards, etc.
Ultimately, what everyone took for granted as being Android's very advantage in the market and its biggest strength, may turn out to be its most obvious flaw: that it is freely available to any device manufacturer, that it is open and customizable, and that it provides access to different sets of hardware and features.
-dZ.
I do not equate anything with quality, it stands on its own. The quantity I expect is that which is sufficient to enjoy. I do not go to a fine restaurant looking for a "value meal."
-dZ.
When I go to a fine restaurant, I order at least three courses, but usually four or five. All of them together, each in small portions, are enough to satisfy a "common appetite". Moreover, the many courses intensify the experience by offering a variety of tastes and textures as opposed to, say, a large trough of pasta that feeds four.
-dZ.
I thought commas and apostrophes were the spice of language.
-dZ.
In all fairness, Hell is not weird. It's kind of nice once you get used to the heat. Plus the chicks are incredible!
-dZ.
idunno whatcha talkin' 'bout. Me and mah kin never needs to rest them steaks when puttin' on the barbeque.
-dZ.
Oh, you're one of those, who equate quantity with quality.
-dZ.
Wait, do you seriously blog about how your roommate's cooking is not as good as yours, mostly because of your "level of dedication", being a culinary arts student?
Talk about braggarts and pretentious pricks.
-dZ.
>> "A window will be shattered in conference room #201, and a chair will be noticed missing." (p. 142)
-dZ.
>> For example, surveying an area for public wifi spots.
Perhaps that is as it should be. Remember, if people are expecting it not be allowed now (which is why they are complaining), why would this they be expecting it to be legal?
-dZ.
Wait, wait, wait! What is an expectation of privacy? Is it when people actively seek to be anonymous? Is it when people think their actions are not being scrutinised or exploited? What is it?
I posit that if a large corporation, or the government, performs a massive, large-scale collection of information--whether freely available or not--and at least some people take this as an intrusion of privacy and argue about it, that these people had an expectation of privacy. They certainly had an expectation of this information not being exploited in such ways.
Why would they be complaining about it if they were perfectly in agreement and understanding that such information was even available freely for someone to collect and exploit?
This is how laws and regulations are enacted: someone crossed a line, which heretofore was not acknowledged by the masses as being an issue, and it gets prohibited, restricted, or regulated henceforth.
I say that Google did cross this line, and the fact that so many people--including entire governments--are reacting so negatively means, in fact, that they were expecting Google, and any other large corporation, to exercise restrain and not do this. This, in my opinion, is an expectation of privacy.
-dZ.
Beautiful! Barkeep, Mod points all around, on me!
-dZ.
Your platform comparisons have a fundamental flaw: Windows is not the iPhone (or iPad), and Microsoft is not Apple. By this I mean that Windows is an operating system and Microsoft is a company making this operating system, while the iPhone is an integrated device, which includes an operating system, but it also includes the hardware, applications, a PC sync'ing mechanism, and an App Store--it is all of these--and Apple is a company providing this entire set up.
Can you see the difference between a company that provides an operating system which can be installed in many sort of computers, designed, built and sold independently by other manufacturers; and a company that provides a fully integrated software/hardware ecosystem? It's like comparing Goodyear to Ford: one makes a component of a motor vehicle, the other makes the vehicle itself.
Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in the Personal Computer Operating Systems market. This is a very broad market definition, it's like saying Goodyear has a monopoly in Automobile Tires (not that they do), and implies that they are the sole provider for all cars, and thus exerting influence on the independent manufacturers themselves.
Apple on the other hand does not have a monopoly in the Mobile Device Operating Systems market, not by any stretch of the imagination. The iPhone has a small-ish market share within the Mobile Device market. Of this, I grant you, Apple has a monopoly in the Apple Mobile Device market, but this is their own market share, and it is a rather narrow category. It's like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Ford motor vehicles--and that, say, Toyota cannot sell Ford automobiles.
If you take these differences into consideration, you'll notice that your argument cannot stand any more.
>> Would it be okay for MS to warn you that your are about to install virus?
It is their operating system, so I do not see a problem with this.
>> Wouldn't it be nice if MS stopped you from loosing data by refusing to allow you to export your documents to other formats?
Microsoft does, indeed, this very thing, and such is their right as software manufacturers. But lets be clear, they do this within their own software. For instance, MS Word will not allow me to export to Open Office format, nor does it support iWork's Pages. They do not, however, prevent the rest of my computer, i.e. those parts not controlled by their software within my machine, from doing so. When I purchase Microsoft's software I consent to this limitation.
>> If MS tried to control your PC in the same way, would you tolerate it? Would you take it from Dell?
I agree that if MS tried to control the PC--which is not owned or devised by them--as they have tried in the past, this would be wrong. But that is because, as explained above, they only supply a component of the entire PC system, which is independently produced.
Regarding Dell, I suppose they could start doing that, since they are designing and building the machine itself. It is their right. However, I suspect that, like you implied, many people wouldn't like it, and so they would purchase from a different manufacturer. Likewise it is with the iPhone: those who do not like the control Apple is exerting, are free to not purchase one, and go to a competitor, of which there are many. Such is the advantage of an open market and competition.
>> [N]obody has to have an iPad, iPhone, iPod or Mac. No really, you do not. So their control is "harmless". For now.
True. If Apple, by deception, artifice, or anti-competitive behaviour attempts to destroy the competition (as Microsoft was accused of doing once) and it becomes the only purveyor of Mobile Devices, and attempts to manipulate prices artificially to its advantage, then yes they are an anti-competitive monopoly and should be stopped or punished by the appropriate authorities.
On the other hand, if Apple provi
He's not claiming PCs are going away, but that the PC as the center of multimedia consumption is going away. I agree, devices like the iPhone and now the iPad will take media consumption into the living room and integrate better with the lifestyles of users, while the PC will become simple another tool to create content.
Or are you implying that Jobs is saying that media would only be consumed but never created?
-dZ.
No, this thread is based on a couple of circular strawmen argument, that people who do not currently use an iPad will not buy one, and that people who have additional needs outside the iPad will never use one either.
I need a way to get to work, yet I bought a toaster and a blender, which do nothing for this. At the office, I sometimes need to print documents, yet I still carry a cell phone with me, which does not have access to the printer.
The iPad offers a certain set of features. Yes, it is a limited set, but that set is well devised and implemented. People will buy it and use it for those features, and if they have additional needs which the iPad does not fulfill, I suspect they will either use a separate device, or compromise somehow.
The comment that, if someone doesn't have a Wi-Fi printer, they won't be able to print from the iPad, ergo they won't buy one, is stupid. There may have been a time when that same person did not have a printer and yet bought a PC. Someone purchasing an iPad for the actual features that it offers, may purchase a Wi-Fi printer if they feel the need. Or they may discovered that they only wanted to print because that's the only way they could make their daily news portable to take the bathroom, and now with the iPad, this need is fulfilled differently.
Face it, whether you like it or not--whether the geek world admits it or not--the iPad is a useful device to many people, and it will sell well. It is not for everyone, apparently not for you, nor is it intended to replace ever other device you already own. But to some people, it will replace most (if not all) the activities that they currently do on a laptop, for lack a better device.
-dZ.
It's actually aimed at grannies. They spend $80 to $120 on an electronic picture frame to put a slideshow of their grandchildren. For a few hundred more, they get a fancier one that can also serve as a calendar, clock, and even *gasp* a web browser.
-dZ.