I have played Tux racer with my girlfriends two year old daughter and she loves it. My girlfriend likes it too, she was just amazed and happy the first time she saw her daughter playing it. In the future I have thought that maybe in 3 or 5 she could start playing some old games like Jazz Jack Rabbit and Wacky Wheels, of course with supervision from either one of us.
I really don't see nothing wrong to let small children play games. The only question is what games and how much. I have thought myself that the games, played by children, should have no violence, no sexual content and no scary content, preferably no human characters. When children are older and understand clearly difference between a game and reality, then at the age of 9 - 12 they could with consent play some more serious games, but games with violence like GTA series should not be played before 16.
Analogue TV is analogue TV, that's a standard. With basic analogue broadcast you only send the picture and the voice. What Tivo/ReplayTV need is guide info, now that guide info needs to be sent somehow to the receiver. If I have understood it right, with Tivo/ReplayTV, the guide info data is added to the analogue broadcast. Now if you are going to add anything to the normal broadcast you are going to need permissions from the regulator. As I said earlier, there was no interest for any broadcaster to go with Tivo and implements what their device needed as DVB standard was to be implemented continent wide, giving all the same services in a standard.
You should also note that almost all electronics come from China anyways, so having 14% duty wouldn't have done anything to the price. To be also noted that VAT is included in all electronics. So the final price should have been the same relative to other devices, so where's the problem?
As I said previously the reason for Europe lacking devices like Tivo and ReplayTV was that nobody was going to implement proprietary standard with analogue TV because the whole continent was committed to going digital by DVB standard that would incorporate all the technologies and services needed for those devices to work and because in Europe there is much stricter rules with following standards. If you get an license to send broadcast you won't get an unwritten contract, you are regulated to offer standardized service and nothing else. For Tivo and ReplayTV to obtain market from Europe they would have had to make deal with a local TV operators to implement services that would have allowed Tivo work, but as there was drive to DVB and as broadcast licenses are regulated tightly there was no uptake. I think this was the real reason. Other reason like excessive import duties don't hold water as duties are very low or none at all, as stipulated by WTO treaties.
In the end I think that having whole continent going to DVB was better idea than to make analogue TV better. Now with DVB we get broadcasts as mpeg2 stream that is the same quality as DVD, and as DVB is an open standard and the whole Europe is using DVB, there are plenty of devices and device manufacturers and as the scales will go bigger so will the prices of those devices. In example DVB-T Philips box cost me 39euros half a year ago, and now I can get basic DVB-T boxes in 29 euros, and DVB devices with two DVB decoders and 80gig hard drive costs only 150euros. Also all bigger TVs have DVB integrated, and some of the better models have HD integrated also.
My take on this is that the original law is more or less old, and probably it has been legislated because of pressure from special groups, in this case book publishers and book retailers. I really don't think that there is bigger logic here. If you look French or German legislation, especially tax and work legislation, they are just bloated and have too many special cases. Thought this seems to be same situation in every big country.
I really think that there is no real basis for this law and it should be changed. However what Amazon is doing is the completely wrong way. No government takes it with smile when a company brakes the law willingly. If Amazon and Bezos are so serious about this issue they should have started negations with the French government and tried to make some kind of deal that would have allowed Amazon to ship free or give bigger discounts. Now I'm afraid that now the French government definitely is not willing to negotiate as it would be seen as giving up to a company that doesn't respect the law and the state.
It should also be noted that the court gave Amazon a slap in the wrists as the fine is only 1000 euro/per day in violation. To me this seems that the court really wasn't there to get Amazon seriously, actually this seems to me that the court didn't regard this matter or the law regarding this issue very highly as the fine is so small. If I would have been Bezos I would have took the courts judgment as a nod to negotiate with the goverment seriously, but now as Amazon and Bezos have acted so bullishly they for certainly are asking for trouble.
Eh... what do you mean about guide info? EPG (Electronic Program Guide) is a standard part of DVB (Digital Video Broadcast. I think what you meant was why wasn't there any guide info in analogue TV in Europe? The simple answer is that there would have been no standard and as DVB-T (terrestrial) was ratified in 1997, and in many countries, like in Finland DVB started in 2001, there was really no need to make any non standard changes to analogue TV as it was to be switched off completely anyway.
I don't think that this is much about stand-alone dvd recorders than it's about dvd recorders and dvb. There has been standalone dvd recorderds in the market, but I personally don't know anybody who have bought it, and I suspect that many families have bought VHS-DVD recorder so that they can use to transform old cassettes to dvds. Even so, they haven't been that popular to make any noticable effect.
Now what is making effect in the markets is the introduction of devices that pack dvb+hdr+dvdr in to a one package. I have been looking myself into these, and some of these from Philips and Sony cost only 299 euros. It's just perfect, you get mpeg2 stream from dvb, you either record it directly into hard drive and then burn it if you want to, or burn directly. It just marvelous as there is no loss in quality.
Well in the case Opera you have a company that does deliver a good and a solid product, Opera Browser, but having a good product or not is not the question in here. The question is about usage of Windows, as an operating system, to make Internet Explorer a dominant browser by bundling it tightly and having it as a obligatory component in Windows. Now this question is old and Microsoft is in fault, as judged by the US anti-trust court, unfortunately Microsoft wasn't forced to make Internet Explorer non obligatory, so we still have the Internet Explorer problem. Now what Opera has noted is that although other browsers like Opera and Firefox can be installed by user or OEM, having Internet Explorer bundled still in operating system leverages Microsofts position in market.
Basically: as Internet Explorer comes with Windows, it's dominant browser, as it's dominant browser all sites and content are tailored to show up in the Internet Explorer as good as possible. The problem is that as Internet Explorers standard support is very broken, sites and content are tailored with hacks and tricks to work with it, as a result of this sites and content are not generally made standard compliant, and thus other browsers don't work 'as well' as they can't reproduce hacks and tricks that are intended to Internet Explorer. What Opera is claiming is that Microsoft has purposely made Internet Explorer not work with standards, to make sure sites are first made to work with them alone, and then with other browsers. So the logic is, Microsoft uses Windows to leverage Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer is left broken to strengthen its position in market.
Now I have to say I can understand that logic as web developer fully. It's just so frustrating to make sure content works with Internet Explorer, there always some mysterious problems. However, it will be a quite hard job to find evidence that Microsoft actually has done all previously described in an act to crush competition, but then again that is the job of European Commission. It should also be noted that if Commission would fine evidence and would want punishment for Microsoft, EU still has rule of law and Microsoft can have their day in court. This is not about US vs. EU, it's about making sure monopolies don't abuse their position, and that markets have fair competition.
You wouldn't know the tag line for the new campaign? I tried to quickly find it from the YouTube but couldn't locate it. Either way, to me, if I would be an marketing executive, it would be the last thing to do to compare in even any sense to a competitor other than trashing them completely. A good example on trashing literally your competitors, done good, are Volkswagen ads. I would really like to see the new Ford ad, I just can't believe that it could do any good to Fords image.
I do know what I'm talking for. Here in Finland we don't have rolling blackouts, we don't have to take down industry even when the consumption is in the peak. Yes, there has been talk about possibility on having a situation where the consumption spike is very severe and there is a production loss at the same time: very hard winter plus low hydro level combined to problems with Nordic and Russian networks. When this question is addressed it's seen as wake up call to build more capacity, to build more nuclear power and have enough backup capacity. It's seen as unacceptable to have a situation where consumption tops the capacity.
This is very much a question of valuation. If there would be a situation where industries would have to be taken down because of electricity consumption, it would be a national embarrasment, that could lead to bad PR in foreign press, that could lead investors not to invest in the country, that could lead permanent loss of some industries. That is the real cost position for the nation, and making sure that it doesn't happen is cheap to compared to situation where it does happen. So it's a question of valuation.
The big question here that you forget is what does it cost for the economy to have unreliable electricity production even for very short times in a year? Costs here are both caused to individuals and to companies. How many people die or can't work? How many companies have to scale down production? How many investments are canceled? There are real costs for having blackouts, even rolling ones.
You also don't take count on that in other countries, in example Nordic countries and southern Europe, there are also hikes on electricity demand, however in these countries there is enough electricity generation capacity to meet the hikes. I also contest the cost position, keeping coal and oil power plants in reserve doesn't cost much to build and keeping them in shape doesn't cost too much.
I would say that this is a question about valuation. Do you value more on saving a few dimes and not build enough capacity, or do you spend more and make sure that in any situation there is enough power.
Nuclear power is cost effective, it's hugely cost effective. In Finland we have four nuclear reactors and a fifth one being build up. Nuclear energy is used for base load and is being ran in full capacity for 24h providing 27% of countries electricity. To balance the demand and production of power, customers can get electricity pricing plans where energy is cheaper at times when demand is low, and by using both hydro and carbon based power plants to balance production.
On a note it should also be noted that France which produces 79% of it's electricity with nuclear power, uses nuclear power itself to balance the load. So in my opinion to say that nuclear power can't be build to satisfy energy demand because it's not cost effective or allow to scale easily production, isn't valid.
Yes, there are nuclear plants in Sweden, I didn't say that they didn't have, but they did make a decision to give up on them.
To quate Wikipedia: After the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (United States) in 1979, there was a referendum in Sweden about the future of nuclear power there. As a result of this, the Swedish parliament decided in 1980 that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010.More on..
To this date Sweden has closed one nuclear reactor, and there hasn't been any formal decision on giving up the decision to phase out nuclear power in Sweden.
I think that you can bring your cats with you, but you probably have to have some note from a veterinary about their health and proof of vaccinations given to them. You should get this info easily just by phoning the Swedish embassy, they as the other embassies are there to help you for. I would say that my bigger concern if I was you, would be adjusting to the local culture. You see even thought Swedish and other European countries share the same western culture, there is still big differences on many small things, and as you would be living there, those small things would start to accumulate a lot.
Just in example, Finland and Sweden are neighbors and share a common history and are culturally very close. Still there are big differences on how people act in social situations. In example..
Finns are more direct than Swedes and that directness in Sweden can be sometimes considered very rude. I would say in Sweden people try to avoid expressing negative or extreme opinions and feelings.
In work life where as in Finland management dictates what to do, in Sweden always before a decision is made, there is a debate about it and decision is made after an agreement is agreed, thought sometimes that is just a big play as the management has already made the decision.
There is class division in Sweden, thought not as severe as in Britain. In example people can point in a discussion that they are a member of working class in fourth generation or other class and be proud of it. Actually I was amazed myself when I heard that Swedish have even their own word for those who have dropped down in the class structure. In Finland we don't talk about classes and most believe that Finland is classless society completely.
So what that does that mean? Well in Finland you can have an communist and a capitalist that are constantly fighting about politics fiercely, but at the end of the day they can go to a bear with each other. In the other hand the directness the Finns also mean that you have to have a tick skin, as very black humor is almost a national sport. So there are cultural differences and you have to know or at least acknowledge them as if you don't you will be left wondering many times what did just happen.
It should also be noted that you really do have to learn the language, thought it isn't that hard, and I would say when living in the country, you should master the basics in a half a year if you just try enough hard.
On a note.. You should also understand that there are very big legal and philosophical differences between US and Europe. I would say that in theory US is more free because of your constitution, in Europe government and police have much more power and rights. Now in practice I would living in Europe is more free and safer, as government and police and are not abusing their power as much in US. So if you those that care more about rights and freedoms in theoretical context, you can be disappointed to Europe, but if you care more about practice, then this land is for you.
You know the one thing that I really don't understand is saving energy via force, and not via using technology. Actually I really don't understand the whole drive to just save energy as saving energy doesn't necessarily even mean saving environment. We have the technology, we have had for long, to solve all our energy problems without sacrificing environment or economy. So why not build more nuclear power? It's environmentally friendly and economic. From western countries, France and Finland are both building new next generation plants, British government is leaning on building more and even in Sweden, who after the Chernobyl, made an alarmist decision to give up nuclear power, is starting to discuss on reverting that decision.
So why not? Why not build more capacity to California and other parts of US? That way you could have your all the energy you need in low price and in time you could shut down your coal and oil power generation plants and take part in struggle against global warming. That would be a real solution to a problem, not a act to play more time, as is this proposition to take over the thermostats.
Actually you are referring to Britain, and according to some Brits they are not, and will not ever be part of Europe. Actually some of us in Europe are coming to the same conclusion.. nah.. just kidding, we love Brits:)... no group is perfect without one who's total chicken and against everything that the gang does;)
PS. European elitism? It never went anywhere, we just know that shouting "USA! USA! USA! Number one! USA! USA! USA! Fuck yeah!" isn't the proper form of showing superiority. We do it more subtly you see.
Actually he did mean Nokia. You see Finland is just rebellious province of Sweden, lost for temporarily, but not permanently. No truly Swedish have never accepted the loss of the empire. As the time will come right the Stormaktstiden will come back! The rightful lands of Finland, Norway, Estonia and parts of Russia and North-Germany will be returned under the reborn Swedish Empire!
Actually the reason why Airbus uses computers so extensively is that computers know better what the airplane can take and can't take in a any given situation. The problem with airplanes, especially big jets and super jumbos is that they are very delicate and very fragile machines, and if you do something with them, that goes over their capacity, then you will have with very high probability plane coming down. Like in example American Airlines Flight 587 that came down because the pilot made too aggressive inputs which eventually braked the vertical stabilizer. Accidentally the crashed plane was an Airbus A300 which didn't have fly-by-wire controls.
To quote Wikipedia: "Boeing and Airbus differ in their FBW philosophies. In Airbus aircraft, the computer always retains ultimate control and will not permit the pilot to fly outside the normal flight envelope. In a Boeing 777, the pilot can override the system, allowing the plane to be flown outside this envelope in emergencies. The pattern started by Airbus A320 has been continued with the Airbus family and the Boeing 777. The Boeing 787 makes some minor improvements in the control laws, adopting some protections that Airbus has had in place for decades."
Now, yes, computers can make mistakes and they for certainly have bugs, but still again, I would trust more on flying with a plane which has computerized control and a good safety record. So all in all for me that there is a system that says to pilot "no, you can't do that. no that's too hard. let's do this instead." is a definitive plus.
Or it's doing calculations and optimizations about folkhemmet: how much money goes there and from where and why. That job does indeed need super computer:) On the more serious note, do you have any link to the site in question? I tried to quickly search for it from Google, but couldn't locate anything.
Thought are you sure that it isn't just used in something else? At-least here in Finland it has been spoken that our government has a software that they use to simulate what effects their financial and policy decisions would have on Finland, before making the final decision about the question in hand. Having a super computer to do modelling would be more than ideal for that.
Well it seems that we a difference on point of view. I myself believe that you have accommodate by the device that is being used. When you have an mobile device you accommodate to it, when you have an full feature computer, you accommodate to that. With mobile phones you have a different environment that with different needs, and you target that.
Now, yes you can configure email to resemble MMS as close as it can, but still the problem is that it's not mandatory. That's the big difference. With SMS/MMS you can trust that the person you are sending message has the same setup and follows the same guidelines that you do. With email that's optional, so you have no guarantees that the person has configured his/her device to check email every few minutes, to alert when new email arrives etc.. That's a big difference. With SMS/MMS you know when you send a message that it goes directly in to receivers handset, handset giving alert, and you getting contact to the person you wanted.
Now why don't we use MMS messaging in desktop? Because it's a different usage situation. When I have need to make contact quickly, I grab my phone, make the message and send it. When I'm making an memo or have more to say, or am not in hurry, I write an email with my desktop/laptop. Also you have to understand different options to message also carry different meta message. When I phone you, and ask a question, that's the most direct and urgent mode of messaging. When I send SMS/MMS, it's still personal and time sensitive, but I give you some time to answer. When I send email, I don't expect to get answer any time soon. So the answer is, it's a different usage situation, with different usage attributes: it's mobile, it's personal.
Now why don't we use J2ME in desktop? Well because we have different environments that have different capabilities. Just look at your phone, it has and always will have smaller screen, less processing power, less memory, less mass memory than an desktop computer, and lets not forget that it has a different usage profile, because of that you use an different environment that accommodates to the device in hand. So again, it's a different situation with different capabilities.
Why I think that having J2ME is very important is because it gives you ability to run countless of application in your phone and those applications are not phone dependent. Even more, from the point of view of software developer, J2ME is very important and powerful as it allows me to target a range of mobile devices with one application, and that is not the last benefit of J2ME. In example my company's enterprise software is done with J2EE and it's currently used via web interface solely. Now if there would be some need to get the application or application interface to run in desktop, the jump wouldn't be as big, as I can reuse the same class libraries and code that make the J2EE application. The same holds true with J2ME, of course the jump is little big bigger, but still it's manageable. And no, having it ran via network is not always wanted, as sometimes you need to either make processing in the client side or have it able to run without network.
Now if we look at iPhone it's a smart phone, it's a mobile device, it should embrace mobile standards, it should have MMS and J2ME support as those are used and will be used for very long time. Yes maybe someday we only use email and instant messaging and have full feature Java runtime in our handset, but that time is not now and it won't become very quickly.
So couldn't of wouldn't. I still lean to couldn't.
Yes, that is inflexibility, but that is the price you and all users of system must pay, to have any guarantees and data about message delivery. Actually there are historical reason for this: 1) sending SMS/MMS has cost you money and thus to serve customers, there had to be a system implemented to let you know have you paid for nothing or not, and 2) all SMS/MMS messages have their time to live, which you and the network can set, usually networks allow message to be in their system for 30 days undelivered before it's deleted. Now yes, there is huge amount of inflexibility and rules that everybody must follow, but then again, that is the price you have to pay use an messaging system designed for mobile usages: it has it's ups and downs.
What I'm claiming is that SMS/MMS systems both are usable and needed systems that have their ups and downs. They provide something in exchange of something. My point is that as there is no other system that can deliver the same functionality and which is as popular and used. That's why I think it should be implemented by all devices. And as the feature is in virtually all phones, it's very strange that it's not in iPhone. Could or would, that is a question, and I lean to could, as that feature with many other flaws have made them a failure in Europe.
My interest on this conversation lies on question couldn't or wouldn't have. When coming back to that point, I just have point back to my original message and say: if those phones that are not traditional phones, can have J2ME and have it workable, why iPhone couldn't/wouldn't? Why not use standard that is there, that has loads of applications, and that is familiar with the users? Why instead of not putting that functionality they instead have choose to have no applications at all at the iPhone. Yes you can unlock your iPhone and put there some applications, but as the newest firmware comes, you have to unlock it again and again. In the other hand Apple could have included J2ME midp 2.0 support there, and say to their users and customers 'there is J2ME, do your applications with it, do you own work to get them running smoothly'. Instead they have chose not to have feature, and from my point of view is totally ludicrous as it for sure has taken users and customers from adopting the iPhone. Thus in this light, the question of couldn't/wouldn't turns in my mind to favor couldn't.
Email receipts do not provide the same functionality as SMS/MMS, as in emails receipt are gotten only via request, and even then, the receiver could just select not to send receipt to the send. In case of SMS/MMS receipts are part of the standard and are supported by both the network and devices in a standard way. If I sent email with an request for receipt, I can't be 100% that I will get that receipt. With SMS/MMS I'm 100% sure that I will get receipt when the device receives the message.
Just to give you an example. Before Christmas my parents were in Paris for holiday shopping and my mother saw an nice winter jacket that she thought I might like. She snapped a picture of it with a camera phone, added the photo to MMS, put a small text there and sent it to me. When the MMS arrived to my phone and made an alert sound that I have new message. I looked it and sent back my opinion. Now if she would have done the same with email, there would have come few problems namely did he receive it, was he alerted to it, and when did his email client check for new email. Okay, you don't have that bad timing problem when you put your email client to check email for every few minutes, but then again, then you start to pay in battery life.
There is real need for SMS/MMS functionality as there is for email, they don't replace each other, but they complement, and as we clear standards and enough capacity in mobile devices, there is no reason not to support both, and give the power to the user. So no, I don't think SMS/MMS are going to go anywhere anytime soon, they just provide something more. Of course this is partly an cultural thing as in Europe SMS/MMS are very popular, but in example Japan email is what everybody uses with mobiles.
Yes, iPhone has a big screen, it isn't 2.2 inch, and that's a problem. I don't want that big phone. What I need and want is small phone that fits my jeans side pocket easily, or goes nicely inside a suites inner pocket with out being too heavy or causing wrinkles. When you look at what phones people like to buy, you see they like to buy as small and light phones as possible. When you make an small phone, 2.2 inch is huge screen for it. So making the screens and phones bigger isn't the answer, the answer is supporting peoples choice on using small devices.
On a note about browsing... some sites use simpler UI and it converts nicely to even smaller screens like the one in iPhone, how ever trying to use an full scale enterprise app or some media outlets portal via anything other than a standard 1028x768 screen is just an horrible experience. In example I have tried my own company's products via many mobile devices and other devices with an smaller screen than 1028x768 and it just kills the usage, without optimizing or designing an other interface for the mobile devices, it just is completely unusable. This is not going to change, it just the form, you have to make compromises when you start putting the same content that you usually use in desktop into a device that sits in your pocket.
Eh... you might want to tell to the rest of the world that MMS is useless relic of history, they for some reason haven't found out this. Actually MMS is coming more and more popular as even the lowest handsets can receive and show their contents, and camera phones start from below 100euros. It should also be pointed out that MMS and email are not the same thing even in functionality, MMS has more. In example when I send an email I don't know if the receiver has received it or not, with MMS and SMS too, I can turn on functionality where the operator sends me an confirmation message when my message has been received by the device. This is in very handy in many situations, and can also be used to alert when people put their phones on: i.e. my friends is out side network or his battery is dead, I just send SMS/MMS to him with an alert turned on, and the minute his mobile comes back to network I get an confirmation that my message has received its target. Quite handy?
By the way do you know this word convergence... it's what happens with phones having functionality. You can use multiple options to message: voice, SMS/MMS, video call, email, instant messaging, etc.. That's all in there, just pop a 150 euros at maximum (unsubsidized) and you get an mobile with all the previous functionality. So why doesn't Apple provide these too? Why not support multiple options and let the user decide what he/she does with his/her handset... And web browsing... please... all Nokias handsets S60 and most of S40 have decent build in browser and if for some reason you don't like it, you can download Opera Mini for free, and for 19 euros you can get the best mobile browser there is. Also browsing from a screen with a low resolution isn't really very full fledged experience. iPhone has resolution of 480x320, and there is not much of difference when you compare it to normal phones that sport 240x320 or 320x240 (in case of Nokia 61i), they both have to scale the page smaller and you have to zoom in and out. The only phone that gives you real browsing experience is E90 which has inner screen of 800x352.
I also differ in opinion about optimizing for mobiles. You have to optimize for mobiles as their form factor limits their capabilities always. Yes you may put screen there that sports very good resolution, maybe you put 960x1280 resolution, but that doesn't help as when the screen size is 2.2 inch. With small screen with high resolution your eyes will just hurt if you scale the content up. That is why you need to optimize for mobile users. As we now days have CMSs in place and more and more software interfaces can be skinned and generated via XML soup, there is really no excuse on not optimizing when the need arises. The same is true with applications. Also when we discuss mobile usage, to truly embrace it we have to start thinking about what functions people are doing in the field, what needs they have and so on... So you don't cram all the functionality of enterprise application into an J2ME application or mobile page, but you select what is needed most in an situation where mobile phone is used. So in example, you could have mobile application that lets you browse your CRM and find the names and addresses of your customers, maybe pint point their location in the map, as many times an sales representative is either trying to locate the customer or wants to refresh his/her memory about the client. You absolutely need to optimize for mobile, that's my opinion.
So your argument is that in Apple, in their minds, user experience comes before functionality. That's fair argument knowing the past history of Apple. That however doesn't mean that the supposed Apples position would make any sense, nor that it would be in line with the users.
In my mind it just is ridiculous idea that a phone wouldn't be capable on running J2ME applications. In business environments many applications have J2ME application front-end for mobile users: typical intranet/extranet applications from CRM, ERP, to collaboration and email. Also there are huge amounts of software targeted to individuals from public services and productive tools to games and entertainment. That's just plain crazy to exclude so much functionality and so many people relying on that functionality.
Also I would argue that the user experience on using J2ME on an touch interface can't be that bad, as other mobile phone makes have done it in the past. No, I would put this in the same bin as missing MMS functionality: they just couldn't hack it together.
iPhone having a touch screen GUI isn't a valid reason for it not having J2ME support. Just in example look at some other phones that don't have the normal form factor that traditional phones and that have support for J2ME.
As you can see all those phones support J2ME. The real reason why iPhone doesn't have J2ME support is the same reason why it didn't have MMS support: Apple just couldn't deliver.
I also don't think that there is any reason to change from J2ME to any other framework ff you can do the application in J2ME. If you can't do the application in J2ME, the next choice is S60. J2ME support is built in virtually every phone meaning and S60 is also very popular. Why limit yourself to a device and framework that has only a million users when you can go to tens and hundreds of millions of users?
"In USA, they came first for the pedophiles, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedophile; And then they came for the sex offenders, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sex offender; And then they came for the sexual minorities, And I didn't speak up because I didn't belong to a sexual minority; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Anonymous Coward, Stories from the United Talibans of America, AD 2030?
Slashdot Mirror
I have played Tux racer with my girlfriends two year old daughter and she loves it. My girlfriend likes it too, she was just amazed and happy the first time she saw her daughter playing it. In the future I have thought that maybe in 3 or 5 she could start playing some old games like Jazz Jack Rabbit and Wacky Wheels, of course with supervision from either one of us.
I really don't see nothing wrong to let small children play games. The only question is what games and how much. I have thought myself that the games, played by children, should have no violence, no sexual content and no scary content, preferably no human characters. When children are older and understand clearly difference between a game and reality, then at the age of 9 - 12 they could with consent play some more serious games, but games with violence like GTA series should not be played before 16.
Analogue TV is analogue TV, that's a standard. With basic analogue broadcast you only send the picture and the voice. What Tivo/ReplayTV need is guide info, now that guide info needs to be sent somehow to the receiver. If I have understood it right, with Tivo/ReplayTV, the guide info data is added to the analogue broadcast. Now if you are going to add anything to the normal broadcast you are going to need permissions from the regulator. As I said earlier, there was no interest for any broadcaster to go with Tivo and implements what their device needed as DVB standard was to be implemented continent wide, giving all the same services in a standard.
You should also note that almost all electronics come from China anyways, so having 14% duty wouldn't have done anything to the price. To be also noted that VAT is included in all electronics. So the final price should have been the same relative to other devices, so where's the problem?
As I said previously the reason for Europe lacking devices like Tivo and ReplayTV was that nobody was going to implement proprietary standard with analogue TV because the whole continent was committed to going digital by DVB standard that would incorporate all the technologies and services needed for those devices to work and because in Europe there is much stricter rules with following standards. If you get an license to send broadcast you won't get an unwritten contract, you are regulated to offer standardized service and nothing else. For Tivo and ReplayTV to obtain market from Europe they would have had to make deal with a local TV operators to implement services that would have allowed Tivo work, but as there was drive to DVB and as broadcast licenses are regulated tightly there was no uptake. I think this was the real reason. Other reason like excessive import duties don't hold water as duties are very low or none at all, as stipulated by WTO treaties.
In the end I think that having whole continent going to DVB was better idea than to make analogue TV better. Now with DVB we get broadcasts as mpeg2 stream that is the same quality as DVD, and as DVB is an open standard and the whole Europe is using DVB, there are plenty of devices and device manufacturers and as the scales will go bigger so will the prices of those devices. In example DVB-T Philips box cost me 39euros half a year ago, and now I can get basic DVB-T boxes in 29 euros, and DVB devices with two DVB decoders and 80gig hard drive costs only 150euros. Also all bigger TVs have DVB integrated, and some of the better models have HD integrated also.
My take on this is that the original law is more or less old, and probably it has been legislated because of pressure from special groups, in this case book publishers and book retailers. I really don't think that there is bigger logic here. If you look French or German legislation, especially tax and work legislation, they are just bloated and have too many special cases. Thought this seems to be same situation in every big country.
I really think that there is no real basis for this law and it should be changed. However what Amazon is doing is the completely wrong way. No government takes it with smile when a company brakes the law willingly. If Amazon and Bezos are so serious about this issue they should have started negations with the French government and tried to make some kind of deal that would have allowed Amazon to ship free or give bigger discounts. Now I'm afraid that now the French government definitely is not willing to negotiate as it would be seen as giving up to a company that doesn't respect the law and the state.
It should also be noted that the court gave Amazon a slap in the wrists as the fine is only 1000 euro/per day in violation. To me this seems that the court really wasn't there to get Amazon seriously, actually this seems to me that the court didn't regard this matter or the law regarding this issue very highly as the fine is so small. If I would have been Bezos I would have took the courts judgment as a nod to negotiate with the goverment seriously, but now as Amazon and Bezos have acted so bullishly they for certainly are asking for trouble.
Eh... what do you mean about guide info? EPG (Electronic Program Guide) is a standard part of DVB (Digital Video Broadcast. I think what you meant was why wasn't there any guide info in analogue TV in Europe? The simple answer is that there would have been no standard and as DVB-T (terrestrial) was ratified in 1997, and in many countries, like in Finland DVB started in 2001, there was really no need to make any non standard changes to analogue TV as it was to be switched off completely anyway.
I don't think that this is much about stand-alone dvd recorders than it's about dvd recorders and dvb. There has been standalone dvd recorderds in the market, but I personally don't know anybody who have bought it, and I suspect that many families have bought VHS-DVD recorder so that they can use to transform old cassettes to dvds. Even so, they haven't been that popular to make any noticable effect.
Now what is making effect in the markets is the introduction of devices that pack dvb+hdr+dvdr in to a one package. I have been looking myself into these, and some of these from Philips and Sony cost only 299 euros. It's just perfect, you get mpeg2 stream from dvb, you either record it directly into hard drive and then burn it if you want to, or burn directly. It just marvelous as there is no loss in quality.
Well in the case Opera you have a company that does deliver a good and a solid product, Opera Browser, but having a good product or not is not the question in here. The question is about usage of Windows, as an operating system, to make Internet Explorer a dominant browser by bundling it tightly and having it as a obligatory component in Windows. Now this question is old and Microsoft is in fault, as judged by the US anti-trust court, unfortunately Microsoft wasn't forced to make Internet Explorer non obligatory, so we still have the Internet Explorer problem. Now what Opera has noted is that although other browsers like Opera and Firefox can be installed by user or OEM, having Internet Explorer bundled still in operating system leverages Microsofts position in market.
Basically: as Internet Explorer comes with Windows, it's dominant browser, as it's dominant browser all sites and content are tailored to show up in the Internet Explorer as good as possible. The problem is that as Internet Explorers standard support is very broken, sites and content are tailored with hacks and tricks to work with it, as a result of this sites and content are not generally made standard compliant, and thus other browsers don't work 'as well' as they can't reproduce hacks and tricks that are intended to Internet Explorer. What Opera is claiming is that Microsoft has purposely made Internet Explorer not work with standards, to make sure sites are first made to work with them alone, and then with other browsers. So the logic is, Microsoft uses Windows to leverage Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer is left broken to strengthen its position in market.
Now I have to say I can understand that logic as web developer fully. It's just so frustrating to make sure content works with Internet Explorer, there always some mysterious problems. However, it will be a quite hard job to find evidence that Microsoft actually has done all previously described in an act to crush competition, but then again that is the job of European Commission. It should also be noted that if Commission would fine evidence and would want punishment for Microsoft, EU still has rule of law and Microsoft can have their day in court. This is not about US vs. EU, it's about making sure monopolies don't abuse their position, and that markets have fair competition.
You wouldn't know the tag line for the new campaign? I tried to quickly find it from the YouTube but couldn't locate it. Either way, to me, if I would be an marketing executive, it would be the last thing to do to compare in even any sense to a competitor other than trashing them completely. A good example on trashing literally your competitors, done good, are Volkswagen ads. I would really like to see the new Ford ad, I just can't believe that it could do any good to Fords image.
I do know what I'm talking for. Here in Finland we don't have rolling blackouts, we don't have to take down industry even when the consumption is in the peak. Yes, there has been talk about possibility on having a situation where the consumption spike is very severe and there is a production loss at the same time: very hard winter plus low hydro level combined to problems with Nordic and Russian networks. When this question is addressed it's seen as wake up call to build more capacity, to build more nuclear power and have enough backup capacity. It's seen as unacceptable to have a situation where consumption tops the capacity.
This is very much a question of valuation. If there would be a situation where industries would have to be taken down because of electricity consumption, it would be a national embarrasment, that could lead to bad PR in foreign press, that could lead investors not to invest in the country, that could lead permanent loss of some industries. That is the real cost position for the nation, and making sure that it doesn't happen is cheap to compared to situation where it does happen. So it's a question of valuation.
The big question here that you forget is what does it cost for the economy to have unreliable electricity production even for very short times in a year? Costs here are both caused to individuals and to companies. How many people die or can't work? How many companies have to scale down production? How many investments are canceled? There are real costs for having blackouts, even rolling ones.
You also don't take count on that in other countries, in example Nordic countries and southern Europe, there are also hikes on electricity demand, however in these countries there is enough electricity generation capacity to meet the hikes. I also contest the cost position, keeping coal and oil power plants in reserve doesn't cost much to build and keeping them in shape doesn't cost too much.
I would say that this is a question about valuation. Do you value more on saving a few dimes and not build enough capacity, or do you spend more and make sure that in any situation there is enough power.
Nuclear power is cost effective, it's hugely cost effective. In Finland we have four nuclear reactors and a fifth one being build up. Nuclear energy is used for base load and is being ran in full capacity for 24h providing 27% of countries electricity. To balance the demand and production of power, customers can get electricity pricing plans where energy is cheaper at times when demand is low, and by using both hydro and carbon based power plants to balance production.
On a note it should also be noted that France which produces 79% of it's electricity with nuclear power, uses nuclear power itself to balance the load. So in my opinion to say that nuclear power can't be build to satisfy energy demand because it's not cost effective or allow to scale easily production, isn't valid.
Yes, there are nuclear plants in Sweden, I didn't say that they didn't have, but they did make a decision to give up on them.
To quate Wikipedia: After the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (United States) in 1979, there was a referendum in Sweden about the future of nuclear power there. As a result of this, the Swedish parliament decided in 1980 that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. More on..
To this date Sweden has closed one nuclear reactor, and there hasn't been any formal decision on giving up the decision to phase out nuclear power in Sweden.
Just commenting as a Finnish..
I think that you can bring your cats with you, but you probably have to have some note from a veterinary about their health and proof of vaccinations given to them. You should get this info easily just by phoning the Swedish embassy, they as the other embassies are there to help you for. I would say that my bigger concern if I was you, would be adjusting to the local culture. You see even thought Swedish and other European countries share the same western culture, there is still big differences on many small things, and as you would be living there, those small things would start to accumulate a lot.
Just in example, Finland and Sweden are neighbors and share a common history and are culturally very close. Still there are big differences on how people act in social situations. In example..
- There is class division in Sweden, thought not as severe as in Britain. In example people can point in a discussion that they are a member of working class in fourth generation or other class and be proud of it. Actually I was amazed myself when I heard that Swedish have even their own word for those who have dropped down in the class structure. In Finland we don't talk about classes and most believe that Finland is classless society completely.
So what that does that mean? Well in Finland you can have an communist and a capitalist that are constantly fighting about politics fiercely, but at the end of the day they can go to a bear with each other. In the other hand the directness the Finns also mean that you have to have a tick skin, as very black humor is almost a national sport. So there are cultural differences and you have to know or at least acknowledge them as if you don't you will be left wondering many times what did just happen.It should also be noted that you really do have to learn the language, thought it isn't that hard, and I would say when living in the country, you should master the basics in a half a year if you just try enough hard.
On a note.. You should also understand that there are very big legal and philosophical differences between US and Europe. I would say that in theory US is more free because of your constitution, in Europe government and police have much more power and rights. Now in practice I would living in Europe is more free and safer, as government and police and are not abusing their power as much in US. So if you those that care more about rights and freedoms in theoretical context, you can be disappointed to Europe, but if you care more about practice, then this land is for you.
You know the one thing that I really don't understand is saving energy via force, and not via using technology. Actually I really don't understand the whole drive to just save energy as saving energy doesn't necessarily even mean saving environment. We have the technology, we have had for long, to solve all our energy problems without sacrificing environment or economy. So why not build more nuclear power? It's environmentally friendly and economic. From western countries, France and Finland are both building new next generation plants, British government is leaning on building more and even in Sweden, who after the Chernobyl, made an alarmist decision to give up nuclear power, is starting to discuss on reverting that decision.
So why not? Why not build more capacity to California and other parts of US? That way you could have your all the energy you need in low price and in time you could shut down your coal and oil power generation plants and take part in struggle against global warming. That would be a real solution to a problem, not a act to play more time, as is this proposition to take over the thermostats.
Actually you are referring to Britain, and according to some Brits they are not, and will not ever be part of Europe. Actually some of us in Europe are coming to the same conclusion.. nah.. just kidding, we love Brits :) ... no group is perfect without one who's total chicken and against everything that the gang does ;)
PS. European elitism? It never went anywhere, we just know that shouting "USA! USA! USA! Number one! USA! USA! USA! Fuck yeah!" isn't the proper form of showing superiority. We do it more subtly you see.
Actually he did mean Nokia. You see Finland is just rebellious province of Sweden, lost for temporarily, but not permanently. No truly Swedish have never accepted the loss of the empire. As the time will come right the Stormaktstiden will come back! The rightful lands of Finland, Norway, Estonia and parts of Russia and North-Germany will be returned under the reborn Swedish Empire!
Actually the reason why Airbus uses computers so extensively is that computers know better what the airplane can take and can't take in a any given situation. The problem with airplanes, especially big jets and super jumbos is that they are very delicate and very fragile machines, and if you do something with them, that goes over their capacity, then you will have with very high probability plane coming down. Like in example American Airlines Flight 587 that came down because the pilot made too aggressive inputs which eventually braked the vertical stabilizer. Accidentally the crashed plane was an Airbus A300 which didn't have fly-by-wire controls.
To quote Wikipedia: "Boeing and Airbus differ in their FBW philosophies. In Airbus aircraft, the computer always retains ultimate control and will not permit the pilot to fly outside the normal flight envelope. In a Boeing 777, the pilot can override the system, allowing the plane to be flown outside this envelope in emergencies. The pattern started by Airbus A320 has been continued with the Airbus family and the Boeing 777. The Boeing 787 makes some minor improvements in the control laws, adopting some protections that Airbus has had in place for decades."
Now, yes, computers can make mistakes and they for certainly have bugs, but still again, I would trust more on flying with a plane which has computerized control and a good safety record. So all in all for me that there is a system that says to pilot "no, you can't do that. no that's too hard. let's do this instead." is a definitive plus.
Or it's doing calculations and optimizations about folkhemmet: how much money goes there and from where and why. That job does indeed need super computer :) On the more serious note, do you have any link to the site in question? I tried to quickly search for it from Google, but couldn't locate anything.
Thought are you sure that it isn't just used in something else? At-least here in Finland it has been spoken that our government has a software that they use to simulate what effects their financial and policy decisions would have on Finland, before making the final decision about the question in hand. Having a super computer to do modelling would be more than ideal for that.
Well it seems that we a difference on point of view. I myself believe that you have accommodate by the device that is being used. When you have an mobile device you accommodate to it, when you have an full feature computer, you accommodate to that. With mobile phones you have a different environment that with different needs, and you target that.
Now, yes you can configure email to resemble MMS as close as it can, but still the problem is that it's not mandatory. That's the big difference. With SMS/MMS you can trust that the person you are sending message has the same setup and follows the same guidelines that you do. With email that's optional, so you have no guarantees that the person has configured his/her device to check email every few minutes, to alert when new email arrives etc.. That's a big difference. With SMS/MMS you know when you send a message that it goes directly in to receivers handset, handset giving alert, and you getting contact to the person you wanted.
Now why don't we use MMS messaging in desktop? Because it's a different usage situation. When I have need to make contact quickly, I grab my phone, make the message and send it. When I'm making an memo or have more to say, or am not in hurry, I write an email with my desktop/laptop. Also you have to understand different options to message also carry different meta message. When I phone you, and ask a question, that's the most direct and urgent mode of messaging. When I send SMS/MMS, it's still personal and time sensitive, but I give you some time to answer. When I send email, I don't expect to get answer any time soon. So the answer is, it's a different usage situation, with different usage attributes: it's mobile, it's personal.
Now why don't we use J2ME in desktop? Well because we have different environments that have different capabilities. Just look at your phone, it has and always will have smaller screen, less processing power, less memory, less mass memory than an desktop computer, and lets not forget that it has a different usage profile, because of that you use an different environment that accommodates to the device in hand. So again, it's a different situation with different capabilities.
Why I think that having J2ME is very important is because it gives you ability to run countless of application in your phone and those applications are not phone dependent. Even more, from the point of view of software developer, J2ME is very important and powerful as it allows me to target a range of mobile devices with one application, and that is not the last benefit of J2ME. In example my company's enterprise software is done with J2EE and it's currently used via web interface solely. Now if there would be some need to get the application or application interface to run in desktop, the jump wouldn't be as big, as I can reuse the same class libraries and code that make the J2EE application. The same holds true with J2ME, of course the jump is little big bigger, but still it's manageable. And no, having it ran via network is not always wanted, as sometimes you need to either make processing in the client side or have it able to run without network.
Now if we look at iPhone it's a smart phone, it's a mobile device, it should embrace mobile standards, it should have MMS and J2ME support as those are used and will be used for very long time. Yes maybe someday we only use email and instant messaging and have full feature Java runtime in our handset, but that time is not now and it won't become very quickly.
So couldn't of wouldn't. I still lean to couldn't.
Yes, that is inflexibility, but that is the price you and all users of system must pay, to have any guarantees and data about message delivery. Actually there are historical reason for this: 1) sending SMS/MMS has cost you money and thus to serve customers, there had to be a system implemented to let you know have you paid for nothing or not, and 2) all SMS/MMS messages have their time to live, which you and the network can set, usually networks allow message to be in their system for 30 days undelivered before it's deleted. Now yes, there is huge amount of inflexibility and rules that everybody must follow, but then again, that is the price you have to pay use an messaging system designed for mobile usages: it has it's ups and downs.
What I'm claiming is that SMS/MMS systems both are usable and needed systems that have their ups and downs. They provide something in exchange of something. My point is that as there is no other system that can deliver the same functionality and which is as popular and used. That's why I think it should be implemented by all devices. And as the feature is in virtually all phones, it's very strange that it's not in iPhone. Could or would, that is a question, and I lean to could, as that feature with many other flaws have made them a failure in Europe.
My interest on this conversation lies on question couldn't or wouldn't have. When coming back to that point, I just have point back to my original message and say: if those phones that are not traditional phones, can have J2ME and have it workable, why iPhone couldn't/wouldn't? Why not use standard that is there, that has loads of applications, and that is familiar with the users? Why instead of not putting that functionality they instead have choose to have no applications at all at the iPhone. Yes you can unlock your iPhone and put there some applications, but as the newest firmware comes, you have to unlock it again and again. In the other hand Apple could have included J2ME midp 2.0 support there, and say to their users and customers 'there is J2ME, do your applications with it, do you own work to get them running smoothly'. Instead they have chose not to have feature, and from my point of view is totally ludicrous as it for sure has taken users and customers from adopting the iPhone. Thus in this light, the question of couldn't/wouldn't turns in my mind to favor couldn't.
Email receipts do not provide the same functionality as SMS/MMS, as in emails receipt are gotten only via request, and even then, the receiver could just select not to send receipt to the send. In case of SMS/MMS receipts are part of the standard and are supported by both the network and devices in a standard way. If I sent email with an request for receipt, I can't be 100% that I will get that receipt. With SMS/MMS I'm 100% sure that I will get receipt when the device receives the message.
Just to give you an example. Before Christmas my parents were in Paris for holiday shopping and my mother saw an nice winter jacket that she thought I might like. She snapped a picture of it with a camera phone, added the photo to MMS, put a small text there and sent it to me. When the MMS arrived to my phone and made an alert sound that I have new message. I looked it and sent back my opinion. Now if she would have done the same with email, there would have come few problems namely did he receive it, was he alerted to it, and when did his email client check for new email. Okay, you don't have that bad timing problem when you put your email client to check email for every few minutes, but then again, then you start to pay in battery life.
There is real need for SMS/MMS functionality as there is for email, they don't replace each other, but they complement, and as we clear standards and enough capacity in mobile devices, there is no reason not to support both, and give the power to the user. So no, I don't think SMS/MMS are going to go anywhere anytime soon, they just provide something more. Of course this is partly an cultural thing as in Europe SMS/MMS are very popular, but in example Japan email is what everybody uses with mobiles.
Yes, iPhone has a big screen, it isn't 2.2 inch, and that's a problem. I don't want that big phone. What I need and want is small phone that fits my jeans side pocket easily, or goes nicely inside a suites inner pocket with out being too heavy or causing wrinkles. When you look at what phones people like to buy, you see they like to buy as small and light phones as possible. When you make an small phone, 2.2 inch is huge screen for it. So making the screens and phones bigger isn't the answer, the answer is supporting peoples choice on using small devices.
On a note about browsing... some sites use simpler UI and it converts nicely to even smaller screens like the one in iPhone, how ever trying to use an full scale enterprise app or some media outlets portal via anything other than a standard 1028x768 screen is just an horrible experience. In example I have tried my own company's products via many mobile devices and other devices with an smaller screen than 1028x768 and it just kills the usage, without optimizing or designing an other interface for the mobile devices, it just is completely unusable. This is not going to change, it just the form, you have to make compromises when you start putting the same content that you usually use in desktop into a device that sits in your pocket.
Eh... you might want to tell to the rest of the world that MMS is useless relic of history, they for some reason haven't found out this. Actually MMS is coming more and more popular as even the lowest handsets can receive and show their contents, and camera phones start from below 100euros. It should also be pointed out that MMS and email are not the same thing even in functionality, MMS has more. In example when I send an email I don't know if the receiver has received it or not, with MMS and SMS too, I can turn on functionality where the operator sends me an confirmation message when my message has been received by the device. This is in very handy in many situations, and can also be used to alert when people put their phones on: i.e. my friends is out side network or his battery is dead, I just send SMS/MMS to him with an alert turned on, and the minute his mobile comes back to network I get an confirmation that my message has received its target. Quite handy?
By the way do you know this word convergence... it's what happens with phones having functionality. You can use multiple options to message: voice, SMS/MMS, video call, email, instant messaging, etc.. That's all in there, just pop a 150 euros at maximum (unsubsidized) and you get an mobile with all the previous functionality. So why doesn't Apple provide these too? Why not support multiple options and let the user decide what he/she does with his/her handset... And web browsing... please... all Nokias handsets S60 and most of S40 have decent build in browser and if for some reason you don't like it, you can download Opera Mini for free, and for 19 euros you can get the best mobile browser there is. Also browsing from a screen with a low resolution isn't really very full fledged experience. iPhone has resolution of 480x320, and there is not much of difference when you compare it to normal phones that sport 240x320 or 320x240 (in case of Nokia 61i), they both have to scale the page smaller and you have to zoom in and out. The only phone that gives you real browsing experience is E90 which has inner screen of 800x352.
I also differ in opinion about optimizing for mobiles. You have to optimize for mobiles as their form factor limits their capabilities always. Yes you may put screen there that sports very good resolution, maybe you put 960x1280 resolution, but that doesn't help as when the screen size is 2.2 inch. With small screen with high resolution your eyes will just hurt if you scale the content up. That is why you need to optimize for mobile users. As we now days have CMSs in place and more and more software interfaces can be skinned and generated via XML soup, there is really no excuse on not optimizing when the need arises. The same is true with applications. Also when we discuss mobile usage, to truly embrace it we have to start thinking about what functions people are doing in the field, what needs they have and so on... So you don't cram all the functionality of enterprise application into an J2ME application or mobile page, but you select what is needed most in an situation where mobile phone is used. So in example, you could have mobile application that lets you browse your CRM and find the names and addresses of your customers, maybe pint point their location in the map, as many times an sales representative is either trying to locate the customer or wants to refresh his/her memory about the client. You absolutely need to optimize for mobile, that's my opinion.
So your argument is that in Apple, in their minds, user experience comes before functionality. That's fair argument knowing the past history of Apple. That however doesn't mean that the supposed Apples position would make any sense, nor that it would be in line with the users.
In my mind it just is ridiculous idea that a phone wouldn't be capable on running J2ME applications. In business environments many applications have J2ME application front-end for mobile users: typical intranet/extranet applications from CRM, ERP, to collaboration and email. Also there are huge amounts of software targeted to individuals from public services and productive tools to games and entertainment. That's just plain crazy to exclude so much functionality and so many people relying on that functionality.
Also I would argue that the user experience on using J2ME on an touch interface can't be that bad, as other mobile phone makes have done it in the past. No, I would put this in the same bin as missing MMS functionality: they just couldn't hack it together.
iPhone having a touch screen GUI isn't a valid reason for it not having J2ME support. Just in example look at some other phones that don't have the normal form factor that traditional phones and that have support for J2ME.
As you can see all those phones support J2ME. The real reason why iPhone doesn't have J2ME support is the same reason why it didn't have MMS support: Apple just couldn't deliver.
I also don't think that there is any reason to change from J2ME to any other framework ff you can do the application in J2ME. If you can't do the application in J2ME, the next choice is S60. J2ME support is built in virtually every phone meaning and S60 is also very popular. Why limit yourself to a device and framework that has only a million users when you can go to tens and hundreds of millions of users?
"In USA, they came first for the pedophiles, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedophile;
And then they came for the sex offenders, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sex offender;
And then they came for the sexual minorities, And I didn't speak up because I didn't belong to a sexual minority;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Anonymous Coward, Stories from the United Talibans of America, AD 2030?