Everyone seems to be missing the fact that Microsoft is Buying Skype. Bundle Skype with an internet enabled portable device and you can cut the phone carriers out quite significantly. Free texting, calls between Windows devices internationally.
I could think of more but I wouldn't be surprised. Then again, Our windows 7 machines have started getting calls from "windows help". hrm...
- Dan.
They still have to get the Carriers to agree to it, at least away from WiFi.
And BTW, Skype already allows free VOIP calls from "computer to computer", doesn't it? Full disclosure: I think Skype sucks, quality-wise. Like MagicJack, it is a barely-useable, barely full-duplex, telephone-like system. Every time somone calls me via Skype or MagicJack, it is an absolute chore to attempt to carry on a conversation. SEVERE dropouts, "gargling", highly-regenerative echo effects, call drops. It seems that every bad sci-fi "poor sub-space communication" effect is paraded by. Everything but clear, understandable communication. That stands in stark contrast with my Vonage service. It is simply indistinguishable from POTS quality. In fact, it is probably better fidelity. Yes, it isn't free; but dammit, if I want to run my voice through some digital FX, I'll go play with some ProTools plugins! It's not like 3 kHz is a bunch of bandwidth...
I do think it's a big blocker to proponents of OSS being taken seriously though, it's just ad hominem. If you want people to listen you should be able to form a decent argument.
Yeah, like all the people on this site who, after I have laid out a cogent argument in support of Apple, documenting every point with citations to external sources, not only does it often get punish-modded down (or simply ignored by mods), but even more often, it gets a dismissive "I see your username. That explains it."
Look at the responses to several of my posts to this article. Then count the number of times my USERNAME is used as the ONLY rebuttal.
And ya know what? It is, almost without fail, the pro-Linux crowd that does it. People defending Windows on here seem to do so a lot more rationally than those who have Penguins on the brain.
Grow up, people! Or your favorite OS is doomed to be forever in the backroom, not the boardroom.
But, I think that they secretly want exactly that. And I am deadly serious about that. There is a "mindset" to the typical Linux user, and it doesn't like anything that has been "accepted" or "legitimized".
I honestly think that if Linux suddenly became the darling of PHBs everywhere, that half of the Linux fans would fork Linux off into something else...
Arrragh!!! Can we please stop calling it M$, Windoze, Window$ or what bloody ever.
This is really starting to drive me insane and is a reason for people not to take this site seriously.... It also ruins quite an intelligent comment.
Actually, it is a time-honored tradition in the world of online discussion groups, harkening back to the time when CompuServe was king. You see, back then, most people didn't even know what an internet was, and "time sharing" on big, centralized online services, like CompuServe and GEnie, accessed through local MODEM gateways, like Timenet (IIRC) was the way you rolled. And all of those services charged by the hour. Real money for real connect time. And it wasn't particularly cheap, either. When I was at my peak usage on "CompuServe CB" (a kind of IRC precursor(?)), it wasn't uncommon for me to get bills far in excess of $200 per month from CompuServe. And since that was the case with many CompuServe users, and because CompServe had that enticing "S" in its name, many, many CompuServe users simply started spelling it Compu$erve. And so began a snarky, but somewhat internally satisfying, online tradition. And dare I say, one a lot less annoying than l337 speak, which is like Ebonics for nerds...
But, the real bottom line here is that you're just upset that "Apple" doesn't have an "S" in it; or you'd be doing it, too!;-)
Secondly if you can't see that iphone is a simpler version of windows mobile (basically being stuck in all programs the whole time and only ever being able to run one program) i struggle to convince myself to reply to you.
And yet, here you are...
Complexity is not necessarily a good thing; especially for a consumer device. IOS is, being a derivative of OS X, obviously capable of, and in fact does, multitasking. Proof of this is of course demonstrated on the iPad, which allows basically unlimited simultaneous userland apps. Since they run the same microcontroller, and the same OS, what's the difference?
Battery size.
Next uninformed comment?
Third all pre iphone smart phones had alright browsers, hell i didn't like the first iphone browser much at all, you can hardly say it was innovation.
So let's see, YOU didn't like it; so it must be shit, right?
Fourth half of your points are based around the point that they popularized capacitive touch (its not like they invented it) a technology that wasn't really possible when these phones were coming out (5 years ahead of the iphone) due to manufacturing techniques not available/affordable.
Which half was that?
And beside that; Apple has some special hold on technology? Even years later, a lot of other phones were still using resistive touch screens.
Fifthly all the pre iphone smart phones i had also had voicemail i don't understand why it being random-access, or that fact that the "phone manufacture defined the feature set" is all that great. Hardly an argument that its the mother of all all smart phones.
I'm sorry that you lack understanding.
It wasn't that it had voicemail. Of course that wasn't innovative. It was that the voicemail didn't have to be listened to in order. That was the cool thing. Random Access Voicemail. And if you don't understand the advantage of that feature, there is seriously no hope for you.
Manufacturer defining the feature set (as opposed to the CARRIER deciding what features that your phone can have, like EVERY phone before the iPhone (and most after it, too))??? WTF, DUDE??? I mean SERIOUSLY, WHAT. THE. FUCK? Are you even reading what you are typing???
Android is closer related to windows mobile than ios (the front desktop with multiple widgets operating followed by being able to move to an all application page or settings).
So it comes down to a nice onscreen keyboard. Good on you apple surely you now own and are the creation of all smartphone os.
Evolution happened god damn it. I understand this wont convert you and no doubt tomorrow you'll log on to whatever ifan website you guys go to and read all the latest rumors and reason apple is the greatest and never bother to check out the competition; but please try to be a little open minded they aren't the only tech company out there.
Oh, how little you know me. The site that I must log into every day is, surprise, Slashdot. There is only one "Apple oriented" site that I regularly read (TUAW), and I rarely post on it, and usually read it (and then only briefly) only if I have thorougly exhausted everything on/.
I am open minded. I just haven't seen any other tech-oriented company that has such a consistent record of leading the industry in so many ways. Sometimes they aren't the first attempt at something; but when they do something, they more often than not, do it in a way that is actually useful. And anyone who knows the first thing about computers recognizes that they had a remarkable string of successes in the past decade.
So, it is you that seems to have the blinders on; not me.
Well, IMHO he ripped off iSyncs and the WiFi icons in OS X so he can cry all he wants. He might have made a good utility, but it was never innovative nor unique in any way.
Good point! It really IS the simple combination of two already-trademarked Apple logos!
That's rich coming from a company who's name is "Apple".
How much more f-ing generic can you get? "Air" Oh yeah, they already have a product named that too.
Apple certainly doesn't have a stranglehold on using common words for product names. One only has to look to Microsoft WINDOWS or Google's ANDROID for some pretty cogent examples.
BTW, this article which WAS written by a lawyer, specifcally uses "Apple" as an example of a "common word" that could be trademarked.
Having said that, Apple clearly coined the PHRASE "App Store" before it became a "household word". Seriously, have you ever heard anyone utter the term "App Store" before Apple started using the term? I sure as hell haven't. And neither has anyone else. In fact, it was Apple that first started calling computer "Programs" "Applications", as far back as the Lisa. Seriously, when did a DOS or UNIX user call anything an "Application", prior to the introduction of the Mac? Same thing with Windows users. They almost universally used the term "Program", rather than "Application", well into the 1990s. And as far as the abbreviation "App", well, I think that we can thank the planet in general.
That's the difference that makes all the difference. Many people have used the words "Application" and even "App", as well as "Store" for a long time. But, until the iPhone App Store, not one person on the planet had stuck those words together in a "branding" sense. And so, that makes Amazon's sudden post-Apple usage a blatant attempt to cash-in on, and confuse the public with, an identical name. There can be no other interpretation. It isn't the fact that the words themselves are generic; it is the unique combination of the words used as "brand" or "product name", and then the subsequent use of that same combination of words in a manner carefully calculated to confuse the public, that constitutes trademark infringement. Our culture is replete with such trademarked phrases, each of which contain only utterly generic words: "Finger lickin' good"; "Good to the last drop", "Let's get ready to rumble" (yes, it's trademarked!) are all well-known (at least in the U.S.) examples of such.
IMHO, the only thing that would sink Apple is if they were stupid enough to not trademark the name "App Store". But, fortunately for Apple, they aren't stupid.
So, what was your point, again?
You know there were smart phones before the iphone. Sure apple made the UI simpler and had it flow nicely but they certainly didn't invent it. Its just windows mobile 2003 with application shortcuts on the front page (instead of pressing start all programs). I don't know why I'm even bothering with you its like trying to convince a religious fanatic the earth isn't 4000 years old.
Really now? Apple didn't just make the UI simpler, they completely changed it.
Name one phone before the iPhone that had a browser that people actually wanted to use?
Name one phone before the iPhone that had a useable, non-stylus-oriented touchscreen interface?
Name one phone before the iPhone that had a useable, non-stylus-oriented touchscreen keyboard? Whether you personally like it is immaterial. Name one. This and this is what a "touchscreen" phone looked like before the iPhone. BTW, I have one of those Treos. It is the biggest POS on the planet. The UI freezes up constantly for seconds at a time, for no reason, even when just using the hardware "joystick", and while you can sort of use the touchscreen with your finger, with the exception of the dialpad, the UI features are definitely designed for a stylus. And if you touch the "end" button for more than a fraction of a second, it disables the phone (takes it off line) completely, and with no confimation dialog. You usually only find out when you haven't received calls for a few hours, and people bitch you out about "never answering your phone".
Name one phone before the iPhone that had random-access voicemail?
Name one phone before the iPhone where the phone manufacturer defined the feature set, not the Carrier?
If the iPhone wasn't a game-changer, then why have so many other phones since the iPhone desperately tried to copy it?
If the iPhone wasn't a game-changer, then why did Google's Android immediately abandon its shameless clone of the Blackberry interface and form-factor in favor of a shameless clone of the iPhone's "Springboard" and the iPhone form-factor? Same thing goes for most Windows Phones, which HTC has even become desperate enough to sell for a PENNY, LOL!!!
Sorry. It is the Windows Phone and Android fanbois that are in serious, almost delusional, denial; not the Apple fans.
How so because they both have applications. What apple did was hardly innovation its a windows pda with application shortcuts on the desktop. However, ever since android has come out apple has repeatedly ripped off most of the things that made android unique.
And a Windows PDA (and every other PDA for that matter) is a Newton PDA with color.
And a Newton PDA is a pencil and paper in electronic form.
And a pencil and paper is a stone tablet and chisel in cellulose form.
And a stone tablet and chisel is a portable cave wall.
And a cave wall is a more permanent form of drawing in the mud with your finger.
What makes it obvious that they were working on it at the time of app submission? The idea might have been around as a "nice to have", but that doesn't mean it was implemented.
And it's likely that, since this guy had implemented it and submitted it for approval a year ago, the hardware was "powerful enough to support" the feature then. My 3GS is getting the same feature, and that's hardware from 2 years ago now. Given Apple hired the guy who created Mobile Notifier, near enough to identical to the new notifications feature, why not hire the guy who developed this one?
Apple was in a bit of a pickle, here.
Do you really think that when the developer submitted his app, someone in iOS development team said "Hey, I heard that there was this guy that submitted an app the other day, and it does the coolest thing... it lets iPhones and iPads sync with iTunes over WiFi! How cool is THAT?!? Yesh, the app is in the approval process right now, and the head of App Approval has called a meeting so we can see this thing. Jeez! Why didn't WE think of that???"
Of course that didn/t happen. Because iSync, or whatever it was called while in development, was pretty much done long before then.
Wirelessly syncing iOS devices was obvious. In fact, it has been discussed several times on this very site (and I'm sure many others) for several years. Did Apple rip those people, too? C'mon, people! Every iOS device has had WiFi since day one. Every Apple laptop and All-In-One desktop product has had built-in WiFi since long before the iPhone was debuted.Same with Apple TV. Heck, even Apple's high-end Mac Pro has WiFi capabilities. To say that Apple thinks in the Wireless domain is the understatement of the century! So, to think that they didn't have this in mind for quite some time is, pun intended, patently riduculous. They just had to wait until they had all their pieces-parts in place to do this. In fact, you could almost hear a worldwide "It's about time!" when Apple announced the feature.
Should Apple have hired this guy? Why? By the time he had submitted his obvious little app, Apple had long before layed out their data structures, written and tested the low-level driver protocols on both OS X and Windows, designed all the upper-level apps on both OS X and Windows, oh, and were well on their way to debugging and stress-testing the entire system. WTF did they need this guy for? Seriously. And in fact, Apple did consider him for employment; but obviously his CV wasn't strong enough to warrant it.
But when this guy submitted his App, they were caught in a bit of a pickle: Do they let the App get approved, and then sit for a year while their carefully-laid plans are reduced to "So what?", and then simply wait for the inevitable lawsuit from the guy, as he says (like he is right now) "They liked MY idea so well they STOLED IT! STOLED IT I TELLS YA!!!", or do they reject it on the grounds that it "duplicates (still secret, planned-for, future) functionality."? Or what?
Seriously, what would you have done? Hiring the guy to "shut him up" would have actually been tantamount to firing off a Press Release outlining at least part of their plans. Why? Because the app was already out in the public domain, being sold on the Cydia Store. Any further action on Apple's part would have simply telegraphed their intent to offer wireless sync, and would have reduced the enthusiastic reaction seen at WWDC when the feature was announced to a mere "courtesy clap".
Sorry, since this guy was going to sue pretty much no matter what, the only logical thing Apple could do was to simply grit their teeth and wait for the inevitable service of the Complaint.
But, I will bet that Apple settles pretty quick with the developer. Not because they are wrong; but because that is what will be the least expensive course of action for them. Otherwise, this woul
You cannot even upgrade to the Lion OS X without the latest previous version. You cannot upgrade having a Core Duo processor - you need the Core 2 Duo.
Apple and support for even a less than 5 year old product is non-existent. Any enterprise that allows Apple products in is retarded based on Apple's non existent support. Hell, even Ubuntu has longer software support. All Linux and Windows have longer hardware support.
There are significant reasons behind both conditions:
1. Obviously, Lion will be, in reality, OS X 10.6.(something). In other words, it will actually be what Apple refers to as a "combo upgrade" between 10.6.x and 10.7.0. Why? Because Apple is not crazy, and does not want to have their new server farm grind to a halt, as 20 million or so early-adopters of Lion simultaneously attempt to download say, 6 GB worth of a full-blown copy of Lion and all its apps. Actually, what you are probably not even noticing (and Apple has done this for YEARS), is that Lion is actually being "trickled out" right now. Every time you see a Software Update within a few months of the posting of a new version of a Mac OS (and this goes all the way back to at least System 6.9.7 (not 10.6.9; but rather "Classic" MacOS 6.9.7)), bits and pieces of the new "major upgrade" are "gamma tested" by pushing them out as part of a previous-version update. How do I know this? I have been using Macs since 1984, and there has been a clear pattern of software compatibility that in many cases, extends BACK to the last version of the PRIOR major release. In other words, most software that "required" (Classic) System 7.0 would actually run on 6.9.7. Most software that required system 9.0 would actually run on 8.6. Most software that "requires" OS X 10.4 will also run on 10.3.9. Most software that "requires" 10.5 will actually also run on 10.4.11, and so forth. The reason for that is that Apple OBVIOUSLY "test drives" as many as the new APIs as practical in the "major revision - 1" version of the OS. This is a very smart (and very sneaky) software upgrade policy on Apple's part. That way, they minimize the "suddenly everything is broken" problem when a new "major revision" happens. And now that they have that tried-and-true upgrade methodology in place, they can leverage it to provide Lion as a "Delta upgrade" to Snow Leopard.
2. Apple wants to make every API in Lion "64-bit clean". Again, I remember when Apple was trying to make the 68k version of MacOS, and especially QuickTime, "32 bit clean", and when Apple was trying to make OS 9 "PowerPC clean". That is why they are ditching support for the CoreDuo. Because it is the last CPU to be non-64 bit. That is not evil; it is simply sound "best practices" OS engineering.
Not only do they not support 98, or 2000, or XP, they also don't support any OS X older than 10.5 (example: Safari and iTunes).
It is simply part of Apple culture not to supply software to older OSes. It forces the user to upgrade (i.e. spend money), and I'm not surprised Apple applies the same tactic to PCs that has worked so well for Macs.
Yeah, because at $29, PERIOD, for EVERY COMPUTER YOU OWN, that Lion upgrade is such a profit center.
You do realize, of course, that one of the main things holding Windows stability and security back for years was their stalwart insistence on supporting legacy APIs back to the stone-age, right?
Perhaps there is a more reasonable explanation as to why Apple keeps things moving forward, eh?
The best tool for the job? What is iClouds job? Media access or consumer control?
Bullshit Sales Pitch
Q: What does iCloud do?
A: It gives me easy access to my media.
Wait! If you think that Apple cares about easy of access to your media more than promoting their DRM scheme and locking you into their ecosystem where they take 30% off the top, you need to take those blinders off.
No Bullshit Reality
Q: What does iCloud really do?
A: It gives Apple more control over your media than they do already. You give up more freedom and thank Apple for taking it from you because they make life easier once you agree to their control. In short, iCloud takes your freedom and makes you like it.
Closed, walled-gardens are the wave of the future. DRM is trendy and cool. Freedom and openess are for losers. You want to be cool don't you?
Do you REALLY think that this service, which is FREE, as in beer, is in any way a profit center for Apple? Have you seen that data center? How much do you think that thing cost to build, maintain, provide bandwidth (and lots of it!) for?
Besides, you do realize, of course, that the main focus of this is syncing between devices, not the permanent storage of data, right? In fact, Apple takes great pains to NOT burden themselves with YOUR data. For example, when you use "Photo Stream" to sync photos across your devices, it only holds onto your photos for 30 days (and that is only in case they weren't online when it went to do the sync originally). Also, in the case of iTunes Match, it doesn't actually store your songs if they are available in iTunes; it simply stores a database of your songs. Only those songs that are NOT in iTunes are stored on their servers. And as far as "personal backup", there is but 5 GB of FREE (as in beer) storage space available per user. And I don't think that is even expandable (maybe later). And out of ALL of the iCloud services, only the OPTIONAL iTunes Match costs anything at all; and that is a paltry $25 per year, regardless of number of songs. And that $25 is simply a way to make up a little of the cost of their guesstimate of how much server space their are going to have to set aside for the "non-iTunes" song storage.
I asked why I would want to use it. That wasn't a rhetorical question. I don't even know what iCloud is. (Yes, I know what cloud computing is, I just don't know what the big deal is with Apple's version)
So, instead of simply spewing worthless hatred, why don't you watch just the iCloud portion of the WWDC keynote and see for yourself? (BTW, you do realize, of course, that WWDC sold out to a crowd of DEVELOPERS in just over two hours?)
Oh wait, I know why: Because then maybe, just maybe, you might JUST begin to see what all the buzz is about. And then, you'd have to (gasp!) change your nice, safe little world-view JUST a little.
Seriously, dood. Watch it. Then tell me it isn't something that no one else is doing right now.
clouds are just servers to thin clients, renamed for popular effect.
You need to watch the Keynote. iCloud, unlike nearly every other "Cloud Service", is a lot more than what Steve referred to as "A big hard drive in the sky."
I HATE the drive to "the Cloud"; but this thing is pretty damned cool, and has real, tangible, every-day benefits to a very wide swath of use-cases.
Just because you want to dismiss everything that comes out of Cupertino as marketing fluff, doesn't make it true.
Seriously, take the time to watch the iCloud explanation and demo. It really is quite neat. And ya know what? The audience full of "I've seen it all" software developers in attendance were nearly on their feet several times.
Oh yeah. And did you notice that, other than the cheap-as-hell (and totally optional) $25 per year "iTunes Match", this is FREE, as in beer. Even for their main competitor's current OS. Yes, I'll agree it ends up being good marketing; but there will be a non-insignificant number of those competitor's users who will use it and never "switch".
I bought the G5 PowerMac Dualie I'm typing this on in April, 2005. Two months later, Apple announced the switch to Intel. As of this moment, until Lion comes out in July, that machine is still being supported, because 10.5 (Leopard) is still being supported.
And you know what? I STILL get regular Software Updates for not only the OS, but also Apple's apps.
I think that six years of support for a platform that they had migrated away from is pretty damned good.
I *still* have OS 9 plugins running in Photoshop on OS X 10.6 that still work - my scanner
Have you looked at VueScan? It has a Photoshop plug-in now.
I have VueScan, and run it. It is a steaming pile of goat-droppings. The ONLY thing it has going for it is that it is SLIGHTLY better than HP's OS X software for my ScanJet 8250 (which otherwise is a great scanner).
VusScan regularly crashes, loses it's configuration, tries to drive the scan head beyond the home position (which causes the toothed-belt to make an absolutely sickening sound). It also refuses to FORCE QUIT, doesn't know how to use my scanner's built-in transparency adapter (even though it tries). I could go on and on...
Hmm, perhaps you missed that this is Apple. Of course it won't. It has to lock you in.
Will it only work with proprietary Apple software?
Doesn't everything new that Apple makes have that requirement? Sure they have a log of some open source things like WebKit and CUPS that they still maintain and are forced to keep open due to GPL, but otherwise everything Apple does is proprietary and locked to their software.
If so, then what is the entire point?
They paid the lables $150 million and must conform to their demands, which seem to directly line up with their own goals. As such, the point is that Apple will still make money because the average user hears "Cloud" and doesn't realize that they're, once again, being conned by marketing speak.
You, sir, are full of doo-doo. There is simply nothing else that describes the utter lack of any rational thought. Let's just take your last bit of detritus: You do realize, of course, that Apple is the very first company that has gotten the RIAA to come off of their "each instance of a song must be paid for separately." That alone is a huge, pro-consumer move.
My guess would be that iCloud's client used SSL and required SNI, which isn't available for Windows XP (baked into the OS anyways IIRC; there are implementations out there, just maybe not under terms Apple wants). I'm still leaning towards laziness however.
I'm leaning toward security concerns.
Afterall, Apple maintains XP compatibility for QuickTime, Safari and iTunes; so they obviously have the people around to do those things.
I know, I know. Someone will throw a speed to market related response out there. Let me preemptively say this; Speed to market is usually something amateur devs as an excuse for a lack of proper coding skills.
Speaking "speed" how about simple execution speed? Java ain't about that.
And further, on Windows, this has to run as a SERVICE. Please correct me if I'm wrong; but Services in Windows are written pretty much exclusively in assembler, C/C++ or perhaps.NET. Again, Java doesn't go there. And besides, regardless of the programming language (and actually quite beside that point), the other end of that "software wire" has to hook up to SOMETHING in the OS (another API, usually). And Apple is probably worried about the massive security issues in the XP API sets, generally. Who needs iCloud to suffer a man-in-the-middle attack through some dumbass XP client, just because XP can't keep it's pants on?
Neither my Acer laptop (full-size aspire series) nor either of the eee's in our house have ANY king of indication that the webcam is in use.
Too bad Acer doesn't care about your privacy. Apple has the LED wired in parallel with the camera power. Camera ON, LED ON. The LED DID come one. They just didn't believe that 1984 was here.
Slashdot Mirror
Mango?
WTF are you talking about?
He was trying to type "Apple", but was drunk and typed "Mango" instead... ;-)
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that Microsoft is Buying Skype. Bundle Skype with an internet enabled portable device and you can cut the phone carriers out quite significantly. Free texting, calls between Windows devices internationally.
I could think of more but I wouldn't be surprised. Then again, Our windows 7 machines have started getting calls from "windows help". hrm...
- Dan.
They still have to get the Carriers to agree to it, at least away from WiFi.
And BTW, Skype already allows free VOIP calls from "computer to computer", doesn't it? Full disclosure: I think Skype sucks, quality-wise. Like MagicJack, it is a barely-useable, barely full-duplex, telephone-like system. Every time somone calls me via Skype or MagicJack, it is an absolute chore to attempt to carry on a conversation. SEVERE dropouts, "gargling", highly-regenerative echo effects, call drops. It seems that every bad sci-fi "poor sub-space communication" effect is paraded by. Everything but clear, understandable communication. That stands in stark contrast with my Vonage service. It is simply indistinguishable from POTS quality. In fact, it is probably better fidelity. Yes, it isn't free; but dammit, if I want to run my voice through some digital FX, I'll go play with some ProTools plugins! It's not like 3 kHz is a bunch of bandwidth...
Ok we are running seriously offtopic here!!
I do think it's a big blocker to proponents of OSS being taken seriously though, it's just ad hominem. If you want people to listen you should be able to form a decent argument.
Yeah, like all the people on this site who, after I have laid out a cogent argument in support of Apple, documenting every point with citations to external sources, not only does it often get punish-modded down (or simply ignored by mods), but even more often, it gets a dismissive "I see your username. That explains it."
Look at the responses to several of my posts to this article. Then count the number of times my USERNAME is used as the ONLY rebuttal.
And ya know what? It is, almost without fail, the pro-Linux crowd that does it. People defending Windows on here seem to do so a lot more rationally than those who have Penguins on the brain.
Grow up, people! Or your favorite OS is doomed to be forever in the backroom, not the boardroom.
But, I think that they secretly want exactly that. And I am deadly serious about that. There is a "mindset" to the typical Linux user, and it doesn't like anything that has been "accepted" or "legitimized".
I honestly think that if Linux suddenly became the darling of PHBs everywhere, that half of the Linux fans would fork Linux off into something else...
Arrragh!!! Can we please stop calling it M$, Windoze, Window$ or what bloody ever.
This is really starting to drive me insane and is a reason for people not to take this site seriously.... It also ruins quite an intelligent comment.
Actually, it is a time-honored tradition in the world of online discussion groups, harkening back to the time when CompuServe was king. You see, back then, most people didn't even know what an internet was, and "time sharing" on big, centralized online services, like CompuServe and GEnie, accessed through local MODEM gateways, like Timenet (IIRC) was the way you rolled. And all of those services charged by the hour. Real money for real connect time. And it wasn't particularly cheap, either. When I was at my peak usage on "CompuServe CB" (a kind of IRC precursor(?)), it wasn't uncommon for me to get bills far in excess of $200 per month from CompuServe. And since that was the case with many CompuServe users, and because CompServe had that enticing "S" in its name, many, many CompuServe users simply started spelling it Compu$erve. And so began a snarky, but somewhat internally satisfying, online tradition. And dare I say, one a lot less annoying than l337 speak, which is like Ebonics for nerds...
;-)
But, the real bottom line here is that you're just upset that "Apple" doesn't have an "S" in it; or you'd be doing it, too!
Firstly HP and HTC
Secondly if you can't see that iphone is a simpler version of windows mobile (basically being stuck in all programs the whole time and only ever being able to run one program) i struggle to convince myself to reply to you.
And yet, here you are...
Complexity is not necessarily a good thing; especially for a consumer device. IOS is, being a derivative of OS X, obviously capable of, and in fact does, multitasking. Proof of this is of course demonstrated on the iPad, which allows basically unlimited simultaneous userland apps. Since they run the same microcontroller, and the same OS, what's the difference?
Battery size.
Next uninformed comment?
Third all pre iphone smart phones had alright browsers, hell i didn't like the first iphone browser much at all, you can hardly say it was innovation.
So let's see, YOU didn't like it; so it must be shit, right?
Fourth half of your points are based around the point that they popularized capacitive touch (its not like they invented it) a technology that wasn't really possible when these phones were coming out (5 years ahead of the iphone) due to manufacturing techniques not available/affordable.
Which half was that?
And beside that; Apple has some special hold on technology? Even years later, a lot of other phones were still using resistive touch screens.
Fifthly all the pre iphone smart phones i had also had voicemail i don't understand why it being random-access, or that fact that the "phone manufacture defined the feature set" is all that great. Hardly an argument that its the mother of all all smart phones.
I'm sorry that you lack understanding.
It wasn't that it had voicemail. Of course that wasn't innovative. It was that the voicemail didn't have to be listened to in order. That was the cool thing. Random Access Voicemail. And if you don't understand the advantage of that feature, there is seriously no hope for you.
Manufacturer defining the feature set (as opposed to the CARRIER deciding what features that your phone can have, like EVERY phone before the iPhone (and most after it, too))??? WTF, DUDE??? I mean SERIOUSLY, WHAT. THE. FUCK? Are you even reading what you are typing???
Android is closer related to windows mobile than ios (the front desktop with multiple widgets operating followed by being able to move to an all application page or settings).
So it comes down to a nice onscreen keyboard. Good on you apple surely you now own and are the creation of all smartphone os.
Evolution happened god damn it. I understand this wont convert you and no doubt tomorrow you'll log on to whatever ifan website you guys go to and read all the latest rumors and reason apple is the greatest and never bother to check out the competition; but please try to be a little open minded they aren't the only tech company out there.
Oh, how little you know me. The site that I must log into every day is, surprise, Slashdot. There is only one "Apple oriented" site that I regularly read (TUAW), and I rarely post on it, and usually read it (and then only briefly) only if I have thorougly exhausted everything on /.
I am open minded. I just haven't seen any other tech-oriented company that has such a consistent record of leading the industry in so many ways. Sometimes they aren't the first attempt at something; but when they do something, they more often than not, do it in a way that is actually useful. And anyone who knows the first thing about computers recognizes that they had a remarkable string of successes in the past decade.
So, it is you that seems to have the blinders on; not me.
Sure MACS4all :)
Was that supposed to be a fact-filled rebuttal of my comment?
Just because previous attempts were badly done doesn't mean that current attempts aren't derivative of those previous attempts.
And, there's always the HTC Touch - it was meant for FINGER use, ran WinMo, and came out before the iPhone.
Came out before the iPhone? The iPhone was introduced in January, 2007. The HTC Touch was introduced in June, 2007.
Meant tor FINGER use? Not hardly.
Ran WinMo. Are you seriously trying to list that as an ADVANTAGE???
Well, IMHO he ripped off iSyncs and the WiFi icons in OS X so he can cry all he wants. He might have made a good utility, but it was never innovative nor unique in any way.
Good point! It really IS the simple combination of two already-trademarked Apple logos!
You can't trademark a descriptive name.
That's rich coming from a company who's name is "Apple". How much more f-ing generic can you get? "Air" Oh yeah, they already have a product named that too.
Apple certainly doesn't have a stranglehold on using common words for product names. One only has to look to Microsoft WINDOWS or Google's ANDROID for some pretty cogent examples.
BTW, this article which WAS written by a lawyer, specifcally uses "Apple" as an example of a "common word" that could be trademarked.
Having said that, Apple clearly coined the PHRASE "App Store" before it became a "household word". Seriously, have you ever heard anyone utter the term "App Store" before Apple started using the term? I sure as hell haven't. And neither has anyone else. In fact, it was Apple that first started calling computer "Programs" "Applications", as far back as the Lisa. Seriously, when did a DOS or UNIX user call anything an "Application", prior to the introduction of the Mac? Same thing with Windows users. They almost universally used the term "Program", rather than "Application", well into the 1990s. And as far as the abbreviation "App", well, I think that we can thank the planet in general.
That's the difference that makes all the difference. Many people have used the words "Application" and even "App", as well as "Store" for a long time. But, until the iPhone App Store, not one person on the planet had stuck those words together in a "branding" sense. And so, that makes Amazon's sudden post-Apple usage a blatant attempt to cash-in on, and confuse the public with, an identical name. There can be no other interpretation. It isn't the fact that the words themselves are generic; it is the unique combination of the words used as "brand" or "product name", and then the subsequent use of that same combination of words in a manner carefully calculated to confuse the public, that constitutes trademark infringement. Our culture is replete with such trademarked phrases, each of which contain only utterly generic words: "Finger lickin' good"; "Good to the last drop", "Let's get ready to rumble" (yes, it's trademarked!) are all well-known (at least in the U.S.) examples of such.
IMHO, the only thing that would sink Apple is if they were stupid enough to not trademark the name "App Store". But, fortunately for Apple, they aren't stupid. So, what was your point, again?
You know there were smart phones before the iphone. Sure apple made the UI simpler and had it flow nicely but they certainly didn't invent it. Its just windows mobile 2003 with application shortcuts on the front page (instead of pressing start all programs). I don't know why I'm even bothering with you its like trying to convince a religious fanatic the earth isn't 4000 years old.
Really now? Apple didn't just make the UI simpler, they completely changed it.
Name one phone before the iPhone that had a browser that people actually wanted to use?
Name one phone before the iPhone that had a useable, non-stylus-oriented touchscreen interface?
Name one phone before the iPhone that had a useable, non-stylus-oriented touchscreen keyboard? Whether you personally like it is immaterial. Name one. This and this is what a "touchscreen" phone looked like before the iPhone. BTW, I have one of those Treos. It is the biggest POS on the planet. The UI freezes up constantly for seconds at a time, for no reason, even when just using the hardware "joystick", and while you can sort of use the touchscreen with your finger, with the exception of the dialpad, the UI features are definitely designed for a stylus. And if you touch the "end" button for more than a fraction of a second, it disables the phone (takes it off line) completely, and with no confimation dialog. You usually only find out when you haven't received calls for a few hours, and people bitch you out about "never answering your phone".
Name one phone before the iPhone that had random-access voicemail?
Name one phone before the iPhone where the phone manufacturer defined the feature set, not the Carrier?
If the iPhone wasn't a game-changer, then why have so many other phones since the iPhone desperately tried to copy it?
If the iPhone wasn't a game-changer, then why did Google's Android immediately abandon its shameless clone of the Blackberry interface and form-factor in favor of a shameless clone of the iPhone's "Springboard" and the iPhone form-factor? Same thing goes for most Windows Phones, which HTC has even become desperate enough to sell for a PENNY, LOL!!!
Sorry. It is the Windows Phone and Android fanbois that are in serious, almost delusional, denial; not the Apple fans.
How so because they both have applications. What apple did was hardly innovation its a windows pda with application shortcuts on the desktop. However, ever since android has come out apple has repeatedly ripped off most of the things that made android unique.
And a Windows PDA (and every other PDA for that matter) is a Newton PDA with color.
And a Newton PDA is a pencil and paper in electronic form.
And a pencil and paper is a stone tablet and chisel in cellulose form.
And a stone tablet and chisel is a portable cave wall.
And a cave wall is a more permanent form of drawing in the mud with your finger.
Seriously, where does it start?
What makes it obvious that they were working on it at the time of app submission? The idea might have been around as a "nice to have", but that doesn't mean it was implemented.
And it's likely that, since this guy had implemented it and submitted it for approval a year ago, the hardware was "powerful enough to support" the feature then. My 3GS is getting the same feature, and that's hardware from 2 years ago now. Given Apple hired the guy who created Mobile Notifier, near enough to identical to the new notifications feature, why not hire the guy who developed this one?
Apple was in a bit of a pickle, here.
Do you really think that when the developer submitted his app, someone in iOS development team said "Hey, I heard that there was this guy that submitted an app the other day, and it does the coolest thing... it lets iPhones and iPads sync with iTunes over WiFi! How cool is THAT?!? Yesh, the app is in the approval process right now, and the head of App Approval has called a meeting so we can see this thing. Jeez! Why didn't WE think of that???"
Of course that didn/t happen. Because iSync, or whatever it was called while in development, was pretty much done long before then.
Wirelessly syncing iOS devices was obvious. In fact, it has been discussed several times on this very site (and I'm sure many others) for several years. Did Apple rip those people, too? C'mon, people! Every iOS device has had WiFi since day one. Every Apple laptop and All-In-One desktop product has had built-in WiFi since long before the iPhone was debuted.Same with Apple TV. Heck, even Apple's high-end Mac Pro has WiFi capabilities. To say that Apple thinks in the Wireless domain is the understatement of the century! So, to think that they didn't have this in mind for quite some time is, pun intended, patently riduculous. They just had to wait until they had all their pieces-parts in place to do this. In fact, you could almost hear a worldwide "It's about time!" when Apple announced the feature.
Should Apple have hired this guy? Why? By the time he had submitted his obvious little app, Apple had long before layed out their data structures, written and tested the low-level driver protocols on both OS X and Windows, designed all the upper-level apps on both OS X and Windows, oh, and were well on their way to debugging and stress-testing the entire system. WTF did they need this guy for? Seriously. And in fact, Apple did consider him for employment; but obviously his CV wasn't strong enough to warrant it.
But when this guy submitted his App, they were caught in a bit of a pickle: Do they let the App get approved, and then sit for a year while their carefully-laid plans are reduced to "So what?", and then simply wait for the inevitable lawsuit from the guy, as he says (like he is right now) "They liked MY idea so well they STOLED IT! STOLED IT I TELLS YA!!!", or do they reject it on the grounds that it "duplicates (still secret, planned-for, future) functionality."? Or what?
Seriously, what would you have done? Hiring the guy to "shut him up" would have actually been tantamount to firing off a Press Release outlining at least part of their plans. Why? Because the app was already out in the public domain, being sold on the Cydia Store. Any further action on Apple's part would have simply telegraphed their intent to offer wireless sync, and would have reduced the enthusiastic reaction seen at WWDC when the feature was announced to a mere "courtesy clap".
Sorry, since this guy was going to sue pretty much no matter what, the only logical thing Apple could do was to simply grit their teeth and wait for the inevitable service of the Complaint.
But, I will bet that Apple settles pretty quick with the developer. Not because they are wrong; but because that is what will be the least expensive course of action for them. Otherwise, this woul
You cannot even upgrade to the Lion OS X without the latest previous version. You cannot upgrade having a Core Duo processor - you need the Core 2 Duo.
Apple and support for even a less than 5 year old product is non-existent. Any enterprise that allows Apple products in is retarded based on Apple's non existent support. Hell, even Ubuntu has longer software support. All Linux and Windows have longer hardware support.
There are significant reasons behind both conditions:
1. Obviously, Lion will be, in reality, OS X 10.6.(something). In other words, it will actually be what Apple refers to as a "combo upgrade" between 10.6.x and 10.7.0. Why? Because Apple is not crazy, and does not want to have their new server farm grind to a halt, as 20 million or so early-adopters of Lion simultaneously attempt to download say, 6 GB worth of a full-blown copy of Lion and all its apps. Actually, what you are probably not even noticing (and Apple has done this for YEARS), is that Lion is actually being "trickled out" right now. Every time you see a Software Update within a few months of the posting of a new version of a Mac OS (and this goes all the way back to at least System 6.9.7 (not 10.6.9; but rather "Classic" MacOS 6.9.7)), bits and pieces of the new "major upgrade" are "gamma tested" by pushing them out as part of a previous-version update. How do I know this? I have been using Macs since 1984, and there has been a clear pattern of software compatibility that in many cases, extends BACK to the last version of the PRIOR major release. In other words, most software that "required" (Classic) System 7.0 would actually run on 6.9.7. Most software that required system 9.0 would actually run on 8.6. Most software that "requires" OS X 10.4 will also run on 10.3.9. Most software that "requires" 10.5 will actually also run on 10.4.11, and so forth. The reason for that is that Apple OBVIOUSLY "test drives" as many as the new APIs as practical in the "major revision - 1" version of the OS. This is a very smart (and very sneaky) software upgrade policy on Apple's part. That way, they minimize the "suddenly everything is broken" problem when a new "major revision" happens. And now that they have that tried-and-true upgrade methodology in place, they can leverage it to provide Lion as a "Delta upgrade" to Snow Leopard.
2. Apple wants to make every API in Lion "64-bit clean". Again, I remember when Apple was trying to make the 68k version of MacOS, and especially QuickTime, "32 bit clean", and when Apple was trying to make OS 9 "PowerPC clean". That is why they are ditching support for the CoreDuo. Because it is the last CPU to be non-64 bit. That is not evil; it is simply sound "best practices" OS engineering.
Not only do they not support 98, or 2000, or XP, they also don't support any OS X older than 10.5 (example: Safari and iTunes).
It is simply part of Apple culture not to supply software to older OSes. It forces the user to upgrade (i.e. spend money), and I'm not surprised Apple applies the same tactic to PCs that has worked so well for Macs.
Yeah, because at $29, PERIOD, for EVERY COMPUTER YOU OWN, that Lion upgrade is such a profit center.
You do realize, of course, that one of the main things holding Windows stability and security back for years was their stalwart insistence on supporting legacy APIs back to the stone-age, right?
Perhaps there is a more reasonable explanation as to why Apple keeps things moving forward, eh?
I lost a cousin in the Cola wars
Which Cola Wars are you talking about? Was that Pepsi vs. Coke; or Kush Durbin vs. Blue Diesel?
The best tool for the job? What is iClouds job? Media access or consumer control?
Bullshit Sales Pitch Q: What does iCloud do? A: It gives me easy access to my media.
Wait! If you think that Apple cares about easy of access to your media more than promoting their DRM scheme and locking you into their ecosystem where they take 30% off the top, you need to take those blinders off.
No Bullshit Reality Q: What does iCloud really do? A: It gives Apple more control over your media than they do already. You give up more freedom and thank Apple for taking it from you because they make life easier once you agree to their control. In short, iCloud takes your freedom and makes you like it.
Closed, walled-gardens are the wave of the future. DRM is trendy and cool. Freedom and openess are for losers. You want to be cool don't you?
Do you REALLY think that this service, which is FREE, as in beer, is in any way a profit center for Apple? Have you seen that data center? How much do you think that thing cost to build, maintain, provide bandwidth (and lots of it!) for?
Besides, you do realize, of course, that the main focus of this is syncing between devices, not the permanent storage of data, right? In fact, Apple takes great pains to NOT burden themselves with YOUR data. For example, when you use "Photo Stream" to sync photos across your devices, it only holds onto your photos for 30 days (and that is only in case they weren't online when it went to do the sync originally). Also, in the case of iTunes Match, it doesn't actually store your songs if they are available in iTunes; it simply stores a database of your songs. Only those songs that are NOT in iTunes are stored on their servers. And as far as "personal backup", there is but 5 GB of FREE (as in beer) storage space available per user. And I don't think that is even expandable (maybe later). And out of ALL of the iCloud services, only the OPTIONAL iTunes Match costs anything at all; and that is a paltry $25 per year, regardless of number of songs. And that $25 is simply a way to make up a little of the cost of their guesstimate of how much server space their are going to have to set aside for the "non-iTunes" song storage.
I asked why I would want to use it. That wasn't a rhetorical question. I don't even know what iCloud is. (Yes, I know what cloud computing is, I just don't know what the big deal is with Apple's version)
So, instead of simply spewing worthless hatred, why don't you watch just the iCloud portion of the WWDC keynote and see for yourself? (BTW, you do realize, of course, that WWDC sold out to a crowd of DEVELOPERS in just over two hours?)
Oh wait, I know why: Because then maybe, just maybe, you might JUST begin to see what all the buzz is about. And then, you'd have to (gasp!) change your nice, safe little world-view JUST a little.
Seriously, dood. Watch it. Then tell me it isn't something that no one else is doing right now.
I'm not a Windows fanboy. I just hate Apple more.
And yet, you take time out of your extremely short lifespan to comment on nearly every Apple-related story on slashdot, I'll bet.
I think that, in your case, Apple has won.
Chew on that for awhile, you worthless troll.
clouds are just servers to thin clients, renamed for popular effect.
You need to watch the Keynote. iCloud, unlike nearly every other "Cloud Service", is a lot more than what Steve referred to as "A big hard drive in the sky."
I HATE the drive to "the Cloud"; but this thing is pretty damned cool, and has real, tangible, every-day benefits to a very wide swath of use-cases.
Just because you want to dismiss everything that comes out of Cupertino as marketing fluff, doesn't make it true.
Seriously, take the time to watch the iCloud explanation and demo. It really is quite neat. And ya know what? The audience full of "I've seen it all" software developers in attendance were nearly on their feet several times.
Oh yeah. And did you notice that, other than the cheap-as-hell (and totally optional) $25 per year "iTunes Match", this is FREE, as in beer. Even for their main competitor's current OS. Yes, I'll agree it ends up being good marketing; but there will be a non-insignificant number of those competitor's users who will use it and never "switch".
You're full of shit.
I bought the G5 PowerMac Dualie I'm typing this on in April, 2005. Two months later, Apple announced the switch to Intel. As of this moment, until Lion comes out in July, that machine is still being supported, because 10.5 (Leopard) is still being supported.
And you know what? I STILL get regular Software Updates for not only the OS, but also Apple's apps.
I think that six years of support for a platform that they had migrated away from is pretty damned good.
I *still* have OS 9 plugins running in Photoshop on OS X 10.6 that still work - my scanner
Have you looked at VueScan? It has a Photoshop plug-in now.
I have VueScan, and run it. It is a steaming pile of goat-droppings. The ONLY thing it has going for it is that it is SLIGHTLY better than HP's OS X software for my ScanJet 8250 (which otherwise is a great scanner).
VusScan regularly crashes, loses it's configuration, tries to drive the scan head beyond the home position (which causes the toothed-belt to make an absolutely sickening sound). It also refuses to FORCE QUIT, doesn't know how to use my scanner's built-in transparency adapter (even though it tries). I could go on and on...
Let's answer some of these:
Will iCloud not work with a normal browser?
Of course not. This is Apple
Will it not have an open API?
Hmm, perhaps you missed that this is Apple. Of course it won't. It has to lock you in.
Will it only work with proprietary Apple software?
Doesn't everything new that Apple makes have that requirement? Sure they have a log of some open source things like WebKit and CUPS that they still maintain and are forced to keep open due to GPL, but otherwise everything Apple does is proprietary and locked to their software.
If so, then what is the entire point?
They paid the lables $150 million and must conform to their demands, which seem to directly line up with their own goals. As such, the point is that Apple will still make money because the average user hears "Cloud" and doesn't realize that they're, once again, being conned by marketing speak.
You, sir, are full of doo-doo. There is simply nothing else that describes the utter lack of any rational thought. Let's just take your last bit of detritus: You do realize, of course, that Apple is the very first company that has gotten the RIAA to come off of their "each instance of a song must be paid for separately." That alone is a huge, pro-consumer move.
My guess would be that iCloud's client used SSL and required SNI, which isn't available for Windows XP (baked into the OS anyways IIRC; there are implementations out there, just maybe not under terms Apple wants). I'm still leaning towards laziness however.
I'm leaning toward security concerns.
Afterall, Apple maintains XP compatibility for QuickTime, Safari and iTunes; so they obviously have the people around to do those things.
I know, I know. Someone will throw a speed to market related response out there. Let me preemptively say this; Speed to market is usually something amateur devs as an excuse for a lack of proper coding skills.
Speaking "speed" how about simple execution speed? Java ain't about that.
.NET. Again, Java doesn't go there. And besides, regardless of the programming language (and actually quite beside that point), the other end of that "software wire" has to hook up to SOMETHING in the OS (another API, usually). And Apple is probably worried about the massive security issues in the XP API sets, generally. Who needs iCloud to suffer a man-in-the-middle attack through some dumbass XP client, just because XP can't keep it's pants on?
And further, on Windows, this has to run as a SERVICE. Please correct me if I'm wrong; but Services in Windows are written pretty much exclusively in assembler, C/C++ or perhaps
Neither my Acer laptop (full-size aspire series) nor either of the eee's in our house have ANY king of indication that the webcam is in use.
Too bad Acer doesn't care about your privacy. Apple has the LED wired in parallel with the camera power. Camera ON, LED ON. The LED DID come one. They just didn't believe that 1984 was here.