Is this the one you type in the lock screen? I just found and read the article and it's unclear. If so, I thought the iPhone makes you wait longer and longer after consecutive failed attempts which would slow down a brute-force attack quite a bit. Also, I can't remember if it was an Exchange policy, a feature on the iPhone (or of Android), but I thought I remember seeing a setting that would wipe the phone after 10 consecutive failed attempts.
I sure hope not! I'd hate to have a brain-fade-day, and finger-flub/forget which password I was using and have my phone suddenly be wiped!
Time delays are very effective, and not so stupidly brutish. Of course, all those methods fail if you can simply torture the user...
I think he's talking about how you couldn't transfer music to iOS devices previously(via programs other than itunes), because iTunes did some funky stuff to it before transferring it to the device (I'm not too sharp on the specifics...). I know for a fact that this protection has been cracked for awhile now.
Oh, you mean the DRM that hasn't been there for HOW many years now?
Not to mention that the ability to jailbreak a device requires that the "breaker" be "console" to it: it must be in possession. As with any system, if you can sit console, your access and control can change dramatically. When someone can "jailbreak" an iPhone remotely (either through a wireless, wifi or bluetooth connection) with no interaction or permission of the owner or user of the device, then you have an argument.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I worry about with iOS 5's wireless updating and computerless setup features. We are but one encryption crack away from truly drive-by malware injection at that point. Apple has a very good track record with Software Update on OS X. Let's hope that these new iOS 5 features are just as robust!
I feel that way about Debian. It's an exaggeration, to be sure, but the mindset is the same. If I can't manage it with apt, why bother with it?
Because you can package it and then manage it with apt (if it's worth the trouble).
But can your mom? Howabout your neighbors? Sisters? Brothers?
But I'll bet they can navigate something like the App Store, eventually find what they want, and get it onto their Mac or iOS device without having to bow and scrape to the Computer Priest of the family.
But come now, be honest, John; Computer Priest to Computer Priest: You much prefer it that way, as it was meant to be. Once more unto the breech! Cry havoc! And let loose the Configuration Files of IT!!!
You can start to see the outline of a marketing campaign that will convince people that they really don't need to have anything on their Mac that didn't come from Apple, one way or another.
I feel that way about Debian. It's an exaggeration, to be sure, but the mindset is the same. If I can't manage it with apt, why bother with it?
-l
Wow. This is exactly why Linux is doomed. You just can't see past your own little world-view.
You do realize, of course, that not one computer user in 10,000 (and that is not an exaggeration) is interested in apt-get, searching respositories, or any other of that sort of stuff, right?
As a long-time Mac user and owner of several Mac Pro and MacBook Pro machines, I find this transformation of "machines to make things with" to "machines you can consume content with" quite offensive.
Which of the 10 new Lion features that were spotlighted (no pun) did you think had to do with content CONSUMPTION?
1. Multitouch Gestures? Nope. Just providing some system-wide APIs for stuff that had inconsistent support in OS X.
2. Mission Control? Fullscreen Apps? Nope and Nope. Those were simply system-wide UI enhancements.
3. Lion Pricing and Distribution model? Nope. Apple taking advantage of their new software distribution system to both keep costs down, and to significantly cut down on wasted packaging, shipping and manufacturing. Or did you actually enjoy payng $130 instead of $30?
4. Automatic Save/Resume/Versioning. Nope. Obviously, no need to SAVE, RESTORE and VERSION if you're just CONSUMING content. Oh, and autosave and Resume actually harken back to the Lisa. And what's not to like about leveraging the power of journaling in an easy-to-use "Time-Machine-esque" format? Again, all about content CREATION.
5. Mac App Store. Well, if purchasing applications through a secure distribution method, that actually offers significant advantages and cost reductions to the user is "content consumption"...
6. Launch Pad. Nope. Simply an application browser. Obviously borrowed from iOS' Springboard, but not about CONTENT consumption, just application management and launching. I suppose you liked Stacks better?
7. Air Drop. Nope. Simply Bonjour-enabled ad-hoc filesharing. Not that cool for you and me, because we could set up a temporary network in a few clicks. But for a lot of people, that is a cool feature. Again, not about content CONSUMPTION; just a general-purpose peer-peer filesharing feature.
8. Changes to Mail? Nope. Just an update to a core app. And a very cool update at that.
Same goes for most of the non-featured-features. Resize windows from any edge; Lion Server as a paltry $50 add-on; FileVault 2; XSan built-in; Exchange 2010 Support; Application Sandboxing; Safari Architectural Enhancements; Merge Folders; Full-Screen Terminal; Braille Support; Windows Migration Assistant.
The list goes on and on. How are these a move to OS X being primarily about Content CONSUMPTION?!?
Now imagine some way to plug your iPad into a docking station of some sort, for all the functionality you'd be looking for at home. A home computer that even your mom could upgrade would certainly have a market.
Now that I HAVE predicted for a long time!
Remember, the original design goal of the Mac was the Dynabook, and the concept of "The computer as an appliance."
But that does not mean the death of OS X; only that OS X will gain touch features, and at some point, tablets will become powerful enough to run some true OS X stuff.
But we are a long, long, long way off from seeing, to name but two, Logic or Final Cut running on an iPad!
I do, however, see the MacBook (non-pro) and perhaps the Air, eventually merging with the iPad. We're almost there already. And even an iPad with Thunderbolt won't be the answer. At least not now. But, an iPad that "docks" through thunderbolt or WiFi to a Mac mini form-factor "home server"? Yeah, that might be the answer for a lot of use-cases. Not all; but a lot.
But that 'mini would still be running OS X pretty much as we know it today. Apple has carefully positioned each of their products for minimal overlap. They have little intention of knocking out whole swaths of their carefully thought-out and nurtured market-segments.
I don't own any modern Apple products, and it's pretty unlikely I'll be buying any in the future, but this really would be the smart move for Apple. I mean, the only real reason they still have desktops is because they always have, but it's not like that's what's making the business money. If you have two product lines, both requiring extensive R&D, and one of them makes you heaping endless piles of money while the other just kind of muddles along, it doesn't take a business genius to know what the smart move is.
You're lapping up the slashdot kool-aid.
It is normal for a large corporation, especially a tech-driven one like Apple, to have a consumer range of products and a more serious range of products. And guess what? The consumer products always sell more and have a greater profit margin; mostly because of economies-of-scale. And in part, the consumer products always end up subsidizing the R&D of the high-end stuff.
But guess also what? The buying power that the successful consumer products gives this hypothetical company, drives the cost of the high-end products down, thus making them less of a financial burden on the bottom line. And a company like Apple is now buying enough components that it makes sense to go ahead and make their contract manufacturers, for example, use things like 0402 and 0201 packaged passive components even in their desktop designs, again driving costs of the "premium" products down even further.
Do you really think that a company like Apple, who maintained a "shadow" copy of OS X (and all their applications) as a secret x86 build for over five years cares about a few extra dollars in their R&D budget? Take a look at their antenna design facility, for example. They could have contracted all that out, ya know. But they didn't. Why? Partially because of a need for secrecy; but also because Apple isn't afraid to spend R&D money. And now that they are making money hand over fist, they care even less about R&D costs, or extra SKUs.
And, as I said before, when the Macs are gone, how are the iOS apps going to get developed? On Windows boxes? On Linux?
What you thinking makes absolutely no sense for the foreseeable future. And Apple can see pretty far out.
The direction Jobs seems to go, there will be no Apple laptops or desktops for you to buy. It will be all iPads and iPhones. And that is where I wish Apple good luck. I don't want to rely on limited devices.
Apple understands not having all their eggs in one basket. They are just trying to predict where industry trends in general are going. As I said above, if there are no Macs, then how do devs. write the apps in the first place? Do you really see Logic or FCP running on iOS anytime soon?
Think. Don't fall for the slashdot linkbait. TFA is nothing but sensationalistic hand-waving.
You sure about that ? From what I've seen, most people who have an Apple Product will forever purchase OTHER Mac products. They will purchase EVERY thing that Mac puts out (How many different Mac Laptop/Desktop have you owned/do you own, how many different version of iPad or their MP3 Players ?)
Perhaps you're different, I don't know.
This is a paradigm shift too far; it won't happen.
Why? Partially because Apple is now the industry leader in notebooks. And part of the reason for that is Windows compatibility. That is what is getting Apples to be accepted both in the boardroom as well as the livingroom, and they bloody well know it.
Now, you can talk all you want about MS playing around with porting Windows to ARM; but rest assured, MS cannot abandon x86; they just can't. To do so would be to commit software suicide. Yes, at its core, NT is basically as processor-agnostic as OS X; but the applications, drivers, DLLs, etc, are NOT. And MS is not moving the world to a "managed code" world like they planned, that would have made a processor transition far less painful.
And, although the A5 is a pretty sweet machine, especially considering its power consumption, it ain't no i7, and Apple knows it.
Will there continue to be a subtle merging of some iOS features and capabilities into OS X (and vice versa)? Sure. But it doesn't mean the end of OS X. Not at all. Or of Apple's commitment to the Intel roadmap. Intel is serving them just fine right now, and the ARM architecture has a long way to go to catch up.
What Jobs was saying is merely an extension of his remarks in March, 2011; where he pointed out that the majority of Apple's revenue comes from the sale of iOS devices, not Macs anymore.
Apple looks pretty far out into the future; and, IMHO, what Jobs is saying is that, in the next 10 years, there will be much less computing done on traditional towers, and even lappies, and that things like tablets will continue to become more commonplace, as they become more powerful. It does not mean the death of OS X as we know it. Afterall, who will then write all these apps? Apple? Even SJ isn't THAT arrogant. It will be quite a while before we see XCode running on iOS. And no, Apple will not keep OS X alive simply on the Mac Pro. That would be financially unfeasible. For every Mac Pro Apple sells, they sell 10,000 MacBook Pros and iMacs (guessing, but still...)
So, stand down from Red Alert. It simply ain't happenin' The article is nothing but slashdot linkbait. Don't feed the trolls.
Why not? Third party developers might have trouble writing an IDE that is distributable via the App Store, but Apple themselves are under no such restrictions. iOS is basically OS X at its core, so there is no underlying technical limitations preventing development on the iPad. The form factor my be less comfortable, but the bluetooth keyboard resolves most of the problem.
Apple has already talked about the "gorilla arm" syndrome, and why they don't have touchscreens on their lappies.
Nah, had they copied Android they'd have problems with apps randomly starting and draining the battery. I actually talked to an Android user the other day who was talking about reinstalling the OS because of app/battery problems. Between that a recent malware problems, I wonder if Android is the Windows of mobile phones. (yes, I know there is literally a WIndows for mobile phones already)
Yeah, it's a real shame that iOS is so deficient in features!
Is it that it is technically impossible or just monetarily infeasible?
It is not technically impossible. Under perfect conditions, it can be accomplished; especially if the hardware is very power-frugal, and the user demands are very light (no pun).
However, it is unlikely that most slashdotters (or most others) would be happy with the result. Or the fact that they would have to:
1. Compute only outside, and only on bright, sunshiny days. No computing on overcast, rainy days.
2. Live no farther North or South than about 30-40 deg. from the Equator, period.
2. Compute between the hours of 11am and 2pm (roughly) only.
3. Forego things like Flash, video playback, all gaming whatsoever (maybe Mahjongg, Solitaire, Minesweeper and Checkers would be ok) WiFi, backlit screens, and optical drives.
Now, having said all that, all of the above assumes a typical laptop that sucks down 40-75W or so. For example, a typical modern laptop supply is in the order of 60-90 W, so it has power to run the computer AND charge the battery in less than a day. But some netbooks might use closer to 20W. However, 20W is still higher than an PV array of the size contemplated would produce under all but the most ideal conditions, and FAR below what a "regular" lappie would need, even just sitting there at idle.
An iPad's power adapter is rated at a paltry 10W, and I believe you can run it and charge the batteries simultaneously. And of course, it can do media playback (but notice the conspicuous absence of Flash. Beginning to see why?) and gaming; but it also has a very power-frugal MCU, plus some sort of ridiculously-advanced power management going on (because no one else is getting the battery life that an iPad does). So maybe, you could do that with an iPad (or similar). But everyone on slashdot knows that iPads are only toys, so... (sorry, couldn't resist!). But even running an iPad wouldn't work under any but pretty good conditions.
Therefore, I'd call it "impractical", rather than "impossible".
Beyond any battery life, this is a MASSIVELY ANTI-GREEN laptop. It is more "Green" to run your laptop from the most polluting coal powered station you can find, than to buy this laptop!
Solar panels take 8-10 years, in direct sunlight in most ideal locations available to simply produce the energy required to manufacture them in the first place (maybe a year less in a desert). A laptop solar panel will NEVER recoup the energy required to produce it, never mind the actual laptop components.
This is the most polluting and wasteful concept ever possible.
This is aside any other downside of direct sunlight + computer screen....:S
Wish I had mod points left. You are EXACTLY correct.
That sure sounds like a true manufacturer's warning, fully self-contradictory.
On a more serious note, have you never seen a solar powered fan? There's no need to have a fast, high powered solar laptop if the goal is just to have a solar laptop. A six inch by 10 inch solar array can generate about 7 watts, and that's more than enough for a carefully designed, if somewhat feeble, netbook.
Yeah, I had one of those solar-powered fans. Totally useless, even in direct, bright sunlight.
And that's 7 W at 10 degrees North, on a cloudless day, at Noon.
What makes you think that it would *only* be solar powered? Is a charging port really that difficult?
Some back-of-the-book calculations suggest that it's not out of the ballpark. A large laptop keyboard like on my 17"-er may give you 1m^2 of surface area. You can get over 40% efficient solar cells (although they're expensive), and thus get 40W in ideal conditions, or more down-to-earth-priced solar cells and get 20W. Subtract for key interference, hands over the keyboard, suboptimal angles, blah blah blah and you're looking at ~20W and ~10W, respectively.
Most of the energy used by a large laptop is to power the screen; in the sun, all the moreso. The Apple approach allows you to get your light for the screen at 100% efficiency using the very sun that makes you need a bright screen to begin with, via reflection when available (using a backlight when not). So you can take all but the CCD out of the picture on that one. The other alternative is e-Ink, although that has its own downsides. Without most of the screen's power consumption, a power-optimized laptop could easy run on under 10W average.
So yeah, I think it's quite plausiible. Easy? No. Will there be show-stopper engineering difficulties? There certainly could be. But some quick calculations suggest it's plausible.
I really wish your engineering optimism would translate to the real world on this. But it just won't. Even Samsung can't make it work, and they have not only a huge R&D budget, but also the OWNER of the company pushing for it. Note also that Fujitsu, who is no engineering slouch, either, isn't pursuing this beyond the "Wouldn't this be cool" stage. Fujitsu has the ability to throw R&D resources at nearly any problem, electrical, mechanical, or physics-al. And if they have backed away from this game-changing concept, then there is a real reason.
Yes, PV cells have gotten a little better since 1990, and there are some mobile CPUs that are better on current consumption than what was available at that time, too
Ya think? Its a good thing you looked into this 20 years ago. You may have just saved this company from wasting their time.
Except that the Engineers at the well-heeled R&D department at Samsung don't seem to be having much luck right now, either; even with the Owner of the company pushing hard for it. Also note that Fujitsu has no plans to market this world-changing technology. Wonder why?
It's one of those things that looks quite do-able, until you actually try to make it work in the real world. What one of my former bosses used to refer to as a "Lab Queen".
He is close enough. I wouldn't go so far as calling him a moron. They have to improve the energy efficiency (significantly) of the components as well as the cells though. We are after all talking about energy! If we can build a solar powered vehicle or aircraft however basic it may be certainly a laptop isn't impossible. It might start out with a mouse pad like connection piece and require you to be in the sun along with a screen similar to a ebook reader that is b/w and a very low power cpu + wifi with very little functionality capability why wise. Probably no sound for instance, optical drive, usb ports, etc.
Ok, not a moron. His IQ may be higher than 60; however, as far as something you'd want to actually use to do anything more than a Kindle does when you are reading a book, I really don't think that would work. Especially not unless you live in an area that has cloudless skies every single day, and you can do all your work outside.
They sell solar powered calculators at the 99 cents store. That can be considered a solar powered laptop.
A laptop is little more than an overpowered calculator with some extra bells and whistles. Heck, even solar powered calculators have limited memory functions.
They can make a solar powered laptop. Sure, it's not going to be a quad core with lots of processing power and a fancy monitor, but they can make a solar powered laptop.
That solar-powered calculator has a direct-drive (not multiplexed) LCD display, and a "CPU" that probably runs at 32KHz, if that.
About 1992, a coworker and I seriously looked into doing a solar-powered laptop charger. The idea was going to be something that would either attach to the back of the lid, and/or detach and sit someplace convenient. Yes, I know there are solar trickle-chargers for things like boat batteries; but that's not the point.
When you start looking into this, you will soon find out that PV cells suck so incredibly hard that, unless you live someplace like Arizona, that the rated output of a typical PV cell, which is almost always rated at "1 standard sun" (I kid you not! It's a real unit-of-measure), is so far below that number, that you end up having to have something that folds-out like the solar-cell arrays on Skylab.
Yes, PV cells have gotten a little better since 1990, and there are some mobile CPUs that are better on current consumption than what was available at that time, too; but not enough to matter in either case; because so many people live in areas where their average sun exposure is closer to 0.5 Standard Sun, and they will never even get close to 1 Standard Sun's worth of solar energy.
It's a great idea; but it needs a real breakthrough to make it practical.
Slashdot Mirror
They had it for the release of iOS4. I don't know how full it was, but the point is still that unsigned code was run from the web. http://mashable.com/2010/08/02/ios-4-jailbreakme/
And I think that lasted for about a week. So?
Is this the one you type in the lock screen? I just found and read the article and it's unclear. If so, I thought the iPhone makes you wait longer and longer after consecutive failed attempts which would slow down a brute-force attack quite a bit. Also, I can't remember if it was an Exchange policy, a feature on the iPhone (or of Android), but I thought I remember seeing a setting that would wipe the phone after 10 consecutive failed attempts.
I sure hope not! I'd hate to have a brain-fade-day, and finger-flub/forget which password I was using and have my phone suddenly be wiped!
Time delays are very effective, and not so stupidly brutish. Of course, all those methods fail if you can simply torture the user...
I think he's talking about how you couldn't transfer music to iOS devices previously(via programs other than itunes), because iTunes did some funky stuff to it before transferring it to the device (I'm not too sharp on the specifics...). I know for a fact that this protection has been cracked for awhile now.
Oh, you mean the DRM that hasn't been there for HOW many years now?
Not to mention that the ability to jailbreak a device requires that the "breaker" be "console" to it: it must be in possession. As with any system, if you can sit console, your access and control can change dramatically. When someone can "jailbreak" an iPhone remotely (either through a wireless, wifi or bluetooth connection) with no interaction or permission of the owner or user of the device, then you have an argument.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I worry about with iOS 5's wireless updating and computerless setup features. We are but one encryption crack away from truly drive-by malware injection at that point. Apple has a very good track record with Software Update on OS X. Let's hope that these new iOS 5 features are just as robust!
You just essentially said that rooting a device has nothing to do with security.
Couldn't you jailbreak your iphone at one time simply by visiting a webpage? That sounds secure.
And wasn't there something like 65 apps that were riddled with malware on the Google Marketplace AT ONE TIME?
Both conditions are past-tense. And therefore, moot to the discussion of now and going forward.
But, let's see which condition RETURNS first...
You can manage multiple repositories with apt, just add a new line to your /etc/apt/sources.list. It's not the same.
Bet your parents can't.
Because you can package it and then manage it with apt (if it's worth the trouble).
But can your mom? Howabout your neighbors? Sisters? Brothers?
But I'll bet they can navigate something like the App Store, eventually find what they want, and get it onto their Mac or iOS device without having to bow and scrape to the Computer Priest of the family.
But come now, be honest, John; Computer Priest to Computer Priest: You much prefer it that way, as it was meant to be. Once more unto the breech! Cry havoc! And let loose the Configuration Files of IT!!!
You can start to see the outline of a marketing campaign that will convince people that they really don't need to have anything on their Mac that didn't come from Apple, one way or another.
I feel that way about Debian. It's an exaggeration, to be sure, but the mindset is the same. If I can't manage it with apt, why bother with it?
-l
Wow. This is exactly why Linux is doomed. You just can't see past your own little world-view.
You do realize, of course, that not one computer user in 10,000 (and that is not an exaggeration) is interested in apt-get, searching respositories, or any other of that sort of stuff, right?
As a long-time Mac user and owner of several Mac Pro and MacBook Pro machines, I find this transformation of "machines to make things with" to "machines you can consume content with" quite offensive.
Which of the 10 new Lion features that were spotlighted (no pun) did you think had to do with content CONSUMPTION?
1. Multitouch Gestures? Nope. Just providing some system-wide APIs for stuff that had inconsistent support in OS X.
2. Mission Control? Fullscreen Apps? Nope and Nope. Those were simply system-wide UI enhancements.
3. Lion Pricing and Distribution model? Nope. Apple taking advantage of their new software distribution system to both keep costs down, and to significantly cut down on wasted packaging, shipping and manufacturing. Or did you actually enjoy payng $130 instead of $30?
4. Automatic Save/Resume/Versioning. Nope. Obviously, no need to SAVE, RESTORE and VERSION if you're just CONSUMING content. Oh, and autosave and Resume actually harken back to the Lisa. And what's not to like about leveraging the power of journaling in an easy-to-use "Time-Machine-esque" format? Again, all about content CREATION.
5. Mac App Store. Well, if purchasing applications through a secure distribution method, that actually offers significant advantages and cost reductions to the user is "content consumption"...
6. Launch Pad. Nope. Simply an application browser. Obviously borrowed from iOS' Springboard, but not about CONTENT consumption, just application management and launching. I suppose you liked Stacks better?
7. Air Drop. Nope. Simply Bonjour-enabled ad-hoc filesharing. Not that cool for you and me, because we could set up a temporary network in a few clicks. But for a lot of people, that is a cool feature. Again, not about content CONSUMPTION; just a general-purpose peer-peer filesharing feature.
8. Changes to Mail? Nope. Just an update to a core app. And a very cool update at that.
Same goes for most of the non-featured-features. Resize windows from any edge; Lion Server as a paltry $50 add-on; FileVault 2; XSan built-in; Exchange 2010 Support; Application Sandboxing; Safari Architectural Enhancements; Merge Folders; Full-Screen Terminal; Braille Support; Windows Migration Assistant.
The list goes on and on. How are these a move to OS X being primarily about Content CONSUMPTION?!?
Now imagine some way to plug your iPad into a docking station of some sort, for all the functionality you'd be looking for at home. A home computer that even your mom could upgrade would certainly have a market.
Now that I HAVE predicted for a long time!
Remember, the original design goal of the Mac was the Dynabook, and the concept of "The computer as an appliance."
But that does not mean the death of OS X; only that OS X will gain touch features, and at some point, tablets will become powerful enough to run some true OS X stuff.
But we are a long, long, long way off from seeing, to name but two, Logic or Final Cut running on an iPad!
I do, however, see the MacBook (non-pro) and perhaps the Air, eventually merging with the iPad. We're almost there already. And even an iPad with Thunderbolt won't be the answer. At least not now. But, an iPad that "docks" through thunderbolt or WiFi to a Mac mini form-factor "home server"? Yeah, that might be the answer for a lot of use-cases. Not all; but a lot.
But that 'mini would still be running OS X pretty much as we know it today. Apple has carefully positioned each of their products for minimal overlap. They have little intention of knocking out whole swaths of their carefully thought-out and nurtured market-segments.
I don't own any modern Apple products, and it's pretty unlikely I'll be buying any in the future, but this really would be the smart move for Apple. I mean, the only real reason they still have desktops is because they always have, but it's not like that's what's making the business money. If you have two product lines, both requiring extensive R&D, and one of them makes you heaping endless piles of money while the other just kind of muddles along, it doesn't take a business genius to know what the smart move is.
You're lapping up the slashdot kool-aid.
It is normal for a large corporation, especially a tech-driven one like Apple, to have a consumer range of products and a more serious range of products. And guess what? The consumer products always sell more and have a greater profit margin; mostly because of economies-of-scale. And in part, the consumer products always end up subsidizing the R&D of the high-end stuff.
But guess also what? The buying power that the successful consumer products gives this hypothetical company, drives the cost of the high-end products down, thus making them less of a financial burden on the bottom line. And a company like Apple is now buying enough components that it makes sense to go ahead and make their contract manufacturers, for example, use things like 0402 and 0201 packaged passive components even in their desktop designs, again driving costs of the "premium" products down even further.
Do you really think that a company like Apple, who maintained a "shadow" copy of OS X (and all their applications) as a secret x86 build for over five years cares about a few extra dollars in their R&D budget? Take a look at their antenna design facility, for example. They could have contracted all that out, ya know. But they didn't. Why? Partially because of a need for secrecy; but also because Apple isn't afraid to spend R&D money. And now that they are making money hand over fist, they care even less about R&D costs, or extra SKUs.
And, as I said before, when the Macs are gone, how are the iOS apps going to get developed? On Windows boxes? On Linux?
What you thinking makes absolutely no sense for the foreseeable future. And Apple can see pretty far out.
The direction Jobs seems to go, there will be no Apple laptops or desktops for you to buy. It will be all iPads and iPhones. And that is where I wish Apple good luck. I don't want to rely on limited devices.
Apple understands not having all their eggs in one basket. They are just trying to predict where industry trends in general are going. As I said above, if there are no Macs, then how do devs. write the apps in the first place? Do you really see Logic or FCP running on iOS anytime soon?
Think. Don't fall for the slashdot linkbait. TFA is nothing but sensationalistic hand-waving.
You sure about that ? From what I've seen, most people who have an Apple Product will forever purchase OTHER Mac products. They will purchase EVERY thing that Mac puts out (How many different Mac Laptop/Desktop have you owned/do you own, how many different version of iPad or their MP3 Players ?)
Perhaps you're different, I don't know.
This is a paradigm shift too far; it won't happen.
Why? Partially because Apple is now the industry leader in notebooks. And part of the reason for that is Windows compatibility. That is what is getting Apples to be accepted both in the boardroom as well as the livingroom, and they bloody well know it.
Now, you can talk all you want about MS playing around with porting Windows to ARM; but rest assured, MS cannot abandon x86; they just can't. To do so would be to commit software suicide. Yes, at its core, NT is basically as processor-agnostic as OS X; but the applications, drivers, DLLs, etc, are NOT. And MS is not moving the world to a "managed code" world like they planned, that would have made a processor transition far less painful.
And, although the A5 is a pretty sweet machine, especially considering its power consumption, it ain't no i7, and Apple knows it.
Will there continue to be a subtle merging of some iOS features and capabilities into OS X (and vice versa)? Sure. But it doesn't mean the end of OS X. Not at all. Or of Apple's commitment to the Intel roadmap. Intel is serving them just fine right now, and the ARM architecture has a long way to go to catch up.
What Jobs was saying is merely an extension of his remarks in March, 2011; where he pointed out that the majority of Apple's revenue comes from the sale of iOS devices, not Macs anymore.
Apple looks pretty far out into the future; and, IMHO, what Jobs is saying is that, in the next 10 years, there will be much less computing done on traditional towers, and even lappies, and that things like tablets will continue to become more commonplace, as they become more powerful. It does not mean the death of OS X as we know it. Afterall, who will then write all these apps? Apple? Even SJ isn't THAT arrogant. It will be quite a while before we see XCode running on iOS. And no, Apple will not keep OS X alive simply on the Mac Pro. That would be financially unfeasible. For every Mac Pro Apple sells, they sell 10,000 MacBook Pros and iMacs (guessing, but still...)
So, stand down from Red Alert. It simply ain't happenin' The article is nothing but slashdot linkbait. Don't feed the trolls.
Why not? Third party developers might have trouble writing an IDE that is distributable via the App Store, but Apple themselves are under no such restrictions. iOS is basically OS X at its core, so there is no underlying technical limitations preventing development on the iPad. The form factor my be less comfortable, but the bluetooth keyboard resolves most of the problem.
Apple has already talked about the "gorilla arm" syndrome, and why they don't have touchscreens on their lappies.
It matters a lot, go try to install scummvm, or a tethering app. Either users get freedom or they lose choice.
Yeah, I just can't imagine how the iOS users stand only having 300,000 or so malware-free apps. The restrictions are horrible. Simply horrible.
Nah, had they copied Android they'd have problems with apps randomly starting and draining the battery. I actually talked to an Android user the other day who was talking about reinstalling the OS because of app/battery problems. Between that a recent malware problems, I wonder if Android is the Windows of mobile phones. (yes, I know there is literally a WIndows for mobile phones already)
Yeah, it's a real shame that iOS is so deficient in features!
Which was a 'clone' of OSX, which was a 'clone' of Mach, which was a 'clone' of BSD, which was a 'clone' of Unix, and so on and so forth.
I'm pretty sure that they were referring to the general UI design.
Is it that it is technically impossible or just monetarily infeasible?
It is not technically impossible. Under perfect conditions, it can be accomplished; especially if the hardware is very power-frugal, and the user demands are very light (no pun).
However, it is unlikely that most slashdotters (or most others) would be happy with the result. Or the fact that they would have to:
1. Compute only outside, and only on bright, sunshiny days. No computing on overcast, rainy days.
2. Live no farther North or South than about 30-40 deg. from the Equator, period.
2. Compute between the hours of 11am and 2pm (roughly) only.
3. Forego things like Flash, video playback, all gaming whatsoever (maybe Mahjongg, Solitaire, Minesweeper and Checkers would be ok) WiFi, backlit screens, and optical drives.
Now, having said all that, all of the above assumes a typical laptop that sucks down 40-75W or so. For example, a typical modern laptop supply is in the order of 60-90 W, so it has power to run the computer AND charge the battery in less than a day. But some netbooks might use closer to 20W. However, 20W is still higher than an PV array of the size contemplated would produce under all but the most ideal conditions, and FAR below what a "regular" lappie would need, even just sitting there at idle.
An iPad's power adapter is rated at a paltry 10W, and I believe you can run it and charge the batteries simultaneously. And of course, it can do media playback (but notice the conspicuous absence of Flash. Beginning to see why?) and gaming; but it also has a very power-frugal MCU, plus some sort of ridiculously-advanced power management going on (because no one else is getting the battery life that an iPad does). So maybe, you could do that with an iPad (or similar). But everyone on slashdot knows that iPads are only toys, so... (sorry, couldn't resist!). But even running an iPad wouldn't work under any but pretty good conditions.
Therefore, I'd call it "impractical", rather than "impossible".
Beyond any battery life, this is a MASSIVELY ANTI-GREEN laptop. It is more "Green" to run your laptop from the most polluting coal powered station you can find, than to buy this laptop!
Solar panels take 8-10 years, in direct sunlight in most ideal locations available to simply produce the energy required to manufacture them in the first place (maybe a year less in a desert). A laptop solar panel will NEVER recoup the energy required to produce it, never mind the actual laptop components.
This is the most polluting and wasteful concept ever possible.
This is aside any other downside of direct sunlight + computer screen.... :S
Wish I had mod points left. You are EXACTLY correct.
That sure sounds like a true manufacturer's warning, fully self-contradictory.
On a more serious note, have you never seen a solar powered fan? There's no need to have a fast, high powered solar laptop if the goal is just to have a solar laptop. A six inch by 10 inch solar array can generate about 7 watts, and that's more than enough for a carefully designed, if somewhat feeble, netbook.
Yeah, I had one of those solar-powered fans. Totally useless, even in direct, bright sunlight.
And that's 7 W at 10 degrees North, on a cloudless day, at Noon.
What makes you think that it would *only* be solar powered? Is a charging port really that difficult?
Some back-of-the-book calculations suggest that it's not out of the ballpark. A large laptop keyboard like on my 17"-er may give you 1m^2 of surface area. You can get over 40% efficient solar cells (although they're expensive), and thus get 40W in ideal conditions, or more down-to-earth-priced solar cells and get 20W. Subtract for key interference, hands over the keyboard, suboptimal angles, blah blah blah and you're looking at ~20W and ~10W, respectively.
Most of the energy used by a large laptop is to power the screen; in the sun, all the moreso. The Apple approach allows you to get your light for the screen at 100% efficiency using the very sun that makes you need a bright screen to begin with, via reflection when available (using a backlight when not). So you can take all but the CCD out of the picture on that one. The other alternative is e-Ink, although that has its own downsides. Without most of the screen's power consumption, a power-optimized laptop could easy run on under 10W average.
So yeah, I think it's quite plausiible. Easy? No. Will there be show-stopper engineering difficulties? There certainly could be. But some quick calculations suggest it's plausible.
I really wish your engineering optimism would translate to the real world on this. But it just won't. Even Samsung can't make it work, and they have not only a huge R&D budget, but also the OWNER of the company pushing for it. Note also that Fujitsu, who is no engineering slouch, either, isn't pursuing this beyond the "Wouldn't this be cool" stage. Fujitsu has the ability to throw R&D resources at nearly any problem, electrical, mechanical, or physics-al. And if they have backed away from this game-changing concept, then there is a real reason.
Yes, PV cells have gotten a little better since 1990, and there are some mobile CPUs that are better on current consumption than what was available at that time, too
Ya think? Its a good thing you looked into this 20 years ago. You may have just saved this company from wasting their time.
Except that the Engineers at the well-heeled R&D department at Samsung don't seem to be having much luck right now, either; even with the Owner of the company pushing hard for it. Also note that Fujitsu has no plans to market this world-changing technology. Wonder why?
It's one of those things that looks quite do-able, until you actually try to make it work in the real world. What one of my former bosses used to refer to as a "Lab Queen".
He is close enough. I wouldn't go so far as calling him a moron. They have to improve the energy efficiency (significantly) of the components as well as the cells though. We are after all talking about energy! If we can build a solar powered vehicle or aircraft however basic it may be certainly a laptop isn't impossible. It might start out with a mouse pad like connection piece and require you to be in the sun along with a screen similar to a ebook reader that is b/w and a very low power cpu + wifi with very little functionality capability why wise. Probably no sound for instance, optical drive, usb ports, etc.
Ok, not a moron. His IQ may be higher than 60; however, as far as something you'd want to actually use to do anything more than a Kindle does when you are reading a book, I really don't think that would work. Especially not unless you live in an area that has cloudless skies every single day, and you can do all your work outside.
They sell solar powered calculators at the 99 cents store. That can be considered a solar powered laptop.
A laptop is little more than an overpowered calculator with some extra bells and whistles. Heck, even solar powered calculators have limited memory functions.
They can make a solar powered laptop. Sure, it's not going to be a quad core with lots of processing power and a fancy monitor, but they can make a solar powered laptop.
That solar-powered calculator has a direct-drive (not multiplexed) LCD display, and a "CPU" that probably runs at 32KHz, if that.
Forget Turing; lets talk Miller, Watt and Ohm.
About 1992, a coworker and I seriously looked into doing a solar-powered laptop charger. The idea was going to be something that would either attach to the back of the lid, and/or detach and sit someplace convenient. Yes, I know there are solar trickle-chargers for things like boat batteries; but that's not the point.
When you start looking into this, you will soon find out that PV cells suck so incredibly hard that, unless you live someplace like Arizona, that the rated output of a typical PV cell, which is almost always rated at "1 standard sun" (I kid you not! It's a real unit-of-measure), is so far below that number, that you end up having to have something that folds-out like the solar-cell arrays on Skylab.
Yes, PV cells have gotten a little better since 1990, and there are some mobile CPUs that are better on current consumption than what was available at that time, too; but not enough to matter in either case; because so many people live in areas where their average sun exposure is closer to 0.5 Standard Sun, and they will never even get close to 1 Standard Sun's worth of solar energy.
It's a great idea; but it needs a real breakthrough to make it practical.