Let's not forget who we're dealing with here. Apple makes their business duping people and manipulating people into thinking thing's are magical. The heavy-handed way they deal with press is well known.
That said, all it takes is one "leaked" story or one bough-and-paid-for (or influenced) study or online news site to say that its a bust and poof! Malware makers will suddenly think it's not profitable to write malware for iOS/OS X.
So don't buy it. Apple has had a history of malware, and a record amount of malware and vulnerabilities in it's user software (Quicktime, ITunes, Safari, etc.).
Apple malware will rise. And their BS sandboxing method isn't gonna stop it.
All I can say is good riddance. I'm glad that a shitty game with an even shittier DRM practice is not rewarded. We should be happy about this.
Remember all the hub-bub that KoA was getting about even though it was single player you couldn't get 1/3 the game unless you purchased new? Yet all of a sudden, even though it's average score was a 7, it was getting rave or good comments all over every game sites message board. The astroturfing was so obvious and egregious. And the problem was, it was so prevalent and everywhere people actually genuinely believed it was a good game.
What pissed me off more though is that everyone was carrying torches the day before it was released about the DRM, and then "they just bent over and took it."
So I say good riddances and thank god. Because if that game sold well, you know damn well that would open the floodgates to needing online passes for single player games forever on...consoles!
Haha. The irony after I posted that is not lost on me. Tetris is made by Ea. Your post made me chuckle. But you're right, it is EA's fault. And dropbox's.
Though to be pedantic and address your other point, MS depracating 16 bit support is a little harsh. 16-bit binaries weren't in use for 10 years, 8 if you want to be conservative. I can't stand how people knock MS for not supporting shit when Apple drops their shit they made last year or two. But anyway.
I agree with you on shitty app makers. I posed on this last week I think. Everything except for certain things that absolutely require it should be platform agnostic HTML5 apps. It's the future.
And as much as I hate to admit it, Android does have holes. Example, once just came out then hijacks the browser and installs malicious software that also runs in the browser, even when the web browser isn't in the foreground and you're viewing it. So we do need security updates. This shit was stopped in ICS, but short of 2 phones on the major 4 networks are still on like 2.3.0!:-( Now this is not to say that iOS doesnt have exploits. They actually have a lot lately and that's pretty pathetic considering they control both the software AND hardware, AND they only have 3 phones to support. So they get no pass from me. In fact, they're terrible considering how easy it should be. Then again, Apple computers were never secure. It's just that stupid fanboys stuck their fingers in their ears and went "la-la-la can't hear u" so much that the meme actually stuck.
I think you have your dates backwards. The whole point is that in 1992, you HAD to learn how to save files and all of the quirky differences between a hard drive and a floppy disk, and the characters you are and are not allowed to use in a filename, and so on. In 2012, people want to just use their device without worrying that there is a filesystem underneath. (Make no mistake, iOS has a full-blown filesystem under the hood.) Not to mention the security concerns involved in letting any app access any file it wants. That was DOS in 1992, not a modern, secure OS.
A few rebuttals. It doesn't matter what year it is, 2012 or not, people always want to not learn something or not do something. People are lazy most of the time. Do you honestly think this statement is sane: "in 2012, people don't want to deal with password protecting their router. they just want to leave it open for anyone to use." Yea, they're lazy, don't want to learn (notice this common theme I'm getting at) and take 1 basic safety precaution (again, common theme: learn a few simple things that they refuse to do). As a result, lots of dangerous things happen.
As for the rest, yes iOS has a full blown filesystem. But they're actively *preventing* us from using it. So does iOS have a FS? No. Next as for not letting any app have access. That I agree with you in theory. I forgot about that. But in reality, it just hampers us and gets in the way with no benefit. And did you forget the fact that (and yet again it comes to light) there was a simple solution in the desktop world? It's called "not blindly clicking on an application unless you know its safe." And didn't/. just post a few articles about iOS so called sandboxing permissions appl must use now, and how they're effectively worthless security-wise? Let's put this succintly: security is a process, not a one-off solution. Malicious people will always find a circumvention. Malicious people probably are finding it too easy using the same browser method that jailbreaks a device to get root on your iDevice and it's so easy they're not bothering to rely on email phishing because all it takes is a simple malicious ad injection on web page. Also, see 5.1.1 bugfixes regarding the ability to spoof the URL and say it's the actual web page.
You might also note that iOS has an Open With... system that lets you open files with other apps. I just tapped on a PDF in Dropbox and got offered to open it in iBooks, GoodReader, Kindle, SUndry Notes, and Box. I tapped on a movie in GoodReader and it offered to open it in VLC, Dropbox, and Box, too.
No "Open With" is not available, period. PDF's are the exception because iOS has that built-in for programs to use. For anything else, doesn't exist. Maybe IIRC the only other exception is for H264 files, and ONLY H264 files from DropBox.
Your phone is a phone, not a desktop computer, and that's the way the vast majority of phone users want it.
No, it's a smartphone, a portable computer. And this is common knowledge now: calling is one of the last features people use on a smartphone.
Ever see the pages of most of the people on Facebook? Girls, posing in clubs with the smoochy lips, in slutty clothes at a club with a drink in their hand. Guys, shirtless, at a club, or with drinks in their hands.
Now keep in mind I'm speaking from the viewpoint as a male in my early thirties who is successful career-wise. Have you ever met people at those clubs and lounges? Most ARE losers. Yea, they look good. Except they have jobs that pay $30k or less, and spend their entire paycheck on fancy expensive clothes and all drive brand new 3 series BMW's or C-class mercedes. When I used to make 70k a year I couldn't even afford that!
Also, wasn't there an article a while back saying that while FB has presence, a business (not celeb-utant or other personality) doesn't see ROI for its brand on a facebook page?
Take it from me. I used to be a Director or Marketing. At the end, it's all about the ROI. GM's marketing analysts crunched the numbers and said "fuck it--not worth it." Just because something is all hyped up doesn't make it worthwhile. Look at Apple: everyone thinks that the App Store makes millionaries, when it reality 70% don't even break even and the rest make $10k per year AT BEST.
We get so screwed. Thing is, they offer it so low that for the price of an un-subbed phone, you can buy one now, and buy another in two years. But then we don't get the updates or support. And they don't give a discount (short of t-mobile IIRC) if you buy your own phone outright, so why shell out the full price?
Now google gave you the option recently (it was done a while back but they pulled it) to buy it directly from them. However, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) it will only work for t-mo or att. Not verizon or sprint. So if we like a carrier, we may not even have the option.
How do updates work for you? Is it as simple as going to system and checking for updates? And do they download directly from Google and stay reasonably up to date? Or do you actually have download a ROM from google and actually connect it to your PC and transfer it?
Consider the placing of files on a filesystem. The number of times I've had to help people find images, movies, other files, on their phone because they didn't know where it was. Was it on the internal memory, was it on a memory card. It shouldn't matter. They just want to look at the picture, not learn how the filesystem on their phone is organised. Its unnecessary detail. Its a design choice to make things easier to understand.
You know I've thought about that. I guess you're right about not needed to know where a file was. But the problem is big when you need a.docx file and download it from your email and view it in say Dataviz office or whatever it's called. You can't. You have to set up a convoluted cloud sync or worse transfer it via iTunes (there was an article back on OSNews describing this. It was like 7 steps and using menus buried so deep I wouldn't even find it). Or media. You have a MP3 to play. Why can't I just put a MP3 on it? Ok, so I manage to get it on via dropbox. Why can't I just click on the mp3 and have itunes play it? No, dropbox actually had to develop its own media player to play it.
This whole thing was figured out decades ago. It was called a filesystem. It's the best and most efficient solution out there. Everything has its negatives. And also to your other good point, yes users don't care about learning. But I grow tired of that. Users should be forced to learn a few things. This isn't 1992. This is 2012. If you can't be bothered to learn how to save a file properly, get off the computer. That's like saying you're not responsible for learning how to put a car in gear or how to put gas in your car (NJ has an excuse because we've always had our gas pumped for us). Yes, some things really are required to learn how to operate. Not only that, but MS dumps everything into "My Documents" anyway. If a user can't find it there, don't help them. They're a lost cause--and worse, they don't want to learn and want you to do everything for them. They want you to be their computer servant.
Consider why Google is so keen on making Android a success. Its nothing to do with battling the evil of Apple. Its nothing to do with fighting the OSS fight. Its nothing to do with making the data free. Its all about keeping Google relevant in the post-PC world and ensuring they are able to deliver GoogleAds to as many people as possible and thus maintain an income. This move by Google is to make sure that their partners stick with Android and don't go off and do their own thing.
Again, you are right. However, Google has a responsibility to make sure security is at least up to date. Millions of phones vulnerable to malware is their responsibility. People put more personal stuff on their phones than anything. Even MS with Windows has taken this cause to heart over the course of the decade. And it should be their responsibility anything because once the mainstream gets wind that "Android gets viruses" they will happily flock to Apple (who no doubt will brag that they don't even though its not true).
Sell a vanilla OEM version for like $50 that be completely up to date and fresh with no bloatware. Distribute that money to carriers and manufacturers so they still get a cut so as not have them block/whine. Make it hidden so it doesn't affect all the so-called BS value added the carrier and manuf make. This way only those who really need it will get it.
MS does this. You can get Windows preinstalled with all the BS and bloatware. Or you can buy the official retail copy for $X.
I don't disagree with you on that one. The official google phone is the ONLY one to buy IMHO. Although even that isn't a panacea. My buddy has the Galaxy Nexus on verizon and it's only on 4.0.2, STILL. Wasn't that released aaaalll the way back in January? And that's the standard dev phone that is supposed to always give the current updates. There has been two updates since then!
Also, it would be nice for other handset makers to deliver updates. While I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole because I hate Sense and HTC is atrocious with updates, the One X has great GPU and battery life. What if I wanted that? Can't have it because I know with any other manuf that I won't get 4.0.4 for another 6 months!
The bulk of Nvidia's revenue comes from low cost cards. Think laptop, low-end discrete desktop, and in the future, the Tegra platform. So it's not being profitable from your 680 or 670 flagships. So that eliminates your entire premise to begin with.
Not only that, but the money is *always* in OEM's and volume shipments. It's always in enterprise. Why do you think every computer manufacturer focuses on the enterprise? Why do you think HP dumped its consumer biz to focus on its profitable enterprise even though it was #1 in the market?
And it won't be a dozen clusters. I'd be betting they're making this to sell to MS or Sony for an on-live like deal for the consoles that will run along side traditional gaming. They're gonna do bad-ass graphics eventually, made "cheap" by server farms and economies of scale, to deliver stuff. But this takes big server farms. Jesus Christ, I mean doesn't Facebook alone have like 100,000 servers? That's just one company. And because it's enterprise, their margins could be a lot higher. So they make more money by selling less units AND they don't have to deal with whiny retail individual consumers like you.
You're thinking is short-sided and reactionary. Thank god Nvidia isn't like that.
Kudos to Nvidia actually. It's brilliant. They are developing this technology because quite frankly, this is the future. Remember using ray-tracing in games? They can use a whole farm of this stuff and develop fantastic graphics. Not only that, but the fact that they are developing it means they want to sell it. See where this is going? Consoles. I wouldn't be surprised a streaming component (onlive-like) was released on the new consoles alongside normal games. They could gradually phase out normal local games within 2 console cycles. Also, this allows devs to have massive computational power available for the intensive stuff like real-time lighting, physics, and AI. And not only this, it will actually be feasible due to economies of scale. Yea lighting may be "expensive" for a video card, but when you have a farm running it in the petaflops, it doesn't seem all that "expensive" or expensive (as in hardware dollar cost).
The console model is not sustainable long term. Not only that, but when game development is measured between 4-6 *years* now, how can a company plan development for a console cycle. I bought a whole bunch of games for my consoles that in the next year or two may not even work when the new consoles are released (think disabling of patching servers which affect even single player).
Look, I don't disagree with you. I think we should do everything locally, not server-side ("in the cloud" BS). I'm just saying is that there are some pretty cool benefits that may erupt. And quite frankly, if online would offer say like BF3 or Crysis 2 at max settings streamed, I'd never buy a gaming machine or console again.
Let's hope that this fixes or mitigates the one flaw of android: no updates.
Let me precede with this: Android is the superior OS. iOS fanboys and others alike (i'll probably get modded down for this) will argue. But iOS is completely inferior to Android. But this is not to start a flamewar. The one thing where iOS kicks android's ass is updates and compatibility. And notice I said updates: iOS updates and security do not go hand in hand (withness the MYRIAD of exploits for iOS). But again not starting a flamewar here.
But Android gets no updates! Jesus christ. Just now, like 6 months later, are flagship models just a few months ago getting ICS. Make no mistake, if it was a dumbphone, who cares. But these are minuture computers. They need updates for security sake, if anything. Even though iOS isn't secure and has lots of exploits, at least they're patched in the next version. Android? Good luck. And the problem is that we keep more sensative data on our smartphone than our desktop.
Also is the compatibility. Close friend just got the official android phone, the galaxy nexus. And know what? Tetris, made by EA, didn't work a few times. And another app too, dropbox I believe. Not apps by little shit devs who don't have the resources to provide bugfixes. The fact that apps aren't compatible with the so-called official android flagship is pathetic.
I'm ranting because I want Android to fix this. It's a HUGE issue. And I can't vote with my feet because I'll never go back to the iPhone (had a 3GS). It's really like using a toy vs. a real OS*.
* example: iOS doesn't allow Firefox Mobile. Which is a godsend with its ability for add-ons like Adblock on a mobile phone. Or iOS doesn't have the ability to place files in a filesystem so that another application can use a file, like a movie or PDF I put on the phone.
Good post. Very unlike most./ posts, which is a good thing.
disclaimer (not directed at you gman): don't read this post if ur a typical/.'er who likes to repeats BS memes and also only posts stupid knee-jerk reaction whining comments. And posted now from my own account.
i havent tried gakai. no idea how it runs. but i tried onlive. it does actually work. really well actually. the only complaints i've found:
1) the game is playable over a higher latency/slower wi-fi connection. if u want the best though, you MUST play over ethernet. also, you must have a router that can handle it too. if you don't, play on a direct connection (ethernet directly into your modem) 2) the only type of game that is left wanting is *multiplayer* FPS. It's actually pretty workable regardless, but while i can't complain about input latency at all on any the game/type of game, this could be a complaint for some 3) use a controller. it masks a lot of the latency. actually this might be competition for consoles moreso than pc. because consoles rely on controllers with games to mask low framerates, this could actually make onlive if it wants to make high resolution games available a viable competitor.
i'm divided on everyone here complaining about DRM and server-side games. As all engineers know, everything has a cost & benefit. My take:
Benefit:
I can play any game at medium detail on *anything*. I have an aging C2D with a 8800 GTS 512. I can't play my two favorite games right now: BF3 and Arma 2 (note to you two devs, an onlive release would be awesome--see below). Not because of my card mind you. This is the first time (due to every dev making PC games just console ports) that I can't run a game at ANY setting (maybe EVERYTHING at low but I can't stand that eyesore) due to my CPU (which Im shocked at). And With streaming, when I travel for business or when i'm just on the couch and don't want to get up, I can play from my netbook or even just from my android phone.
Portability. I really do love this one. I visit family a lot. No problem. When I go over, just log in on their computer and play. My save game is even available. Just pop right in. I don't have to lug a gaming machine or a console carrying case everywhere I go. And as a side note, I want the PC game or full console version. Don't say "buy an iPhone." I have a disconnected 3GS with a ton of games. I don't want to play punch the monkey games or ports of SNES/PS2 games. I played them in the 90s. I want FULL modern games and portability.
NO install. I cant tell u how refreshing this is. This may even beat consoles on this one because anyone with a PS3 knows that it takes 2 hours of installing and codes to get any new game running. And PC gamers, this is for u GFWL. I like GFWL for the reason that I don't need to buy from Steam to get auto-updating. I can buy the retail disc from anyone and get easy patching. BUT when it comes to install (yea I'm looking at u bioshock) when it takes logging in like 3 times and 3 restarts, i want to kill GFWL. Onlive: just select your game and ur done.
Costs
Medium detail at 720p resolution. Now, consoles are aging. Offer people with good connections max 1080p resolution at max settings. Any game in your catalog doesn't need more than a cheap 7850 radeon to play at max. I want to play games at max settings but I just don't really give a shit anymore about building or even buying another computer with gaming in mind. I have a high-level job and in my early thirties. I don't have the time for that shit anymore. And I don't even want a desktop anymore. And that said, a gaming laptop is just too heavy and big for me. Even that new alienware 14 is too big and heavy. And while the solution may be a console (and i have both), unless it's well done, games look like ass. And as a side note, even if u have to compress the hell outta a 1080p picture, its better to do so than stick with 720p. Ever compress a JPG from a compressed JPG? Looks like shit. That's why
The only use I've seen is what you've mentioned. Taking a picture of a barcode. That-is-it.
That and voice and video chat (remember Chatroulette?), or query by speech (remember Goog 411?), or query by recorded music (Shazam).
Man, you picked some great examples to counter with. Chatroulette? Really? Search for south park and chatroulette. Who in their right mind would want that site is beyond me. And Shazam. It illustrates my point perfectly. People whip it out at bars, use it once to show off to their friends (and make themselves look like a douche in the process), and then never use it again.
I'm not arguing that we don't need dedicated programs for certain things/functions or high-performance demanding applications. We do. I said that most apps don't need native apps, that HTML5 can serve that. Then someone mentioned ARG programs. And I said they all blow (example: see "Shazam" or "Chatroutlette"). What's your point?
Bag of crap? You mean like the phones that, short of not having 1000 "Punch the Monkey" and Piano playing Apps, shit on rival smartphones?
- The same smartphone that gets 3-5 battery life vs. Android's 1 and Apple's 1.5 days?
- The same email client that shits on iOS mail in features, speed, abilities, hotkeys and a myriad of other things
- The same phone that has had true multitasking since IIRC before 2005, but Apple still doesn't have? And BTW if it impacts battery life so much, why does BB's beat iOS battery life by 3-5x?
I could go on and on, but I'm just tired of arguing with Meme repeaters and FUD sprayers.
Fact is, RIM's worst bag of crap is other vendors platinum and gold.
Performance is really that bad? Does it really bog down app performance that bad? The entire thing fits on a floppy or two. How could it be resource intensive?
I'll give you credit. It was an insightful read. But there are fundamental flaws.
Apple has, in no way shape or form, ever cared about developers or the demand of developers. They still do not, to this day.
The switch to native Apps on the iPhone was due to only 2 reasons:
Lock people in. This is Apple's MO, entire business model. Lock people in to the App Store to make money and keep people from easily switching to another vendor. It's a PITA when you just spent $100 apps. You'll say: "eh, I spent enough, I'll just buy another iPhone." At the time of the first iPhone, while everyone else was on 3G, apple was a slow as shit EDGE phone. Since data transfers were soooooo slow, like dial-up modem slow, keeping as much as possible locally was a necessity.
Today, with Quad core phones, 1GB of RAM, and 4G data connections which are *faster* than most wired cable connections, things are now different.
And the more power, features, tools, and freedom we give to developers, the better.
You're right. IIRC it's like 70-80% of ITunes App Store revenue is from games.
But there was a good article on Gamasutra a month or two ago. Basically, the new "hotness" is making HTML5 games. No 30% cut, cross platform, even pick up the game on your desktop.
And going by the quality of how most of the games on the App Store are, "Punch the Monkey" and flinging angry birds don't exactly demands hard-core native performance.
Most apps that use this are crap. People are going crazy over ARG. Except it ends up sucking. In reality and practical use, putting shit all over a photo on the street blows. People would rather glance at a Google Maps picture real quick.
The only use I've seen is what you've mentioned. Taking a picture of a barcode. That-is-it.
Wait, who am I talking to--it's you Tepples. Who comes to every video game comment thread and shills that consoles are better because of local co-op. In fact, I just read in a story this week. Sure enough, it was you.
Except the fact that I've had a blackberry and an iPhone, and yet the BB shits all over the iPhone in productivity, security, and phone functions and features. The dedicated back button and shortcut keys alone allow me to zip around so fast and efficiently its retarded. Once you get past playing the piano on the iPhone and playing a few games, when you need a *smartphone* to actually do anything, things get a little different.
That said though, I do think you are right. People don't care about having the best and most natural smartphone. All they care about is that they get to play "Punch the Monkey" and the $1000 "I am Rich" app from the "App Store".
Yet mobile web apps still end up working and looking better than the actual hard-coded apps for the respective platforms. I mentioned this in another post, but it bears repeating. I have an iPhone, and guess what:
- Most apps are total garbage - Apps crash constantly, even all these years later - Unblockable, unstoppable, obnoxious ads (I'm looking at you CNET and IGN with your VIDEOS every other webpage on a CELLPHONE connection--3G, data caps and all) - Most apps are missing about 80% of the desktop/webpage's features - Most apps don't even do encrypted ANYTHING. You know shit is bad when a *webpage* is more secure than a hard-coded true application on a trusted system should be. See Path, Southwest Airlines App, and pretty much 70% of all other Apps that deal with logins and sensitive data.
After all this, using a mobile version of a webpage, or using the "desktop view" in 3rd party web browsers is a GODSEND.
Ok I gleaned one thing: Android and iOS people get paid.
I don't have the few articles on hand, but do you mean where most developers don't make enough to even break even, and the ones who do generate 10k per year. They would make more working at McDonalds.
So? It's funny that this article was just posted. That past few months I've been thinking the same thing. Regardless of platform, the future is the (mobile) web.
See, I have an iPhone. I used all the apps. You know where I spend most of my time now? Mobile Safari. Why?
- Most apps are total garbage - Apps crash constantly, even all these years later - Unblockable, unstoppable, obnoxious ads (I'm looking at you CNET and IGN with your VIDEOS every other webpage on a CELLPHONE connection--3G, data caps and all) - Most apps are missing about 80% of the desktop/webpage's features - Most apps don't even do encrypted ANYTHING. You know shit is bad when a *webpage* is more secure than a hard-coded true application on a trusted system should be. See Path, Southwest Airlines App, and pretty much 70% of all other Apps that deal with logins and sensitive data.
The mobile web wasn't truly feasible as an app delivery mechanism though until now--with the advent of ubiquitous HTML5 browsers and most especially 4G connections. Now shit is fast enough to actually use! And this is where it's going to go. No more dealing with restrictive app stores, 30% loss of revenue, a different client for each phone. Using Mobile Safari/Android Browser is a godsend for sites--things don't crash! And nevermind the fact that with Android and Skyfire/Opera for iPhone, I can actually view the *desktop* version and utilize the full featured normal desktop web page version! It's like night and day.
Who knew that when Apple wasn't able to deliver flash on the iPhone through incompetence and the desire to lock people into the ITunes/App Store universe via promoting HTML5, it would actually start the revolution of freeing people from their own ecosystem.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget who we're dealing with here. Apple makes their business duping people and manipulating people into thinking thing's are magical. The heavy-handed way they deal with press is well known.
That said, all it takes is one "leaked" story or one bough-and-paid-for (or influenced) study or online news site to say that its a bust and poof! Malware makers will suddenly think it's not profitable to write malware for iOS/OS X.
So don't buy it. Apple has had a history of malware, and a record amount of malware and vulnerabilities in it's user software (Quicktime, ITunes, Safari, etc.).
Apple malware will rise. And their BS sandboxing method isn't gonna stop it.
All I can say is good riddance. I'm glad that a shitty game with an even shittier DRM practice is not rewarded. We should be happy about this.
Remember all the hub-bub that KoA was getting about even though it was single player you couldn't get 1/3 the game unless you purchased new? Yet all of a sudden, even though it's average score was a 7, it was getting rave or good comments all over every game sites message board. The astroturfing was so obvious and egregious. And the problem was, it was so prevalent and everywhere people actually genuinely believed it was a good game.
What pissed me off more though is that everyone was carrying torches the day before it was released about the DRM, and then "they just bent over and took it."
So I say good riddances and thank god. Because if that game sold well, you know damn well that would open the floodgates to needing online passes for single player games forever on...consoles!
Ugh.
Haha. The irony after I posted that is not lost on me. Tetris is made by Ea. Your post made me chuckle. But you're right, it is EA's fault. And dropbox's.
Though to be pedantic and address your other point, MS depracating 16 bit support is a little harsh. 16-bit binaries weren't in use for 10 years, 8 if you want to be conservative. I can't stand how people knock MS for not supporting shit when Apple drops their shit they made last year or two. But anyway.
I agree with you on shitty app makers. I posed on this last week I think. Everything except for certain things that absolutely require it should be platform agnostic HTML5 apps. It's the future.
And as much as I hate to admit it, Android does have holes. Example, once just came out then hijacks the browser and installs malicious software that also runs in the browser, even when the web browser isn't in the foreground and you're viewing it. So we do need security updates. This shit was stopped in ICS, but short of 2 phones on the major 4 networks are still on like 2.3.0! :-( Now this is not to say that iOS doesnt have exploits. They actually have a lot lately and that's pretty pathetic considering they control both the software AND hardware, AND they only have 3 phones to support. So they get no pass from me. In fact, they're terrible considering how easy it should be. Then again, Apple computers were never secure. It's just that stupid fanboys stuck their fingers in their ears and went "la-la-la can't hear u" so much that the meme actually stuck.
I think you have your dates backwards. The whole point is that in 1992, you HAD to learn how to save files and all of the quirky differences between a hard drive and a floppy disk, and the characters you are and are not allowed to use in a filename, and so on. In 2012, people want to just use their device without worrying that there is a filesystem underneath. (Make no mistake, iOS has a full-blown filesystem under the hood.) Not to mention the security concerns involved in letting any app access any file it wants. That was DOS in 1992, not a modern, secure OS.
A few rebuttals. It doesn't matter what year it is, 2012 or not, people always want to not learn something or not do something. People are lazy most of the time. Do you honestly think this statement is sane: "in 2012, people don't want to deal with password protecting their router. they just want to leave it open for anyone to use." Yea, they're lazy, don't want to learn (notice this common theme I'm getting at) and take 1 basic safety precaution (again, common theme: learn a few simple things that they refuse to do). As a result, lots of dangerous things happen.
As for the rest, yes iOS has a full blown filesystem. But they're actively *preventing* us from using it. So does iOS have a FS? No. Next as for not letting any app have access. That I agree with you in theory. I forgot about that. But in reality, it just hampers us and gets in the way with no benefit. And did you forget the fact that (and yet again it comes to light) there was a simple solution in the desktop world? It's called "not blindly clicking on an application unless you know its safe." And didn't /. just post a few articles about iOS so called sandboxing permissions appl must use now, and how they're effectively worthless security-wise? Let's put this succintly: security is a process, not a one-off solution. Malicious people will always find a circumvention. Malicious people probably are finding it too easy using the same browser method that jailbreaks a device to get root on your iDevice and it's so easy they're not bothering to rely on email phishing because all it takes is a simple malicious ad injection on web page. Also, see 5.1.1 bugfixes regarding the ability to spoof the URL and say it's the actual web page.
You might also note that iOS has an Open With... system that lets you open files with other apps. I just tapped on a PDF in Dropbox and got offered to open it in iBooks, GoodReader, Kindle, SUndry Notes, and Box. I tapped on a movie in GoodReader and it offered to open it in VLC, Dropbox, and Box, too.
No "Open With" is not available, period.
PDF's are the exception because iOS has that built-in for programs to use. For anything else, doesn't exist. Maybe IIRC the only other exception is for H264 files, and ONLY H264 files from DropBox.
Your phone is a phone, not a desktop computer, and that's the way the vast majority of phone users want it.
No, it's a smartphone, a portable computer. And this is common knowledge now: calling is one of the last features people use on a smartphone.
You're both right actually.
Ever see the pages of most of the people on Facebook? Girls, posing in clubs with the smoochy lips, in slutty clothes at a club with a drink in their hand. Guys, shirtless, at a club, or with drinks in their hands.
Now keep in mind I'm speaking from the viewpoint as a male in my early thirties who is successful career-wise. Have you ever met people at those clubs and lounges? Most ARE losers. Yea, they look good. Except they have jobs that pay $30k or less, and spend their entire paycheck on fancy expensive clothes and all drive brand new 3 series BMW's or C-class mercedes. When I used to make 70k a year I couldn't even afford that!
Also, wasn't there an article a while back saying that while FB has presence, a business (not celeb-utant or other personality) doesn't see ROI for its brand on a facebook page?
Take it from me. I used to be a Director or Marketing. At the end, it's all about the ROI. GM's marketing analysts crunched the numbers and said "fuck it--not worth it." Just because something is all hyped up doesn't make it worthwhile. Look at Apple: everyone thinks that the App Store makes millionaries, when it reality 70% don't even break even and the rest make $10k per year AT BEST.
We get so screwed. Thing is, they offer it so low that for the price of an un-subbed phone, you can buy one now, and buy another in two years. But then we don't get the updates or support. And they don't give a discount (short of t-mobile IIRC) if you buy your own phone outright, so why shell out the full price?
Now google gave you the option recently (it was done a while back but they pulled it) to buy it directly from them. However, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) it will only work for t-mo or att. Not verizon or sprint. So if we like a carrier, we may not even have the option.
How do updates work for you? Is it as simple as going to system and checking for updates? And do they download directly from Google and stay reasonably up to date? Or do you actually have download a ROM from google and actually connect it to your PC and transfer it?
Consider the placing of files on a filesystem. The number of times I've had to help people find images, movies, other files, on their phone because they didn't know where it was. Was it on the internal memory, was it on a memory card. It shouldn't matter. They just want to look at the picture, not learn how the filesystem on their phone is organised. Its unnecessary detail. Its a design choice to make things easier to understand.
You know I've thought about that. I guess you're right about not needed to know where a file was. But the problem is big when you need a .docx file and download it from your email and view it in say Dataviz office or whatever it's called. You can't. You have to set up a convoluted cloud sync or worse transfer it via iTunes (there was an article back on OSNews describing this. It was like 7 steps and using menus buried so deep I wouldn't even find it). Or media. You have a MP3 to play. Why can't I just put a MP3 on it? Ok, so I manage to get it on via dropbox. Why can't I just click on the mp3 and have itunes play it? No, dropbox actually had to develop its own media player to play it.
This whole thing was figured out decades ago. It was called a filesystem. It's the best and most efficient solution out there. Everything has its negatives. And also to your other good point, yes users don't care about learning. But I grow tired of that. Users should be forced to learn a few things. This isn't 1992. This is 2012. If you can't be bothered to learn how to save a file properly, get off the computer. That's like saying you're not responsible for learning how to put a car in gear or how to put gas in your car (NJ has an excuse because we've always had our gas pumped for us). Yes, some things really are required to learn how to operate. Not only that, but MS dumps everything into "My Documents" anyway. If a user can't find it there, don't help them. They're a lost cause--and worse, they don't want to learn and want you to do everything for them. They want you to be their computer servant.
Consider why Google is so keen on making Android a success. Its nothing to do with battling the evil of Apple. Its nothing to do with fighting the OSS fight. Its nothing to do with making the data free. Its all about keeping Google relevant in the post-PC world and ensuring they are able to deliver GoogleAds to as many people as possible and thus maintain an income. This move by Google is to make sure that their partners stick with Android and don't go off and do their own thing.
Again, you are right. However, Google has a responsibility to make sure security is at least up to date. Millions of phones vulnerable to malware is their responsibility. People put more personal stuff on their phones than anything. Even MS with Windows has taken this cause to heart over the course of the decade. And it should be their responsibility anything because once the mainstream gets wind that "Android gets viruses" they will happily flock to Apple (who no doubt will brag that they don't even though its not true).
Perfect solution for Google: be like MS.
Sell a vanilla OEM version for like $50 that be completely up to date and fresh with no bloatware. Distribute that money to carriers and manufacturers so they still get a cut so as not have them block/whine. Make it hidden so it doesn't affect all the so-called BS value added the carrier and manuf make. This way only those who really need it will get it.
MS does this. You can get Windows preinstalled with all the BS and bloatware. Or you can buy the official retail copy for $X.
Problem solved.
I don't disagree with you on that one. The official google phone is the ONLY one to buy IMHO. Although even that isn't a panacea. My buddy has the Galaxy Nexus on verizon and it's only on 4.0.2, STILL. Wasn't that released aaaalll the way back in January? And that's the standard dev phone that is supposed to always give the current updates. There has been two updates since then!
Also, it would be nice for other handset makers to deliver updates. While I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole because I hate Sense and HTC is atrocious with updates, the One X has great GPU and battery life. What if I wanted that? Can't have it because I know with any other manuf that I won't get 4.0.4 for another 6 months!
The bulk of Nvidia's revenue comes from low cost cards. Think laptop, low-end discrete desktop, and in the future, the Tegra platform. So it's not being profitable from your 680 or 670 flagships. So that eliminates your entire premise to begin with.
Not only that, but the money is *always* in OEM's and volume shipments. It's always in enterprise. Why do you think every computer manufacturer focuses on the enterprise? Why do you think HP dumped its consumer biz to focus on its profitable enterprise even though it was #1 in the market?
And it won't be a dozen clusters. I'd be betting they're making this to sell to MS or Sony for an on-live like deal for the consoles that will run along side traditional gaming. They're gonna do bad-ass graphics eventually, made "cheap" by server farms and economies of scale, to deliver stuff. But this takes big server farms. Jesus Christ, I mean doesn't Facebook alone have like 100,000 servers? That's just one company. And because it's enterprise, their margins could be a lot higher. So they make more money by selling less units AND they don't have to deal with whiny retail individual consumers like you.
You're thinking is short-sided and reactionary. Thank god Nvidia isn't like that.
Kudos to Nvidia actually. It's brilliant. They are developing this technology because quite frankly, this is the future. Remember using ray-tracing in games? They can use a whole farm of this stuff and develop fantastic graphics. Not only that, but the fact that they are developing it means they want to sell it. See where this is going? Consoles. I wouldn't be surprised a streaming component (onlive-like) was released on the new consoles alongside normal games. They could gradually phase out normal local games within 2 console cycles. Also, this allows devs to have massive computational power available for the intensive stuff like real-time lighting, physics, and AI. And not only this, it will actually be feasible due to economies of scale. Yea lighting may be "expensive" for a video card, but when you have a farm running it in the petaflops, it doesn't seem all that "expensive" or expensive (as in hardware dollar cost).
The console model is not sustainable long term. Not only that, but when game development is measured between 4-6 *years* now, how can a company plan development for a console cycle. I bought a whole bunch of games for my consoles that in the next year or two may not even work when the new consoles are released (think disabling of patching servers which affect even single player).
Look, I don't disagree with you. I think we should do everything locally, not server-side ("in the cloud" BS). I'm just saying is that there are some pretty cool benefits that may erupt. And quite frankly, if online would offer say like BF3 or Crysis 2 at max settings streamed, I'd never buy a gaming machine or console again.
Let's hope that this fixes or mitigates the one flaw of android: no updates.
Let me precede with this: Android is the superior OS. iOS fanboys and others alike (i'll probably get modded down for this) will argue. But iOS is completely inferior to Android. But this is not to start a flamewar. The one thing where iOS kicks android's ass is updates and compatibility. And notice I said updates: iOS updates and security do not go hand in hand (withness the MYRIAD of exploits for iOS). But again not starting a flamewar here.
But Android gets no updates! Jesus christ. Just now, like 6 months later, are flagship models just a few months ago getting ICS. Make no mistake, if it was a dumbphone, who cares. But these are minuture computers. They need updates for security sake, if anything. Even though iOS isn't secure and has lots of exploits, at least they're patched in the next version. Android? Good luck. And the problem is that we keep more sensative data on our smartphone than our desktop.
Also is the compatibility. Close friend just got the official android phone, the galaxy nexus. And know what? Tetris, made by EA, didn't work a few times. And another app too, dropbox I believe. Not apps by little shit devs who don't have the resources to provide bugfixes. The fact that apps aren't compatible with the so-called official android flagship is pathetic.
I'm ranting because I want Android to fix this. It's a HUGE issue. And I can't vote with my feet because I'll never go back to the iPhone (had a 3GS). It's really like using a toy vs. a real OS*.
* example: iOS doesn't allow Firefox Mobile. Which is a godsend with its ability for add-ons like Adblock on a mobile phone. Or iOS doesn't have the ability to place files in a filesystem so that another application can use a file, like a movie or PDF I put on the phone.
Good post. Very unlike most ./ posts, which is a good thing.
disclaimer (not directed at you gman): don't read this post if ur a typical /.'er who likes to repeats BS memes and also only posts stupid knee-jerk reaction whining comments. And posted now from my own account.
i havent tried gakai. no idea how it runs. but i tried onlive. it does actually work. really well actually. the only complaints i've found:
1) the game is playable over a higher latency/slower wi-fi connection. if u want the best though, you MUST play over ethernet. also, you must have a router that can handle it too. if you don't, play on a direct connection (ethernet directly into your modem)
2) the only type of game that is left wanting is *multiplayer* FPS. It's actually pretty workable regardless, but while i can't complain about input latency at all on any the game/type of game, this could be a complaint for some
3) use a controller. it masks a lot of the latency. actually this might be competition for consoles moreso than pc. because consoles rely on controllers with games to mask low framerates, this could actually make onlive if it wants to make high resolution games available a viable competitor.
i'm divided on everyone here complaining about DRM and server-side games. As all engineers know, everything has a cost & benefit. My take:
Benefit:
I can play any game at medium detail on *anything*. I have an aging C2D with a 8800 GTS 512. I can't play my two favorite games right now: BF3 and Arma 2 (note to you two devs, an onlive release would be awesome--see below). Not because of my card mind you. This is the first time (due to every dev making PC games just console ports) that I can't run a game at ANY setting (maybe EVERYTHING at low but I can't stand that eyesore) due to my CPU (which Im shocked at). And With streaming, when I travel for business or when i'm just on the couch and don't want to get up, I can play from my netbook or even just from my android phone.
Portability. I really do love this one. I visit family a lot. No problem. When I go over, just log in on their computer and play. My save game is even available. Just pop right in. I don't have to lug a gaming machine or a console carrying case everywhere I go. And as a side note, I want the PC game or full console version. Don't say "buy an iPhone." I have a disconnected 3GS with a ton of games. I don't want to play punch the monkey games or ports of SNES/PS2 games. I played them in the 90s. I want FULL modern games and portability.
NO install. I cant tell u how refreshing this is. This may even beat consoles on this one because anyone with a PS3 knows that it takes 2 hours of installing and codes to get any new game running. And PC gamers, this is for u GFWL. I like GFWL for the reason that I don't need to buy from Steam to get auto-updating. I can buy the retail disc from anyone and get easy patching. BUT when it comes to install (yea I'm looking at u bioshock) when it takes logging in like 3 times and 3 restarts, i want to kill GFWL. Onlive: just select your game and ur done.
Costs
Medium detail at 720p resolution. Now, consoles are aging. Offer people with good connections max 1080p resolution at max settings. Any game in your catalog doesn't need more than a cheap 7850 radeon to play at max. I want to play games at max settings but I just don't really give a shit anymore about building or even buying another computer with gaming in mind. I have a high-level job and in my early thirties. I don't have the time for that shit anymore. And I don't even want a desktop anymore. And that said, a gaming laptop is just too heavy and big for me. Even that new alienware 14 is too big and heavy. And while the solution may be a console (and i have both), unless it's well done, games look like ass. And as a side note, even if u have to compress the hell outta a 1080p picture, its better to do so than stick with 720p. Ever compress a JPG from a compressed JPG? Looks like shit. That's why
The only use I've seen is what you've mentioned. Taking a picture of a barcode. That-is-it.
That and voice and video chat (remember Chatroulette?), or query by speech (remember Goog 411?), or query by recorded music (Shazam).
Man, you picked some great examples to counter with. Chatroulette? Really? Search for south park and chatroulette. Who in their right mind would want that site is beyond me. And Shazam. It illustrates my point perfectly. People whip it out at bars, use it once to show off to their friends (and make themselves look like a douche in the process), and then never use it again.
I'm not arguing that we don't need dedicated programs for certain things/functions or high-performance demanding applications. We do. I said that most apps don't need native apps, that HTML5 can serve that. Then someone mentioned ARG programs. And I said they all blow (example: see "Shazam" or "Chatroutlette"). What's your point?
Bag of crap? You mean like the phones that, short of not having 1000 "Punch the Monkey" and Piano playing Apps, shit on rival smartphones?
- The same smartphone that gets 3-5 battery life vs. Android's 1 and Apple's 1.5 days?
- The same email client that shits on iOS mail in features, speed, abilities, hotkeys and a myriad of other things
- The same phone that has had true multitasking since IIRC before 2005, but Apple still doesn't have? And BTW if it impacts battery life so much, why does BB's beat iOS battery life by 3-5x?
I could go on and on, but I'm just tired of arguing with Meme repeaters and FUD sprayers.
Fact is, RIM's worst bag of crap is other vendors platinum and gold.
Performance is really that bad? Does it really bog down app performance that bad? The entire thing fits on a floppy or two. How could it be resource intensive?
I'll give you credit. It was an insightful read. But there are fundamental flaws.
Apple has, in no way shape or form, ever cared about developers or the demand of developers. They still do not, to this day.
The switch to native Apps on the iPhone was due to only 2 reasons:
Lock people in. This is Apple's MO, entire business model. Lock people in to the App Store to make money and keep people from easily switching to another vendor. It's a PITA when you just spent $100 apps. You'll say: "eh, I spent enough, I'll just buy another iPhone."
At the time of the first iPhone, while everyone else was on 3G, apple was a slow as shit EDGE phone. Since data transfers were soooooo slow, like dial-up modem slow, keeping as much as possible locally was a necessity.
Today, with Quad core phones, 1GB of RAM, and 4G data connections which are *faster* than most wired cable connections, things are now different.
And the more power, features, tools, and freedom we give to developers, the better.
You're right. IIRC it's like 70-80% of ITunes App Store revenue is from games.
But there was a good article on Gamasutra a month or two ago. Basically, the new "hotness" is making HTML5 games. No 30% cut, cross platform, even pick up the game on your desktop.
And going by the quality of how most of the games on the App Store are, "Punch the Monkey" and flinging angry birds don't exactly demands hard-core native performance.
I guessed you missed the fact that about a month or two ago, FB said that the majority of its mobile users use a mobile web browser to access FB.
NOT the native web app. Hence why the App blows and they don't give a shit.
Good point. One problem with that.
Most apps that use this are crap. People are going crazy over ARG. Except it ends up sucking. In reality and practical use, putting shit all over a photo on the street blows. People would rather glance at a Google Maps picture real quick.
The only use I've seen is what you've mentioned. Taking a picture of a barcode. That-is-it.
Wait, who am I talking to--it's you Tepples. Who comes to every video game comment thread and shills that consoles are better because of local co-op. In fact, I just read in a story this week. Sure enough, it was you.
Ugh.
Except the fact that I've had a blackberry and an iPhone, and yet the BB shits all over the iPhone in productivity, security, and phone functions and features. The dedicated back button and shortcut keys alone allow me to zip around so fast and efficiently its retarded. Once you get past playing the piano on the iPhone and playing a few games, when you need a *smartphone* to actually do anything, things get a little different.
That said though, I do think you are right. People don't care about having the best and most natural smartphone. All they care about is that they get to play "Punch the Monkey" and the $1000 "I am Rich" app from the "App Store".
Yet mobile web apps still end up working and looking better than the actual hard-coded apps for the respective platforms. I mentioned this in another post, but it bears repeating. I have an iPhone, and guess what:
- Most apps are total garbage
- Apps crash constantly, even all these years later
- Unblockable, unstoppable, obnoxious ads (I'm looking at you CNET and IGN with your VIDEOS every other webpage on a CELLPHONE connection--3G, data caps and all)
- Most apps are missing about 80% of the desktop/webpage's features
- Most apps don't even do encrypted ANYTHING. You know shit is bad when a *webpage* is more secure than a hard-coded true application on a trusted system should be. See Path, Southwest Airlines App, and pretty much 70% of all other Apps that deal with logins and sensitive data.
After all this, using a mobile version of a webpage, or using the "desktop view" in 3rd party web browsers is a GODSEND.
Ok I gleaned one thing: Android and iOS people get paid.
I don't have the few articles on hand, but do you mean where most developers don't make enough to even break even, and the ones who do generate 10k per year. They would make more working at McDonalds.
I don't mean to insult you, but I have to call you out so other readers are misled:
You post makes no coherent sense and I can't tell at all what direction you are going with any sentence or statements.
So? It's funny that this article was just posted. That past few months I've been thinking the same thing. Regardless of platform, the future is the (mobile) web.
See, I have an iPhone. I used all the apps. You know where I spend most of my time now? Mobile Safari. Why?
- Most apps are total garbage
- Apps crash constantly, even all these years later
- Unblockable, unstoppable, obnoxious ads (I'm looking at you CNET and IGN with your VIDEOS every other webpage on a CELLPHONE connection--3G, data caps and all)
- Most apps are missing about 80% of the desktop/webpage's features
- Most apps don't even do encrypted ANYTHING. You know shit is bad when a *webpage* is more secure than a hard-coded true application on a trusted system should be. See Path, Southwest Airlines App, and pretty much 70% of all other Apps that deal with logins and sensitive data.
The mobile web wasn't truly feasible as an app delivery mechanism though until now--with the advent of ubiquitous HTML5 browsers and most especially 4G connections. Now shit is fast enough to actually use! And this is where it's going to go. No more dealing with restrictive app stores, 30% loss of revenue, a different client for each phone. Using Mobile Safari/Android Browser is a godsend for sites--things don't crash! And nevermind the fact that with Android and Skyfire/Opera for iPhone, I can actually view the *desktop* version and utilize the full featured normal desktop web page version! It's like night and day.
Who knew that when Apple wasn't able to deliver flash on the iPhone through incompetence and the desire to lock people into the ITunes/App Store universe via promoting HTML5, it would actually start the revolution of freeing people from their own ecosystem.