"And providing even "basic support" takes a lot of work because of the number of hacks needed to make anything look decent"
So make it look indecent in IE6? Why is that necessarily worse than telling someone who, for reasons unknown, is continuing to use IE6 that they are not allowed to view your website unless they use the browsers you think they should be using?
"Like it or not websites will become more interactive, even/. is using AJAX these days."
Note, however, that the AJAX version of/. is not mandatory -- I do not use it, for example, because I prefer to keep Javascript disabled except when absolutely necessary.
I am not a web developer, so I am a bit confused about why websites are unable to provide even a basic level of support for IE6 -- perhaps a simple page without any fancy effects that just gives people whatever information they were looking for. Is it really that necessary to use Javascript for everything?
If all the litigation magically stopped, your cell phone bill would not be decreased as a result -- at best, it would stay the same, but more likely the companies would just raise it. What the money is spent on is only loosely related to what the cell companies charge you at this point.
"Suddenly the walled garden approach where apps go through an approval process doesn't seem so bad."
Yes, it does seem so bad. If it were just a question of certain apps being "approved," but users still having the option to install whatever they wanted, you might have a point (e.g. the repositories model for Linux distros). What Apple does is to say, "No, you cannot install that program, even if you want to, just because we said so! HAHAHAHA! No political cartoon apps for you!"
You most certainly can block it -- it resides nicely between two tags. The bigger question is, will asshole web developers use canvases in places where straight up text would have worked just fine, and force us to deal with their CPU eating abominations for no good reason at all?
As you point out, developers will use a library that resolves the incompatibilities for them. More precisely, they will seek software the levels the field between browsers -- software that already exists, in the form of applets (Flash and Java) and HTML4/JS/etc. libraries. My point was that the current way to deploy applications on the web is not going to disappear just because HTML5 comes out, and that incompatibility between browsers will only ensure that the current methods stick around even longer.
HTML5 may offer a unified way to do things...but that does not mean that the other ways will just vanish. It will be a long time before HTML5 completely displaces Flash or Java applets, assuming that such a thing even happens. Frankly, I doubt that the popular browsers will even have a reliable implementation of the standard until at least 2013, so HTML5 won't really offer developers anything unified for a while.
"Hell, go start your own society where you all have 100% privacy."
Nobody expects us to have total privacy -- no such society has ever existed. However, there are certainly people who would prefer the other extreme: no privacy at all. We are no longer talking about necessary sacrifices of privacy, we are talking about excessive and deliberate efforts to erode any privacy at all.
"Also, don't label all advertisers and marketers under one blanket label please.
Some companies are actually decent and just want to help people find the things they want.
You mentioned one of them already, the local directories of businesses in your area."
Sorry about that, but it is becoming increasingly rare to see marketing companies that are satisfied with traditional approaches to helping people find what they are looking for. True, a local directory is a marketing effort of sorts, and when run by a business that business is certainly a marketing company.
"it's a business choice to make this the sole channel, one that doesn't seem to make sense for desktop computing, and one that I doubt they'd pursue."
Well hang on...why wouldn't the walled garden work for desktop applications? Users do not seem to mind it for the iPad, which is really a tablet computer (I am sure someone will disagree with me, since it is not "marketed" as one), nor do users seem to mind it for video game consoles, nor for a certain large web community. We are already hearing people saying that traditional desktops are for "serious work," not for "consumers."
So why not? Why not have Apple impose an "approval" process for Mac OS X desktop applications? I see no reason why Apple could not create a spectrum of computers -- iPads at one end, and high end workstations at the other, with various levels of application approval processes needed. In that world, you would have to pay thousands of dollars for a top of the line Power Mac workstation to be able to install "unauthorized" applications; a "consumer level" notebook would require an extra payment for "unlocking" to install those applications (or perhaps you would have to "upgrade" to another version of Mac OS); and an iPad would have no options for unapproved programs.
"I don't know if Apple would ever release a Windows version of the iOS runtime."
Why wouldn't they? It would be a potential new revenue stream for them, and one which they would have a lot of control over, so if it wound up being unprofitable they could just shut it down. They could even divide the market along "Apple products only" lines -- so that some apps would only be approved for Apple products, and some for Apple or Microsoft (I doubt that libre operating systems will get much support).
Why should we be giving up on privacy for the benefit of marketing companies? If I need to find local business, I look at a directory of local businesses, so what do I gain by having advertisements thrown in my face?
"You can't also expect that updates published by Nintendo for original Wii console will work hand in hand with your unauthorized software."
There is a difference between not working "hand in hand" and deliberately removing "unauthorized" software. One is called "not our responsibility" and the other is called "sabotage."
Except that music is a lot different from books. People listen to a CD they like more than once -- it is not like a novel, which is not very interesting the second time around. In fact, I would say it is a sign that the CD is not particularly well liked if someone only listens to it once, and then never again.
Well, consider this: the consumer may just be curious about the music. On the one hand, they can download it, and not have to worry about not liking it -- but that is illegal, and should the corporation that produced the music wish to, they can bring the consumer to court with the blessing of the executive branch. On the other hand, they can purchase it, but if they don't like it they have no guaranteed recourse.
That sure sounds like a system that is designed to favor the rich and powerful corporations, rather than the consumers.
Yes, because it is so far fetched to wonder why the federal government is working for the exclusive benefit of the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.
Well, once again, the major parties fail to work for the benefit of the people, and focus instead on the interests of large corporations. No surprises there I guess.
Re:Oh good! The trolls are out in full force!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
"Really? Dell supports some alternate OS under warranty even though the PC came with Windows? Gee, I'd not heard that before."
Then you are not paying attention. Let's see, I am running Fedora on my laptop even though it came with Windows, and guess what? Battery failed, I got a new one shipped to me the next day. Power adapter malfunctioned, and I had a new one shipped to me. No questions asked, no demand that I return it to the factory settings, nothing of that sort.
To the best of my knowledge, "cable" is a general term for official communications that are conducted electronically, which dates back to the use of telegraphs.
Assange is spending his time publishing things that the most powerful people in the world want to keep private. If anyone has a reason to be paranoid, it is him -- this is not a case of tin foil hats, this is a case of a person with some really powerful enemies.
The majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian; why should Iraqis be attacking the Saudis? This is especially so considering that the last time Iraq even looked like it might invade Saudi Arabia, the United States attacked Iraq and made a successful push for UN-imposed sanctions.
Had the USA invaded Saudi Arabia, I would be less inclined to disagree with you.
That sounds a lot like one of the 19th century arguments for public hanging, beheading, and firing squads to be used as the principle means of execution. The idea was that if that public saw the brutality of killing someone, they would be less inclined to support execution as a punishment except in the most extreme cases. Ultimately, the argument failed to sway state legislatures (particularly New York) because it turns out that public executions can actually be a catalyst for further crimes (i.e. the crowd is more likely to commit capital offenses after watching an execution) and because there was an easy alternative: private executions.
Likewise with war footage: the easy alternative is to simply make it unavailable, or to only make available videos that do not show the brutality of war (e.g. a video of an aerial bombing, taken from the airplane).
Except that websites are at a disadvantage and are less likely to be discovered by iPhone/iPad users. Apple pushes native apps fairly aggressively, much more so than web browsing. Native apps are also available offline, something which most websites currently are not.
Apple does not simply refuse to distribute these apps; they refuse let anyone run them on iPhones and iPads. People are forced to hack their device to run those apps, voiding their warranty, being legally threatened by Apple, and risking having an update brick their device. Apple cannot completely block the content, you are correct in that assertion, but they can certainly reduce the likelihood that a user will come across it.
Slashdot Mirror
"And providing even "basic support" takes a lot of work because of the number of hacks needed to make anything look decent"
So make it look indecent in IE6? Why is that necessarily worse than telling someone who, for reasons unknown, is continuing to use IE6 that they are not allowed to view your website unless they use the browsers you think they should be using?
"Like it or not websites will become more interactive, even /. is using AJAX these days."
/. is not mandatory -- I do not use it, for example, because I prefer to keep Javascript disabled except when absolutely necessary.
Note, however, that the AJAX version of
I am not a web developer, so I am a bit confused about why websites are unable to provide even a basic level of support for IE6 -- perhaps a simple page without any fancy effects that just gives people whatever information they were looking for. Is it really that necessary to use Javascript for everything?
If all the litigation magically stopped, your cell phone bill would not be decreased as a result -- at best, it would stay the same, but more likely the companies would just raise it. What the money is spent on is only loosely related to what the cell companies charge you at this point.
"Suddenly the walled garden approach where apps go through an approval process doesn't seem so bad."
Yes, it does seem so bad. If it were just a question of certain apps being "approved," but users still having the option to install whatever they wanted, you might have a point (e.g. the repositories model for Linux distros). What Apple does is to say, "No, you cannot install that program, even if you want to, just because we said so! HAHAHAHA! No political cartoon apps for you!"
You most certainly can block it -- it resides nicely between two tags. The bigger question is, will asshole web developers use canvases in places where straight up text would have worked just fine, and force us to deal with their CPU eating abominations for no good reason at all?
As you point out, developers will use a library that resolves the incompatibilities for them. More precisely, they will seek software the levels the field between browsers -- software that already exists, in the form of applets (Flash and Java) and HTML4/JS/etc. libraries. My point was that the current way to deploy applications on the web is not going to disappear just because HTML5 comes out, and that incompatibility between browsers will only ensure that the current methods stick around even longer.
HTML5 may offer a unified way to do things...but that does not mean that the other ways will just vanish. It will be a long time before HTML5 completely displaces Flash or Java applets, assuming that such a thing even happens. Frankly, I doubt that the popular browsers will even have a reliable implementation of the standard until at least 2013, so HTML5 won't really offer developers anything unified for a while.
"Hell, go start your own society where you all have 100% privacy."
Nobody expects us to have total privacy -- no such society has ever existed. However, there are certainly people who would prefer the other extreme: no privacy at all. We are no longer talking about necessary sacrifices of privacy, we are talking about excessive and deliberate efforts to erode any privacy at all.
"Also, don't label all advertisers and marketers under one blanket label please.
Some companies are actually decent and just want to help people find the things they want.
You mentioned one of them already, the local directories of businesses in your area."
Sorry about that, but it is becoming increasingly rare to see marketing companies that are satisfied with traditional approaches to helping people find what they are looking for. True, a local directory is a marketing effort of sorts, and when run by a business that business is certainly a marketing company.
"it's a business choice to make this the sole channel, one that doesn't seem to make sense for desktop computing, and one that I doubt they'd pursue."
Well hang on...why wouldn't the walled garden work for desktop applications? Users do not seem to mind it for the iPad, which is really a tablet computer (I am sure someone will disagree with me, since it is not "marketed" as one), nor do users seem to mind it for video game consoles, nor for a certain large web community. We are already hearing people saying that traditional desktops are for "serious work," not for "consumers."
So why not? Why not have Apple impose an "approval" process for Mac OS X desktop applications? I see no reason why Apple could not create a spectrum of computers -- iPads at one end, and high end workstations at the other, with various levels of application approval processes needed. In that world, you would have to pay thousands of dollars for a top of the line Power Mac workstation to be able to install "unauthorized" applications; a "consumer level" notebook would require an extra payment for "unlocking" to install those applications (or perhaps you would have to "upgrade" to another version of Mac OS); and an iPad would have no options for unapproved programs.
"I don't know if Apple would ever release a Windows version of the iOS runtime."
Why wouldn't they? It would be a potential new revenue stream for them, and one which they would have a lot of control over, so if it wound up being unprofitable they could just shut it down. They could even divide the market along "Apple products only" lines -- so that some apps would only be approved for Apple products, and some for Apple or Microsoft (I doubt that libre operating systems will get much support).
"If Mac OS X loses this, watch GNUstep (Free clone of Cocoa's predecessor) suddenly attract a boost in activity."
A boost, perhaps, but nothing that would even register on Apple's radar.
Why should we be giving up on privacy for the benefit of marketing companies? If I need to find local business, I look at a directory of local businesses, so what do I gain by having advertisements thrown in my face?
I live in the USA, where the constitution explicitly states that mathematics cannot be patented. Yet somehow, patents are granted on algorithms.
"You can't also expect that updates published by Nintendo for original Wii console will work hand in hand with your unauthorized software."
There is a difference between not working "hand in hand" and deliberately removing "unauthorized" software. One is called "not our responsibility" and the other is called "sabotage."
Except that music is a lot different from books. People listen to a CD they like more than once -- it is not like a novel, which is not very interesting the second time around. In fact, I would say it is a sign that the CD is not particularly well liked if someone only listens to it once, and then never again.
Well, consider this: the consumer may just be curious about the music. On the one hand, they can download it, and not have to worry about not liking it -- but that is illegal, and should the corporation that produced the music wish to, they can bring the consumer to court with the blessing of the executive branch. On the other hand, they can purchase it, but if they don't like it they have no guaranteed recourse.
That sure sounds like a system that is designed to favor the rich and powerful corporations, rather than the consumers.
Yes, because it is so far fetched to wonder why the federal government is working for the exclusive benefit of the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.
Well, once again, the major parties fail to work for the benefit of the people, and focus instead on the interests of large corporations. No surprises there I guess.
"Really? Dell supports some alternate OS under warranty even though the PC came with Windows? Gee, I'd not heard that before."
Then you are not paying attention. Let's see, I am running Fedora on my laptop even though it came with Windows, and guess what? Battery failed, I got a new one shipped to me the next day. Power adapter malfunctioned, and I had a new one shipped to me. No questions asked, no demand that I return it to the factory settings, nothing of that sort.
To the best of my knowledge, "cable" is a general term for official communications that are conducted electronically, which dates back to the use of telegraphs.
Assange is spending his time publishing things that the most powerful people in the world want to keep private. If anyone has a reason to be paranoid, it is him -- this is not a case of tin foil hats, this is a case of a person with some really powerful enemies.
The majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian; why should Iraqis be attacking the Saudis? This is especially so considering that the last time Iraq even looked like it might invade Saudi Arabia, the United States attacked Iraq and made a successful push for UN-imposed sanctions.
Had the USA invaded Saudi Arabia, I would be less inclined to disagree with you.
That sounds a lot like one of the 19th century arguments for public hanging, beheading, and firing squads to be used as the principle means of execution. The idea was that if that public saw the brutality of killing someone, they would be less inclined to support execution as a punishment except in the most extreme cases. Ultimately, the argument failed to sway state legislatures (particularly New York) because it turns out that public executions can actually be a catalyst for further crimes (i.e. the crowd is more likely to commit capital offenses after watching an execution) and because there was an easy alternative: private executions.
Likewise with war footage: the easy alternative is to simply make it unavailable, or to only make available videos that do not show the brutality of war (e.g. a video of an aerial bombing, taken from the airplane).
Except that websites are at a disadvantage and are less likely to be discovered by iPhone/iPad users. Apple pushes native apps fairly aggressively, much more so than web browsing. Native apps are also available offline, something which most websites currently are not.
Apple does not simply refuse to distribute these apps; they refuse let anyone run them on iPhones and iPads. People are forced to hack their device to run those apps, voiding their warranty, being legally threatened by Apple, and risking having an update brick their device. Apple cannot completely block the content, you are correct in that assertion, but they can certainly reduce the likelihood that a user will come across it.