"For all the Microsoft-bashing we do around here, they were really the ones that separated hardware from software on the PC"
Let's be clear here that Microsoft only did that on the PC. Throughout the 70s, a large amount of software for Unix was decoupled from the machine and the specific Unix running on the machine, and that software was exchanged between various hackers. The only innovation Microsoft introduced, in terms of computing, was to decouple software from hardware and then sell that software.
"Because he doesn't make products for us geeks, but for the rest of the people."
The great danger with this thinking is that it justifies the control Apple exerts over its customers, and encourages the idea that Apple's customers should be the general public. I really do not want to live in a world where a company like Apple, which we can now say has a history of censorship (including political censorship), exerts such a high level of control over the primary communication medium of the general public.
"But there are connotations to the word "computer" that just don't match an iPhone."
Which are not a result of the iPhone's design, but a result of the proprietary software that the iPhone ships with. All I see here is Apple trying to reshape the way people think about mobile computing, by removing capabilities and taking control of those devices -- and the fact that people think there is something wrong with using the word "computer" to describe the iPhone shows that Apple's tactics are working. I am not blaming you here, and you are certainly not alone, but it is very troubling for me that Apple (and to a great extent, other smartphone manufacturers) is so successful at dividing up the world like that.
There is no reason for the connotations of the word "computer" to be inapplicable to an iPhone. Really, the software is creating that situation, and Apple could, overnight, fix that problem, although I doubt they will (not with Jobs running the show)...
At what point did anyone say they approve of restrictions on other computing systems? Who is holding Apple to a different standard? We all have the same things to say about Nintendo, Sony, and every other company that actively works to restrict the users of their devices.
Much as I hate Apple, I have to disagree on that point. Had Apple won the PC wars, it is likely that our current desktops would be just as powerful...but we would have a lot of difficulty making use of that power. In a world where Apple had control over our desktops, I imagine that third party developers would be largely left out of the loop, their programs reviewed and approved by Apple before making it onto our desktops, and so forth. It would also be a world where jokes about the amount of pornography available on the Internet would not exist...
I honestly do not understand why you would not call a device that has every hardware feature my laptop has a "computer" -- the only difference is the form factor and the advertised use. What if I installed software on your laptop that railroaded you into using it in a specific way, would I have suddenly transformed your laptop into something other than a "computer?"
It is more profitable to control your customers and railroad them into using only the applications you approve (and turn a profit on). Apple is not in business to bring computers into the world (not anymore), they are in business to increase their profits (it would be "terrible" if they sacrificed a chance to turn even higher profits), and if that means mistreating everyone else, then that is how it will be.
Note that the iPhone has more than just a "processor [that] can run arbitrary code" -- it has a CPU, memory, a general user interface, and could, in the absence of deliberate software restrictions on the part of Apple, be used as a small mobile computer (which happens to have the ability to connect to a cell phone network). This is not as extreme as running NetBSD on a toaster, or repurposing a car's microcontrollers for some other task -- the iPhone has all the hardware needed to be used for general consumer-grade computing, albeit in a pocket sized form factor.
Note that is was done on an older iPhone; my guess is that the next generation iPhone will be even more restricted and prevent this sort of installation.
Try browsing some threads on Usenet using your 386, then try browsing threads on some Javascript driven web based discussion system, and see which is faster;).
"The "newsgroup" service that Usenet was designed for is now superseded by Google Groups (who absorbed DejaNews, the site that aimed to archive every Usenet post ever), zillions of web forums, blogs, comment friendly sites like, um, the one you're reading this on called Slashdot... get the point?"
Compared to my Usenet client, Google Groups, Slashdot, and every other web based system are a collective joke...and I am sure there are better Usenet clients than what I use (KNode). Usenet also has the advantage of being distributed -- or did Slashdot suddenly start exchanging comments with other systems (can I peer with Slashdot?), which came in handy when a Usenet server I used to use was shut down; I just pointed my client to another server, and the same discussions were all immediately available.
Really, when it comes to text based discussions, Usenet has a lot of advantages. If all you care about is using the latest cool looking technology, I guess that does not matter to you, but some of us actually do like the discussions on Usenet. There are still a number of very nice discussions on technical topics, such as cryptography, math, and various programming languages. Usenet is not just for "illegal content," even if that is all you ever used it for.
As for better service...well, let's put it this way: when Time Warner stopped running its Usenet servers, there was no increase in the quality of service I received from them. The quality of service remained identical, as it has with other ISPs. Cox just wants to turn a higher profit by ending a service that a minority of customers were using, and to claim otherwise is either naivety or outright lying.
Interestingly, uucp is still seeing some use in remote areas of certain countries, where the Internet infrastructure is not built up. The idea, as I understand it, is to use uucp to copy batches of email onto a mobile system (or just a flash drive), then physically move that system to the next computer, exchanging mail and whatnot, eventually exchanging email with the broader Internet. Slow, yes, but better than nothing at all.
I am sure gopher and archie are still used somewhere too.
Well keep in mind that the "music" I was referring was a radio, which actually led to a lot of fun in the rural areas (at least for city folk like us).
In any case, it really depends on how people use these systems. Someone mentioned that his wife sits in the back seat with the kids watching a movie -- not such a bad use case. On the other hand, people seem to be talking about giving each kid an iPad, which sounds like "leave them alone with their electronic toys."
Actually, I survived many such trips as an only child in a one parent home, and the only electronic entertainment was music. It was not that bad, I did not get bored speaking to my mom and looking at the various oddities in the rural regions between New York City and Toronto.
It was not just my own mother; I have seen plenty of parents who are able to keep their children engaged, even on very long trips.
Can someone explain the appeal of these "in car entertainment" systems? Seriously, this sounds like another way to not pay attention to your kids, even while you are within 2 feet of them.
"I guess you won't be satisfied unless every product that has a CPU and a display is capable of being easily hacked and fooled around with out of the box. A rather silly viewpoint."
How is that a "silly" viewpoint? I guess you think that if the manufacturers want to control people, they should be allowed to do so, no questions asked.
"That's nice, but compared to something doing translation from Flash to Objective-C, I'll take the native code, thanks."
What if I had an ActionScript compiler for the iPad? Oops, not allowed. What if I had a compiler for a language like SPARK (which is designed for reliability)...not allowed. Efforts to sidestep Apple's deliberate and unwarranted restrictions are at an inherent disadvantage, and there are a lot of high quality development tools that are simply not allowed for the iPad.
"Your alarm clock has a microcontroller on it as well, is it immoral for them to tell you how you can use it?"
Yes.
"Is it immoral that my microwave oven's warranty is voided if I replace the firmware?"
No, I never said that Apple needs to help people who do not want to follow the Apple dictate. Let the community help people. Let local computer shops, or clubs, or users groups help people.
"Its uses are intentionally limited for the sake of people who aren't geeks."
Except that Apple actively works to prevent people from using their device in "unapproved" ways. We are not just talking about missing features, we are talking about a deliberate effort to restrict people, and a complete and utter failure to mention that detail to the unsuspecting consumers who purchase these devices.
"So they want to maintain a certain level of quality in applications that get onto the device, nothing wrong with that."
Yes, there is something wrong with it, when they are actively preventing people from using their iPads in ways that do not meet "quality" standards. I suppose that "quality" also means "nothing sexually themed," "nothing that mocks public figures," and "not using programming languages that Apple employees do not use."
Why should Apple dictate how iPads are used?
Oh, and just for your information, saying that requiring C/C++/Obj-C is matter of "quality" made me laugh a little.
So what? Why should Apple actively prevent me from using my iPad in the "wrong way?" What if I have a really good way to use the iPad for content creation, but it requires me to install some "unapproved" software?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I should have said, "A world in which cartoons that ridicule political figures would not exist on the Internet."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/194387/apple_rejects_pulitzer_prize_winners_app.html
Yes, it would be a bad thing if Apple had won the PC wars.
"For all the Microsoft-bashing we do around here, they were really the ones that separated hardware from software on the PC"
Let's be clear here that Microsoft only did that on the PC. Throughout the 70s, a large amount of software for Unix was decoupled from the machine and the specific Unix running on the machine, and that software was exchanged between various hackers. The only innovation Microsoft introduced, in terms of computing, was to decouple software from hardware and then sell that software.
"Because he doesn't make products for us geeks, but for the rest of the people."
The great danger with this thinking is that it justifies the control Apple exerts over its customers, and encourages the idea that Apple's customers should be the general public. I really do not want to live in a world where a company like Apple, which we can now say has a history of censorship (including political censorship), exerts such a high level of control over the primary communication medium of the general public.
"But there are connotations to the word "computer" that just don't match an iPhone."
Which are not a result of the iPhone's design, but a result of the proprietary software that the iPhone ships with. All I see here is Apple trying to reshape the way people think about mobile computing, by removing capabilities and taking control of those devices -- and the fact that people think there is something wrong with using the word "computer" to describe the iPhone shows that Apple's tactics are working. I am not blaming you here, and you are certainly not alone, but it is very troubling for me that Apple (and to a great extent, other smartphone manufacturers) is so successful at dividing up the world like that.
There is no reason for the connotations of the word "computer" to be inapplicable to an iPhone. Really, the software is creating that situation, and Apple could, overnight, fix that problem, although I doubt they will (not with Jobs running the show)...
At what point did anyone say they approve of restrictions on other computing systems? Who is holding Apple to a different standard? We all have the same things to say about Nintendo, Sony, and every other company that actively works to restrict the users of their devices.
Much as I hate Apple, I have to disagree on that point. Had Apple won the PC wars, it is likely that our current desktops would be just as powerful...but we would have a lot of difficulty making use of that power. In a world where Apple had control over our desktops, I imagine that third party developers would be largely left out of the loop, their programs reviewed and approved by Apple before making it onto our desktops, and so forth. It would also be a world where jokes about the amount of pornography available on the Internet would not exist...
I honestly do not understand why you would not call a device that has every hardware feature my laptop has a "computer" -- the only difference is the form factor and the advertised use. What if I installed software on your laptop that railroaded you into using it in a specific way, would I have suddenly transformed your laptop into something other than a "computer?"
It is more profitable to control your customers and railroad them into using only the applications you approve (and turn a profit on). Apple is not in business to bring computers into the world (not anymore), they are in business to increase their profits (it would be "terrible" if they sacrificed a chance to turn even higher profits), and if that means mistreating everyone else, then that is how it will be.
Note that the iPhone has more than just a "processor [that] can run arbitrary code" -- it has a CPU, memory, a general user interface, and could, in the absence of deliberate software restrictions on the part of Apple, be used as a small mobile computer (which happens to have the ability to connect to a cell phone network). This is not as extreme as running NetBSD on a toaster, or repurposing a car's microcontrollers for some other task -- the iPhone has all the hardware needed to be used for general consumer-grade computing, albeit in a pocket sized form factor.
Note that is was done on an older iPhone; my guess is that the next generation iPhone will be even more restricted and prevent this sort of installation.
Perhaps as an angry Apple hater, you missed the part where I was ridiculing Apple fanbois.
So uhm, all those people who say the iPhone/iPad is not a computer because things like this are "impossible" -- where are you now?
CentOS is a RHEL clone...
Try browsing some threads on Usenet using your 386, then try browsing threads on some Javascript driven web based discussion system, and see which is faster ;).
Why bother installing it then? You do not have to put up with it, you can just do what I do, and not use it.
"The "newsgroup" service that Usenet was designed for is now superseded by Google Groups (who absorbed DejaNews, the site that aimed to archive every Usenet post ever), zillions of web forums, blogs, comment friendly sites like, um, the one you're reading this on called Slashdot... get the point?"
Compared to my Usenet client, Google Groups, Slashdot, and every other web based system are a collective joke...and I am sure there are better Usenet clients than what I use (KNode). Usenet also has the advantage of being distributed -- or did Slashdot suddenly start exchanging comments with other systems (can I peer with Slashdot?), which came in handy when a Usenet server I used to use was shut down; I just pointed my client to another server, and the same discussions were all immediately available.
Really, when it comes to text based discussions, Usenet has a lot of advantages. If all you care about is using the latest cool looking technology, I guess that does not matter to you, but some of us actually do like the discussions on Usenet. There are still a number of very nice discussions on technical topics, such as cryptography, math, and various programming languages. Usenet is not just for "illegal content," even if that is all you ever used it for.
As for better service...well, let's put it this way: when Time Warner stopped running its Usenet servers, there was no increase in the quality of service I received from them. The quality of service remained identical, as it has with other ISPs. Cox just wants to turn a higher profit by ending a service that a minority of customers were using, and to claim otherwise is either naivety or outright lying.
Interestingly, uucp is still seeing some use in remote areas of certain countries, where the Internet infrastructure is not built up. The idea, as I understand it, is to use uucp to copy batches of email onto a mobile system (or just a flash drive), then physically move that system to the next computer, exchanging mail and whatnot, eventually exchanging email with the broader Internet. Slow, yes, but better than nothing at all.
I am sure gopher and archie are still used somewhere too.
Well keep in mind that the "music" I was referring was a radio, which actually led to a lot of fun in the rural areas (at least for city folk like us).
In any case, it really depends on how people use these systems. Someone mentioned that his wife sits in the back seat with the kids watching a movie -- not such a bad use case. On the other hand, people seem to be talking about giving each kid an iPad, which sounds like "leave them alone with their electronic toys."
Actually, I survived many such trips as an only child in a one parent home, and the only electronic entertainment was music. It was not that bad, I did not get bored speaking to my mom and looking at the various oddities in the rural regions between New York City and Toronto.
It was not just my own mother; I have seen plenty of parents who are able to keep their children engaged, even on very long trips.
Can someone explain the appeal of these "in car entertainment" systems? Seriously, this sounds like another way to not pay attention to your kids, even while you are within 2 feet of them.
"I guess you won't be satisfied unless every product that has a CPU and a display is capable of being easily hacked and fooled around with out of the box. A rather silly viewpoint."
How is that a "silly" viewpoint? I guess you think that if the manufacturers want to control people, they should be allowed to do so, no questions asked.
"That's nice, but compared to something doing translation from Flash to Objective-C, I'll take the native code, thanks."
What if I had an ActionScript compiler for the iPad? Oops, not allowed. What if I had a compiler for a language like SPARK (which is designed for reliability)...not allowed. Efforts to sidestep Apple's deliberate and unwarranted restrictions are at an inherent disadvantage, and there are a lot of high quality development tools that are simply not allowed for the iPad.
"Your alarm clock has a microcontroller on it as well, is it immoral for them to tell you how you can use it?"
Yes.
"Is it immoral that my microwave oven's warranty is voided if I replace the firmware?"
No, I never said that Apple needs to help people who do not want to follow the Apple dictate. Let the community help people. Let local computer shops, or clubs, or users groups help people.
"Its uses are intentionally limited for the sake of people who aren't geeks."
Except that Apple actively works to prevent people from using their device in "unapproved" ways. We are not just talking about missing features, we are talking about a deliberate effort to restrict people, and a complete and utter failure to mention that detail to the unsuspecting consumers who purchase these devices.
"So they want to maintain a certain level of quality in applications that get onto the device, nothing wrong with that."
Yes, there is something wrong with it, when they are actively preventing people from using their iPads in ways that do not meet "quality" standards. I suppose that "quality" also means "nothing sexually themed," "nothing that mocks public figures," and "not using programming languages that Apple employees do not use."
Why should Apple dictate how iPads are used?
Oh, and just for your information, saying that requiring C/C++/Obj-C is matter of "quality" made me laugh a little.
Nobody, and what Sony did with the PS3 is just as disgraceful as what Apple is doing with the iPad.
So what? Why should Apple actively prevent me from using my iPad in the "wrong way?" What if I have a really good way to use the iPad for content creation, but it requires me to install some "unapproved" software?