The MPEG LA firm, the firm that owns the patent for the H.264 codec, stated
MPEG LA, the firm that controls licensing for a number of video and other standards, announced on Thursday that it will never charge any royalties for Internet video encoded using the H.264 standard that Apple favors, as long as that video is free to end-users.
Note the language used…
If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…
Let me say that one more time…
If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…
I don’t see how that assures anyone that MPEG LA will make the H.264 codec “open” in any way…
Playboy announces it will be censoring its iPad application to meet Apple’s stringent “Morality Test.” I mean… Really? I know they have good articles, but … Really?
III. Oracle…driven to make money…
Oracle announces it will not pursue OpenSolaris. At the same time, Oracle sues Google and announces JAVA is not free… Anyone know what happened about this news release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)?
I have upgraded my phone on AT&T to the Samsung Captivate–an Android phone:
Samsung Captivate
I like the phone! I got mine for FREE from Walmart and Letstalk! I see the cost is now at $99.00, but $99.00 is cheaper than the $199.00 found at AT&T stores…
There are two things I wanted to know:
How to view multiple e-mail accounts; and
How to switch between open applications.
Here are the answers…
Viewing E-mails… Your way…
You can hit the e-mail icon to view your general e-mail accounts. NOTE: The e-mail accounts under the e-mail icon is NOT the google account you used to set up the phone-THAT e-mail is opened using the gmail icon… The gmail icon/program is much more efficient than the e-mail program provided by Samsung… Just my opinion, your mileage may vary…
Once you hit the e-mail account icon, you are able to add an account to the phone. Once in that account (say the inbox), you can hit the menu button (lower left) and get an option to add another account or to see all of your e-mail accounts.
You can view the e-mails in each account or you can view them in a global e-mail inbox—viewing them in the global inbox does not remove them from their respective accounts. I like that
Switching between Applications
Android allows you to use more than one application at a time–you can have three applications open at once! Many I have talked to ask, “How do I get back to that application I just had open…?”
The fast app launcher is super easy and quick to access, just hold down the “Home” button on the phone. You then just click on the app you want, and it opens. It’s that simple, and that awesome.
Easy enough!
Summary
I like this phone, and I am liking Android. Samsung has stated Froyo (Android 2.2) will be delivered later this year (2010), and I look forward to that update as it has improvements that should speed up specific actions.
Just because Android apps have no “close” button doesn’t mean they shut down when you return to the home page or move on to another app.
Advanced Task Killer turns off those apps and conserves battery power and will help keep your device running fast and efficiently by closing programs that you don’t need to have running.
So, what are YOU waiting for? Go get an Android phone today!
Is the iPhone just a thin client?
by Counsel @ 11:24 am. Filed under Main Page
A long time ago (in the tech world), a move was made to establish a thin client as everyone’s method to interact with the Internet and with computing in general.
A “thin client” is a computer terminal that does not do much computing on its own. Rather, the “thin client” (TC) sends data to a server that runs software and calculations and simply sends back data to be displayed on the TC.
At that time, the “last leg”–that internet connection between the home or office and the “server” or Internet–was limited in speed and “up time.” Anyone else remember 300 baud modems? The limited speed and “up time” severely limited the idea of the “thin client.”
Fast Forward
The TC is back with a vengeance. “Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…”
The iPhone (1st Gen, ed.) is, basically, a thin client cell phone. Before everyone jumps on me for saying so, I admit that the iPhone does appear (I don’t own one) to have several applications stored and run from the iPhone itself (calculator, calendar, camera, etc).
Most of the apps I have seen, and there are a lot of them, are run on a server somewhere that the iPhone accesses on the Internet via either a cellular connection or a wi-fi connection. For some interesting ideas and “proof of concept” sites, see the following:
iPhone App to control Pro Tools LE;
&
Cool Hunting’s List of useful Apps.
or sites like the following (other “app” sites now omitted, Ed.)
What is wrong with this?
Now that “up time” is around 95 - 99 percent and the speed of the connection is much better (I hear it runs “fast enough” without 3G), the idea of the TC may be here. All of the “faithful” seem to state that they love their iPhone and its capabilities (even though not much software running/computing is done on the actual phone).
So nothing may be wrong with this concept. Certainly, it is working for Apple, the iPhone, and those who love the iPhone.
However, I often travel outside of GSM coverage as part of my job. GSM coverage does not have 100% saturation across the United States of America, and my job requires me to be in some of those “dead spots.”
How useful would the iPhone be at that point? I am asking the “faithful” here to be honest and provide us with accurate data.
I assume the media capabilities of the iPhone work without a cellular/Internet connection.
For instance, my Treo 650 can still bluetooth to the GPS device and let me see my position via maps stored on my device. The apps on my Treo 650 work without any cellular service. So while both of us would be without cellular service, we could both watch movies (you an a nicer screen) and listen to music. But I think, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong, that I could be much more productive and application rich with my Treo 650 than with an iPhone.
I love the idea of the iPhone, but I want an iPhone that is a smartphone, a “thick client” rather than a “thin client.” I don’t want to be limited by what I can use or where I can use it.
What say you?
Counsel
An opportunity?
I see Apple looking forward to a TC iTerminal. Of course, it will have a much better name. While iTCH won’t work either, many would scratch at the chance… (yes, I had to go there…). However, iTCH might just work! Think of the marketing. “Have an iTCH? Scratch it!” The “Scratch it”, of course, refers to the touchscreen that you would “scratch.” Now the “faithful” can say, “You ’scratch’ anything interesting today?” I envision a tablet Mac running OS/X with a keyboard on the screen (like the iPhone). Now, if Apple would just make this as a “thick client,” with the full OS/X and not as a thin client, I’d buy…
Apple made the new iPhone 4…
Like Plants v. Zombies (great PRIOR to the iDevice release…), it may do what my Treo 650 could but with a bigger and better display.
The iPad could have been the tablet Mac, that I called the iTCH. Just think how successful Apple could be with that marketing and with a tool the real “geeks” could love… An OS/X-running tablet… Would you scratch that?
If Steve showed up and told you you needed to get approval for all reading material you read by asking Apple if it was okay to read, would you oblige him?
I read a post at TwistImage that seems to think the iPhone is better than swiss cheese, bread, and the cart it road in on (including the wheels).
I had to respond…
You state:
“The phone (or calling) part is now shadowed by everything else.”
Ah..No it isn’t or all the iPhone people would be carrying a phone and an iPod or iPad…
I want one device to do everything, and we can have that today. I don’t care about Steve’s philosophical differences with Adobe or Google, and I bet most users would appreciate flash on their devices… Steve references Adobe promised it for 2 years but didn’t deliver…does that mean Steve wanted it too? What changed?
I’ve stated this before… Steve’s genius was marketing and perfecting the iTunes store. People who invest in a platform are not want to change and lose their investment. Now that all these iPod and iPhone users have spent good money on apps that only work on iDevices, they have an incentive in continuing to use iDevices even though they don’t provide all of the features people want.
Please don’t tell me you like going to Flash intensive sites on the internet with the iPad or iPhone and seeing all those blank spaces… That is not a full-web experience.
Open? H.264 is protected IP–go look it up! H.264 is as open as .gif is open… Does Apple give away any open source software besides their contribution to Darwin?
Don’t get me wrong, I like Apple–I have used their hardware since the //e (I have one of the first). However, I don’t care about Steve’s obsession with Flash, porn, Google, Android, or anything else. I care about my devices allowing me to use them for the experience I want.
Great if most people don’t care about flash. However, I want Flash. I want to be able to install my programs on the device without me having to send them to Apple for Apple’s release on the iTunes store. What if I don’t want to share or what if I use it for my purposes?
I buy a Ford, Chevy, Via, or other car, and I don’t expect the manufacturer to tell me I can’t put on Goodyear tires or use it for racing…
I buy a new refrigerator and don’t expect the manufacturer to tell me what I can put in it…
I don’t expect to buy a new Computer with Windows (whatever flavor) and expect MS to tell me I have to use their browser…… (get it yet?)
Why should I let Stevie tell me that I don’t need flash? I don’t need that Bass Ale in my refrigerator either, but I will drink one hoping the Xiliv X10 android slate is released soon–I will be buying it.
Why?
Go look at the text of the speech given by the “establishment” in the 1984 advertisement for the macintosh-yes, the famous one… The text sounds like Apple today…. Don’t think so? Go look it up.
Choice. I don’t want the government telling me what I want, and I don’t want to have to give up things I enjoy doing–those time-wasting flash games–just because Stevie has some issue with Adobe…
If you think it is about being “open,” you have bought the red herring…
I really don’t understand what the fuss is over…
I guess it is that iPhone users are not educated about the features that are available on other phones/devices so that they think Apple started each one.
Go look at the Treo 650 and tell me where Steve got his idea for icons in a row on a screen–Palm.
Did Apple do a great job on the original iPhone? Yes.
Is the new iPhone 4 the “best thing ever?” No.
1. IPS Retina View
I don’t want to see my retina… The iPhone 4 has a good display, but Steve’s comments are a lie. See here and here.
2. Lack of Flash
You may not want it, but plenty of us do. You are “right” for you, and we are “right” for us. Leave it alone and quit trying to convince me I don’t need it or want it–I do.
Now, for a negative in a sentence to prove a point.. (bad grammar idea..)
The full web experience is not seeing blank spaces where flash content is located as I browse the web… Sorry Steve, why don’t you browse to some of those popular sites while you “introduce” those devices? Ah, right… You don’t want people to see those blank spaces…
3. Lack of being “open.”
For all of Steve’s talk of “open,” the iDevice is certainly closed. If I want to put my program on the iDevice, I have to send it to Apple and let it be listed in the iTunes store… Why? What if I want to use it for me? Does Ford tell me I can’t use GoodYear tires? Does Kenmore tell me what I can put in my fridge?
4. Expandability…
I want a slot for a SD card, HDMI, USB, etc. Why can’t we have those? Would it extend the life of the device past that which Apple wants to have in the return purchase? Smart for Apple, not good for me.
5. Competition
Apple’s move isn’t about “open” or “full-web experience. Apple’s move is to control content.
Apple moves to limit Admob (Google) ads from providing useful ads for those who want them, and plenty of folk do–just look at Google’s bottom line and Apple’s purchase of iAds…
Apple wants to limit iAds to Apple devices. Steve says this removes unwanted ads and replaces them with nicely-wrapped information for the user (i.e., ads by Apple).
Apple wants all content delivered to iDevices to come from iTunes (controlled by Apple).
All of this is great for Apple, but I don’t like the limitations. Why can’t I buy an app from someone else? Why can’t I install it myself? People yell, “Apple guarantees quality and the experience…”
Give me a break! Think critically! Did all of those Palm apps crash palm devices 10 years ago? No, people swarmed to those devices… People learned what was “junk” and what wasn’t. Just as they learn via reviews and other sites. The programmers/developers guarantee quality, Apple limits. If you think otherwise, you are about to be pulled out of the water and into the boat…
Summary
I think it is great if you LOVE your iPhone and iPad. I like my Macintosh notebook and my iPhone.
My next phone likely will not be an iPhone since I (me, myself, and I) want more than what the iPhone can provide. Your mileage may differ, and I am not saying the iPhone is “wrong” per se. Rather, the iPhone (and Apple’s philosophical stance) is wrong for me. Call me idealistic or call me nuts.
If Flash doesn’t work on the iPhone (or doesn’t work well), let the market decide to open the door to competing products. To deny entry to the “game” and say “you can’t compete technologically” seems like a lie… If Flash is terrible on the iPlatform, the market will see this and either Adobe will improve it or competitors, even Apple, can introduce a competing technology.
Why HTML5 isn’t the answer
HTML5 may not handle delivering codecs to your computer, returning us to the early days of the Internet when you were prompted at every site to “download the required codec…”
Apple supports its products and open standards…
Apple’s own Quicktime doesn’t stream to my iPhone Quicktime does not stream to my iPhone (See Robert Cailliau’s Standards test page), and quicktime is Apple’s own product.
H264 is not open. Rather, H264 is a legally-protected codec for compressing video (a family of codecs really). H264 will not handle the creation of interactive games like Flash. Again, H264 is protected by patent law where appropriate, “In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use.” (See Wikipedia). Remember what happened to the .gif format? Right… That could happen to H264. Recall that nobody expected the issues to be raised about gif either…
What Adobe and Flash do well…
Adobe started Postscript to tell printers how to print …
Flash isn’t perfect, but it is a cross-platform system to stream video, create interactive games/apps, and other solutions. Like PDF, Flash lets created content run on multiple OSes and hardware. Flash handles all of the codecs (video and audio), the interaction, etc. for the content. The user just needs to have the software installed.
Why bring in Javascript?
Javascript is a superscript of the adopted ECMAscript standard. Bringing up Javascript into the conversation about Apple and Adobe can only be because Apple “supports” Javascript as an open standard? Javascript is a superset of the approved ECMAscript standard. What does this have to do with Apple’s position? Do you think Adobe doesn’t support Javascript?
Saying you support Standards to bolster your position
Are you saying that you would support Adobe if Adobe submitted Flash to be adopted as a Standard and it was adopted as a standard?
If so, why is a standard so important? Remember, Javascript didn’t start out as a standard, and HTML wasn’t exactly approved/standardized before delivered to the world. Who cares if “it” is a standard? Is the iPhone OS an open standard? Is Filemaker’s database app for the iPhone free or “open?” No. What matters is whether a technology/app works for its users.
Flash works.
If Flash doesn’t work on iMacs well, go ask Apple why that is… My Mac hasn’t crashed once while using Flash, and my kids are using flash all the time Too much if you ask me
My Issue
To say this is about “open” standards v. closed systems is a red herring that most people are swallowing.
My Thoughts
My position Flash is just one tool. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. I don’t care. Just stop trying to rationalize the acceptance of Apple’s position v. Adobe’s as an “open” v. “closed” debate.
Saying the Ford GT can’t race because the WTF Racing Organization says they won’t allow the GT into race does not mean the GT is inefficient, broken, terrible, or “closed.” Rather, it means the WTF Racing Organization won’t let the GT in the door to race. If the GT can run, let it into the game. If the GT blows up, stalls, or otherwise fails to perform, the market will drive it out of the game. To say the GT can’t race in your arena and then say that it is due to flaws in the GT is odd since you aren’t letting it in to race for everyone to see…
Flash runs fine in OS/X… Flash problems generally have been reported on one Mac model… Might it be that mac model has a problem? I will admit that the “problem” is real convenient for Apple now isn’t it? I wonder if Steve was “smart” enough to have a bit of “required” code to support that particular Mac that causes “problems’ with Flash??? Nah, that wouldn’t be fair…
All I will say that my mac has had NO problems with Flash. Period.
Summary
Imagine if Intel, IBM, and others said to Apple “We won’t sell you chips because the Mac OS is “closed” to your hardware.”
Who would you support in that argument? Apple? Why? Choice? Let the market decide? Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple’s products? …
If you just look at open v. closed, you are missing the point.
Who controls what you do with your car? Ford, Chevy, Honda, Lexus, or you?
Who controls what you do or watch with your television? Sony, Samsung, Sanyo, or you?
Why would you give up the ability to run something even if you wouldn’t run it?
Why not have the option? Seems to me options = competition.
Apple had a commercial in 1984 to debut their Macintosh computer. As shown on Google, of all places:
Oh, right… You apple iDevice folks can’t watch that. Sorry, but do enjoy the ‘lite’ version of the full web experience… (note, that is sarcasm…).
I’ve updated the link to show a YouTube video so that people with an iDevice can watch the video… Imagine just seeing a blank spot on the page and you’ll understand that the iDevice, no matter how much you like yours, does not provide the full-web experience…
The commercial had a single old white male stating corporate ideology on a screen. The ideology stated:
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
Fast Forward 26 years
Doesn’t that old what man sound like Steve Jobs? Let us replay that text with editorial comments inserted…
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives (Apple). We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology (for all things Apple). Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests (Adobe Flash, porn, etc.) of contradictory and confusing truths (the public wants flash). Our Unification of Thoughts (iDevice) is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people (Apple), with one will (Apple), one resolve (No Flash, and No “intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool,” and no to non-Apple-approved software), one cause (Apple). Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion (Adobe Flash is closed, Apple is Open). We shall prevail!
OMG!
I wonder if Steve actually reads that text and sees what Apple has become…
Apple 1984
I loved Apple in 1984–Woz & Jobs. I had an Apple //e, a Mac+ was on the way, and things were good.
Apple 2010
Recently, I’ve had a Powerbook Pro and an iPhone.
Apple limits applications on iPlatform and states no application can be created/published using “intermediary translation or compatibility layer[s] or tool[s].”
New Apple Strategy…
Apple’s “new” corporate strategy does not woo me or seem to make much logical sence for a user of an Apple device. I will tear down Steve’s recent “Flash Memo” to show you Apple’s and Steve’s new “Unification of Thoughts.”
First, there is open…
Steve states
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript–all open standards.
Flash is proprietary, no question. So are most of Apple’s software offerings. Perhaps they will give away Filemaker-No, I am sure Steve does not consider databases a “standard pertaining to the web.”
Second, there’s the “full web.”
Steve points out
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
But, wait… What about H.264? As you know, Steve suggests we use HTML5 and H264… However, Wikipedia states
In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[9] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The last US MPEG LA patents for H.264 may not expire until 2028[10].
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[12]
H264 is not open. Hmmm…
In addition, H264 is a family of codecs for video compression… It is not a system to let the user not worry about what codecs are used in the streaming video and it does not allow developers create interactive games. To compare Flash and H264 is like comparing Apples and IBMs…
Don’t get caught up in the “Unification of Thoughts” which isn’t stated to contain any truths. Rather, focus on the contradictory statements from the “different sides” and try to wade through the confusion to find the truth.
Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.
Some of what Steve says is true, but it is mixed. Steve states
We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash.
Flash makes Macs crash? I’ve had my most recent mac for 3 years, and no Flash has caused it to crash. With all the Flash stuff my kids watch and play, I would have expected my Mac to crash if any Mac was going to crash due to Flash, my Mac would have been the one.
I’m just saying…
Honestly, Flash has been an issue with iMacs. However, Apple is likely the culprit since the issue with iMacs crashing does not extend to all of the other Macs. Perhaps something Apple did with the iMac is the cause. Research…
It is fine to accept what people say, but don’t accept without questioning…
Fourth, there’s battery life.
Put a stronger battery in the iDevice! You say people are going to be using the device all day? I can’t agree with the statement that Flash will drain the battery more than how the user will use the device.
I don’t get a full day from my iPhone, and I haven’t gotten a full day since I have had the device. I know I use my iPhone more than most, but limits on battery life is why manufacturers allow the users to switch batteries.
So Steve, your argument about battery life would force you to admit that Apple should have allowed users to switch batteries–to allow continued use without worrying (except for the time it takes to switch the battery) about battery life.
Fifth, there’s Touch.
There is touch, but the Treo650 had the UI that the iPhone uses back in 1994, three years before the introduction of the iPhone…
Steve states
Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Ah, sure. So were most web-pages that are still viewed on the iDevices… Could they be modified to be more “touch-sensitive?” Sure, but I don’t think I want all of the web to be reduced to small, bland lists of text that appears on my iPhone when sites tend to reduce their full content site to an iDevice format. Point your iDevice to Boy Genius and look at the difference between the “full site” and that site reduced for the iDevice. Which do you want to preserve?
The Full Site. Me too…
Sixth, the most important reason.
Steve states
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform.
Perhaps this is the difference between Steve and Woz, but that statement by Steve is false, a blatant lie. Woz could use a presence at Apple now (in my humble opinion).
“How?” You ask.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up… Sorry, I love that quote from The Princess Bride…
There are good apps that were created using just such an intermediary layer of software. There are apps that are still in the app store that are popular. Do a Yahoo or Google search to see all of the posts about this. There are also many really bad apps that were created using just the Apple-approved options (Objective-C, Cocoa, or whatever…).
Don’t think so? Okay, I’ll link a few since you are, a little lazy… Here, here, here, and here. That is just for starters… You really need to look at the comments too…
There are many sites analyzing Steve’s Flash Memo, and most seem to come to the same conclusion… Here is just one.
Conclusions
In closing, Steve states
Flash was created during the PC era
It sure was Steve, and I want it on my mobile devices-all of them. Flash was created since 1984, since the Mac has been out. Wikipedia has a nice “History of Flash” that states
The precursor to the Flash application was SmartSketch, a drawing application for pen computers running the PenPoint OS developed by Jonathan Gay, who began working on it in college and extended the idea for Silicon Beach Software and its successors.
When PenPoint failed in the marketplace, SmartSketch was ported to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. With the Internet becoming more popular, SmartSketch was re-released as FutureSplash, a vector-based web animation in competition with Macromedia Shockwave. In 1995, SmartSketch was further modified with frame-by-frame animation features and re-released as FutureSplash Animator on multiple platforms. The product was offered to Adobe and used by Microsoft in its early work with the Internet (MSN). In 1996, FutureSplash was acquired by Macromedia and released as Flash, contracting “Future” and “Splash”.
So the technology was developed for Windows and Macintosh OS. Flash was “released” in 1996, well after Macs were out and about…
I see Steve disagrees, and this has caused Apple to become what they “rebelled” against back in 1984. That Steve (and some of you) don’t see this is the subject of my novel (not yet published).
People tend to change over time, forgetting what made them full of “drive” when they started out with an “open” mind. You get old, and you think your way is “the only way.” Wait, wasn’t that the 1984 Commercial?
Isn’t the following what Apple was against in 1984?
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
If so, why is Apple pushing it now?
My Thoughts
Now I find myself looking elsewhere because Apple has become what they fought against when they released their Macintosh. Apple wanted to provide a better experience for the user. Apple wanted to bring a pretty UI and ease of use.
What do they want now? It seems they are the old man in the 1984 video who wants to push hardware… Remember, Apple says that hardware is key. It is the iDevice that provides the user experience.
I disagree. As Apple proved when switching from the PowerPC to the x86, it is the software that keeps the user enthralled. What keeps users enthralled is not hardware, and I don’t think the OS is what keeps a user. You have to admit, nobody would use OS/X if there was no software for use on OS/X…
Looking Forward
What Apple is now pushing, I am not buying…
So, I go out into the daylight and look at all the advances in technology we have since 1984, and I find most of them make my life better… Even if some firms try to keep me bottled up within their world vision (i.e., Unification of Thoughts), I find myself wanting to be free…
There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…
A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states
“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.
Comedic Insertion
Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…
Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…
If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…
Back to the Story
I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).
Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.
A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.
People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?
Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.
We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…
It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).
Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.
Back to Nature
A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.
My Thoughts
Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).
Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.
If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…
Summary
Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.
This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.
Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…
So I am seriously considering deleting my Facebook account. At a minimum, I am thinking of not logging in again without first deleting all of the cookies stored on my computer…
If you aren’t sure why, please go read this article and the subsequent comments… Dastardly…
How could it end?
Imagine if everyone had their own domain or used a social site that did not limit acces to those who signed into the social site-Wordpress or Blogger for instance. Sites like this where you don’t have to “sign in” to read the posts.
Now, write code that creates an app, the Tailor Aggregator Program, called TAP for short, that would go out and get copies of posts from these sites and aggregate them (”tap them”) with relevant pics and post all of this information and data on you computer or mobile device. “Tailor” because the user controls, tailors, the content and how it is shown
It could be posted by date/time or could be limited in another manner…
Either way, you would have constant contact with all “you folks” just like you do know, you just wouldn’t be giving Facebook or any other site the right to sell your data.
To help you keep your own ad revenue up, the TAP software could allow a person to visit your site by tapping a comment link or by clicking said link if there was no touch screen-the process could still be called “tapping.”
This would allow constant contact by keeping sites open and would allow the user to limit whose information they saw since many add friends whose data they don’t want to see simply because they don’t want to be rude.
Be honest, who has 1453 friends and who is constantly and seriously in touch with each of them?
Just a thought. I, of course, want credit or any app created, and I expect royalty checks… :). I am starting a programming stint now to work on this idea… Wish me luck ;p
LOTRO is Lord of The Rings On-line, a Massively Multi-Player Role-Playing Game (MMRPG) set in the Tolkien Universe with stories and play based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
The game lets you play several races (Man, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit) and play several classes (Guardian, Champion, Warden, Hunter, Lore-Master (LM), Burglar, Rune-Keeper (RK), Minstrel, and Captain). Each class can use different types of armor (e.g., LMs and RKs can ony use light armor; Minstrel, Hunter, Wardens, and Burglars can use Medium armor; and Captains, Guardians, and Champions can use Heavy Armor). If you can use Heavy Armor, you can use Medium and Light armor as well, although they will not provide you with the same defense (they provide less).
When you join a fellowship (a group of players trying to accomplish a quest or a goal), you likely have a mixed group of races and classes–one or two front-liners, one or two healers, and one or two ranged attackers.
When you defeat an enemy, it is possible to allow everyone to “roll” on the resulting loot (treasure dropped by enemies or stored in chests).
The question a good player asks is “Do I need that?”
Most players don’t ask that….they just hit “roll”…
Lets say your fellowship is comprised of:
Guardian, level 64;
Champion, level 63;
Captain, level 61;
Hunter, level 60;
Rune Keeper, level 58; and
Lore Master, level 58.
There is NO reason for the Guardian or Hunter to roll an light armor shoes that can be used by those of level 58 and up. You see, the Guardian and Hunter will want Heavy and Medium armor shoes, respectively. Also, the higher-level characters likely have better armor than that which has dropped anyway–meaning the lvl 60 Hunter likely already has shoes that provide better armor and other benefits than those provided by the level 58 shoes that are available…
If they roll on them when the Rune Keeper and Lore Master can use them now, and not use all the medium and heavy armor that may fall, they are being selfish and greedy–in my opinion.
I don’t know how else to describe it.
Similarly, the RK and LM have no reason to roll an any medium or heavy armor, especially if it is “Bind on Acquire” (that means that item is bound to the character that wins the item and can not be used by other characters).
If you really need that 10 silver pieces, at least offer to not roll for 10 silver pieces… There is no need to take something you are not going to use and simply sell to the merchant for 10 silver when another member of your group CAN and WOULD use the items on their person…
Bill Thompson has a post over on the BBC where he argues copyright law needs to be severely limited, in his words
This has got to stop. We have to say “enough is enough” to those who hold copyrights in songs and images and words and videos. We must refuse to remake the digital world in order to serve only their interests.
Right…
Why does he argue this is important?
He states
It would be a tragedy if the network the people of East Africa found, now that they have fast fibre links to the rest of the internet, was locked-down, limited and restricted by laws passed to placate fearful Western rights holders and they decided, as a result, that it wasn’t worth joining.
Lack of Logic and Reason
Bill does not seem to realize that freedom is helped by Copyright. Wait, you say. That can’t be! I can’t download all the movies, books, and songs I want! How is that free?!
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…
I have an idea for (a book, a movie, or a song). I go through the “trouble” to take the time to create this “content” to release it to the world. I can release it into the Public Domain if I so want, but I might want to be compensated for the “trouble,” time and effort, it took for me to create this “work.” So I release it as copyrighted material.
The material gets out there and is purchased or licensed (for a fee) by those who appreciate the content enough to pay for it. Those who don’t want to buy it are not forced to buy anything.
My “content” goes through marketing, publishing, and distribution–all employing many people. This “content” I copyrighted and made available for purchase or license is helping support jobs (perhaps yours?).
Yet, Bill argues copyright should be severely limited so that “people of East Africa” can have access to all of this data-not to “placate fearful Western rights holders,” but to support their rights to their own copyrighted material that is now available to the rest of the world due to their “fast fibre links to the rest of the [I]nternet.”
People, everything in life is not free. If everything was free, how would you get paid? Nobody would be selling anything?
Does the “content” being a digital file rather than an actual CD or DVD make it “less valuable” for those who want the content or does it simply make the distribution of that content easier and less restrictive?
I don’t think Bill suggests you walk into the local market to steal the candy you want without paying for the merchandise. Yet, he suggests that “digital content” should be freely-available without legal protections?
He states
There is so much more to online life than watching ripped-off copies of big-budget movies or looking at low-resolution cameraphone videos of bands.
What does he mean by “ripped-off?” Does he mean “stolen” or simply “copied?” It makes a difference doesn’t it?
While there IS more to the Internet, Copyright should still protect “content.”
Why?
Google can not copy my material and reproduce it on their site in its entirety. Why? Copyright laws prevent that type of “cut and paste” copying of copyrighted material.
If Copyright were weakened, all of those who create “content” may make NO money from the content itself since Google, Yahoo, or any wahoo with an illegal site (e.g., illegal torrent site for example) could copy all of the content and post it on their site. People would flock to these sites to get all of the data in one place. As a creator of “content,” would you keep creating if all of your work and time was benefiting someone somewhere else rather than you?
Not unless you were already independently wealthy and didn’t care…
BBC…
The post states Bill works for the BBC. I wonder how much of their content copy-righted material Bill has released to YouTube-especially if the BBC was protecting their legal right to some of that material.
Last time I looked, the BBC took Copyright pretty seriously…
Copyright Notice
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these BBC web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the BBC.
In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.
Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.
Doesn’t that make Bill right?
No. As a matter of fact, that makes Bill wrong.
Here is why…
The legal Copyright lets the BBC (the content provider) dictate who can use what content and how they can use it.
Notice the BBC allows you to ‘
In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.
That likely makes Bill happy since it means the people of East Africa (and everywhere else) can use the copyrighted material owned and provided by the BBC for non-commercial use. This Copyright Law protects the BBC from someone putting all of this data up on their server in hopes of attracting everyone to their site to get content. BBC makes money, Bill can keep his job, and people who have NO creative talent can not benefit by “stealing” everyone’s content.
Bill should be supporting Copyright Law. Just because he doesn’t think everything should have a cost doesn’t mean he is right.
Want to see him agree?
The BBC site states
Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet. He is currently working with the BBC on its archive project.
Ask Bill to agree to not sign any contract for any “independent” journalism that gives the distributor or contractor any ability to limit the distribution, publication, or other legal right to the “content” Bill is asked to create for the company hiring him. Basically, ask Bill to release all of his work into the Public Domain.
My guess is that Bill will not agree to reduce the value of his “time” and “effort” such that he can not afford to do what he likes to do.
In Closing
Copyright Law isn’t the problem. The problem is the removal of the “fair use” clause under USA law and similar provisions for such use under International Law.
If I purchase a DVD of “Criminal Intent,” I feel as if I am buying is the ability to watch the content-the movie. In reality, you are purchasing a license to view the content (movie) on the enclosed media (the DVD). I know, that doesn’t seem logical…
If you copy “Criminal Intent” to your iPhone or other device, you are in violation of the DMCA in the USA and other international laws.
The “fair use” provisions would protect you from prosecution when you copy the movie in case your kids destroy the media on which the content is distributed. Again, the public thinks they are purchasing the right to view the content rather than view the content on the media provided.
While I don’t think any distributor or Copyright holder would sue you if you bought the movie and copied it to any device, they could. Either way, you have NO right to distribute the content over the internet to thousands/millions of other people. You can lend your DVD to others (so long as you don’t view the content while you have loaned the DVD out to your friend). A single person still controls the media and the content on that media–remember, you have no right to charge admission for others to view that material…
Taking gum without paying for it is a crime in the UK. Taking content without a legal right is also a crime. Just because we don’t want to pay for a Jaguar doesn’t mean we can just go take it without paying. Just because I think East Africa might appreciate Bill’s work doesn’t mean that he is willing to give away his work without being paid.
Even if Bill gives away his work for free, Copyright Law lets HIM decide that nobody else can sell his material either–guaranteeing the “free” nature of that material.
You see? Copyright allows the content creator to decide whether or not to protect the content and to what extent such content is to be protected.
People buy the iPhone-it isn’t open.
People by the Macintosh computer-it isn’t open.
People use OS/X-yep, it isn’t open.
People use Flash-it isn’t open.
People use Word-it isn’t open.
People play WoW-it isn’t open.
Do I need to go on?!
The “open” topic is a red herring to keep you focused on something other than the fact that Apple is not letting users decide what they want and what can be used on a device.
You see, Flash would be an application that would allow something on the iDevices that did not replicate a service provided by Apple.
Apple is trying to make users accept that it is the hardware (the iPhone, the iPod, the iPad) that is necessary rather than software.
You are all saying RIGHT! It is the iPhone OS that runs them all and is what we want!
Wrong. The Palm Treo 650 had a very similar GUI…go look at some videos. It is the applications and the uses that the OS allow the user to use and enjoy that is what the users want.
If Apple could move from the PowerPC to the x86 intel chip with No problem from the users perspective, why do they think the hardware on their devices is what is necessary?
Just as it isn’t about whether it is open or not, I have to say it isn’t about hardware either. I’ve said it since 2005… It is about software and apps that let the user accomplish their goals. It doesn’t matter if it is an iPhone, an Android device, a Windows phone, or the Palm WebOS. Hell, the PalmOS would still function to do all I want. It would do most of what everyone wants too.
Stop buying the line that everyone wants you to buy. Think for yourself.
Open isn’t relevant if it doesn’t do anyting useful. Hardware is irrelevant if the user can’t do anything.
Of course, I don’t think many of the general public will think for themselves to realize anything… However, I hope a few of you do.
Anyone who knows anything about Flash knows that it’s buggy, bloated crap. The three major things that use Flash are Video, Advertising and games. Flash video is very quickly being replaced by HTML5, ad’s that move or start playing movies automatically or dramatically slow a page load will not be missed by anyone and as for games… Flash is not touch-screen supported on ANY platform! (And the last I saw, the iPhone is not lacking in the game department!) Flash is a proprietary disruptive resource hog that interferes with Apple’s consistent, simple, high quality user experience across all of its platforms. I applaud Apple for drawing a line in the sand by not allowing a poor technology by “a lazy company” to ruin the #1 rated smartphone platform. Apple abandoned the floppy drive years before the PC did because it recognized it’s useful life was over. Apple is doing the same with Flash. In Jobs we trust.
I am not sure if the person commenting knows Flash or HTML5, but I haven’t heard whether HTML5 will make the user find codecs for each site that uses a different codec to encapsulate their video. Remember that in the past (prior to Flash)?
Flash handles all that back end “traffic” so that the user just gets the service (streaming video, games, etc.). Saying HTML5 will replace Flash because it can stream video or play games is like saying pdf will be replaced by a text editor…
Where this is going…
Apple’s iPod and iPhone are used by many non-techies. These people have used a device like a calculator–just doing what they want for a specific purpose. iPods play content (music, video, etc.), iPhone (smartphone, even though network phone might be more appropriate), …
By introducing all of these non-techies to tech, Apple is educating them and making them, essentially, techies-or many will be in the future.
Why this is important…
Back in 2005 and 2006, I commented that Apple’s move to x86 hardware was going to be easy and fine for the user (the developers were screaming, but the user wasn’t going to care…).
Adam has a post on Uneasy Silence stating
I was working at an Apple reseller when the Intel switch was announced at WWDC 2005 and distinctly remember one of our employees in tears over the announcement and vowed to not sell Intel Macs when they began shipping. The same guy quit the day the iMac and Macbook Pro began shipping in January of 2006. I’m not telling this story for everyone’s amusement because there were thousands of Mac fans with the same feelings and anguish towards our favorite company. In fact, I know many fanboys that personally switched to Linux with AMD chips or bought the last Quad 2.5Ghz G5 PowerMac and stated it would be their last Macintosh computer.
I was more optimistic about the news and decided to simply wait until revision two of the Intel Macs. I have and am now the proud owner of a Core2Duo Macbook and after using this machine for a week; I can see how great this has been for Apple.
. . .
Kudos for his patient outlook. I stated, on 8 June 2005, that the move was good and that nobody should care (yes, you have to scroll down to the post because I did it all by hand back then…).
People don’t really care what is under the hood any more. Intel and AMD know this now. Although users are more hardware-independent, some do decide to become software independent as well. Microsoft, Apple, Linux Distributions (Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.), Linux GUI developers (KDE, Gnome, etc.) should be taking notes.
Counsel
I still don’t think most techies care what is the hardware so long as the software lets them do what they want…
What Apple doesn’t want — and as we see now, is not going to allow — is for anyone other than Apple to define the framework for native iPhone apps. What Apple is saying here is, if you’re going to write a native iPhone app, then you need to target our platform; if you want to do something else, then target the iPhone with an optimized web app. I.e., the iPhone OS supports two software platforms: Cocoa Touch and the web. Apple isn’t going to let anyone else build a meta-platform on top of Cocoa Touch.
I agree. Well, I agree until the userbase revolts and Apple is forced to alter its plans. If Apple is good at anything, it is responding to change in conditions. Just think back to the switch from PowerPC CPUs to those of the x86 design…
Joel Spolsky has an article that talks about why corporations want to do what Apple is doing. In his article, Joel states
Headline: Sun Develops Java; New “Bytecode” System Means Write Once, Run Anywhere.
The bytecode idea is not new — programmers have always tried to make their code run on as many machines as possible. (That’s how you commoditize your complement). For years Microsoft had its own p-code compiler and portable windowing layer which let Excel run on Mac, Windows, and OS/2, and on Motorola, Intel, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC chips. Quark has a layer which runs Macintosh code on Windows. The C programming language is best described as a hardware-independent assembler language. It’s not a new idea to software developers.
If you can run your software anywhere, that makes hardware more of a commodity. As hardware prices go down, the market expands, driving more demand for software (and leaving customers with extra money to spend on software which can now be more expensive.)
Sun’s enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.
Oooooooooooooooooooooops!
Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun’s two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you’re going to have to take the commodity price, which barely covers the cost of cheap factories in Guadalajara, not your cushy offices in Silicon Valley.
“But Joel!” Jared says. “Sun is trying to commoditize the operating system, like Transmeta, not the hardware.” Maybe, but the fact that Java bytecode also commoditizes the hardware is some pretty significant collateral damage to sustain.
An important thing you notice from all these examples is that it’s easy for software to commoditize hardware (you just write a little hardware abstraction layer, like Windows NT’s HAL, which is a tiny piece of code), but it’s incredibly hard for hardware to commoditize software. Software is not interchangable, as the StarOffice marketing team is learning. Even when the price is zero, the cost of switching from Microsoft Office is non-zero. Until the switching cost becomes zero, desktop office software is not truly a commodity. And even the smallest differences can make two software packages a pain to switch between. Despite the fact that Mozilla has all the features I want and I’d love to use it if only to avoid the whack-a-mole pop-up-ad game, I’m too used to hitting Alt+D to go to the address bar. So sue me. One tiny difference and you lose your commodity status. But I’ve pulled hard drives out of IBM computers and slammed them into Dell computers and, boom, the system comes up perfectly and runs as if it were still in the old computer.
Joel’s article is great. Go read the economics of it all. However, I want to point out one bit…
Sun’s enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.
Oooooooooooooooooooooops!
Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun’s two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you’re going to have to take the commodity price, which barely
This is exactly why Apple is fighting to keep the hardware from becoming a commodity. One of the easiest ways to do so is to make the device/hardware appear to be what makes the experience. If you can make the iDevice THAT different and still great to use, then you have preserved your hardware from becoming a commodity. Since OS/X is limited to Apple hardware, you preserve both the hardware sales and the software sales… Nicely thought…
Except…
Apple already moved from the PowerPC CPU to the x86 line of processors. Doesn’t that mean that the hardware is a commodity because the software does not rely on the hardware to provide the particular service. Yes, I do know only Apple sells Apple hardware/software, but work with me here…
Back to educating the masses…
Many of those iDevice users are becoming techies. When they become techies, they too may want more from their device and wonder why Apple isn’t helping them over helping Apple. Many users won’t care–techies or not.
However, Apple could be limiting their success unless they provide more “openness” since people will move for the “software.” But wait, you say… Apple apps only run on apple hardware. Yes, and that is a brilliant catch isn’t it?
However, what happens when other OSes or other devices can provide the exact/similar experience without the IDevice? What stops people form leaving the iDevice?
One reason could be investment in the iDevice software…
This is why I have written that Apple is hoping that the users will want to retain their investment instead of having to “start over” upon buying a new smartphone…
Apple is working to make hardware not be a commodity. However, Apple has a plan if hardware is a commodity. Namely, Apple is the only person selling the software (iPhone OS). If the services become available across OSes, Apple is hoping you will want to retain the investment in the apps…
Apple Fans…
You are welcome to like their products, continue to use their products, and not care about any of the issues I have discussed. What is “right” for me may not be “right” for you. I accept that.
However, I need you guys to stop railing against Adobe by asking “Why doesn’t adobe start using html5, an open standard?” This question appears in more comments than I care to count!
Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up…
I have to ask those that ask…
Why are they using Apple and not Android (or FreeBSD or Linux on the PC) then? Why not an “open standard?”
I generally get silence, a smile (gotcha!), or more rants about how Apple is “the savior.”
Summary
What have we learned?
Apple will fight to keep the hardware from becoming a commodity;
Apple will fight to keep the OS and software tied to Apple hardware;
Apple will continue to “update” the iDevices to keep their users coming back for more;
Educated users will continue to demand more from Apple;
Apple will sell as many apps as they can in case they can’t stop the hardware from becoming the commodity;
None of this should surprise anyone who has been around since the Apple //… Think about it. Really.
The problem I have is that Apple proved that hardware is the commodity when they moved to x86… It wasn’t about the hardware. Yet, they expect us not to remember and to accept that now, hardware isn’t a commodity…
I don’t get that Apple logic. I bet Steve doesn’t either, but he is trying to sell it. He is having lots of luck too.
However, he lost me…
The 1st generation iPhone will join my Apple //e and my Mack+ in the garage when I upgrade to my next phone…. I wonder how many will follow as they become more educated (i.e., techy) due to the use of those iDevices?
I have mentioned before that Apple uses the iPad, iPod, and iPhone to further their profits. Not so surprising since Apple is a corporation out to make money.
However, Apple is acting in a manner that makes Apple look good in the public’s eye while making third-party developers look “bad.”
“Let me explain… No, there is too much, let me sum up…”
Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper apps, points out in a post on his blog that iBooks makes use of a significant number of undocumented functions, and that a third-party developer’s inability to do the same makes “all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens.” iBooks’s ability to let you adjust the brightness of the screen inside the app—without having to jump to the iPad’s Settings application—is an example of functionality not available to third-party programmers.
Two potential problems arise from this disparity: first, as Arment points out, Apple’s own apps create expectations that diminish the production value of third-party software. Since normal users are not well-acquainted with the subtleties of programming, it’s difficult to explain that an app’s inability to match the functionality provided by its Apple’s counterparts is not due to a lack of ability or interest on the developer’s part, but, rather, to the legalities of participating in the App Store. One could also argue that private frameworks give Apple an unfair advantage, especially as its interests expand from the core device functionality into other areas—as with the recent introduction of iBooks.
Most non-tech people say so what? I get what I want, and the third party developers can do other things…
Technically inclined folk may disagree… Why should I, a developer, develop for a device if the Company whose device I am developing for is making my apps appear inferior to their own–not because I do not code as well but because I am prevented from using their function calls if I want them to approve my app…?
If Apple continues, those developers may leave Apple on principle. Most may stay for the cash, but I hope everyone, techy and average citizen, realizes that Apple isn’t caring so much for your desires as Apple is caring for Apple. Sounds like insurance companies, Wall-street types, and politicians–all groups I want to distance myself from at this point in my life.
It is so bad, I bet lawyer jokes are getting a backseat to Apple jokes.
I also hear a lot of people whining about this, and this article just makes the circle of whining increase. People that are not engineers, and not informed read this article and spite Apple without fully understanding what Apple is providing.
Apple is the provider, they are providing a stable, reliable environment for applications to thrive on, and a platform that simplifies and facilitates developer to end user sales. As mentioned briefly in this article and by the commenter above, dreyfus, private frameworks are a necessity, the only way to test them is give them some use.
Apple does this by publishing their own applications using these private frameworks.
The bottom line is that Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same, which is a good, clean, reliable experience with all the applications, with the SDK, and guaranteeing forward compatibility. The only way they can do that, is the path they have chosen.
Let me put this in a way that makes more sense to more people… why in this article are you not complaining about Apple’s “Phone” application using private frameworks? Or their Settings app? Well, you might say that it’s because those aren’t on the “appstore” and you would be right, but the bottom line is that Apple is the provider, they need to provide a high quality of service in their platform, their OS, their SDK, their Applications, and to end users. Use an Android for a month and you’ll appreciate that much more about what Apple has done.
Not surprising, I disagree…
I disagree both about the suggestion that “educated” and “intelligent” people already agree with Apple’s practice and about there not being any logic or validity to the comments being made by some, even if the few.
Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…
The suggested argument is that “Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same…..”
Why does that prevent the use of private function calls, private frameworks, or making those private functions/frameworks public? Nobody is arguing that those “non-public” functions/frameworks are unreliable or not capable of being understood by developers… Remember, Apple still has to approve the app, and Apple could deny approval for apps that did not function or that were “confusing.”
There are plenty of applications available for computer OSes that allow users to control settings without using the OS-providers apps while using their underlying programming (altering settings without opening the OS control panel in Windows for example…). This is done in OS/X as well.
People are complaining about Apple not allowing others to use those “private functions/frameworks” that could allow another dialer. Again, if Apple is approving everything, they would control whether the replacement application for the dialer was functional… Rather, Apple wants a unified appearance at the expense of the developer (and some of us technically-inclined and otherwise intelligent users/programmers).
United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.
According to the posts, it doesn’t appear as if Apple manipulated APIs to favor its software… Smart attorneys find loopholes. People commenting on the issue appear to state that Apple simply did not give developers access to “private frameworks.” The technicality makes no difference to some, but it may make a difference to lawyers.
Summary
I am not making any legal allegations against Apple or their practices, but I, personally, don’t like or approve of their practice. Your mileage, and opinion, may differ. I accept “many” folk will love what Apple does and suggest that they like what Apple does–I don’t mind that actually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, saying people who disagree with Apple (or the majority of the population even–as in politics) over a ’subjective’ issue are “wrong” or “not educated” (or smart) does confound the intellect …
Comments on different sites abound, but I don’t think the iPad will be as successful as all the hype.
Why?
Here is a comment from someone who went to stand in line to buy one:
“Hated it…sold it on eBay.”
When asked if he was serious, he replied:
“Seriously….I have an iMac, and an iPhone….it was in between…it’s cool, but didn’t do anything new for me personally. Another friend of mine took his back for the same reason. Maybe the 3G version will make it better. ”
I’m not sure that the 3G version will make the iPad any more desireable unless you are with Verizon or Sprint (or another carrier) that allows tethering.
The cost of another data connection might make the average user not so interested.
How do you feel? Love the iPad or do you wish it returned?
Apple has released the iPad. If you actually don’t know or aren’t sick of all the posts, you are in the minority…
What are the problems with the iPad?
Charging from power plug-in is the only efficient way;
Fragile-not as tough as the iPod or iPhone;
Apps are more expensive;
No Flash;
Not open–not open-source software, but open to put your own stuff on there…;
why go on?
Flash isn’t necessary! Or so I hear. Many say that HTML5 will solve the streaming video / Flash debate.
No it won’t
You see, Adobe’s strength is that it understands that the output we view may be affected by different monitors, printers, etc… Adobe’s products make all that irrelevant. PDF documents look the same across platforms (OS/X, Windows, Linux, …) and software (Office, OpenOffice, Wordperfect, …).
Flash isn’t just streaming video–although many think it is limited to that function. Flash provides many other benefits like not having to worry if you have the right codec for the video or audio. What codec you ask?
Right… You see, Flash takes care of all of that for you. The user has Flash and does not have to worry if the video was encoded with H264, mpeg, mov, avi, …. The end user does not have to worry about codecs, resolutions, other software, etc. It is a complete platform for the delivery of ’stuff.’
If you think Flash = streaming video, please go here and read…
It is more complex than that…
Do you program at all?
If you program a little, you may want to put some of your programs on your mobile device. However, you would have to submit your program to Apple for their verification/approval if you want to put it on your iPhone/iPad/iPod. Why? To control the user experience?
Sure. For the non-tech / average USA citizen, that is fine. Why not allow those of us “with the know,” to do more? You see, I will not submit my stuff for Apple to approve or reject. Why should I? I would have to pay to have it approved when I only want to use it myself? What if I don’t want it released?
It is MY device, isn’t it? To me, this is like Apple telling me they have to approve those I add to my contact list. I understand that MOST users don’t feel the same way, but it is an issue for me.
Summary
Don’t let Apple ouster Flash to put in H264–that it controls. Why is one better than the other? Flash does a little more than just encode video-streaming or otherwise.
Look past the shiny lights and tech. Like people, tech shouldn’t be judged by popularity or exterior appearances.
We have talked about Engadget’s problems over the last few days, and I was not surprised to see an inboxing/review of the iPad within 2 hours of the iPad being sold.
Yet, engadget has yet to even post an inboxing or basic review of the JooJoo-an iPad oponent, if you will. Either Engadget gets add dollars from Apple and is scared of losing those revenues, or they, in my opinion, are biased in their reporting so much that they shut off comments and do not review a piece if tech without do much as an explanation when there is/was serious requests for the JooJoo review.
You see, Engadget stated they needed time with a device to give it a good/ serious review. Of course though, no such time requirement was needed to post a review of the iPad. I don’t mind you love of all things Apple, but, damn, don’t lie to me or lack reason in your statements and expect me to accept your…I’d have to call it a false excuse.
Now I’m off to find another tech news site as I refuse to go to a site that doesn’t provide even coverage and that dies not use logic in talking to the reader.
Call me idealistic, but doesn’t it bother you at all?
Engadtet actually has a JooJoo device-one of those alternatives to the iPad. However, they still have no review… I find this very odd considering the iPad is NOT out but there are many posts about the iPad, iPad apps, and FCC information for the iPad.
Why no coverage of the alternatives? Why no release of in-depth JooJoo information and details?
I left Gizmodo because they were immature–turning off LCDs at a tech conference regardless of the costs to those affected. Hell, even my 8-year old knows better. He certainly is more mature…
Engadget is going to lose me if they keep this I love all things Apple regardless of the issues involved…
Issues you ask?
1. iPad value prices iPad apps. There are plenty of comments on this on various site, feel free to Google and Yahoo for information;
2. No flash. Sure, you say HTML 5 will resolve it all… when it gets out and fully accepted. Why not fully support Flash? Certainly it isn’t to serve me…
3. Locked store. If I want to put MY app on the device, I have to either jailbrake it or get my app approved by Apple. Why?! Maybe I just want a random number generator that I wrote or any other program. I can’t just put it on MY phone. I don’t like that.
Certainly, most folk will be pleased with the iPad. I have no problem with that. However, Engadget was supposed to be this tech site for those into tech. Why not cover all of this with more honesty? It seems to me that they are simply in love with all things Apple.
I have no problem with their love, but when it affects their “reporting,” I take exception.
Pocosin is a Native American word meaning a "swamp on a hill." "Poco" and "sin" are two Spanish words meaning "little" and "without." The site offers my perspectives on news, technology, legal issues, politics, and social issues.
Contact
Subscribe
Aug 26, 2010 
No Comments 
Apple, H.264, Open, video encoding
Too much if you ask me 