1404 posts • joined Thursday 18th June 2009 14:54 GMT
Maybe they're following (non-Android) Google conventions?
In the sense that calling it a beta seems just to mean that users should expect that features may be added or radically altered without a great deal of notice, rather than that the quality of the code is lacking. The keyboard itself sounds like a good idea, I'm going to give it a try.
That said, given the article's willingness to repeat the 35 second PR froth, it'd be wrong to overlook that the same phrase was typed in less than 22 seconds on a standard multitouch keyboard in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVXyVzLjKag . The specific OS running the generic multitouch keyboard doesn't matter.
When did Steve say that?
Sounds like a straw man argument to me.
The advertising often contrasts the amount of malware on OS X to the amount of malware on Windows to make an argument that a consumer is safer on Mac, but that's objectively true. It doesn't matter why, but there is substantially less.
I upvoted you, but...
... on reflection, where's the evidence that QuickTime suffers security problems any more often than Acrobat, Internet Explorer, etc? That is, assuming you're willing to agree that all security flaws that allow control over a machine are equal — I'm not aware of any other mainstream product shipping with a security hole engineered into it deliberately but left in only accidentally.
A clearly partisan decision
Arguably the right stance to take (I mean, I don't think so, but I can see the point of view), but a definitely announcement by Mozilla that they're not impartial despite having no direct strategic interest in either codec. The lunacy of "someone's planning a better codec in the future so of the ones that exist now we're supporting only the one that nobody currently uses" is hard to avoid however. I remember they used to get something like 90% of their income from Google by receiving a tiny fee each time a user uses the browser's search box — is it possible they're trying to bind themselves closer to Google now that Chrome is on the scene?
Every single youtube video is already encoded in H.264
And, regardless of what their other arms say, Google has already embraced H.264 by pushing an operating system onto millions of phone handsets that can utilise a hardware decoder for H.264 video. Indeed, all the manufacturers are pumping out millions upon millions of devices with H.264 hardware support every year, what with it not just being the only thing supported by all current mobile phones but also being the standard codec for most HDTV, including BluRay.
Current number of hardware solutions for WebM? Zero.
So — does youtube want to play on mobile phones, video game consoles, set top boxes and, potentially, smart DVD and BluRay players or not?
The free licence for H.264 means that Google's WebM play already worked. Google won. We all benefit.
Would be more useful than the OS X Dashboard
That being a feature to file alongside the transparent menu bar under keynote material that added no value to anything. And is it because I have so many Apple devices that I can see what a usability joke CoverFlow is?
Anyway, I'm hoping for something interesting in the realm of the Apple TV as it strikes me that if Apple hadn't done something interesting with the tablet computer and with the mobile phone then probably nobody else was going to.
@dogged: It's the user interface, stupid
(NB: a Clinton reference, rather than a personal attack)
When the iPod came out, most of the other players were aping the CD player interface. You got a line or two of display and digital buttons to move back and forth between tracks and to proceed through playlist selection. In summary: navigation was really hard with, most of the time, you having no overview of what you're scrolling through and taking forever to get from one end to the other.
The original iPod did two things very right: the scroll wheel (which gives you fantastic control over moving through a list) and a big screen that shows quite a lot of the list you're selecting from. The other players took years to catch up, even the original Zune had digital buttons disguised to look a bit like a scroll wheel to unsuspecting customers in a brilliant move of self sabotage. And by the time they'd caught up, Apple had become the first company to put together a compelling music shop front. And by the time everyone had caught up with that, the app revolution had come along and Apple had used the iPhone as a stealthy way to reinvent the iPod interface.
One of the interesting things to come out of one of the Microsoft antitrust cases was a record of internal emails from somewhere around 2003 in which the guys in Redmond seem to be pulling their hair out over the very poor quality of the then latest Creative players, feeling that their efforts in PlaysForSure or whatever it was at the time were being consistently hampered by hardware partners failing abjectly to step up to the plate. Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=MSFT:US&sid=anhaQOstu83g
If Microsoft were willing to say it then, it seems ridiculous to try to rewrite history now.
It's not that bad
Picking your post at random to reply to, the article states that ActionScript is translated into Java bytecode. So, in principle, most of the time, the Flash code is executing as though it were Java. The Java runtime then has a whole bunch of similar stuff for translating Java to native code so the whole thing is better framed as a caching problem rather than an ongoing translation problem.
Numbers has 'table categories' instead
Albeit that this is just a long winded way of saying "no, it doesn't have pivot tables", per the PC World review:
"Numbers is still lacking in a couple of features that experienced Excel jockeys will miss. First is support for pivot tables. Numbers approximates the effects of pivot tables with a new table categories feature, which is arguably easier to work with. Table categories allow you to group data from one table and categorize it in another. The categories are based on existing columns in the original table and can be easily expanded or hidden with a disclosure triangle.
The effect is similar to a pivot table and requires much less effort for novice users, and it works well for almost anyone wanting to quickly view related data. However, longtime Excel users may feel the feature doesn't match what they're used to."
Also absent: macros.
I naturally assume WebGL will be in there, alongside canvas, so I applaud the engineering decision.
It tends to get reviewed in terms of "for small offices and home users", but I couldn't name any missing features compared to Office. That said, I work in a small office, so...
Outlook-compatible email, calendar and address book apps ship with the OS, so they're not present. There's no equivalent to Access, but Microsoft don't ship Access for the Mac either.
I'm not sure if it's about confidence or striving for legitimacy, or if they actually don't see the products as overlapping, but if you go to Apple Store you'll still see Microsoft Office boxes on conspicuous display.
An interesting interpretation
The sum total of Android handsets outsold the iPhone at one data point in one territory, and that means the game is already lost? I'd suggest you have a prejudiced interpretation.
CUDA is proprietary nonsense
Apple have chosen to embed GPGPU stuff directly into the OS as a first class component through OpenCL, a standard supported on ATI, Nvidia and Intel chips, on OS X, Windows and Linux. CUDA is just Nvidia's proprietary equivalent, though it deserves some respect for being on the market a lot earlier. In any case, Apple don't use CUDA but do and will offload plenty of tasks to your GPU anyway. They've also got some really good stuff for taking advantage of multiple cores as of 10.6, so those quad cores may even be worth it.
So, definitely the new Microsoft then?
In terms of: where have all the original ideas gone? Is this it from now on — wait for someone else to launch a popular product then usurp them with essentially the same product under more liberal licensing?
Not actually what the review says
"The weakness in the iMac range really lies in the models that aren’t available" would seem more to mean that the models that are available are competitive against other machines at the same price points but that not all price points are available, matching the sentiments of the rest of the review. It doesn't anywhere make the point that what you get doesn't seem justified by the price point.
So, my paraphrase of the summary would be: "if you want to spend £1000+ then the iMac is a decent option, if you want to spend less then Apple don't want your business".
Not usable, at least on my 2008 iMac
Although both the Wii and at least one of ye olde PowerPC G3 CRT iMacs could happily accept either 8cm or 12cm discs, my 2008 iMac definitely won't accept 8cm CDs. I'm not sure what the reasoning is or when exactly that feature was removed, though I'd imagine it's part of Apple's conscious attempt to sideline physical media. See also: BluRay.
Erroneous Howard made a statement that the iPhone does not do voice recognition. bygjohn replied, pointing out that it does. So I think his point is that Erroneous Howard spoke erroneously, which is relevant and to the point, unlike unrelated ramblings about Samsung phones and whether or not the iPhone was first (you know, given that nobody here claimed or probably even thought that it was).
Your argument is that Android will be as ubiquitous on phones as Windows is on desktops, hence Apple will cease to exist?
Apple's desktop/laptop machines are very profitable and as a result Apple was a very profitable company before the iPod. Thanks to the iPod it was a hugely profitable company before the iPhone. Your conclusion doesn't match your analogy.
But, just from the names...
... it sounds like they're claiming IP rights over the algorithms — not the specific implementations — that are used for preparing, loading/binding and possible running programs that run in the same manner as the JVM. Whether Dalvik does or doesn't technically infringe, I have no idea.
And I'll be cheering on Google, for the reasons you state and more. I'll add: Oracle are probably going to grab a load of mindshare from this, but none of it positive.
You could make money hacking a Wii, XBox or PS3, couldn't you?
At least the XBox has a marketplace of sorts that the average man off the street can sell in (ummm, I think, and the man probably needs to be US resident) but in any case all three have web browsers, which probably means stored passwords for banking, shopping, etc.
I've never been sure why people are so quick to condemn the walled garden in mobile handsets but accept it almost everywhere else, including on video game consoles. I guess it's because by "people" I actually mean "people who comment on tech publications and blogs".
Sorry, probably being dense
I actually don't understand what point Microsoft are trying to make about the mouse. What's the problem with the mouse? You move it, the mouse moves. You press on the left, you do the primary action. You press on the right, you do the contextual action. If you swipe up or down (or left or right), you scroll. How is that a mouse operating differently?
I'm posting as a reply in case your complaint is about operation. But I suspect it may just be that the current Apple mouse is rather flat and unusually shaped?
The poster above has dealt with hardware H.264 decoding; you're also trying to claim that there's no open graphics library on OS X? You know, like e.g. that industry standard one that originated at SGI? You may not have heard of it, I suggest you install Adobe Shockwave and go to some of the related game sites to experience it. You don't even have to leave the browser.
Re: closed and proprietary
I think the issue is related to standard free market arguments; Adobe have set themselves up as the single vendor of Flash implementations when they seem barely able to support all of the desktop platforms - the OS X plug-in is slow like treacle and crashes a lot, the Linux client is probably both of those things but it's also out of date and poorly supported.
In this area, open standards are very obviously benefitting the consumer compared to the closed alternative. What a lot of us are looking forward to is when the open standard stuff is sufficiently ubiquitous that the rich media doesn't just run, but it runs well, everywhere.
Suggest someone tells Adobe
Performed a moment ago:
1) switch Nexus One on
2) swipe to unlock, tap 'Market'
3) search for 'Flash'
Result: Adobe Flash 10.1 beta 3. Version 10.1.72.7, 3.75mb, 50,000-250,000 downloads, 9951 ratings. I scrolled down to the bottom of the list so as to cause further results to be loaded a total of four times, ending my search at 'Add to 2' by Gary Gause and spotted no further versions of Adobe Flash.
Sorry if that's a bit too much like checking the facts for the up/down voters.
That'd be great, but are Adobe up to it?
Just as it's wrong to say that Apple are free of control issues, I don't think it's accurate to say that Adobe are free of quality issues. And if they put out a plug-in or player that crashes even half as much as their OS X plug-in then they'll actually be adding fuel to Jobs' fire.
You've obviously not been installing the Vodafone upgrades then. My fear is that rather than Android continuing to be the only fully open platform, it's going to become the platform that can be open but only if you're willing to pay for a SIM-free handset. I think this is what Google saw coming; probably the Nexus One was just too early. Give the core audience a couple of years of carriers messing up the firmware and there'll be a healthy market for a straight-from-Google device.
You hear a lot of positive things about .NET
Even from people who long ago decided they don't like Windows, Internet Explorer, Office, etc. And El Reg's recent preview of IE9 (yesterday, maybe?) made it sound like a product people could get excited about.
None of this directly affects me, of course, as I use a Mac at work and at home.
For SVN, I use...
... the SVN client built into Xcode, the free development suite that ships on the OS install media (and is downloadable subsequently). Though it's Apple software, so perhaps I'm missing your point.
Straying from the Apple/Microsoft/Adobe fold, glancing through my /Applications folder I use the following good (and cost effective) software:
• Cheetah3d, for 3d modelling
• Pixelmator, because I do sometimes do editing things, but don't need Photoshop
• VirtualBox, which needs no introduction
• 0xED, a hex editor, for when I'm (ever more rarely) doing bits and bytes stuff
• IBM Lotus Symphony, but only at work because I have iWork at home
• Audacity, sometimes...
• Sound Studio, ...the rest of the time
• The Unarchiver, for access to 7zip, lxma, etc archives (and sit too, if I'm unarchiving from history)
• SOAP Client, when programming anything to do with SOAP
• Google Chrome
• Froq, for access to a remote SQL database
• Cyberduck, an excellent FTP client
• Flip4Mac and Perian, both codec packs for QuickTime
• Inkscape, but only sometimes because as a lazy (note: lazy) X11 app, the user interface is horrid
• Citrix Metaframe, for the obvious uses
• SolidWorks eDrawings, for viewing CAD images — though I think I used this exactly once for exactly one project
• Snapz Pro X, for screen recording
• Meshlab, which is a cross platform set of 3d mesh tools
• RapidWeaver, which is a web page designer for the lazy
• Taco Edit, for HTML editing otherwise
Though the Microsoft/Apple stuff in particular is excellent, and the Adobe stuff really very good.
I would guess from the general tone of your statement that games don't count and I'm not much of a gamer, but I also have World of Goo, the recent Monkey Island and Steam installed.
DJGPP is DOS only...
... but Cygnus and mingw32 provide ports of GCC (ie, the same tool suite as DJGPP) that build Windows applications. So it's easy to substitute the one for the other. And they're all good because GCC was a mature compiler chain before it was ported. Though LLVM/Clang seems now to be the future.
But PDF isn't like Flash
It's widely implemented by people other than Adobe, including on the Mac and iPad where Apple wrote and hence have complete control over the PDF viewer. Apple aren't anti-Adobe per se, they're merely anti-Adobe (or anyone else) having a toe in the software or developer tool stack. At a guess, the calculation was that Flash was already sufficiently disliked that it was a better idea to go on the attack than to end up in a situation like they have with Carbon on the desktop where they end up supporting an obsolete technology for a decade for the benefit of third parties.
How did you buy it?
If it was from Amazon or whatever, invoke the distance selling regulations to return it for a full refund, then buy it again to get a receipt with the correct time printed on it. If it was from a real shop then maybe go in and talk to them nicely?
What's the problem with British libel law?
I appreciate that there's a reverse burden whereby the claimant need only establish that the statement was made and that (approximately) it lowers their standing in society, in which case the burden shifts to the defendant to establish the truth of the allegation on the balance of probabilities (ie, there's an atypical reverse burden according to which the claimant can very easily establish a presumption of guilt), but what do the other countries do? Or is it just to do with having to prove the substance of attributed quotes?
Surely that's why Steve Jobs won't replace Flash with HTML5 for 5 years?
And can't we just replace Flash as a mandated plugin with Google Chrome Frame in the meantime?
I'm probably being naive.
iPhone apps have to ask the user for permission (either explicitly or implicitly) to access various things at runtime. It's not accurate to say that no warning is presented to iPhone users.
Applications that try to access the location get a pop-up box saying "This application is trying to access location services" and then it's up to the user to allow or deny it. If you allow it, you grant permission for all future launches. But the more common approach is that taken to sending an email or getting contact details from the address book — the only mechanism to get at those details is to use a supplied Apple dialogue. To get a contact, for example, you have to ask the OS to request that the user pick a contact, the user picks one using the standard interface, the program gets the name of that single contact back. So the user still knows exactly what's going on and grants permission.
I think there was one occasion where somebody figured out how to get the user's phone number on the iPhone using some sort of API quirk. That was a mistake on Apple's part and has been fixed. The usual prohibitions on illegal APIs act as the rest of the barrier.
That all being said, these are the main points I take from the story:
– a wallpaper app can get 3 million downloads on Android; and
– Android is doing so well that people are starting to care about malware for it.
I care less every day about Apple versus Google (other than where one side is misrepresented).
I'm sure it's only temporary
The first iPods were Mac only too. That said, I think the Magic Mouse still doesn't have any official Windows drivers (?), so possibly don't expect official developments soon.
Android isn't an open shop for you
It's an open shop for operators and mobile manufacturers. Any operator and any manufacturer can put out a phone that is more locked down than iOS 1.0 and accurately promote it as an Android handset. It's simply inaccurate to claim that being an Android handset means being an open handset.
All the Android handsets I've encountered to date have been very open, but you'd be a fool if you are willing to discount out of hand the possibility that a million no-name brands will rush completely locked Android mobiles with unending intrusive carrier concessions to the market should the brand ever become a significant consumer force. The economics of carriers versus manufacturers versus consumers hasn't changed.
It's a problem that all phones have. Ummm, except if you have a free case. Or maybe all the other phones have it even with a case. Because they also have buggy software. Unless you've installed the latest updates. Or something.
The only thing I've found surprising in all this is the complete gracelessness with which several of the other manufacturers have responded. They still come out looking better than Apple, but I think a lot worse than they could have done.
I don't think it is FreeBSD underneath
I'm sure that last time I saw relevant slides, the Mach kernel stuff underneath supported the BSD subsystem but the BSD subsystem wasn't below CoreFoundation, on which Cocoa and Carbon sit.
That aside, I'm not sure Apple are likely to use this on the desktop as they don't pitch anything there at people who count the pennies. It's more likely to be for one of the iOD devices - maybe you can have your carrier subsidised iPad, but at a cost?
I didn't mean proprietary as in closed source
I meant it as in the language/infrastructure standard. OpenCL is a Kronos standard, so anyone can implement it. Not me, I couldn't — and I have no intention of looking at how anyone else has. But ATI could. CUDA is something NVidia made up and propagate for the purpose of selling NVidia products. It won't be coming to ATI cards any time soon.
But, as I was clear to point out, I'm just shouting ballyhoo from the sidelines without being directly affected. I just find it difficult to get excited about a technology being promoted by one manufacturer for the benefit of that manufacturer when it not only isn't the only game in town but the whole area is so nascent that no platform can be really described as dominant.
Proprietary; not interested
Though the CUDA approach is quite a lot better than Microsoft's brilliant idea of making GPGPU a 'game' feature by putting it in DirectX. Still though, it'd be OpenCL for me were I anything more than an armchair pundit. It seems to be supported by Intel, NVidia and ATI and available on all three of the name recognition operating systems.
Geoff has a point
He's not alone in having a point, but even as someone in my sixth year of Mac use it turns me off when people try to portray the switch as something grander than finding a type of computer with which you are more happy. Even if there were some light to see, it'd surely be that there's choice and that you can think for yourself? Which is a light Geoff's already seen.
I'm not sure the copyright date is accurate
Per some quick Googling, it wasn't reviewed by Acorn User until April 1985 (when they explicitly referred to it as being Macintosh-like) and other sites like computinghistory.org.uk list it as a 1985 release. Is it possible they got the hardware done having seen or read about the 1983 Lisa or any of the other mice that predated, then had a quick rejig of the software post-Mac?
... was doing 16bit per channel and layers before DP managed to get past indexed colour. But my understanding of the history of technology is that neither "this pioneering tool was worse than tools that came later" nor "they shouldn't be given credit for invention because everyone else quickly stole their ideas" are especially useful things to say.
Windows 2000 is why I started to like Microsoft again
Though I was also a big fan of Visual C++ 6.0 back in the day. I've since switched to Mac but my only gripes with Windows 2000 are that the typography is a bit rubbish (Microsoft's patented super-agressive font hinting and no ClearType) and window hunting is a bit of a chore without Exposé (or, ummm, whatever Windows Vista or 7 has to achieve the same thing — a quick preview showing all open windows at the same time by some combination of temporary shrinking and moving). It's also annoying that a bunch of modern software, including some of the modern web browsers (well, Chrome, but that's my favourite Windows browser), have dropped support for 2000 while continuing to support XP.