* Posts by Gregorski

6 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jan 2010

Apple tightens rules for iPad news delivery

Gregorski

One step too far

Up until now I've been on Apple's side in the debate. Unlike many Apple detractors on this site, I believe that having a partly walled garden isn't necessarily a bad thing for most consumers because of the vastly improved user experience it offers. Combine that with the fact that 99% of consumers don't care about being able to install hacked apps onto their hardware or do all those things that techies believe are essential.

iTunes app store has been a fantastic launching pad for many smaller software studios, allowing them to reach an audience they could never have dreamed of without Apples infrastructure. The 30% cut that apple take from these developers in return for distribution of their products is reasonable when you consider the cost to a small-time developer in infrastructure to do the same (and that isn't counting the potential marketing costs as well).

However, I believe that forcing content providers to manage their subscriptions via iTunes is one step too far. These are not apple's customers, they are the content providers customers, and the relationship belongs to the provider.

If Apple want a cut of this then the most they should expect is a fee from the provider per download of their app (in return for being an agent in the software distribution process). Whether the provider chooses to pass that fee on to the customer through charging for that app is up to them.

Apple are certainly playing a very dangerous game. As HTML 5 matures, providers will be able to migrate towards browser based products and continue to provide and similar level of end-user experience in their content. What will Apple do then? Block URL's in their web browser to those content providers services. The minute that happens they are dead in the water as a provider of the "mobile devices" that they claim is now their core business.

Come on Apple, you didn't create the content, don't expect a cut of the revenue.

Mythical 'iPad 2' caught on camera

Gregorski
FAIL

iPad2 on the back shows its fake

Apple don't write things like iPad2 on the back of there products in big duplo letters.....

Linus Torvalds doesn't hate the Googlephone

Gregorski
WTF?

Do we care ?

Why should I care whether this guy likes Google's phone or not ? Just because he created Linux doesn't mean he knows anything about cellphones. In fact I happen to think Linux is great, but the Nexus one doesn't interest me one bit. Google really are stretching themselves too thin.

Apple iPad vs netbooks: fight not over yet

Gregorski

You should've waited

Now show your wife the iPad and ask her which she would have preferred..... thought so.

Gregorski

People don't understand netbooks

My view on netbooks was exactly echoed in Steve Jobs' words during the keynote. I don't know whether to be proud or worried about that fact.

What worries me here is how many people simply don't get netbooks. A NETBOOK ISN'T JUST A SMALL LAPTOP. Netbooks were designed to be simple, portable devices which you would use to browse the web, deal with your email and basically stay in touch in 2 scenarios:

1. Whilst travelling to avoid the baggage of a full sized laptop

2. For the less technology concious home user who wanted a simple cheap way to stay in touch and access the internet

The clue is in the name guys !

Early netbooks running various flavours of Linux gave us exactly that. The problem was that consumers kept pushing for more and more features and functionality in them because they thought that these devices were crippled. The manufacturers complied, putting either Windows XP or less crippled Linux distro's on them. These netbooks have effectively become mini-laptops. And this is Steve Jobs' point. As mini laptops they're fatally crippled by crappy tiny screens, not suitable for desktop style apps, and by ridiculous keyboard which are probably ok if you have fingers the size of a 5 year-old's.

All those consumers have done is ruined the netbook segment for people who really needed a netbook as it was intended to be. What those consumers really needed was a much more portable proper sized laptop. It's a shame that manufacturers haven't realised this and concetrated on thinning down their standard laptops and making them more portable whilst still powerful. (My Dell laptop is a brick). The form factor is irrelevant here. A 12-13" laptop would be no less portable than a netbook if it were made to a sensible weight/size target. Sadly for the Apple-haters, Steve Jobs' got this right too (Macbook Air). There are ultra-portable offerings out there too, not just Apple's.

So, the iPad. The iPad is not a fully functional PC. It's not intended to be so. What it is however is a personal computer providing all the functionality intended in the netbook segment, and a whole lot more. Take my mother for example. All she uses on her computer is e-mail, browser and the occasional typed document. This device, coupled with a bluetooth keyboard (not that 1970's looking dock combo) would be ideal.

I would label this device as "A netbook done properly"

It has flaws for sure, the ommission of a front facing camera for web chat is woeful, but Apple know how to make money, and I'd expect this to be on version 2 to ensure all of the early adopters end up paying double for their new toys. However, at that price it's hard to complain at what Apple have done. Show me anything that slick and powerful at that price.

This device along with the rest of Apple's line up just shows how the other manufacturers just don't understand the market place they're in. Sometimes listening to what customers are asking for is the wrong thing to do. You have to think past what they're asking for and realise what they really need.

I'm afraid Apple got it right again.

Adobe sounds off on iPad's Flash slap

Gregorski

You're wrong

I never use flash unknowingly because I use Adblock which highlights to me exactly which components on the screen are Flash.

Flash has been the same disaster for the internet and Microsoft has been for desktop computing.

Flash has slowed browser development as developers take the easy route only to find they're tied into some proprietary infrastructure which costs them too much to escape from. It means an end user experience consisting of slow downloads, clunky install paths and versioning hell where if you don't have the right version of some crappy plug-in installed then the website doesn't work at all. How crap is that? If the problems with Flash are people writing poor scripts then this is Adobe's fault for allowing this and not being defensive against it, not the developers fault.

Flash is basically a dead technology, and good riddance.