85 posts • joined Tuesday 12th June 2007 14:44 GMT
What did the Romans ever do for us?
It's hilarious to see all the Apple haters getting their panties in a bunch about this! The arguments trotted out against Apple are equally entertaining. Litigating because they can't compete? Hello! Reality calling! The iPad is utterly dominating the tablet market, far from not being able to compete, there basically is no competition for the iPad. If Samsung, Motorola, RIM et al keep churning out 3rd rate products that no one wants to buy (and even of those that *are* bought, most are returned) then Apple really have nothing to worry about. That doesn't (and shouldn't) stop them however from taking action if someone is blatantly ripping them off. It's the same as Ferrari (successfully) suing the kit car manufacturers for selling "replica" Ferraris, even though Ferrari have nothing to fear from those outfits.
Now about Apple not innovating. So Apple didn't invent the first computer with a GUI and mouse. So Apple didn't invent the world's first ever touch screen tablet computer. So they didn't invent the world's first ever portable HDD based MP3 player. So they didn't invent the first ever touch screen mobile phone. So what? Apple *did* produce the first ever *successful* computer with a GUI and mouse. Apple *did* produce the first ever *successful* HDD MP3 player. They produced the first ever *successful* touch screen tablet computer. They produce what is by far the most *successful* touch screen smartphone. Edison didn't invent the light bulb. He *did* however invent the first commercially viable one. That's innovation just as important, or even more so, than the original idea.
One word: security
So, The Register can make a conspiracy out of the fact that Apple made their browser faster?
The fact the improvements haven't been extended to UIWebViews and full screen web apps is nothing more than a security issue, which will probably be overcome sooner or later:
The feeling is mutual
"I can only apologise on behalf of my profession for the unbelievable levels of fear and misinformation purveyed this week. I have never been so ashamed to call myself a journalist."
After the propaganda and misinformation purveyed by you this week, most journalists would be ashamed that you also claim to be one.
Seeing the light
>when people try to portray the switch as something grander than finding a type of computer with which you are more happy.
The very fact that people are switching in ever greater numbers from Windows to Mac and that people switching the other way are as rare as rocking horse droppings shows that there is a "light" to be seen.
Mac Myth #1
> The problem with Macs is that they trade off functionality for usability.
That is absolute rubbish typical of someone who has little or no experience of using Macs. Usability and functionality are not mutually exclusive, all though that's a commonly held view by Linux-tards like yourself used to software who's full power can only be accessed by running it from the command line with a never ending string of arcanely named options.
One of the things that make the Mac user experience so good is precisely that the OS and most of the software that runs on it is so usable and intuitive and yet still has all the functionality (or even more) that its Linux or Windows equivalents.
I moved into the light too (in 2006) :-)
You see, it isn't just "changing a computing platform", it's switching from endless frustration to having something that's a joy to use. When you see the light you will understand.
The hatred you feel comes either from envy or just failing to understand.
"In 10 years apple will be a bottom feeder"
"the iPad will be a huge flop",
"antenna-gate has doomed the iPhone 4"
yawn, yawn, yawn.
I just love the wishful thinking of the Apple haters. How awful it must be for you to constantly see your predictions fail to materialize as Apple goes from strength to strength.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated :-)
Pot, kettle, black
The UK *has* the cash to eradicate poverty in its population (and there's a lot of it), it just chooses *not* to. It is their *choice*.
When you photoshopped an Indian flag onto the image of the sub that links to this story you forgot to also photoshop the flag at the rear of the sub, which continues as a British Naval Ensign.
...to see all the RegTard Apple haters revelling in this issue and smugly proclaiming the end of Apple etc, etc. Unfortunately for you lot, the iPhone 4 is already and will continue to be a massive success and make vast amounts of money for Apple, even more so than previous models.
The antenna "flaw" has been blown totally out of all proportion, and is only even an issue for the tiniest minority of users. For the overwhelming majority the iPhone 4 has overall excellent reception and call quality regardless of how you hold it. When the iPhone 3G came out there was a huge commotion about it dropping calls and having a "design flaw", "recall required" etc. etc. but that soon evaporated. The same thing will happen to the iPhone 4 antenna non-issue, at which point all you RegTard Apple haters can crawl back into your caves where no one can here you whine.
Lastly, it's somewhat disingenuous of Consumer Reports to say on it's freely accessible blog that the iPhone 4 "can't be recommended" when on it's proper ratings page, only accessible to those who pay for it, it still rates the iPhone 4 as the "best smartphone available": http://bit.ly/dnvexa
Now I'll sit back and wait for a sack full of downvotes on my post. After all, it's much easier to do that than argue with reason.
love the openness
So much for all the openness and "I can do what I want with it" free love nerdtastic-ness of Android. On the other hand the draconian, iron first dictatorship that is Apple has never used it's kill switch for the iPhone.
All EVs are automatics
"no stick == no thanks, no buy"
You really don't understand much about engines do you? All electric cars will and can only be automatic only, even the ones that have gearbox (not strictly necessary for an EV).
Pulse RSS reader back in AppStore
"Yesterday the Pulse RSS reader was booted from the App Store after the New York Times claimed violation of its terms of service."
It was also put back again pretty quickly (yesterday) and is currently available.
...it's not really that hard to understand
Microsoft have a (de facto) monopoly, Apple don't. No monopoly, no lawsuit. Quite simple really.
Apple are a long way from having a de facto monopoly in the phone / handheld device market, so they can do whatever they like, because if you don't like it you have many other competing products to choose from.
Yawn...It DOES have multitasking
At least it will have as soon as iPhone OS 4.0 is released (which could well be today). Only the extremely early adopters will have had to wait for multitasking for 3rd party apps for a month or two.
An AT&T issue, not an iPhone issue
Tethering has been possible on the iPhone for a year or so (ever since version 3.0 of the firmware), so the fact that it's not allowed on the iPhones on AT&T in the US is entirely and AT&T issue and has nothing to do with the capabilities of the iPhone.
"Needless to say no other smartphone platforms have any problem with tethering, and most feature phones can do it these days too."
That is just utterly unnecessary flame bait. The iPhone can and does do tethering perfectly well. As I said above, it's an artificial AT&T restriction which has nothing whatsoever to do with the phone.
...appears to be down or wilting under the weight of (internet) traffic. Normally it's a cool site which displays info from networked radar receivers so you can watch all the planes flying over Europe in pretty much real time.
Here we go again
More Apple-hater ignorance...yawn.
The only apps that will have ads in them are free apps. You either pay for an ad-free app or get a free app with ads in it. Or did you expect developers to provide you with great free apps out of the goodness of their hearts?
Also, I love how you start buy slagging off ads and then praise the NUMBER ONE ADVERTISING COMPANY IN THE WORLD, and that you'll buy their phone instead. Warped thinking indeed.
"No-one may make money from iPhone development except us"
You appear to have forgotten about the millions of iPhone developers around the world making a *lot* of money from iPhone development. Yet more Apple-hater ignorance.
But Google is not breaking any laws
No "normal" democratic country such as the UK or Germany tells Google what results it can or can't show. They may block access to sites returned in search results, but that's a completely different issue.
By redirecting google.cn to google.com.hk Google isn't breaking any Chinese laws. They cleverly did that rather than let google.cn itself return uncensored results which, apparently, would be breaking China's ridiculous censorship laws.
"So all your friends/family can take and iPad, and can confidently connect them to WiFi"
If the iPad is anything like the iPhone (and as they run the same OS that's highly likely) then, yes, they can. It really is that simple. My friends and family, are all normal people who have never heard of slashdot.
No, it's you who doesn't get it
If he gets an iPad he won't need your help with anything. God help him if you shaft him with a Linux netbook though.
It's unenlightened techies like you who don't get it. Normal people (that's the vast majority) want tech goods that just work and don't require the help of friends with beards, sandals and dodgy anoraks like yourself. Apple understands this. That's why normal people (and enlightened techies) buy their products by the boat load.
Techies like you who think you control the destiny of tech companies are very, very deluded.
Yes, the "system"
"Apple is abusing the system"
No they're not. It's the broken US patent system that allows Apple (and many others) to patent prior art. If they didn't patent it then someone else would. The way the system "works" it's better patent everything imaginable rather than wait for someone else to do it and then shaft you.
Your statement that Apple is entirely built on "stolen tech" is utter rubbish. It has borrowed it's fair share of ideas from others, just like any other tech company.
None of this would have happened if software patents weren't allowed.
It might be silly...
...but it's not patent trolling. Patent trolling is when companies own patents (often as a result of buying the companies that own them) and do nothing with them other than look for companies that might be infringing on them in an attempt to get them to pay them royalties, which are often their primary, or only, source of revenue.
Whatever you may think of software patents (and I think they stink), Apple created these patents and they were awarded them. They are 100% relevant to their business and they have are using these patents in many of their products. So, Apple is definitely not patent trolling.
The real problem here is not Apple, but the brain dead American patent system. Apple is only playing by the rules of the system. Unfortunately the system is broken.
I'm an iPhone user myself, and nothing I've seen from the "competition" is likely to make me change, however, my wife has a Nokia 5530 and the S60 touch interface is not too shabby at all. I was pleasantly surprised. Certainly much, MUCH better than the HTC Touch Diamond she had for a while, which was so bad it was basically unusable.
From what I've seen of the pics of Symbian^4 it's definitely headed in the right direction and if they get it done right and quite quickly Symbian will be around for a long time yet.
"Consider: (using a previously stated analogy), if you bought Kellogg’s Corn Flakes but Kellogg’s came along and told you you could only eat them out of a Kellogg’s branded bowl..?
What Apple have done here is effectively exempted their product from a FUNDAMENTAL piece of consumer law which RIGHTLY states that once you've sold a product you can't try to dictate, define or limit what the consumer can do with it."
Incorrect, and therefore invalidating your Kellog's analogy. OS X is not sold as a separate product. It is an integral part of an Apple Mac computer. You're not allowed to install OS X on a non-Apple computer, in the same way that you're not allowed to run the PS3 OS on non-Sony consoles, or the same way that you're not allowed to run Tom Tom GPS software on non-Tom Tom hardware (except where they've specifically allowed it, eg mobile phones). Try installing Android on a WinMo phone, or Symbian on an Android phone...and selling it.
"How would you feel if you put a porcher engine into a VW chassis and when you tried to sell the monster Porcher went to court to try and stop you, basically winning the right to say that their engines can ONLY be installed in THEIR cars by THEM..?"
It's Porsche, not Porcher. If Porsche didn't want you to do that, they wouldn't sell you any engines, and you'd have to buy complete new Porsches to get your engines, which wouldn't make much economic sense. Companies that do that sort of thing generally get the blessing of the other car companies involved before going ahead. In the same way that Porsche engines are not sold to 3rd parties, Apple doesn't sell OS X to 3rd parties. It only provides upgrades to existing Mac owners. OS X is no more a separate product that can be used elsewhere than the case of an iMac is a separate product that can be used elsewhere.
Not strange at all
It is so very, very different. The analogies you suggested are not remotely similar. A correct analogy would be that Sony sells PS3 games that only play on a PS3. If someone were to sell a product that allowed you to play PS3 games on a different console or on a PC then Sony would take them to court, and win (as they have done with similar cases in the past). OS X is sold as part an parcel of an Apple computer. Apple makes OS X in order to give their computers a unique selling point, not to sell as a product in itself. It is only sold separately to enable existing Apple Mac owners to upgrade their existing version of OS X (and whether the install disc allows a full install or not is irrelevant). Apple make OS X and they are entitled to do whatever they like with it. They are not, and cannot be, under any obligation to make it available for other hardware, just as Sony is under no obligation to make PS3 games work on any other hardware, or Tom Tom is under any obligation to make it's software available to run on Garmin GPS devices.
@Jim Coleman and Nigel Wright
If either of you had ever actually used an iPhone before discarding it for not meeting your arbitrary "it must have multitasking" spec sheet checklist, then you'd have realised that:
a) the iPhone *does* to multitasking where it matters, just not for 3rd party apps.
b) if you need to get your Twitter / IM etc updates in real time then push notifications does that for you much better than having to have all those clients running at the same time sucking your battery dry.
c) There really are very few cases where not having multitasking for 3rd party apps makes any difference at all. iPhone apps maintain state and you can switch between them as fast as you can switch apps on a WiMo phone so it's a non-issue.
But if you like to choose your phone by using a spec sheet checklist instead of whether they work and do what you need then don't let me stop you.
Ideology vs reality
You've clearly never used an iPhone, otherwise you'd have realised that the issues you mention above are actually non-issues, with the possible exception of the poor camera. Starting out with an ideological stance like "smartphone means multitasking" is never a sensible way to approach buying hardware. What's important is how the thing works day to day as a useful tool, and in this respect the iPhone beats all other smartphones hands down. It is not just fine for people who's "usage is limited", it's fine for a vast number of people who's usage is anything but limited.
The iPhone does have multitasking, just not for 3rd party apps. I can check my mail whilst on a phone call (something that the Android 'multitasking' Verizon Droid cannot do), listen to music whilst doing anything else, and know that all the while my e-mail is being checked, and I'm receiving IM messages and any number of other possible push notifications that 3rd party apps may support. The lack of true multitasking for 3rd party apps is hardly, if ever, noticeable and is really just a non-issue.
Ditto the non-(user) removable battery. Simply not an issue. The last time I carried around a spare battery for a mobile phone was circa 1995 when my Ericsson GH337 only lasted a couple of hours on a charge. Since then removable batteries have been a total non-issue.
Ditto lack of expansion. What do you seriously need more then 32Gb for??
Ditto Apple's control of the App Store. The App Store provides all the apps that I could possibly ever want, and then some. It's safe, secure and very easy to use.
As for being "shiney", I couldn't care less. I'd have an iPhone even if it looked like the back end of a bus, because it does everything I want it to do, brilliantly.
The iPhone is only a "toy" for the ideologically challenged like yourself who can't see further than a spec sheet in deciding whether a bit of kit is actually good at what it does.
"I would have liked to see Apple lose this, for the single reason that if Apple had been forced to design OSX for multiple vendors' machines then it would have been in the same boat as Microsoft's Windows"
You illustrate a very common misconception. Why *should* Apple be forced to design OSX for multiple vendors' machines? Apple is a principally a *hardware* vendor. They design OSX to give their hardware an OS and a unique selling point. It's *their* OS for *their* hardware, so they can do whatever they like with it, and there's no reason whatsoever that they should be forced to make it run on other machines. Microsoft, on the other hand, is principally a *software* vendor and makes its money from selling Windows and Office etc. It's in their interest to make Windows run on as many different types of hardware as possible so they can sell more copies. For Microsoft, a copy of Windows running on a Mac is one more sale. For Apple, a copy of OS X running on non-Apple hardware is a Mac sale lost.
By your logic Sony should design their PlayStation OS to run on XBoxes, Wiis and PCs, and BMW should make their iDrive system compatible with Audis and Mercedes, both of which of course are absurd.
You Sir, don't have a clue
An iMac gives you a nice big screen and all the power of a desktop without taking up a huge chunk of space either on or below your desk. I'd say those a pretty significant advantages. If you don't need a RAID array or slots for special purpose PCI Express cards (and these days with USB and Firewire peripherals most people don't) then the extra bulk of a desktop is pointless.
The only advantage a laptop has over an iMac is that it's portable. Otherwise it costs more for less power and a much smaller screen.
So, if you're not working on editing the next Pixar animation, and you don't need your computer to be portable, then an iMac is by far the best option (and the cheapest too).
Hidden volumes and plausible deniability
OK, so Truecrypt really does give you proper plausible deniability, but even without having to go to those lengths, surely you can only be compelled to hand over keys for encrypted files if the authorities can *prove* the file is encrypted? And, without decrypting the file, this is clearly impossible.
Also, what if you have genuinely forgotten the password? Even if you haven't forgotten, but claim to have, there's no way anyone can prove this. So now being forgetful is a crime??
What's the big deal here? All companies, even ones that pride themselves on quality that you pay extra for, will have some quality issues from time to time. It's just not possible to have a 0% fault rate. What's more important is how problems are dealt with if and when they arise, and I have no doubt that Apple will replace the broken iMacs as soon as logistically possible. It's very unlikely that Apple will lose any significant number of customers over this.
My Miele washer/dryer was DOA when delivered, but Miele quickly sent a man round to fix it and it has worked flawlessly since. I'm still glad I paid more for a top quality product.
I expect to replace my iMac soon and wouldn't hesitate to buy one of the new 27" models.
@AC 16:41 re: Lies!
A Jailbroken iPhone is, arguably, no longer an Apple device. It's something that started out as an Apple device but has since been modified extensively.
An analogy would be to try to claim that VW Golf TDIs have unreliable turbos because a few numpties who have chipped their engine management software to increase the boost pressure are suffering from blown turbos.
@AC the UnixTard 19:58
You clearly don't know what's relevant. Linux and Solaris are irrelevant to a discussion about Windows vs OS X for users (as opposed to servers). Whether Windows is a stable OS, when well configured and well protected against malware in the hands of a tech nerd like yourself is also irrelevant.
What IS relevant, is whether Windows is a stable and safe OS for the vast majority of ordinary users, you know, normal people, the ones which Apple's ads are aimed at. Compared to OS X, it just can't compare. A huge percentage, if not the majority, of ordinary non-techie Windows users, with their PC at home with a broadband connection WILL become infected with malware or have their PCs co-opted into a bot net sooner or later.
When was the last time a Mac ground to a halt because of a virus or being part of a bot-net? Oh, that's right, NEVER. On the other hand, depending on which study you read, anything from 15% to 35% of PCs world wide are infected with some kind of bot-net, virus, spyware or other type of malware.
@AC 13:18 GMT
I'm not aware of any Apple advertising that claims that Macs are more reliable than PCs in terms of hardware reliability, which is what this study was about. They do claim (correctly) that Macs are a lot more reliable than PCs in terms of the OS, but that's got nothing to do with this study.
Just because you find Apple adverts irritating is not a justification for a supposedly independent IT news site like El Reg to spin a report that's basically positive about Apple (it's conclusion is that Apple laptops have above average reliability) into a ridiculously negative title about Apple.
El Reg anti-Apple bias
This is really starting to get a bit tedious.
Lets look at the conclusion of the actual report:
"ASUS and Toshiba come out on top. With 3 year malfunction rates forecast to be under 16%, laptops from these two manufacturers are nearly 40% more reliable than Hewlett-Packard, the worst performer in our study. Sony and Apple also performed better than the average."
That's the only explicit mention of Apple in the text of the report , and it's positive. How you managed to spin that into a negative title about Apple's reliability puts you on a level with the lowest of political spin doctors. And if that wasn't enough, by using the word "Macs" instead of "Mac laptops" or "Macbooks" you're tarring all Macs with this ridiculously biased and inflammatory title.
There are any number of accurate and unbiased titles you could have used for this report:
- Asus tops laptop reliability survey
- HP last in laptop reliability survey
- Netbooks suffer poor reliability
But no, you had to invent an anti-Apple angle. Pretty pathetic really, but what we've come to expect unfortunately.
Having the ads at the OS level is just a way to make them more difficult to block. If anyone seriously thinks that Apple, or any company that has the faintest idea of what its customers wants (and Apple is better at this than most), will insert unignorable ads into the everyday running of their OS/software then you just don't have a clue.
Anyone with any sense will not be the slightest bit concerned with this patent.
Not jumping to stupid conclusions...much
FFS there are a lot of regtards jumping to completely ridiculous conclusions here! It's so utterly obvious that none of the "I'll throw away my Mac" scenarios will ever happen. The potential use for this is either to stop other people from doing something similar (unlikely) or as a way to offer free versions of content (music, films etc) and satisfy the content producers, for example, letting you watch series or films on Apple TV for free, but in return you have to watch some ads, and I can't see anything wrong with that. You either pay to watch the film without ads, or you don't pay and are forced to watch some ads, the choice will always be yours.
Anyone who thinks that this will somehow mean that when using a Mac you'll be interrupted by ads you can't ignore just doesn't have the smallest clue.
> There are only a handful of alternative OSes and even fewer of those are of appeal to the consumer market. Apple creates one of these and they sell it
Apple are not in the OS business. They are in business to sell Macs. As a byproduct, in order to make their Macs attractive to consumers and differentiate them from other computers, they developed a stonkingly good OS. The OS is part and parcel of the computers they sell, and the boxed versions of OS X that are sold by Apple are made purely for people who already have a Mac to upgrade or otherwise re-install the OS on their Mac.
> what it does offer is an alternative to Windows
OS X is *not* an alternative to Windows. Macs are an alternative to PCs. If you want to switch from Windows to OS X you have to buy a Mac. OS X is one of the Mac's main competetive advantages, so making it available for any PC would immediately blow away one of the main reasons for buying a Mac.
> If the diversity of operating systems was as great on PCs as it is on mobile phones, virus writers would have a much tougher job spreading their payload.
The whole argument of your post seems to be that Apple should forget about the fact that they make their money selling hardware and should, out of the goodness of their hearts, sell OS X as a standalone OS for anyone to install on any machine they like, as some sort of benevolent stand against virus writers. Why would Apple, or any company that wanted to stay in business, do something that would potentially destroy their main source of revenue? Especially to help resolve a problem which really only affects one of their main competitors?
Win7 not inspired by OS X after all...
This really is getting a little pathetic. Why keep trying to deny something that's patently obvious, especially now that one of your own has finally let the cat out of the bag?
> hence you're not free to develop an app for iphone and load it without paying apple a r(L)oyalty fee
This is a commonly held myth. If you want to develop an app to install on your iPhone then you are perfectly able to do so without paying Apple a penny. The little publicised "ad-hoc" distribution model for iPhone applications also allows the development and deployment of corporate in-house apps that can be deployed to a group of employees without having to pay any royalties to Apple or go through the App Store.
@AC 17:19: you missed the irony ;-)
Shame on the Evil Empire for cracking down on those who dare to crack / unlock / jailbreak or otherwise modify the consumer electronics gadget that they OWN and paid good money for in order to use them how they please....
Oh no wait a minute, this isn't an Apple product so it's perfectly OK, my mistake.
> 1) I can write and run my own code on my own phone
You can do that without Jailbreaking. If you have the iPhone SDK you can develop and deploy apps to your own phone, no problem at all. Using ad-hoc distribution you can deploy your own apps to other people's phones aswell.
> 2) I can override Apple policy decisions on my own phone
> eg: Using a foreign SIM in my phone when I'm abroad
Not being able to use a foreign SIM in your phone is not Apple's policy, it's your telco's policy and it's the same with any SIM-locked phone. The iPhone is available officially unlocked. It costs more, but then so do all other unlocked, contract free phones.
Do all you people who complain about Apple "locking down" the iPhone also complain that VW (and all other car manufacturers) "lock down" the ECUs of their cars so that people can't tamper with the engine maps and turbo boost pressures? Yes, you can "jailbreak" (chip) your engine and get around that, but don't go crying to the garage when you lunch your engine.
You can buy the iPhone unlocked, and it's always unbranded anyway. So that's that straw man dealt with.
The iPhone doesn't have any "telco bollox" on it and you can buy it without a contract. That's another straw man up in flames.
I can customize my iPhone to the way I work and purchase all the apps I can possibly ever imagine I would want (and then some). And no, my phone is not jailbroken. Your NerdTard arguments about control and freedom are just conceptual. In reality it makes no difference. I bought an iPhone because it does what I need and want it to do, and does it brilliantly, in a way nothing else out there even gets close. The fact that it looks nice, or is "cool" is utterly irrelevant, but it's a nice bonus. And to your last point (another straw man about to burst into flames), I'd rather have a phone that does everything I want it to do extremely well rather than one that does some of the things I want in a mediocre and often overly complicated way but hey, it lets me install some nerdtastic software written by some Bosnian teenager just in case I might want to. Thankfully it's only you and half a dozen other RegTard nerdamentalists who think like you do. The rest of us can just get on with life and enjoy spectacularly good product, not because it's shiney, but because it WORKS.
Another good reason...
...why the iPhone only lets you do one thing at a time :-)
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire