Posts by Ian Davies 266 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Sep 2007
Apple is often lazily referred to as a religion, and Apple is the only tech company that I've seen references to in Apotheker's quotes about this part of HPs business so far. So assuming it *has* been translated correctly, perhaps he's admitting that the shift he refers to is taking place not because of blind religious zeal for Apple - which variously gets explained away as "better marketing" - but because Apple actually are producing better products...?
> The crappy downmarket Android lobotomy-phones are just a small portion of the ecosystem and they're all end-of-life now anyway.
There's a fairly large suspicion that this part of the ecosystem isn't small at all, and is *exactly* where Google are getting their "300,000 activations per day" stats from.
Please explain to all us noobs just why installing from USB is such a technical foobar?And what the advantages are of an optical install disc over a USB drive? Capacity? No. Speed? Uh-uh. Robustness? Nope.
Do come back when you've joined the 21st Century and learnt not to act like chicken licken everytime something a bit different comes along.
The 'opinion' part of this article is mostly nonsense. Particularly the bit about Apple's OS strategy and how it works. Unless the author is seriously suggesting the same interface and presentation paradigms are going to be used on Windows Phone, Tablet, Desktop etc. then this "single OS strategy" of Microsoft's is going to end up looking very much like Apple's. Same core; different interface leverage according to device.
...that's just a shade under 1Gb.
PAH! Just kidding.
The reason it's sidelined on my machine isn't the launch times (they're actually not too bad, considering the monolithic size of the app) it's because it's out-performed in every area by the Preview app that comes with the OS. It's an order or magnitude slower on re-draw operations, Preview only takes up 12Mb on disk, and it refuses to respect that fact that I don't want its shitty browser plugin taking over PDF duties from the much better OS-level components available to Safari.
Where's my turd icon in the shape of an Adobe logo?
You are right. Nokia sued Apple first because they had not signed a license to use Nokia's patents. Apple then countersued.
However the basic principle remains the same. Apple's motivation for not signing was that Nokia was demanding onerous terms, not because they thought Nokia didn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
The facts:
Nokia didn't start this suit, Apple did. Nokia's suits were simply counter-claims, as has become normal patent litigation practise nowadays.
Apple sued because Nokia was demanding royalty payments from Apple that were significantly higher than those being paid by everyone else in the market to license Nokia's GSM technology.
At no point had Apple ever claimed that they should not have to pay royalties, or that they somehow invented the technology or any other nonsense being peddled on here and other sites *cough*Engadget*cough*
Apple wanted to pay royalties to Nokia, but they (rightly) didn't see why they should pay more than the "fair and reasonable" amounts that Nokia agreed to charge when they were awarded the patents, and which they were charging to other handset manufacturers.
So Nokia's triumphalist PR spin that basically amounts to "Yes! We've been forced not to price-gouge Apple! We win!" is more than a little suspect.
...but it's just a layer of crap on top of the old crap that's still there.
In seriousness, there's some interesting UI stuff in the metro layer, but they're making a mistake in believing that the same full Windows UI that sits underneath will *EVER* work well on a touch device.
...my point had nothing to do with Apple's actions, but everything to do with the article's author contradicting himself.
At the top of the article he claims that Apple does not specify the amount by which the cache has been reduced (they do), and then goes on to quote Apple saying iOS will now only cache 7 days worth of data. Given that the nature of the cache and Apple's response is the central point of the article, it was a pretty sloppy mistake to make.
They are bought on the basis that their value will keep increasing. Which they have.
I can't find a link right now, but I believe that Jobs has pretty much said that Apple is only interested in long-term investors, which is what you would have to be to make decent money from buying and then selling Apple shares.
I'm speculating, but that may be another reason for not paying out dividends; Jobs is philosophically opposed to short term stockholders who would expect to make money simply by owning Apple shares.
...right up to the point where you entered the land of FUD-fairies and make believe by perpetuating the lie that Apple has somehow kludged their mobile browser by removing this, crippling that or throttling the other.
The JIT compiler (that was never there in the first place) requires pages of memory to executable, which Apple chooses not to allow for security reasons. They've made the reasonable decision to trust their own code and make an exception for Mobile Safari.
The upcoming WebKit2 which supports a split-process framework will most likely enable JIT for all apps and controls that utilise web views.
Nothing has got slower. Just not everything has got faster (yet).
How, I wonder, did the "multi million pound turnover UK company" make its profit in the first place?
I'm guessing it *wasn't* by having the chops to create a seamless and frictionless content marketplace and payment system, but then letting people set up shop in it without collecting a fee to pay for all the time and effort and innovation that went into one of the smoothest online buying experiences *anywhere* and which just about everyone is attempting to copy because they know it works and that customers like it.
Quick fact check: every Android phone prototype that Google had shown up until 2007 was a Blackberry clone.
Apple then introduces the iPhone and, following a collective corporate emptying of Google's bowels, hey presto! every Android prototype shown after that looks curiously like an iPhone.
A clear case of plagiarism by Google.
Oh, hey! you were right, I just thought you were being sarcastic, sorry.
H.264 is licensed by a consortium of 29 different companies, but according to El Reg it's the "Jobsian codec".
Theora/WebM are framed as "unencumbered" even though that status has never actually been tested or proven. Watch this space, methinks.
Apparently, "Apple takes the cake" when it comes to hypocrisy, but the Register article you link to in an attempt to justify this statement actually declares "Google, it seems, is the real villain of his piece" (referring to the opinions of Mozilla's Chris Blizzard, upon whose opinions the article is largely based.)
While Apple has indeed been selective of which web technologies they've supported, so far they haven't put forward pseudo claims of openness as justification. The main reason Apple didn't support Flash was that Adobe couldn't demonstrate it working on Mobile devices. *Famously* so, to use The Register's own parlance.
Once again, Goggle isn't "open". It uses Open Source software as a convenience to drive views of its adverts, delivered through decidedly closed and opaque systems and algorithms.
"While Flash is not open, Google doesn't pay a royalty to incorporate it "
Google may not pay a royalty, but content producers do when they have to buy Adobe's software to produce Flash-based content.
H.264 *IS* free to use, for end-users, just like Flash.
"The Flash plug-in is free to download and use. The same cannot be said for H.264."
So you've paid for an H.264 browser plugin, have you?
"If H.264 was free to use"
Seriously. Please direct me to where all these paying H.264 users are?
"Steve needs to lay off the whole Flash thing"
Impressive. You took an article about Google and managed to wheedle in an irrelevant dig at Jobs. Good work. Take the rest of the day off.
But this is Google kool-aid drinking BS of the first order. I'm so sick of watching people suckling from the "open" teat when comparing Google and <insert other tech company here, usually Apple>.
Google isn't open. Google merely distributes for free what it needs to in order to get eyeballs on its search business, which most definitely is not free, open or transparent.
Try asking Google to open-source its search algorithms.
Try asking people who have been kicked off the AdWords programme and had their income confiscated without any discussion or chance of recourse.
Do get back to me when you've got your precious "open" company to actually be open, and you truly understand what "open" means.
Apple has many faults but at least they are honest about what type of company they are.
iPad is not for content creation? Really? That's what passes for tech "analysis" around here?
Courier? Of course it looked interesting, it never actually had to do anything except look cool for a few minutes in a heavily scripted demo. None of what they showed was capable of scaling up to a general interface that could be applied to multiple applications.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
