6 ms·

IPad Snivelers: Put Up or Shut Up - Engineers

27 points by twism 17y ago

robotron 17y ago
Flamebait?
- tdoggette 17y ago
  Nah, he's right. If you're concerned that the first and (likely) best example of this new genre of computer is closed, make a better one that isn't.
  - tensor 17y ago
    Many people are making or investing in a better one: Android. It's not even better, it's just on par but without the horrible limits. He is not right. The problem is really the thousands of people who apparently do not see the app store limits as a problem. Developers are a small number in comparison to users. Users can dictate the what becomes standard, regardless of technical merit. There are countless examples of extremely poor systems persisting exclusively due to popularity. How long did it take for DOS/Win95 to go away? There were good systems available during that time. At least underneath. But no, "I need word" and thus Microsoft happily kept DOS/Win95 around for a long time. Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard.
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard. It is, as long as you align 'better' in the same way as your customers mean it. As SJ opened with "it would have to be better at this, that and the other. Netbooks aren't better at anything" and the audience cheered and laughed in support. Head out into the ipad skeptisphere and anyone who had never seen one would be forgiven for thinking "Netbook" was the new name for the $6 million dollar man - better, stronger, faster. The digital ubermensch. Uberbuch. The livre-franca. Reality doesn't live up to it, Netbooks are what you get when you add too many ingredients to your food. The homer simpson car of computers. Remind me, which side is the RDF supposed to affect?
      - tensor 17y ago
        It is, as long as you align 'better' in the same way as your customers mean it. This is simply not true. There is a lot of weight behind de facto standards that is difficult to overcome. Apple themselves continually have to fight against this with people entrenched in the Microsoft stack of software. Word is still the dominate word processing system in the entire world. Many people have argued that word processor X or Y is superior over the years. And they might be right. But being better will not convert all those existing Word documents and corporate policies. As for netbooks, no one is arguing for them at all. The only thing people really care about is being able to write and sell software for the iPad without needing Apple's approval.
        GHFigs 17y ago
        But being better will not convert all those existing Word documents and corporate policies. Which is why all Macs, iPhones, iPods Touches, and iPads support viewing and to some degree authoring of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents, and also Microsoft Exchange. In the case of Microsoft's dominance, they shrewdly chose to work with the grain, and the result is a better product for the significant number of users who need it. That is: it all comes back to what "better" means to the people with the money.
    - m_eiman 17y ago
      Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard. You have the wrong definition of "better". The definition that matters isn't what an engineer thinks is superior based on whatever an engineer thinks is important, the definition that matters is "will the customer select product A or B when buying a new widget". What's needed isn't a competing product that is technically superior, it's a product that actual users will select instead of an iPad.
    - ableal 17y ago
      > But no, "I need word" and thus Microsoft happily kept DOS/Win95 around for a long time. Wrong example. The late 80s Word 4.0 for Mac was the template. I'd class it as one of the best programs ever, if a bit crashy on the 8 MHz 68k MacPlus ... I'd say Lotus 123 and later Excel. Perhaps also DBase3.
- pyre 17y ago
  Totally. "Stop complaining about bad laws, and just fix the legal system already!" seems to be one of the messages. If it was really so 'easy' to fix the legal system, people wouldn't be spending time complaining about it. And "letting the EFF" fight your battles for you doesn't fix the legal system.
- tensor 17y ago
  I'd say so. Among many other reasons, Apple made a comeback because they made it easy, and free, to develop for the Mac. Unlike Microsoft who required some hefty developer fees. Now Apple has not only gone back to the pay-to-develop model, but they've also gone the way of the consoles: you only get to distribute what we say you can. I think people are greatly underestimating the effect this will have on development. Ironically, it may have less effect on developers of small programs than large. Why would a company spend a large amount of money developing a complex application if they were not guaranteed that they could even sell the final product? This has already happened to Google with the Google Voice app, although I imagine they have enough money to not be affected too much. There is no defence at all for this sort of system. The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." I've never been one to harp on about software freedom, but this is too much, and you are damn right I'm scared of it. I'm scared that the public will gleefully jump on this product and set a precedent of extremely closed platforms.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." That's not really in Apple's interest, though is it? a) A device the user can't ruin associated with your brand. b) A device the user can ruin associated with your brand. Which would you pick in their position?
    - tensor 17y ago
      The latter, because the freedom to develop would completely cement their position in the market. What they've done now is send several developers over to their competitor, Adobe being the obvious example. Their gamble is that they will outsell their competitors despite this. Time will tell if they succeed. I suppose if they really start suffering they can always open their platform at a later date.
      - m_eiman 17y ago
mbreese 17y ago
Yeah, so this was a flamebait article. However, it did make me think about something... Even if you never will buy an iPad, you're likely to benefit from it... just like you're probably benefiting from the iPhone. It is a lot easier to complain about a device than to make one. But once you have that concrete object in hand, you can find all sorts of things wrong with it. It should have X, it should do Y... but the bottom line is that it exists. And that gives other companies something to compete with. But if it never existed, then no one would be pushed. Say what you will about Apple, but they've raised the bar for everyone, whether that's Microsoft, HP, Dell, Google, Asus, or Nokia. And because of that we're getting better gear that does more and looks nicer.
- nollidge 17y ago
  That was exactly my thought as well. I don't own an iPhone, but I'm seriously considering a Nexus One, and I'm not sure the latter would even exist without the former.
Goronmon 17y ago
Hilariously, the great open-source hope is Google's Android, but its best apps are designed—and tightly controlled—by Google, which has used its clout to roll over countless web-based companies in a manner just as Orwellian or Huxleyan or whoever it is we're invoking now as Apple or Microsoft. And even with the threat of the DMCA looming, the iPhone has been cracked over and over again. It's been a tinkerer's paradise. That is an...uhh...interesting take on things.
colomon 17y ago
The other thing I keep thinking is, if you're seriously worried about kids not being able to learn to program because their only computing devices are locked down, why not fight back by developing kid-friendly web-based programming platforms? Surely an iPad would make the nicest dumb terminal ever...
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  http://tryruby.org/ http://tryruby.org/ For example.
jodrellblank 17y ago
I submitted a link recently to an open issue on a side project focused on polishing Ubuntu for ordinary users; they have feedback from an ordinary user which they acknowledge is exactly the sort of thing they're looking for and they open the case and move it into progress and then ... it's sidelined. A request to "fade" icons when files are cut, and it's been open since 2003. Not for lack of time, clearly. Not for lack of ideas what to do there are plenty of those. Not for lack of effort or interest - many many people have been involved. Not for lack of coders, there are patches referenced. Not for lack of a place to track the issue, there was one, now two. That's a microcosm of your humanity reaching for the stars but are unable to manage the last cohesive push and everything collapses into war, civilisation flickers out and the unthinking void closes over the solar system again sci-fi story right there. That's your Adobe can't get it's act together tale, but happening in public. So what was lacking? I can't help but tie everything back to the iPad this week, but isn't this missing thing in the development process exactly what Apple has and the much pointed to Netbooks and Android and ChromeOS's and Maemo's don't? A unified vision, a benevolent dictator, a plan by which each suggested fix can be measured? GvR runs his personal is_pythonic?() filter over any suggested additions to Python, his way or the highway. Rich Hickey drives clojure and Miguel de Icaza heads up Mono. Maybe what the suggested openpad needs is a figurehead with a vision who could step in and make decisions and force it to coalesce into a particular shape? And maybe that's incompatible with being "open" shaped. But I wouldn't mind being wrong about that.

27 points by twism 17y ago

robotron 17y ago

Flamebait?

tdoggette 17y ago
Nah, he's right. If you're concerned that the first and (likely) best example of this new genre of computer is closed, make a better one that isn't.
- tensor 17y ago
  Many people are making or investing in a better one: Android. It's not even better, it's just on par but without the horrible limits. He is not right. The problem is really the thousands of people who apparently do not see the app store limits as a problem. Developers are a small number in comparison to users. Users can dictate the what becomes standard, regardless of technical merit. There are countless examples of extremely poor systems persisting exclusively due to popularity. How long did it take for DOS/Win95 to go away? There were good systems available during that time. At least underneath. But no, "I need word" and thus Microsoft happily kept DOS/Win95 around for a long time. Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard. It is, as long as you align 'better' in the same way as your customers mean it. As SJ opened with "it would have to be better at this, that and the other. Netbooks aren't better at anything" and the audience cheered and laughed in support. Head out into the ipad skeptisphere and anyone who had never seen one would be forgiven for thinking "Netbook" was the new name for the $6 million dollar man - better, stronger, faster. The digital ubermensch. Uberbuch. The livre-franca. Reality doesn't live up to it, Netbooks are what you get when you add too many ingredients to your food. The homer simpson car of computers. Remind me, which side is the RDF supposed to affect?
    - tensor 17y ago
      It is, as long as you align 'better' in the same way as your customers mean it. This is simply not true. There is a lot of weight behind de facto standards that is difficult to overcome. Apple themselves continually have to fight against this with people entrenched in the Microsoft stack of software. Word is still the dominate word processing system in the entire world. Many people have argued that word processor X or Y is superior over the years. And they might be right. But being better will not convert all those existing Word documents and corporate policies. As for netbooks, no one is arguing for them at all. The only thing people really care about is being able to write and sell software for the iPad without needing Apple's approval.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        But being better will not convert all those existing Word documents and corporate policies. Which is why all Macs, iPhones, iPods Touches, and iPads support viewing and to some degree authoring of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents, and also Microsoft Exchange. In the case of Microsoft's dominance, they shrewdly chose to work with the grain, and the result is a better product for the significant number of users who need it. That is: it all comes back to what "better" means to the people with the money.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard. You have the wrong definition of "better". The definition that matters isn't what an engineer thinks is superior based on whatever an engineer thinks is important, the definition that matters is "will the customer select product A or B when buying a new widget". What's needed isn't a competing product that is technically superior, it's a product that actual users will select instead of an iPad.
  - ableal 17y ago
    > But no, "I need word" and thus Microsoft happily kept DOS/Win95 around for a long time. Wrong example. The late 80s Word 4.0 for Mac was the template. I'd class it as one of the best programs ever, if a bit crashy on the 8 MHz 68k MacPlus ... I'd say Lotus 123 and later Excel. Perhaps also DBase3.
pyre 17y ago
Totally. "Stop complaining about bad laws, and just fix the legal system already!" seems to be one of the messages. If it was really so 'easy' to fix the legal system, people wouldn't be spending time complaining about it. And "letting the EFF" fight your battles for you doesn't fix the legal system.
tensor 17y ago
I'd say so. Among many other reasons, Apple made a comeback because they made it easy, and free, to develop for the Mac. Unlike Microsoft who required some hefty developer fees. Now Apple has not only gone back to the pay-to-develop model, but they've also gone the way of the consoles: you only get to distribute what we say you can. I think people are greatly underestimating the effect this will have on development. Ironically, it may have less effect on developers of small programs than large. Why would a company spend a large amount of money developing a complex application if they were not guaranteed that they could even sell the final product? This has already happened to Google with the Google Voice app, although I imagine they have enough money to not be affected too much. There is no defence at all for this sort of system. The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." I've never been one to harp on about software freedom, but this is too much, and you are damn right I'm scared of it. I'm scared that the public will gleefully jump on this product and set a precedent of extremely closed platforms.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." That's not really in Apple's interest, though is it? a) A device the user can't ruin associated with your brand. b) A device the user can ruin associated with your brand. Which would you pick in their position?
  - tensor 17y ago
    The latter, because the freedom to develop would completely cement their position in the market. What they've done now is send several developers over to their competitor, Adobe being the obvious example. Their gamble is that they will outsell their competitors despite this. Time will tell if they succeed. I suppose if they really start suffering they can always open their platform at a later date.
    - m_eiman 17y ago

mbreese 17y ago

Yeah, so this was a flamebait article. However, it did make me think about something... Even if you never will buy an iPad, you're likely to benefit from it... just like you're probably benefiting from the iPhone. It is a lot easier to complain about a device than to make one. But once you have that concrete object in hand, you can find all sorts of things wrong with it. It should have X, it should do Y... but the bottom line is that it exists. And that gives other companies something to compete with. But if it never existed, then no one would be pushed. Say what you will about Apple, but they've raised the bar for everyone, whether that's Microsoft, HP, Dell, Google, Asus, or Nokia. And because of that we're getting better gear that does more and looks nicer.

nollidge 17y ago
That was exactly my thought as well. I don't own an iPhone, but I'm seriously considering a Nexus One, and I'm not sure the latter would even exist without the former.

Goronmon 17y ago

Hilariously, the great open-source hope is Google's Android, but its best apps are designed—and tightly controlled—by Google, which has used its clout to roll over countless web-based companies in a manner just as Orwellian or Huxleyan or whoever it is we're invoking now as Apple or Microsoft. And even with the threat of the DMCA looming, the iPhone has been cracked over and over again. It's been a tinkerer's paradise. That is an...uhh...interesting take on things.

colomon 17y ago

The other thing I keep thinking is, if you're seriously worried about kids not being able to learn to program because their only computing devices are locked down, why not fight back by developing kid-friendly web-based programming platforms? Surely an iPad would make the nicest dumb terminal ever...

jamesbritt 17y ago
http://tryruby.org/ http://tryruby.org/ For example.

jodrellblank 17y ago

I submitted a link recently to an open issue on a side project focused on polishing Ubuntu for ordinary users; they have feedback from an ordinary user which they acknowledge is exactly the sort of thing they're looking for and they open the case and move it into progress and then ... it's sidelined. A request to "fade" icons when files are cut, and it's been open since 2003. Not for lack of time, clearly. Not for lack of ideas what to do there are plenty of those. Not for lack of effort or interest - many many people have been involved. Not for lack of coders, there are patches referenced. Not for lack of a place to track the issue, there was one, now two. That's a microcosm of your humanity reaching for the stars but are unable to manage the last cohesive push and everything collapses into war, civilisation flickers out and the unthinking void closes over the solar system again sci-fi story right there. That's your Adobe can't get it's act together tale, but happening in public. So what was lacking? I can't help but tie everything back to the iPad this week, but isn't this missing thing in the development process exactly what Apple has and the much pointed to Netbooks and Android and ChromeOS's and Maemo's don't? A unified vision, a benevolent dictator, a plan by which each suggested fix can be measured? GvR runs his personal is_pythonic?() filter over any suggested additions to Python, his way or the highway. Rich Hickey drives clojure and Miguel de Icaza heads up Mono. Maybe what the suggested openpad needs is a figurehead with a vision who could step in and make decisions and force it to coalesce into a particular shape? And maybe that's incompatible with being "open" shaped. But I wouldn't mind being wrong about that.