4 ms·

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

Flamebait?

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