jopt

16 ms·

121.
by jopt 14y ago
That's quite another story. If I have to write Sci-Fi: Perhaps an underground scene that use and code for older versions of OS X, patching the system themselves to get only the good parts of system updates, while staying out of Apple's rede
122.
by jopt 14y ago
That makes it sound like sandboxing is a matter of personal taste, and that if I as a developer consider my self "too good to sandbox" someone else will eat my lunch. I fully agree with your line of reasoning in many other debates about the
123.
by jopt 14y ago
That's completely hypothetical. I could say "cat" and "dog" should in the future both be called "dog." That doesn't really excuse calling cats dogs. Perhaps a new standard of spelling could be created and, as you suggest, "it's" and "its" c
124.
by jopt 14y ago
It's not about where we buy our apps, it's about where we sell them. If the App Store doesn't work for developers, it won't work for users. The users can't buy stuff that isn't there just because they outnumber the developers.
125.
by jopt 14y ago
The concern is not the user experience of developers. As you point out, that's a small crowd with little market significance. But sandboxing cripples, besides our ideals and personal experience, the apps we make. Users (of powerful, hard-to
126.
by jopt 14y ago
It's bad enough that apps are leaving the App Store because of sandboxing. You don't have to make shit up. The owner of a Mac can enable root access through the Directory Utility, completely legit, and can install and run code from any sour
127.
by jopt 14y ago
You lost me at "it's". Perhaps standard grammar is not, as you argue, the best measure of semantic correctness. Then please, let us violate standard grammar wherever it improves accuracy. Writing something different from what you mean becau
128.
by jopt 14y ago
I think we should distinguish between Apple's _restrictions_ (as in App Store policy) and the _constraints of their engineering_ (as in the serviceability of unibody laptops.) I'd venture the latter is weighed against e.g. weight and batter
129.
by jopt 14y ago
It is very much more optional. Government and politics have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Note that I'm not referring to consumer technology as a whole; I'm saying no specific consumer technology is forced upon you. While it's
130.
by jopt 14y ago
I don't consider it my right to have Microsoft produce anything else for me.
131.
by jopt 14y ago
That kind of Win-Win is also a Lose-Lose. It's just a glass-half-empty thing.
132.
by jopt 14y ago
I disagree; I believe this marketing focus is more effective. Consider their entire product line. The MacBook Air is thinner than this, and it's old news. The next-generation MacBook Pro is their first Mac with a Retina display.
133.
by jopt 14y ago
Nobody is entitled to earn anything. Perhaps your great idea can't make money without a special legal monopoly, but that is not in itself a reason for the legal monopoly to exist. Being creative is not a license to get rich off your ideas.
134.
by jopt 14y ago
Apple aren't legally preventing you from running anything. If you're clever enough to do it, go nuts. If you think they're making it too hard, tough luck. Their products aren't built to spec; you're not entitled to a product that works any
135.
by jopt 14y ago
Separation of power, like Democracy and other such ideas, don't necessarily belong in every system. Politics/government is not an optional system; everyone has to take part (whether they want to or not.) Consumer technology is not enforced
136.
by jopt 14y ago
Those are advantages of this product. The citation (I think) should look more like the source of that 90% figure.
137.
by jopt 14y ago
To me this, if anything, looks like a trade dress infringement (MacBook line). Can someone help me understand why it isn't? I don't support IP whatsoever; I'm vehemently against all these laws. I'm just curious how they're planning to get a
138.
by jopt 14y ago
I doubt the product itself (UX etc.) is why users are on facebook; rather, the user-base is their competitive advantage.
139.
by jopt 14y ago
Surely google can't be credited with not selling data to advertisers?
140.
by jopt 14y ago
Don't forget confirmation bias. Most dormant theories are dormant for a reason.
141.
by jopt 14y ago
Hold your surprise until your guesses are backed by evidence.
142.
by jopt 14y ago
Those are just reasons Apple is more attractive to consumers than the competition is. Nobody said competing has to be easy, or even possible for everyone. Free competition is not a guarantee that anyone will be able to outperform incumbents
143.
by jopt 14y ago
Perhaps rms was talking about the legal definition (18) and not the clinical
144.
by jopt 14y ago
Don't you mean "for non-tax-payers?"
145.
by jopt 14y ago
Be careful with market share numbers. If you use the generic market share, your implicitly assuming your user base is representative of the general online population. That's rarely the case, and it usually worth using more specific statisti
146.
by jopt 14y ago
That just means you're not doing the sort of work you'd sacrifice a weekend for. Why is everyone in this thread boasting about this?
147.
by jopt 14y ago
Rather than what? Windows update?
148.
by jopt 14y ago
By extension, since Apple is still in business, their behaviour is de facto accepted and thereby necessarily acceptable.
149.
by jopt 14y ago
Apple has been fighting for their 30% since the beginning. Step by step any exceptions to the 30% rule have been removed. Is it more ethical to give Dropbox special treatment? Should Dropbox-enabled apps be given that competitive advantage?
150.
by jopt 14y ago
Well, it's a bit self-righteous, but it shows the difference between the old scene where cracking was a technical challenge reserved for the able, and the new sort of mass-market scene we have today. I for one always cringe at the sight of

More ›