or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

I think it's pretty clear... there are 7 modes of "multitasking", and different modes will involve different levels of battery drain. I'm sure they will encourage developers through the app review process to use the mode that gets the job done for a specific app and no more. For example, they will probably encourage the vast majority of developers to use rapid app switching rather than full multitasking.
It sounds like they've done a great job here. They've done something very targeted and balanced. Instead of letting background apps go hog wild, they are giving developers just what they need and nothing more. This is smart. And I just hope the app review process dings developers who misuse these features. Remember developers -- it's not about you. It's about me (the consumer).
I'm not aware of any cutoff. I think its a matter of a company being large enough so that its anti-competitive behavior really does hurt consumers. If Palm decided that they would refuse to sell the Pre to any network that sells competing products, Palm would just go out of business. But if Microsoft decided that they would not sell Windows to a PC company that sold other operating systems, then it's the PC company that would go out of business, not Microsoft. In that...
Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard. It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.
Because Apple is not a monopolist, that's why. There is no market where Apple has as high of a marketshare as Microsoft has with Windows. Not even remotely close. This is a common misunderstanding of anti-trust laws. Things that are illegal for monopolists can be perfectly legal for everyone else. The purpose of anti-trust law is not to mindlessly enforce some grade-school concept of "fairness". It's to mindfully enforce an econ grad-school concept of fairness.
This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
I agree. It seems like there is this pervasive attitude among business types that the goal of any business is to lock in customers so that they have no choice but to keep buying your product no matter how cr@ppy it becomes. Therefore, they interpret all of Apple's vertical integration as an attempt at that kind of lock-in. But I really don't see it that way -- Apple's vertical integration is geared towards reducing their costs and making a better product, not at lock-in....
I totally agree. I used the video camera on my MBP for maybe a couple of months of goofing around (literally "look mom, we can see each other over the Internet! It's like Star Trek!", and then it just became tedious. I think the iPad would be even worse in this regard. Exactly how are you supposed to hold the thing when video conferencing? I don't think it's realistic to grab it by both hands and hold it out in front of your face for half an hour. And I don't want to be...
My thoughts exactly.
I'm certainly not one of those that thinks apple will fall apart when Jobs is no longer there, but having the guts to shun flash is definitely a uniquely Jobsian trait that will probably leave Apple when he does. To stand up and say "flash sucks, we're not supporting it, and if you want to be on the iPad you won't use it" is not the kind of thing that most risk-averse bean counting CEOs would do. For better or for worse, the dude just isn't going to do what he doesn't want...
New Posts  All Forums: