or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple contacted print publications about tablet - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple contacted print publications about tablet - report - Page 4

post #121 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well then show me the UIKit for Mac OS/X? Look at it this way Apple can add to Mac OS/Xs APIs in anyway it wants, we all know that, but there is no way right now to run IPhone apps on the Mac as native apps.

You want me to show you cocoa touch? Jeez, you really think that it wouldn't run on Mac OS/X if there was hardware to support it?

Quote:
Exactly! Apple won't be successful targetting a tablet at that portion of the market that requires keyboard input.

Well that makes it a very limited product. Possible but the market for ebooks/ipod/mid in a tablet format is gonna be small no matter how awesome you make it given that the iPod Touch is a much more portable system that fills the same niche.

The compelling route would be as an eventual MB replacement and Apple needs to do this to justify a $999 price point for comfortable ASPs and margins. The MB just isn't going to be any more viable than desktops in the future.

Quote:
For many Mac OS apps this input device is required. People aren't likely to have a good experience typing data into a data base or writing a long composition in a word processor on a tablet with a virtual keyboard. Such input is tolerable for transient input but is a non starter for serious use. This doesn't even get into controls designed for a mouse.

Which is easily solved with a MBA like convertible tablet. Or a tablet that docks into a notebook base.

Quote:
Now this is garbage, you can't easily write apps without an API. Multi Touch is what Aplles tablets are all about.

Nope. Nobody cares how much sweat a programmer has to go through to produce a good app if this apps exist. You can have the most brilliant APIs and if no one is coding to them it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter anyways because Apple already has Cocoa Touch which is based on the core Cocoa API.

Quote:
Actually they don't and probably shouldn't have such apps. It is looking like Apple has recognized this reality. It is better to avoid publishing apps that would likely lead to bad user experiences than to satisfy fringe elements with their desire to run office of all things on a tablet.

You mean fringe elements like students? You need to explain why a student is going to pony up $999 for a MB and another $500+ for an iTablet vs just buying an iTablet that can replace the MB for $999 AND be a multi-touch tablet with a stylus.

Quote:
IWork is a nice suite, I have it on my Mac right now, but translating those apps directly into Touch based apps would be a mistake. In fact it would be suicidal of Apple to release apps like those at the time this tablet is released as the user experience would be terrible. Now take some of the concepts and filefirmats and craft Multi Touch refactored replacements and we are ready to go. Keynote and Numbers ought to refactor well, but pages may require voice input or handwriting recognition. On the face though I don't expect that you would recognize the apps next to their Mac OS sisters.

Multitouch is not a panacea for all UI issues. If finger interaction was the end all and be all of input methods we'd all still be finger painting rather than using more precise writing mechanisms like pencils and pens.

Quote:
This is why the tablet needs to come from the iPod/Touch gene pool. It changes peoples expectations, so that they see the device as a video iPod or E-Book reader and make buying decisions based on that.

So you think that folks are going to buy a video iPod too big to fit in their pockets or an ebook reader?

Quote:
Like iPhone and Touch the device can certainly have functionality beyound it's cell phone function but it has a clear reason for being and is very usable in that regard.

Sure. It's a great MID/PDA combo. And phone too for the iPhone.

Quote:
Yeah I know this but apparently you missed the whole point of my posting. The use of iPhone OS is all about creating a better environment for the user. Something Apple can't do with Mac OS on a tablet.

Given that the iPhone OSX is the Mac OSX refactored to fit a phone I'd call BS. That's like saying "because you have a mouse and keyboard on Mac OS you can never have FrontRow and a remote" for a better media viewing environment for the user.

Mac OSX is more than capable of being a good tablet OS and be able to morph when multitouch is optimal, then to when a stylus is optimal, to when a remote control is most useful and to when a keyboard and mouse is optimal.
post #122 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

What are you talking about? We need to see the thing first before we sell our children and decide how much of a revolution it actually is. If this thing runs iPhone OS I won't buy it.

As a fellow tablet fan from way back I have to agree with you... Apple needs to BUTT-OUT of what software I want to use on its computers. I don't need Steve and his merry band of App Store Scrutinizers trashing everything and anything they like (or more to the point, don't like). I'm a BIG BOY Steve, I can choose for myself what I can and can't install on the hardware I purchase (and a Hefty premium I might add). Take that choice away from me and you've lost me as a customer.

To quote a real genius:

"There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

Okay maybe not... However, I still won't tolerate the Apple Gestapo shit-canning apps for politically motivated reasons and/or reasons unknown. If an application isn't a bug ridden virus infected apps and it doesn't violate the law in the country/state or province in which Apple is distributing it then the software should be approved for distribution no ifs ands or buts.

In the US we don't allow the government to censor what we can and can't have access to (yea this is debatable but roll with me on this) then why on earth should we give that kind of power to a computer company? Could you imagine for a minute if MS tried to pull this kind of stunt with Windows? We wouldn't see the end of the government investigations into the business practices of Microsoft for years and years and years.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #123 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

This is an excellent point: that a newspaper is not synonymous with news itself. Newspapers are just a medium and that medium, unlike 100 years ago, is today only one of many available. What was IN the newspaper was distinct from the newspaper itself and had no relation to or was defined by the medium (up to a point-- audio and video are not available in newspapers). I suppose in a way you could say reading news on one of these devices is still just reading a 'newspaper', but that's like the original autos being called 'horseless carriages'... seeing the future through a rear view mirror. But like a car is so much more than a horse, the Internet is much more than a hand held newspaper. I don't just mean it has audio and video...it can access information instantaneously and directly...no filters...unadulterated by a biased rendering or perspective. Or perhaps we get to select our own editors. This is in contrast to an editor-in-chief for a newspaper or TV/Radio program. Editors are middlemen second guessing public interest with economics in mind. My only legitimate concern is that people lose their common denominator by withdrawing into their own select spheres of interest, never knowing what their next door neighbors are reading.

The biggest problems with the news media today, no matter the format, is the lack of in depth investigative journalism and the ever increasing political bias of the news sources. There seems to be no trusted "independent" voice anymore and news is given in 30 second sound bites then on to "opinions" and "analysis" rather than stating the facts. As we move to Blogs and iReports this is bound to get worse as educated professional journalists are replaced with the man on the street.
post #124 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

To be honest I thought movies and the web would be enough but who am I. The e-books and E-magazines market though is very compelling and wide open to innovation.

I think movies might be a stretch but who knows... I can't imagine sitting in an airplane watching a 2 hour movie while holding a tablet at arms length the entire time so I guess that tablet better have a kickstand of some sort.

I still see the tablet much more as an 'enabler' that you pickup get something you need done and drop to go back to whatever you were doing.

Like:

o While watching TV surf the web to find out the name of that ACTOR/ACTRESS who you KNOW you've seen before but can't remember where and all the while your wife telling you how wrong you are.
o Waking up and checking the traffic and weather without having to turn on the TV and listen to the "morning news people" drone on about some actress and what she got caught doing the night before.
o Read the news, magazine, catch up on email while you carpool to work.
o Review reports and presentations.
o Sneek-a-peek the sports scores while company is over.
o Change the music in your whole house audio system in the most WICKED way imaginable.
o Ditto for controlling your whole house media center.
o Games up the wazoo...

Finally...

o Determining if you should dump the warp core and abandon ship.

Lots of 1 way type functions...

Mostly 'data OUT' and minimal 'data IN'.

Thats how I see it anyway and notice the restraint I demonstrated in not once mentioning porn.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #125 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I pour, but I don't drink

So you're a pusher then!

I sincerely hope that it doesn't run the iPhone OS! (In its current guise.)
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #126 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

As a fellow tablet fan from way back I have to agree with you... Apple needs to BUTT-OUT of what software I want to use on its computers. I don't need Steve and his merry band of App Store Scrutinizers trashing everything and anything they like (or more to the point, don't like). I'm a BIG BOY Steve, I can choose for myself what I can and can't install on the hardware I purchase (and a Hefty premium I might add). Take that choice away from me and you've lost me as a customer.

To quote a real genius:

"There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

Okay maybe not... However, I still won't tolerate the Apple Gestapo shit-canning apps for politically motivated reasons and/or reasons unknown. If an application isn't a bug ridden virus infected apps and it doesn't violate the law in the country/state or province in which Apple is distributing it then the software should be approved for distribution no ifs ands or buts.

In the US we don't allow the government to censor what we can and can't have access to (yea this is debatable but roll with me on this) then why on earth should we give that kind of power to a computer company? Could you imagine for a minute if MS tried to pull this kind of stunt with Windows? We wouldn't see the end of the government investigations into the business practices of Microsoft for years and years and years.

Dave

So, for what appears to be a handful or so of apps, you're willing to give up the entire 85,000+ universe of apps that do exist now, and that will likely reach 100,000 before the end of the year?

Seems nuts to me.

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but all other phone makers are going to or are already limiting to some extent what you can install on your phone.

If it uses the iPhone OS, that's what it will be. Though Apple will possibly change some aspects.

The funny thing about this is that hardly anyone cares about those few apps. If that weren't the truth, Apple wouldn't have sold more than 50 million of those products so far, with every indication of a lot more being sold over the next year.

And they know it.

In theory, I'm not any happier about it than you are, but in practice, I don't see it as a big deal.

They have some obligations to AT&T that they must meet, as every other phone manufacturer does to every carrier they sell to. They also have their own universe of products they want to protect. That's not unusual either.

Even Android developers are complaining about what Google won't let them do. Palm? Forget it,. They're WORSE than Apple. Supposedly with Win Mobile 7, MS will be limiting apps to their own store as well, and Nokia sys they won't, but it's so difficult developing for them that it may not matter. As far as RIM is concerned, there are problems there too. It's expensive getting into the environment for a developer just for a start.

Where does that leave everyone?

If Apple's tablet is compelling, and based on the iPhone platform, it will be unique.
post #127 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Editors do a lot more than that.

Newspapers also have fact checkers, at least all the bigger and better ones do.

By the times when fact checking fails, we can see what would happen if there wasn't a newspaper controlling the writers.

All we would have is the undisciplined bloggers we have today, claiming to be reporters and news media, but actually no better than biased paid for shills of certain creeds. There's too much of that now.

I think you have a trust in main streamed media that fewer of us have anymore. Most newspapers today aren't much more than what the National Enquirer was a generation ago. It's especially bad when a reporter (working under an editor) has to 'explain' a poll, statistical survey or study...never sure to believe if they are writing out of need2sell or ignorance. When over 90% of reporters and editors are registered to one political party, that's more than just a warning sign. Trust no one. I'm not into undisciplined bloggers either. Your last line says it all: we already have the problem with conventional editors. You're right that editors do a lot than that [edit], which is exactly the problem. I like things a little out of control...better that way. Just my preference.
post #128 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

How amusing...you're trading in one set of gatekeepers for a bunch of unknowns...namely blog writers and other "unfiltered" sources of information.

What's the better alternative? Take a chance on one or take a chance on many?
post #129 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So, for what appears to be a handful or so of apps, you're willing to give up the entire 85,000+ universe of apps that do exist now, and that will likely reach 100,000 before the end of the year? Seems nuts to me.

Perhaps you're right, a handful today and we all shut our mouths and smile... then its developers who get singled out as Persona non grata, as we remain silent and smiling then maybe entire application genres that are being put off limits since Apple feels they want those specific areas all to themselves. We still shut up and smile.

Just one question:

When exactly should we speak up about how Apple is conducting itself?

After all the potential competition is force out of the market?

What good would it do then?

It's amazes me that people I though were so liberal (in fact too liberal for my tastes normally and a big reason I stay away from certain forum areas) are so willing to roll over and allow a corporation to, at the press of a button cut off any application it wants, any time it wants for any reason it wants AND has proven it has no reservations about pressing that button for any reason at all... Even to the point where they don't even feel then need to explain their actions.

People willing to simply roll over and take it and chalk it up to... well we still have 100,000 other apps so its okay...

Well let me ask you... lets pretend its 15 years ago and http/html wasn't yet invented and one of the Applications that Apple chose to axe was a never before heard of 'web browser'.

A web browser? We've never even heard of it, and its ONLY 1 silly little app that Apple cut, what impact could it POSSIBLY have when you consider the 100,000 really cool iFart apps Apple still allows us to buy and install?

So, whatever the next 'web browser' turns out to be (industry changing software) chances are pretty good that Apple will do everything in its power to make sure if they aren't doing it or don't like it then nobody using an Apple based device will even have access to it.

To put simply, imagine if when the web first got started Microsoft had the power Apple has now and at the press of a button prevent the distribution of NSCA Mosaic on every Windows based PC in the world what would the world be like today?

But hey it was only one program that hardly anyone cared about...

Any HEY we WERE Mac users at one time... and understood that it always came down to QUALITY not QUANTITY.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #130 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Dave

We didn't quite get your name yet, you may want to type at the bottom of each and every comment just in case. You can never be too careful out there.

Dave
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #131 of 156
why couldn't authors sell directly to apple for this tablet idea, cut out the publisher, we would then get it cheaper
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #132 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

We didn't quite get your name yet, you may want to type at the bottom of each and every comment just in case. You can never be too careful out there.

Do you mock everyone that signs their posts? I'm not the only one and if this is all you have to say on the topic that says quite a bit in itself.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #133 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Do you mock everyone that signs their posts? I'm not the only one and if this is all you have to say on the topic that says quite a bit in itself.

Now, see how easy it was.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #134 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

I think you have a trust in main streamed media that fewer of us have anymore. Most newspapers today aren't much more than what the National Enquirer was a generation ago. It's especially bad when a reporter (working under an editor) has to 'explain' a poll, statistical survey or study...never sure to believe if they are writing out of need2sell or ignorance. When over 90% of reporters and editors are registered to one political party, that's more than just a warning sign. Trust no one. I'm not into undisciplined bloggers either. Your last line says it all: we already have the problem with conventional editors. You're right that editors do a lot than that [edit], which is exactly the problem. I like things a little out of control...better that way. Just my preference.

I don't prefer your way at all.

While some of the public may not be happy with newspapers, that's mostly because of the cost. Most papers do a good job. The one thing you do know about papers is where they stand editorially, because they will tell you up front.

Bloggers are mostly an incompetent lot. They don't reveal who is paying them to say what, and you have no idea if what they're saying is anywhere near the truth. Unlike with papers, or news magazines, I don't see bloggers getting fired because they made up their articles' "facts".
post #135 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Perhaps you're right, a handful today and we all shut our mouths and smile... then its developers who get singled out as Persona non grata, as we remain silent and smiling then maybe entire application genres that are being put off limits since Apple feels they want those specific areas all to themselves. We still shut up and smile.

Just one question:

When exactly should we speak up about how Apple is conducting itself?

After all the potential competition is force out of the market?

What good would it do then?

It's amazes me that people I though were so liberal (in fact too liberal for my tastes normally and a big reason I stay away from certain forum areas) are so willing to roll over and allow a corporation to, at the press of a button cut off any application it wants, any time it wants for any reason it wants AND has proven it has no reservations about pressing that button for any reason at all... Even to the point where they don't even feel then need to explain their actions.

People willing to simply roll over and take it and chalk it up to... well we still have 100,000 other apps so its okay...

Well let me ask you... lets pretend its 15 years ago and http/html wasn't yet invented and one of the Applications that Apple chose to axe was a never before heard of 'web browser'.

A web browser? We've never even heard of it, and its ONLY 1 silly little app that Apple cut, what impact could it POSSIBLY have when you consider the 100,000 really cool iFart apps Apple still allows us to buy and install?

So, whatever the next 'web browser' turns out to be (industry changing software) chances are pretty good that Apple will do everything in its power to make sure if they aren't doing it or don't like it then nobody using an Apple based device will even have access to it.

To put simply, imagine if when the web first got started Microsoft had the power Apple has now and at the press of a button prevent the distribution of NSCA Mosaic on every Windows based PC in the world what would the world be like today?

But hey it was only one program that hardly anyone cared about...

Any HEY we WERE Mac users at one time... and understood that it always came down to QUALITY not QUANTITY.

Dave

I don't find your analogy to be useful. Apple allows other browsers on the iPhone, there are a bunch of them. True, they must use Webkit, but that's a good thing. We do want open standards, right? That insures it, as almost every other mobile device's browsers are based on Webkit.

You want to make an assumption that Apple will continue to narrow the scope that third parties have in writing programs for the platform, but theres no evidence that this is so.

Apple has spelled out a few (a very few) areas they reserve for themselves, or to contractual obligations. I don't find this to be a problem.

If you can show that they are expanding this wall as time goes on, then please do so. The OS can do more now than it could first do when it was released. Far more. So now some developers are bumping against some of the few limits Apple has placed, where before, it wasn't possible, because of the lack of support in the OS. This doesn't mean that Apple is restricting more and more, just that more of the original restrictions are being exposed to programmers.

After all, Apple didn't allow ANY programs at first, except for their own, and a couple of others such as Google Maps. Apple could have just written programs on their own, and we likely would now have a couple of hundred well written ones to get. Reviewers would be asking why other phone platforms weren't done that way, and why Apple's programs were so much better than those on other platforms. Most people would be happy with that. But they chose to open it up drastically.

I just don't see how some people can't understand that they didn't have to do that at all, and it would still have sold very well.

So Apple thinks; "We'll open up 99.9% of the OS and hardware for outside development, and keep a couple of what we want to be tightly integrated features to ourselves, and honor our contracts to the carriers.

Wow! How terrible!

I have no sympathy for people complaining about that.
post #136 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

why couldn't authors sell directly to apple for this tablet idea, cut out the publisher, we would then get it cheaper

If Apple wanted to become a publisher, they could. They would just have to hire a number of editors, lawyers, an advertising agency, etc.

Why would they want to do that?
post #137 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Do you mock everyone that signs their posts? I'm not the only one and if this is all you have to say on the topic that says quite a bit in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Now, see how easy it was.

Come on guys, this isn't necessary.

Ireland, just say you're sorry.
post #138 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Come on guys, this isn't necessary.

Ireland, just say you're sorry.

To say I'm sorry would be a lie though. Guy keeps saying "Dave" at bottom of every comment, I think it's worth pointing out. We know he's called Dave. It's a fair point.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #139 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

To say I'm sorry would be a lie though. Guy keeps saying "Dave" at bottom of every comment, I think it's worth pointing out. We know he's called Dave. It's a fair point.

It doesn't matter. There are a bunch of people here who do that. It's not against the rules, and so why single him out?

Beside, why do you care?
post #140 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It doesn't matter. There are a bunch of people here who do that. It's not against the rules, and so why single him out?

Beside, why do you care?

I'm a care-bear!

I wasn't singling him point, just pointing it out. I don't care about the color of your names, just the content of your comments.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #141 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

What's the better alternative? Take a chance on one or take a chance on many?

You mean take a chance on known entities or folks behind a pseudonym? I use folks on the net as "editors" now. Like scoble. I know his biases more or less. He has a real name, a real face and a real reputation. The WSJ, the NYT, etc are the same on a much grander scale.

But what the heck, I'm arguing with someone that thinks that between 2002 and 2009 the number of journalists that were democrats went from 36% to 90%.

Possible given Bush and the general trend of educated folks moving from the republican party to the democratic one (we lost bankers for heaven's sake, wtf?) but not all THAT likely. Odds are that in 2012 we'll be in that same 16-18% republicans, 34-32% independents and 44%-36% democrats that we saw from 1992 to 2002.[1]

--

[1] The American Journalist in the 21st Century (Erlbaum, 2006)
post #142 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't find your analogy to be useful. Apple allows other browsers on the iPhone, there are a bunch of them. True, they must use Webkit, but that's a good thing. We do want open standards, right? That insures it, as almost every other mobile device's browsers are based on Webkit.

You took me too literally. My intention when I said browser like technology was to convey the concept of what the browser once stood for. Today, the browser is a standard feature not a 'game-changing' application. I was simply using browser as a way to covey the concept of a groundbreaking new vision, a 'killer app++'. What will that next 'kill app++' be? Who knows but we'll certainly know it when we see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You want to make an assumption that Apple will continue to narrow the scope that third parties have in writing programs for the platform, but theres no evidence that this is so.

Apple has spelled out a few (a very few) areas they reserve for themselves, or to contractual obligations. I don't find this to be a problem.

Okay we can agree to disagree on this point but Apple pulling the rug out from under GV was done for politically motivate reasons, thats how I see it anyway... AT&T made a statement to the FCC indicating they had no part in the decision to nuke GV and Apple said it hasn't even rejected the app in the first place... Is anyone actually buying into any of these answers?!?

Are you actually expecting me to believe that with a few UI changes GV will someday be approved? And what about the other Google app they had to give up on since it too was never going to be approved in native form and had to resort to a lesser web based version of the app that Apple had no control over? My current line of thinking is Google couldn't write a 'Hello World' native app and get it approved by Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but all the current signs seem to point in my direction.

So can we now conclude, with a certain level of confidence that Google has been effectively blackballed from the App Store? I'll let you answer that if you want.

And finally what it really comes down to is this...

You feel Apple knows best about what you can and can't do with your computing devices and the fact that you have no avenue to circumvent a bad decision Apple might make moving forward is perfectly acceptable.

While I don't.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #143 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I'm a care-bear!

I wasn't singling him point, just pointing it out. I don't care about the color of your names, just the content of your comments.

How about the silly use of colors in ones signatures? Does that count when considering content?

DAVE
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #144 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

How about the silly use of colors in ones signatures? Does that count when considering content?

DAVE

*jazzguru prepares a bowl of popcorn and puts on 3D glasses in eager anticipation of the reply*

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #145 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

You took me too literally. My intention when I said browser like technology was to convey the concept of what the browser once stood for. Today, the browser is a standard feature not a 'game-changing' application. I was simply using browser as a way to covey the concept of a groundbreaking new vision, a 'killer app++'. What will that next 'kill app++' be? Who knows but we'll certainly know it when we see it.

Ok, we were talking about different things.

Quote:
Okay we can agree to disagree on this point but Apple pulling the rug out from under GV was done for politically motivate reasons, thats how I see it anyway... AT&T made a statement to the FCC indicating they had no part in the decision to nuke GV and Apple said it hasn't even rejected the app in the first place... Is anyone actually buying into any of these answers?!?

Are you actually expecting me to believe that with a few UI changes GV will someday be approved? And what about the other Google app they had to give up on since it too was never going to be approved in native form and had to resort to a lesser web based version of the app that Apple had no control over? My current line of thinking is Google couldn't write a 'Hello World' native app and get it approved by Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but all the current signs seem to point in my direction.

So can we now conclude, with a certain level of confidence that Google has been effectively blackballed from the App Store? I'll let you answer that if you want.

And finally what it really comes down to is this...

You feel Apple knows best about what you can and can't do with your computing devices and the fact that you have no avenue to circumvent a bad decision Apple might make moving forward is perfectly acceptable.

While I don't.

I'm not saying it will be approved. I've said several times that Apple's contract with AT&T spells out a number of things that Apple can't do, or allow to be done by others regarding the customer agreements. I have no problem with that.

Because of those agreements, Apple can decide by themselves whether to accept an app, reject it, or have it modified.AT&T can properly state that Apple didn't approach them about the program, because Apple didn't have to.

Google has two apps in the store now, or at least one. They also provide the maps, though we don't know what the future will be with that now.

But don't you think that Google is pressing things with Apple and AT&T?

It seems to me that they are competing with Apple more and more, and are moving into Apple's turf, not the other way around.

I don't think Apple wants to see Google taking over control of some basic functions of the phone. I know that if I were Jobs, I'd be alarmed at what Google is doing.
post #146 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But don't you think that Google is pressing things with Apple and AT&T? It seems to me that they are competing with Apple more and more, and are moving into Apple's turf, not the other way around.

And?!?!?

Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #147 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

And?!?!?

Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?

Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.
post #148 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

And?!?!?

Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?

I think it means that if Apple has proscribed a few areas for itself, then thats fine, and I see no reason why Google should be pushing it. Let them do that with their own phone. It seems as though that's competition enough.

There's nothing that says that this needs to be a totally open system. Even the FCC isn't really sure about any of this. All they're concerned about is whether Apple and AT&T are doing something that's illegal over the network. Since every carrier has done this for years, and there doesn't seem to be any laws against it, it's not likely that there's one against this one either, assuming, of course, that what's said is happening is what is happening. This is something we don't know yet.
post #149 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.

Maybe, maybe not. Whether there are laws against "these things" isn't something that we know for sure yet. There are laws against some of these things, but not all of these things.

With MS, they are a monopoly, so the laws proscribe them from doing certain things. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, so the same laws don't apply, just as they don't apply for the Mac.
post #150 of 156
Here and I think we might ALL be able to BROADLY agree on... Then again who am I kidding!

But... there are clearly two different lights you can view these new devices under.

#1 A consumer electronic device that happens to have a very broad selection of software offerings.

#2 A computer in you're hand

Looking at the device using the first perspective its far easier to accept the intentional limiting of what you can and can't do with it.

Looking at the device from the second perspective makes the actions Apple is taking totally unacceptable. The thought of any company telling me they are blocking a willing and able 3rd party developers from providing software that I might want use simply because 'they can' is beyond contempt.

The funny thing is.. you even catch Apple going back and forth with what these new devices are.

1 - "Its RUNS OS X!" (its a hand held computer)

2 - "We reserve the right to limit and block software at our desecration" (its a CE device)

The iPod and iPhone have in my mind crossed over from being a really cool music player (or phone) to a an all-purpose general computing device.

Clearly others feel they still consider them on the CE Device side of the fence.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #151 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Maybe, maybe not. Whether there are laws against "these things" isn't something that we know for sure yet.

Really? Have the laws changes since the DOJ vs Microsoft.

I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market. It's our friend Dave who can't see the difference.
post #152 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

How about the silly use of colors in ones signatures? Does that count when considering content?

DAVE

My.. what do you mean?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #153 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Really? Have the laws changes since the DOJ vs Microsoft.

I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market. It's our friend Dave who can't see the difference.

I don't know them all, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

Someone would perform a public service by listing and linking to all of them.

And then they can give us an authoritative breakdown of each, listing and explaining how each codicil and reference affects this situation.

I say that WE don't know all of this because none of us here are experts in this area. And even the experts can't predict what a court may decide. They may force a company to abide by the rules set down, or they may strike those rules.

Laws may be ruled to take precedence, or they may be ruled as unfair, or even unconstitutional.

We just don't know.

The FCC has been having difficulty enforcing many of its rules, because it hasn't been clear that they have even had the authority to make the rules in some categories. Congress has considered that some types of rules that are wide ranging, and affect public policy aren't allowable for an unelected body to stipulate.

Broadcast airwaves, wired telephone networks, wired cable networks, broadband and wireless cell networks are all considered to be different, and are run with different rules and regulations.

More than a few of these are unclear as how they may apply cross network.

For example, the "public" airwaves, the ones that analog Tv and radio stations have been using are subject to strict rules. But are the "private" airwaves that have been bought by companies subject to the same rules?

This is a big matter of contention.

Do the wireless carriers have to allow VOIP? Not clear!

Does Apple have to allow programs that hijack the direction they have lined up for their products? Not clear!

Can one company destroy another by doing such a thing? Not clear!

It's not that simple.

And while I understand that some consumers want to be able to do anything they want to any time they want to no matter what the consequences, it's not clear that they have the automatic right to do that.

I don't think, from what I've been reading about this matter, that the FCC itself knows what they can regulate here, or whether the rules even cover what's being done.

And even if they think they do, they may not have the authority to do what they think they can.
post #154 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know them all, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

Someone would perform a public service by listing and linking to all of them.

And then they can give us an authoritative breakdown of each, listing and explaining how each codicil and reference affects this situation.

I say that WE don't know all of this because none of us here are experts in this area. And even the experts can't predict what a court may decide. They may force a company to abide by the rules set down, or they may strike those rules.

Laws may be ruled to take precedence, or they may be ruled as unfair, or even unconstitutional.

We just don't know.

The FCC has been having difficulty enforcing many of its rules, because it hasn't been clear that they have even had the authority to make the rules in some categories. Congress has considered that some types of rules that are wide ranging, and affect public policy aren't allowable for an unelected body to stipulate.

Broadcast airwaves, wired telephone networks, wired cable networks, broadband and wireless cell networks are all considered to be different, and are run with different rules and regulations.

More than a few of these are unclear as how they may apply cross network.

For example, the "public" airwaves, the ones that analog Tv and radio stations have been using are subject to strict rules. But are the "private" airwaves that have been bought by companies subject to the same rules?

This is a big matter of contention.

Do the wireless carriers have to allow VOIP? Not clear!

Does Apple have to allow programs that hijack the direction they have lined up for their products? Not clear!

Can one company destroy another by doing such a thing? Not clear!

It's not that simple.

And while I understand that some consumers want to be able to do anything they want to any time they want to no matter what the consequences, it's not clear that they have the automatic right to do that.

I don't think, from what I've been reading about this matter, that the FCC itself knows what they can regulate here, or whether the rules even cover what's being done.

And even if they think they do, they may not have the authority to do what they think they can.

All very interesting. And yes, the law is complex. However I don't think "Bill Gates blocking iTunes on Windows" would occur without their being legal consequences.
post #155 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

All very interesting. And yes, the law is complex. However I don't think "Bill Gates blocking iTunes on Windows" would occur without their being legal consequences.

That's a totally different circumstance.

As has been stated many times, Windows is a legal monopoly. That makes what they do very different. Apple is not. The iPhone is not. iTunes is not. Very different. AT&T is not.

In addition, the personal computer industry has grown up in a different way. When personal computers first came out, there was no software, and no real way to get the very small amateur written programs that began to appear, into the machines.

Over the evolution of the industry, which started with very small, and numerous players, the concept of open software for these machines became accepted as normal. Trying to restrict that later, would have gone against what was already accepted practice, and couldn't be done.

But the phone industry is very different. From the very beginning, everything has been locked down. Even for smartphones, certain categories of software was not allowed. That was true for the most open systems, Win Mobile and Palmphones.

So now we are demanding things that have never been accepted as normal practice.

It's a different state of affairs, and it's still questionable as to whether the authorities have the legal muscle to do it.

Look at the big fight that's going on in the FCC and Congress about a neutral internet. You would think that that's normal, and what should always be. Not so!

In addition, look at all the people here who are actually against the regulating that would be required to insure a neutral internet. At MacDailyNews, the conservatives have come out strongly against regulating Comcast and the industry in general. A fair amount of filthy language and insults were required from them to drive their points home.

So with some not wanting ANY regulation, where does that leave us?

New technology has allowed the ISP's to do things they couldn't do before, and so they see that as an advantage to themselves by doing it.

We may need new laws to determine how open things will be required to be.

So this is why I say that Apple and AT&T, along with all the other carriers and phone makers may not be doing anything illegal, or at least, against any rules set down by the commission. And there will be those opposed to set any rules or laws.
post #156 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's a totally different circumstance.

Melgross, it could be me (it often is!) but one of us is confused. I am not sure why you are responding to my (short) posts... with your (long) posts. ?

In a simple response to DaveGee's question: "Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?" I wrote:

Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.

Quote:
As has been stated many times, Windows is a legal monopoly. That makes what they do very different. Apple is not. The iPhone is not. iTunes is not. Very different. AT&T is not.

Yes and I also wrote: "I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market"

If you don't explain or issue an immediate apology I shall be forced to report your conduct to the USB Implementers Forum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple contacted print publications about tablet - report