Apple contacted print publications about tablet - report - Page 4

Originally Posted by wizard69

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by dasein

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.

Originally Posted by wizard69

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.

Originally Posted by Ireland

I pour, but I don't drink

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by vinea

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

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

Dave

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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.

Originally Posted by dasein

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.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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

Originally Posted by NOFEER

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

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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.

Originally Posted by Ireland

Now, see how easy it was.

Originally Posted by melgross

Come on guys, this isn't necessary.

Ireland, just say you're sorry.

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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?

Originally Posted by dasein

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

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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

DAVE

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

And?!?!?

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

Originally Posted by DaveGee

And?!?!?

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

Originally Posted by piot

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

Originally Posted by melgross

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

Originally Posted by DaveGee

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

DAVE

Originally Posted by piot

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by piot

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.