or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › NPD: Chromebook sales outperform MacBooks in commercial sector as iPad loses ground
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NPD: Chromebook sales outperform MacBooks in commercial sector as iPad loses ground - Page 5

post #161 of 210
I refuse to believe a $200 product outsells a $1000 one!
post #162 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

For the price of a Chromebook, I think an Android tablet is of better value.

Why? I find it much more convenient to moderate forums, answer posts, reply to email and do general web research on a Chromebook compared to a tablet. Yeah there's obviously more apps available for both Android and iOS but most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway so they were't all that needed to begin with. I still use a tablet on a regular basis and it's certainly more transportable. But for uses that require extensive typing the Chromebook (or a MacBook or a Mac Air) fills the need better IMO.

So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/30/13 at 4:42pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #163 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

Is the "iOS" just a misspelling of "OS X" then? Surely Apple wouldn't also make this mistake for the last 6 years.

 

Touchscreen Chromebooks are essentially a ChromeOS tablet with a keyboard and trackpad, so we're not far away from that, but ChromeOS is targeting less expensive hardware than a Gorilla Glass multitouch screen interface. Running Android on a laptop would be about as natural as the Windows Metro interface on a laptop. Oh. Wait. We've already seen how that sucks.

 

In some ways, Android, Windows, and Mac can all run ChromeOS in the sense that they can run Chrome, which is 99.9% of ChromeOS.

 

I agree, Apple made an artificial gap between iOS and OSX to make sure iDevice and Mac who doesn't share the same paradigm (Touch input vs keyboard + mouse) got the right treatment from its developer.  

 

But have a hard time to discern whats Google try to achieve with this poor man apps platform and no desktop likes tablets. ChromeOS is maybe cool idea as a bare minimum secondary OS, but a pretty non-sense at this point to built a premium device for this braindead OS with no killer apps.

post #164 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
 


Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.

 

Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.

 

Wow, you've got a lot of imagination here.  First of all iOS and OSX is built on POSIX too, you can built every open source POSIX programs on those platform ever since they're birth.  ChromeOS is meant to be an interpreted apps platform running thru a web browser, it will never beat a native app with the same level of optimization no matter what.  

 

The future is mobility, and most people wants the power in their hands, not on a cloud. Look at the onlive debacle,  I don't want to be tied on a service to use my things, I don't want to depend on a connection to make my work. I do want a connection for live things, updates and share data, but you know the internet itself is not flawless and any services can be put offline any time, better keep my valuable data out of it.  Imagine now if someone could stop every chromebook from working by disrupting google authentication service. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 12/30/13 at 6:22pm
post #165 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

But have a hard time to discern whats Google try to achieve with this poor man apps platform and no desktop likes tablets. ChromeOS is maybe cool idea as a bare minimum secondary OS, but a pretty non-sense at this point to built a premium device for this braindead OS with no killer apps.

 

Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome (chrome://apps/), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.

post #166 of 210
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
Eventually [emulation will] do things as good as native programs.

 

Nope.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #167 of 210
The Chrome book is a $200 toy. Comparing it to an iPad or a Macbook is a big joke.
Mentioning that businesses are adopting it is an even bigger joke. I find this to be more FUD.
And since Apple hasn't announced its earnings or sales I find it hard to believe the Chrome book has any chance of beating the iPad Air sales which probably sold more in one week than Chrome book did in a whole quarter.
post #168 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough. My friend wanted to send a local file to an always on networked drive so that her TV could access the movies. But there is no way to use a NAS on a Chromebook. So no movies.

Doesn't the NAS have a built-in web server? If it's a drive on a Windows machine, then a local Apache web server would be quick to set up. Not ideal, but it would enable writing files to the shared folder.

post #169 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

 

Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome (chrome://apps/), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.

 

So if it's HTML 5, these things should work in any browser, right?

 

It looks like Google is bastardising open web standards just like Microsoft did in the nineties.

 

Chrome???

 

Why should everyone be coerced into using Google's browser if they don't want to?

 

What happened to freedom of the Internet?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #170 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by "waterrockets" View Post

Well, there actually is an app desktop in Chrome ([URL=]chrome://apps/[/URL]), so that's not an issue. Killer apps would be pretty subjective. What's a killer iPad app? Outside of regular web sites, Chrome apps are HTML5, which is about as killer as anything out there for a target dev technology right now, and new/mainstream apps are added all the time. What are the most used iPad apps? On our iPads, I use Chrome, Netflix, and YouTube the most.
 
I was curious about your desktop apps and what I've found are only themes or remote desktop apps, nothing near the Mac or Windows finder-files explorer, so yes this is an issue for a computer meant to replace a Mac or Windows machine. 
 
The iPad killer apps was the same as the iPhone: the App Store with many years of customer relationship before coming out with apps on the iPhone and the iPad.  The biggest problems Google is facing right now with both of their platform is they don't got the same level of fidelity from their users. While I know more peoples using Android phones than iPhones, no one I know have buy anything yet on the Google Store or even want to give their credit card to Google.  In another hand this Christmas I've seen many iTunes gift cards exchange, this is where the ecosystem is the killer apps for iOS. 
 
You know I've seen so many overhyped runtime environment over time, they said exactly the same things about JAVA when it first comes out like 20 years ago, It was supposed to end all incompatibility with the write once runs everywhere concept.  We all know now how it went, JAVA apps are crappy and inefficient on every platform when compared to native apps. Those runtimes environment are nothing more than shortcuts for lazy developers.
 
I use many apps on my iPad, but I found your choice interesting.  I do use a lot the Youtube apps on my iPad, even more than on my laptop where i am most of the time, because I like the native iPad apps better than the web site, the same apply to many other apps like, Google Maps, Netflix, Facebook.  They all are proof of native apps performing better than their web site counterpart. 
post #171 of 210
Quote:
 Firstly, interpreted apps will never be native, pure and simple. Secondly, the APIs will never be remotely as rich.

 

Using the adjective "interpreted" makes your first statement a tauntology.  I'm guessing you probably meant "apps delivered as source code will never be as [fast, efficient, compact, proprietary, something else - pick one or more] as apps delivered as binaries".

 

Quite counter-intuitively, you're wrong, based on 30+ years of professional computer engineering experience, which explains all that grey hair ;-) . If you'll indulge me, I'd like to explain why I believe this to be so, and thus why I believe web apps are likely the future of mainstream computing.

 

1. Fast - In the dark ages, we used to believe that assembly programs would always be faster than compiled programs. Then, most compiled programs became faster than hand-crafted assembly in practice because compilers were just far better at optimizing the instructions than humans could realistically be. Similarly, by deferring creation of the binary until load time, a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler can take optimal advantage of exactly what is installed on the local machine - even down to the version of the instruction set and libraries available. Very heavy investment by the major OS vendors have made (especially) JavaScript extremely fast at load/run time compilation as well as execution speed, though some classes of apps (such as 3D immersive gaming) still work better with pre-compilation. That's likely to change for most use cases over time, though. Progress is just so darned inexorable. 

 

2. Efficient - This one is easier to grasp. Given load time compilation, it becomes reasonable to handle API changes and optional libraries on the fly, resulting in less resource utilization. And I see no reason at all that different APIs must be used with pre-compiled and load time compiled programs, especially given that some niche Linux systems install ALL apps by simply compiling them. Can you elaborate on why you seem (based on other parts of your post) to believe that must be so?

 

3. Compact - Text is remarkably compressible, so in practice the size difference between binaries and source code tends to balance out to the negligible. In my experience, compressed binaries actually lose the size battle with compressed source more often than not, since no static boilerplate code need be included with source.

 

4. Proprietary - Yes, it's a bit harder to do DRM when you deliver source code over the web. However, if run within a proprietary browser, a signed and encrypted source tarball could in fact be delivered, decrypted, compiled, and run without exposing the source. (I don't support DRM on principle, you understand, just pointing out what's probably obvious in retrospect.)

 

5. Something else - Can you clarify?

 

It's always dangerous to say "never" and "pure and simple", because absolutes and simple answers rarely are.  :-)

 

Hope this is received in the spirit of gentle debate in which it's offered. Thanks for reading such a long post. Maybe I'm missing work more than I expected.  :-D

post #172 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
I was curious about your desktop apps and what I've found are only themes or remote desktop apps, nothing near the Mac or Windows finder-files explorer, so yes this is an issue for a computer meant to replace a Mac or Windows machine. 
 
The iPad killer apps was the same as the iPhone: the App Store with many years of customer relationship before coming out with apps on the iPhone and the iPad.  The biggest problems Google is facing right now with both of their platform is they don't got the same level of fidelity from their users. While I know more peoples using Android phones than iPhones, no one I know have buy anything yet on the Google Store or even want to give their credit card to Google.  In another hand this Christmas I've seen many iTunes gift cards exchange, this is where the ecosystem is the killer apps for iOS. 
 
You know I've seen so many overhyped runtime environment over time, they said exactly the same things about JAVA when it first comes out like 20 years ago, It was supposed to end all incompatibility with the write once runs everywhere concept.  We all know now how it went, JAVA apps are crappy and inefficient on every platform when compared to native apps. Those runtimes environment are nothing more than shortcuts for lazy developers.
 
I use many apps on my iPad, but I found your choice interesting.  I do use a lot the Youtube apps on my iPad, even more than on my laptop where i am most of the time, because I like the native iPad apps better than the web site, the same apply to many other apps like, Google Maps, Netflix, Facebook.  They all are proof of native apps performing better than their web site counterpart. 

 

It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.

 

Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared  credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars. 

 

Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.

 

Preferring a Youtube app to a web version is more of a statement about the interface than the performance of a native app. Youtube performance has a bottleneck on the input stream, not a native vs. interpreted implementation. You prefer tapping with your fingers to clicking with a mouse or pad. No harm there, but it's nothing to do with the performance of a platform.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

So if it's HTML 5, these things should work in any browser, right?

 

It looks like Google is bastardising open web standards just like Microsoft did in the nineties.

 

Chrome???

 

Why should everyone be coerced into using Google's browser if they don't want to?

 

What happened to freedom of the Internet?

 

No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.

 

Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.

 

But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.

post #173 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

 

It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.

 

Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared  credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars. 

 

Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.

 

Preferring a Youtube app to a web version is more of a statement about the interface than the performance of a native app. Youtube performance has a bottleneck on the input stream, not a native vs. interpreted implementation. You prefer tapping with your fingers to clicking with a mouse or pad. No harm there, but it's nothing to do with the performance of a platform.

 

 

No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.

 

Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.

 

But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.

 

To add to this sensible commentary, you can actually avoid much of the relevant advertising through the magic of AdBlock (pro or otherwise), available on Chrome or Safari.

post #174 of 210

I guess I should also disclose that I made exactly two technology purchases in the last six months: A MacBook Air for my middle-schooler and a Chromecast for the family. A Chromebook is not far behind for the younger kids though...

 

My main machine is a quad-core Win7 HP laptop that I bought for $500. Threw an SSD in there and use it for image processing (99% Lightroom).

post #175 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. 

 

So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?

 

btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.

 

This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #176 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricegf View Post

Using the adjective "interpreted" makes your first statement a tauntology.  I'm guessing you probably meant "apps delivered as source code will never be as [fast, efficient, compact, proprietary, something else - pick one or more] as apps delivered as binaries".

Quite counter-intuitively, you're wrong, based on 30+ years of professional computer engineering experience, which explains all that grey hair ;-) . If you'll indulge me, I'd like to explain why I believe this to be so, and thus why I believe web apps are likely the future of mainstream computing.

1. Fast - In the dark ages, we used to believe that assembly programs would always be faster than compiled programs. Then, most compiled programs became faster than hand-crafted assembly in practice because compilers were just far better at optimizing the instructions than humans could realistically be. Similarly, by deferring creation of the binary until load time, a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler can take optimal advantage of exactly what is installed on the local machine - even down to the version of the instruction set and libraries available. Very heavy investment by the major OS vendors have made (especially) JavaScript extremely fast at load/run time compilation as well as execution speed, though some classes of apps (such as 3D immersive gaming) still work better with pre-compilation. That's likely to change for most use cases over time, though. Progress is just so darned inexorable. 

2. Efficient - This one is easier to grasp. Given load time compilation, it becomes reasonable to handle API changes and optional libraries on the fly, resulting in less resource utilization. And I see no reason at all that different APIs must be used with pre-compiled and load time compiled programs, especially given that some niche Linux systems install ALL apps by simply compiling them. Can you elaborate on why you seem (based on other parts of your post) to believe that must be so?

3. Compact - Text is remarkably compressible, so in practice the size difference between binaries and source code tends to balance out to the negligible. In my experience, compressed binaries actually lose the size battle with compressed source more often than not, since no static boilerplate code need be included with source.

4. Proprietary - Yes, it's a bit harder to do DRM when you deliver source code over the web. However, if run within a proprietary browser, a signed and encrypted source tarball could in fact be delivered, decrypted, compiled, and run without exposing the source. (I don't support DRM on principle, you understand, just pointing out what's probably obvious in retrospect.)

5. Something else - Can you clarify?

It's always dangerous to say "never" and "pure and simple", because absolutes and simple answers rarely are.  :-)

Hope this is received in the spirit of gentle debate in which it's offered. Thanks for reading such a long post. Maybe I'm missing work more than I expected.  :-D

Despite all this the code still needs processor cycles to interpret code. And the interpreted code will not have access to all the native API has. The main reason why HTML 5 is a pipe dream is that the combination of a markup language and a scripting language requires a lot more effort to make it work as well as native. If this were not true why did the App Store only take off after the release of a native API.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #177 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?

btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.

This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".

I agree that Google is hypocritical when it comes to being "open" but I don't agree with particular instance. They have created an OS that uses webcode for the UI (which is really no different from WebOS) so for it to be good one would expect Google to create APIs and frameworks that work better with their code and to do things not otherwise wouldn't be possible with the open web standards.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #178 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?

 

btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.

 

This whole chrome thing is just more hypocrisy from Google, the self proclaimed champions of "open".

 

First, this is no different than any other current major platform, aside from Linux. Apple has APIs, and guess how much iOS or OSX software runs on other platforms? Open software is great and everything, but it's a bit more challenging to make money off of it. How much of Microsoft's and Apple's current core code is available for download? Here's a start at some of Google's.

 

Google proclaimed themselves the "champions of 'open?'" Citation please. At one point, they said they wanted to "don't be evil," but wasn't that in the last millennium? Companies often change mission statements according to changing goals.

 

I swear, certain tech fanbois sound just like Fox-News-watching conservatives ripping on "liberals" or "progressives" when it comes to competing technologies. The irony is how liberal this crowd believes itself to be. I say this as someone with more Apple devices in his home than any other brand -- that doesn't mean they're better at everything.

 

If you don't like Google's pervasiveness, well, hang on, because you're going to have some issues in the coming years.

post #179 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Despite all this the code still needs processor cycles to interpret code.... And the interpreted code will not have access to all the native API has. ... If this were not true why did the App Store only take off after the release of a native API?

OK, I think I understand your argument now. Since the iPhone 1, which was introduced before JIT compilers and when the ink on the HTML 5 spec was barely loaded into the printer (it's still not final), had to use native apps to succeed, you're arguing that technology is frozen and all of the advances of the past 6 years never happened and web apps will never become mainstream. Is that a fair if somewhat pointed summary of your argument?

My only response is that the past 6 years did happen, JavaScript does not require an interpreter any longer on any modern system, and insisting that JavaScript APIs must necessarily be less complete than for other languages is not a limitation just because you believe it to be.

I would appreciate it if you would read the history of SpiderMonkey (the first JIT JS compiler) and the history of the HTML 5 spec (currently a candidate recommendation) on Wikipedia if you decide to respond, otherwise we'll be stuck in "it's interpreted" "it's compiled" "HTML 5 was final for iPhone 1" "HTML 5 is still not final" limbo forever.
post #180 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


 HTML 5 is a pipe dream

 

This might be the funniest thing I've read all day.

 

Ah, nope, it was this headline from fark.com: Billionaire upset with the Pope's comments about capitalism says he may withhold donation, will instead spend the money on an attempt to get a camel through the eye of a needle

 

Close 2nd though.

post #181 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricegf View Post

OK, I think I understand your argument now. Since the iPhone 1, which was introduced before JIT compilers and when the ink on the HTML 5 spec was barely loaded into the printer (it's still not final), had to use native apps to succeed, you're arguing that technology is frozen and all of the advances of the past 6 years never happened and web apps will never become mainstream. Is that a fair if somewhat pointed summary of your argument?

My only response is that the past 6 years did happen, JavaScript does not require an interpreter any longer on any modern system, and insisting that JavaScript APIs must necessarily be less complete than for other languages is not a limitation just because you believe it to be.

I would appreciate it if you would read the history of SpiderMonkey (the first JIT JS compiler) and the history of the HTML 5 spec (currently a candidate recommendation) on Wikipedia if you decide to respond, otherwise we'll be stuck in "it's interpreted" "it's compiled" "HTML 5 was final for iPhone 1" "HTML 5 is still not final" limbo forever.

I've been hearing this nonsense for decades. If you think there is a 1-1 correspondence between the API set of iOS - from posix C, to core foundation, to foundation, to the app kit - and a scripting language well there is a bridge in Broklyn for sale - yours for a dollar.

Indeed the iPhone 5S is way ahead of the first iPhone - so where are the web apps which work at the same level as native apps.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #182 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

This might be the funniest thing I've read all day.

Ah, nope, it was this headline from fark.com: Billionaire upset with the Pope's comments about capitalism says he may withhold donation, will instead spend the money on an attempt to get a camel through the eye of a needle

Close 2nd though.

Not being brought up in America I don't respond to Argument De Sneer. Feel free to quote me again and make an argument.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #183 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Not being brought up in America I don't respond to Argument De Sneer. Feel free to quote me again and make an argument.
 

 

Go do a web search for jobs related to HTML 5 technologies and tell me it's a pipe dream.

post #184 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


I've been hearing this nonsense for decades. If you think there is a 1-1 correspondence between the API set of iOS - from posix C, to core foundation, to foundation, to the app kit - and a scripting language well there is a bridge in Broklyn for sale - yours for a dollar.

Indeed the iPhone 5S is way ahead of the first iPhone - so where are the web apps which work at the same level as native apps.

 

Well, they are possible... this one works on iOS and Android: http://www.htmlcompass.com/

 

More developers will need to start exercising these interfaces, and they'll become more common.

post #185 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So like Microsoft did with ActiveX back in the nineties?

btw the company I work for still uses XP with IE6 running in a virtual machine in order to use several legacy web based applications.

I hear this story all the time. You're not alone.

It's sad that whoever built those applications to run on IE6 never thought to revisit those applications ever again.

What kind of support is that? Build it once then walk away?

I mean... they spent a lot of time, effort and money to build those applications in the first place. What were their future plans?

There was a time when there were NO web apps at all. Then suddenly there were TONS of web apps for IE6.

But they seem to have gotten stuck on IE6. I don't understand why.
post #186 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


I hear this story all the time. You're not alone.

It's sad that whoever built those applications to run on IE6 never thought to revisit those applications ever again.

What kind of support is that? Build it once then walk away?

I mean... they spent a lot of time, effort and money to build those applications in the first place. What were their future plans?

There was a time when there were NO web apps at all. Then suddenly there were TONS of web apps for IE6.

But they seem to have gotten stuck on IE6. I don't understand why.

 

The amount of software that never sees the light of day is amazing. The orphaned software is just as common. For all these questions, follow the money. In commercial software, not a line of code will be written without dollars behind it. Some is written speculatively, and when it doesn't bear fruit, it's dropped.

post #187 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

The amount of software that never sees the light of day is amazing. The orphaned software is just as common. For all these questions, follow the money. In commercial software, not a line of code will be written without dollars behind it. Some is written speculatively, and when it doesn't bear fruit, it's dropped.

Ah... that explains it.

My original question was... why was the software was written in the first place? You've shown that the answer was money. That makes perfect sense.

It just baffles me that they never thought they could make more money from updates or a new version.

It's also unfortunate that the companies who adopted this software are now stuck with using horribly outdated IE6 software. Yikes.

On a side note... what was it about that period of time that all this software was written? Apparently there was money flowing in software development back then... but never again?
post #188 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Ah... that explains it.

My original question was... why was the software was written in the first place? You've shown that the answer was money. That makes perfect sense.

It just baffles me that they never thought they could make more money from updates or a new version.

It's also unfortunate that the companies who adopted this software are now stuck with using horribly outdated IE6 software. Yikes.

On a side note... what was it about that period of time that all this software was written? Apparently there was money flowing in software development back then... but never again?

 

I'm not really sure, as I wasn't paying that much attention at the time. In 2001, when IE6 was released, I had returned to console game development and wasn't following much of what was going on in the commercial and home computing world. The DotCom bubble had burst at that point, and there were a lot of companies folding, so maybe it was a lot of speculative software written for the release of IE6, then many of the companies that funded it started failing.

post #189 of 210
Given the shenanigans we saw with Chromecasts activating as tablets I have my own theory. Google has a hoard of Chromebooks it can't sell on it's floating barge "showrooms" that it has running continuously on the net to generate traffic. Now these "showrooms" and the Chromebooks on them will eventually become part of an artificial reef but in the meantime is generating a ton of hype for these worthless devices.

Explains the timeframe (ie not an education buying season even though this is supposedly in education), why no one has ever seen any of these Chromebooks, and how Google will dispose of all these unsold units (proclaiming a green initiative/writeoff)!!!!!

Truth is sacrificed early when your every dime comes from selling advertising.

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #190 of 210
In NYC schools have always beed pro Apple regardless of their budget. Even schools in under served communities are 100% prefer macs.
post #191 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post

Given the shenanigans we saw with Chromecasts activating as tablets.

It wasn't Chromecasts but I understand what you're trying to get at. Because it wasn't Chromecasts tho the comparison kinda misses. With Microsoft now targeting Chromebooks in it's Scroogled ads it does support the idea that they're seeing some success, at least enough to worry MS.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #192 of 210
As I recall it was chromecasts but whatever it was I stand by my theory.

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #193 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post

As I recall it was chromecasts but whatever it was I stand by my theory.

You're incorrect but I see why you're getting the info mixed up. It was USB dongles that were loaded with Android and activated as tablets but used as TV sticks, usually with bootleg movies preloaded.

Chromecast is mostly Android but I'm not sure it gets counted with Google's activation numbers. Regardless, the number of Chromecasts that are sold is a mere drop in the bucket to the number of Android OSes that are DLed, installed, and then activated.

To reiterate, Chromecast is a physical product from Google. I don't think it's available worldwide and I don't think you can download the code for it. It has an HDMI connector and a plug for the DC power source to run the system. It's small and with one primary plug, which is not unlike a USB flash drive, but it's very different and clearly not what part of the original story I linked to below.

BTW, if Google was going to artificially inflate numbers for Chromebooks it would make more sense to create and destroy them as VM's instead of building specific HW for each one this way they not only get activation numbers but usage numbers, which really don't exist. Plus, these numbers from NPD appear to come from what they've seen, not from anything inside of Google, if I'm not mistaken. NPD's methodology can be called into question but I haven't seen anything to suggest they are being duplicitous or in cahoots with Google on these results.


Edited by SolipsismX - 1/1/14 at 6:10pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #194 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Why? I find it much more convenient to moderate forums, answer posts, reply to email and do general web research on a Chromebook compared to a tablet. Yeah there's obviously more apps available for both Android and iOS but most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway so they were't all that needed to begin with. I still use a tablet on a regular basis and it's certainly more transportable. But for uses that require extensive typing the Chromebook (or a MacBook or a Mac Air) fills the need better IMO.

So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?

 

"most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway"... what?

 

"So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?" well, apart from the example you gave about writing a lot on the web, I'd say the tablet form factor makes it more interesting in pretty much everything else.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

Doesn't the NAS have a built-in web server? If it's a drive on a Windows machine, then a local Apache web server would be quick to set up. Not ideal, but it would enable writing files to the shared folder.

 

Setting an Apache, and a DNS to access it? Seems a lot of work when other computers simply show the drive on the desktop.

post #195 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post
 

"So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?" well, apart from the example you gave about writing a lot on the web, I'd say the tablet form factor makes it more interesting in pretty much everything else.

 

 

Cost me all of $30 to get an iPad case with a built in Bluetooth keyboard.

 

Typing a lot on an iPad is no longer a big deal.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #196 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post
Truth is sacrificed early when your every dime comes from selling advertising.

 

It's also sacrificed early when you don't have your facts straight. Many, many dimes, all possible to run on a completely private and disconnected network, such as used by the DoD in TS/SCI environments: http://www.google.com/enterprise/mapsearth/products/earthenterprise.html

 

Do I need to go find other areas where Google earns revenue outside of ads?

post #197 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post

Truth is sacrificed early when your every dime comes from selling advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

It's also sacrificed early when you don't have your facts straight. Many, many dimes, all possible to run on a completely private and disconnected network, such as used by the DoD in TS/SCI environments: http://www.google.com/enterprise/mapsearth/products/earthenterprise.html

Do I need to go find other areas where Google earns revenue outside of ads?

You're right, waterrockets. Not every dime Google makes is from ads.

But Google is an ad company... no doubt about it. They make most of their money from ads.

Quote:
How does Google make money? No less an authority than the company's CEO posed the question, hopefully rhetorically, in a recent letter to shareholders.

Or as the company's annual report succinctly puts it, "We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising."

...In a word, AdWords. In some respects Google is essentially the world's largest bus shelter, deriving 96% of its revenues from ads.

- investopedia.com
Quote:
About Ads

One of the things that makes Google search especially valuable is that it’s completely free. So, how does Google make money and continue to drive constant innovation? We give advertisers the opportunity to place clearly-marked ads alongside our search results. We strive to help people find ads that are relevant and useful, just like our results.

- From Google themselves
post #198 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post



You're right, waterrockets. Not every dime Google makes is from ads.

But Google is an ad company... no doubt about it. They make most of their money from ads.
 

That's fine, and common knowledge, but I'm not the one who was speaking in absolutes.

post #199 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

 

It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.

 

I think you failed to understand the importance of the desktop paradigm used on every desktop OS ever since the original MacOS, there is no equivalent on ChromeOS, no matter what you said. Pointing a launcher apps is no where near addressing my point. The most basic core functionalities of every desktop operating system (originally Disk Operating System) are copy, move, rename and delete files from the disk. 

 

Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared  credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars. 

 

Good for you, has for movies dictatorship you know this was coming from the MPAA, it is not a choice made by Apple.  Ok ill gives you a point, Google offers an HTML5 streams from a web browser of their movies, but you will never can retain a local copy and being able to watch your movie offline.  iTunes in another hand let you download a local copy of every purchase and let you watch your movies offline. So iTunes in nor better or worst than any other online movie store out there, they all play with the same rules imposed by the MPAA.  For my self, I still prefer rip my own blurays and keeps non-DRM version playable on every online and offline devices.

 

Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.

 

Mmm you don't seams to understand well how it work, first of all there is 2 runtimes API on Android.  Most benchmark apps and high end games use the native API.  Dalvik apps in another hand have been always more sluggish and more power hungry.  Next time, before claiming anything foolish like performance parity between JVM and native apps, you should educate yourself on IDE.  Beside you clearly show you have no understanding at all what is Objective-C.

 

No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.

 

This is exactly what promise Java, Flash, Silverlight and many many other cross-plateform runtime environment keeps telling us for a long time.  I've seen my share of cross-platform JAVA ugliness like Gnutella, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Torrent, etc.  I've seen a lot of web based apps, like Google Docs and iWorks, and nothing can be compared to a real native apps on any platform.  Google only trying to create yet another apps market without having a competing desktop platform with OSX and Windows. If cross-platform VM was so great, we should have it on gaming console first, Triple-A Games Studio should make cross-platform Java and ChromesOS games for Xbox one and Playstation 4. 

 

Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.

 

Since you'll never own your media purchased on the Google Play movie store, You can't say you've bought all rights without constraint.  Not having a local copy of your purchase and depend on live streaming thru a web service only sounds a pretty big constraint to me.  If Google decides to pull the plug on this service like Microsoft done it before with their Playforsure things, you can kiss good bye to yours beloved untied to iOS movies. 

 

But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.

 

Yeah, Google views you and every "users" as their products, the advertisers are they're clients, Google have near zero obligation to you with their forever beta services. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 1/2/14 at 7:23am
post #200 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

I think you failed to understand the importance of the desktop paradigm used on every desktop OS ever since the original MacOS, there is no equivalent on ChromeOS, no matter what you said. Pointing a launcher apps is no where near addressing my point. The most basic core functionalities of every desktop operating system (originally Disk Operating System) are copy, move, rename and delete files from the disk. 

 

 

 

Good for you, has for movies dictatorship you know this was coming from the MPAA, it is not a choice made by Apple.  Ok ill gives you a point, Google offers an HTML5 streams from a web browser of their movies, but you will never can retain a local copy and being able to watch your movie offline.  iTunes in another hand let you download a local copy of every purchase and let you watch your movies offline. So iTunes in nor better or worst than any other online movie store out there, they all play with the same rules imposed by the MPAA.  For my self, I still prefer rip my own blurays and keeps non-DRM version playable on every online and offline devices.

 

 

 

Mmm you don't seams to understand well how it work, first of all there is 2 runtimes API on Android.  Most benchmark apps and high end games use the native API.  Dalvik apps in another hand have been always more sluggish and more power hungry.  Next time, before claiming anything foolish like performance parity between JVM and native apps, you should educate yourself on IDE.  Beside you clearly show you have no understanding at all what is Objective-C.

 
 

 

This is exactly what promise Java, Flash, Silverlight and many many other cross-plateform runtime environment keeps telling us for a long time.  I've seen my share of cross-platform JAVA ugliness like Gnutella, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Torrent, etc.  I've seen a lot of web based apps, like Google Docs and iWorks, and nothing can be compared to a real native apps on any platform.  Google only trying to create yet another apps market without having a competing desktop platform with OSX and Windows. If cross-platform VM was so great, we should have it on gaming console first, Triple-A Games Studio should make cross-platform Java and ChromesOS games for Xbox one and Playstation 4. 

 
 

 

Since you'll never own your media purchased on the Google Play movie store, You can't say you've bought all rights without constraint.  Not having a local copy of your purchase and depend on live streaming thru a web service only sounds a pretty big constraint to me.  If Google decides to pull the plug on this service like Microsoft done it before with their Playforsure things, you can kiss good bye to yours beloved untied to iOS movies. 

 

 

 

Yeah, Google views you and every "users" as their products, the advertisers are they're clients, Google have near zero obligation to you with their forever beta services. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

That's fine, and common knowledge, but I'm not the one who was speaking in absolutes.

 

<sigh>

 

I've developed high performance Android apps to enterprise customers (augmented reality and custom mapping solutions with dynamically updated tiles). They were written in Java. You can go on about JIT vs VMs, but the point is that you can write Java code and have it perform well. One Game Developers Conference I attended, back in '97 had a keynote on Java in games. In a decade of game development (mostly console), I can tell you there is Java running there -- surely not in the core graphics and physics layer, but it's there.

 

You can download Play movies and watch them offline. But I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, right?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › NPD: Chromebook sales outperform MacBooks in commercial sector as iPad loses ground