If the developers get abusive, the apps get a poor rating, and the app dies in a VERY crowded app store. The market will keep the developers in line. I've already pointed out this simple fact elsewhere. If the app your using gets abusive, ditch it, give it a bad score on the way out, leave a scorching comment on that app page, and move on to one of the other apps that does the same. It shouldn't be difficult to find one to your liking with what, 185,000 to choose from?
What hardware issues stops the original iPhone from doing MMS?
I didn't understand that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
It's called fragmentation, something that many here refuse to admit is happening.
Come on now, your jihad is showing every freaking time you post here.
Is there a competing phone platform that supports three and four year old devices? How many Windows Mobile phones running 6.0 will get 7.0? I don't recall my Palm Pilot devices ever getting major OS updates. I also haven't heard of the Treos getting WebOS.
It's called fragmentation, something that many here refuse to admit is happening.
The more apt view may be technology obsolescence that leads to what you refer to as fragmentation.
To use an extreme example, my Apple Classic I believe had 25Mb RAM (???), it cannot be expected to run any of the current OS, or applications. Even my old G3 iBook cannot cope with the most recent OS X or applications and browsers.
Should Apple continue to develop softwares, operating systems and other applications that should be baqkward compatible with all its prior products? The answer is NO. It would hamper technological advancement to do so.
As far as I know, when there was an update from iPhone OS v2 to v3, there were already updates that will work only for specific iPhones -- because Apple deemed the prior technology to be substandard for specific functions.
It should not be a surprise that such fragmentation will happen from iPhone OS v3 to v4 upgrade.
Anyone who cannot accept this reality of technology obsolescence must buy a tech product only that meet their basic necessities.
The more apt view may be technology obsolescence that lead to what you refer to as fragmentation.
To use an extreme example, my Apple Classic I believe had 25Mb RAM (???), it cannot be expected to run any of the current OS, or applications. Even my old G3 iBook cannot cope with the most recent OS X or applications and browsers.
Should Apple continue to develop softwares, operating systems and other applications that should be baqkward compatible with all its prior products? The answer is NO. It would hamper technological advancement to do so.
CGC
Don't forget how fragmentation, when using the term correctly, can hamper technological advancements. The best example for this is currently Android OS with many different vendors offering up a variety HW variations utilizing different OS versions with divergent UIs that are being released around the same time. It's making it difficult for customers to buy optimized apps and not knowing if that app will work on their next Android-based phone will be backwards compatible with that app or if the vendor will even decide to update their current phone.
This wikipage gives an overview of some of the problems facing the platform.
Google is apparently going to attempt to modulize the platform in hopes of fixing it, but I think that ultimately they'll have to follow MS' lead and control the HW offerings a little bit, otherwise customers won't be happy with a 6 month old phone with no further support.
The multitasking solution(s) address what is practical on a mobile phone...
...it won't satisfy the gear heads, but then, nothing would.
Lotta' good stuff in 4.0, but IMO the killer API is iAd.
You know how, often, the commercials are better than the TV shows?
iAd has the potential to do this, and then some.
-- the ads can be ignored
-- the ads can be cancelled at any time with an immediate resumption of the app
-- the ads can be targeted (demographics, iTunes History... possibly opt-in preferences)
-- the ads are interactive and can be very creative
-- you can buy things within the ad
-- you're in control
This has the potential of enhancing the user experience rather than degrading it.
The Target Back To School Ad allows the user to configure and furnish a Dorm room (with his finger) and buy the stuff without ever leaving the app (and the ad overlay) he was running ... or just hit the X button and resume the app.
It's called fragmentation, something that many here refuse to admit is happening.
Actually, it is exactly the opposite of fragmentation. Fragmentation would be if Apple had to continue to maintain separate forks in order to support legacy hardware. I am not saying that I agree that there would be technical impediments to them allowing full support for OS4 on older models today, but they have to draw a line, internally, as to when specific hardware will start to lose support. By killing support for the legacy hardware, even if it is perhaps premature, they ensure that fragmentation does not occur.
It isn't so much refusing to admit it is happening, as much as understanding what 'it' is.
Besides fragmentation, continuing to support legacy systems just bring too many other problems. Either you end up with bloated software, trying to shoehorn in separate support for every possible permutation of hardware or you end up with crippled software that utilizes the lowest common denominator. When we were allowed to remove Windows 9x support a number of years ago from the product I work on, the amount of code were were able to gut was amazing. To a lesser degree, dropping Windows 2000 and Mac OS X 10.3 (and lower) have also recently allowed us to trim some code. Going forward, not having to worry about supporting these older platforms makes my life easier and the products better. Same goes for Apple.
Actually, it is exactly the opposite of fragmentation. Fragmentation would be if Apple had to continue to maintain separate forks in order to support legacy hardware. I am not saying that I agree that there would be technical impediments to them allowing full support for OS4 on older models today, but they have to draw a line, internally, as to when specific hardware will start to lose support. By killing support for the legacy hardware, even if it is perhaps premature, they ensure that fragmentation does not occur.
It isn't so much refusing to admit it is happening, as much as understanding what 'it' is.
Besides fragmentation, continuing to support legacy systems just bring too many other problems. Either you end up with bloated software, trying to shoehorn in separate support for every possible permutation of hardware or you end up with crippled software that utilizes the lowest common denominator. When we were allowed to remove Windows 9x support a number of years ago from the product I work on, the amount of code were were able to gut was amazing. To a lesser degree, dropping Windows 2000 and Mac OS X 10.3 (and lower) have also recently allowed us to trim some code. Going forward, not having to worry about supporting these older platforms makes my life easier and the products better. Same goes for Apple.
+++ QFT
3 years is a long time in the life of a smart phone-- especially when the paradigm was refined.
I have recycled 3, day-1 2007, iPhones to the grandkids... as mobile game machines (no SIM cards). They have no need or desire for anything in 4.0.
I gave my daughter my 3G when I upgraded to 3GS... I expect to do a similar "push-down" with the next iPhone. *
* sure confuses the hell out of ATT (an unintended benefit)
My granddaughter, 14, will get her mother's 3G & it will satisfy her needs with 4.0 features available for that model.
So, we've gotten great use (ROI) for the iPhones.
Apple, in order to remain nimble, must cut the cord with legacy devices-- technology moves too fast, to spend all your time reimplementing the past. Move on!
Don't forget how fragmentation, when using the term correctly, can hamper technological advancements. The best example for this is currently Android OS with many different vendors offering up a variety HW variations utilizing different OS versions with divergent UIs that are being released around the same time. It's making it difficult for customers to buy optimized apps and not knowing if that app will work on their next Android-based phone will be backwards compatible with that app or if the vendor will even decide to update their current phone.
This wikipage gives an overview of some of the problems facing the platform.
I was afraid of multitasking (because it needs to be done right for REGULAR people to be able to use it. Anyone can open a bunch of windows, but if they can't or forget how to close them it will hurt battery and performance.
Palm's approach: make quiting apps easy and fast. This ensures that people can easily quit apps when their phone begins to feel sluggish. Appload the card design and like it more then apple's click to x.
Apple's approach: make it hard to quit apps so they always run in the background (something they've done in OSX as well where most people just click the red dot, but the app keeps running ensuring that mac becomes more snappy as you use it). Hold to x is not as intuitive as swipe from screen, but only running a limited amount of code and not the whole app ensures that even if a whole bunch of apps are "running the background" device is still responsive.
Honeslty I would have preferred a combination of the two approaches, but apple's solution is much snappier and because of that wins my support.
I would be happier to hear that these new features will not decrease BATTER LIFE. I'm still hopeful that IPHONE 4 will provide a better battery ot a removable battery, it's hard to belive they're adding Multi player Gaming network and not a more powerful battery.
I would be happier to hear that these new features will not decrease BATTER LIFE. I'm still hopeful that IPHONE 4 will provide a better battery ot a removable battery, it's hard to belive they're adding Multi player Gaming network and not a more powerful battery.
If a more powerful battery is available that doesn't unduly increase weight or size I'm sure Apple will use it. They're not going to make the phone thicker or heavier to accommodate a bigger battery, which is typically what "more powerful" means in that instance.
We can be pretty sure, however, that battery life is very high on Apple's list of tradeoffs and optimizations.
I would be happier to hear that these new features will not decrease BATTER LIFE. I'm still hopeful that IPHONE 4 will provide a better battery ot a removable battery, it's hard to belive they're adding Multi player Gaming network and not a more powerful battery.
External batteries are readily available... A Mophie Juice-pack is a case with a built-in battery... $80.
Okay, perhaps you can be more communicative. Which part of the Android fragmentaton, the unequal vendor releases, lack of consistent update cycles or Google's desire to fix it with a compartmentalized system is scategorically incorrect?
Don't forget how fragmentation, when using the term correctly, can hamper technological advancements...
I have been grappling this issue like forever. Without standards or compatibility could hamper technological advancements or even commerce. At the same time, antiquated standards can hamper innovation, especially if there are newer technologies that may prove to be much better or more efficient.
This leads to the points of Tulkas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Actually, it is exactly the opposite of fragmentation. Fragmentation would be if Apple had to continue to maintain separate forks in order to support legacy hardware. I am not saying that I agree that there would be technical impediments to them allowing full support for OS4 on older models today, but they have to draw a line, internally, as to when specific hardware will start to lose support. By killing support for the legacy hardware, even if it is perhaps premature, they ensure that fragmentation does not occur...
It isn't so much refusing to admit it is happening, as much as understanding what 'it' is.
... Besides fragmentation, continuing to support legacy systems just bring too many other problems.
... Going forward, not having to worry about supporting these older platforms makes my life easier and the products better. Same goes for Apple.
One of the things I like about Apple is that it does not arbitrarily change its operating systems. However, when there is a need to,it would do it. For example the dramatic shift from OS9 and earlier, to OS X. At the same time, it was still amazing how some of my OS 9 programs still work with my OS X (up to v10.3.9). Then, later on further refinement of that to OSX v10.6 (Snow Leopard) that has to sever its compatibility with the much earlier systems. Apple also created the iPhone OS while based on OS X was created specifically for mobile device.
While you could call the above technically a fragmentation, the break with proor OS to take advantage of the advances in technology (both hardware or software, e.g., advances in parallel computing); or specific OS (OS X vs iPhone OS) were done to address specific functions (i.e., standard computers vs mobile computing).
Okay, perhaps you can be more communicative. Which part of the Android fragmentaton, the unequal vendor releases, lack of consistent update cycles or Google's desire to fix it with a compartmentalized system is scategorically incorrect?
The bazillion different versions and UIs... How does anyone program to that?
It would appear that every release of hardware, OS, or special UI further muddies the water.
Comments
http://www.leawo.com/blog/tag/iphone-2g-vs-3g/ educate yourself big boy
You use a blogs as your main source of facts?
If you did not get the point of the previous post, enough said.
CGC
The chemical basis of the DNA codes of almost all living things are completely identical.
Do I have to explain the implication of this statement too in relation to your logic?
What hardware issues stops the original iPhone from doing MMS?
I didn't understand that either.
It's called fragmentation, something that many here refuse to admit is happening.
Come on now, your jihad is showing every freaking time you post here.
Is there a competing phone platform that supports three and four year old devices? How many Windows Mobile phones running 6.0 will get 7.0? I don't recall my Palm Pilot devices ever getting major OS updates. I also haven't heard of the Treos getting WebOS.
It's called fragmentation, something that many here refuse to admit is happening.
The more apt view may be technology obsolescence that leads to what you refer to as fragmentation.
To use an extreme example, my Apple Classic I believe had 25Mb RAM (???), it cannot be expected to run any of the current OS, or applications. Even my old G3 iBook cannot cope with the most recent OS X or applications and browsers.
Should Apple continue to develop softwares, operating systems and other applications that should be baqkward compatible with all its prior products? The answer is NO. It would hamper technological advancement to do so.
As far as I know, when there was an update from iPhone OS v2 to v3, there were already updates that will work only for specific iPhones -- because Apple deemed the prior technology to be substandard for specific functions.
It should not be a surprise that such fragmentation will happen from iPhone OS v3 to v4 upgrade.
Anyone who cannot accept this reality of technology obsolescence must buy a tech product only that meet their basic necessities.
CGC
The more apt view may be technology obsolescence that lead to what you refer to as fragmentation.
To use an extreme example, my Apple Classic I believe had 25Mb RAM (???), it cannot be expected to run any of the current OS, or applications. Even my old G3 iBook cannot cope with the most recent OS X or applications and browsers.
Should Apple continue to develop softwares, operating systems and other applications that should be baqkward compatible with all its prior products? The answer is NO. It would hamper technological advancement to do so.
CGC
Don't forget how fragmentation, when using the term correctly, can hamper technological advancements. The best example for this is currently Android OS with many different vendors offering up a variety HW variations utilizing different OS versions with divergent UIs that are being released around the same time. It's making it difficult for customers to buy optimized apps and not knowing if that app will work on their next Android-based phone will be backwards compatible with that app or if the vendor will even decide to update their current phone.
This wikipage gives an overview of some of the problems facing the platform.Google is apparently going to attempt to modulize the platform in hopes of fixing it, but I think that ultimately they'll have to follow MS' lead and control the HW offerings a little bit, otherwise customers won't be happy with a 6 month old phone with no further support.
The multitasking solution(s) address what is practical on a mobile phone...
...it won't satisfy the gear heads, but then, nothing would.
Lotta' good stuff in 4.0, but IMO the killer API is iAd.
You know how, often, the commercials are better than the TV shows?
iAd has the potential to do this, and then some.
-- the ads can be ignored
-- the ads can be cancelled at any time with an immediate resumption of the app
-- the ads can be targeted (demographics, iTunes History... possibly opt-in preferences)
-- the ads are interactive and can be very creative
-- you can buy things within the ad
-- you're in control
This has the potential of enhancing the user experience rather than degrading it.
The Target Back To School Ad allows the user to configure and furnish a Dorm room (with his finger) and buy the stuff without ever leaving the app (and the ad overlay) he was running ... or just hit the X button and resume the app.
That's what I'm talkin' about!
.
It's called fragmentation, something that many here refuse to admit is happening.
Actually, it is exactly the opposite of fragmentation. Fragmentation would be if Apple had to continue to maintain separate forks in order to support legacy hardware. I am not saying that I agree that there would be technical impediments to them allowing full support for OS4 on older models today, but they have to draw a line, internally, as to when specific hardware will start to lose support. By killing support for the legacy hardware, even if it is perhaps premature, they ensure that fragmentation does not occur.
It isn't so much refusing to admit it is happening, as much as understanding what 'it' is.
Besides fragmentation, continuing to support legacy systems just bring too many other problems. Either you end up with bloated software, trying to shoehorn in separate support for every possible permutation of hardware or you end up with crippled software that utilizes the lowest common denominator. When we were allowed to remove Windows 9x support a number of years ago from the product I work on, the amount of code were were able to gut was amazing. To a lesser degree, dropping Windows 2000 and Mac OS X 10.3 (and lower) have also recently allowed us to trim some code. Going forward, not having to worry about supporting these older platforms makes my life easier and the products better. Same goes for Apple.
Actually, it is exactly the opposite of fragmentation. Fragmentation would be if Apple had to continue to maintain separate forks in order to support legacy hardware. I am not saying that I agree that there would be technical impediments to them allowing full support for OS4 on older models today, but they have to draw a line, internally, as to when specific hardware will start to lose support. By killing support for the legacy hardware, even if it is perhaps premature, they ensure that fragmentation does not occur.
It isn't so much refusing to admit it is happening, as much as understanding what 'it' is.
Besides fragmentation, continuing to support legacy systems just bring too many other problems. Either you end up with bloated software, trying to shoehorn in separate support for every possible permutation of hardware or you end up with crippled software that utilizes the lowest common denominator. When we were allowed to remove Windows 9x support a number of years ago from the product I work on, the amount of code were were able to gut was amazing. To a lesser degree, dropping Windows 2000 and Mac OS X 10.3 (and lower) have also recently allowed us to trim some code. Going forward, not having to worry about supporting these older platforms makes my life easier and the products better. Same goes for Apple.
+++ QFT
3 years is a long time in the life of a smart phone-- especially when the paradigm was refined.
I have recycled 3, day-1 2007, iPhones to the grandkids... as mobile game machines (no SIM cards). They have no need or desire for anything in 4.0.
I gave my daughter my 3G when I upgraded to 3GS... I expect to do a similar "push-down" with the next iPhone. *
* sure confuses the hell out of ATT (an unintended benefit)
My granddaughter, 14, will get her mother's 3G & it will satisfy her needs with 4.0 features available for that model.
So, we've gotten great use (ROI) for the iPhones.
Apple, in order to remain nimble, must cut the cord with legacy devices-- technology moves too fast, to spend all your time reimplementing the past. Move on!
.
Don't forget how fragmentation, when using the term correctly, can hamper technological advancements. The best example for this is currently Android OS with many different vendors offering up a variety HW variations utilizing different OS versions with divergent UIs that are being released around the same time. It's making it difficult for customers to buy optimized apps and not knowing if that app will work on their next Android-based phone will be backwards compatible with that app or if the vendor will even decide to update their current phone.
This wikipage gives an overview of some of the problems facing the platform.
Was ist das? Das ist Scheiße!
.
Palm's approach: make quiting apps easy and fast. This ensures that people can easily quit apps when their phone begins to feel sluggish. Appload the card design and like it more then apple's click to x.
Apple's approach: make it hard to quit apps so they always run in the background (something they've done in OSX as well where most people just click the red dot, but the app keeps running ensuring that mac becomes more snappy as you use it). Hold to x is not as intuitive as swipe from screen, but only running a limited amount of code and not the whole app ensures that even if a whole bunch of apps are "running the background" device is still responsive.
Honeslty I would have preferred a combination of the two approaches, but apple's solution is much snappier and because of that wins my support.
Was ist das? Das ist Scheiße!
¿Que?
PS: I know what scheisse means
I would be happier to hear that these new features will not decrease BATTER LIFE. I'm still hopeful that IPHONE 4 will provide a better battery ot a removable battery, it's hard to belive they're adding Multi player Gaming network and not a more powerful battery.
If a more powerful battery is available that doesn't unduly increase weight or size I'm sure Apple will use it. They're not going to make the phone thicker or heavier to accommodate a bigger battery, which is typically what "more powerful" means in that instance.
We can be pretty sure, however, that battery life is very high on Apple's list of tradeoffs and optimizations.
¿Que?
PS: I know what scheisse means
Merde... Mierda... Caca... Shit!
... The platform frag... Not your post
.
I would be happier to hear that these new features will not decrease BATTER LIFE. I'm still hopeful that IPHONE 4 will provide a better battery ot a removable battery, it's hard to belive they're adding Multi player Gaming network and not a more powerful battery.
External batteries are readily available... A Mophie Juice-pack is a case with a built-in battery... $80.
.
Merde... Mierda... Caca... Shit!
.
Okay, perhaps you can be more communicative. Which part of the Android fragmentaton, the unequal vendor releases, lack of consistent update cycles or Google's desire to fix it with a compartmentalized system is scategorically incorrect?
External batteries are readily available... A Mophie Juice-pack is a case with a built-in battery... $80.
.
At monoprice.com I've seen external battery packs that have as much juice as my Mophie Juice Pack Air but for under $20.
Don't forget how fragmentation, when using the term correctly, can hamper technological advancements...
I have been grappling this issue like forever. Without standards or compatibility could hamper technological advancements or even commerce. At the same time, antiquated standards can hamper innovation, especially if there are newer technologies that may prove to be much better or more efficient.
This leads to the points of Tulkas.
Actually, it is exactly the opposite of fragmentation. Fragmentation would be if Apple had to continue to maintain separate forks in order to support legacy hardware. I am not saying that I agree that there would be technical impediments to them allowing full support for OS4 on older models today, but they have to draw a line, internally, as to when specific hardware will start to lose support. By killing support for the legacy hardware, even if it is perhaps premature, they ensure that fragmentation does not occur...
It isn't so much refusing to admit it is happening, as much as understanding what 'it' is.
... Besides fragmentation, continuing to support legacy systems just bring too many other problems.
... Going forward, not having to worry about supporting these older platforms makes my life easier and the products better. Same goes for Apple.
One of the things I like about Apple is that it does not arbitrarily change its operating systems. However, when there is a need to,it would do it. For example the dramatic shift from OS9 and earlier, to OS X. At the same time, it was still amazing how some of my OS 9 programs still work with my OS X (up to v10.3.9). Then, later on further refinement of that to OSX v10.6 (Snow Leopard) that has to sever its compatibility with the much earlier systems. Apple also created the iPhone OS while based on OS X was created specifically for mobile device.
While you could call the above technically a fragmentation, the break with proor OS to take advantage of the advances in technology (both hardware or software, e.g., advances in parallel computing); or specific OS (OS X vs iPhone OS) were done to address specific functions (i.e., standard computers vs mobile computing).
CGC
Okay, perhaps you can be more communicative. Which part of the Android fragmentaton, the unequal vendor releases, lack of consistent update cycles or Google's desire to fix it with a compartmentalized system is scategorically incorrect?
The bazillion different versions and UIs... How does anyone program to that?
It would appear that every release of hardware, OS, or special UI further muddies the water.
Jello meet Wall.
.
The bazillion different versions and UIs... How does anyone program to that?
It would appear that every release of hardware, OS, or special UI further muddies the water.
Jello meet Wall.
.
See, I was reading that completely wrong. I thought you were calling my comment shit.