Considering how frequently Safari crashes on my Touch with FW 2.1, I'm all for alternative browsers.
I keep reading these comments about Safari crashing. I have a first gen iPhone running 2.1 and Safari seems pretty solid. Maybe once or twice in the last year and a half it quit unexpectedly but I'm thinking it was likely poorly coded javascript on certain web pages. I use it all the time without issue.
It's the poor people who are having a crap time with Safari I feel sorry for since they have no other browser they could use. I can appreciate how that would really angry up the blood. If Apple are keeping the iPhone as a closed platform for integrity and stability purposes, it doesn't seem like they're doing a very good job of it.
Windows for starters. I'm all for improving Sw standards, but the apps I have on my Touch are buggier on average than apps on my WinMob PDA or Symbian smartphone, the supposed Apple QC just doesn't exist in the app store. And I would like it if the paid apps had more demos so that you could try them first.
I meant a development platform for the mobile phone. Windows and the iPhone are not the same type of product.
From what I read from programmers. Since the iPhone is an entirely new platform it can be a challenge to work through the bugs, to some degree you just have to launch the app and work out bugs as they are found. In general some developers are better programmers than others, your mileage will vary.
Apple's QC is as responsible for the stability of the iPhone apps as it is of Mac apps.
Exactly, Mobile Safari is absolute junk. It crashes numerous times a day for me. Last night, I was browsing eBay and had AppleInsider open in background (second tab). Damn thing crashed 4 times in a span of twenty minutes on my iPod touch 2G. And that's all I was doing, browsing the web -- I wasn't even listening to music or anything
And worst of all, sometimes Safari crashes so hard that it deletes all my cookies -- which is a SERIOUS pain in the ass when I have about 100 pages bookmarked (there go all my logins/passwords).
Apple needs to get on the ball with all of these Safari crashes or let someone else step in with a superior platform.
You are being over dramatic. At its core Safari is a great web browser. I agree it has stability problems. I agree they are annoying. I'm sure Apple is working on that.
I think the lesson from this is that developing a full HTML web browser on a mobile device with limited hardware is not easy. I'm not sure why you guys assume Opera will automatically be so much better.
No they wouldn't. Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose. Their practices aren't even remotely related to what Microsoft did. This is a closed system that Apple will let you play in if you follow their rules. There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.
Can opera find a different way to get it to download to iphones and skip the app store? I don't have an iPhone yet. That should absolutely be allowed. Apple should have no more right to decide what people put on their iPhone than Microsoft has the right to determine what people run on their Windows PC. The latter has been pretty well established. Microsoft allows HTC to put Opera on the HTC Diamond Touch which is based on Windows Mobile. I'm a big fan of what Apple has done in recent years but the same rules must apply to everyone. I have to admit that seeing Apple getting very 'closed' makes me view Android much more favorably than I have in the past.
Can opera find a different way to get it to download to iphones and skip the app store? I don't have an iPhone yet. That should absolutely be allowed. Apple should have no more right to decide what people put on their iPhone than Microsoft has the right to determine what people run on their Windows PC. The latter has been pretty well established. Microsoft allows HTC to put Opera on the HTC Diamond Touch which is based on Windows Mobile. I'm a big fan of what Apple has done in recent years but the same rules must apply to everyone. I have to admit that seeing Apple getting very 'closed' makes me view Android much more favorably than I have in the past.
Windows desktop OS to the iPhone OS do not compare in this way. They use two entirely different business models and are used for two distinct different purposes.
Anyone is free to set up a proprietary system and dictate the use of that system in any way they choose.
Its up to the market to decide if they agree with the rules of that proprietary system.
Windows desktop OS to the iPhone OS do not compare in this way. They use two entirely different business models and are used for two distinct different purposes.
Anyone is free to set up a proprietary system and dictate the use of that system in any way they choose.
Its up to the market to decide if they agree with the rules of that proprietary system.
If you look closely you will see that his example is focussed on Windows Mobile. I can almost hear the shrieks of 'foul play' if Microsoft dared to lock down Windows Mobile to force users to use PocketIE.
Quote:
I don't have an iphone but Opera is buggy as hell on my Imac so I can't imagine how it would function on a phone. No Opera=No great loss
From what I understand the new version of Opera Mobile is supposed to be a top notch browser - it comes pre-bundled with a few phones already. I think if a comparison between a desktop and mobile OS are ruled out (as above), then a comparison between desktop Opera and Mobile Opera is also unfair (and unwise).
Windows desktop OS to the iPhone OS do not compare in this way. They use two entirely different business models and are used for two distinct different purposes.
Anyone is free to set up a proprietary system and dictate the use of that system in any way they choose.
Its up to the market to decide if they agree with the rules of that proprietary system.
And it is up to consumers and bloggers what they support and what they deny, and it is very important that Apple's new software development ethics be denied, in the strongest possible terms. This isn't about what is legal, but about what is right.
The Wall Street Journal thinks that the iPhone might replace laptops - considering the amount of freedom of expression that will be lost by developers in this transition, and the freedom of choice lost by consumers, this would be a total disaster.
More on this in my response to the Wall Street Journal posted at rgbFILTER...
People still expect iPhones to be a computer, it is not.
1. iPhone has only 128MB RAM. Please check your activity monitor and see how much RAM it uses. (mine shows 77MB with appleinsider.com).
2. That's probably one big reason why Apple doesn't allow background processes. A couple of those and the whole RAM gets eaten up.
You see, this is the problem with taking a desktop class OS and shrinking it. Mobile OS X appears to have terrible resource management for a mobile device. That's why Apple has needed to put in all these restrictions.
If you look closely you will see that his example is focussed on Windows Mobile. I can almost hear the shrieks of 'foul play' if Microsoft dared to lock down Windows Mobile to force users to use PocketIE.
He said Windows PC.
People really don't seem to have a good understanding of why MS was punished for its Windows monopoly. For one Windows Mobile does not hold 90+ percent of the mobile market the way Windows does for desktops. For two Windows Mobile cannot limit open and free competition the way Windows desktop is able to.
MS is free to implement Windows Mobile under whatever rules they choose.
And it is up to consumers and bloggers what they support and what they deny, and it is very important that Apple's new software development ethics be denied, in the strongest possible terms. This isn't about what is legal, but about what is right.
Apple is only bound to work within what is legal and what the market is willing to support. Everything else is only a matter of perspective and opinion. Everyone has their own perspective or opinion.
Quote:
The Wall Street Journal thinks that the iPhone might replace laptops - considering the amount of freedom of expression that will be lost by developers in this transition, and the freedom of choice lost by consumers, this would be a total disaster.
You are mixing concepts. The iPhone has little to do with personal freedoms. You either choose to buy into Apple's proprietary platform or you don't. We are all free to choose.
If the iPhone replaces notebooks. Then it was chosen to do so in open and free competition against other solutions. Which means people voluntarily agreed to the choices Apple has made.
You see, this is the problem with taking a desktop class OS and shrinking it. Mobile OS X appears to have terrible resource management for a mobile device. That's why Apple has needed to put in all these restrictions.
There is evidence of this. Their is ample information that running background processes on other phones can cause problems on other mobile systems. This is nothing particular to the iPhone.
And I said 'hello' in another thread on another forum. The EXAMPLE he gave was reference to Windows MOBILE.
"Apple should have no more right to decide what people put on their iPhone than Microsoft has the right to determine what people run on their Windows PC."
This is the particular comment I was responding to.
Apple is only bound to work within what is legal and what the market is willing to support. Everything else is only a matter of perspective and opinion. Everyone has their own perspective or opinion.
You are mixing concepts. The iPhone has little to do with personal freedoms. You either choose to buy into Apple's proprietary platform or you don't. We are all free to choose.
If the iPhone replaces notebooks. Then it was chosen to do so in open and free competition against other solutions. Which means people voluntarily agreed to the choices Apple has made.
According to your view of the world, there is no room for anyone to persuade anyone else that their freedoms are at risk. Everyone just has their own opinion and never shall any of the twains meet. But the greatest defence we have against tyranny is communication, raising general awareness of when our freedoms our at risk (and yes, freedom to compute is very important so tyranny is absolutey the right word). Without that, then it is very easy for companies with predatory practices to separate us from the herd -- which is a lot of the problem with politics today. Market decisions are seen as more legitimate somehow than dialogue and discourse.
What you are telling me is that the market decides all and complaining about it is illegitimate. But far from illegitimate, this is how democracy works. I say what I think is important about what's happening in the world, and you decide whether I'm right or not. And so far you have not offered a single counterargument to my view -- you've merely argued that discussing it is irrelevant. But this is the whole ball-game, my friend. Words have a greater power to change the world than dollars.
So anyone who is not TenoBell here, and actually believes that the power of the people is about more than just where they lay their dollars, I invite you to read my article, linked above, and the Wall Street Journal article I link to from there, and decide for yourselves whether it is OK with you to watch the world offer its wrists for Apple's cuffs. If it isn't, perhaps you should be willing to say something about it, because contrary to the belief of many who take capitalism a *little* too seriously, money *isn't* speech. For one thing, the bandwidth you have available in a dollar, compared to say in an English sentence, is really poor.
You see, this is the problem with taking a desktop class OS and shrinking it. Mobile OS X appears to have terrible resource management for a mobile device. That's why Apple has needed to put in all these restrictions.
If you look closely you will see that his example is focussed on Windows Mobile. I can almost hear the shrieks of 'foul play' if Microsoft dared to lock down Windows Mobile to force users to use PocketIE.
Actually, you have no idea.
The Windows Mobile security policy is set up by the carrier. Some carriers do not allow installation of third party apps at all. Some are more relaxed. But then, there are sub-categories - regular apps which do not access system level resources, system level apps, and active-sync apps. The carrier decides which categories are allowed.
So, WM is not locked down, but it is worse. When a developer ships an app for Windows Mobile, probably 10% of the WM phones will run it without any support. Another 20% would require some kind of configuration/hacking to run. 20% won't run even though the OS meets the requirements. The other 50% won't run because other limitations (OS version, screen resolution etc).
Comments
Considering how frequently Safari crashes on my Touch with FW 2.1, I'm all for alternative browsers.
I keep reading these comments about Safari crashing. I have a first gen iPhone running 2.1 and Safari seems pretty solid. Maybe once or twice in the last year and a half it quit unexpectedly but I'm thinking it was likely poorly coded javascript on certain web pages. I use it all the time without issue.
Just saying...
Windows for starters. I'm all for improving Sw standards, but the apps I have on my Touch are buggier on average than apps on my WinMob PDA or Symbian smartphone, the supposed Apple QC just doesn't exist in the app store. And I would like it if the paid apps had more demos so that you could try them first.
I meant a development platform for the mobile phone. Windows and the iPhone are not the same type of product.
From what I read from programmers. Since the iPhone is an entirely new platform it can be a challenge to work through the bugs, to some degree you just have to launch the app and work out bugs as they are found. In general some developers are better programmers than others, your mileage will vary.
Apple's QC is as responsible for the stability of the iPhone apps as it is of Mac apps.
Exactly, Mobile Safari is absolute junk. It crashes numerous times a day for me. Last night, I was browsing eBay and had AppleInsider open in background (second tab). Damn thing crashed 4 times in a span of twenty minutes on my iPod touch 2G. And that's all I was doing, browsing the web -- I wasn't even listening to music or anything
And worst of all, sometimes Safari crashes so hard that it deletes all my cookies -- which is a SERIOUS pain in the ass when I have about 100 pages bookmarked (there go all my logins/passwords).
Apple needs to get on the ball with all of these Safari crashes or let someone else step in with a superior platform.
You are being over dramatic. At its core Safari is a great web browser. I agree it has stability problems. I agree they are annoying. I'm sure Apple is working on that.
I think the lesson from this is that developing a full HTML web browser on a mobile device with limited hardware is not easy. I'm not sure why you guys assume Opera will automatically be so much better.
No they wouldn't. Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose. Their practices aren't even remotely related to what Microsoft did. This is a closed system that Apple will let you play in if you follow their rules. There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.
Can opera find a different way to get it to download to iphones and skip the app store? I don't have an iPhone yet. That should absolutely be allowed. Apple should have no more right to decide what people put on their iPhone than Microsoft has the right to determine what people run on their Windows PC. The latter has been pretty well established. Microsoft allows HTC to put Opera on the HTC Diamond Touch which is based on Windows Mobile. I'm a big fan of what Apple has done in recent years but the same rules must apply to everyone. I have to admit that seeing Apple getting very 'closed' makes me view Android much more favorably than I have in the past.
Can opera find a different way to get it to download to iphones and skip the app store? I don't have an iPhone yet. That should absolutely be allowed. Apple should have no more right to decide what people put on their iPhone than Microsoft has the right to determine what people run on their Windows PC. The latter has been pretty well established. Microsoft allows HTC to put Opera on the HTC Diamond Touch which is based on Windows Mobile. I'm a big fan of what Apple has done in recent years but the same rules must apply to everyone. I have to admit that seeing Apple getting very 'closed' makes me view Android much more favorably than I have in the past.
Windows desktop OS to the iPhone OS do not compare in this way. They use two entirely different business models and are used for two distinct different purposes.
Anyone is free to set up a proprietary system and dictate the use of that system in any way they choose.
Its up to the market to decide if they agree with the rules of that proprietary system.
Windows desktop OS to the iPhone OS do not compare in this way. They use two entirely different business models and are used for two distinct different purposes.
Anyone is free to set up a proprietary system and dictate the use of that system in any way they choose.
Its up to the market to decide if they agree with the rules of that proprietary system.
If you look closely you will see that his example is focussed on Windows Mobile. I can almost hear the shrieks of 'foul play' if Microsoft dared to lock down Windows Mobile to force users to use PocketIE.
I don't have an iphone but Opera is buggy as hell on my Imac so I can't imagine how it would function on a phone. No Opera=No great loss
From what I understand the new version of Opera Mobile is supposed to be a top notch browser - it comes pre-bundled with a few phones already. I think if a comparison between a desktop and mobile OS are ruled out (as above), then a comparison between desktop Opera and Mobile Opera is also unfair (and unwise).
Windows desktop OS to the iPhone OS do not compare in this way. They use two entirely different business models and are used for two distinct different purposes.
Anyone is free to set up a proprietary system and dictate the use of that system in any way they choose.
Its up to the market to decide if they agree with the rules of that proprietary system.
And it is up to consumers and bloggers what they support and what they deny, and it is very important that Apple's new software development ethics be denied, in the strongest possible terms. This isn't about what is legal, but about what is right.
The Wall Street Journal thinks that the iPhone might replace laptops - considering the amount of freedom of expression that will be lost by developers in this transition, and the freedom of choice lost by consumers, this would be a total disaster.
More on this in my response to the Wall Street Journal posted at rgbFILTER...
http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=221
People still expect iPhones to be a computer, it is not.
1. iPhone has only 128MB RAM. Please check your activity monitor and see how much RAM it uses. (mine shows 77MB with appleinsider.com).
2. That's probably one big reason why Apple doesn't allow background processes. A couple of those and the whole RAM gets eaten up.
You see, this is the problem with taking a desktop class OS and shrinking it. Mobile OS X appears to have terrible resource management for a mobile device. That's why Apple has needed to put in all these restrictions.
If you look closely you will see that his example is focussed on Windows Mobile. I can almost hear the shrieks of 'foul play' if Microsoft dared to lock down Windows Mobile to force users to use PocketIE.
He said Windows PC.
People really don't seem to have a good understanding of why MS was punished for its Windows monopoly. For one Windows Mobile does not hold 90+ percent of the mobile market the way Windows does for desktops. For two Windows Mobile cannot limit open and free competition the way Windows desktop is able to.
MS is free to implement Windows Mobile under whatever rules they choose.
And it is up to consumers and bloggers what they support and what they deny, and it is very important that Apple's new software development ethics be denied, in the strongest possible terms. This isn't about what is legal, but about what is right.
Apple is only bound to work within what is legal and what the market is willing to support. Everything else is only a matter of perspective and opinion. Everyone has their own perspective or opinion.
The Wall Street Journal thinks that the iPhone might replace laptops - considering the amount of freedom of expression that will be lost by developers in this transition, and the freedom of choice lost by consumers, this would be a total disaster.
You are mixing concepts. The iPhone has little to do with personal freedoms. You either choose to buy into Apple's proprietary platform or you don't. We are all free to choose.
If the iPhone replaces notebooks. Then it was chosen to do so in open and free competition against other solutions. Which means people voluntarily agreed to the choices Apple has made.
You see, this is the problem with taking a desktop class OS and shrinking it. Mobile OS X appears to have terrible resource management for a mobile device. That's why Apple has needed to put in all these restrictions.
There is evidence of this. Their is ample information that running background processes on other phones can cause problems on other mobile systems. This is nothing particular to the iPhone.
He said Windows PC.
Microsoft allows HTC to put Opera on the HTC Diamond Touch which is based on Windows Mobile.
And I said 'hello' in another thread on another forum. The EXAMPLE he gave was reference to Windows MOBILE.
"Apple should have no more right to decide what people put on their iPhone than Microsoft has the right to determine what people run on their Windows PC."
This is the particular comment I was responding to.
Apple is only bound to work within what is legal and what the market is willing to support. Everything else is only a matter of perspective and opinion. Everyone has their own perspective or opinion.
You are mixing concepts. The iPhone has little to do with personal freedoms. You either choose to buy into Apple's proprietary platform or you don't. We are all free to choose.
If the iPhone replaces notebooks. Then it was chosen to do so in open and free competition against other solutions. Which means people voluntarily agreed to the choices Apple has made.
According to your view of the world, there is no room for anyone to persuade anyone else that their freedoms are at risk. Everyone just has their own opinion and never shall any of the twains meet. But the greatest defence we have against tyranny is communication, raising general awareness of when our freedoms our at risk (and yes, freedom to compute is very important so tyranny is absolutey the right word). Without that, then it is very easy for companies with predatory practices to separate us from the herd -- which is a lot of the problem with politics today. Market decisions are seen as more legitimate somehow than dialogue and discourse.
What you are telling me is that the market decides all and complaining about it is illegitimate. But far from illegitimate, this is how democracy works. I say what I think is important about what's happening in the world, and you decide whether I'm right or not. And so far you have not offered a single counterargument to my view -- you've merely argued that discussing it is irrelevant. But this is the whole ball-game, my friend. Words have a greater power to change the world than dollars.
So anyone who is not TenoBell here, and actually believes that the power of the people is about more than just where they lay their dollars, I invite you to read my article, linked above, and the Wall Street Journal article I link to from there, and decide for yourselves whether it is OK with you to watch the world offer its wrists for Apple's cuffs. If it isn't, perhaps you should be willing to say something about it, because contrary to the belief of many who take capitalism a *little* too seriously, money *isn't* speech. For one thing, the bandwidth you have available in a dollar, compared to say in an English sentence, is really poor.
Use your bandwidth.
You see, this is the problem with taking a desktop class OS and shrinking it. Mobile OS X appears to have terrible resource management for a mobile device. That's why Apple has needed to put in all these restrictions.
Yet, people demand more (Flash).
If you look closely you will see that his example is focussed on Windows Mobile. I can almost hear the shrieks of 'foul play' if Microsoft dared to lock down Windows Mobile to force users to use PocketIE.
Actually, you have no idea.
The Windows Mobile security policy is set up by the carrier. Some carriers do not allow installation of third party apps at all. Some are more relaxed. But then, there are sub-categories - regular apps which do not access system level resources, system level apps, and active-sync apps. The carrier decides which categories are allowed.
So, WM is not locked down, but it is worse. When a developer ships an app for Windows Mobile, probably 10% of the WM phones will run it without any support. Another 20% would require some kind of configuration/hacking to run. 20% won't run even though the OS meets the requirements. The other 50% won't run because other limitations (OS version, screen resolution etc).