I just bought the WIRED app and I would suggest that unless you have done so, any commentating, good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant and ludicrous.
Certainly, I can't judge from just opening and perusing for the past half hour much other than to say, there is a lot of meat to cover and I would expect that I have at least a couple day's to a week's worth reading to get through it all.
Not having read more than a dozen or so issues of WIRED, I am not sure of the editorial makeup and thus find it a little mind boggling flipping through the mag. However, it would appear that the book is quite comprehensive, contains more content than its paper format and the additional multimedia features make it much more entertaining.
On first impressions, the graphics/multimedia are impressive. The interface is very good but it does need some tweaking. What articles I did get a chance to read were intrusive, well written and informative. More important, I would't bother to go to WIRED's web site to read the same articles even though they are free.
Overall, this first attempt is impressive. And if it WIRED was on my reading list, I would be highly tempted to drop the print and go electronic.
As for the price, I personally can't comment one way or another. Again, I am not familiar enough with the book itself to judge whether it is worth it. Certainly, if Playboy comes through with a similar offering, I would be first in line and price would not be an issue.
P.S. I just discovered the 'thumbnail' layout. Man does that help me orientate myself through the mag.
The delineation needs to be made between personal computer and mobile device. Yes most of the media based web sites that you visit on your personal computer use Flash.
But when using a mobile device most of the media based websites you visit will have a mobile UI site that does not use Flash. Ergo Flash on the phone is not the problem its made out to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off.
... Certainly, if Playboy comes through with a similar offering, I would be first in line and price would not be an issue....
If Playboy came out with a digital version of it's magazine from 1971 - 1978 or so, I would also buy it sight unseen and price would not be an issue.
The new one, not so much. (No Gahan Wilson, no real boobies).
I wonder if a market will develop for older magazines in this format? I would also buy the original couple of years of Heavy Metal, or the National Lampoon special editions (although National Lampoon wouldn't make it past Apple's censors in a million, billion years).
As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell. ...
This is a bit of a silly statement.
It's like saying you shouldn't shop at a department store because you have no say-so in what they decide to purchase and put on the shelves. It would be a nice world if we all could tell stores what to sell, but it's an unreasonable desire in most respects.
Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.
I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.
So I didn't buy any magazines.
I was longing for the tech magazines of the nineties, where the advertising was plentiful and the page count was massive.
What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?
I'm pretty sure I haven't taken any position on the merits of the regulator's claims.
It's like saying you shouldn't shop at a department store because you have no say-so in what they decide to purchase and put on the shelves. It would be a nice world if we all could tell stores what to sell, but it's an unreasonable desire in most respects.
No, there's a huge difference. With a department store, you can buy the item elsewhere.
With iPhone apps, you do not have the ability to evaluate the apps for yourself, as they are unavailable to the consumer (with exceptions).
Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.
What, all 57 of them? Rejected? I doubt most weren't ever submitted.
Big difference. What adobe planned to do was throw some flash reader runtime on every application bundle (probably a big memory and and battery eater). Because this runtime on the bundle would handle all the flash code run on other platforms, this would give adobe no incentive to update with apples latest api's, so they could be lazy and not innovate. In other words hold everyone to their standards (easy cross platform but low innovation) and not apples. I am a big flash fan, but I see apples point here. Until mobile devices become much more powerful it is a good move to get tight control of their api's.
By doing the program in objective c and compiling to iphone ipa standards they are choosing the most efficient way possible. Memory management, performance and power consumption can easily be achieved.
This is some of it...BUT...the major driver is APPLE wants platform lock-in. If all these fancy apps were developed in flash, hardware platform independence is too easy. So Apple supports open standards to the best possible level (HTML 5), then beats the open standards hardware competition with superior products, and then creates lock-in with their own API's. It is a brilliant strategy.
why can this issue only be bought if you are at least 17? does it contain a woman in bikini? i am from europe, so please explain to me so that i can also understand why apple censors this issue to fit to american strict rules:
how old do you have to be to use a weapon in the us?
Now, you're talking about something, with which, I have some personal experience:
I worked for IBM 1964-1980 in the Data Processing Division-- Mainframe computer marketing and support.
IBM had 97% of the mainframe market. A monopoly suit was brought by Justice:
Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.
So, cry havoc and [let] loose the dogs of justice-- Apple has a pretty good track record and some legal precedence on its side.
Excellence is not illegal!
.
Excellent point!
The last I checked, no one in Cupertino was holding a gun to any developer about the development environment. If the developer doesn't want to follow the conditions that Apple's stated, then they're more than welcome to move on to greener pastures.
If Apple ends up with a large percentage of whatever market you want to call the iPad, it'll be a pretty neat trick for any legal team to prove that they were a monopoly.
If you want an example of an actual monopoly that still managed to skirt the issue, look at the behavior of Microsoft in the late 90's through early 2000's. There was an operating system company called Be, Inc., that had developed a pretty impressive product called the BeOS. Try as they might, Be, Inc. was unable to get any hardware manufacturer to install it on their computers, even when Be, Inc. offered it to the manufacturers FREE OF CHARGE. Why? because all of these high-end manufacturers had signed agreements with Microsoft stating that, in order to receive preferential pricing on Windows, they were not allowed to sell systems with any dual-boot machines. Fujitsu was able to ship one system, but only with the BeOS on CD, and no instructions to go along with it.
The actions of Apple in this instance aren't even close. If people are upset with their actions, they can vote with their wallets. No one is forcing anyone to play in their sandbox. Everyone is free to take their toys and move to another playground. Trying to insist that Apple has somehow become a monopoly in this situation is bizarre, to say the least.
why can this issue only be bought if you are at least 17? does it contain a woman in bikini? i am from europe, so please explain to me so that i can also understand why apple censors this issue to fit to american strict rules:
how old do you have to be to use a weapon in the us?
how old do you have to be to go to the army?
how young is the youngest mother in the us?
and finally:
how much harm is caused by a woman in bikini?
I think you're confusing your standards with ours. You're also assuming that our standards are universal. With this type of issue, it's a mistake to try to be rational. For example, how much harm is done by a woman's face being uncovered in Saudi Arabia? They think that a great deal of harm is done, while I personally do not.
Even here, it's not so much that Apple (or most other people other than a few fundamentalists) think that there's any HARM to bikinis, but rather it's more that women in suggestive poses are not really appropriate for young children. That is, few people have any objection to pictures of bikinis in a Sears catalog where the women are clearly there simply to support the bikini. It's different when you see the women in a Playboy bikini issue where the entire issue is dedicated to the principle that if you're lucky enough, these women would be all over you. So it's not so much a belief that nudity is bad, just something that really isn't appropriate for young children. I realize that there are public beaches in Germany (and elsewhere) where nudity is common, but that's just not considered to be acceptable for children here. It's purely a matter of culture and not logic (as an example, 'man purses' are fairly common in some parts of Europe but are considered quite feminine here. There's clearly no rationality to that, it just is).
Guns are a different matter. There is an enormous spread in what is believed regarding gun ownership here. Some people refuse to own ANY guns, while others think that individuals should be allowed to own anything from handguns to anti-tank missiles. It goes back to the importance of private citizen gun owners in our revolution in the 18th century. Personally, I think it's carried too far, but that's certainly not a universal perception. Weapon use age is regulated by the states, so there is no standard. It is not uncommon for young children (around 10-12 or even younger) to have hunting guns and to be able to use them. I believe that most states limit handgun usage to age 18 - the normal age of adulthood here (which is also the age at which you can join the army). Interestingly, in most states, the drinking age is 21, so you can fight in our military 3 years before you can legally buy a beer.
There are oddities like this in every culture and it's a mistake to try to come up with a rational, universal standard because that's impossible. All you can do is attempt to understand the other person's POV and not intentionally infringe upon it.
Comments
Certainly, I can't judge from just opening and perusing for the past half hour much other than to say, there is a lot of meat to cover and I would expect that I have at least a couple day's to a week's worth reading to get through it all.
Not having read more than a dozen or so issues of WIRED, I am not sure of the editorial makeup and thus find it a little mind boggling flipping through the mag. However, it would appear that the book is quite comprehensive, contains more content than its paper format and the additional multimedia features make it much more entertaining.
On first impressions, the graphics/multimedia are impressive. The interface is very good but it does need some tweaking. What articles I did get a chance to read were intrusive, well written and informative. More important, I would't bother to go to WIRED's web site to read the same articles even though they are free.
Overall, this first attempt is impressive. And if it WIRED was on my reading list, I would be highly tempted to drop the print and go electronic.
As for the price, I personally can't comment one way or another. Again, I am not familiar enough with the book itself to judge whether it is worth it. Certainly, if Playboy comes through with a similar offering, I would be first in line and price would not be an issue.
P.S. I just discovered the 'thumbnail' layout. Man does that help me orientate myself through the mag.
But when using a mobile device most of the media based websites you visit will have a mobile UI site that does not use Flash. Ergo Flash on the phone is not the problem its made out to be.
A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off.
... Certainly, if Playboy comes through with a similar offering, I would be first in line and price would not be an issue....
If Playboy came out with a digital version of it's magazine from 1971 - 1978 or so, I would also buy it sight unseen and price would not be an issue.
The new one, not so much. (No Gahan Wilson, no real boobies).
I wonder if a market will develop for older magazines in this format? I would also buy the original couple of years of Heavy Metal, or the National Lampoon special editions (although National Lampoon wouldn't make it past Apple's censors in a million, billion years).
As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell. ...
This is a bit of a silly statement.
It's like saying you shouldn't shop at a department store because you have no say-so in what they decide to purchase and put on the shelves. It would be a nice world if we all could tell stores what to sell, but it's an unreasonable desire in most respects.
Not on the iPad.
You beat me to it.
Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.
I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.
So I didn't buy any magazines.
I was longing for the tech magazines of the nineties, where the advertising was plentiful and the page count was massive.
If he's a flash designer why would you rub it in his face that he could have financial troubles ahead? Kind of a dick move.
A little callous perhaps, but if you're a Flash designer you may want to re-think your area of expertise.
Subscriptions or annoying, intrusive advertising, pick your poison.
More than likely, it'll be subscriptions and annoying, intrusive advertising.
I think I'll keep my five bucks per month.
What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?
I'm pretty sure I haven't taken any position on the merits of the regulator's claims.
It would be more productive to try to conduct an intelligent conversation with Jello!
.
I would be pleased if you no longer were to read or respond to my posts.
Why such contention over Apple's rightful enforcement of rules and good development practices for a platform that it owns?
As I understand it, the question involves whether Apple's enforcement is rightful, and if not, whether or not it impacts other markets.
I think you beg the question.
This is a bit of a silly statement.
It's like saying you shouldn't shop at a department store because you have no say-so in what they decide to purchase and put on the shelves. It would be a nice world if we all could tell stores what to sell, but it's an unreasonable desire in most respects.
No, there's a huge difference. With a department store, you can buy the item elsewhere.
With iPhone apps, you do not have the ability to evaluate the apps for yourself, as they are unavailable to the consumer (with exceptions).
Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.
What, all 57 of them? Rejected? I doubt most weren't ever submitted.
No, there's a huge difference. With a department store, you can buy the item elsewhere.
With iPhone apps, you do not have the ability to evaluate the apps for yourself, as they are unavailable to the consumer (with exceptions).
So? You don't have the ability to try a Lexus engine anywhere else, either.
If you don't like Apple's phone, there are a zillion other phones you can buy. Android phones will let you install any software you wish.
I would be pleased if you no longer were to read or respond to my posts.
I'm sorry Stevie, you are here (at AI Forums) because?
Big difference. What adobe planned to do was throw some flash reader runtime on every application bundle (probably a big memory and and battery eater). Because this runtime on the bundle would handle all the flash code run on other platforms, this would give adobe no incentive to update with apples latest api's, so they could be lazy and not innovate. In other words hold everyone to their standards (easy cross platform but low innovation) and not apples. I am a big flash fan, but I see apples point here. Until mobile devices become much more powerful it is a good move to get tight control of their api's.
By doing the program in objective c and compiling to iphone ipa standards they are choosing the most efficient way possible. Memory management, performance and power consumption can easily be achieved.
This is some of it...BUT...the major driver is APPLE wants platform lock-in. If all these fancy apps were developed in flash, hardware platform independence is too easy. So Apple supports open standards to the best possible level (HTML 5), then beats the open standards hardware competition with superior products, and then creates lock-in with their own API's. It is a brilliant strategy.
how old do you have to be to use a weapon in the us?
how old do you have to be to go to the army?
how young is the youngest mother in the us?
and finally:
how much harm is caused by a woman in bikini?
Well...
Now, you're talking about something, with which, I have some personal experience:
I worked for IBM 1964-1980 in the Data Processing Division-- Mainframe computer marketing and support.
IBM had 97% of the mainframe market. A monopoly suit was brought by Justice:
Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.
So, cry havoc and [let] loose the dogs of justice-- Apple has a pretty good track record and some legal precedence on its side.
Excellence is not illegal!
.
Excellent point!
The last I checked, no one in Cupertino was holding a gun to any developer about the development environment. If the developer doesn't want to follow the conditions that Apple's stated, then they're more than welcome to move on to greener pastures.
If Apple ends up with a large percentage of whatever market you want to call the iPad, it'll be a pretty neat trick for any legal team to prove that they were a monopoly.
If you want an example of an actual monopoly that still managed to skirt the issue, look at the behavior of Microsoft in the late 90's through early 2000's. There was an operating system company called Be, Inc., that had developed a pretty impressive product called the BeOS. Try as they might, Be, Inc. was unable to get any hardware manufacturer to install it on their computers, even when Be, Inc. offered it to the manufacturers FREE OF CHARGE. Why? because all of these high-end manufacturers had signed agreements with Microsoft stating that, in order to receive preferential pricing on Windows, they were not allowed to sell systems with any dual-boot machines. Fujitsu was able to ship one system, but only with the BeOS on CD, and no instructions to go along with it.
The actions of Apple in this instance aren't even close. If people are upset with their actions, they can vote with their wallets. No one is forcing anyone to play in their sandbox. Everyone is free to take their toys and move to another playground. Trying to insist that Apple has somehow become a monopoly in this situation is bizarre, to say the least.
why can this issue only be bought if you are at least 17? does it contain a woman in bikini? i am from europe, so please explain to me so that i can also understand why apple censors this issue to fit to american strict rules:
how old do you have to be to use a weapon in the us?
how old do you have to be to go to the army?
how young is the youngest mother in the us?
and finally:
how much harm is caused by a woman in bikini?
I think you're confusing your standards with ours. You're also assuming that our standards are universal. With this type of issue, it's a mistake to try to be rational. For example, how much harm is done by a woman's face being uncovered in Saudi Arabia? They think that a great deal of harm is done, while I personally do not.
Even here, it's not so much that Apple (or most other people other than a few fundamentalists) think that there's any HARM to bikinis, but rather it's more that women in suggestive poses are not really appropriate for young children. That is, few people have any objection to pictures of bikinis in a Sears catalog where the women are clearly there simply to support the bikini. It's different when you see the women in a Playboy bikini issue where the entire issue is dedicated to the principle that if you're lucky enough, these women would be all over you. So it's not so much a belief that nudity is bad, just something that really isn't appropriate for young children. I realize that there are public beaches in Germany (and elsewhere) where nudity is common, but that's just not considered to be acceptable for children here. It's purely a matter of culture and not logic (as an example, 'man purses' are fairly common in some parts of Europe but are considered quite feminine here. There's clearly no rationality to that, it just is).
Guns are a different matter. There is an enormous spread in what is believed regarding gun ownership here. Some people refuse to own ANY guns, while others think that individuals should be allowed to own anything from handguns to anti-tank missiles. It goes back to the importance of private citizen gun owners in our revolution in the 18th century. Personally, I think it's carried too far, but that's certainly not a universal perception. Weapon use age is regulated by the states, so there is no standard. It is not uncommon for young children (around 10-12 or even younger) to have hunting guns and to be able to use them. I believe that most states limit handgun usage to age 18 - the normal age of adulthood here (which is also the age at which you can join the army). Interestingly, in most states, the drinking age is 21, so you can fight in our military 3 years before you can legally buy a beer.
There are oddities like this in every culture and it's a mistake to try to come up with a rational, universal standard because that's impossible. All you can do is attempt to understand the other person's POV and not intentionally infringe upon it.