In any event T-Mobile charges for tethering. One way or another, as do every wireless provider in the world charges everybody, either directly or indirectly.
Again, this is a bit disingenuous. Sure, you can say all carriers charge for tethering, if you qualify that with it being direct or indirect. With that vague, ambiguous qualification, one could also say all ISPs charge users to visit google, espn, watch youtube, check email and ftp. You could also state that all water utilities charge for watering house plants, directly or indirectly. All cable companies charge everyone for every minute their TV is on or every show they watch.
Similarly, if my carrier allows tethering my in data plan, then you would not say they charge for tethering. You would say it is included at no extra cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
P.S. There is a perception that tethering, instant messaging, etc., should be free. Keep in mind that both these services cause a significant drain on the wireless platform and require major resources. For example, instant messages nears the 100 billion mark/day today. It is costly because of the translations required to breach the different system structures out there, the massive amount of storing , licensing and terminal relaying that has to be in place to make the service 'instant'.
Sure it costs them. That is the nature of business. Providing services costs money and consumers should absolutely expect to pay for their services. Extortionist prices, however, are not justified. I read once that carriers charge more per kb for SMS than it costs to send and receive data from Hubble. The satellite. In space.
Outside of the carriers themselves (and industry related), there really isn't a large body of people that does not feel SMS is grossly over priced, considering the actual costs involved. There is a reason SMS is far and away, the single most profitable part of most carriers business models. But then, I am speaking from the point of few of an outsider to SMS. I haven't used it for years and don't know anyone in my age category that does. Those that use it, will of course want it to be free. Those that are tainted by being in the industry or related, will of course defend outrageous and unreasonable prices.
Do people really care about not being able to watch Flash animations on their iPhones?
I mean apart from Adobe?
So sites that limit their video output to a single proprietary source will be left out of all the vast, and rapidly growing number of iPhones out there. Their loss. Any sites that matter will have standard output, which will be a win-win for everyone except Adobe.
When the iPhone was released, YouTube announced they'd reconfigure their content to be compatible with the iPhone, BBC has also added itself to the list along with ESPN, and numerous other sources. Others will follow.
So why are we still discussing this issue?
Is Flash really still that relevant?
Why?
Again, leaving aside the irrelevant topic of Flash video, you should talk to the owners of many if not most high-end restaurants. Virtually all of them have been suckered into buying fancy Flash-only sites. Not HTML with Flash here and there, but all Flash. You go to their site on an iPhone and all you see is a blank screen.
Again, this is a bit disingenuous. Sure, you can say all carriers charge for tethering, if you qualify that with it being direct or indirect. With that vague, ambiguous qualification, one could also say all ISPs charge users to visit google, espn, watch youtube, check email and ftp. You could also state that all water utilities charge for watering house plants, directly or indirectly. All cable companies charge everyone for every minute their TV is on or every show they watch.
Similarly, if my carrier allows tethering my in data plan, then you would not say they charge for tethering. You would say it is included at no extra cost.
Sure it costs them. That is the nature of business. Providing services costs money and consumers should absolutely expect to pay for their services. Extortionist prices, however, are not justified. I read once that carriers charge more per kb for SMS than it costs to send and receive data from Hubble. The satellite. In space.
Outside of the carriers themselves (and industry related), there really isn't a large body of people that does not feel SMS is grossly over priced, considering the actual costs involved. There is a reason SMS is far and away, the single most profitable part of most carriers business models. But then, I am speaking from the point of few of an outsider to SMS. I haven't used it for years and don't know anyone in my age category that does. Those that use it, will of course want it to be free. Those that are tainted by being in the industry or related, will of course defend outrageous and unreasonable prices.
Do the math.
Before the carriers sold cell phones that could access the internet, the price was X.
As services increased, e.g., call waiting, call forwarding, etc., the price was X + Y. Some carriers itemized the costs individually, other simply posted the total, i.e., X + Y = Z or Z, respectively.
In the early days, you paid for the cell phone upfront. Then, as more manufacturers got into the business, they eventually became, 'part of the plan.' Some no subsidies, others major.
In turn, to simplify the process, carriers began to offer all-inclusive, like the travel agencies did.
Most people opted for the simplified forms, just to get the product and services faster, hastle-free and quite often, because it was perceived that the 'monthly' billing system would be less intrusive and thus exposing and lessening potential credit concerns. However, laws required that the actually services charges on your bill, be itemized.
Now, along comes the internet, a slew of additional mobile products and services. But if we look carefully past those 'beautiful' all encompassing offers, e.g., free phone, more calltime, free wi-fi, faster connections, the X is there, plus the Y, plus X1, plus X2, plus Y1, etc., etc., etc., seeing it line-itemized would scare most potential customers, particularly parents who were in the market to get a cell phone for their kids.
So, the industry to overcome the fear, simply put up one sign with the word, 'FREE' splashed as big as they could get it.
And as every parent soon found out, it wasn't free. But then, with all the fear-mongering and media blitz on how cell phones made the world safer, it was too late.
If you really think that the prices are truly outrageous and unreasonable price, check out their respective annual reports. It costs a lot to maintain and manage the infrastructure. More important the technology is changing so rapidly, expansion, upkeep and investment in the future is not without commitment of significant resources. And who has the monies to participate in that today?
Before the carriers sold cell phones that could access the internet, the price was X.
As services increased, e.g., call waiting, call forwarding, etc., the price was X + Y. Some carriers itemized the costs individually, other simply posted the total, i.e., X + Y = Z or Z, respectively.
In the early days, you paid for the cell phone upfront. Then, as more manufacturers got into the business, they eventually became, 'part of the plan.' Some no subsidies, others major.
In turn, to simplify the process, carriers began to offer all-inclusive, like the travel agencies did.
Most people opted for the simplified forms, just to get the product and services faster, hastle-free and quite often, because it was perceived that the 'monthly' billing system would be less intrusive and thus exposing and lessening potential credit concerns. However, laws required that the actually services charges on your bill, be itemized.
Now, along comes the internet, a slew of additional mobile products and services. But if we look carefully past those 'beautiful' all encompassing offers, e.g., free phone, more calltime, free wi-fi, faster connections, the X is there, plus the Y, plus X1, plus X2, plus Y1, etc., etc., etc., seeing it line-itemized would scare most potential customers, particularly parents who were in the market to get a cell phone for their kids.
So, the industry to overcome the fear, simply put up one sign with the word, 'FREE' splashed as big as they could get it.
And as every parent soon found out, it wasn't free. But then, with all the fear-mongering and media blitz on how cell phones made the world safer, it was too late.
If you really think that the prices are truly outrageous and unreasonable price, check out their respective annual reports. It costs a lot to maintain and manage the infrastructure. More important the technology is changing so rapidly, expansion, upkeep and investment in the future is not without commitment of significant resources. And who has the monies to participate in that today?
umm, yes you could itemize everything. But that is not what you are claiming nor is it relevant. You stated that all carriers charge for tethering. This simply is not true. Some do charge separately for it. And some simply allow it as part of your data plan. Supporting tethering, as a feature, does not cost them one penny more. Just as 'supporting' your access to google.com does not cost your ISP any more.
Yes, tethering will result in more data being used. But if you are within your cap, they had damn well better have accounted for this. If buy a dozen eggs, but your grocer only gives you 5, you would question this. If he said "well, we find that most people don't use 12 and we therefore only stock enough to provide 5, so we only give 5", you would laugh your ass off. If your carrier sells you 6GB of data but says they need to charge you extra if you want to actually use it, that is simply theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
If you really think that the prices are truly outrageous and unreasonable price, check out their respective annual reports. It costs a lot to maintain and manage the infrastructure. More important the technology is changing so rapidly, expansion, upkeep and investment in the future is not without commitment of significant resources. And who has the monies to participate in that today?
As I said, yes, they are a business. The services the provide cost money and users should expect to pay for these and provide them a profit. Yup Agreed. This does not change the fact that they are gouging on SMS. It is clear. It is plain and it is obvious.
Annual reports. hmm. I know in Canada, we have the most profitable cell carriers in the developed world. Wonder why that is? Not begrudging them their profits. But I do begrudge those that defend their extortionist prices to get them even higher. Similarly, I would would take issue with those that would argue that the fees banks charge these days are reasonable. Even when they were making record profits, they were raising all fees to ridiculous levels. But, I would only expect those in the banking industry to defend those. I would expect those in the cigarette industry to defend their employers. Why do I get the idea you work in the cell industry? Perhaps as a consultant or analyst.
umm, yes you could itemize everything. But that is not what you are claiming nor is it relevant. You stated that all carriers charge for tethering. This simply is not true. Some do charge separately for it. And some simply allow it as part of your data plan. Supporting tethering, as a feature, does not cost them one penny more. Just as 'supporting' your access to google.com does not cost your ISP any more.
Yes, tethering will result in more data being used. But if you are within your cap, they had damn well better have accounted for this. If buy a dozen eggs, but your grocer only gives you 5, you would question this. If he said "well, we find that most people don't use 12 and we therefore only stock enough to provide 5, so we only give 5", you would laugh your ass off. If your carrier sells you 6GB of data but says they need to charge you extra if you want to actually use it, that is simply theft.
As I said, yes, they are a business. The services the provide cost money and users should expect to pay for these and provide them a profit. Yup Agreed. This does not change the fact that they are gouging on SMS. It is clear. It is plain and it is obvious.
Annual reports. hmm. I know in Canada, we have the most profitable cell carriers in the developed world. Wonder why that is? Not begrudging them their profits. But I do begrudge those that defend their extortionist prices to get them even higher. Similarly, I would would take issue with those that would argue that the fees banks charge these days are reasonable. Even when they were making record profits, they were raising all fees to ridiculous levels. But, I would only expect those in the banking industry to defend those. I would expect those in the cigarette industry to defend their employers. Why do I get the idea you work in the cell industry? Perhaps as a consultant or analyst.
Re: And some simply allow it as part of your data plan.
Once again. Every carrier has a data plan that does not include tether. And every carrier that has tethering offers it in a 'data plan' that is priced higher. Just like T-Mobile does.
In Canada, I tether my Macbook Pro via NetShare on my iPhone. I pay by eating up 6GB Data Plan if I don't have access to Wi-Fi. If I have Wi-Fi access, I go direct without using my iPhone. If I were to go over my Data Plan limit, I would be billed more. In the US, carriers offer Unlimited Data Plans at one price, but as long as their is a Data Plan that includes tethering or instant messaging, etc, it is more expensive.
I would highly suggest that you do some due diligence in what was necessary for wireless services to build instant messaging into their offerings.
"Installing a stable platform that delivers fast, reliable support for MMS with the ability to scale to meet future needs: Current industry MMS offerings are very low-capacity systems and most will require major equipment upgrades with additional interfaces and greater network management, as well as the need for large server "farms." To deliver the most reliable platforms to meet the capacity, availability, and scalability needs that full-featured MMS solutions require, operators should take advantage of powerful, flexible, and space-efficient technologies available today. Carrier-grade platforms offer the required level of performance and stability to take the chance out of reliability and overall customer satisfaction.
Additionally, in today's environment, making sure that platforms are standards-based and meet the requirements of the OMA, 3GPP, and 3GPP2, whether operating on GPRS, WCDMA, CDMA 1x, or other networks, is a necessity."http://wireless.sys-con.com/node/41440
And if you really think that it is cheap, you can build one yourself if you like. The plans are virtually everywhere. The monies aren't. But the blueprints are. http://books.google.com/books?id=BSm...um=4&ct=result
By the way, you are right in part, I am a consultant but not in the cell industry. My primary function is developing/teaching/data management in the technology, education and healthcare industries. As a result, I do a lot of reading. But my knowledge of costing comes from hands-on experience creating marketing plans, while my knowledge of what we as consumers actually pay, emanates through the din of my wife's voice at the end of the month when the bills come in.
And this idea that there is no expense to access Google.com, is like saying that putting another car on the 401 doesn't affect traffic or the cost of road maintenance.
I finally got to watch the iPhone and SDK 3.0 presentation. Cut, Copy, Paste looks good, but I did notice that their is currently no option for matching the style of the text when pasting. While not a big deal, this is a feature I hope they will add.
Re: And some simply allow it as part of your data plan.
Once again. Every carrier has a data plan that does not include tether. And every carrier that has tethering offers it in a 'data plan' that is priced higher. Just like T-Mobile does.
In Canada, I tether my Macbook Pro via NetShare on my iPhone. I pay by eating up 6GB Data Plan if I don't have access to Wi-Fi.
Except that very plan that you have is definately no priced higher than their other data plans. Per GB it is probably their cheapest. But that was a promo plan. The normal data plans (full not 'mobile' or WAP) also allow tethering
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
If I have Wi-Fi access, I go direct without using my iPhone. If I were to go over my Data Plan limit, I would be billed more. In the US, carriers offer Unlimited Data Plans at one price, but as long as their is a Data Plan that includes tethering or instant messaging, etc, it is more expensive.
...whether you did so using tethering or not. And there are many, many ways to easily chew through 6GB without tethering (Orb, AirCam, etc).
The question is not, do the carriers charge for tethering. If you very loosely qualify the definition, then yes. Just as my ISP charges me for accessing google.com, CNN.com, espn.com and appleinsider. Do they specifically charge me for these? No. Should they? No. Should carrier charge more for tethering on top of a data plan? That is the question. I would argue no. Data is data is data. It is really that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I would highly suggest that you do some due diligence in what was necessary for wireless services to build instant messaging into their offerings.
Why? Total irrelevant to the discussion. I have already state, twice at least, the carriers are certainly entitled to cover the expense of their offerings and nicely profit on top. The point is, should the be gouging for SMS? And there really is no argument that they are. SMS is their cash cow. There is a very obvious reason why the Canadian cellular market is so very, very, very profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
And if you really think that it is cheap, you can build one yourself if you like. The plans are virtually everywhere. The monies aren't. But the blueprints are.
Again and again, another very disingenuous statement. When did I say it way cheap. I am sure it is very expensive to operate. Again, that is not the point. At what point does their profit margin become excessive? They can charge whatever they want and gouge you and I all they want. That doesn't mean they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
And this idea that there is no expense to access Google.com, is like saying that putting another car on the 401 doesn't affect traffic or the cost of road maintenance.
sigh
Yes, of course there is expense. But you are not charged for each visit. You are not charged for the right to visit. You are charged a monthly fee and it allows you to use your data as you see fit, within your allotment. Want to visit google? Go for it. Want to visit appleinsider? Feel free. Want to try out Apple's movie download service? Give 'er a go. So long as you stay under you bandwidth cap, you have paid for the right to do so.
If all Canadian ISPs started charging you to access sites or to allow you to use your connection for downloading iTunes movies, and did this in concert (similarly to how the cell carriers all seem to make their identical rate adjustments in concert), you might, just might complain. I know I would. Or, then again, you might argue is it justified to 'cover their expenses', even though they might be amongst the most profitable companies in the country.
But then, I expect to be given what I pay for. I don't expect them to come up with novel ways to gouge me on top of what I pay, for goods and services I have already contracted and paid for. But that is just me. I don't work developing 'marketing plans' to justify lifting more from the pockets of consumers for goods and services already paid for.
For all your talk of the poor, suffering (my words) carriers having to charge exorbitant rates for SMS or to allow tethering on users existing data plans, you seem to miss the point that they are clearly doing so already and still raise rates and fees. Gas companies need to cover their expenses and make a profit. You wouldn't mind if they all decided together to double the cost of refined gasoline globally tomorrow? They do have expenses, after all.
ummm...maybe because security is a real concern with CnP. There have been numerous holes in Windows implementation of CnP. The last one I remember was one where any website could read whatever you currently had in your clipboard without you actually pasting it. So, yes, some other phones out there, may just have security holes in their CnP implementation. Your snarky, yet woefully uninformed comments just come off as childish whining.
CnP involves memory that all apps will have access to. Any decent development team had better pay detailed attention to security concerns with system wide accessible memory.
Dude, you should recognize when someone is pulling something out of their ass. I don't give a f how apple implements cut and paste but don't give me some bullshit explanation that the delay was due to security? Grow a brain. Security, yeah, ok. Hold a sec, i have to die of laughter.
Dude, you should recognize when someone is pulling something out of their ass. I don't give a f how apple implements cut and paste but don't give me some bullshit explanation that the delay was due to security? Grow a brain. Security, yeah, ok. Hold a sec, i have to die of laughter.
I hope you recognize that XCP is more involved than creating a clipboard for iPhone OS X. The demo showed a complex UI compared to desktop OS' XCP. Even the developers that created the first apps for the iPhone that allowed XCP explained the difficulties that Apple would have with creating a secure, systemwide functionality.
No... It's not that Apple doesn't trust YOU, it doesn't trust (and rightly so) other applications that may have access to the clipboard.
The way Apple has chosen to implement this is better for you, the user, and worse for Mallory, the malicious app developer. Clearly you've never worked in any industry remotely connected with security in some manner.
Also, I'm sure he didn't make a bet about flash.. he chose to make a statement (and a correct one in the eyes of most web developers, and consumers) that the useful lifespan of flash is near an end. The rationale for such a statement are clear if you've got a clue.
Take the last point first.. the useful lifespan of flash has been near an end for how many years now?. You have a better chance to live to 120 years before seeing the end of flash. That is junk by techies. Regular consumers don't care for this argument. When i go on hulu.com and watch movies, i could care less that it is delivered in flash.. so what?.. i get to watch my movie!! or when i visit youtube, why should i care that some apple computer geek like yourself doesn't like flash?.. what does that have to do with me viewing videos on youtube?.. really, get over yourself already. No one cares if you or apple or some developers hate flash.. obviously, there are enough developers who like flash.
Now as to working with security.. i actually built a web app where i had to think about security. Any computer function has some security related issues.. but to say there was a delay in implementing cut and paste because of security and make that claim with a straight face?. Apple chose not to implement cut and paste for the same reason they chose not to support flash.. they thought it was a useless feature.. are you saying they took 2 years to solve a security issue with cut and paste.. they are so incompetent that they could not figure this out in 2 days?. What, are they hiring developers with correspondence degrees?. I did not say there weren't security concerns, i am only laughing that this is the reason for delaying implementation of cut and paste.. common, we know apple is smarter than this.. they have brilliant people working for them.. for them to assume that their loyal, fanatical base is so fanatical that they could insult their intelligence and get away with is is arrogance.. oh wait.. they did insult your intelligence and got away with it.. never mind.
Apple chose not to implement cut and paste for the same reason they chose not to support flash.. they thought it was a useless feature.. are you saying they took 2 years to solve a security issue with cut and paste.. they are so incompetent that they could not figure this out in 2 days?. What, are they hiring developers with correspondence degrees?. I did not say there weren't security concerns, i am only laughing that this is the reason for delaying implementation of cut and paste.. common, we know apple is smarter than this.. they have brilliant people working for them.. for them to assume that their loyal, fanatical base is so fanatical that they could insult their intelligence and get away with is is arrogance.. oh wait.. they did insult your intelligence and got away with it.. never mind.
Where was stated that it took 2 years to figure out security and that was the only issue they had? I recall them saying security was an issue. I think you infer too much.
Also, where did they Flash was a useless feature? What version of Flash for OS X on ARM has Adobe made available for the iPhone? Do you not recall Adobe saying they are working on it and that they are finding it more difficult to do than they previously thought? Are you not aware that the stripped down Flash Lite will not play videos from the popular TV show websites and that any site that uses any decent Flash will require version 9 or higher?
Where was stated that it took 2 years to figure out security and that was the only issue they had? I recall them saying security was an issue. I think you infer too much.
Also, where did they Flash was a useless feature? What version of Flash for OS X on ARM has Adobe made available for the iPhone? Do you not recall Adobe saying they are working on it and that they are finding it more difficult to do than they previously thought? Are you not aware that the stripped down Flash Lite will not play videos from the popular TV show websites and that any site that uses any decent Flash will require version 9 or higher?
Reading is fundamental. Where did i say it took 2 years to figure out security?.. i merely stated that anyone that believed that was an idiot. Here is apple quote on why they did not implement cut and paste 2 years ago
Copy and paste priority
When asked by a reporter from Time why Apple took so long to deliver "obvious" copy and paste features, Forstall replied that it wasn't that easy, and that security issues needed to be resolved with copying information between applications.
Hmm, i laughed really hard when i read that.. no, the reason apple took so long was they thought cut and paste was useless, and then when they realized it was not, then they figured out the security issues and implemented cut and paste.. yet everyone on this forum seems to think that apple delayed cut and paste due to security... haven't i stated that to think security delayed cut and paste for two years is to insult my intelligence or did you not read that part?.. where did you get the idea i believed security delayed cut and paste for 2 years?.. actually, i believe the opposite.. security did not delay cut and paste.. it was apple arrogance. They could have done this a long time ago.
As to flash.. are you denying apple does not like flash?.. they don't care for it at all. waiting for a third party to implement a feature when they themselves have access to the API and hidden system functionalities is weak.
Reading is fundamental. Where did i say it took 2 years to figure out security?.. i merely stated that anyone that believed that was an idiot. Here is apple quote on why they did not implement cut and paste 2 years ago
You mentioned two years, i merely asked you where that was stated.
Quote:
Hmm, i laughed really hard when i read that..
Why is that laughable? The conjunction and also stated that it wasn't that easy. If you watch the video you can see that a lot of coding went to it. It's still not close to perfect in the Beta. It's mostly usable, but there are enough issues with it that it's not ready for primetime. Because a basic idea is simple doesn't mean that the execution will be.
Quote:
no, the reason apple took so long was they thought cut and paste was useless, and then when they realized it was not, then they figured out the security issues and implemented cut and paste..
You are making these claims but have nothing to back it up except, "Apple did do it earlier so they must have shelved the code." Proof or some worthwhile rationale would be beneficial to your argument.
Quote:
yet everyone on this forum seems to think that apple delayed cut and paste due to security... haven't i stated that to think security delayed cut and paste for two years is to insult my intelligence or did you not read that part?.. where did you get the idea i believed security delayed cut and paste for 2 years?.. actually, i believe the opposite.. security did not delay cut and paste.. it was apple arrogance. They could have done this a long time ago.
Everyone seems to thinks that? Where I did I state that you thought that? Again, I asked you where that was stated.
Quote:
As to flash.. are you denying apple does not like flash?.. they don't care for it at all. waiting for a third party to implement a feature when they themselves have access to the API and hidden system functionalities is weak.
Does not like it what sense? It's limits the advancement of open standards on the internet? It's not well optimized for OS X or for ARM? They include updates to Flash with point updates so your argument falls apart right there. Access to the APIs? Since when is the OS responsible for the advancement of browser plugins? Why do you think that Adobe should not be responsible for moving their product along? Since Adobe Flash is not open source Apple can only try to make Flash work within it's OS better, they can not rewrite Flash 9 for Adobe so that it works on the iPhone. Why is that Adobe has been unable to get Flash 9 ported properly yet this is Apple's fault, despite Flash 9 not being on Android or Blackberris or WebOS, etc?
You mentioned two years, i merely asked you where that was stated.
How long has the iphone been out?.. actually, how long has apple had the iphone in development?.. are you kidding me?. You don't know where the two years came from?. Where did you think i got two years from?.
Quote:
Why is that laughable? The conjunction and also stated that it wasn't that easy. If you watch the video you can see that a lot of coding went to it. It's still not close to perfect in the Beta. It's mostly usable, but there are enough issues with it that it's not ready for primetime. Because a basic idea is simple doesn't mean that the execution will be.
I am a developer.. i don't care how much coding went into it. I've developed software that was 1000 times more complex and it took less than two years. I've developed multi-tier, multi-platform, distributed apps that took less time.. what, are you saying?? cut and paste is rocket science?. And yes, the execution should have been simple.. that is my point. unless their programmers got their degrees from a correspondence school, this should have been elementary (and even allowing for some complexity, still should have been completed about a year ago). The delay has nothing to do with coding complexity. This delay was due to apple priorities. If they thought cut and paste was a feature worth implementing, they would have done it long time before. If you really believe security concerns made them take this long, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, free delivery.
Quote:
You are making these claims but have nothing to back it up except, "Apple did do it earlier so they must have shelved the code." Proof or some worthwhile rationale would be beneficial to your argument.
Experience. I have experience coding stuff that was a lot more difficult that this.. dude.. this is CUT AND PASTE.. stop trying to make it seem like heart surgery.
i am tired.. go ahead.. believe what you want.. and remember, that deal on the brooklyn bridge.. it's a limited time offer.. 1,000,000 will get you the bridge, you have to act NOW!!.
Dude, you should recognize when someone is pulling something out of their ass. I don't give a f how apple implements cut and paste but don't give me some bullshit explanation that the delay was due to security? Grow a brain. Security, yeah, ok. Hold a sec, i have to die of laughter.
Right to ad homs usually indicates someone not too bright.
Who said it was the only reason? You questioned whether it was a real concern at all, stating that you could do CnP on the desktop, so how could it be a security concern. I simply brought up an example of of a known CnP exploit. You can't counter intelligently, so you resort to ad homs. I guess you have proven something, but probably not what you intended.
If you look back to July of 2008, Greg Joswiak explained that CnP was omitted from 2.0 because it was not high enough on the priority list. As simple as that. Very open and no pretence. Once it was prioritized, then I am sure they did have security concerns that needed to be addressed. That might even have caused it to take longer to implement than originally planned.
Experience. I have experience coding stuff that was a lot more difficult that this.. dude.. this is CUT AND PASTE.. stop trying to make it seem like heart surgery..
But do you have business or marketing experience? By reserving copy/paste for 3.0, Apple is insuring an upgrade path for additional revenue. I don't assume Apple is stupid, arrogant, or smart. But I do assume they are trying to make a profit and they do so by withholding "features" for future versions of products and software.
I am a developer.. i don't care how much coding went into it. I've developed software that was 1000 times more complex and it took less than two years. I've developed multi-tier, multi-platform, distributed apps that took less time.. what, are you saying?? cut and paste is rocket science?. And yes, the execution should have been simple.. that is my point. unless their programmers got their degrees from a correspondence school, this should have been elementary (and even allowing for some complexity, still should have been completed about a year ago). The delay has nothing to do with coding complexity. This delay was due to apple priorities. If they thought cut and paste was a feature worth implementing, they would have done it long time before. If you really believe security concerns made them take this long, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, free delivery.
Fairly sure the developers at Apple are head and shoulders above you. Not really the point though. While you may have worked on some apps, migrating a desktop/server OS to a mobile platform, developing a complex UI and asociated apps is beyond your silly little apps in terms on complexity. And heaven forbid, they consider security concerns at the same time...
You are right, it was mainly due to priorities. iPhone OS and iPhone and associated apps was a significant, large project and it makes sense that they had priorities. Hence Apple's comments from July of last year that CnP was no included because of priorities. You sort of sound like you actually think your observation of this is a revelation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
Experience. I have experience coding stuff that was a lot more difficult that this.. dude.. this is CUT AND PASTE.. stop trying to make it seem like heart surgery.
I almost wonder why you haven't been snapped up by one of the major firms yet. Almost.
But do you have business or marketing experience? By reserving copy/paste for 3.0, Apple is insuring an upgrade path for additional revenue. I don't assume Apple is stupid, arrogant, or smart. But I do assume they are trying to make a profit and they do so by withholding "features" for future versions of products and software.
Ok, i can't win here. Apple delayed this for revenue purposes?. why would apple need to do that?. Apple knows it's fans will upgrade regardless of new features.. common.. but ok, i will admit i am don't have experience in marketing. Wow, generate revenue by withholding features. Hmm.. well, you could be right.. i was one of the people that was not interested in the iphone at all because of the features it lacked. maybe when they get all the features i am interested in, i'd buy the iphone.. or maybe in the meantime, i would buy something else and apple would lose my potential revenue?. I was under the impression that apple fans always upgraded and don't need new features.. (say, maybe they put all the features in initially but just keep upping the memory with each new release.. or better camera, etc)
This is a good one.. delay features for revenue purposes..
Fairly sure the developers at Apple are head and shoulders above you. Not really the point though. While you may have worked on some apps, migrating a desktop/server OS to a mobile platform, developing a complex UI and asociated apps is beyond your silly little apps in terms on complexity. And heaven forbid, they consider security concerns at the same time...
You are right, it was mainly due to priorities. iPhone OS and iPhone and associated apps was a significant, large project and it makes sense that they had priorities. Hence Apple's comments from July of last year that CnP was no included because of priorities. You sort of sound like you actually think your observation of this is a revelation.
I almost wonder why you haven't been snapped up by one of the major firms yet. Almost.
I got what you are saying.. no other developers have to worry about security. Everyone else that has to develop software on a deadline, they never have to worry about security and implementing cut and paste on the iphone is more complex that other people complex applications.
BTW, i work for a fortune 500 company (actually a fortune 100 company).. but thanks for looking out for me. This is what makes this forum great.. the concern for each other that we display.. you don't know me but yet i sensed, you were concerned about my career enough to wonder why i haven't been snapped up by a major firm. Curious, how did you know i wasn't snapped up by a major firm? (i've been working for this company for over 8 years).. notwithstanding this fact, have i misrepresented myself somewhere else?.. or did you just assume? I'm just curious.
Comments
In any event T-Mobile charges for tethering. One way or another, as do every wireless provider in the world charges everybody, either directly or indirectly.
Again, this is a bit disingenuous. Sure, you can say all carriers charge for tethering, if you qualify that with it being direct or indirect. With that vague, ambiguous qualification, one could also say all ISPs charge users to visit google, espn, watch youtube, check email and ftp. You could also state that all water utilities charge for watering house plants, directly or indirectly. All cable companies charge everyone for every minute their TV is on or every show they watch.
Similarly, if my carrier allows tethering my in data plan, then you would not say they charge for tethering. You would say it is included at no extra cost.
P.S. There is a perception that tethering, instant messaging, etc., should be free. Keep in mind that both these services cause a significant drain on the wireless platform and require major resources. For example, instant messages nears the 100 billion mark/day today. It is costly because of the translations required to breach the different system structures out there, the massive amount of storing , licensing and terminal relaying that has to be in place to make the service 'instant'.
Sure it costs them. That is the nature of business. Providing services costs money and consumers should absolutely expect to pay for their services. Extortionist prices, however, are not justified. I read once that carriers charge more per kb for SMS than it costs to send and receive data from Hubble. The satellite. In space.
Outside of the carriers themselves (and industry related), there really isn't a large body of people that does not feel SMS is grossly over priced, considering the actual costs involved. There is a reason SMS is far and away, the single most profitable part of most carriers business models. But then, I am speaking from the point of few of an outsider to SMS. I haven't used it for years and don't know anyone in my age category that does. Those that use it, will of course want it to be free. Those that are tainted by being in the industry or related, will of course defend outrageous and unreasonable prices.
Do people really care about not being able to watch Flash animations on their iPhones?
I mean apart from Adobe?
So sites that limit their video output to a single proprietary source will be left out of all the vast, and rapidly growing number of iPhones out there. Their loss. Any sites that matter will have standard output, which will be a win-win for everyone except Adobe.
When the iPhone was released, YouTube announced they'd reconfigure their content to be compatible with the iPhone, BBC has also added itself to the list along with ESPN, and numerous other sources. Others will follow.
So why are we still discussing this issue?
Is Flash really still that relevant?
Why?
Again, leaving aside the irrelevant topic of Flash video, you should talk to the owners of many if not most high-end restaurants. Virtually all of them have been suckered into buying fancy Flash-only sites. Not HTML with Flash here and there, but all Flash. You go to their site on an iPhone and all you see is a blank screen.
Post all the rest of your Service Plan.
That is all of the service plan with my voice account.
Voice $29.99
text $4.99
unlimited data $19.99
The only thing extra on the monthly bill are all the taxes.
Why do you have such a hard time believing this?
Again, this is a bit disingenuous. Sure, you can say all carriers charge for tethering, if you qualify that with it being direct or indirect. With that vague, ambiguous qualification, one could also say all ISPs charge users to visit google, espn, watch youtube, check email and ftp. You could also state that all water utilities charge for watering house plants, directly or indirectly. All cable companies charge everyone for every minute their TV is on or every show they watch.
Similarly, if my carrier allows tethering my in data plan, then you would not say they charge for tethering. You would say it is included at no extra cost.
Sure it costs them. That is the nature of business. Providing services costs money and consumers should absolutely expect to pay for their services. Extortionist prices, however, are not justified. I read once that carriers charge more per kb for SMS than it costs to send and receive data from Hubble. The satellite. In space.
Outside of the carriers themselves (and industry related), there really isn't a large body of people that does not feel SMS is grossly over priced, considering the actual costs involved. There is a reason SMS is far and away, the single most profitable part of most carriers business models. But then, I am speaking from the point of few of an outsider to SMS. I haven't used it for years and don't know anyone in my age category that does. Those that use it, will of course want it to be free. Those that are tainted by being in the industry or related, will of course defend outrageous and unreasonable prices.
Do the math.
Before the carriers sold cell phones that could access the internet, the price was X.
As services increased, e.g., call waiting, call forwarding, etc., the price was X + Y. Some carriers itemized the costs individually, other simply posted the total, i.e., X + Y = Z or Z, respectively.
In the early days, you paid for the cell phone upfront. Then, as more manufacturers got into the business, they eventually became, 'part of the plan.' Some no subsidies, others major.
In turn, to simplify the process, carriers began to offer all-inclusive, like the travel agencies did.
Most people opted for the simplified forms, just to get the product and services faster, hastle-free and quite often, because it was perceived that the 'monthly' billing system would be less intrusive and thus exposing and lessening potential credit concerns. However, laws required that the actually services charges on your bill, be itemized.
Now, along comes the internet, a slew of additional mobile products and services. But if we look carefully past those 'beautiful' all encompassing offers, e.g., free phone, more calltime, free wi-fi, faster connections, the X is there, plus the Y, plus X1, plus X2, plus Y1, etc., etc., etc., seeing it line-itemized would scare most potential customers, particularly parents who were in the market to get a cell phone for their kids.
So, the industry to overcome the fear, simply put up one sign with the word, 'FREE' splashed as big as they could get it.
And as every parent soon found out, it wasn't free. But then, with all the fear-mongering and media blitz on how cell phones made the world safer, it was too late.
If you really think that the prices are truly outrageous and unreasonable price, check out their respective annual reports. It costs a lot to maintain and manage the infrastructure. More important the technology is changing so rapidly, expansion, upkeep and investment in the future is not without commitment of significant resources. And who has the monies to participate in that today?
Do the math.
Before the carriers sold cell phones that could access the internet, the price was X.
As services increased, e.g., call waiting, call forwarding, etc., the price was X + Y. Some carriers itemized the costs individually, other simply posted the total, i.e., X + Y = Z or Z, respectively.
In the early days, you paid for the cell phone upfront. Then, as more manufacturers got into the business, they eventually became, 'part of the plan.' Some no subsidies, others major.
In turn, to simplify the process, carriers began to offer all-inclusive, like the travel agencies did.
Most people opted for the simplified forms, just to get the product and services faster, hastle-free and quite often, because it was perceived that the 'monthly' billing system would be less intrusive and thus exposing and lessening potential credit concerns. However, laws required that the actually services charges on your bill, be itemized.
Now, along comes the internet, a slew of additional mobile products and services. But if we look carefully past those 'beautiful' all encompassing offers, e.g., free phone, more calltime, free wi-fi, faster connections, the X is there, plus the Y, plus X1, plus X2, plus Y1, etc., etc., etc., seeing it line-itemized would scare most potential customers, particularly parents who were in the market to get a cell phone for their kids.
So, the industry to overcome the fear, simply put up one sign with the word, 'FREE' splashed as big as they could get it.
And as every parent soon found out, it wasn't free. But then, with all the fear-mongering and media blitz on how cell phones made the world safer, it was too late.
If you really think that the prices are truly outrageous and unreasonable price, check out their respective annual reports. It costs a lot to maintain and manage the infrastructure. More important the technology is changing so rapidly, expansion, upkeep and investment in the future is not without commitment of significant resources. And who has the monies to participate in that today?
umm, yes you could itemize everything. But that is not what you are claiming nor is it relevant. You stated that all carriers charge for tethering. This simply is not true. Some do charge separately for it. And some simply allow it as part of your data plan. Supporting tethering, as a feature, does not cost them one penny more. Just as 'supporting' your access to google.com does not cost your ISP any more.
Yes, tethering will result in more data being used. But if you are within your cap, they had damn well better have accounted for this. If buy a dozen eggs, but your grocer only gives you 5, you would question this. If he said "well, we find that most people don't use 12 and we therefore only stock enough to provide 5, so we only give 5", you would laugh your ass off. If your carrier sells you 6GB of data but says they need to charge you extra if you want to actually use it, that is simply theft.
If you really think that the prices are truly outrageous and unreasonable price, check out their respective annual reports. It costs a lot to maintain and manage the infrastructure. More important the technology is changing so rapidly, expansion, upkeep and investment in the future is not without commitment of significant resources. And who has the monies to participate in that today?
As I said, yes, they are a business. The services the provide cost money and users should expect to pay for these and provide them a profit. Yup Agreed. This does not change the fact that they are gouging on SMS. It is clear. It is plain and it is obvious.
Annual reports. hmm. I know in Canada, we have the most profitable cell carriers in the developed world. Wonder why that is? Not begrudging them their profits. But I do begrudge those that defend their extortionist prices to get them even higher. Similarly, I would would take issue with those that would argue that the fees banks charge these days are reasonable. Even when they were making record profits, they were raising all fees to ridiculous levels. But, I would only expect those in the banking industry to defend those. I would expect those in the cigarette industry to defend their employers. Why do I get the idea you work in the cell industry? Perhaps as a consultant or analyst.
umm, yes you could itemize everything. But that is not what you are claiming nor is it relevant. You stated that all carriers charge for tethering. This simply is not true. Some do charge separately for it. And some simply allow it as part of your data plan. Supporting tethering, as a feature, does not cost them one penny more. Just as 'supporting' your access to google.com does not cost your ISP any more.
Yes, tethering will result in more data being used. But if you are within your cap, they had damn well better have accounted for this. If buy a dozen eggs, but your grocer only gives you 5, you would question this. If he said "well, we find that most people don't use 12 and we therefore only stock enough to provide 5, so we only give 5", you would laugh your ass off. If your carrier sells you 6GB of data but says they need to charge you extra if you want to actually use it, that is simply theft.
As I said, yes, they are a business. The services the provide cost money and users should expect to pay for these and provide them a profit. Yup Agreed. This does not change the fact that they are gouging on SMS. It is clear. It is plain and it is obvious.
Annual reports. hmm. I know in Canada, we have the most profitable cell carriers in the developed world. Wonder why that is? Not begrudging them their profits. But I do begrudge those that defend their extortionist prices to get them even higher. Similarly, I would would take issue with those that would argue that the fees banks charge these days are reasonable. Even when they were making record profits, they were raising all fees to ridiculous levels. But, I would only expect those in the banking industry to defend those. I would expect those in the cigarette industry to defend their employers. Why do I get the idea you work in the cell industry? Perhaps as a consultant or analyst.
Re: And some simply allow it as part of your data plan.
Once again. Every carrier has a data plan that does not include tether. And every carrier that has tethering offers it in a 'data plan' that is priced higher. Just like T-Mobile does.
In Canada, I tether my Macbook Pro via NetShare on my iPhone. I pay by eating up 6GB Data Plan if I don't have access to Wi-Fi. If I have Wi-Fi access, I go direct without using my iPhone. If I were to go over my Data Plan limit, I would be billed more. In the US, carriers offer Unlimited Data Plans at one price, but as long as their is a Data Plan that includes tethering or instant messaging, etc, it is more expensive.
I would highly suggest that you do some due diligence in what was necessary for wireless services to build instant messaging into their offerings.
"Installing a stable platform that delivers fast, reliable support for MMS with the ability to scale to meet future needs: Current industry MMS offerings are very low-capacity systems and most will require major equipment upgrades with additional interfaces and greater network management, as well as the need for large server "farms." To deliver the most reliable platforms to meet the capacity, availability, and scalability needs that full-featured MMS solutions require, operators should take advantage of powerful, flexible, and space-efficient technologies available today. Carrier-grade platforms offer the required level of performance and stability to take the chance out of reliability and overall customer satisfaction.
Additionally, in today's environment, making sure that platforms are standards-based and meet the requirements of the OMA, 3GPP, and 3GPP2, whether operating on GPRS, WCDMA, CDMA 1x, or other networks, is a necessity." http://wireless.sys-con.com/node/41440
And if you really think that it is cheap, you can build one yourself if you like. The plans are virtually everywhere. The monies aren't. But the blueprints are. http://books.google.com/books?id=BSm...um=4&ct=result
By the way, you are right in part, I am a consultant but not in the cell industry. My primary function is developing/teaching/data management in the technology, education and healthcare industries. As a result, I do a lot of reading. But my knowledge of costing comes from hands-on experience creating marketing plans, while my knowledge of what we as consumers actually pay, emanates through the din of my wife's voice at the end of the month when the bills come in.
And this idea that there is no expense to access Google.com, is like saying that putting another car on the 401 doesn't affect traffic or the cost of road maintenance.
Re: And some simply allow it as part of your data plan.
Once again. Every carrier has a data plan that does not include tether. And every carrier that has tethering offers it in a 'data plan' that is priced higher. Just like T-Mobile does.
In Canada, I tether my Macbook Pro via NetShare on my iPhone. I pay by eating up 6GB Data Plan if I don't have access to Wi-Fi.
Except that very plan that you have is definately no priced higher than their other data plans. Per GB it is probably their cheapest. But that was a promo plan. The normal data plans (full not 'mobile' or WAP) also allow tethering
If I have Wi-Fi access, I go direct without using my iPhone. If I were to go over my Data Plan limit, I would be billed more. In the US, carriers offer Unlimited Data Plans at one price, but as long as their is a Data Plan that includes tethering or instant messaging, etc, it is more expensive.
...whether you did so using tethering or not. And there are many, many ways to easily chew through 6GB without tethering (Orb, AirCam, etc).
The question is not, do the carriers charge for tethering. If you very loosely qualify the definition, then yes. Just as my ISP charges me for accessing google.com, CNN.com, espn.com and appleinsider. Do they specifically charge me for these? No. Should they? No. Should carrier charge more for tethering on top of a data plan? That is the question. I would argue no. Data is data is data. It is really that simple.
I would highly suggest that you do some due diligence in what was necessary for wireless services to build instant messaging into their offerings.
Why? Total irrelevant to the discussion. I have already state, twice at least, the carriers are certainly entitled to cover the expense of their offerings and nicely profit on top. The point is, should the be gouging for SMS? And there really is no argument that they are. SMS is their cash cow. There is a very obvious reason why the Canadian cellular market is so very, very, very profitable.
And if you really think that it is cheap, you can build one yourself if you like. The plans are virtually everywhere. The monies aren't. But the blueprints are.
Again and again, another very disingenuous statement. When did I say it way cheap. I am sure it is very expensive to operate. Again, that is not the point. At what point does their profit margin become excessive? They can charge whatever they want and gouge you and I all they want. That doesn't mean they should.
And this idea that there is no expense to access Google.com, is like saying that putting another car on the 401 doesn't affect traffic or the cost of road maintenance.
sigh
Yes, of course there is expense. But you are not charged for each visit. You are not charged for the right to visit. You are charged a monthly fee and it allows you to use your data as you see fit, within your allotment. Want to visit google? Go for it. Want to visit appleinsider? Feel free. Want to try out Apple's movie download service? Give 'er a go. So long as you stay under you bandwidth cap, you have paid for the right to do so.
If all Canadian ISPs started charging you to access sites or to allow you to use your connection for downloading iTunes movies, and did this in concert (similarly to how the cell carriers all seem to make their identical rate adjustments in concert), you might, just might complain. I know I would. Or, then again, you might argue is it justified to 'cover their expenses', even though they might be amongst the most profitable companies in the country.
But then, I expect to be given what I pay for. I don't expect them to come up with novel ways to gouge me on top of what I pay, for goods and services I have already contracted and paid for. But that is just me. I don't work developing 'marketing plans' to justify lifting more from the pockets of consumers for goods and services already paid for.
For all your talk of the poor, suffering (my words) carriers having to charge exorbitant rates for SMS or to allow tethering on users existing data plans, you seem to miss the point that they are clearly doing so already and still raise rates and fees. Gas companies need to cover their expenses and make a profit. You wouldn't mind if they all decided together to double the cost of refined gasoline globally tomorrow? They do have expenses, after all.
ummm...maybe because security is a real concern with CnP. There have been numerous holes in Windows implementation of CnP. The last one I remember was one where any website could read whatever you currently had in your clipboard without you actually pasting it. So, yes, some other phones out there, may just have security holes in their CnP implementation. Your snarky, yet woefully uninformed comments just come off as childish whining.
CnP involves memory that all apps will have access to. Any decent development team had better pay detailed attention to security concerns with system wide accessible memory.
Dude, you should recognize when someone is pulling something out of their ass. I don't give a f how apple implements cut and paste but don't give me some bullshit explanation that the delay was due to security? Grow a brain. Security, yeah, ok. Hold a sec, i have to die of laughter.
Dude, you should recognize when someone is pulling something out of their ass. I don't give a f how apple implements cut and paste but don't give me some bullshit explanation that the delay was due to security? Grow a brain. Security, yeah, ok. Hold a sec, i have to die of laughter.
I hope you recognize that XCP is more involved than creating a clipboard for iPhone OS X. The demo showed a complex UI compared to desktop OS' XCP. Even the developers that created the first apps for the iPhone that allowed XCP explained the difficulties that Apple would have with creating a secure, systemwide functionality.
No... It's not that Apple doesn't trust YOU, it doesn't trust (and rightly so) other applications that may have access to the clipboard.
The way Apple has chosen to implement this is better for you, the user, and worse for Mallory, the malicious app developer. Clearly you've never worked in any industry remotely connected with security in some manner.
Also, I'm sure he didn't make a bet about flash.. he chose to make a statement (and a correct one in the eyes of most web developers, and consumers) that the useful lifespan of flash is near an end. The rationale for such a statement are clear if you've got a clue.
Take the last point first.. the useful lifespan of flash has been near an end for how many years now?. You have a better chance to live to 120 years before seeing the end of flash. That is junk by techies. Regular consumers don't care for this argument. When i go on hulu.com and watch movies, i could care less that it is delivered in flash.. so what?.. i get to watch my movie!! or when i visit youtube, why should i care that some apple computer geek like yourself doesn't like flash?.. what does that have to do with me viewing videos on youtube?.. really, get over yourself already. No one cares if you or apple or some developers hate flash.. obviously, there are enough developers who like flash.
Now as to working with security.. i actually built a web app where i had to think about security. Any computer function has some security related issues.. but to say there was a delay in implementing cut and paste because of security and make that claim with a straight face?. Apple chose not to implement cut and paste for the same reason they chose not to support flash.. they thought it was a useless feature.. are you saying they took 2 years to solve a security issue with cut and paste.. they are so incompetent that they could not figure this out in 2 days?. What, are they hiring developers with correspondence degrees?. I did not say there weren't security concerns, i am only laughing that this is the reason for delaying implementation of cut and paste.. common, we know apple is smarter than this.. they have brilliant people working for them.. for them to assume that their loyal, fanatical base is so fanatical that they could insult their intelligence and get away with is is arrogance.. oh wait.. they did insult your intelligence and got away with it.. never mind.
Apple chose not to implement cut and paste for the same reason they chose not to support flash.. they thought it was a useless feature.. are you saying they took 2 years to solve a security issue with cut and paste.. they are so incompetent that they could not figure this out in 2 days?. What, are they hiring developers with correspondence degrees?. I did not say there weren't security concerns, i am only laughing that this is the reason for delaying implementation of cut and paste.. common, we know apple is smarter than this.. they have brilliant people working for them.. for them to assume that their loyal, fanatical base is so fanatical that they could insult their intelligence and get away with is is arrogance.. oh wait.. they did insult your intelligence and got away with it.. never mind.
Where was stated that it took 2 years to figure out security and that was the only issue they had? I recall them saying security was an issue. I think you infer too much.
Also, where did they Flash was a useless feature? What version of Flash for OS X on ARM has Adobe made available for the iPhone? Do you not recall Adobe saying they are working on it and that they are finding it more difficult to do than they previously thought? Are you not aware that the stripped down Flash Lite will not play videos from the popular TV show websites and that any site that uses any decent Flash will require version 9 or higher?
Where was stated that it took 2 years to figure out security and that was the only issue they had? I recall them saying security was an issue. I think you infer too much.
Also, where did they Flash was a useless feature? What version of Flash for OS X on ARM has Adobe made available for the iPhone? Do you not recall Adobe saying they are working on it and that they are finding it more difficult to do than they previously thought? Are you not aware that the stripped down Flash Lite will not play videos from the popular TV show websites and that any site that uses any decent Flash will require version 9 or higher?
Reading is fundamental. Where did i say it took 2 years to figure out security?.. i merely stated that anyone that believed that was an idiot. Here is apple quote on why they did not implement cut and paste 2 years ago
Copy and paste priority
When asked by a reporter from Time why Apple took so long to deliver "obvious" copy and paste features, Forstall replied that it wasn't that easy, and that security issues needed to be resolved with copying information between applications.
Hmm, i laughed really hard when i read that.. no, the reason apple took so long was they thought cut and paste was useless, and then when they realized it was not, then they figured out the security issues and implemented cut and paste.. yet everyone on this forum seems to think that apple delayed cut and paste due to security... haven't i stated that to think security delayed cut and paste for two years is to insult my intelligence or did you not read that part?.. where did you get the idea i believed security delayed cut and paste for 2 years?.. actually, i believe the opposite.. security did not delay cut and paste.. it was apple arrogance. They could have done this a long time ago.
As to flash.. are you denying apple does not like flash?.. they don't care for it at all. waiting for a third party to implement a feature when they themselves have access to the API and hidden system functionalities is weak.
Reading is fundamental. Where did i say it took 2 years to figure out security?.. i merely stated that anyone that believed that was an idiot. Here is apple quote on why they did not implement cut and paste 2 years ago
You mentioned two years, i merely asked you where that was stated.
Hmm, i laughed really hard when i read that..
Why is that laughable? The conjunction and also stated that it wasn't that easy. If you watch the video you can see that a lot of coding went to it. It's still not close to perfect in the Beta. It's mostly usable, but there are enough issues with it that it's not ready for primetime. Because a basic idea is simple doesn't mean that the execution will be.
no, the reason apple took so long was they thought cut and paste was useless, and then when they realized it was not, then they figured out the security issues and implemented cut and paste..
You are making these claims but have nothing to back it up except, "Apple did do it earlier so they must have shelved the code." Proof or some worthwhile rationale would be beneficial to your argument.
yet everyone on this forum seems to think that apple delayed cut and paste due to security... haven't i stated that to think security delayed cut and paste for two years is to insult my intelligence or did you not read that part?.. where did you get the idea i believed security delayed cut and paste for 2 years?.. actually, i believe the opposite.. security did not delay cut and paste.. it was apple arrogance. They could have done this a long time ago.
Everyone seems to thinks that? Where I did I state that you thought that? Again, I asked you where that was stated.
As to flash.. are you denying apple does not like flash?.. they don't care for it at all. waiting for a third party to implement a feature when they themselves have access to the API and hidden system functionalities is weak.
Does not like it what sense? It's limits the advancement of open standards on the internet? It's not well optimized for OS X or for ARM? They include updates to Flash with point updates so your argument falls apart right there. Access to the APIs? Since when is the OS responsible for the advancement of browser plugins? Why do you think that Adobe should not be responsible for moving their product along? Since Adobe Flash is not open source Apple can only try to make Flash work within it's OS better, they can not rewrite Flash 9 for Adobe so that it works on the iPhone. Why is that Adobe has been unable to get Flash 9 ported properly yet this is Apple's fault, despite Flash 9 not being on Android or Blackberris or WebOS, etc?
You mentioned two years, i merely asked you where that was stated.
How long has the iphone been out?.. actually, how long has apple had the iphone in development?.. are you kidding me?. You don't know where the two years came from?. Where did you think i got two years from?.
Why is that laughable? The conjunction and also stated that it wasn't that easy. If you watch the video you can see that a lot of coding went to it. It's still not close to perfect in the Beta. It's mostly usable, but there are enough issues with it that it's not ready for primetime. Because a basic idea is simple doesn't mean that the execution will be.
I am a developer.. i don't care how much coding went into it. I've developed software that was 1000 times more complex and it took less than two years. I've developed multi-tier, multi-platform, distributed apps that took less time.. what, are you saying?? cut and paste is rocket science?. And yes, the execution should have been simple.. that is my point. unless their programmers got their degrees from a correspondence school, this should have been elementary (and even allowing for some complexity, still should have been completed about a year ago). The delay has nothing to do with coding complexity. This delay was due to apple priorities. If they thought cut and paste was a feature worth implementing, they would have done it long time before. If you really believe security concerns made them take this long, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, free delivery.
You are making these claims but have nothing to back it up except, "Apple did do it earlier so they must have shelved the code." Proof or some worthwhile rationale would be beneficial to your argument.
Experience. I have experience coding stuff that was a lot more difficult that this.. dude.. this is CUT AND PASTE.. stop trying to make it seem like heart surgery.
i am tired.. go ahead.. believe what you want.. and remember, that deal on the brooklyn bridge.. it's a limited time offer.. 1,000,000 will get you the bridge, you have to act NOW!!.
Dude, you should recognize when someone is pulling something out of their ass. I don't give a f how apple implements cut and paste but don't give me some bullshit explanation that the delay was due to security? Grow a brain. Security, yeah, ok. Hold a sec, i have to die of laughter.
Right to ad homs usually indicates someone not too bright.
Who said it was the only reason? You questioned whether it was a real concern at all, stating that you could do CnP on the desktop, so how could it be a security concern. I simply brought up an example of of a known CnP exploit. You can't counter intelligently, so you resort to ad homs. I guess you have proven something, but probably not what you intended.
If you look back to July of 2008, Greg Joswiak explained that CnP was omitted from 2.0 because it was not high enough on the priority list. As simple as that. Very open and no pretence. Once it was prioritized, then I am sure they did have security concerns that needed to be addressed. That might even have caused it to take longer to implement than originally planned.
You come off as a very angry little troll.
Experience. I have experience coding stuff that was a lot more difficult that this.. dude.. this is CUT AND PASTE.. stop trying to make it seem like heart surgery..
But do you have business or marketing experience? By reserving copy/paste for 3.0, Apple is insuring an upgrade path for additional revenue. I don't assume Apple is stupid, arrogant, or smart. But I do assume they are trying to make a profit and they do so by withholding "features" for future versions of products and software.
I am a developer.. i don't care how much coding went into it. I've developed software that was 1000 times more complex and it took less than two years. I've developed multi-tier, multi-platform, distributed apps that took less time.. what, are you saying?? cut and paste is rocket science?. And yes, the execution should have been simple.. that is my point. unless their programmers got their degrees from a correspondence school, this should have been elementary (and even allowing for some complexity, still should have been completed about a year ago). The delay has nothing to do with coding complexity. This delay was due to apple priorities. If they thought cut and paste was a feature worth implementing, they would have done it long time before. If you really believe security concerns made them take this long, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, free delivery.
Fairly sure the developers at Apple are head and shoulders above you. Not really the point though. While you may have worked on some apps, migrating a desktop/server OS to a mobile platform, developing a complex UI and asociated apps is beyond your silly little apps in terms on complexity. And heaven forbid, they consider security concerns at the same time...
You are right, it was mainly due to priorities. iPhone OS and iPhone and associated apps was a significant, large project and it makes sense that they had priorities. Hence Apple's comments from July of last year that CnP was no included because of priorities. You sort of sound like you actually think your observation of this is a revelation.
Experience. I have experience coding stuff that was a lot more difficult that this.. dude.. this is CUT AND PASTE.. stop trying to make it seem like heart surgery.
I almost wonder why you haven't been snapped up by one of the major firms yet. Almost.
But do you have business or marketing experience? By reserving copy/paste for 3.0, Apple is insuring an upgrade path for additional revenue. I don't assume Apple is stupid, arrogant, or smart. But I do assume they are trying to make a profit and they do so by withholding "features" for future versions of products and software.
Ok, i can't win here. Apple delayed this for revenue purposes?. why would apple need to do that?. Apple knows it's fans will upgrade regardless of new features.. common.. but ok, i will admit i am don't have experience in marketing. Wow, generate revenue by withholding features. Hmm.. well, you could be right.. i was one of the people that was not interested in the iphone at all because of the features it lacked. maybe when they get all the features i am interested in, i'd buy the iphone.. or maybe in the meantime, i would buy something else and apple would lose my potential revenue?. I was under the impression that apple fans always upgraded and don't need new features.. (say, maybe they put all the features in initially but just keep upping the memory with each new release.. or better camera, etc)
This is a good one.. delay features for revenue purposes..
(Throws hands up in mock exasperation).
Fairly sure the developers at Apple are head and shoulders above you. Not really the point though. While you may have worked on some apps, migrating a desktop/server OS to a mobile platform, developing a complex UI and asociated apps is beyond your silly little apps in terms on complexity. And heaven forbid, they consider security concerns at the same time...
You are right, it was mainly due to priorities. iPhone OS and iPhone and associated apps was a significant, large project and it makes sense that they had priorities. Hence Apple's comments from July of last year that CnP was no included because of priorities. You sort of sound like you actually think your observation of this is a revelation.
I almost wonder why you haven't been snapped up by one of the major firms yet. Almost.
I got what you are saying.. no other developers have to worry about security. Everyone else that has to develop software on a deadline, they never have to worry about security and implementing cut and paste on the iphone is more complex that other people complex applications.
BTW, i work for a fortune 500 company (actually a fortune 100 company).. but thanks for looking out for me. This is what makes this forum great.. the concern for each other that we display.. you don't know me but yet i sensed, you were concerned about my career enough to wonder why i haven't been snapped up by a major firm. Curious, how did you know i wasn't snapped up by a major firm? (i've been working for this company for over 8 years).. notwithstanding this fact, have i misrepresented myself somewhere else?.. or did you just assume? I'm just curious.