Posts by DZ-Jay

Re: Optional

Yes. Apple has recently outsource materials to other manufacturers that they used to get from Samsung. Nothing lost there.

@AC

Sure, let's. And how about after "Ice Cream Sandwich" we wait until the next Android version, you know, The One that's going to kill iOS. Or is it the one after that?

-dZ.

Re: Android is open

It may be "open" in that technical sense, but it is not what is implied or expected. There is Android the "OS" and Android the ecosystem/platform. One may be useless without the other.

In this sense it's the same as those toys that claim:

"Batteries not required!"*

*A charging transformer is required for power, sold separately.

It's inaccurate at best, disingenuous at worse.

@Thomas 4

Beautiful analogy!

-dZ.

A bad idea

>> What most seem to forget is that for a lot of things web apps have failed miserably.

What you seem to miss is that your comment completely undermines your point. Web apps *have* failed miserably in certain respect *precisely* because they are not part of the core strengths of the Web.

Your post starts acknowledging this and then rams into a wall of bad logic. It all starts with your definition of what the "Web" is. Just like Google, you seem to define "Web" as "Browser." It doesn't matter if it is portable, or consistent across platforms, or distributed, or completely open; as long as it executes within a browser it is "Web."

Right-o.

I'll tell you what, take the executable of Battlefield 3 and rename it "iexpore.exe," et voila! it's now "the Web."

-dZ.

Re: Opt out

>> "For details of how that strips away any anonymity when coupled with other seemingly harmless data, ask the chaps who released the AOL search logs."

Ah, but that's the trick, innit?

What if Apple were actually generating a unique identifier, sending it to the device, and then completely eradicating any additional information connected to the account, individual, or device, in a way that would make it impossible to correlate them?

I believe this is what they are *claiming* to do, and if so, it *is* indeed anonymous. Just because it is profitable to be unscrupulous by tracking all that information and selling it does not necessarily imply that it will be done.

However, it all then boils down to one single question: How much do you trust Apple?

-dZ.

@A Non e-mouse

In Spanish, we have a saying that translates roughly to the English equivalent of, "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."

The idea is that wishful thinking of how things *could have been* does not change the nature of things *as they are*.

Apple do not have a "huge lead" because Microsoft failed. Apple gained that very lead by their own merits, through their own devices. It could just as well have been that Microsoft succeeded and Apple still overcame them 10 years later with their own version of a tablet.

I could just as easily say that the reason Wal-Mart is such a giant business right now is because Apple opted for building computers rather than enter the cheap trinket retail business back in the early 1980s; or that the reason Henry Ford is credited with revolutionizing the automotive industry is merely because Steve Jobs wasn't born at the turn of the 19th Century.

See how little sense such an argument makes?

-dZ.

@Whitter

I don't expect Jobs (or Cook) to lose much sleep over that, since their money comes primarily from the hardware. And guess what? The FT web app can still be accessed through the iPad, so nothing lost to the consumer (except perhaps some compromise in UX due to HTML5 limitations).

-dZ.

Re: Confusement

I think you meant to say confusility.

dZ.

@vic 4

>> I was trying to point out that the fact that they do this is irrelevant and adds nothing to support that point. If it wasn't mentioned for that reason why mention it?

I'd say that it is relevant. It shows a pattern of willingness to share and promote common solutions.

You countered this by saying that they do not do it out of the goodness of their heart, which is true, but irrelevant. The fact that their core business interests--selfish and greedy as they may be--directs them to such actions, suggests that as long as their interests continue in such directions everybody who participates in those solutions will benefit.

More to the point, Apple is absolutely *transparent* and predictable in such behaviour: they never claim they are open-source hippies or working purely for the benefit of mankind. They will hide and horde some of their technologies as well as sharing openly others, all in for their own interests.

As long as these interests align with their customers or partners, everybody benefits; and there is no need to assume or expect any altruism in that.

-dZ.

THANK YOU!

I'm glad to see that at least someone got it.

I thought it was clever and funny, but the joke itself proves my lack of sense. :)

-dZ.

@banjomike

Actually, this is what Apple told them to do: You make an app to distribute through the App Store, then you pay the price. The price includes no access to external stores or distributions, and a 30% cut of all in-app purchases. You don't want to pay the price, fine, use a web app and deal with distribution, sales, payments, and scale yourself.

Some are making this decision to be some sort of ultimatum or display of power in anticipation of banishing competition, but it is actually a very reasonable, wise, and *common* business position.

Only the customer's experience is impacted--and that's _only_ if the web app is not properly implemented or maintained. If it offers the same experience as a native app would, then even the customer is happy.

Apple's view is that a native app would be inherently superior than a web app, and because of that most developers will opt for the latter, as most customers will clamor for it. This ultimately increases their value proposition and sales more hardware.

Note that none of this requires that *all* developers to implement native apps, only a substantial amount. I don't see that changing.

-dZ.

You forgot

You forgot to mention that Apple is exerting intellectual property rights on rounded corners. Go ahead, you know you want to.

-dZ.

@Dr Trevor Marshall

No, that's not at all what the suit is about. If you do some research you'll find out that they are accusing them of some design patents and trade dress, which has little to do with the chips used.

Samsung's copying of Apple's devices is different than Compaq's reverse-engineering of the BIOS.

-dZ.

Wow!

I'm sorry, Alistair. I was wrong: commentards will still accuse you of Apple bias no matter how much you try to avoid talking about fruit.

dZ.

Re: RTFA

So what you're saying is, hacking OS X is simply done in three very easy steps:

Step 1: Find vulnerability in OS X Server.

Step 2: Compromise server.

Step 3: Get all client passwords.

Wow, that's easy indeed! I'd say it could be even easier. I bet I could even do it in one step:

Step 1: Hack server to get all passwords in system.

Done.

-dZ.

@Carl Fletcher

But that's just the point. It is hypocritical from Google to claim that *everybody* else's use of patents is bad and that their exerting patent rights is wrong, when Google itself was attempting to purchase patents to exert rights themselves.

Consider this:

MS: You stole our stuff, we'll sue you.

G: You can't sue me, your patents are bogus!

< Nortel put their patents for sale >

MS: Wanna join us to buy Nortel's patents?

G: Would you stop suing me for the other stuff?

MS: Nope, you still stole that stuff, so we'll sue you; we'll just agree to share this set.

G: No thanks, we'll try to buy the lot and sue you back! That'll show you.

< Google lose bid, MS, Apple, Oracle, etc. own the patents >

G: No fair! They just bought those to attack me! Patents are bad!!!!!

MS: We asked you to join!

G: But you would have sued me for other patents anyway!

MS: So?

G: That's wrong! Patents are bad!!!!

@Steven Roper

>> I think that this conglomeration of HCJ has come not before time. Now that I'm using it on a regular basis I'm amazed that we didn't come out with the idea of presentation/computation separation much earlier in the history of computer programming.

We did. It's called the Model View Controller pattern, or "MVC" for short. It was first described in 1979, and any serious programming framework has offered a variation of it since then.

It's only so-called "web developers" that are just now re-discovering the old as new, hitting the same age-old problems that have been long since solved and, essentially, re-inventing the wheel.

Except that this time around, the wheel is not round but oval, it's covered in lots of friction-inducing hairs, is made of solid stone, and requires an industrial engine to roll around. It does, however, have nifty and shiny stickers all around it--with rounded corners.

-dZ.

Re: Share price...

My response is above, on a duplicate of your comment that was removed.

Isn't it obvious?

Their research is based on sales of the current model of iPad, versus whatever latest version of Android tables are released in the future.

Since we've all heard that the next version of Android will surely be The One, every time, then it stands to reason that whatever is available 4 years hence will surely be better than the iPad 2.

Apple could not possibly top the iPad 2 or maintain their competitive advantage with newer technologies and designs. Evah.

-dZ.

Right

I suppose those unibody shells carved out of a slab of aluminium are available in the open market. Of course, since every other computer maker uses them in their products.

Oh wait!

@Filippo

It's not "that browser thing," it's the compartmentalization of processes across all application space. Safari was mentioned as one example because it is usually the most prominent attack vector.

-dZ.

Re: Haaaa

@Wang N Staines:

Oh, I see. If Apple loses, it shows how greedy and evil they are for abusing the courts with frivolous lawsuits. But if Apple wins, it must be because the courts are corrupted and biased in favour of them.

-dZ.

@Ted Dannington

Some of us browse the Web perfectly fine without JavaScript. It is not a matter of fearing that it may bring down the entire Internet. It is a matter of avoiding ads, pop-ups, and unnecessary Web 2.0-ish bullshit.

-dZ.