XML Co-Founder Joins Google, Blasts iPhone 628
XML co-founder Tim Bray has taken the job of 'Developer Advocate' at Google. Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?' Because he sure doesn't mince words against the iPhone in his first sermon: 'It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.
XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable."
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Funny)
Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Funny)
They both have the power to kill thousands, I don't see the big difference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Funny)
Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.
I see no mention of cars in that comparison, so I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Steve, is that you?
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.
No, comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing fiberglass insulation to a Toyota car. One is a technique the other is a brand of hardware products.
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:4, Funny)
Try asbestos insulation. The poisonous effects aren't obvious at first, but it eventually infests and clogs the flow of important things, like oxygen or the data you actually care about.
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:4, Informative)
Try asbestos insulation.
Head, desk. Desk, head. HEADDESK!
95% (literally) of the asbestos ever used is of a type known as crysotile. Crysotile fibers are hollow and fibers shorter than 1.5 inches are quickly physically broken up in the lungs by the immune system and excreted. Fibers longer than 1.5 inches can get stuck in the bronchii and are carcinogenic. However, no processed crysotile with fibers that long are sold anymore. Only smaller fiber sizes are sold currently. On the other hand, the other types of asbestos are amphiboles and have a totally different fiber structure that is solid and that has ends that will flake off into microscopic pieces are are carcinogenic. It may be good to mention at this point that natural asbestos deposits are common and asbestos fibers of both types are probably something you inhale on a regular basis. On the other hand, if you live in the US and have vermiculite insulation in your home, and depending on the age tremolite asbestos, an amphibole, may be present. Surprisingly, asbestos is not like a toxic or radioactive substance and is safer if left alone, assuming it is in an enclosed space, like an attic, that is left undisturbed. Note, this changes is vermiculite insulation end up in your living room. When and if asbestos needs to be removed, hire trained professionals with the proper equipment.
Also, fiberglass insulation isn't necessarily any better for your lungs than asbestos.
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Funny)
He invented XML, how isn't he an expert on cellphone platforms....???
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
lol I ws thinking the same thing. Like a guy like this would have ever thought of a UI like the Iphone. Instead we'd be noodling through tons of awkard menu's but hey it would all be configurable with xml and xls. Can I pull my hair out now or later.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While I agree that iPhone is mainly a shiny, overpriced toy, I that's going a bit far.
Re:XML vs iPhone (Score:5, Informative)
Well that explains why proprietary alternatives to XML like JSON or YAML are so much better!
JSON is not propietary.
http://www.json.org/license.html [json.org]
Nor is YAML
http://www.yaml.de/en/license/license-conditions.html [www.yaml.de]
Or is there a woosh here that I am missing?
To be fair (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a work-related "convenient opinion" of his. He's been critical of Apple's walled-garden approach to development for years, and an Android advocate since he got an Android phone in 2008 (see http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary [tbray.org] for his chronicles using and programming it).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't like global warming, where a relatively small group can fuck it up for everyone; if people didn't like the iPhone, they just wouldn't buy it. And it's great that there are other options out there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If these Apple products become very successful, the landscape changes. Others will follow. Let's say at some point a majority of devices will be closed media devices. Now people like Steve Jobs control the Net. For example, say you are a small company from Israel with the idea for the next killer app. You release the app and see
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is it a walled garden, but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players (at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves), etc, all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer. Well, Apple has done exactly what Microsoft was doing 10 years ago, it's just that since it was Apple, it was ok (don't mod me down, I'm not trying to troll here). There's some traction in the tech media about Apple doing to developers what slashdotites claimed MS would do, but since Apple isn't the (or wasn't) 800 lb gorilla most people let it slide. Well now Apple owns the market segment (or at least a good portion of it) and ceding Poland to Apple is showing it's downside. Google's approach is definitely better, but right now the fact of the matter is that Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing
Yup, very few posts on /. critical of Apple lately. It's not at all the dominant meme when talking about smartphones.
Seriously - do you actually read /. ? Half the posts in a thread about Apple are criticising it for exactly the things you mention, and the other half are defending it.
The first law of Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot as a group is ALWAYS against what you are for.
Slashdot is filled with hippies/gun nuts.
Slashdot is filled with rabid republicans/demented democrats.
Slashdot is filled with MS apologists/BSD freaks/Apple fanboys. They are all seen as silly by the enlightened linux users who are well above this kind of shameful name calling what are after all their fellow human beings even if they are obviously less evolved.
Slashdot is filled with Trek nerds/People that hate Trek for being nerdy/Hate trek for not being nerdy enough.
Slashdot is filled with virgins/people who lie about having had sex.
Oh and the best way to make a claim that slashdot is against you? Claim you are going to be modded down for saying it. Then when you are modded up, don't change your mind.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPad seems a nice device. It's not for everyone, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It may not be for you, but again, there's nothing wrong with that.
I find the backlash you mention exactly as bad as the breathless fans you berate and to be honest I'm just as tired of either side of the pundits on this one. Extremes on both sides are misrepresenting the truth, either intentionally or not, and I see some of that in the little squad of straw-men lurking in your post.
The only people that matter in this are the people who will buy the device. If there aren't enough of them, it'll fail. If there are, it'll succeed. All this back-and-forth garbage is a waste of electrons.
Nothing you or I say will make a jot of difference on that, and judging by the posts on /. this is a good thing.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with it. Are you intentionally ignoring everything that's being said? Here's a brief refresher: Lock-in, crippleware, no multitasking, iTunes.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole "if you don't like it that's your opinion" crap is getting ridiculous.
Yes, we realize that products are made for diverse markets, and people have different priorities. But if we can't call bullshit when we see it what's the point of having a forum of discussion.
Back to the topic:
The iPad is a nice device. But there are a lot of things inherently wrong with it. And I find it worrying that Apple, otherwise often a pioneer in technology is capable of ruining an otherwise good device and wants to severely restrict what I do with it. I think there's something very wrong with that. Even if I'd never contemplate buying an iPad.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
We also see in real estate that walled gardens are valued. People seem perfectly willing to pay huge amounts of money to live in controlled gated community. I do not believe that they provide any additional security, I have never needed to live in one and an perfectly safe, but I do not see AGs going after them for fraudulent PR.
I am not going to say any Apple product is superior to any non apple product. I like the laptops because I transfer video through firewire, and I can do so with no additional drivers. Same thing for cameras. Same this for mass storage. I expect people to buy the machine they need, not the machine they are told to buy to look good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny you mention automatic transmissions...
Have you looked at the transmission of a Ferrari? Or an Alfa Rameo? Drum roll...
Its an automatic! Ok, Ok, its a choose your gear automatic. Even in Formula 1 the days of clutching and shifting are long gone. These days most high end cars have something called tiptronic. My Mercedes has this. It is quite impressive actually. Its an automatic when you are lazy, but can be shifted when needed.
Thus this slagging of Apple is pretty pointless. Since if we were to mince
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a very confused post. Actually, modern sports car transmissions are still usually manual, and the automatic ones tend to be Direct-Shift Gearboxes [wikipedia.org]. Unlike a tiptronic transmission, which is just a normal automatic transmission that responds to your shifts (unless you ask it to do something really stupid), a DSG is much more similar to a manual transmission under the hood, in spite of supporting automatic gear changes.
Err, no. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the folks attacking Apple have as much of a track record of being consistently and intentionally wrong. Case in point.
For example, both my Mother and my Aunt, in their 60's, want an iPad. They are not fangrrrls. One has a Mac and would prefer the pad, the other doesn't use PC's a lot but would like a simple, portable device for email and internet, and easily sharing photos of my family (since she lives in Europe).
As for the walled garden, I'd say the motives are mixed. I (and many people I know) actually like walled gardens, in some circumstances, if it helps remove bullshit from my life. Not all circumstances, of course.
I do agree the blocking of iPad -> iPhone tethering is crap, but I can't tether on AT&T as it is.
Re:Err, no. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, young and fashionable people only look like they get to have sex all the time, in reality they're just spending all their time trying to look fashionable. Fashion == advertising.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find this post interesting. You claim to know all the answers, and they're just what they should be to support your emotional claims.
The iPad is simple. We're thinking of getting iPads for my son's grandmothers, since it's about at their level of computer acumen. Exactly why it was made that way is open to question (and you provide no sources, just blatant assertions), but it really doesn't matter for the end effect.
The walled garden provides security, regardless of what it was intended for. Nor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's a sign of my age. I never liked MS much. I liked google for a while. I almost trusted them. Then I switched to Apple - google seemed a little too eager for all my personal information.
When you realize that they are all ruthless corporations out to make a buck of you, you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option. It's not always the best option (and I'll use the best option even if it's evil, as long as there's a way to port my data), but it's the one I root for.
I still use goo
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing
Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-238758.html [cnet.com]
I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
That's how deep the conspiracy goes! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws.
I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
No! You don't get it! That's how deep the conspiracy goes! Either Apple has brainwashed state governments so they don't see that Apple's also violating the same antitrust laws, or fanbois have infiltrated those governments! There's no other possible explanation!
Wake up sheeple and see the truth before it's too late and we have iGovernment!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and ceding Poland to Apple
godWIN!
The Sudetenland was ceded. Poland was invaded. Get your convoluted memes right.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Funny)
Oops sorry. But you got my lightly veiled reference that Apple = Hitler, so I'm still ahead :)
Here's the wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] for those interested.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Funny)
So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?
Johnny-come-latelys who will hang around for 10 years after the actual fighting is over, and claim THEY won the battle ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?
Johnny-come-latelys who will hang around for 10 years after the actual fighting is over, and claim THEY won the battle ?
Linux. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux
But linux can't be the yanks!!! It's communist, remember?
Re:What are they doing again? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've always been able to play MP3s on all digital music players. That's a key bullet point in the PPT presentation on how you even get funding to design and a digital music player. I'm not even going to argue about that.
Apple has had absolute control of their standards (Quicktime, proprietary audio formats/encryption, device lockin (itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)... Apple has always been very aggressive about vendor lockin, and only uses "open" standards when it serves their purpose to break into a market, and quickly lose interest once they have a substancial market share (see also: embrace, extend, extinguish).
I'm not trying to say Apple is completely evil, but they act more like Microsoft than most people realize, and only use open technologies enough to ease the paranoia of the technical community, knowing that their acceptance of products/technology is crucial to widespread consumer uptake (see also: Vista Failure).
Re:What are they doing again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are they doing again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has had absolute control of their standards (Quicktime, proprietary audio formats/encryption, device lockin (itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)... Apple has always been very aggressive about vendor lockin, and only uses "open" standards when it serves their purpose to break into a market, and quickly lose interest once they have a substancial market share (see also: embrace, extend, extinguish).
Quicktime uses 'normal' formats - H264, mp4, etc. Apple don't have any proprietary audio or video formats. You're confusing format with DRM, and there's none of that in their music either.
Palm decision to use someone else's software to manage their device is a bad move in every sense. They become reliant on the experience provided by someone else, and open themselves up to being locked out. When Apple also provide APIs for accessing the iTunes database (hell, it's just an XML file, any dev worth their salt can write a parser, and there are plenty of open-source XML parsers out there) then Palm's decision looks more like posturing and using their own customers as a weapon.
Still, many of the /. crowd fell for Palm on this, hook line and sinker. It became an issue of 'freedom' or something, and not just a shabby development decision that was almost certainly going to bite them later.
As for EEE, can you give an example? I can understand how Microsoft could do that with IE, as they had market dominance. I can't see how Apple can do that in any market but mp3 players, and clearly they've not done so in that market.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not legally. MP3 remains patented in the USA, and only licensees who pay the fees, or for whom the patent owners are willing to _accept_ fees, have been able to use it. This has actually been a serious problem for "free" operating systems, with whom the patent owners have either refused to cooperate or charged genuinely outrageous fees.
Fortunately, if you're not in the USA, there are plenty of downloadable players at locations like the "Penguin Liberation Front", which also has DVD decryption utilities, gam
Re:What are they doing again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What are they doing again? (Score:5, Informative)
Quicktime today is h.264 video with AAC audio (Sorensen is gone).
h.264 is a licensed technology owned by MPEG LA. While it did go free for a few more years for usage, it was set to lose that until about a month ago and is still a licensed technology that can be used to lock.
iTMS files are AAC audio and fairplay is gone. Fairplay was easy to remove by yourself and Apple documented how to do so.
Again, AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one. The license is quite a easy one to stream and distribute (free), but to use the actual codec itself requires a company to obtain a license. This is why FOSS FAAC and FAAD software projects are only distributed in source code form only to avoid the patent issues. As for Fairplay, it was Apples way of keeping any songs bought from iTunes to only play on iPods. No other MP3 player was able to read the files helping Apple keep a monopoly, and is still being fought under the Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation [justia.com] Not to mention Fairplay is still being used by Apple. [latimes.com] Also couldn't find anything on the Apple.com site on how to remove Fairplay from anything.
iTunes works with anything as long as anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes (the fact Palm doesn't understand how is Palm's failure). Some vendors even get sync functionality (many Motorola devices, following the ROKR partnership), not just the iPod as you say.
iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely [slashdot.org] break [slashdot.org] that connection [slashdot.org] to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.
What was your point again ? Oh right, outright lies.
No, that was your point to make outright lies.
Re:What are they doing again? (Score:5, Interesting)
iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely [slashdot.org] break [slashdot.org] that connection [slashdot.org] to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.
No, that's utter rubbish. There's a well-documented method for interacting with iTunes via its database. There are many third-party apps that do so, including the Amazon mp3 downloader which competes directly with the iTunes store. Palm were trying to piggy-back onto iTunes by partially emulating an iPod, which isn't something that Apple support (and why should they, any more than HP will support your Epson scanner with their scanning software), and made a huge fuss about it. Palm should have written their own code for interacting with their media player and interacted with iTunes (and any other software) through the right APIs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that Palm silliness is ridiculous. They didn't have any brilliant technology, they had their device identify itself as an iPod, which is in violation of USB standards. Apple's updates just helped enforce the standards. It's easy enough for third parties such as Palm to make their ow
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that Palm silliness is ridiculous. They didn't have any brilliant technology, they had their device identify itself as an iPod, which is in violation of USB standards. Apple's updates just helped enforce the standards. It's easy enough for third parties such as Palm to make their own app that interfaces into the iTunes library via the easily parse-able XML file that drives the program; there was no reason for Palm to break the USB standard.
I'm considered an Apple fan among my friends. But that whole paragraph is so stupid -- particularly the sentence I marked up -- that it bears repeating. RDF/Stockholm Syndrome in action. If MS pulled shit like that (and I'm not sure they have) I doubt anybody would be in a rush to defend them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Steve Jobs has always been against DRM. Apple didn't create FairPlay to lock out other portable music players, Apple created FairPlay to appease the record labels. Ironically, the only reason the record labels have acquiesced on this is that they became afraid of Apple's near-monopoly position, and saw selling non-DRM'd music (including via competitors like Amazon) as the only way they could weaken Apple's stranglehold on the market (they tried to sell DRM'd music through other companies, but nobody wante
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is that the iTunes Client is the only interface to the iTunes Store, and iPod's and other Apple devices enjoy the special status of being the only ones with integrated syncing via that iTunes Client.
If Microsoft got a big hit in the MP3 player market first, with its own big hit store, with its own DRM and non-interoperability with competitors, people would be still be bitching about it a decade after Microsoft got fined for anti-trust.
If Microsoft
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft was never and is not a monopoly.
I don't care what the courts say. I'm not usually a defender of the "let the market sort everything out" mentality; but by the time the court ruled, Linux already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was not far behind. Defining "PC" as "IBM clone" was a travesty. Whoever prosecuited MS was smart, and got away with that. I remember joking at the time, "so an iMac's not a Personal Computer, eh?".
Also, the MS "monopoly" is far less problematic than what woul
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft was enough of a power to be able to dictate to OEMs that they may not pre-install Netscape, simply by threatening to charge different prices for Windows licenses. If that's not a monopoly, it's pretty damn close, because these OEMs did not tell Microsoft to fuck off. The fact is, they played ball and squished Netscape as instructed.
MacOS X is irrelevant to the discussion, because it ran on PowerPC chips, because Apple wasn't willing to license it anyway, and also because the antitrust trial started in 1998 - some two years before the MacOS X Public Beta. As for Linux, GNOME's first major release was March 1999, entirely irrelevant to this discussion. KDE was first released in July of 1998, also irrelevant. So exactly which "pretty usable desktops" were you referring to?
The trial started in May 1998, while the iMac G3 that did not ship until August 1998. The iMac is also irrelevant to the Microsoft antitrust case.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny, you know. I can't remember one single occasion where Microsoft actually used its control of Windows to specifically prevent a competitor's product from functioning on a PC. Yes, they pushed their own stuff. But I could always install Opera or Mozilla or Lotus or whatever I wanted, and nothing built into the OS could or would prevent that. Likewise MS never attempted to 'protect' me from 'objectionable' material or otherwise impose its value judgments on me.
My memory loss must be pretty bad, because I also can't remember this fabled golden age when ipods and itunes were "quite usable with non-Apple products". What I can remember, though, is Apple changing the way files are written to an ipod over and over again to deliberately break compatibility with non-Apple software. I can remember my frustration that my ipod wouldn't let me simply drag music files on and off in via a file browser. I can remember Apple selling DRMed music through itunes which wouldn't work with my Creative Zen MP3 player. Funnily enough, I also remember Apple forcing me to install the bloated monstrosity that is quicktime on my system, and both itunes and quicktime then breaking my perfectly functional GUI standards almost as though they never existed.
As for your underlying thesis, it is immensely naive. "ipod" and "mp3 player" are more or less synonymous for most non-tech people I know. Apple is moving aggressively into video and text. And to me, control over our society's collective cultural record is far more significant than which web browser I use when I install a pre-2000 version of Windows.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny, you know. I can't remember one single occasion where Microsoft actually used its control of Windows to specifically prevent a competitor's product from functioning on a PC.
You apparently weren't involved in the industry in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS are among the (then) highly discussed cases. Proving intention is a difficult thing, but with all the fuss over time that Microsoft's come to make over backward compatibility, it's a pretty big stretch to claim that they didn't test against what was at the time fairly popular software.
I also can't remember this fabled golden age when ipods and itunes were "quite usable with non-Apple products".
I've never had a problem putting music I didn't buy from Apple on an iPod. I've never had a problem getting music I bought from Apple out of their ecosystem, as they included a "burn to CD option." That's before you consider some of the various hacks out there that will let you move whatever you like on and off an iPod w/o having to use iTMS (or even replace the iPod software entirely) and/or crack their DRM.
But again, that's beside the point. Apple's never used whatever market power they've had to ensure that you didn't have an alternative to their music player, or their music format, or their music store.
As for your underlying thesis, it is immensely naive. "ipod" and "mp3 player" are more or less synonymous for most non-tech people I know.
But not because they threatened anyone or made deals to eliminate competitors. Largely because they're good at marketing campaigns and producing products most non-tech people like to use.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be ignorant of the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do client-side web development and not test with (3 versions of) IE.
You also have to do testing with several versions of Firefox. Damn that Mozilla! We should all hate them!!! (More seriously: what's your point? If you don't suck at your job, you have to test with all currently-supported somewhat-popular browsers.)
And in many corporate environments, you're still essentially forced to use Windows.
That's because your corporation chose Microsoft products, because Microsoft products generally are much better than the competition in corporate environments. Apple's always ignored corporations, and Linux solutions are disjointed and disorganized.
Did your company have a choice? Of course, they could have gone with some other solution. They chose not to... that's not Microsoft's fault.
But they don't ever really try to bend the whole industry that direction, and the only reason they have as much influence as they do is the same reason anybody who comes up with a good idea or a successful model does.
Sure they have. Look what they did with the record companies... remember when Amazon was fighting to price music at less than $0.99, they were fighting against Apple and the record companies Apple had brainwashed into selling all tracks for at least $0.99.
I suppose you could argue (using the loophole you helpfully included) that Amazon's music store wasn't "a good idea or successful model."
But let's back up a step... Windows (Windows Mobile if you like) ecosystem vs. iPhone ecosystem:
Has your Windows computer ever stopped you from downloading and installing a program because that program contained a feature the OS already had?
Has your Windows box ever prevented you from paying for software that contained pictures of titties?
Has Microsoft done anything, ever, on purpose to break compatibility with older or competitive software? (Apple does this about every week, BTW.)
No, no, and no.
Oh, and here's something else to think about: why do I have to install a gigantic application that sells music and movies so I can update the *firmward* of a cellphone? Why does that gigantic application also install a media library I don't want or need? Why does it try to stealthily install a web browser I didn't fucking ask for? Why do I now have some strange zero-config service running beyond my firewall? Apple's software situation sucks-- it's the worst "software taking over your computer" experience since RealPlayer circa 2004.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
You either are too young to remember, or you have a short memory.
Microsoft went out of their way to maintain compatibility with their own older software. But until recently they always tried to block competition intentionally. Although Windows 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS [wikipedia.org], it was returning an non-fatal error message, in effect convincing users there was something wrong with DR-DOS. Eventually Novell gave up on DR-DOS and sold it to Caldera (now called SCO). The ensuing lawsuit was settled out of court sometime in 2000 for $155 million, with Novell and Caldera sharing the profits. This is just one example.
When they couldn't outright deny competitors access, Microsoft's policy was embrace, extend, extinguish. Internet Explorer 4 and 5 were NOT standards compliant. I remember running Mozilla M18 and encountering sites that would only render in IE properly, that is if Mozilla wasn't blocked outright. How is that not purposely blocking competing software? Only after FireFox started gaining traction did Microsoft release standards compliant browsers.
The point is today Microsoft is a better company because the competition forced them to open up and listen to their clients. Remove competitive pressure and I promise you they'll revert to their old policies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gee! *No*...*I don't*!
You really think that a whole series of deliberately obfuscated tests, that could only be passed by MS-DOS and that serve absolutely no other purpose, were added *accidentally*?
Have a look at this [drdobbs.com] for a detailed look at the code. Seriously, tell me *that* is just a bug!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Disagree. The root hatred of Microsoft is that they kicked everyone's ass with arguably inferior products like DOS/Windows3, VisualBasic, MS-Access and so on.
(Keep in mind all these oldschool computer guys who bet on Novell, OS/2, etc were essentially fucked when the PC world switched to Microsoft.)
Computer geeks have never really cared about the business/marketing stuff and have always sucked up to their hegemonic corporate overlords. But with Microsoft, they are fundamentally convinced the products would
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, that was his point!
Compare this,
>> It wasn't OK for Microsoft, because their implementations sucked. People are willing to forgive Apple because it works well for them.
with this,
>> The root hatred of Microsoft is that they kicked everyone's ass with arguably inferior products like DOS/Windows3, VisualBasic, MS-Access and so on.
-dZ.
He Can Vote With His Wallet (Score:4, Insightful)
We're all adults here and if he doesn't like Apple's rules about software of the iPod/iPhone/iPad then he can choose not to get one. It's as simple as that.
The government isn't requiring us all to get iProducts
Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only can he vote with his wallet, but he's free to express his opinion to others who might vote with their wallets in the future. He's not forcing you or anyone else to do anything.
Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, as Developer Advocate for Android, part of his job is trying to change people's viewpoint on whether they ought to develop for the iPhone or Android.
Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the best thing he can do is crack the whip and make sure the various companies that want to create Android based products do so in a competent way and discourage carriers from behaving like the dicks they tend to be. As in not doing all that stupid adjustments and customizations that hurt usability.
Re:He Can Vote With His Wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll agree that Apple makes Disney Land. It's all highly controlled and polished to look exactly how they want it to, and to keep "undesirable" elements out.
There's still quite a lot of choice in the market. In fact, whatever you think of the iPhone it's self, we've certainly seen a bigger improvement in the cell industry in the last 3 years (post iPhone) than we did the in 3 or 4 years before. Today, there are numerous phones out with interfaces that aren't abysmal. You can get a game like Bejeweled without having to pay $3 or $4 per month (as carriers liked to charge).
I like the Apple experience, and I love my iPhone. Daniel Jalkut put up a post on his blog today called Surfing in Antartica [red-sweater.com], which really resonated with me on why I think the iPhone is so great, and why I'm really interested in what the iPad might bring.
Apple does some stuff I don't like. Disney does a lot I don't like (and I know many /.ers agree with me). But there are large segments of the market that love the way those companies do things. There are people who happily pay a large chunk of money to get to live in Disney Land for a few hours a day, a few days a year.
iDIOT antI-fanboiIs (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again, apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock. There's even an app for that!
Or maybe they just get tired of anti-fanboi idiots making statements that seem to equate:
"Um, you're not forced to buy it. You're perfectly free to buy, enjoy, and develop for something else."
with
"Apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock."
For some reason, for a lot of geeks, it's never enough to just like something else that's not Apple. They have to LOUDLY TELL EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LIKE APPLE TOO and this despite the fact that nobody's ever been forced to buy Apple.
Lack of credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/ [tbray.org]...
Maybe if he had tried 3 or 4 other phones and then settled on Android, his opinion would have weight.
This guy had never owned a "fancy phone" until 15 months ago and now he's an expert? Seriously Google, is this the best you can do?
Re:Lack of credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, if it were his *first* smartphone, how could it *not* be the best he'd ever owned?
Exactly! (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist! How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never actually had a "smart" or otherwise fancy phone before, so this is by far the nicest I've owned.
What kind of technologist bought his first smartphone a little over a year ago? And declares his very first one, The Best! It makes me question his methodology for making decisions
Re:Lack of credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of technologist bought his first smartphone a little over a year ago?
Smartphone penetration has been growing slowly. I'm in a tech field. I got to play with friends G1s, iPhones, and BlackBerrys. They all had drawbacks I found unacceptable at the time. I did like the iPhone best except for Apple's walls, but I wasn't about to touch the thing until it could at least do MMS, which I'd had for years already.
So I bought my very first smarthpone, an iPhone, in July 2009, about 9 months ago. It is indeed the best smartphone I have ever owned. It isn't, however, the best s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno, if it were a good rake I might sell it on Craigslist.
A critic, but not direct opponent of swpats (Score:4, Informative)
Tim's critical of software patents, but his position is that there's just an implimentation problem - with good tweaking it could work. Kinda disappointing that he's not pushing for abolition. Surprising too given his experience in web dev and XML. Related info:
swpat.org is a publicly-editable wiki - help in expanding this info would be very welcome and useful.
correcting myself: he's turned against them (Score:4, Informative)
While verifying my sources just now, I found that Tim is, since February 2010, against software patents. Glad to hear it.
I've updated the wiki.
He's right. (Score:5, Insightful)
With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.
As an owner of many Apple computers from the Apple ][ all the way to today, it's thoroughly depressing to have watched this happen. But I guess Apple's always been schizophrenic about opennness. One one hand you have Woz distributing schematics, the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard, embracing of open-sourced software & development tools, lack of copy protection on their OS, replacing drm music with watermarking, etc. But then you've got them suing Franklin & Pystar, suing HTC, their absurdly paternalistic App market, a closed-down iPad, etc. I guess there's always been a bit of hypocrisy and self-contradiction [youtube.com] with Apple.
But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary. Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer. And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?
I guess Apple II isn't forever.
Re:He's right. (Score:5, Interesting)
But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary.
Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date? Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?
The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web. Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.
You can write any web application you want, and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it. HTML5 has great support in Safari.
You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform, using one of the best development environments in Xcode.
You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment. The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store. Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace. Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues, quality control issues, etc. Some of it has to do with branding, things they don't want to be associated with. Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience. And yes, some of it has to do with business.
What I would like to see Apple do, and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store. Google Android will push them to do this, if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.
Invariably, Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually, before they erode mindshare.
Consider the history of iPhone:
- Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.
- Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.
- Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.
Well, Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0. I'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning, I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier "smartphones," i.e. overly complex process management, and battery use issues. As hardware evolves, battery life is less of a problem, and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.
If they did address multi-tasking and application installation, what would all of you guys bitch about? Oh, right. AT&T.
Disclaimer: I own stock in Apple and Google.
Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism! (Score:3, Insightful)
XML... (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right, though...
Re:XML... (Score:5, Funny)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using it enough.
Re:XML... (Score:5, Funny)
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<reply xmlns="http://slashdot.org/xmlns/reply">
<content xml:lang="enUS">True.</content>
<content xml:lang="frFR">Vrai.</content>
<content xml:lang="it">Vero.</content>
<content xml:lang="hr">Istinto.</content>
</reply>
Re:XML... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hint - Tim designed it as a markup language, you know - that's why it's right there in the name. For that sort of thing, it's pretty good (and keep in mind that "sorta looks like SGML" was a requirement, just as Java had to look "sorta like C++", to get existing developers to learn it).
The fact that it has since been used not for markup, but as a general-purpose tree and even graph description language (configs, SOAP packets, etc) isn't his fault.
Walled garden it may be (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/ [wired.com]
Has anyone thought to ask (Score:4, Interesting)
just what the point of this hire is? Apple-bashing aside, is it just to put the shiny open-source face on Google? That didn't exactly save his previous employer [sun.com], who also hired him for apparent PR value and where he accomplished nothing of sufficient significance to merit inclusion on his Wikipedia bio [wikipedia.org].
Perhaps if Apple is very, very lucky, Google will hire Jonathan Schwartz too.
Sad propaganda from the Chief of the Nerd Police (Score:3, Insightful)
All you need to ask yourself is why did he even say the word "iPhone" at all? He just got hired by Google. WTF has iPhone got to do with anything? Seriously, ask yourself that. None of the answers are good for Google.
The misinformation was also very sad, since he is someone who has contributed mightily in the past. He should at least have the standards of a Gizmodo review. It was sad to see him say the Internet is locked down on iPhone when it is clearly not in any way locked down, nor is it proprietary like Microsoft or Adobe. It was also sad to see him say that iPhone has limited the conversation on the Internet when it's clearly drawn an even larger audience to the conversation, providing many people with the first Internet device that they could master, causing many people to discover text messaging or Twitter and so on for the first time. Not only that but these are the very first native app purchases and installs for many users. Also sad that he thinks the successful, popular, and malware-free iPhone App Store should change to be more like the fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market. And he clearly doesn't understand that App Store is not the only place to get iPhone apps, it is only 1 of 2 app platforms on iPhone ... App Store is entirely optional. The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server. The alternative is there already if App Store is not for you. Why does it bother the Nerd Police so much that users on iPhone have their own choice of either managed or unmanaged apps? With all that has happened with Windows malware and botnets, why is it so important that *phone users* should be exposed to a native malware risk?
But this is the guy who said he would never type on a virtual keyboard and how awful iPhone was for having that, how stupid the users were for not being able to type on the device (he imagined) until he got a G1 with a much worse virtual keyboard than iPhone and said it was OK, he could live with it. So it's actually not surprising to see him talking out of his ass rather than actually trying the gear, learning about it, finding out about it.
Imagine if Google had hired a hardware chief instead, and announced they were making a "true Google phone" like so many have asked for. I think that would have been a much more interesting move, and they could have done it without saying "iPhone." Well, maybe not. Too bad.
Walled garden construction kit (Score:5, Interesting)
One reason Android beat out Openmoko was because Google was willing to make a platform that carriers could turn into a walled garden if they wanted to, while Openmoko was designed to NOT be locked down.
Sure, technically Google isn't doing evil here. They're just enabling AT&T to do it.
How to spice things up... (Score:3, Funny)
Whether you are for Apple or for Google, you will eventually get tired of the conversation. So here is how to add some spice.
"Well, I mean OS X and Android are both Unix derivitaves, so as long as we're supporting open source I'm all for it."
Hilarity ensues on many levels.
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you mean Nokia, not RIM.
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure you mean Nokia, not RIM.
No, he said smartphones. A smartphone is defined as being a device with few enough sales that the iphone looks like a serious competitor in comparison. Nokia do not make smartphones.
Re:Surprising? (Score:4, Informative)
So the Nokia N95 and E90 weren't smartphones ? Funny, because I could do stuff with those phones 5 years ago that I *still* can't do with an iPhone.
Re:The bird still sings in its gilded cage (Score:5, Informative)
Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.
Yes, because if Apple allowed pictures of women in bikinis [cultofmac.com], uncensored dictionaries [wordpress.com] or mentioning the name of a competitor [reghardware.co.uk] on the iPhone, the "solid single platform" would fragment into a dozen incompatible versions, right?
Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... (Score:5, Insightful)
My opinion changed when they stopped releasing text-only copies of public domain works through Google Books.
I am rather concerned about Google and Apple, and primarily support alternatives.
I won't buy Apple products though and only grudgingly do business with Google these days.
Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, chris.travers@GMAIL.COM, your Google boycott rings a tad hollow.
Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... (Score:5, Funny)
lol you have a hotmail account
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My opinion changed when they stopped releasing text-only copies of public domain works through Google Books.
Care to substantiate that claim?
As far as I see, Public Domain books can be downloaded in the PDF and EPUB format, for free. And there's a plain text version.
Example: "The origin of species" By Charles Darwin [google.com]
PS: Reposting this since I don't have mod points and the anonymous user's post is currently at 0.
Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... (Score:4, Informative)
But I'm sure that's so much better than actively locking people out of your store while signing things up as exclusive.
Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?
What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.
Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.
Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?
Wow.
Re:Opinion of Google is Changing... (Score:5, Informative)
You're missing context. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html [nytimes.com]
Apparently, Apple considered Google's Android a stab in the back. So now Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) is off Apple's board of directors and Apple is suing HTC for patent infringement (Google is not named, but is the indirect target).
I'm surprised this whole fight hasn't gotten more coverage on Slashdot. In any case, I'm squarely in Google's corner on this issue. We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets.
Re: (Score:3)
And I was playing DRM-free mp3 music long before there was an iPod or iTunes.
Apple might be 'frist' in some things, but not much...
Re:Gotta love freetards (Score:4, Insightful)
Just gonna burn some karma here since you've unfortunately been modded 0 flamebait:
As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:
For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10
You sir, are absolutely right, no matter how much we people who read slashdot, we denizens of the extreme right hand tail of the user bell curve, wish it weren't so.