Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: AES on 30 Apr 2010 14:49 In article <4bda9f4b$0$24374$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > The Ipad isn't a computer, it is an appliance. If you want a computer, > buy a laptop or netbook. Entirely true statement, so far as I can see, and a valid suggestion. The sad point, however, is that the iPad _could_ have been a computer, and a damn nice one -- even with somewhat limited functionality and some missing features and capabilities compared to full-bore laptops or netbooks, in order to keep cost and size down and battery life up. But, it still could have been a modestly featured but very useful real computer, useful as a secondary computer for "real computer users" _and_ at the same time a great appliance for the large market segment that is now buying it -- and it still could have had a user interface as easy to use for that larger market as the actual iPad does. It seems clear to many of us that it was not designed and programmed as a computer, however, NOT because of any valid technical reasons or limitations, and not really because of any serious market concerns. It was designed the way it is because this: 1) Lets Apple retain absolute control over what goes into it and what is programmed for it. How Apple actually exercises that control is a totally separate issue; but unless an iPod is "broken out of jail" by someone -- note that very vivid and appropriate term, jailbreaking -- Apple _retains_ that ultimate control. 2) Lets Apple retain rigorous control over the marketing of media content that is intended for and goes into the device. (Same second sentences as preceding paragraph.) 3) Lets Apple enforce whatever DRM restrictions it or other large media firms want to bribe Congress into passing. None of these three reasons are of course at all admirable
From: Warren Oates on 30 Apr 2010 15:41 In article <siegman-ECC361.11070030042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > Wile I'm thinking about these questions, let me check a factual point: > My understanding is that all DVD players marketed today are required by > Federal law to have a built-in capability such that the DVD itself (that > is, signals read from the DVD by the player) can temporarily disable the > Fast Forward button or other similar commands that may be issued from > the remote or front-panel controls. The DVD standard allows the author to disable _everything_ on the remote, piece by piece or all-at-once, while authoring, if needed. It's not temporary, though: once you've disabled functions on the remote, they're permanently disabled for that particular DVD. The US federal guvamint has no say in the matter, however. Where did you get that idea? -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: nospam on 30 Apr 2010 16:11 In article <siegman-3DEF12.11491930042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > The sad point, however, is that the iPad _could_ have been a computer, > and a damn nice one -- even with somewhat limited functionality and some > missing features and capabilities compared to full-bore laptops or > netbooks, in order to keep cost and size down and battery life up. considering that every such attempt was a miserable failure, what would be the point? > But, it still could have been a modestly featured but very useful real > computer, useful as a secondary computer for "real computer users" _and_ > at the same time a great appliance for the large market segment that is > now buying it -- and it still could have had a user interface as easy to > use for that larger market as the actual iPad does. larger market??? the ipad sold more units in one month than all tablets combined in the past *year*. > It seems clear to many of us that it was not designed and programmed as > a computer, however, NOT because of any valid technical reasons or > limitations, and not really because of any serious market concerns. It > was designed the way it is because this: > > 1) Lets Apple retain absolute control over what goes into it and what > is programmed for it. How Apple actually exercises that control is a > totally separate issue; but unless an iPod is "broken out of jail" by > someone -- note that very vivid and appropriate term, jailbreaking -- > Apple _retains_ that ultimate control. not any different than something like an xbox. microsoft windows phone 7 is going to do the same thing. > 2) Lets Apple retain rigorous control over the marketing of media > content that is intended for and goes into the device. (Same second > sentences as preceding paragraph.) anyone can load any media they want into it > 3) Lets Apple enforce whatever DRM restrictions it or other large media > firms want to bribe Congress into passing. it's not up to apple. the media companies want it. apple doesn't and has said so. music no longer has drm. > None of these three reasons are of course at all admirable or correct.
From: Fa-groon on 30 Apr 2010 16:44 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:49:19 -0700, AES wrote (in article <siegman-3DEF12.11491930042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>): > In article <4bda9f4b$0$24374$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> The Ipad isn't a computer, it is an appliance. If you want a computer, >> buy a laptop or netbook. > > Entirely true statement, so far as I can see, and a valid suggestion. > > The sad point, however, is that the iPad _could_ have been a computer, > and a damn nice one -- even with somewhat limited functionality and some > missing features and capabilities compared to full-bore laptops or > netbooks, in order to keep cost and size down and battery life up. And a Dodge PT Cruiser could have been a damn nice race car too. Guess what? Dodge didn't want to make a race car, they wanted to make a transportation appliance. But you do see my point, don't you? The iPad is EXACTLY what Apple wanted it to be. No more, no less. <snip>
From: Edwin on 30 Apr 2010 16:45
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:39:54 -0600, Lewis wrote: > In article <siegman-3DEF12.11491930042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, > AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > >> 2) Lets Apple retain rigorous control over the marketing of media >> content that is intended for and goes into the device. (Same second >> sentences as preceding paragraph.) >> >> 3) Lets Apple enforce whatever DRM restrictions it or other large media >> firms want to bribe Congress into passing. > > These are utter bullshit. The iPad (and iPhone) will play whatever media > you want to throw at them. I want to throw Flash media at them. > They do not require DRM anything to play > media. So what does "jailbreaking" mean again? > Unlike your television, for example. Since when does television need DRM? |