Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: wetpixel on 12 May 2010 01:50 In article <Xns9D6ADABB3B7D8noonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: > "Your Name" <your.name(a)isp.com> wrote in news:hrfi0d$tdp$1(a)lust.ihug.co.nz: > > > Well, it's from Apple, so it wouldn't have been as big a disaster as thoe > > others. :-) > > > > > > Yes, that Micro$oft Newton was a total flop! Wow, now I see why those other guys hassled you earlier. The context was about making a CPU of a general level work well as a processor for a portable. The context was not about apple having only successes and no failure at the consumer-product level. So it's spurious for anyone to dump on Apple for a 15-year-old commercial product failure when that wasn't any part of the thread.
From: Walter Bushell on 12 May 2010 11:41 In article <110520101936069651%wetpixel(a)news.news>, wetpixel <wetpixel(a)news.news> wrote: > Right; you're going to swing against every hardware expert based on > what kind of knowledge? > If there are really no valid technical reasons against building a full > computer in a tablet, then most laptop makers would be coming to market > soon, because Apple just broke trail for them. Ah, no software. Any tablet coming soon will have to accommodate software moved up from phones and provide hooks for that interface, as that is what the developers have knowledge of. To run a computer OS that OS would have to be changed to work with touch screens. Not, I think a trivial upgrade. -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
From: Todd Allcock on 12 May 2010 14:41 "wetpixel" <wetpixel(a)news.news> wrote in message news:110520101936069651%wetpixel(a)news.news... > In article <siegman-3DEF12.11491930042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, > AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > >> 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. > > > So, you're saying that Apple could have put a full OS on it and > actually gotten full computer performance, if not as much battery life? > I wonder where you get your info. > Yes, a tablet may one day be able to do all those things ith similar > performance and battery life as this has. It cannot be done today -- > and that's according to every report from every company considering it. > Apple may even intend to do such a thing in the future, but seeing that > as a possible future now is _not_ a valid condemnation of what you have > available right now. You missed the point- JF conceded performance and battery issues, and specfically acknowledged "limited functionality and capabilities." No one expects an iPad to have the full abilities and performance of a laptop or desktop. He, like I, refers to the artificially imposed restraints placed on the device- the inability to download files from the web in Safari, the messed up file handling in general, which makes the device dependant on "syncing" with a computer, rather than transferring files via flash drives, etc. These functions don't require "computer level" performance, but the lack of them make the deivce unsuitable for long-time use without access to another computer to sync to. >> 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 > > > Right; you're going to swing against every hardware expert based on > what kind of knowledge? What "hardware experts" are these? I didn't see any hardware experts deem an iPad unsuitable for file handling, or for running apps written with unofficial APIs or third-party programming tools. Apple made the design decisions they did for their own reasons. I'm sure many if not most were to provide a excellent user experience, but some were likely for monetary interests- whether it be the sale of high margin accessories (a "camera connector" or card reader) or the insurance that the device couldn't cannibalize the sale of Macbooks by providing an acceptible substitute at a much lower cost. > If there are really no valid technical reasons against building a full > computer in a tablet, then most laptop makers would be coming to market > soon, because Apple just broke trail for them. Again, you completely misconstrued JF's point- he wasn't claiming the iPad could or should run a desktop-class OS, just that some features that wouldn't significantly change the hardware prevent it from being used as a laptop substitute by many. > >> 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. > > > Do you really find that inappropriate? > Everyone but OSS retains such control, and some are downright violent > about it. Apple does it up front, with the lowest costs to developers > around, and takes all the duty of distribution for a percentage -- it's > been a lot better than any market channel I can think of, for all > parties. but some absolutists see the potential for, what, Apple to > decide against a Chinese duplicate of a word processor that isn't new > at all and violates trademarks? True. But Apple then "abuses" that power by blocking apps that don't break the law by banning "bikini apps" or apps with "limited functionality" or apps that "duplicate core functionality." Am I so childlike that I need Apple to decide a stupid free app isn't functional enough? Or is Apple so afraid I'll like some developer's alternative music player more than iTunes that they have to block distribution of it? So, yes, I find that innapropriate. Apple's only criteria for approving apps should be that they don't harm the device, and that they're legal. Anything else is a decision for the end-user. >> 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.) > > Seriously? You think Apple has control over media going into it? Some- take your iPad on the road, and try to buy and download an MP3 from Amazon... > Don't you know you can import aany of this stuff into iTunes > separately? Apple makes sure people know this. Which again, makes this portable "computer," just a peripheral for another computer. > Do you think Apple forces marketing screens up whenever the device si > connected to iTunes, or something like that? > I've only ever heard Apple reps suggest importing into iTunes, never > buying much from iTunes Store in general. As long as you have a computer handy, yes. But a device with the storage and power of an iPad needn't be reliant on a desktop music manager- it should be able to import media into its library by itself. I've got 5+ year-old PDAs with a fraction of the iPad's speed, memory, or storage, that can manage to pull that off. Again, that's a design decision Apple made- not an inherent limitation forced by hardware limitations. On any other platform, a third-party app would "fill in the gaps" and provide the functionality Apple chose not to, except Apple had the foresight to see to that by playing "Lord of the Apps" and controlling the drawbridge at the front of the app store. >> 3) Lets Apple enforce whatever DRM restrictions it or other large media >> firms want to bribe Congress into passing. > > Apple has no interest in pushing DRM restrictions; but Apple isn't the > copyright holder. They are merely trying to cooperate while the rest of > the industry figures such stuff out. They have been explicit about > this. > But I guess Apple haters gotta hate, huh? Well, the alternative would be to let users do what they will at arms' length. For example, on other mobile platforms, I can email myself an MP3, or a link to content on my media server, download it, save it to my device, and add it to my device library, all without a computer within a hundred miles of me. Sure, I might be a "bad guy" and use this functionality to steal MP3s from a friends' computer, but I might be simply sending an album I own, or TV show I recorded to my wife's device who's currently out of town on a business trip and needs a laugh. The iP* devices prevent this, using "the industry" as a scapegoat. That it might conveniently lead to an iTunes song or TV episode purchase is just a lucky coincidence. >> None of these three reasons are of course at all admirable > > Not if you get them all wrong, no. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between. Both "sides" are perfectly plausible, and your belief will be colored by your perception- I'm not anti-Apple as much as I'm just plain cynical. To place the faith in Apple that you apparently do requires me to place faith in a corporation that has obligations to shareholders, and, frankly, requires I believe that Apple is inherently more trustworthy and altruistic than all the other corporations who also have it in their best interest to wring every possible dime from me, preferably by convincing me it's in my best interest. Placing Apple on that type of pedestal all by themselves requires a leap of faith I'm unwilling to take! Many of the fervent Apple fans like to believe the "Apple Bashers" think Apple is _worse_ than company X, Y, and Z. Perhaps the real zealots do- I'm an agnostic- I think Apple, the business, is _no_different_ than company X, Y, Z, and accept their rationalizations with the same skepticism I'd accept them from Microsoft, Dell, Google, General Motors, Exxon-Mobile, or anyone else. If Dell removed a feature from a laptop and tried to feed me any explanation other than "it saved us money," or built it with a proprietary slot or connector to only accept Dell-branded accessories with any excuse other than "so we can upsell you," I wouldn't believe them either. And no excuse is more suspect, IMO, than "it's for your own good/protection"- which is the catch all that seems to cover app store policies, missing "complicated" features, and the inability to download content from the web outside the safe walled garden of iTunes- the three big stumbling blocks preventing autonomous operation of iP* devices without the need for a computer to sync to.
From: Steve Fenwick on 12 May 2010 23:10
In article <oDCGn.4666$0M5.3593(a)newsfe07.iad>, "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > "wetpixel" <wetpixel(a)news.news> wrote in message > news:110520101936069651%wetpixel(a)news.news... > > In article <siegman-3DEF12.11491930042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, > > AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > > > Apple made the design decisions they did for their own reasons. I'm sure > many if not most were to provide a excellent user experience, but some were > likely for monetary interests- whether it be the sale of high margin > accessories (a "camera connector" or card reader) The lack of a standard USB connector was almost certainly driven by industrial design requirements, and the perception that most users would not use it, given the other design decisions ("appliance" vs. "not a computer"). > True. But Apple then "abuses" that power by blocking apps that don't break > the law by banning "bikini apps" or apps with "limited functionality" or > apps that "duplicate core functionality." Am I so childlike that I need > Apple to decide a stupid free app isn't functional enough? Or is Apple so > afraid I'll like some developer's alternative music player more than iTunes > that they have to block distribution of it? So, yes, I find that > innapropriate. Apple's only criteria for approving apps should be that they > don't harm the device, and that they're legal. Anything else is a decision > for the end-user. The other problem is that for most users, if they install an app that, say, runs the battery down fast but otherwise "seems to work", it will be Apple bearing the cost of the user complaint (Genius Bar visit and/or AppleCare calls). Steve -- steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com "Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!" |