IPad Snivelers: Put Up or Shut Up - Engineers
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
That is an...uhh...interesting take on things.
It is a lot easier to complain about a device than to make one. But once you have that concrete object in hand, you can find all sorts of things wrong with it. It should have X, it should do Y... but the bottom line is that it exists. And that gives other companies something to compete with. But if it never existed, then no one would be pushed.
Say what you will about Apple, but they've raised the bar for everyone, whether that's Microsoft, HP, Dell, Google, Asus, or Nokia. And because of that we're getting better gear that does more and looks nicer.
For example.
He is not right. The problem is really the thousands of people who apparently do not see the app store limits as a problem. Developers are a small number in comparison to users. Users can dictate the what becomes standard, regardless of technical merit.
There are countless examples of extremely poor systems persisting exclusively due to popularity. How long did it take for DOS/Win95 to go away? There were good systems available during that time. At least underneath. But no, "I need word" and thus Microsoft happily kept DOS/Win95 around for a long time.
Making a better product is no guarantee in the slightest of it becoming a standard.
It is, as long as you align 'better' in the same way as your customers mean it. As SJ opened with "it would have to be better at this, that and the other. Netbooks aren't better at anything" and the audience cheered and laughed in support.
Head out into the ipad skeptisphere and anyone who had never seen one would be forgiven for thinking "Netbook" was the new name for the $6 million dollar man - better, stronger, faster. The digital ubermensch. Uberbuch. The livre-franca. Reality doesn't live up to it, Netbooks are what you get when you add too many ingredients to your food. The homer simpson car of computers.
Remind me, which side is the RDF supposed to affect?
This is simply not true. There is a lot of weight behind de facto standards that is difficult to overcome. Apple themselves continually have to fight against this with people entrenched in the Microsoft stack of software. Word is still the dominate word processing system in the entire world. Many people have argued that word processor X or Y is superior over the years. And they might be right. But being better will not convert all those existing Word documents and corporate policies.
As for netbooks, no one is arguing for them at all. The only thing people really care about is being able to write and sell software for the iPad without needing Apple's approval.
Which is why all Macs, iPhones, iPods Touches, and iPads support viewing and to some degree authoring of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents, and also Microsoft Exchange. In the case of Microsoft's dominance, they shrewdly chose to work with the grain, and the result is a better product for the significant number of users who need it. That is: it all comes back to what "better" means to the people with the money.
You have the wrong definition of "better". The definition that matters isn't what an engineer thinks is superior based on whatever an engineer thinks is important, the definition that matters is "will the customer select product A or B when buying a new widget".
What's needed isn't a competing product that is technically superior, it's a product that actual users will select instead of an iPad.
Wrong example. The late 80s Word 4.0 for Mac was the template. I'd class it as one of the best programs ever, if a bit crashy on the 8 MHz 68k MacPlus ...
I'd say Lotus 123 and later Excel. Perhaps also DBase3.
"Stop complaining about bad laws, and just fix the legal system already!" seems to be one of the messages. If it was really so 'easy' to fix the legal system, people wouldn't be spending time complaining about it. And "letting the EFF" fight your battles for you doesn't fix the legal system.
Now Apple has not only gone back to the pay-to-develop model, but they've also gone the way of the consoles: you only get to distribute what we say you can.
I think people are greatly underestimating the effect this will have on development. Ironically, it may have less effect on developers of small programs than large. Why would a company spend a large amount of money developing a complex application if they were not guaranteed that they could even sell the final product?
This has already happened to Google with the Google Voice app, although I imagine they have enough money to not be affected too much. There is no defence at all for this sort of system. The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support."
I've never been one to harp on about software freedom, but this is too much, and you are damn right I'm scared of it. I'm scared that the public will gleefully jump on this product and set a precedent of extremely closed platforms.
That's not really in Apple's interest, though is it?
a) A device the user can't ruin associated with your brand.
b) A device the user can ruin associated with your brand.
Which would you pick in their position?
Their gamble is that they will outsell their competitors despite this. Time will tell if they succeed. I suppose if they really start suffering they can always open their platform at a later date.
If people don't buy other stuff, they probably need to spend a bit less on support for users who have installed something bad on their devices than they would with a more open system.
Win-win.
On a related note, why is it that the position of "I don't like the closed environment and will thus invest in Android" causes such fevered responses by so many people? Is it really necessary for the author of the original article to insult people such as myself by calling us "snivelling" and to tell us to "put up or shut up"? I find this article a little embarrassing for gizmodo.
The situation is simple. If an open software platform really does produce better software, then likely Android will win in the long run. Some of us are buying into the model we think is better. We will likely recommend the same products to friends and family.
Either way it'll be interesting to see what we end up with in a few years. Hopefully Android and whatever Microsoft comes up with will prove to be serious contenders so that we don't stagnate a la IE.
Compare iPhone OS to Google Chrome OS. I understand that the browser will be the only application that can be installed on Chrome OS. Why isn't Google receive equal (or deservedly more) criticism for restricting the freedoms of its potential users and developers?
You only had to pay for the developer tools you decided to use, and I don't recall VB[3|5|5] being all that expensive. But it's been awhile since I even considered it. Assorted Borland products may have been less expensive.
Nowadays there are free .Net development tools. But I recall Microsoft as standing out in the help the give people wanting t build for their platform, back when I would still code VB for money.
Not for lack of time, clearly. Not for lack of ideas what to do there are plenty of those. Not for lack of effort or interest - many many people have been involved. Not for lack of coders, there are patches referenced. Not for lack of a place to track the issue, there was one, now two.
That's a microcosm of your humanity reaching for the stars but are unable to manage the last cohesive push and everything collapses into war, civilisation flickers out and the unthinking void closes over the solar system again sci-fi story right there. That's your Adobe can't get it's act together tale, but happening in public.
So what was lacking?
I can't help but tie everything back to the iPad this week, but isn't this missing thing in the development process exactly what Apple has and the much pointed to Netbooks and Android and ChromeOS's and Maemo's don't?
A unified vision, a benevolent dictator, a plan by which each suggested fix can be measured? GvR runs his personal is_pythonic?() filter over any suggested additions to Python, his way or the highway. Rich Hickey drives clojure and Miguel de Icaza heads up Mono.
Maybe what the suggested openpad needs is a figurehead with a vision who could step in and make decisions and force it to coalesce into a particular shape? And maybe that's incompatible with being "open" shaped. But I wouldn't mind being wrong about that.