Apple Products and their Business Model


Technology

1 to 50 of 284 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is an attempt to take the Apple discussion brought up here into another place. Hopefully we can keep this a civil discussion on merits of a business model.

Anguish wrote:
This product is very much in a state of uncertainty right now. What it has going for it is: it's an Apple product. The thing is that this calendar year there are going to be a number of competing products released by non-Apple companies (such as HP) that at this point spec out as being "better" than the iPad. With any luck, this product will not become the dominant product. When it comes to format wars, like VHS vs Beta (the better product lost) and BluRay vs HD-DVD (in several key ways the better product lost), we should be circumspect in our purchases.

First off, I personally think that the iPad has alot going for it over and above just "being an Apple product." You may not like the interface, but the multitouch screen on the iPhone (and now on the iPad) is an extremely easy and enjoyable to use interface. It allows the device to be used without a mouse, without an extra piece of hardware (keyboard) and feels very natural to many people.

I have heard of the other tablets coming out, however as far as I know, there aren't any definitive specs out on them. As for the HP Slate, all that I can figure out is that it uses the atom processor, has capacitive touch capability, a webcam, and a USB 2.0 port. As far as I'm concerned, that's not nearly enough to say whether one is technologically superior or not. For all we know the A4 processor could be a quad core 1.0 gHz processor and blow the atom processor out of the water. At this point we simply don't know.

I am curious though as an aside, why do you believe HD-DVD was superior, because from all I have seen Blu-ray had some very large technical advantages that HD-DVD simply did not have.

Anguish wrote:

Buzz. Words. Web 2.0, yeah, yeah. IT guy, remember? Sorry, but the smoke & mirrors won't work.

It's not that I don't want Paizo apps. It's that I don't want Paizo to make apps for an inferior platform. That is - until and unless that inferior platform becomes a de-facto standard, at which point bemoaning the choice is merely spiteful instead of wise.

iPhone OS is a pretty good OS. It may not be as ubiquitous as Windows is, but enough people use it that support is a very very wise decision if you are supporting a mobile platform.

Anguish wrote:
What? Apple Tax. As in, the significant degree of price-inflation of similarly-capable devices that is universal to Apple products. Not imaginary at all. Cosmetics have value, I admit. But the price differential on Apple products is silly.

I really hate hearing the word Apple Tax. There is no such thing as tax from a non-governmental entity. Yes some of their products cost a little more than others, however this is to reflect the R&D costs of their products. Yes, Apple spends much more on R&D than their competitors (note that Microsoft is not a competitor for Apple in most respects, they don't make computers). In fact, I would ask you to go do some price comparisons of current mid cycle computers from Apple with equivalent computers from Dell or HP. You might be surprised at the difference lately.

Anguish wrote:

Small computer? Yes, physically. In utility, no, not even almost. I've got enough background to write code (not web pages... actual code). I know what a computer can do when it's not a closed platform. It'll do whatever I feel like. Or what you feel like. Or what any other talented/knowledgeable user wants. The iPhone and iPad aren't that. Aside from Jailbroken devices, you need the approval of Apple to share your work. That stifles community and very, very much monetizes even the silliest of Hello-World programs.

On the one hand, there's no difference between Paizo coding an iPhone/iPad app in-house and paying someone professional to do so on their behalf. On the other hand, I'll grant that if the product pays for its development, it's theoretically a win. I say theoretically because again - as should be clear by now - I'm opposed to both the hardware and the politics of this product. That's just my view though. I don't discourage profitability by any means. I just would rather encourage development on a "better" platform.

Just because we haven't said it doesn't mean we don't have experience coding as well. I understand your feelings about the coding, you would like the freedom to do whatever you would like. However that's not how the world works for most things. If you're using someone elses platform, you need to live by their rules (this is the same if you are renting an apartment or an office space - using someone elses tools in a lawn business - or writing adventures for a popular roleplaying game that has an OGL license). This is, despite what you think, the same as with Microsoft or just about any other platform. Microsoft simply has less restrictions. Android, while having less restrictions, has restrictions as well. You just are mad that the slightly (and I do mean slightly when you look at the number of approved applications) more stringent requirements mean you can't program anything you want.

To the point, Apple makes very good consumer products (I.E. products people want to buy), and there is absolutely no denying this. This gives some credence to Apple's model.

Anguish wrote:
Yes, the vast majority of apps get approved. That's absolutely beside my point of objection. That any applications can be - let alone is - forbidden on the devices is utterly and completely unacceptable to me.

I would like to know what platform out there exists where you can write whatever you want. Android has an approval process, and other stores have even more restrictions.

Anguish wrote:
But Apple's app-validation scheme is a totally different game. They have - in my opinion - no business dictating what I can and cannot execute on my device. Or share with my friends. Or sell to people I don't know.

Well, it's their platform. They created it, and if you develop for it, you accept it. The reasoning is that it gives a better user experience. So far, this model has shown to work very well.

Shadow Lodge

Just two, sort-of-off-topic thoughts here. In regards to VHS vs Betamax, VHS won because thats what the porn industry ultimately supported. Strange but think about it :)

As far as the term apple tax, while your correct in that its not a tax in the terms of the government sense, you cannot honestly tell me that a relevant chunk of cost for apple devices is simply because the name Apple. Of course this isn't limited to JUST apple, look at the stupidly over-prices Nike shoes, or Gucci handbags or other high-profile name products. But the fact is this concept of paying for a name, here labeled "Apple Tax", does exist.

Liberty's Edge

I'll throw out some comments for Anguish--

-I'm curious to know what metrics push HD-DVD ahead of BR.
-The iPad runs on the 1Ghz A4 chip.
-Explain why the iPhone OS is inferior. If this is done in another thread, someone please direct me to the argument.
-'Apple Tax'...OK...if you don't want to pay the asking price, then don't. I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for by ranting (however politely) that Apple products are pricy. There's no law saying you have to buy them.
-Jail-broken iPhones crash routinely, have latency issues, and are open to outside malicious activity and these are the real reasons you shouldn't jail-break them. Apple's chokehold on their systems is the number one reason their systems are renown for 'just working.' I, too, am a Code-genie; since you're adept at code as well, I invite you to get your hands on a Mac and dive in--yes, you can do that on a Mac. I have never seen code as beautiful and virtually seamless as that in Apple's various OS. Take a look, and you might start to understand.
-You argue that no app should ever be denied a spot in the App Store...Have you ever jail-broken an iPhone? You don't have to answer that, but if you have or know someone who has, ask them how well non-vetted apps work on their phone...
-Your last comment is the hardest one to argue; in many ways I agree with you. However, as a business, if you want to sell through me, or you want to sell for my products, it makes perfect sense that I might want to vet what you're doing.

EDIT:
Apologies to all if I'm coming on too strong tonight. I'll check myself :-)

Shadow Lodge

Ive jailbroken my iPod touch as well as more than few friends. Zero issues. YMMV of course.


Andrew Turner wrote:
-I'm curious to know what metrics push HD-DVD ahead of BR.

Initially, it was a cost saving format because HD-DVD wouldn't require much production retooling, and Blu-Ray requires a special coating to protect it since the media is so close to the surface.

Now, that point is moot.

If my memory works properly, the "quality of data" (a term I am making up on the spot, as far as I know) was better on HD-DVD. What I mean is, it suffered less degradation over time, and was less likely prone to failures... But that could very well be based on the early reader technology.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Any proof is going to be hard to find now, and even if it could be proven that HD-DVD was 10x superior to Blu-Ray, the "winning format" won't change now just due to the investment into production of Blu-Ray disks.

Liberty's Edge

::bump::

The Exchange

Andrew Turner wrote:
::bump::


Apple continues to prod Adobe.

Apple changed the iPhone OS sdk to bar any application that accesses APIs through any sort of translating intermediary layer, just days before Adobe was to release Packager for iPhone.

Rumor has it, this will spark a lawsuit.

((Not to mention what it may mean for other app makers...))


~bookmarks this thread for a later read~


Disenchanter wrote:

Apple continues to prod Adobe.

Apple changed the iPhone OS sdk to bar any application that accesses APIs through any sort of translating intermediary layer, just days before Adobe was to release Packager for iPhone.

Rumor has it, this will spark a lawsuit.

((Not to mention what it may mean for other app makers...))

This is because SJ desires to have 100% control over what he sees as the successor to the PC market - his Thoughts on Flash express very well his dislike of cross platform development tools. Flash is simply the biggest of them.

The sort of monopolistic lock down he wants isn't so strange in some markets, like that of console games. What is strange is the demonstration that he will turn on anyone and at any time by changing terms - it demonstrates that developers no longer can treat Apple as a trusted partner.

The result is, many long time Mac OS X developers will develop for Android.

Liberty's Edge

lynnfredricks wrote:

This is because SJ desires to have 100% control over what he sees as the successor to the PC market - his Thoughts on Flash express very well his dislike of cross platform development tools. Flash is simply the biggest of them.

The sort of monopolistic lock down he wants isn't so strange in some markets, like that of console games. What is strange is the demonstration that he will turn on anyone and at any time by changing terms - it demonstrates that developers no longer can treat Apple as a trusted partner.

The result is, many long time Mac OS X developers will develop for Android.

I disagree. The rules for apps development have only been updated insomuch as was legally necessary (like Google Voice, which initially trod on the contractual toes with AT&T), or technically necessary (like disallowing Flash). Updating the inclusionary rules after a developer has begun work may be frustrating, and even financially burdensome, but those are the breaks. Changing or updating developer submission and acceptance rules isn't necessarily an attack on (or turning on) any developers out of spite.

If Apple was completely opposed to cross platform applications, then I wouldn't be able to read and edit MS Office docs on my iPad, and I wouldn't be able to create iWork products and email them out as MS Office docs.

Out of curiosity, since this argument usually revolves around Flash, what other non-Flash applications rejections are you frustrated over?

NOTE: Not directed at LF, or anyone in particular:
Googling what other people are frustrated over and then parroting it as your own isn't cogent arguing, it's simply being angry because everyone else is...


Andrew Turner wrote:
lynnfredricks wrote:

This is because SJ desires to have 100% control over what he sees as the successor to the PC market - his Thoughts on Flash express very well his dislike of cross platform development tools. Flash is simply the biggest of them.

The sort of monopolistic lock down he wants isn't so strange in some markets, like that of console games. What is strange is the demonstration that he will turn on anyone and at any time by changing terms - it demonstrates that developers no longer can treat Apple as a trusted partner.

The result is, many long time Mac OS X developers will develop for Android.

I disagree. The rules for apps development have only been updated insomuch as was legally necessary (like Google Voice, which initially trod on the contractual toes with AT&T), or technically necessary (like disallowing Flash). Updating the inclusionary rules after a developer has begun work may be frustrating, and even financially burdensome, but those are the breaks. Changing or updating developer submission and acceptance rules isn't necessarily an attack on (or turning on) any developers out of spite.

If Apple was completely opposed to cross platform applications, then I wouldn't be able to read and edit MS Office docs on my iPad, and I wouldn't be able to create iWork products and email them out as MS Office docs.

Out of curiosity, since this argument usually revolves around Flash, what other non-Flash applications rejections are you frustrated over?

MicroSoft, a.k.a. Bill Gates, owns a nice chunk of Apple. Of course Office files are readable.

Liberty's Edge

Sharoth wrote:

MicroSoft, a.k.a. Bill Gates, owns a nice chunk of Apple. Of course Office files are readable.

MS doesn't own any Apple stock anymore. The entity (not Gates, specifically) once purchased $150M in non controlling shares, but those were all sold back to Apple ages ago, and at a profit to Apple.

It would make poor business sense for Apple not to support MS Office, but none of it may matter much longer, since I understand MS is moving to a Free-ish web version of the suite.


Unclear app store enforcement has Apple supporters changing their tune.


Steve Jobs is losing his cool, hints that app developers talking about problems with the app store are "lying S.O.B.s." (Article might not be safe for work.)

Shadow Lodge

I have to laugh when I hear people complain about the Apple premium. How much more is a computer worth that lasts half again as long and requires 1/2 or less technical support? If you are your own technical support and value your time at $0/ hour then Windows is an easy call. If you support family/ friends or don't feel like dealing with anti-virus and an unreliable OS then Apple is an easy call. I hate working on other people's computers so I bought wife/ daughters/ mother Macs and don't worry about it. Maybe I paid a bit more for those computers but the fact that I don't have to deal with supporting them more than makes up for the price difference.

All that said, I'm growing a little worried about Apple, their increasing cockiness, the above mentioned iron fist control over the App store, all seems like the same sort of attitude Microsoft had before they lost their magic. I still like Apple's desktop computers and iPods but I will likely not buy an iPad or an iPhone because I don't care for the whole locked down status on the iPhone.


Disenchanter wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
-I'm curious to know what metrics push HD-DVD ahead of BR.

Initially, it was a cost saving format because HD-DVD wouldn't require much production retooling, and Blu-Ray requires a special coating to protect it since the media is so close to the surface.

Now, that point is moot.

If my memory works properly, the "quality of data" (a term I am making up on the spot, as far as I know) was better on HD-DVD. What I mean is, it suffered less degradation over time, and was less likely prone to failures... But that could very well be based on the early reader technology.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Any proof is going to be hard to find now, and even if it could be proven that HD-DVD was 10x superior to Blu-Ray, the "winning format" won't change now just due to the investment into production of Blu-Ray disks.

At the time of the "fall" where Pioneer and other companies officially decided to support blu-ray, I was working for Dell. Our statistics at the time showed that at Triple layer a blu-ray disc holds 100 GB of data and a HD-DVD only held 50 GB. I know this is an older post, but I think it's still relevant in the sense that something not as well know as this tipped it over the edge.

Ogre wrote:

I have to laugh when I hear people complain about the Apple premium. How much more is a computer worth that lasts half again as long and requires 1/2 or less technical support? If you are your own technical support and value your time at $0/ hour then Windows is an easy call. If you support family/ friends or don't feel like dealing with anti-virus and an unreliable OS then Apple is an easy call. I hate working on other people's computers so I bought wife/ daughters/ mother Macs and don't worry about it. Maybe I paid a bit more for those computers but the fact that I don't have to deal with supporting them more than makes up for the price difference.

All that said, I'm growing a little worried about Apple, their increasing cockiness, the above mentioned iron fist control over the App store, all seems like the same sort of attitude Microsoft had before they lost their magic. I still like Apple's desktop computers and iPods but I will likely not buy an iPad or an iPhone because I don't care for the whole locked down status on the iPhone.

What enrages me is that there's a lot of good apps that Apple rejects for no real reason, and a lot of crap apps that have been approved because someone knows how to rub apple the right way. Furthermore, the iPad is GLUED SHUT??? WTF? That was the real straw that broke the camels back for me.

Personally I can't wait for congress to pass the bill requiring companies to disclose sending a call to a call center overseas and imposing a tax. End result, better tech calls hopefully.

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:
Unclear app store enforcement has Apple supporters changing their tune.

I had this app, and what the very anti-Apple article doesn't tell you is that the app crashed again and again, and when leaving the app, iPad would act sluggish until conducting a soft reboot.

The app store developer agreement specifically states that Apple may remove apps for "...other reasons as Apple determines..."

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:
Steve Jobs is losing his cool, hints that app developers talking about problems with the app store are "lying S.O.B.s." (Article might not be safe for work.)

Absolutely not what he said or implied.

The article's title is misleading, the writer's tone patently anti-Apple; but at least they did include the actual quotes so readers might realize all that.


Andrew Turner wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Unclear app store enforcement has Apple supporters changing their tune.

I had this app, and what the very anti-Apple article doesn't tell you is that the app crashed again and again, and when leaving the app, iPad would act sluggish until conducting a soft reboot.

The app store developer agreement specifically states that Apple may remove apps for "...other reasons as Apple determines..."

Even if all of that is true (and I am not trying to suggest it isn't), do you not agree that it would have been better if Apple had stated the reasons it was removed? I mean other than "too widgetty?"

App coders aren't required to actually test on the hardware. They can use what is essentially an emulator. It is possible that the app writers in question aren't aware of these issues. (Is it possible to send a bug report to the app writers from within the iPhone OS?)

If the developer was told "your app crashes frequently, and appears to have a memory leak (guessing from the sluggish report)" they could at least know what to target to get back on the app store.

This assumes, of course, that the developer was telling the truth. ;-P

Andrew Turner wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Steve Jobs is losing his cool, hints that app developers talking about problems with the app store are "lying S.O.B.s." (Article might not be safe for work.)

Absolutely not what he said or implied.

The article's title is misleading, the writer's tone patently anti-Apple; but at least they did include the actual quotes so readers might realize all that.

I'm not so certain I agree with you Mr. Turner.

Look at it this way, had Steve Jobs posted the following quote:

"We're doing the best we can. We're fixing mistakes. But what happens is: people lie. And then they run to the press and tell people about this oppression, and they get their 15 minutes of fame. We don't run to the press and say: 'This guy is a son of a b~%*% liar!' We don't do that."

On these forums (under a false name), how do you think the forum regulars would take it? I am wagering they would be far less accepting than you to the person who posted it when questioned about specific examples.


Disenchanter wrote:
Steve Jobs is losing his cool, hints that app developers talking about problems with the app store are "lying S.O.B.s." (Article might not be safe for work.)

Wireds' article on the same interview.

They don't even mention anything about the app developer part.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Liberty's Edge

Pretty good way to put it in perspective. The first time I read it, in the Register's article, I saw it as the developers calling Apple lying SOBs. But the way it seems to read now is quite different.


Disenchanter wrote:

...Look at it this way, had Steve Jobs posted the following quote:

"We're doing the best we can. We're fixing mistakes. But what happens is: people lie. And then they...

And?


Personally, my problem with Apple was summed up in another thread. Basically, I feel like I don't own anything made by Apple, I merely rent. You can only use this cell carrier, you aren't allowed to change your own batteries, and other such nonsense. The products are truly amazing, but until the business model changes I will never support them.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Personally, my problem with Apple was summed up in another thread. Basically, I feel like I don't own anything made by Apple, I merely rent. You can only use this cell carrier, you aren't allowed to change your own batteries, and other such nonsense. The products are truly amazing, but until the business model changes I will never support them.

Having mentioned only the iPhone, what other Apple devices have you used?

Also, you can replace your iPhone battery, but it does void the warranty. Fortunately, you shouldn't need to do this until the phone is likely out-of-warranty, anyway.

Taking apart an iPhone is not that hard, and replacement batteries--better than what the phone ships with--can be had for $6 online.

The current policy of only being able to use AT&T is a contractual issue. The iPhone can be purchased unlocked, but without the AT&T contract, it's just a heavier iPod Touch. In many ways, this is similar to traveling overseas with your laptop and being blocked from accessing services like Hulu.com or ABC.com, because you're out of the contractual service area with regard to distribution rights.


Why would they glue the iPad shut then?

Shadow Lodge

Kakarasa wrote:
Why would they glue the iPad shut then?

Because they don't want people opening it up and goofing with it? It's also possible the glue prevents a bit of water/ dust coming into the device. Really though, who cares. If you want to open it up and tweak things then the iPad isn't the device for you. So far my wife and I have a collection of 4 iPods from 2-5 years old and none have had battery issues. Most likely they will die of other causes before they need new batteries.

What bugs me a lot more than the top being glued on is the lack of SD slots, VGA/ DVI out, and USB.

Apple is making a device people can just use, it's not targeted at hacking or self servicing, it's targeted at people who want to just pick it up and use.

Liberty's Edge

I want an iPad with no ports or buttons or openings, at all.

It remains in standby until I pick it up; the screen cues when I place all five fingers on it. It receives all incoming data wirelessly, and recharges via solid state plate relay --a table top power relay that provides electricity through cells built into the plate capable of interacting with cells in the body of the device.

Naturally, I want everything glued shut, for that seamless, no nonsense appearance.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Andrew Turner wrote:
Pretty good way to put it in perspective. The first time I read it, in the Register's article, I saw it as the developers calling Apple lying SOBs. But the way it seems to read now is quite different.

I view the register for it's humor piece BOH. But for news content, it's kind of like the New York Post for Geeks.


More of Steve Jobs' facade cracking.

And The Register may not be considered a "respectable" source by some...
But at least it provides information that can't be found elsewhere.


More inconsistencies from Steve Jobs. (This time by Wired.)


Apple supports HTML5, but only with Safari.

Wireds' article on the same thing.


Disenchanter wrote:

More of Steve Jobs' facade cracking.

And The Register may not be considered a "respectable" source by some...
But at least it provides information that can't be found elsewhere.

He may be an @%#€$¥*, but God I love that man :)

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:

Apple supports HTML5, but only with Safari.

Wireds' article on the same thing.

A more accurate title might be, "Apple demonstrates aspects of HTML5 using their Safari web browser."

Semantics; sometimes it's more than...


Andrew Turner wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:

Apple supports HTML5, but only with Safari.

Wireds' article on the same thing.

A more accurate title might be, "Apple demonstrates aspects of HTML5 using their Safari web browser."

Semantics; sometimes it's more than...

The best part is, semantics do not matter in this case.

I am pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't be let off the hook any more than Apple is, if Microsoft demonstrated the "new hottness" they were promoting - but only on IE.

Gotta have some consistency when pointing out company blunders.

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:


The best part is, semantics do not matter in this case.

I am pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't be let off the hook any more than Apple is, if Microsoft demonstrated the "new hottness" they were promoting - but only on IE.

Gotta have some consistency when pointing out company blunders.

They do matter--I don't know if you looked at the site, but Apple never does anything to suggest more than what I wrote above as a revised title.

If you (not you, D) want to find something corporately nefarious or disingenuous, then you will, no matter what is actually said or shown.


Andrew Turner wrote:
They do matter--I don't know if you looked at the site, but Apple never does anything to suggest more than what I wrote above as a revised title.

I read the articles.

Let us see what (we are told) Apple claims: [EDIT:: I just went to the showcase myself, and this is what is on the page.]

Quote:
"These web standards are open, reliable, highly secure, and efficient," the site says. "The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do."

And these are the reactions:

So when the page doesn't work in Opera or other browsers it isn't because these browsers don't support HTML5. It's because Apple uses browser sniffing and vendor prefixes, and in addition to that they aren't really testing a lot of HTML5 at all. Most of their demos seem to have got nothing to do with HTML5, as a matter of fact.
Mike Shaver, CTO of Mozilla, on Twitter wrote:
"Having difficulty suppressing my contempt for Apple's arrogant and ridiculous HTML5 positioning today. Should probably head to lunch!

(I do not know how to link to a specific Twitter post... Or even if you can.)

That is because, as of right now, Firefox, Google Chrome, and Opera "support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript."

No matter what Apple claimed, is was a serious blunder. Well, to anyone who sees a world beyond Apple (not a shot at you A. Turner).

Dark Archive

I don't really have a horse in this race, but with all of Apple's HTML5 "support" I did get a kick out of this technology review (sponsored by Microsoft ultimately, but then which tech reviews aren't paid for in some way by an interested party) that has Safari on the lowest bar of HTML5 support.

MSDN HTML5 Compatibility study

Having said that, since I'm bored and feel like avoiding yard work, I have to say that one of the things that bothers me most about dealing with Apple is their lack of transparency.

From a consumer point of view, that's fine, people in general want other people to make their decision about what is "best" for them - and Apple's marketing does a really good job at that.

I loathe dealing with Apple products at an enterprise business level. Anyone who subscribes to security review newsletters like SANS or Securityfocus sees that Apple is vulnerable to a regular, and not insubstantial number of vulnerabilities. Most of those get swept under the rug or downplayed by Apple. They don't want people to know that malware and spyware is just virulent on Macs once the scale of your deployment hits a critical mass.

I dislike how their marketing skews legitimate technology assumptions. For instance, the iPhone 3.0 OS claims to be fully encrypted. It's not, even though the marketing materials claim it is. It is only encrypted when the Exchange management tool has been used to "wipe" the device, at which point the public key of the imbedded PKI is removed. Problem is, the device is unencrypted until then, no matter hwo many times you've checked the encrypted box in iTunes, and anyone can go on YouTube to find walkthroughs on how to hack an iphone in under 10 minutes.

I dislike how their case studies never actually deal in any numbers. For instance, they claim Disney is a major deployment partner, but in having talked to someone in Disney's Messaging department the deployed number is actually less than 1%. This is misleading to large organizations who rely on case studies as a first line of research.

I find their marketing is disingeneous to people who know better - particularly their PC vs. Mac ads. Sure, they were funny in context, but MANY of the things they railed against could quite easily be transposed onto OS X in less than ideal conditions. Really? Only Vista prompted for raised credentials? OS X did, and Linux based operating systems have for, like, ever. Only Vista locked up? I've seen PLENTY of paralyzed Macs from nothing more complex than opening Safari. Anyways, neither here nor there. I've seen iTunes bust so many PCs that I cringe when install time comes.

Anyways, coffee is done, so time for yard work.

Liberty's Edge

That case study is pretty good. Thanks for the link.


I'll say.

I like that you can run some of the tests yourself on your browser of choice.

Dark Archive

No Problemo ...

As a datacenter architect guy for an international financial agency we kind of take this whole compatibility thing seriously. We support the Windows platform back to NT 4.0, and up to Win7, as well as OS X and Linux in various flavours for everything from print servers to full Virtual Desktop Infrastructures on thin clients.

When companies start banging the "we can do something you can't do" drum, we mobilize very quickly to find resources that seperate the Fact from the FUD.

I guess ultimately though, is the average consumer going to recognize where Apple might fall short? Probably not - I give them credit, Apple is really good at ignoring, or working around the corner cases, and more power to them for it. The reality is the average person uses such an insignificant amount of the computing resources available to them that they might not ever care, or ever notice.

I just wish they didn't try to pull the wool over the Enterprise and Business eyes. Large companies very quickly hit critical mass where those corner cases become reality, and Apple largely acts like the business people are the same as the consumer people, it's just "a matter of perspective" ... and is unfortunately not true.

Shadow Lodge

Disenchanter wrote:
So when the page doesn't work in Opera or other browsers it isn't because these browsers don't support HTML5. It's because Apple uses browser sniffing and vendor prefixes, and in addition to that they aren't really testing a lot of HTML5 at all. Most of their demos seem to have got nothing to do with HTML5, as a matter of fact.
Mike Shaver, CTO of Mozilla, on Twitter wrote:
"Having difficulty suppressing my contempt for Apple's arrogant and ridiculous HTML5 positioning today. Should probably head to lunch!
(I do not know how to link to a specific Twitter post... Or even if you can.)

This is all curious because many of the demos seem to work in Google Chrome on my Linux box. It's not too strange because Chrome is based on WebKit which is the same engine Safari runs but it means they are probably not sniffing specific browsers but using Javascript to check for supported elements. Poking around on the site some of the css elements (FWIW they brand it all as HTML 5 but much of it is CSS3) aren't even pure css3, they are -webkit-XXX tags which are in fact not open but are browser specific.

So yeah, it's a silly way to demonstrate 'open' technologies. I'm not sure how much of the stuff they demo is next gen HTML5/ CSS3 and how much is Apple Specific. For example calling using HTML5 tags to incorporate h264 video 'open' is pretty laughable since h264 video is licensed IP, not open at all.

Quote:

That is because, as of right now, Firefox, Google Chrome, and Opera "support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript."

No matter what Apple claimed, is was a serious blunder. Well, to anyone who sees a world beyond Apple (not a shot at you A. Turner).

Which is pretty sad because they could easily have created a demo which highlighted a lot of legitimately cool and widely supported html5/ css3 stuff. HTML5 can do a ton of killer stuff on Safari/ FireFox/ Opera.

Shadow Lodge

VagrantWhisper wrote:

I don't really have a horse in this race, but with all of Apple's HTML5 "support" I did get a kick out of this technology review (sponsored by Microsoft ultimately, but then which tech reviews aren't paid for in some way by an interested party) that has Safari on the lowest bar of HTML5 support.

MSDN HTML5 Compatibility study

Comparing an unreleased IE9 to currently shipping products is blatantly lopsided. That comparison pits a version of IE which will release "sometime" to currently shipping or even previous versions of everyone else's products.

  • Google's Chrome has already had a full version upgrade to version 5
  • Apple is releasing Safari 5 (literally tomorrow).
  • Firefox is at least a point upgrade higher than in that comparison
  • Opera is a higher version than that.

    Also, IE 9 won't work on the millions of XP systems still around. It's kind of amusing that Apple's Safari has better support for MS operating systems than IE 9 will.

    All that said... IF/ when IE is released with HTML 5 support I will be super happy. Web designers everywhere will rejoice!

  • Liberty's Edge

    0gre wrote:
    VagrantWhisper wrote:

    I don't really have a horse in this race, but with all of Apple's HTML5 "support" I did get a kick out of this technology review (sponsored by Microsoft ultimately, but then which tech reviews aren't paid for in some way by an interested party) that has Safari on the lowest bar of HTML5 support.

    MSDN HTML5 Compatibility study

    Comparing an unreleased IE9 to currently shipping products is blatantly lopsided. That comparison pits a version of IE which will release "sometime" to currently shipping or even previous versions of everyone else's products.

  • Google's Chrome has already had a full version upgrade to version 5
  • Apple is releasing Safari 5 (literally tomorrow).
  • Firefox is at least a point upgrade higher than in that comparison
  • Opera is a higher version than that.

    Also, IE 9 won't work on the millions of XP systems still around. It's kind of amusing that Apple's Safari has better support for MS operating systems than IE 9 will.

    All that said... IF/ when IE is released with HTML 5 support I will be super happy. Web designers everywhere will rejoice!

  • Huh. I didn't realize IE9 wasn't yet released.

    Shadow Lodge

    Internet Explorer Platform Preview I have no idea how feature complete it is because the only Windows system I have is XP. Even if IE9 is released tomorrow the above linked comparison is already out of date because the competition has progressed since that test.


    0gre wrote:
    All that said... IF/ when IE is released with HTML 5 support I will be super happy. Web designers everywhere will rejoice!

    Only a little bit...

    IE6 still has a good deal of the market share (from ~5% to ~25%, depending on source) because many enterprise level departments like that it "breaks Facebook and YouTube."

    Several
    articles
    to back
    this up.

    So, web developers should still be coding with IE6 in mind. Not that I suggest they do.


    0gre wrote:
    Internet Explorer Platform Preview I have no idea how feature complete it is because the only Windows system I have is XP. Even if IE9 is released tomorrow the above linked comparison is already out of date because the competition has progressed since that test.

    Don't worry about what OS you are running. I just downloaded the preview to look around, and you are "locked" into the Test Drive page. There is no "user available" way to enter URLs.

    Dark Archive

    0gre wrote:


    Comparing an unreleased IE9 to currently shipping products is blatantly lopsided. That comparison pits a version of IE which will release "sometime" to currently shipping or even previous versions of everyone else's products.

  • Google's Chrome has already had a full version upgrade to version 5
  • Apple is releasing Safari 5 (literally tomorrow).
  • Firefox is at least a point upgrade higher than in that comparison
  • Opera is a higher version than that.

  • Hey, I never said it was fair, I said it was manufacturer sponsored ;)

    Having said that though, unfortunately for the purposes of my experience Chrome and Opera are pretty much irrelevant. With few exceptions, I've seen only a handful of vertical web based applications designed with them in mind. Public consumption is another thing altogether.

    Hopefully we'll see the technology comparison updated when Safari 5 hits the ground so that those companies who rely on internal developers for their custom and vertical apps will have a level playing field to draw from.

    0gre wrote:


    Also, IE 9 won't work on the millions of XP systems still around. It's kind of amusing that Apple's Safari has better support for MS operating systems than IE 9 will.

    True enough, but given Apple's market share of what ... sliding between around 6 and 8%?

    Electronista interpretation of IDC numbers
    It seems to me that unless Apple figures out a way to gain more market share, Safari's HTML5 support will still only be in the hands of the few as well, and developers will continue to develop with Safari in mind because it's polite to, and not because there is a critical mass of people using it.

    With XP Mode and the proven ability of Windows 7 to run on even low powered machines (I have mine running on an EeePC for instance), and a rapidly increasing adoption base, I think that eventually the XP numbers will be irrelevant. Windows Server 2008 R2 supports some seriously compelling reasons for using Windows 7 as a client, and many businesses are evaluating that as their next stop after XP.


    iPhone OS 4 has changed its' name to iOS 4.

    Of note to me in the article is the quote:

    Quote:
    "To help our developers earn money." Or as his presentation slide explained a bit more fully: "To help our developers earn money so they continue to create free and low-cost apps."

    That comes directly after the statement that their iAds program has already received $60 million in advertising commitments for the remainder of the year.

    1 to 50 of 284 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Technology / Apple Products and their Business Model All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.