And do you honestly believe that it is a bad thing that ordinary, unsavvy with computers users will not immediately be able to install applications from unverified sources?
Yes I do. At least as long as it is required for them to be signed by Apple issued certificates.
As for the Big Brother reference, it was not name-calling. Apple specifically said we are not like the faceless, nameless corporate nightmare (then IBM, later Microsoft). Apple was different.
And now they have looked their customers computers down harder than Microsoft ever did and have taken from their users the freedom to choose. They have become what they fought against.
Yes, I have. And I can confidently say that Mac OS X, even today after a decade of evolution and sweeping changes, is clearly a direct descendant of NeXTStep and has little in common with System 7. I'll also reiterate what others said -- there is everything wrong with Gates' statement.
I disagree that Apple's goal was lock-in. If it was, they'd probably make the interactive textbooks iOS applications, similar to what PushPopPress did, instead of this bastardized version of epub.
Quotes from the linked post like this: "The ability to control the size of each column and column gap was recently discussed in the CSS WG. The Group decided that allowing setting of individual column width and column gap width is not a feature considered for the first REC of this document.", suggest, to me at least, that Apple created their proprietary format because standards didn't and still don't cover the fictionality they have in mind for these interactive books. I'd rather Apple do that than hastily muscle their implementation into the standards.
Yes, it sounds like almost all of these features were proposed (and rejected) by the committee (I'm assuming here that 'fictionality' is a thinko for 'functionality' :-).
The settings for column width and column gap width, in particular, sound like they'd be critical for making a really attractive ebook. If the epub 3 standard doesn't support such basic functionality, there's a problem.
This isn't quite the same as the stuff Microsoft pulled -- MS created tools that claimed to generate "HTML" (but which in reality only worked in Internet Explorer) and encouraged their use on the public web. Apple isn't claiming these things are ePub 3 (or any other standard format), and in fact they're explicitly forbidding their use in a generic context. I'm not a fan of their licensing restrictions, but at least they're not claiming (or even implying) in any way that these ebooks are standards-based.
Which is compltely idiotic business model for Netflix. They can sell their original content directly to me. Unlike traditional TV content producers, they don't have to rely on (and split profits with) third party distributors.
I suspect you are right, but I sure as hell hope you are not.
Only a very small subset of the population torrents movies. Look only to redbox, Netflix, Amazon, motion picture producers even cable companies to see they are all posting huge revenues. Your assment seems to be based on your friends, not the market at large. (Notice I said Rev rather than profit as revs show that people are paying.)
I'd rather pay 8 dollars a month for hassel free streaming and millions of other people would too. This is big business.
Lack of empathy is the definition of psychopathy. A psychopath will look at someone ran over on the street and think "too bad it ruined that nice jacket" or something similarly disjointed form the fact that a human being is dead. Stallman's comment is similarly unempathetic.
No hard feelings; nice little site you have. I would drop reference to bitter humor from "hire me" page though; not many bosses I know like bitter people.
Lots of people liked tablets, and portable music players, and small and light laptops, and smartphones before Apple. Mostly geeks and not "lots" in the same sense as "lots of people bought iPods/iPads" but there was still a kernel of utility that people could clearly see the value in. IVR is a big step beyond any of those.
And every additional year makes your point even more relevant — I can understand, even if it is just subconsciously, that one cannot fit all the things I expect in a 6 or 12 month release cycle. I cannot accept the same for a 60 month cycle, even though I do know that that’s not how software development works (cf. mythical man month, etc.)
"Let's be clear: Apple changed its delivery pattern for iPhone. It's a delay, and a big one.” Followed by absolutely no evidence supporting the statement.
They're simply moving their release schedule closer to Christmas, which makes perfect sense. Just imagine how many hubbies will buy their wife an iPhone 5 for Christmas! A June-July release means that people feel it's already "old" by the time December comes and will likely just wait for the new one that "just around the corner anyways".
It is way too early to proclaim that history is repeating itself. 20 years ago Apple were a rudderless ship. Today they are on of the most efficiently operating computer companies out there. They have a vision, they have a solid foundation on which to build, and they have the resources to execute rapidly on that vision.
>Today they are on of the most efficiently operating computer companies out there. They have a vision, they have a solid foundation on which to build, and they have the resources to execute rapidly on that vision.
Sounds like you're talking about Apple of 1982-84. Apple that had had a several years long run under Jobs. Btw, the vision they execute today is the vision outlined in the Jobs' 30 years old Macintosh business plans.
And do you honestly believe that it is a bad thing that ordinary, unsavvy with computers users will not immediately be able to install applications from unverified sources?