What is Digg?78 Comments
- daeken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15First, why do you say pirating has become harder?
Second, why the hell is making it harder to steal software a bad thing? Why the hell does it seem like everyone on digg is only for open-source because it's free and will simply steal anything non-free that they want to use? - Yossarko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15So freedom is stealing whatever the hell you like?
That's not freedom, that's anarchy... - rasice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9yes MAYBE it is
- Macintel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8kuzot
Freedom on the Internet, IMO, is about expression without retribution or censorship. Your seem to think that pirating (aka anarchy and/or stealing) is the same thing. Do you realize what would happen to your Internet without the commercial incentive for companies like Apple, Microsoft or Cisco to make money off of it? Or the trickle-down innovation from those companies (mainly Apple) that gives you a Linux experience? (I assume you use Linux) Welcome to business 101. Do you think a company's right to protect their intellectual property or profits a slippery slope to an enslaved Internet? If so then please, entertain us with your theory. - gavroche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Thats not anarchy either. Maybe chaos. Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy means there are no hierarchy.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Jobs has officially stated to Newsweek, "No third party apps":
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/steve_jobs_iphone_not_opening_up.php
And then he gives a ***** reason for it; he doesn't want developers to bring down Cingular's network.
Gee, I don't ever recall hearing a story about how someone developing for a Windows Mobile device brought down a phone provider's network. Or for Palm OS. Or for Blackberry. Or for any of the many Java-enabled phones out there.
And the answer seems simple enough; just don't provide the software tools for developers to access the phone network, or to access Cingular's custom iPhone servers.
No, I think that the reason Jobs doesn't want third-party apps for the iPhone is simple. The future of Apple is providing closed-content systems, with Apple providing most or all of the content. That's what iTunes is all about. That's what the iPod is all about. That's what the Apple TV is all about. And now, that's what the iPhone is all about. Any apps that are available for iPhone, Apple wants to write them and sell them to you.
Apple's business model has evolved from making the lion's share of their profits off of hardware sales. - dotcom101010, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sweet more smart phones
- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I don't see why running OS X would benefit these devices at all."
A constant API so that developers don't need to be retrained.
A company-wide toolkit for code reuse.
Easier compatability when syncing or otherwise talking to related devices.
Shorter time to market.
You, obviously, do not code professionally for multiple devices, or even understand why you have an OS to begin with. Trust me, it's a big item. - eurleif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Why does this guy want a stand alone Apple PDA when the iPhone IS a PDA?"
Standalone PDAs don't normally require a two-year Cingular contract. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Daring Fireball (i think) had a different, more literal, interpretation of "bringing down Cingular's network". Basically, one skype app plus cheap data rates = less profits for cingular.
As soon as those two long years are up, what would Apple gain from keeping the platform closed? - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10They ain't running an OS X Embedded of any sorts. There exists no OS X Embedded.
- Airport is likely running a Linux or BSD-derivative firmware like most routers. They also have AMD chips.
- iPod runs an OS written by Pixo, former NewtonOS programmers.
- Apple/iTV is running regular ol' Mac OS X (not embedded) with a different shell than Finder.
- iPhone is running an embedded OS that looks like OS X. It doesn't run the same apps as OS X. They are proprietary iPhone-only apps. Mainly Dashboard Widget-like executables. - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You realise you've just used the words 'ultra cheap' and 'Apple' in the same context?
- BiakAtMacDotCom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The iPhone manages your calendars, you contacts, you can take notes (probably synchronizing with the upcoming new note management in Leopard) ...
Well... It (A)ssists you in managing your (P)ersonnal (D)ata in a smarter way than some PDA... So I think you can consider the iPhone is a PDA too. - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And the Newton was what? A step into the mobile hardware arena? I think it still ran its own Mobile OS.
- BiakAtMacDotCom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ naio21
So for you, it's not a smartphone because you can't install extra software ?
I'm happy with that : I can install software on my Sony-Ericsson K700.
I didn't know I've a smartphone :D - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why does that make it not OS X? It's already compiled for two platforms (Intel and PowerPC) so a third isn't very surprising.
The real question is whether or not we'll get a new version of XCode that will allow ARM binary compiles.
My guess is 'no' for the time being in order for Apple to control the software on the iPhone. If/when they open the phone up then we'll get a new version of XCode. - BiakAtMacDotCom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yes, I think you're wrong !
"Embedding" has nothing to do with OS size. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"It doesn't allow third party application, only those installed by Apple."
Has this information been disclosed? I was under the impression nobody outside Apple really knew. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Pirates, pfffft.....
Get a job or a good career, be an American, support free enterprise and BUY ***** that you actually want to use! - sakuraz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Your spelling begs to differ.
- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple's been in the fifth place before. See how that worked out?
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Keep in mind that the iPod was also late to the party by several years. The Rio was very popular at the time, and there was no reason to think that Apple would gain any ground there. Apple's marketing of the iPod made all of the difference. The Rio was still kind of a "techie" gadget; Apple marketed the iPod to the mainstream rather than to the computer nerd.
Based on the marketing hype alone, the iPhone is off to a very good start. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because there's a lot of phones out there with Core Animation and a pateneted kick-ass UI that blows the iPhone away, right?
/sarc - M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3depends what you're embedding it into
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Second, why the hell is making it harder to steal software a bad thing?"
Remember that next time you bitch about DRM. - axman6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wow, ya know what? i remember reading something about that for, oh, the last few years? i think maybe you are right....
uurrgghh - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The Netwon was a PDA. Palm and Windows CE/Mobile devices are PDAs. The iPhone is not a PDA. The iPhone just runs iPhone-only apps written only by Apple that strangely resemble widgets-on-the-go.
- makis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4they claim it's almsot half a GB, ok they've said considerably less than 500MB, but an embedded OS to me should be considerably less
than 50 MB... am i wrong? - vlurk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Greyarea
Well, XCode is really just an IDE with GCC 4 as its compiler. Since GCC is already capable of cross compiling for ARM, XCode is already somewhat "enabled" for that architecture. No, what would need to be done is a SDK. A SDK that would provide the necessary libraries to compile a functional application for Mobile OS X, some documentation to use them properly and few project/file templates to speed things up. Also, since you are not supposed to transfer your own applications into your iPhone, a virtual machine (including ARM emulation of course) with Mobile OS X would need to be provided for convenient debugging. An iPhone simulator would be better (a virtual machine with the ability to simulate specific device functionalities such as incoming calls, MMS, etc.).
Actually, a lot of closed platforms provide such environments for public use. All that is required is a free registration. As an exemple, you can take a look at http://developer.openwave.com/dvl/ or http://developer.motorola.com/docstools/sdks/ . I suspect Apple will be eventually doing the same thing. That's if they want the iPhone to be successful. Because nobody (except fanboys and ignorant consumers) wants a 599$ smartphone with (almost) no third party applications. The Newton failed in part for that reason: I think Apple will not make the same mistake twice. - ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Didn't they do that with that crappy little "hifi" thing? Here's hoping for something ... useful.
- forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Tablet PC anyone? Maybe a new Newton?
- axman6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@kuzotz
the ***** does that have to do with anything?
I would go on, but you're not worth it. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, to take that line of thinking one step further... the more developers know about the internals of the iPhone and how it communicates with the Cingular network, the easier it will be to create an open source clone of Cingular's iPhone server and to unhook the iPhone from Cingular's service.
Of course, the iPhone is gonna get hacked, anyway, and one of the first things that hackers will attempt to do is to use it with other service providers. - amosconi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@naio21
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone:
A smartphone is generally considered any handheld device that integrates personal information management and mobile phone capabilities in the same device. Often, this includes adding phone functions to already capable PDAs or putting "smart" capabilities, such as PDA functions, into a mobile phone.
I see nowhere the mention of the capability to install applications to qualify, however i would sai that information management is well built in in iphone mail, safari, address book and calendar applications... - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uh...it's not out yet
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Tablet PC anyone? Maybe a new Newton?"
The iPhone IS the 21st century Newton. Apple doubtlessly explored the hell out of voice and handwriting recognition, and decided that mobile computing was much simpler than that: just make it like the PC interface. Ditch the stylus because you lose them, and hitting small things on a small screen with a stylus is not only an eye-strain, but it's annoying. Replace it with a "smart"-touchscreen which ignores unintended touches. Oh, and it can sense multiple fingers so it gives you "left" and "right" click like a mouse. Replace the OS with something familiar to everyone using the product (or what should be familiar to everyone using the product), OS X. Make applications as close to the design of the PC versions as possible (iPod going the way of the do-do for iTunes Mobile). While it's not quite as great of a medical assistant as the original one was, this one at least gives you WiFi and EDGE to browse the web for the answer you're looking for.
Oh, and for the Tablet Mac, just buy one of those mod-kits that are going to go onsale for MacBooks. Apple's not going to make a tablet device, simply because it over-specializes (basically, they'd waste manufacturing capabilities on something that wouldn't sell as well as their ordinary Macs; tablets are very much niche computers). - makis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@h3xley
probably yours is more suitable for that purpose.
let me know if it worked. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Crazy Zealot me. -)
- BiakAtMacDotCom, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12It's a phone, it's smart, it's smarter than any other phone.
It's sad it's not an "open platform" (yet ?), but IT IS a Smart phone. - NoTreason4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Man, someone clarified what anarchy is and they got dug down? I guess anything other that slavish devotation to statism is politically incorrect here on digg?
Anywway, Anarchism is not about stealing. Anarchism literally means the lack of government. Thus, anarchism is about the LACK of stealing. Governments cannot exist without stealing-- eg taxes-- and thus anarchism is about freedom from the bigest theives in history (in terms of total plunder.)
Anarchism and capitalism can exist, and probably are the ideal form of government... of course socialist democracies (like the USA) will go to war to stop such countries from flourishing. I could name an example-- a country we recently invaded (not Iraq or Afghanistan) that was a flourishing capitalist anarchism, but the american media has thrashed it to the point that most americans ignorantly think its a hellhole... and I've digressed too much.
Anarchism is absense of government. - aphex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The iPhone is an iPod with a phone built in. Not a phone with ipod features. Why is anyone surprised about the closed system and lack of applications?
It is a lot easier for apple to take an ipod, throw in the hardware for a GSM phone and modify the interface than it is to reinvent the ipod. - shm1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Building a cell phone is a lot harder than building an mp3 player. You can buy a 50c chip which decodes MP3. Try buying a GSM chipset for less than US$50 in volume. SonyEricsson and Nokia have dozens of cell phones with mp3 players builtin. Even Oggplayer compiles for Symbian.
Most GSM chipset vendors have development platforms which can be extended. Word is that Apple used Infineon (which is kind of surprising - I would have guessed Freescale or TI). You can buy them with Linux or barebones - just an api for controlling the devices on the board. Apple must have ported their OS over to that board or layered their GUI ontop of the existing OS. - NoTreason4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Userr Friendly" and "Linux" are a contradiction in terms. This is why Linux has failed in the marketplace (And why windows is starting to fail).
Apple knows how to make user friendly. Design by committee is not how you do it, and this is holding Linux back and eroding Windows.
The iPhone will probably run Java. Apple put a big push behind Java when it switched to Mac OS X... but the result has not been lots of Java apps on OS X, or written for OSX and so they have scaled back.
Java had a bit success in the late 1990s... but it seems to clearly be in the decline. If there's no usefulness to J2ME on the phone because there are better ways to accomplish the same thingsw, then there is no reason to put java on there.
The idea of write once, run everywhere totally has failed when it comes to cellphones. - ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Elranzor
So you're essentially saying that Apple wouldn't leverage their own technology that's already demonstrated processor portability and would choose to, instead, code for a third-party, uncontrolled platform with new APIs?
Are you on crack? This is Apple you're talking about. - ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vlurk
"The Newton failed in part for that reason: I think Apple will not make the same mistake twice. "
The Newton allowed third-party apps... - h3xley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3it worked
- Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who's "we"?
- Caulfield, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fig? Nay, I say Juice!
--"Playin' with the queen of hearts..." - vlurk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ahknight
That's why I mentioned almost. I exaggerated a bit while saying "no" (as in none), but the point still persist. Third party applications were scarce compared to what was available for Palm OS. I might be incorrect though, as my first PDA was only a Palm m125 bought as soon as it was available. But if I google a bit on the Palm Pilot VS Apple Newton subject, It looks like I'm correct. I rapidly come across things like this: "The biggest difference between the Palm Pilot and the Newton wasn’t the smaller size or lower price — but that it shipped with much more useful desktop software and better data synching capabilities." source: http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay
I also find reference to database applications (like JFile, HandDBase) easily for early Palm OS versions while I have difficulty to find equivalent softwares for the Newton OS. This still doesn't mean I'm right but still, it really seems like useful third party softwares were harder to find for Newton. And that's what I really meant originally. I should have wrote it that way I think, but it's far easiser to say that now of course. ;) - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not the size of it that matters in embedding, it's what you do with it...
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is