Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
       #1  
    Interesting article in the Guardian and comments from Steve Jobs -

    Steve Jobs: why Android isn't open, and we won't build a 7" iPad | Technology | guardian.co.uk


    "Even if Google were right, and the real issue is closed versus open, it is worthwhile to remember that open systems don't always win. Take Microsoft's PlaysForSure music strategy, which use the PC model, which Android uses as well, of separating the software components from the hardware components. Even Microsoft finally abandoned this open strategy in favor of copying Apple's integrated approach with their Zoom Player, unfortunately leaving their OEMs empty-handed in the process. Google flirted with this integrated approach with their Nexus One phone.

    "In reality, we think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, what's best for the customer, fragmented versus integrated. We think Android is very, very fragmented and becoming more fragmented by the day. And as you know, Apple's provides with the integrated model so that the user isn't forced to be the systems integrator.
    Full transcript of his comments here:

    Apple CEO Discusses F4Q10 Results - Earnings Call Transcript -- Seeking Alpha


    Clearly Apple is doing something right (and I say that as an Android user). My own take is that the apple model is actually right for the majority of people, they don't want choice, they simply want something that works. Android, WebOS and the sort of tinkering we can do are the right choice for geeks like us.

    Anyone using the words idrones or isheep gets a kick in the balls, let's try and have an adult discussion...
    Last edited by CGK; 10/19/2010 at 04:21 AM.
  2. #2  
    I definitely agree that "open" is a codeword. I would say that it has nothing to do with freedom from tyranny, as Google would have you believe. Try getting access to the Android marketplace without Google's approval. It doesn't mean "fragmentation" as SJ suggested, though it leads to fragmentation every time.

    Instead, I see "open" as a codeword for elitist geekistry. The more open a thing is, the more work an individual has to put into it to make it work for them. When it comes to software, that means programing at some level. It doesn't get more open than Linux and Unix. Strip away the GUIs and whats left is only approachable by command line commandos. The answer to problems in that world is to write a little code and add to the source. This is only for the geek elite.

    Open source is generally a codeword for free. I contend that the only people who can get the most out of cheap and free products are the geek elite. Think, cars. If you don't know anything about cars, you buy a new one with a warranty. You can only afford to buy a cheap car with no warranty if you know how to get in there and tinker and repair and maintain it yourself. The same goes for a new house vs. a fixeruper.

    This is twice true for computers and software. the free stuff generally lacks the polish and usability of traditional software. It is not as end-user facing. It requires you to know a little more than the average person to unleash the full potential of the software. Elegance and usability are not important words in the open vocabulary.

    Open is about bringing your own tools and building your own thing. It is a romantic idea, but impractical, unattainable, and undesirable for the masses. What they want is something that just works. They want the software to do a thing. They want to hit the button that says "Do your thing!" and be done.

    Open mocks that concept and says that you shouldn't want software to do a thing; you should want software that you can do things to. Sure, the keyboard stinks. Just replace it with a better one. Yes, the OS is slow. Over-clock!. Certainly, the interface is clunky; put a different skin on it. That's the open way. If you can't, or don't want to do those types of things, you don't deserve to have a computer/phone/pad.

    Finally, open is code for "lack of responsibility." If your software is open, you never have to take responsibility for anything. There is no customer service because it's open. Got a problem, fix it.

    Android's market is filled with copyright infringing material. Google simply shrugs and disavows any responsibility because it's open. Are people pirating apps, hacking roms, and breaking carrier rules? Don't look at us. The software is open. You get the idea. The Nexus One died as a consumer product, in part, because no one took responsibility for it. Who wants to carry the burden of responsibility when it's open?

    Personally, I am very happy with vertical integration. I want a company to complete the software and take ownership of their work. I want a clearly defined experience that gets me where I want to go without forcing me to learn a computer language. I want a computer that can learn my language.

    I want someone to take responsibility when things go wrong. I don't want to be left with a brick because of a bug. I don't want to replace my software keyboard or put a better skin on it. I want something that looks great works well, and satisfies out of the box. I don't want to have to fix it before I can use it.

    Open is by engineers, for engineers. It is not for real people. Rather than being liberating, open is for a very small and exclusive part of the geekosphere. The philosophy is antithetical to everything Apple stands for. As an end user, I want nothing to do with "open."
  3. #3  
    And yet android is selling more units than apple, and people seem to like it.
  4. bdog421's Avatar
    Posts
    513 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #4  
    I just like how jobs was quick to condemn the 7in tab, before it's on the market. Saying something to the effect of "its just a big phone". What is the ipad? Just a bigger phone?
  5. #5  
    I think 7inchs is OK, you just holding it wrong
  6. #6  
    Jobs comment about a 7" tablets seemed directed specifically at the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which provides cell phone functionality.

    The iPad only has a 3G radio on one of it's models but doesn't offer cell phone voice calling.

    I think Samsung's strategy in designing a 7" tablet with cell phone capabilities might be to utilize carrier subsidies to compete with iPad on pricing, which could be effective for samsung to also increase it's margins. It also represents a convergence device for smartphones, ebook reading and mobile computing; consequently, creating a completely new segment.

    So, a current iPad user could still reasonably be in demand for a Galaxy Tab. That would be an interesting strategy.
  7. bdog421's Avatar
    Posts
    513 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbPreCommenter View Post
    Jobs comment about a 7" tablets seemed directed specifically at the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which provides cell phone functionality.

    The iPad only has a 3G radio on one of it's models but doesn't offer cell phone voice calling.

    I think Samsung's strategy in designing a 7" tablet with cell phone capabilities might be to utilize carrier subsidies to compete with iPad on pricing, which could be effective for samsung to also increase it's margins. It also represents a convergence device for smartphones, ebook reading and mobile computing; consequently, creating a completely new segment.

    So, a current iPad user could still reasonably be in demand for a Galaxy Tab. That would be an interesting strategy.
    I agree!

    It could workout to be a non competitor, but still cut directly into ipads sales.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbPreCommenter View Post
    It also represents a convergence device for smartphones, ebook reading and mobile computing; consequently, creating a completely new segment.

    So, a current iPad user could still reasonably be in demand for a Galaxy Tab. That would be an interesting strategy.
    This makes absolutely no sense to me. Who are these people who want a niche device like an Android tablet, but do not already have a cellphone? Perhaps these are people who already have a cellphone, but want a second cellphone, number, and contract? Wait! These must be the people who want to replace their current phone for a 7" phone that can only be used with a headset. I'm not seeing the huge potential, here.

    As for using tablets as phones, I have a 3G iPad with a phone app, (no jailbreak required). It works as a speaker phone or over a headset. It is a good emergency phone, but it is a horrible every-day phone. You need to interact with the hardware regardless of how good the voice recognition is.

    At some point, you will need to enter numbers like a pin code into the device. Pulling out a device, even 45% smaller than an iPad is just too awkward for that. The average person does not even use a headset with their phone. How are you going to convince people to use a 7" slab that way. This is not a device that will cut into the smartphone business.

    Since no one is going to use these things to replace their phones, tell me again why they would want to make the compromise for a comparatively tiny screen? It is still not pocketable. You will read 45% of a book, view 45% of a webpage, play 45% of a game, watch 45% of a movie compared to an iPad, and you still have to carry a pouch. For those who just have to have a phone in their pad, the iPad works just find on wifi and 3G.

    I fail to see any point in carrying both devices. Enlighten me.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post

    I fail to see any point in carrying both devices. Enlighten me.
    That's what i keep telling you. An ipad is silly when you already have an iphone.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by bdog421 View Post
    I just like how jobs was quick to condemn the 7in tab, before it's on the market. Saying something to the effect of "its just a big phone". What is the ipad? Just a bigger phone?
    No, it's not.
  11. Balzak's Avatar
    Posts
    79 Posts
    Global Posts
    131 Global Posts
    #11  
    The guy has gone bug nuts. Did they give him a meth users liver?
  12. #12  
    To be honest. I agree with him forthe 7 inches it's stupid. If you have a phone then you won't need it (especially if it's 4 inches like a evo or 5 like the streak). There's no purpose. But I won't put it down because if you like it you like it. It just doesn't make sense to me. +1 Jobs!

    [i]-- Sent from my Palm PrPrPr
  13. #13  
    I think tablets in general are stupid. But the sales of the iPad say that i'm stupid.

    But seriously, i have no need for a tablet.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    That's what i keep telling you. An ipad is silly when you already have an iphone.
    disagree. I think it's silly to say that if you have a phone (iphone, Pre, etc) it makes no sense to have a tablet like the iPad. It's definitely not a 'need' but few things in life are.

    It always amazes me when I find new use cases for my iPad. some are simple/silly - and in nearly all cases can be accomplished by using the phone. But the impact/ease is so much better with the iPad. Silly example - it's a pleasure to use my iPad in the gym when I'm on the threadmill/elliptical machine to read articles, watch videos, etc. I use to do all of this with my phone. But the ipad is so much easier on my eyes.

    Again it's not a 'need' or must have gadget. But to say it's silly to have a tablet once you own a smartphone is short-sighted IMHO.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    This makes absolutely no sense to me. Who are these people who want a niche device like an Android tablet, but do not already have a cellphone? Perhaps these are people who already have a cellphone, but want a second cellphone, number, and contract? Wait! These must be the people who want to replace their current phone for a 7" phone that can only be used with a headset. I'm not seeing the huge potential, here.
    :
    :
    :
    I fail to see any point in carrying both devices. Enlighten me.
    Did you mean that the "strategy" wouldn't make sense or my "suggesting" that would be their strategy doesn't make sense... or both .

    In any case, you seem to have your mind made up on why, if this were indeed Samsung's strategy, it would be a doomed strategy or, as Steve Job's put it, the device would be DOA (Dead On Arrival).

    Ultimately, like all consumer products, the MARKET decides!

    And if you are a webOS smartphone user, like I am, we account for a very small proportion of only a portion of that market, the smartphone sub-market. So, what we webOS users think counts very little and what makes sense to us as individuals counts even less...
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    I definitely agree that "open" is a codeword. I would say that it has nothing to do with freedom from tyranny, as Google would have you believe. Try getting access to the Android marketplace without Google's approval. It doesn't mean "fragmentation" as SJ suggested, though it leads to fragmentation every time.

    Instead, I see "open" as a codeword for elitist geekistry. The more open a thing is, the more work an individual has to put into it to make it work for them. When it comes to software, that means programing at some level. It doesn't get more open than Linux and Unix. Strip away the GUIs and whats left is only approachable by command line commandos. The answer to problems in that world is to write a little code and add to the source. This is only for the geek elite.

    Open source is generally a codeword for free. I contend that the only people who can get the most out of cheap and free products are the geek elite. Think, cars. If you don't know anything about cars, you buy a new one with a warranty. You can only afford to buy a cheap car with no warranty if you know how to get in there and tinker and repair and maintain it yourself. The same goes for a new house vs. a fixeruper.

    This is twice true for computers and software. the free stuff generally lacks the polish and usability of traditional software. It is not as end-user facing. It requires you to know a little more than the average person to unleash the full potential of the software. Elegance and usability are not important words in the open vocabulary.

    Open is about bringing your own tools and building your own thing. It is a romantic idea, but impractical, unattainable, and undesirable for the masses. What they want is something that just works. They want the software to do a thing. They want to hit the button that says "Do your thing!" and be done.

    Open mocks that concept and says that you shouldn't want software to do a thing; you should want software that you can do things to. Sure, the keyboard stinks. Just replace it with a better one. Yes, the OS is slow. Over-clock!. Certainly, the interface is clunky; put a different skin on it. That's the open way. If you can't, or don't want to do those types of things, you don't deserve to have a computer/phone/pad.

    Finally, open is code for "lack of responsibility." If your software is open, you never have to take responsibility for anything. There is no customer service because it's open. Got a problem, fix it.

    Android's market is filled with copyright infringing material. Google simply shrugs and disavows any responsibility because it's open. Are people pirating apps, hacking roms, and breaking carrier rules? Don't look at us. The software is open. You get the idea. The Nexus One died as a consumer product, in part, because no one took responsibility for it. Who wants to carry the burden of responsibility when it's open?

    Personally, I am very happy with vertical integration. I want a company to complete the software and take ownership of their work. I want a clearly defined experience that gets me where I want to go without forcing me to learn a computer language. I want a computer that can learn my language.

    I want someone to take responsibility when things go wrong. I don't want to be left with a brick because of a bug. I don't want to replace my software keyboard or put a better skin on it. I want something that looks great works well, and satisfies out of the box. I don't want to have to fix it before I can use it.

    Open is by engineers, for engineers. It is not for real people. Rather than being liberating, open is for a very small and exclusive part of the geekosphere. The philosophy is antithetical to everything Apple stands for. As an end user, I want nothing to do with "open."
    Your point would be more valid if Android did not work out of the box.

    Its not like there are commercials pointing out how open Android is vs the Iphone. Yes its a point made on forums and tech type ppl but to the average consumer Android can easily work out of the box.

    Not to mention there are those responsible for problems/bugs etc. The manufacturer of the device. It is the same with Apple. If they have a bug or a problem you will have to go to them and get it fixed.

    Yes there are ways for Android to be customized...you can have a special texting app or a different keyboard. But that doesn't mean that these features don't come with your phone when you buy it.

    Android offers "choice". Something both Webos and Iphone does not. Choice to customize your phone, choice of form factor, and of coarse choice of carrier. Its what makes it great. Now if I liked Iphone or Webos forms, OS, features, etc. better then I can see myself using those. But I love what Android has to offer. There is very little to dislike imo.

    As for the tablets...I am excited to see what comes out of tablets. I will be buying one. Have no need to the ipad even though the netflix app is nice.(Please come to Android or webos soon)

    If HP gets on the ball I can see them big in the tablet game. Webos would be amazing on a tablet. Only drawback I could see is app development could hinder its progression as there are less Pres out there then Android devices.

    I haven't seen a 7" in person so can't rly comment if its something I would want. I would use it to replace my laptop since imo web surfing would be easier and more portable then the laptop.
    Last edited by Cheeko318; 10/19/2010 at 03:21 PM.
  17. #17  
    My primary reason for wanting a tablet is for taking notes in meetings and brain storming sessions where I wind up with a paper notepad full of UI and system diagram "sketches" that I then have to photo copy and distribute to team members.

    All the other features would make it fun, but this is the main reason I'm considering one. Now, I have a hard time justifying the cost compared to paper, pencils and ink, but whatever.

    I'm still trying to wait until there are at least a couple of viable options before I pull the trigger. I'm also really trying to avoid being tied to a carrier, but I'm reconsidering that option.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    That's what i keep telling you. An ipad is silly when you already have an iphone.
    No, it's not. It's all about the screen real estate. While the hardware may look identical and run the same operating system it's the software/applications that differentiates the two.
  19. #19  
    My my - someone seems to have a chip on his shoulder about open source software. Do you have trouble surfing the web? Based on your post the answer should be yes since the largest number of web servers in the world run on an open source web server using an open source OS.
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    I definitely agree that "open" is a codeword. I would say that it has nothing to do with freedom from tyranny, as Google would have you believe. Try getting access to the Android marketplace without Google's approval. It doesn't mean "fragmentation" as SJ suggested, though it leads to fragmentation every time.
    Ah yes - SJ's favorite term. Fragmentation is a myth perpetuated by the closed software community to discount open source software. The average users of open source software don't even know what fragmentation is.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Instead, I see "open" as a codeword for elitist geekistry. The more open a thing is, the more work an individual has to put into it to make it work for them. When it comes to software, that means programing at some level. It doesn't get more open than Linux and Unix. Strip away the GUIs and whats left is only approachable by command line commandos. The answer to problems in that world is to write a little code and add to the source. This is only for the geek elite.
    Hilarious. How about Windows or Mac OS? Strip away the GUIs and all you have left is a bunch of command line environment. You know what a command line is don't you? It's where level two tech support at Apple and Microsoft send you whenever you run into one of their (numerous) undocumented features that you can't solve using their awesome GUIs.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Open source is generally a codeword for free. I contend that the only people who can get the most out of cheap and free products are the geek elite. Think, cars. If you don't know anything about cars, you buy a new one with a warranty. You can only afford to buy a cheap car with no warranty if you know how to get in there and tinker and repair and maintain it yourself. The same goes for a new house vs. a fixeruper.
    With open source, you may not have to pay for the code and you may not require support services, but nothing requires it to be free. I suppose the 'elite geeks' you seem to revere can get by without support, but paying Redhat or Suse for follow on support is a smart thing to do for a beginner ... just like a beginning Mac OS or Windows user.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    This is twice true for computers and software. the free stuff generally lacks the polish and usability of traditional software. It is not as end-user facing. It requires you to know a little more than the average person to unleash the full potential of the software. Elegance and usability are not important words in the open vocabulary.
    Trust me, if you're not using the Terminal program on a Mac fairly regularly, your'e far from using the full potential of your software. If you're not using the command line on your Windows machine regularly, you're far from using the full potential of your software. Same for open source software - the GUIs let you do the basic stuff, but the advanced stuff requires some knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Open is about bringing your own tools and building your own thing. It is a romantic idea, but impractical, unattainable, and undesirable for the masses. What they want is something that just works. They want the software to do a thing. They want to hit the button that says "Do your thing!" and be done.
    Only half true. Open is about letting you bring your own tools to build your own thing without outrageous software package costs/licensing fees or excessive limitations on APIs. Otherwise, there are tens of thousands of software packages available to run off-the-shelf in the open source world ... just like the Windows world. Less like the Mac world because their software choices are much smaller in number. Open source's biggest drawback to having a broader community is gaming - there are few major gaming software houses supporting Linux. The natural result is a lower draw to the casual users of computers.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Open mocks that concept and says that you shouldn't want software to do a thing; you should want software that you can do things to. Sure, the keyboard stinks. Just replace it with a better one. Yes, the OS is slow. Over-clock!. Certainly, the interface is clunky; put a different skin on it. That's the open way. If you can't, or don't want to do those types of things, you don't deserve to have a computer/phone/pad.
    To make sure I understand your point, Windows and Mac users never overclock, re-skin their interface, or use a Dvorak keyboard? There are some highly successful software companies in the market that are laughing at your comment right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Finally, open is code for "lack of responsibility." If your software is open, you never have to take responsibility for anything. There is no customer service because it's open. Got a problem, fix it.
    There are responsible software developers and irresponsible software developers in any software environment. Good luck getting the same support with Windows that you get from Red Hat or Suse. Good luck getting the same support for Filemaker that you do for MySQL. The list goes on-and on...

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Android's market is filled with copyright infringing material. Google simply shrugs and disavows any responsibility because it's open. Are people pirating apps, hacking roms, and breaking carrier rules? Don't look at us. The software is open. You get the idea. The Nexus One died as a consumer product, in part, because no one took responsibility for it. Who wants to carry the burden of responsibility when it's open?
    Nice non sequitur. By your logic here, there is no software piracy in the Windows or Mac user communities. Or in the phone world, there is no hacking or pirating in Windows Mobile or iOS? Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Personally, I am very happy with vertical integration. I want a company to complete the software and take ownership of their work. I want a clearly defined experience that gets me where I want to go without forcing me to learn a computer language. I want a computer that can learn my language.
    So you innately understand all programs written by closed software organizations while simultaneously you find all open source to be incoherent and unusable? Again, interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    I want someone to take responsibility when things go wrong. I don't want to be left with a brick because of a bug. I don't want to replace my software keyboard or put a better skin on it. I want something that looks great works well, and satisfies out of the box. I don't want to have to fix it before I can use it.
    Do you have any idea how long closed software companies hide known bugs from the general user community? Based on this paragraph, I suspect not. Open source software bugs, in the successful development programs, are transparent to even the casual user. Further, bug fixes happen more quickly in open source because they often have a larger community available to fix the bugs. Three years after the Office Mac 2008 multi-screen bug was reported to Microsoft, it has still not been addressed. Is that the kind of responsiveness you're happy with?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Open is by engineers, for engineers. It is not for real people. Rather than being liberating, open is for a very small and exclusive part of the geekosphere. The philosophy is antithetical to everything Apple stands for. As an end user, I want nothing to do with "open."
    I'll ignore that you insult engineers for no apparent reason. Your 'head-in-the-sand' view of open source is precisely what Steve Jobs FUD was intended to put there. Luckily, in the DoD, we focus on reality, not hyperbole. Also, the NSA is worried about security, not pretty GUIs that prevent a user from fully accessing a machine's capabilities. In both cases, open source software has become preferred due to its, well, openness. There is little assurance that Apple's or Microsoft's closed development processes don't carry with them significant security issues because no one is allowed to independently check them from the inside. Open source, on the other hand, is completely transparent to the end user.

    But clearly it's not for everyone. Like Mac OS. Or Windows. Or Next Step. Or ...
  20. tirk's Avatar
    Posts
    810 Posts
    Global Posts
    918 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Mantis View Post
    I think tablets in general are stupid. But the sales of the iPad say that i'm stupid.

    But seriously, i have no need for a tablet.
    AOL to that. The time I might use a tablet I tend to either have my netbook with me (yes it's a bit heavier than an iPad, but think of the keyboard as a screen cover ) or I wouldn't have a tablet with me, even if I owned one. Then again, I have to carry a netbook with me much of the time anyway.
    PalmPilot Professional...Palm Vx...Treo 600...Treo 680...HTC Touch HD...iPhone 4S...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions