The thing is that it's not specific -just the feel (get it? -it's a feeling) you get when you sit there and use a machine!
When did programs become apps?
- Thread starter Data Holmes
- Start date
Oh... Okay. So it is the same type of feeling I get when I have to sit there and use a Windows based machine.
Got it... you've got nothing.
Don't get me started on Windoze -That's just more of the same cool-aid 
Then lets return to your Apple specific comment from earlier...Don't get me started on Windoze -That's just more of the same cool-aid
"This also explains why Apple likes the word application; they don't want users to access any software they're not supposed to..."
Be specific. Not feelings, specifics.How does Apple restrict access?
Ease of use isn't a barrier to those who are interested in the technical aspects... I've never met with any barriers from Apple. If anything, everyone I know at Apple has always been very encouraging and forthcoming about such things.
Or is this an unfounded bias you have?
If that is the case, I'll leave you to your feelings.
As a developer, I can appreciate the benefits of "black boxing" the details. Programs become much more understandable and maintainable when you can shut away the difficult and confusing portions behind a simple interface. I don't see any reason why the same principal shouldn't apply to the end user experience as well.
Never said they did (and they probably don't) but if their ads (and the salespeople I've met) are anything to go by, Apple takes great pride in designing things in such a way that the user doesn't need to know anything about how they work.Then lets return to your Apple specific comment from earlier...Don't get me started on Windoze -That's just more of the same cool-aid"This also explains why Apple likes the word application; they don't want users to access any software they're not supposed to..."Be specific. Not feelings, specifics.
How does Apple restrict access?
This way (imho, of course) we'll end up with an elite being the only ones actually able to make computers run and the wast majority being dependant on them for anything more complicated than plugging in some new hardware or clicking on icons.
What a brave new world.
So what? Anyone who's really interested in the details is welcome to take a class or read a book. The rest don't care anyway.
Then lets return to your Apple specific comment from earlier...Don't get me started on Windoze -That's just more of the same cool-aid"This also explains why Apple likes the word application; they don't want users to access any software they're not supposed to..."Be specific. Not feelings, specifics.
How does Apple restrict access?
Ease of use isn't a barrier to those who are interested in the technical aspects... I've never met with any barriers from Apple. If anything, everyone I know at Apple has always been very encouraging and forthcoming about such things.
It is impossible to install an app on an iPhone, iPod or iPad that has not been approved by Apple without voiding your device's warranty.
For some people, that's totally fine. For some it isn't, so we choose different products. There's no reason why this has to be met with derision from either "side".
And that is supposed to be a bad thing?
Okay, let me get this straight... this feeling you've got about Apple not wanting users to access parts of their system comes from ads and sales people.
If this is the depth to which you've looked into this, how is anyone supposed to know that you would even be interested in fiddling around with more technical aspects?
Do you get what I'm asking here?
If you were really interested in this stuff, you'd go to something like a Mac user group and start asking more than point and click type of questions. I've given hours of presentations to people curious about what else there is to their Macs beyond the straight forward tasks many people use them for.
I know a ton of Unix and Linux users who are also Mac users because behind the pretty little images is an environment that they are familiar with. They have no problem getting their hands dirty with their Macs.
Only as long as people show no more interest in this than you have thus far.
______________
I don't own one, but I would have to wonder how developer's test their software on these devices.Arrqh said:
But I don't see these as any different from devices such as an xbox (which is a Windows based system) as far as ability to play with them.
But in the case of the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad, if you are technically savvy enough to do such things, why worry about a warranty?
^Make sure you save your document regularly where Word can't get to it! I have seen MS Word eating up anything from novels to small size sedans
What we really should be talking about is the 30% apple tax! Isn't that usury?
What? Usury is about charging interest. The "Apple tax" is a commission on a sale. Not even remotely related. I hope you were kidding but in the absence of aI can't tell.
Just hope away, my little green friend!
(smiley included for added clarity as we must not confuse him).I believe that developers have to pay a yearly fee of $99 to be able to deploy code to an Apple device. They are not licensed to distribute it.
The Xbox isn't a "windows based system" in the sense that Windows does not run on it. The fact that you similarly cannot run unsigned code on a 360 does not negate the fact that you cannot on an Apple device either, which was the question you asked.
Other mobile systems, such as Android, do not require you to void the warranty using vulnerabilities that Apple continually patches out to install any application you choose (the fact that jailbreaking is possible at all is clearly something Apple would eliminate if it could). You simply have to tick a check box and accept the warning that you are responsible for what you install on your phone. In any case this is besides the point; you asked how Apple was restricting access on their devices and I provided you with an explanation of how they do. I don't have a problem with Apple because they do this nor do I have a problem with people who choose to live inside the walled garden that they have created, I simply choose not to live there myself. And there's no reason why all of these different devices and philosophies cannot coexist in the marketplace.
Kind of like the elite group of professional technicians and mechanics who know how to keep cars running, with the vast majority of car owners being dependent on them for anything more complicated than changing the oil or rotating the tires.
What a brave new world.
Yesterday I tried using a simplistic descriptive (one that had been, not only hinted at, but even debated earlier in the thread) to simplify the relation between the words "application" and "program".
Apparently not everyone found that tongue-in-cheek'ish remark the least enlightening, and I was suckered into a rather boring and lengthy back-and-fro about the philosophies of manufacturing personal computers.
I probably posted some remarks that some found to be offensive. I'm sorry if they actually were: that was not my intention.
I however stand by my original comment about the philosophy of Apple being somewhat patronizing.
When I introduced 'feelings' as an argument I was ridiculed despite the fact that Apple has been using feelings -almost exclusively- to sell their products ever since the infamous 'Big Brother' commercial, and in fact use the word 'simplicity' in their marketing.
Jonathan Ive on Apple's philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOnCRWUsSGA
Tim Cook on Apple's philosophy:
Jet Powers on Apple philosophy:
Now, I'm not advocating making things more complex; just questioning simplification as a philosophy -especially when done in a condescending way:
Rory Cellan-Jones:
Leo N:
So when I talk about the 'feel' I have about it all it is not rooted in any one simple tangible experience but in the hundreds of articles I've read ever since the Mac first appeared and I was just about ready to acquire one as my first 'real computer' (I'd been using a Commodore until then).
Or as John Gruber puts it:
Is love not a feeling?
Apparently not everyone found that tongue-in-cheek'ish remark the least enlightening, and I was suckered into a rather boring and lengthy back-and-fro about the philosophies of manufacturing personal computers.
I probably posted some remarks that some found to be offensive. I'm sorry if they actually were: that was not my intention.
I however stand by my original comment about the philosophy of Apple being somewhat patronizing.
When I introduced 'feelings' as an argument I was ridiculed despite the fact that Apple has been using feelings -almost exclusively- to sell their products ever since the infamous 'Big Brother' commercial, and in fact use the word 'simplicity' in their marketing.
Jonathan Ive on Apple's philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOnCRWUsSGA
Tim Cook on Apple's philosophy:
here
Jet Powers on Apple philosophy:
here
Now, I'm not advocating making things more complex; just questioning simplification as a philosophy -especially when done in a condescending way:
Rory Cellan-Jones:
here
Leo N:
here
So when I talk about the 'feel' I have about it all it is not rooted in any one simple tangible experience but in the hundreds of articles I've read ever since the Mac first appeared and I was just about ready to acquire one as my first 'real computer' (I'd been using a Commodore until then).
Or as John Gruber puts it:
Is love not a feeling?
Ridiculed?
You can have all the feelings you want... but when you state that Apple does something based on your feelings that isn't true, then I'll call you out on it.
You weren't being ridiculed for your feelings, I was pointing out the fact that you claim to want to fiddle around with weird settings and such and yet took no personal effort to see if this aspect of your bias was founded. You assumed (without fiddling) that you couldn't fiddle around on Apple systems.
I applaud the efforts you've taken to defend yourself in the last 24 hours... but that doesn't undo the fact that you yourself previously were guilty of not going beyond point and click in your research into Macs. And that doesn't come across to me as someone who is actually interested in fiddling.
But if all you care about is feelings, you aren't (in my book) up to fiddling with computers.
_____________
Wow... I had to pay more than $300 a year for an Apple developer license back in the late 1990s... and I wasn't even a software developer.
Kids today have it so much easier!
Oh, you were saying...
I didn't ask (or care for that matter) about Apple devices beyond computers. I don't use them (not completely true, I still use a Newton).
There are now a whole segment of device/appliances which are computer like but are intended to not be computer like. That is to say, they are intended to do a smaller number of things and do them with the least amount of issues. Computers haven't been like that (ever).
Apple isn't the first to go down this road. Microsoft has and so did Be (before it went out of business).
And the xbox is just as Windows based as the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are Mac OS X based (you shouldn't need to go searching the net for this info, you should already know this if you are going to discuss this stuff... and I don't click links).
But I don't own an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad, so I don't really care one way or the other. When the iPhone was first released, it seemed too limited in what you could do on it to be a computer replacement for me.
... plus I don't like phones.
Android isn't tied to it's hardware, it is provided to a number of different device makers. Can you go and buy Android? Is it an actual product that one can buy... or is it something that you get with some other product?
Maybe if Android was a phone or a device made and sold by one company responsible for all aspects of the user's experiences, they might do what Apple does. As it is, they aren't really comparable. Plus, Android has to work within the GPL... Apple doesn't.
But I'm sure you are aware of these things... right?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Wow... I had to pay more than $300 a year for an Apple developer license back in the late 1990s... and I wasn't even a software developer.
Kids today have it so much easier!
Oh, you were saying...
On a related note... Apple is now forcing Amazon, Sony and co. to change their ebook-reading/shopping apps (dateline it March 31st) in a such a way that Apple can claim it's 30% cut (via in-app-purchasing) of the shopping-deal.
Real Klassy
There are now a whole segment of device/appliances which are computer like but are intended to not be computer like. That is to say, they are intended to do a smaller number of things and do them with the least amount of issues. Computers haven't been like that (ever).
Apple isn't the first to go down this road. Microsoft has and so did Be (before it went out of business).
And the xbox is just as Windows based as the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are Mac OS X based (you shouldn't need to go searching the net for this info, you should already know this if you are going to discuss this stuff... and I don't click links).
But I don't own an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad, so I don't really care one way or the other. When the iPhone was first released, it seemed too limited in what you could do on it to be a computer replacement for me.
... plus I don't like phones.
The purpose of the link was to try and help educate you, but thanks for throwing it back in my face. If you had bothered to click on it, you would have seen that it was a blog post from a Microsoft employee explaining how the Xbox and 360 have a kernel and OS that was written from the ground up for the platform and therefore is not "Windows based". It's a minor point anyway, but I guess it's not an inaccuracy of yours that you are interested in correcting.
In any case, dismissing smartphones and such devices as not computers is in this case nothing more then you moving the goalposts. Not only did you say nothing previously about only talking about "computers', you are also using a rather narrow (and I might add, self serving) defintion of both the term and of these new class of devices... which many people do view as full computers and use them as such. Which is another factor in why some people choose non-Apple devices... it lets them use the device how they want to instead of how Apple wants them to. And again, there is no reason why more appliance-like smartphones and more computer-like smartphones can't exist together in the marketplace (and obviously the only difference between the paradigms is software). Your clarification of "smaller number of things" simply does not apply... especially when you are talking about non-Apple devices that let people do whatever they want, for better or worse.
Of course, as I already said, what other companies have gone down this road is totally immaterial to the point. You asked for an example of how Apple restricted choice, I gave it to you. What other companies do does not change this fact.
Android isn't tied to it's hardware, it is provided to a number of different device makers. Can you go and buy Android? Is it an actual product that one can buy... or is it something that you get with some other product?
Maybe if Android was a phone or a device made and sold by one company responsible for all aspects of the user's experiences, they might do what Apple does. As it is, they aren't really comparable. Plus, Android has to work within the GPL... Apple doesn't.
But I'm sure you are aware of these things... right?
This is just totally nonsensical, and factually incorrect. Android is an OS platform just as Windows is. I've recently started hearing the term 'armdroid' thrown around in the same context that 'Wintel' once was... in this case referring to the rising ubiquity of ARM devices running Android. That you do not buy Android separately does not magically invalidate it as a platform. The Android OS, of course, is developed by Google. All phones which want to have the so called "Google Experience" on them (which consists of the Android Marketplace and the apps to access Google's services) must conform to certain hardware requirements set by Google. The differences that one generally finds between Android handsets from different manufacturers are almost entirely cosmetic or are nothing more then some extra apps. For you to suggest that Google has no control over the platform and how it is used is simply wrong.
Of course, you can purchase devices that represent an unaltered view of what Google has in mind for the platform. The year old Nexus One and the recently released Nexus S were created to Google's specifications and run a base version of Android. They represent exactly the thing you seemed to think Android doesn't have. The Xoom tablet appears to be filing this same function for the tablet version of Android, though we probably won't know for sure until it's released in a few weeks. There are also quite a few handsets on the market that run stock Android completely independently of Google's Nexus phones, the HTC G2 for instance. For you to therefore claim that the only reason Google allows users to install non-Market apps is because that they don't have control over the user experience is flat out wrong.
Additionally, it's a minor point, but Android is under the Apache license, not the GPL. I don't know why you seem to think that this is some sort of hindrance... it benefits Google, the handset manufacturers and even the community (CyanogenMOD is a community version of Android based on the Android Open Source Project) and it certainly has nothing to do with the openness of the platform to the end user.
All of these things seem like things that you were unaware of. Perhaps you should go educate yourself on both the nature of the iOS and Android platforms... and maybe even some of the other ones out there... before throwing stones at trekkiedane for not doing research?
At the end of the day, this entire side argument is due to your inability to accept that Apple restricts choice on some of their devices. They do. There are numerous benefits to both Apple and their users to this and also numerous drawbacks. Some users prefer to own and use such products, some do not. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
My pleasure... When you're better informed, maybe we'll talk some more.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
^Make sure you save your document regularly where Word can't get to it! I have seen MS Word eating up anything from novels to small size sedans
What we really should be talking about is the 30% apple tax! Isn't that usury?
What? Usury is about charging interest. The "Apple tax" is a commission on a sale. Not even remotely related. I hope you were kidding but in the absence of a
Just hope away, my little green friend!
Unfortunately, I've just seen too much to take any statement at face value. Without some indication you were kidding, and without knowing much about you (sorry), I couldn't be sure if you were serious or not. Yes, there are people ignorant enough to say things like that in all seriousness. Sad as it is.
At least I know you're not an idiot, just a smart aleck.
My pleasure... When you're better informed, maybe we'll talk some more.
...and any credibility you had left in this discussion is gone
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and explained to you how everything you said about the Android platform was incorrect. You didn't even bother responding. You obviously do not understand the nature of the platform, or the iOS platform for that matter, and you don't seem to care to learn. If you don't actually care about the facts about the platforms you are discussion, obviously there's no point in trying to correct you...
Similar threads
