Originally posted by TheBucsFanI'm not trying to convince anyone not to like the thing, and this is certainly way down on the list of problems with the device, but still, the issue is individual users' ability to do whatever they want. The adaptability of open source software without having to go through Apple. Apple approving 140,000 apps only creates the illusion of not having to go through Apple.
I don't really agree that it "creates and illusion of not having to go through Apple". It does create the illusion that the process is easy and straight-forward, when it's not always obvious as to the reasons certain apps get rejected and certain apps don't (like with the EFF app rejection, which makes no sense). Or with Tweetie, although the press from Tweetie's rejection helped make him a multi-millionaire when the app was finally approved.
My only interest in a tablet device would be for digital comics and magazines. The screen on this is far too small to be of use to me. Thus, I will continue to wait for the flexible, color e-ink device that will probably come out after I've died of old age.
Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her. Harry: That's a special feeling.
Originally posted by LeroyI don't really agree that it "creates and illusion of not having to go through Apple". It does create the illusion that the process is easy and straight-forward,
Hey, you know what's easier still? Being able to put whatever I want on the computer I paid $1,500 for, without Apple playing police.
I of course did not literally mean it creates the illusion of not going through Apple, I only meant it gave reason for you and plenty of others to say it's not really a big deal ... until Apple comes up with some bullshit reason to reject YOUR app, or one you would like to have had access to.
EDIT: I should clarify: Apple's archaic views on software don't actually apply to their computers. It's just if you buy an iPhone, iPod and, now, iPad that you don't have the right to put whatever you want on it.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanHey, you know what's easier still? Being able to put whatever I want on the computer I paid $1,500 for, without Apple playing police.
All I am saying is that, "easier" isn't always "better". While it would be nice if Apple's approval process was a little more transparent, the fact that they insist on their own process for the hardware they've developed isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. Not only that, there are comparable platforms that suffer, both in quality and developer payback, from that open development.
That's all I am saying.
P.S. For $99 a year, I can run anything I develop on my own iPhone, BTW - and distribute it to 100 of my friends. It's the distribution via the store that requires their approval. While that may seem ridiculous, it does provide some incentive to develop something of value. It's also the reason why the approval process should be a bit clearer.
Originally posted by Guru ZimYeah but for $0 a year you can write your own programs for MacOS X, Windows, or Linux.
I'm not so sure that I like having to pay to play. What if I had to pay a company to write the php behind this forum? You think it would be free for you to access it?
Of course not, but that's not my point. I'm not arguing AGAINST open source, nor should my sentiments be interpreted as an unappreciation for all things that are open source. I'm just saying that not all open source software/platforms are great and not all proprietary software/platforms are terrible.
And with regards to the iPhone - you don't have to pay to develop. Anyone can develop (if they own a Mac and downloads the free XCode IDE - the iPhone simulator is quite good). You just need to pay to get it on the real hardware.
Edit: One more point - I don't see the people critiquing Apple's Development program leveling these same arguments against PS3, or Wii development kits (which, last I checked are $2k and $1700, respectively) - way more than the iPhone SDK. (I believe the cost of the XBox 360 development kit is the similar to Apple's yearly $99 cost.)
Originally posted by Leroy Edit: One more point - I don't see the people critiquing Apple's Development program leveling these same arguments against PS3, or Wii development kits (which, last I checked are $2k and $1700, respectively) - way more than the iPhone SDK. (I believe the cost of the XBox 360 development kit is the similar to Apple's yearly $99 cost.)
I don't know about the Wii, but I know that the developer kit price for PS3 was a huge strike against it for a long time with game developers.
I was excited about the idea of this, but from what I've seen so far, it won't be enough for me to take of Mr. Job's fruit and I'll see if any of the other new e-readers will be more along the lines of what I'm looking for.
I admit I shouldn't have been naive enough to think that I wouldn't have to change so much and many of my files if I wanted this thing to work with my PC/Windows based files, but I'm just not prepared to have to try to figure out what will and won't work between my work/home/smartphone/e-reader, etc. and it would just seem to be an unnecessary hassle, so I'll remain an Apple Luddite.
At least I won't have to get in some crazy ass line to get one . . .
"You are going to get a certain amount of snarkiness on the Internet no matter what, and my rule is that you don't post anything that you wouldn't say to someone's face." Marc Andreyko (Writer of DC Comic's "Manhunter")
Prior to checking out either of these, I have a question. Would either of them allow me to open an Illustrator (*.ai) file? I can't do this with Paint Shop Pro (my current graphics program), but would like to be able to do so. *.