f



Steve Jobs - "Google's 'Don't Be Evil' Mantra is 'Bullshit'"

<quote>
I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he 
says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
</quote>

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/


0
Ezekiel
2/1/2010 1:27:54 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

54 Replies
1003 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 33

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> <quote>
> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing,
> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
> </quote>
> 
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/

Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of Jobs 
and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in adoration. 
Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying "Hallalujah, the 
Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".

The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does. There 
is always a catch with Apple though, isn't there? You are either a 
believer or not. I am not. Jobs loves lock-in, it keeps the faithful 
right there in the palm of his grasping hand with nowhere else 
permissible to go.



-- 
I'm always polite, reasonable and kind.... except when I'm not.
0
SomeBloke
2/1/2010 12:13:07 PM
Ezekiel wrote:
> <quote>
> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he 
> says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
> </quote>

I was expecting this to be explained in the article.

"It's bullshit"  Yeah sure Steve, if you say so, it must be true.

> 
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
> 
> 
0
Avid
2/1/2010 1:27:49 PM
"SomeBloke" <stuff@stuff.com> wrote in message 
news:5KKdnfmqHvfOWPvWnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> <quote>
>> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing,
>> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
> bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
>

> Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of Jobs
> and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in adoration.
> Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying "Hallalujah, the
> Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".

He's simply expressing his opinion.


> The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does.

I don't think the iPad is a device for me although I really, really like my 
iPod Touch. A friend at work is getting one so I'll get to check it out once 
it arrives.

We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new 
computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about computing. 
They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2) Check email #3) 
Photos from their digital camera.

After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work very 
well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this right out 
of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking to write shell 
scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They essentially have 3 
basic needs and this would fill those needs very well.



> There is always a catch with Apple though, isn't there? You are
> either a believer or not. I am not.

The only Apple product that I own is the iPod touch (kids have iPhones, 
iPods, etc) but we've never owned any Apple Computers. So I'm probably not a 
believer either. But I do have a lot of respect for the products that Apple 
produces.


> Jobs loves lock-in, it keeps the faithful right there in the palm
> of his grasping hand with nowhere else permissible to go.

Lock-in is one way of putting it and technically it's probably correct. But 
most Apple users ("believers") probably feel that Apple is trying to sell an 
"appliance" to people. Something like my iPod Touch is locked, closed, 
whatever you want to call it. But I don't care and hardly anyone else does 
either. It's absolutely *great* at what it does and its almost a perfect 
"appliance" which is what I'm looking for. There's what - 10's or 100's of 
thousands of apps available for it and the iPhone? I've never felt locked-in 
with my iTouch. For years Apple has been trying to make the computer less of 
a "computer" and more of an "appliance" and that's what I think the iPad is.




0
Ezekiel
2/1/2010 2:39:40 PM
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:39:40 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> "SomeBloke" <stuff@stuff.com> wrote in message
> news:5KKdnfmqHvfOWPvWnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing,
>>> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
>> bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
>>
>>
>> Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of Jobs
>> and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in
>> adoration. Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying
>> "Hallalujah, the Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".
> 
> He's simply expressing his opinion.
> 
> 
>> The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does.
> 
> I don't think the iPad is a device for me although I really, really like
> my iPod Touch. A friend at work is getting one so I'll get to check it
> out once it arrives.
> 
> We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new
> computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about
> computing. They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2)
> Check email #3) Photos from their digital camera.
> 
> After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work
> very well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this
> right out of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking
> to write shell scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They
> essentially have 3 basic needs and this would fill those needs very
> well.
>

Most people don't do much more than this. It's been my experience that 
most users don't even print out their photo's, they just like to look at 
them in situ and enjoy.
> 
> 
>> There is always a catch with Apple though, isn't there? You are either
>> a believer or not. I am not.
> 
> The only Apple product that I own is the iPod touch (kids have iPhones,
> iPods, etc) but we've never owned any Apple Computers. So I'm probably
> not a believer either. But I do have a lot of respect for the products
> that Apple produces.
>

True. Damn good design, but not for me. I like to tinker!
 
> 
>> Jobs loves lock-in, it keeps the faithful right there in the palm of
>> his grasping hand with nowhere else permissible to go.
> 
> Lock-in is one way of putting it and technically it's probably correct.
> But most Apple users ("believers") probably feel that Apple is trying to
> sell an "appliance" to people. Something like my iPod Touch is locked,
> closed, whatever you want to call it. But I don't care and hardly anyone
> else does either. It's absolutely *great* at what it does and its almost
> a perfect "appliance" which is what I'm looking for. There's what - 10's
> or 100's of thousands of apps available for it and the iPhone? I've
> never felt locked-in with my iTouch. For years Apple has been trying to
> make the computer less of a "computer" and more of an "appliance" and
> that's what I think the iPad is.

This is probably one of the first stumbling steps on the road to a fully 
automatic device that will allow anyone to view any file on demand using 
a wireless connection ( assuming a decent level of connectivity! ). Maybe 
in 5 years (10?) we'll have it, maybe even from Apple. Who knows, I might 
even be tempted to buy one.



-- 
I'm always polite, reasonable and kind.... except when I'm not.
0
SomeBloke
2/1/2010 2:56:48 PM
SomeBloke wrote:

> trolling fsckwit:
>>
>> We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new
>> computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about
>> computing. They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2)
>> Check email #3) Photos from their digital camera.
>> 
>> After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work
>> very well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this
>> right out of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking
>> to write shell scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They
>> essentially have 3 basic needs and this would fill those needs very
>> well.
>
>Most people don't do much more than this. 

One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."

-- 
"we have proven that people dont want to use OO at home in case it
corrupts their work docuemtns."  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
2/1/2010 3:14:34 PM
On 2010-02-01, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "SomeBloke" <stuff@stuff.com> wrote in message 
> news:5KKdnfmqHvfOWPvWnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing,
>>> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
>> bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
>>
>
>> Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of Jobs
>> and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in adoration.
>> Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying "Hallalujah, the
>> Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".
>
> He's simply expressing his opinion.
>
>
>> The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does.
>
> I don't think the iPad is a device for me although I really, really like my 
> iPod Touch. A friend at work is getting one so I'll get to check it out once 
> it arrives.
>
> We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new 
> computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about computing. 
> They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2) Check email #3) 
> Photos from their digital camera.
>
> After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work very 
> well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this right out 
> of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking to write shell 
> scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They essentially have 3 
> basic needs and this would fill those needs very well.

    If you are going to go down that rabbit hole, then a mini is a far more
reasonable option. It has an easy means to get content on and off the device
as well as a built in means for archiving (that superdrive). It also will
more readily allow user modifications in case they decide they like some app
better (that say Safari or iPhoto) or need expanded file format support.

    Then there's stuff like being able to print or use a scanner.

    Plus an iPad needs a mother ship of it's own. (not being a proper full
computer).

[deletia]

-- 

	Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,     
	is genuinely new: culture, like science and              |||
	technology grows by accretion, each new creator         / | \
	building on the works of those that came before.

				 Judge Alex Kozinski
				 US Court of Appeals
				 9th Circuit

0
jedi (14754)
2/1/2010 3:30:15 PM
chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:

> -- 
> "we have proven that people dont want to use OO at home in case it
> corrupts their work docuemtns."  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

Why not?  They use Windows at home, and it might corrupt their work
documents.  (Or worse, risk them being stolen from their
less-secure-than-work computer).

-- 
Condense soup, not books!
0
Chris
2/1/2010 4:00:55 PM
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> --
>> "we have proven that people dont want to use OO at home in case it
>> corrupts their work docuemtns."  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron
>> Quark
>
> Why not?


You tell us, Linosuck.

3 days ago you whined: "I use OpenOffice to create documents and drawings, 
when there is no concern about others editing them (with MS Office and 
Visio)."

Can't even keep your stupidity straight:




> They use Windows at home, and it might corrupt their work
> documents.  (Or worse, risk them being stolen from their
> less-secure-than-work computer).

Both are infinitesimally unlikely.



0
DFS
2/1/2010 4:22:05 PM
chrisv wrote:

> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."


Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.

And they want to use the other Windows apps they've gotten accustomed to 
over the years.  And enjoy support of the latest hardware.

Linux: exit stage right after putting on a poor show.





0
DFS
2/1/2010 4:25:55 PM
DFS wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
> 
>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
> 
> 
> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.

That is absolute nonsense.

0
bbgruff
2/1/2010 5:08:10 PM
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message 
news:hk6vaa$29c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
>
>
> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.

Depends who "they" are. For some people this will be the case and they'll 
want a big honkin' overclocked computer with the latest video card. I'm not 
one of these people and after visiting the bro-in-law over the weekend he's 
certainly not one of these people either.

For me it's because I'm not willing to invest that much time to play some of 
these games. I very rarely play any games on my PC but I'll play a lot more 
games on my iPod touch. Primarily because those games I can just start 
playing 'out of the box' without having to learn 20 different keyboard 
mappings before I can start playing. The games for the IPT are simple and 
easy to learn and that's about the level of gaming that I have interest and 
time for.

I don't think that my bro-in-law has written a "document" using a 
word-processor in years. He's certainly never used a spreadsheet. I do this 
for a living and it's rare for me to create a spreadsheet or use a word 
processor. I realize that some people do this regularly but those people are 
probably the minority of computer users.

I visited them this weekend and he basically surfs the web, checks his email 
and wants to see his digital photos. *That* right there is about 95% or more 
of his computer requirements. He doesn't do video editing, he doesn't 
photoshop his pictures and he's just a casual computer user who wants to see 
how his favorite college teams are doing in the standings.

Seeing his computer needs I was --> <--  "this close" to suggesting Linux 
for him because he really doesn't know what he should or shouldn't click on 
or install. (Which is why I set him up with a non-Admin account.) But his 
wife wants an iPod for Valentines day because she see's all the other girls 
at the gym use one. So now we have iPod + Linux which is *not* a good fit. 
Otherwise for email, web and simple photo stuff Linux would have been 
perfect for him.



> And they want to use the other Windows apps they've gotten accustomed to 
> over the years.  And enjoy support of the latest hardware.
>
> Linux: exit stage right after putting on a poor show.

The iPod was the show stopper in this specific case.  But the iPad would be 
something that would work for them because it does everything they ever do 
on the computer AND it'll also work with their future iPod.



0
Ezekiel
2/1/2010 5:29:27 PM
Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
> news:hk6vaa$29c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
>>
>>
>> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.
> 
> Depends who "they" are. For some people this will be the case and they'll
> want a big honkin' overclocked computer with the latest video card. I'm
> not one of these people and after visiting the bro-in-law over the weekend
> he's certainly not one of these people either.
> 
> For me it's because I'm not willing to invest that much time to play some
> of these games. I very rarely play any games on my PC but I'll play a lot
> more games on my iPod touch. Primarily because those games I can just
> start playing 'out of the box' without having to learn 20 different
> keyboard mappings before I can start playing. The games for the IPT are
> simple and easy to learn and that's about the level of gaming that I have
> interest and time for.
> 
> I don't think that my bro-in-law has written a "document" using a
> word-processor in years. He's certainly never used a spreadsheet. I do
> this for a living and it's rare for me to create a spreadsheet or use a
> word processor. I realize that some people do this regularly but those
> people are probably the minority of computer users.
> 
> I visited them this weekend and he basically surfs the web, checks his
> email and wants to see his digital photos. *That* right there is about 95%
> or more of his computer requirements. He doesn't do video editing, he
> doesn't photoshop his pictures and he's just a casual computer user who
> wants to see how his favorite college teams are doing in the standings.
> 
> Seeing his computer needs I was --> <--  "this close" to suggesting Linux
> for him because he really doesn't know what he should or shouldn't click
> on or install. (Which is why I set him up with a non-Admin account.) But
> his wife wants an iPod for Valentines day because she see's all the other
> girls at the gym use one. So now we have iPod + Linux which is *not* a
> good fit. Otherwise for email, web and simple photo stuff Linux would have
> been perfect for him.

I'm almost reluctant to say his, but that is a really excellent posting!

As you say, you need to think in the right context - in other words, who you
are talking about.
A couple of weeks ago, I read an article where the author was discussing the
up-coming Google Chome OS - little more than a Browser in a secure,
inexpensive machine.
His contention :-
"With this, 80% of home users would be able to do 100% of what they do now,
and for the other 20% it would do 80% of what they do now".

That certainly reflects my own observations of Home Users.
I'm even thinking that many of them might get along just fine with the iPad
or similar, in fact.

(NB - my comments here have nothing much to do with the OS, but rather the
understanding of what most home users actually need/want!)


0
bbgruff
2/1/2010 5:43:22 PM
"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:7soi5qF1njU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
>> news:hk6vaa$29c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>>>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>>>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>>>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.
>>
>> Depends who "they" are. For some people this will be the case and they'll
>> want a big honkin' overclocked computer with the latest video card. I'm
>> not one of these people and after visiting the bro-in-law over the 
>> weekend
>> he's certainly not one of these people either.
>>
>> For me it's because I'm not willing to invest that much time to play some
>> of these games. I very rarely play any games on my PC but I'll play a lot
>> more games on my iPod touch. Primarily because those games I can just
>> start playing 'out of the box' without having to learn 20 different
>> keyboard mappings before I can start playing. The games for the IPT are
>> simple and easy to learn and that's about the level of gaming that I have
>> interest and time for.
>>
>> I don't think that my bro-in-law has written a "document" using a
>> word-processor in years. He's certainly never used a spreadsheet. I do
>> this for a living and it's rare for me to create a spreadsheet or use a
>> word processor. I realize that some people do this regularly but those
>> people are probably the minority of computer users.
>>
>> I visited them this weekend and he basically surfs the web, checks his
>> email and wants to see his digital photos. *That* right there is about 
>> 95%
>> or more of his computer requirements. He doesn't do video editing, he
>> doesn't photoshop his pictures and he's just a casual computer user who
>> wants to see how his favorite college teams are doing in the standings.
>>
>> Seeing his computer needs I was --> <--  "this close" to suggesting Linux
>> for him because he really doesn't know what he should or shouldn't click
>> on or install. (Which is why I set him up with a non-Admin account.) But
>> his wife wants an iPod for Valentines day because she see's all the other
>> girls at the gym use one. So now we have iPod + Linux which is *not* a
>> good fit. Otherwise for email, web and simple photo stuff Linux would 
>> have
>> been perfect for him.
>
> I'm almost reluctant to say his, but that is a really excellent posting!

Thanks gruff - hopefully you won't regret your words!


> As you say, you need to think in the right context - in other words, who 
> you
> are talking about.
> A couple of weeks ago, I read an article where the author was discussing 
> the
> up-coming Google Chome OS - little more than a Browser in a secure,
> inexpensive machine.
> His contention :-
> "With this, 80% of home users would be able to do 100% of what they do 
> now,
> and for the other 20% it would do 80% of what they do now".

And the contention is probably right. If I had to pick a over-under then I 
would say that a machine like that would be ideal for "over" 80% of users.


> That certainly reflects my own observations of Home Users.
> I'm even thinking that many of them might get along just fine with the 
> iPad
> or similar, in fact.
>
> (NB - my comments here have nothing much to do with the OS, but rather the
> understanding of what most home users actually need/want!)

After watching my in-laws, wife and (now older) kids use computers - they 
are in a completely different world than I am. For me it's what I do for a 
living and I understand this stuff inside and out. But for a huge percentage 
of computer users their *home* computer needs are massively simpler. Some 
web-surfing, email, photos and maybe some videos. That right there is nearly 
100% of what my wife, neighbors and in-laws do with their computer. There 
will always be geeks and power-users but most people just want to do simple 
tasks. And having this complex "do everything for everyone" computer gets in 
their way more than it helps them.






0
not-zeke (902)
2/1/2010 5:57:27 PM
>> I don't think that my bro-in-law has written a "document" using a
>> word-processor in years. He's certainly never used a spreadsheet. I do
>> this for a living and it's rare for me to create a spreadsheet or use a
>> word processor. I realize that some people do this regularly but those
>> people are probably the minority of computer users.
 
Even those who do, do not need to do it with M$ Office.  It's a
ridiculous assertion that your buddy "Hadron" makes.

0
chrisv (22840)
2/1/2010 5:59:20 PM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnhmdss7.7s3.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2010-02-01, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "SomeBloke" <stuff@stuff.com> wrote in message
>> news:5KKdnfmqHvfOWPvWnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing,
>>>> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
>>> bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
>>>
>>
>>> Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of Jobs
>>> and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in 
>>> adoration.
>>> Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying "Hallalujah, the
>>> Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".
>>
>> He's simply expressing his opinion.
>>
>>
>>> The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does.
>>
>> I don't think the iPad is a device for me although I really, really like 
>> my
>> iPod Touch. A friend at work is getting one so I'll get to check it out 
>> once
>> it arrives.
>>
>> We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new
>> computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about 
>> computing.
>> They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2) Check email 
>> #3)
>> Photos from their digital camera.
>>
>> After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work very
>> well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this right 
>> out
>> of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking to write 
>> shell
>> scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They essentially 
>> have 3
>> basic needs and this would fill those needs very well.
>
>    If you are going to go down that rabbit hole, then a mini is a far more
> reasonable option. It has an easy means to get content on and off the 
> device
> as well as a built in means for archiving (that superdrive). It also will
> more readily allow user modifications in case they decide they like some 
> app
> better (that say Safari or iPhoto) or need expanded file format support.
>
>    Then there's stuff like being able to print or use a scanner.

There's nothing you mentioned that can't be done with the iPad and the 
built-in wireless connection.  As far as things like a "scanner" goes - most 
people don't own a scanner and how much scanning do people actually do 
anyhow?


>  Plus an iPad needs a mother ship of it's own.
> (not being a proper full computer).

I think that "Not being a proper full computer" is perhaps the biggest 
feature of the iPad or one of the Google-Chrome based computers.







0
not-zeke (902)
2/1/2010 6:17:08 PM
On 2010-02-01, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnhmdss7.7s3.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2010-02-01, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SomeBloke" <stuff@stuff.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5KKdnfmqHvfOWPvWnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing,
>>>>> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
>>>> bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of Jobs
>>>> and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in 
>>>> adoration.
>>>> Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying "Hallalujah, the
>>>> Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".
>>>
>>> He's simply expressing his opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does.
>>>
>>> I don't think the iPad is a device for me although I really, really like 
>>> my
>>> iPod Touch. A friend at work is getting one so I'll get to check it out 
>>> once
>>> it arrives.
>>>
>>> We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new
>>> computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about 
>>> computing.
>>> They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2) Check email 
>>> #3)
>>> Photos from their digital camera.
>>>
>>> After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work very
>>> well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this right 
>>> out
>>> of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking to write 
>>> shell
>>> scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They essentially 
>>> have 3
>>> basic needs and this would fill those needs very well.
>>
>>    If you are going to go down that rabbit hole, then a mini is a far more
>> reasonable option. It has an easy means to get content on and off the 
>> device
>> as well as a built in means for archiving (that superdrive). It also will
>> more readily allow user modifications in case they decide they like some 
>> app
>> better (that say Safari or iPhoto) or need expanded file format support.
>>
>>    Then there's stuff like being able to print or use a scanner.
>
> There's nothing you mentioned that can't be done with the iPad and the 
> built-in wireless connection.  As far as things like a "scanner" goes - most 

     Browsing flash sites? The built-in wireless connection won't help for
that. The degree of openness the device has is also quite disputable.

> people don't own a scanner and how much scanning do people actually do 
> anyhow?
>
>
>>  Plus an iPad needs a mother ship of it's own.
>> (not being a proper full computer).
>
> I think that "Not being a proper full computer" is perhaps the biggest 
> feature of the iPad or one of the Google-Chrome based computers.

    What kind of nonsense is that? If you need another machine then you
might as well use that other machine for all the things that the iPad is
supposed to be able to enable. If the thing is a big fat doorstop on it's
own then the vast majority of it's potential is wasted.

    The user is not served by this. Apple is served by this.

-- 
	iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.		|||
							       / | \
0
jedi (14754)
2/1/2010 8:07:08 PM
bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>> 
>>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.
>
> That is absolute nonsense.
>

There are a few vestages of lock-in remaining; things like iPod
connectivity, maybe certain kinds of peripheral where Microsoft have
paid good money in order to prevent customers having choice, but there
is precious little of this remaining.

I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows has to
offer them.

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

0
Mark
2/1/2010 9:40:30 PM
"Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>

> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows
> has to offer them.

You can start by talking with your employer - a certified Microsoft Partner.




0
not-zeke (902)
2/1/2010 10:03:52 PM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnhmed3c.h59.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2010-02-01, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhmdss7.7s3.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>> On 2010-02-01, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "SomeBloke" <stuff@stuff.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5KKdnfmqHvfOWPvWnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>> I want to go back to that other question first and say one more 
>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>> he says. This don't be evil mantra: "It's bullshit." Audience roars.
>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-
>>>>> bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/comment-page-2/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yea verily, didst the Great Prophet Steve quote from the Gospel of 
>>>>> Jobs
>>>>> and the assembled multitude didst fall down upon the ground in
>>>>> adoration.
>>>>> Then didst they dance before Him carrying palms crying "Hallalujah, 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Master hast spoken to keep us on the righteous path".
>>>>
>>>> He's simply expressing his opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The iPad does look good, Zeke, but then Apples stuff always does.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the iPad is a device for me although I really, really 
>>>> like
>>>> my
>>>> iPod Touch. A friend at work is getting one so I'll get to check it out
>>>> once
>>>> it arrives.
>>>>
>>>> We visited some in-laws this weekend and I was helping them setup a new
>>>> computer. There's two users - neither of which knows squat about
>>>> computing.
>>>> They want to know how to do 3 things - #1) Surf the Web. #2) Check 
>>>> email
>>>> #3)
>>>> Photos from their digital camera.
>>>>
>>>> After watching the iPad videos I think that this would actually work 
>>>> very
>>>> well for them. It's essentially an "appliance" that does all this right
>>>> out
>>>> of the box in a way they can understand. They're not looking to write
>>>> shell
>>>> scripts, run CAD applications or do word processing. They essentially
>>>> have 3
>>>> basic needs and this would fill those needs very well.
>>>
>>>    If you are going to go down that rabbit hole, then a mini is a far 
>>> more
>>> reasonable option. It has an easy means to get content on and off the
>>> device
>>> as well as a built in means for archiving (that superdrive). It also 
>>> will
>>> more readily allow user modifications in case they decide they like some
>>> app
>>> better (that say Safari or iPhoto) or need expanded file format support.
>>>
>>>    Then there's stuff like being able to print or use a scanner.
>>
>> There's nothing you mentioned that can't be done with the iPad and the
>> built-in wireless connection.  As far as things like a "scanner" goes - 
>> most
>


> Browsing flash sites? The built-in wireless connection
> won't help for that.
Somehow I'm able to view sites just fine on my iPod touch without any Flash 
support. It's hillarious seeing these advocates of "openness" using the 
inability to run a closed source proprietary app as something that would 
hurt a platform.

> The degree of openness the device has is also quite disputable.
The same way that people whine about the iPod and iPhone not being open. You 
should remind the people that those 100k apps available for download aren't 
real or useful to them because the device isn't open enough for your liking.



>> people don't own a scanner and how much scanning do people actually do
>> anyhow?
>>
>>
>>>  Plus an iPad needs a mother ship of it's own.
>>> (not being a proper full computer).
>>
>> I think that "Not being a proper full computer" is perhaps the biggest
>> feature of the iPad or one of the Google-Chrome based computers.
>
> What kind of nonsense is that?
Not nonsense at all. Try reading for a change.

> If you need another machine then you...
And why would most people *need* another machine?


> might as well use that other machine for all the things that the iPad is
> supposed to be able to enable. If the thing is a big fat doorstop on it's
> own then the vast majority of it's potential is wasted.

All based on the false assumption that you *need* another machine.



0
not-zeke (902)
2/1/2010 10:09:27 PM
Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>
> 
>> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows
>> has to offer them.
> 
> You can start by talking with your employer - a certified Microsoft
> Partner.

No
-- 
Avoid reality at all costs.

0
2/1/2010 10:35:14 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:hk7kv2$fc7$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>
>>> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows
>>> has to offer them.
>>
>> You can start by talking with your employer - a certified Microsoft
>> Partner.
>
> No

So you're in the mood to show your stupidity. Okay... I'll play.

Here's where you can buy Microsoft products (Office, Windows, etc) directly 
from BT.
http://www.shop.bt.com/brands/microsoft-310

And here where BT brags about how they are a "Certified Microsoft Gold 
Partner"
http://business.bt.com/it-solutions/it-services/advanced-solutions
"Microsoft Gold partner status with seven competencies"


Run along now. I'm sure there's something that it's time for you and your 
fellow idiots to finish cleaning the urinals at that "software company" you 
claim to work at.




0
not-zeke (902)
2/1/2010 10:50:16 PM
Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:hk7kv2$fc7$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows
>>>> has to offer them.
>>>
>>> You can start by talking with your employer - a certified Microsoft
>>> Partner.
>>
>> No
> 
> So you're in the mood to show your stupidity. Okay... I'll play.

You misunderstood (what a surprise)

The people I work for could not care less about "certified MS partners"
It is utterly meaningless. They want solutions, not buzztalk

In fact, they *ask* for linux versions of the apps I do for windows

-- 
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

0
2/1/2010 10:59:43 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:hk7mcv$5p4$03$2@news.t-online.com...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:hk7kv2$fc7$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows
>>>>> has to offer them.
>>>>
>>>> You can start by talking with your employer - a certified Microsoft
>>>> Partner.
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> So you're in the mood to show your stupidity. Okay... I'll play.
>
> You misunderstood (what a surprise)

It's you who misunderstood (what a surprise)


> The people I work for could not care less about "certified MS partners"
> It is utterly meaningless. They want solutions, not buzztalk

Evidently BT *is* interested in Windows as evidenced by how they promote 
this on their website. And if their customers were not interested in 
"certified MS partners" then they wouldn't be wasting their time being a 
certified partner and they wouldn't bother listing it as a credential of 
theirs.

The bottom line is that evidently both BT is interested and their customers 
are interested in what Windows has to offer them.



0
Ezekiel
2/1/2010 11:13:54 PM
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:09:27 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> Somehow I'm able to view sites just fine on my iPod touch without any
> Flash support.

If I had an "iPad" (or whatever its name is going to be) I would like to 
be able to watch movies and TV shows on Hulu. Can your iPod do that? My 
$150 laptop can. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
2/1/2010 11:30:50 PM
"RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:hk7o7a$5db$3@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:09:27 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Somehow I'm able to view sites just fine on my iPod touch without any
>> Flash support.
>
> If I had an "iPad" (or whatever its name is going to be) I would like to
> be able to watch movies and TV shows on Hulu. Can your iPod do that? My
> $150 laptop can.

People can sit here all day and cherry-pick specific things that you can't 
do with the iPad. You can't import videos from your camera via Firewire. You 
can't rip and transcode DVDs and you can't use it to burn a CD from an ISO 
image that you download.

But I think that's missing the point of the iPad. It's not meant to be all 
things to all people. Rather than try and do everything the focus seems on 
doing the most common things very well. So we'll have to see how that market 
works out.



0
Ezekiel
2/2/2010 12:51:57 AM
Ezekiel wrote:
> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>
>
>> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows
>> has to offer them.
>
> You can start by talking with your employer - a certified Microsoft
> Partner.


heh!

Now you made the Kent windbag run away... 


0
DFS
2/2/2010 1:02:48 AM
bbgruff wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
>>
>>
>> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.
>
> That is absolute nonsense.


That is how it is, Mr. Gruff.  Your sample of one - yourself of course - is 
meaningless.



0
DFS
2/2/2010 1:09:11 AM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> The people I work for could not care less about "certified MS
> partners" It is utterly meaningless. They want solutions, not buzztalk
>
> In fact, they *ask* for linux versions of the apps I do for windows


No, they don't.



0
DFS
2/2/2010 1:13:36 AM
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:51:57 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hk7o7a$5db$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:09:27 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> Somehow I'm able to view sites just fine on my iPod touch without any
>>> Flash support.
>>
>> If I had an "iPad" (or whatever its name is going to be) I would like
>> to be able to watch movies and TV shows on Hulu. Can your iPod do that?
>> My $150 laptop can.
> 
> People can sit here all day and cherry-pick specific things that you
> can't do with the iPad. You can't import videos from your camera via
> Firewire. You can't rip and transcode DVDs and you can't use it to burn
> a CD from an ISO image that you download.
> 
> But I think that's missing the point of the iPad. It's not meant to be
> all things to all people. Rather than try and do everything the focus
> seems on doing the most common things very well. So we'll have to see
> how that market works out.

What "common things" is Apple doing "very well" with the "iPad?" Some 
examples, please.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
2/2/2010 2:05:21 AM
On 2010-02-02, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:51:57 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hk7o7a$5db$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:09:27 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow I'm able to view sites just fine on my iPod touch without any
>>>> Flash support.
>>>
>>> If I had an "iPad" (or whatever its name is going to be) I would like
>>> to be able to watch movies and TV shows on Hulu. Can your iPod do that?
>>> My $150 laptop can.
>> 
>> People can sit here all day and cherry-pick specific things that you
>> can't do with the iPad. You can't import videos from your camera via
>> Firewire. You can't rip and transcode DVDs and you can't use it to burn
>> a CD from an ISO image that you download.
>> 
>> But I think that's missing the point of the iPad. It's not meant to be
>> all things to all people. Rather than try and do everything the focus
>> seems on doing the most common things very well. So we'll have to see
>> how that market works out.
>
> What "common things" is Apple doing "very well" with the "iPad?" Some 
> examples, please.
>

    My main interest would have been just surfing the web.

    It also would have been nice to have been a networked playback terminal
for whatever multimedia happens to be stored around the house just like any
Linux, MacOS or Windows machine can already do.

     Doing that on the road with internal or external storage would also
have been cool. Being a netbook replacement in general would have been
good. This includes being a dumping ground for other devices on an as
needed basis or the initial processing of same.

-- 

   Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog. |||
   	     	 	       	     	      	    	     	  	  / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
2/2/2010 4:07:27 AM
"RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:hk8190$vmr$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:51:57 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hk7o7a$5db$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:09:27 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow I'm able to view sites just fine on my iPod touch without any
>>>> Flash support.
>>>
>>> If I had an "iPad" (or whatever its name is going to be) I would like
>>> to be able to watch movies and TV shows on Hulu. Can your iPod do that?
>>> My $150 laptop can.
>>
>> People can sit here all day and cherry-pick specific things that you
>> can't do with the iPad. You can't import videos from your camera via
>> Firewire. You can't rip and transcode DVDs and you can't use it to burn
>> a CD from an ISO image that you download.
>>
>> But I think that's missing the point of the iPad. It's not meant to be
>> all things to all people. Rather than try and do everything the focus
>> seems on doing the most common things very well. So we'll have to see
>> how that market works out.
>
> What "common things" is Apple doing "very well" with the "iPad?" Some
> examples, please.

Email, web surfing, reading books, viewing photos, listening to music, 
simple gaming, etc.


0
Ezekiel
2/2/2010 4:46:13 AM
Ezekiel wrote:

>> What "common things" is Apple doing "very well" with the "iPad?" Some
>> examples, please.
>
> Email, web surfing, reading books, viewing photos, listening to music, 
> simple gaming, etc.

Email using a touch-screen keyboard . . . not great.

Web surfing withour flash, the most common format for video on the web .
.. . not great.

Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
alternatives?

Listening to music . . . $500 to do what an $80 mp3 player will do? Not
great.

Simple gaming? Not simple flash gaming . . . only games approved by
Apple.

You're mistaking a gelding for a stallion.
-- 
Enkidu
0
Enkidu
2/2/2010 5:38:50 AM
In article <ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
 Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> > DFS wrote:
> >
> >> chrisv wrote:
> >> 
> >>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
> >>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
> >>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
> >>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.
> >
> > That is absolute nonsense.
> >
> 
> There are a few vestages of lock-in remaining; things like iPod
> connectivity, maybe certain kinds of peripheral where Microsoft have
> paid good money in order to prevent customers having choice, but there
> is precious little of this remaining.
> 
> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows has to
> offer them.

The web has been undermining traditional desktop platforms for years, 
but nobody really noticed because pretty everyone was still accessing it 
through browsers running on traditional desktop platforms. Now with the 
new Apple and Google platforms (iPhone, iPad, Android, Chrome OS) that's 
starting to change; people are looking at these platforms and realizing 
how little unique value the traditional desktop platforms still provide 
to the average user.

(This is, incidentally, why Flash needs to go. As personal computing 
diversifies beyond a world where three desktop platforms control 99% of 
the market, the notion of an important web technology controlled by a 
single vendor becomes absurd. Is Adobe really going to port and maintain 
Flash on six or twelve different embedded platforms -- some of which 
have very different form factors or hardware capabilities? Even if Adobe 
is willing to give it at shot, are those platforms' vendors going to 
like being that beholden to Adobe? Well, we've seen Apple's answer.)

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
2/2/2010 6:19:26 AM
DFS wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>> The people I work for could not care less about "certified MS
>> partners" It is utterly meaningless. They want solutions, not buzztalk
>>
>> In fact, they *ask* for linux versions of the apps I do for windows
> 
> 
> No, they don't.

Just because you are totally unable to provide such apps does not mean 
that everyone else is

And just because in the US backwaters linux has less share than apple does 
not mean that it is the same everywhere else.
In europe the situation is quite different from the US
-- 
Tact, n.:
        The unsaid part of what you're thinking.

0
Peter
2/2/2010 7:10:43 AM
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:46:13 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> Email, web surfing, reading books, viewing photos, listening to music,
> simple gaming, etc.

How is Apple doing these things "very well" on the iPad? Do you really 
need to lug around something that doesn't fit into your pocket for 
portable email? A smartphone does this better and fits in you pocket. 
Reading books, the Kindle and its kin have a better screen for that 
purpose and the 3G download service is free. Web surfing -- except on 
sites using Flash. Listening to music, again, is that better on a device 
you lug around or one that fits in your pocket? Games? I wouldn't know, 
but are we talking about the little apps that work on the iPhone? 

But to each their own. But there's nothing in any of these categories that 
makes the "iPad" stand out.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
2/2/2010 8:48:48 AM
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
> alternatives?

And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading books, 
which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with the "iPad" 
you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or $30 more each 
month. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
2/2/2010 9:04:33 AM
RonB wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> 
>> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
>> alternatives?
> 
> And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading
> books, which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with
> the "iPad" you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or
> $30 more each month.
> 

And it can't (at least currently) handle the eBook format of the Kindle. 
It can't even handle the EPUB format apple uses itself, because apple in 
their infinite wisdom decided to use yet another DRM format. So people who 
buy that garbage will be unable to use their existing eBooks, if they have 
some

In short: That useless toy is all about lockin. It isn't a tiny little bit 
good for apples clients. And apple will be smart enough to sell those 
sheeple that expensive gadget. The OxRetards of this world will happily 
hand over their cash for basically nothing

-- 
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong.                -- H. L. Mencken

0
Peter
2/2/2010 10:24:50 AM
RonB stated in post hk8otg$rdp$4@news.eternal-september.org on 2/2/10 1:48
AM:

> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:46:13 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> Email, web surfing, reading books, viewing photos, listening to music,
>> simple gaming, etc.
> 
> How is Apple doing these things "very well" on the iPad? Do you really
> need to lug around something that doesn't fit into your pocket for
> portable email? A smartphone does this better and fits in you pocket.
> Reading books, the Kindle and its kin have a better screen for that
> purpose and the 3G download service is free. Web surfing -- except on
> sites using Flash. Listening to music, again, is that better on a device
> you lug around or one that fits in your pocket? Games? I wouldn't know,
> but are we talking about the little apps that work on the iPhone?
> 
> But to each their own. But there's nothing in any of these categories that
> makes the "iPad" stand out.

Have you read any of the hands-on reviews?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
Snit
2/2/2010 11:25:01 AM
DFS pulled this Usenet boner:

> Peter K?hlmann wrote:
>
>> The people I work for could not care less about "certified MS
>> partners" It is utterly meaningless. They want solutions, not buzztalk
>>
>> In fact, they *ask* for linux versions of the apps I do for windows
>
> No, they don't.

What is this guy?  Steve Ballmer's personal hand puppet?

-- 
I can read him like a book. He's doing a Schestowitz but with the
bonus of being a "convert". He's trying to book himself a place in OSS
history as a maverick turn coat OSS evangelist who saw the light after
being wicked at MS. Unfortunately for OSS his ramblings lack any real
insight or acknowledgement of the real situation NOW TODAY. It's all
"tomorrow" and because "I told you so .. in my book". No facts. Just
conjecture and hot air. A tad like that Orr bloke you claims 30% share
but declined to provide any links or facts to back up his claims.
   -- "Hadron" <hibg4q$d8d$1@hadron.eternal-september.org>
0
Chris
2/2/2010 12:07:54 PM
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
>> alternatives?
>
> And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading books, 
> which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with the "iPad" 
> you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or $30 more each 
> month. 

You're not comparing the kindle with the iPad are you?

Yikes. You get more and more ridiculous.

0
Hadron
2/2/2010 12:26:06 PM
Mark Kent wrote:

> There are a few vestages of lock-in remaining; things like iPod
> connectivity, maybe certain kinds of peripheral where Microsoft have
> paid good money in order to prevent customers having choice,

Name one.



> but there is precious little of this remaining.

There was never any lock-in in the first place, or it would still exist.
See how that works, bozo?



> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows has
> to offer them.

Then you know all of 3 people in the world.




0
DFS
2/2/2010 3:09:00 PM
In article <hk8uhj$76m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> RonB wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> > 
> >> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
> >> alternatives?
> > 
> > And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading
> > books, which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with
> > the "iPad" you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or
> > $30 more each month.
> > 
> 
> And it can't (at least currently) handle the eBook format of the Kindle. 
> It can't even handle the EPUB format apple uses itself, because apple in 
> their infinite wisdom decided to use yet another DRM format. So people who 
> buy that garbage will be unable to use their existing eBooks, if they have 
> some
> 
> In short: That useless toy is all about lockin. It isn't a tiny little bit 
> good for apples clients. And apple will be smart enough to sell those 
> sheeple that expensive gadget. The OxRetards of this world will happily 
> hand over their cash for basically nothing

You mean the free Kindle app for the iPhone/Touch won't work on the 
iPad?  Or do you mean the Kindle app for those won't work with Kindle 
books?

LOL!

You need to read more...
0
Lloyd
2/2/2010 3:20:16 PM
On 2010-02-02, Enkidu <enkidu@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> What "common things" is Apple doing "very well" with the "iPad?" Some
>>> examples, please.
>>
>> Email, web surfing, reading books, viewing photos, listening to music, 
>> simple gaming, etc.
>
> Email using a touch-screen keyboard . . . not great.
>
> Web surfing withour flash, the most common format for video on the web .
> . . not great.
>
> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
> alternatives?
>
> Listening to music . . . $500 to do what an $80 mp3 player will do? Not
> great.

    The base model iPad isn't even "big" enough to store a decent sized
music collection. In this respect it's "just a big iphone". Anyone who
already has an iphone already knows how problem "music, video and photos"
are with a device of that capacity.

    So the iPad will be just as limiting as a basic PMP as an iphone is.
Except it will be much bigger and much less portable. For all of that
space, you would think they could have at least one 250G model. They 
could even do some sleight of hand with caching so that the big drive
doesn't always need to spin.

>
> Simple gaming? Not simple flash gaming . . . only games approved by
> Apple.
>
> You're mistaking a gelding for a stallion.


-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
2/2/2010 3:42:49 PM
In article <hk8uhj$76m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> RonB wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> > 
> >> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn the
> >> alternatives?
> > 
> > And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading
> > books, which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with
> > the "iPad" you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or
> > $30 more each month.
> > 
> 
> And it can't (at least currently) handle the eBook format of the Kindle. 
> It can't even handle the EPUB format apple uses itself, because apple in 
> their infinite wisdom decided to use yet another DRM format. So people who 
> buy that garbage will be unable to use their existing eBooks, if they have 
> some

What the hell are you talking about? There's absolutely no indication 
that the iPad won't support unencrypted ePub books. Why would you think 
that would be the case? Existing iPhones and iPods support unencrypted 
music and video files, after all.

Even if Apple were silly enough to do that, there are a bunch of other 
e-book readers already on the iPhone that will probably be ported, and 
will certainly support unencrypted ePub and a dozen other formats.

There's also a Kindle app for the iPhone that, of course, works with 
Kindle books. I suspect it will be ported to the iPad.

And Apple doesn't particularly like DRM media, as their years-long 
campaign to get DRM removed from music indicates.

> In short: That useless toy is all about lockin. It isn't a tiny little bit 
> good for apples clients. And apple will be smart enough to sell those 
> sheeple that expensive gadget. The OxRetards of this world will happily 
> hand over their cash for basically nothing

The Apple-haters who still pretend Apple is some weird little cult, 
despite the vast mainstream success they've achieved with their portable 
devices over the last decade, are so cute.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
2/2/2010 5:17:24 PM
ZnU wrote:

> In article <hk8uhj$76m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn
>> >> the alternatives?
>> > 
>> > And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading
>> > books, which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with
>> > the "iPad" you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or
>> > $30 more each month.
>> > 
>> 
>> And it can't (at least currently) handle the eBook format of the
>> Kindle. It can't even handle the EPUB format apple uses itself, because
>> apple in their infinite wisdom decided to use yet another DRM format.
>> So people who buy that garbage will be unable to use their existing
>> eBooks, if they have some
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? There's absolutely no indication
> that the iPad won't support unencrypted ePub books. Why would you think
> that would be the case? Existing iPhones and iPods support unencrypted
> music and video files, after all.

So you, in our typical MAK users dishonesty, had to add "unencrypted" 

Are you somehow related to Snit Michael Glasser? You sound every little 
bit as dishonest as that cretinous twit

> Even if Apple were silly enough to do that, there are a bunch of other
> e-book readers already on the iPhone that will probably be ported, and
> will certainly support unencrypted ePub and a dozen other formats.

"Probably", "could be", "maybe" "certainly"

If horses had claws, we would be riding up trees
 
> There's also a Kindle app for the iPhone that, of course, works with
> Kindle books. I suspect it will be ported to the iPad.

Well, you "suspect".
As usual, all waffle, no facts.
Fact *currently* is that this overpriced OxRetard gadget does *not* do it

> And Apple doesn't particularly like DRM media, as their years-long
> campaign to get DRM removed from music indicates.

Certainly. What do you dimwits think how dumb other people are to buy that 
idiots bullshit?

>> In short: That useless toy is all about lockin. It isn't a tiny little
>> bit good for apples clients. And apple will be smart enough to sell
>> those sheeple that expensive gadget. The OxRetards of this world will
>> happily hand over their cash for basically nothing
> 
> The Apple-haters who still pretend Apple is some weird little cult,

Well, it is a cult. You guys prove it every day

> despite the vast mainstream success they've achieved with their portable
> devices over the last decade, are so cute.
> 
"Cute". 

Idiot
-- 
You're not my type.  For that matter, you're not even my species

0
Peter
2/2/2010 5:59:12 PM
In article <hk9p5h$orv$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> > What the hell are you talking about? There's absolutely no indication
> > that the iPad won't support unencrypted ePub books. Why would you think
> > that would be the case? Existing iPhones and iPods support unencrypted
> > music and video files, after all.
> 
> So you, in our typical MAK users dishonesty, had to add "unencrypted" 
> 
> Are you somehow related to Snit Michael Glasser? You sound every little 
> bit as dishonest as that cretinous twit
> 
> > Even if Apple were silly enough to do that, there are a bunch of other
> > e-book readers already on the iPhone that will probably be ported, and
> > will certainly support unencrypted ePub and a dozen other formats.
> 
> "Probably", "could be", "maybe" "certainly"
> 
> If horses had claws, we would be riding up trees
>  
> > There's also a Kindle app for the iPhone that, of course, works with
> > Kindle books. I suspect it will be ported to the iPad.
> 
> Well, you "suspect".
> As usual, all waffle, no facts.
> Fact *currently* is that this overpriced OxRetard gadget does *not* do it

Currently the only touch devices from Apple DO in fact, support the 
encrypted, drm'd stuff from Kindle and B&N.

And since current Touch apps can run the on the iPad, they will do it to.

But feel free to keep your puffery of things you know little about going.
0
Lloyd
2/2/2010 6:05:40 PM
In article <hk9p5h$orv$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <hk8uhj$76m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter K?hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> RonB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn
> >> >> the alternatives?
> >> > 
> >> > And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading
> >> > books, which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with
> >> > the "iPad" you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or
> >> > $30 more each month.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> And it can't (at least currently) handle the eBook format of the
> >> Kindle. It can't even handle the EPUB format apple uses itself, because
> >> apple in their infinite wisdom decided to use yet another DRM format.
> >> So people who buy that garbage will be unable to use their existing
> >> eBooks, if they have some
> > 
> > What the hell are you talking about? There's absolutely no indication
> > that the iPad won't support unencrypted ePub books. Why would you think
> > that would be the case? Existing iPhones and iPods support unencrypted
> > music and video files, after all.
> 
> So you, in our typical MAK users dishonesty, had to add "unencrypted" 

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm basically using 
"unencrypted" synonymously with "not DRM-protected". You appeared to be 
claiming, without any evidence, that the e-book app on the iPad would 
only work with DRM-protected books purchased from Apple. I was pointing 
out that this was unlikely, because iPods and iPhones work just fine 
with non-DRM audio and video files not purchased from Apple.

> Are you somehow related to Snit Michael Glasser? You sound every little 
> bit as dishonest as that cretinous twit

Nice argument.

> > Even if Apple were silly enough to do that, there are a bunch of other
> > e-book readers already on the iPhone that will probably be ported, and
> > will certainly support unencrypted ePub and a dozen other formats.
> 
> "Probably", "could be", "maybe" "certainly"
> 
> If horses had claws, we would be riding up trees

Are you actually attacking me for acknowledging that that this 
information is not yet known for certain, instead of taking your 
approach of making things up and presenting them as facts?

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
2/2/2010 6:11:51 PM
Peter K�hlmann stated in post hk9p5h$orv$00$1@news.t-online.com on 2/2/10
10:59 AM:

> Are you somehow related to Snit Michael Glasser? You sound every little
> bit as dishonest as that cretinous twit

Funny how often you bring up my name - clearly to seed the Google record
with your accusations - but you *never* back them up.  The last time you
tried you made a complete idiot of yourself.  I noted that jpg files can
have EXIF data... your response:

    Google for "EXIF" and his name and you would see what kind
    of filth Michael Glasser really is (and that is just
    *one* example)

Yeah, you are brilliant!  Oh, so knowledgeable.  In your own mind.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
Snit
2/2/2010 6:22:13 PM
ZnU stated in post znu-A4E500.13115102022010@Port80.Individual.NET on 2/2/10
11:11 AM:

> In article <hk9p5h$orv$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <hk8uhj$76m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>  Peter K?hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:50 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Reading books . . . $500 to read books? Is it that much better thn
>>>>>> the alternatives?
>>>>> 
>>>>> And the $500 doesn't include access to a 3G network for downloading
>>>>> books, which comes free with the Kindle and nook. If you want 3G with
>>>>> the "iPad" you'll need to pay $129 more and sign up for either $15 or
>>>>> $30 more each month.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And it can't (at least currently) handle the eBook format of the
>>>> Kindle. It can't even handle the EPUB format apple uses itself, because
>>>> apple in their infinite wisdom decided to use yet another DRM format.
>>>> So people who buy that garbage will be unable to use their existing
>>>> eBooks, if they have some
>>> 
>>> What the hell are you talking about? There's absolutely no indication
>>> that the iPad won't support unencrypted ePub books. Why would you think
>>> that would be the case? Existing iPhones and iPods support unencrypted
>>> music and video files, after all.
>> 
>> So you, in our typical MAK users dishonesty, had to add "unencrypted"
> 
> Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm basically using
> "unencrypted" synonymously with "not DRM-protected". You appeared to be
> claiming, without any evidence, that the e-book app on the iPad would
> only work with DRM-protected books purchased from Apple. I was pointing
> out that this was unlikely, because iPods and iPhones work just fine
> with non-DRM audio and video files not purchased from Apple.
> 
>> Are you somehow related to Snit Michael Glasser? You sound every little
>> bit as dishonest as that cretinous twit
> 
> Nice argument.
> 
>>> Even if Apple were silly enough to do that, there are a bunch of other
>>> e-book readers already on the iPhone that will probably be ported, and
>>> will certainly support unencrypted ePub and a dozen other formats.
>> 
>> "Probably", "could be", "maybe" "certainly"
>> 
>> If horses had claws, we would be riding up trees
> 
> Are you actually attacking me for acknowledging that that this
> information is not yet known for certain, instead of taking your
> approach of making things up and presenting them as facts?
> 
> [snip]

Welcome to COLA.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
Snit
2/2/2010 6:22:54 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> espoused:
> In article <ebuj37-li2.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>  Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
>> > DFS wrote:
>> >
>> >> chrisv wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> One reason why we say that Linux is a great tool for so many home
>> >>> users is that it does everything most people need, inexpensively and
>> >>> reliably.  To which our Windows advocates/trolls like "Hadron" snots
>> >>> with "people need to use MS Office and play Windows games."
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, they need to use MS Office, and they want to play Windows games.
>> >
>> > That is absolute nonsense.
>> >
>> 
>> There are a few vestages of lock-in remaining; things like iPod
>> connectivity, maybe certain kinds of peripheral where Microsoft have
>> paid good money in order to prevent customers having choice, but there
>> is precious little of this remaining.
>> 
>> I don't know of anyone who is remotely interested in what Windows has to
>> offer them.
>
> The web has been undermining traditional desktop platforms for years, 
> but nobody really noticed because pretty everyone was still accessing it 
> through browsers running on traditional desktop platforms. Now with the 
> new Apple and Google platforms (iPhone, iPad, Android, Chrome OS) that's 
> starting to change; people are looking at these platforms and realizing 
> how little unique value the traditional desktop platforms still provide 
> to the average user.

I quite agree.  I've been talking about the death of the desktop for
several years now, but most people, even many people here, seem blind to
this issue.   Mobility is the key now.

>
> (This is, incidentally, why Flash needs to go. As personal computing 
> diversifies beyond a world where three desktop platforms control 99% of 
> the market, the notion of an important web technology controlled by a 
> single vendor becomes absurd. Is Adobe really going to port and maintain 
> Flash on six or twelve different embedded platforms -- some of which 
> have very different form factors or hardware capabilities? Even if Adobe 
> is willing to give it at shot, are those platforms' vendors going to 
> like being that beholden to Adobe? Well, we've seen Apple's answer.)
>

I think that Flash will be "worked around" so much that in the end, it
disappears.  This is what usually happens to these things.  If the next
generation of html has open video and audio standards, then flash is no
longer required.

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

0
Mark
2/4/2010 5:20:55 PM
Mark Kent wrote:

>ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> espoused:
>>
>> The web has been undermining traditional desktop platforms for years, 
>> but nobody really noticed because pretty everyone was still accessing it 
>> through browsers running on traditional desktop platforms. Now with the 
>> new Apple and Google platforms (iPhone, iPad, Android, Chrome OS) that's 
>> starting to change; people are looking at these platforms and realizing 
>> how little unique value the traditional desktop platforms still provide 
>> to the average user.
>
>I quite agree.  I've been talking about the death of the desktop for
>several years now, but most people, even many people here, seem blind to
>this issue.   

No one is "blind to this issue".  Do you really think we haven't
noticed the "mobility trend"?

We disagree with inappropriate language like "death" and "dead" for a
product segment that is still quite robust, and promises to continue
to make-up a very large fraction of the market, for years to come.

>Mobility is the key now.

Only for some people and some applications.

A *huge* chunk of the computer market has *zero* need or desire for
mobility.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

0
chrisv
2/4/2010 5:57:30 PM
In article <e62mm5paabj71ib73hgh4fbcrs6s73fiq4@4ax.com>,
 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Mark Kent wrote:
> 
> >ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> espoused:
> >>
> >> The web has been undermining traditional desktop platforms for years, 
> >> but nobody really noticed because pretty everyone was still accessing it 
> >> through browsers running on traditional desktop platforms. Now with the 
> >> new Apple and Google platforms (iPhone, iPad, Android, Chrome OS) that's 
> >> starting to change; people are looking at these platforms and realizing 
> >> how little unique value the traditional desktop platforms still provide 
> >> to the average user.
> >
> >I quite agree.  I've been talking about the death of the desktop for
> >several years now, but most people, even many people here, seem blind to
> >this issue.   
> 
> No one is "blind to this issue".  Do you really think we haven't
> noticed the "mobility trend"?
> 
> We disagree with inappropriate language like "death" and "dead" for a
> product segment that is still quite robust, and promises to continue
> to make-up a very large fraction of the market, for years to come.
> 
> >Mobility is the key now.
> 
> Only for some people and some applications.
> 
> A *huge* chunk of the computer market has *zero* need or desire for
> mobility.
> 
> I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
   -- Ken Olsen, founder and CEO of DEC, 1977

You know what? In 1977, one could have (rightly!) pointed out that 
mainframes were going to be around -- and important -- for years to 
come. Hell, some are still in use. But when Olsen made that comment, 
mainframes were the mainstream of computing. Now, they're not.

For the last 15-20 years, the traditional desktop paradigm has been the 
mainstream of computing, but the last 10 years, and particularly the 
last three or four, have seen a strong trend toward mobility and 
connectedness. Initially this was grafted onto traditional desktop 
systems. Now, we're starting to see a new beed of systems that jettison 
the legacy of the desktop and are designed from the ground up with those 
two criteria in mind -- Chrome OS, born in the cloud, and iPhone OS, 
born in your pocket.

A huge chunk of the computer market has zero need or desire for 
mobility? Well, based on sales of desktops vs. laptops, we already know 
that however huge that chunk is, those people are already in the 
minority. And their numbers will continue to dwindle. In 1977 there 
weren't many computers *worth* having in your home. And today, mobile 
platforms like the iPhone and Android don't quite do enough for everyone 
to find them useful yet, while laptops are still not really all that 
mobile (consider: you basically have to be sitting down to use one, 
preferably with it on a desk if you're planning to use it for more than 
a few minutes).

But look ahead 10 years. Do a bit of projection from current trends. 
What does an iPad (or competing tablet computing appliance) look like 
then?

High-speed wireless Internet really will be ubiquitous (and cheap), 
practically all of what normal people do on their computers will be 
accomplishable through a web browser, and 8th generation iPads (or their 
competitors) will likely have a week of battery life, will be much 
faster than current high-end PC towers, will be able to drive 
high-resolution external displays, will have dozens of terabytes of 
extremely fast solid state storage, and will probably cost under $200.

Can you really imagine a typical user *not* owing one of those? And if 
they own one of those, exactly what use are they going to find for a 
minitower?

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
2/4/2010 7:53:21 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> espoused:
> In article <e62mm5paabj71ib73hgh4fbcrs6s73fiq4@4ax.com>,
>  chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>> 
>> >ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> espoused:
>> >>
>> >> The web has been undermining traditional desktop platforms for years, 
>> >> but nobody really noticed because pretty everyone was still accessing it 
>> >> through browsers running on traditional desktop platforms. Now with the 
>> >> new Apple and Google platforms (iPhone, iPad, Android, Chrome OS) that's 
>> >> starting to change; people are looking at these platforms and realizing 
>> >> how little unique value the traditional desktop platforms still provide 
>> >> to the average user.
>> >
>> >I quite agree.  I've been talking about the death of the desktop for
>> >several years now, but most people, even many people here, seem blind to
>> >this issue.   
>> 
>> No one is "blind to this issue".  Do you really think we haven't
>> noticed the "mobility trend"?
>> 
>> We disagree with inappropriate language like "death" and "dead" for a
>> product segment that is still quite robust, and promises to continue
>> to make-up a very large fraction of the market, for years to come.
>> 
>> >Mobility is the key now.
>> 
>> Only for some people and some applications.

Actually, almost everyone - see below.

>> 
>> A *huge* chunk of the computer market has *zero* need or desire for
>> mobility.

Mobile phone penetration is now > 100% for most European markets and for
most major Asian markets, excepting China, but that is growing very fast
indeed.  In this context, this means that pretty much everyone, (kids
included) has a mobile phone, and many people have more than one.  A few
people still don't have one, but they are now a tiny minority.

Ofcom stats show that landline network traffic fell by 2/3 over the last
5 years, it has all moved to mobile networks.


>> 
>> I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

Well, the stats demonstrate that you are perhaps mistaken, or perhaps just
unaware.  Either way, they show your position to be faulty.

The point you seem to be unable to settle with is that most people use
computers for communicating, and most people have mobiles.  Thus, they
communicate, mostly, with the mobiles.  SMS messaging has been the
fastest growing communications medium for well over a decade in all GSM
countries.   It's still enormous - it dwarfs IM and email.

Featurephones are bringing email, IM, facebook and so on onto the phone
platform, which is the preferred platform for most people, because they
carry it around with them.  The growth in mobile data in the UK has been
so huge that it's almost caused the 3G networks to drown in traffic this
year.

I appreciate that the US and Canada are a generation or so behind in
this, having chosen the wrong mobile technology (CDMA) and having very
poor coverage, and even now, very little 3G coverage, even so, however,
they are not leading the meerkats here, those markets are being lead by
Europe and Asia.

>
> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
>    -- Ken Olsen, founder and CEO of DEC, 1977
>
> You know what? In 1977, one could have (rightly!) pointed out that 
> mainframes were going to be around -- and important -- for years to 
> come. Hell, some are still in use. But when Olsen made that comment, 
> mainframes were the mainstream of computing. Now, they're not.
>
> For the last 15-20 years, the traditional desktop paradigm has been the 
> mainstream of computing, but the last 10 years, and particularly the 
> last three or four, have seen a strong trend toward mobility and 
> connectedness. Initially this was grafted onto traditional desktop 
> systems. Now, we're starting to see a new beed of systems that jettison 
> the legacy of the desktop and are designed from the ground up with those 
> two criteria in mind -- Chrome OS, born in the cloud, and iPhone OS, 
> born in your pocket.

Yup...

>
> A huge chunk of the computer market has zero need or desire for 
> mobility? Well, based on sales of desktops vs. laptops, we already know 
> that however huge that chunk is, those people are already in the 
> minority. And their numbers will continue to dwindle. In 1977 there 
> weren't many computers *worth* having in your home. And today, mobile 
> platforms like the iPhone and Android don't quite do enough for everyone 
> to find them useful yet, while laptops are still not really all that 
> mobile (consider: you basically have to be sitting down to use one, 
> preferably with it on a desk if you're planning to use it for more than 
> a few minutes).

It's actually becoming quite hard to buy a desktop computer - most sales
brochures appearing in my letterbox are for laptops and netbooks.

>
> But look ahead 10 years. Do a bit of projection from current trends. 
> What does an iPad (or competing tablet computing appliance) look like 
> then?
>
> High-speed wireless Internet really will be ubiquitous (and cheap), 
> practically all of what normal people do on their computers will be 
> accomplishable through a web browser, and 8th generation iPads (or their 
> competitors) will likely have a week of battery life, will be much 
> faster than current high-end PC towers, will be able to drive 
> high-resolution external displays, will have dozens of terabytes of 
> extremely fast solid state storage, and will probably cost under $200.

Funny thing is that it already is ubiquitous across most of Europe and
Asia.  US and Canada are well behind the curve here...

>
> Can you really imagine a typical user *not* owing one of those? And if 
> they own one of those, exactly what use are they going to find for a 
> minitower?
>

We have > 100% mobile phone penetration in all major EU and Asian
markets now, except China, which is growing fast.  Most processors sold
in the planet are Arm, and most of those are in phones...

The future is kind of clear, here...

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

0
Mark
2/4/2010 9:46:35 PM
On 2010-02-04 14:46:35 -0700, Mark Kent said:

> 
> I appreciate that the US and Canada are a generation or so behind in
> this, having chosen the wrong mobile technology (CDMA) and having very
> poor coverage, and even now, very little 3G coverage, even so, however,
> they are not leading the meerkats here, those markets are being lead by
> Europe and Asia.

<Snip>

> Funny thing is that it already is ubiquitous across most of Europe and
> Asia.  US and Canada are well behind the curve here...

Mark, your knowledge of the Canadian situation may have been true a few 
years ago but two of the big players in 3G coverage - Telus & Bell now 
have HSPA coverage as well as CDMA coverage across the country.  Rogers 
the other large player has always had Edge\HSPA.  Most are now working 
towards HSPA+.

As for 3G coverage, it is pretty much completely ubiquitous but still 
some what expensive with 5GB of data costing approximately $85 cdn per 
month.  The Province I'm in covers about 660,000 sq kms and all 
populated areas have 3G coverage.  I know because I travel to most of 
them.  It takes about 15 hours by auto to travel from the most Northern 
town in the Province to the most Southern city travelling at about 100 
km\hr and all of that distance is covered by HSPA with plans for it to 
be covered by HSPA+ by spring of this year.

0
2/7/2010 5:57:22 PM
Reply: