You started with some awful retorts but then you got into your stride.
It helps that the ZDNet article is pretty dumb and not at all written
by someone who had his thinking cap on.

I'm a bit concerned about your casual defense of the DRM/LockIn aspect
of this device. It's a big, big, big deal, and it's not good for the
future of tech. Further replies point-by-point inline.

On Mar 14, 2:46 pm, Karsten Silz <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Content owners are forcing the DRM on apple]

Okay. I'll just hack around it. Oh, oops. Can't. Taking for granted
that DRM is part of the price of admission for apple is fine, but
combine this with the closed nature of the device and it actually
matters this time.

> Lock-in
> All platforms lock you in, only the degree varies.

Duh. How is that relevant, though? The point is, the degree at which
the iPad locks you in, is *very high*. Also, as the Google Chrome OS
"Hit switch to engage tinker mode" shows, as well as software
equivalents of same, it's just plain false to state that a closed
system gives a better user interface.

The iPad user interface is going to be what's going to cause it to
sell like hotcakes. It's very _good_, it's just that the user
interface does not require a locked down system. That's the falsehood.

> No Flash support

Indeed. No argument from me there that the ZDNet article over-
estimates the importance of flash support. That's the one thing in the
all the arguments that's not going to matter, and it's also one of the
many reasons I didn't find the author of that ZDNet article
particularly convincing. If you browse the web with an iPhone today
you already notice the lack of flash exactly never. For video, the
world will move to dual HTML5/flash lickety split; it's a trivial
javascript drop in these days that finds video tags and adds flash
embed code to it, and writing the HTML video tag is nicer for the guy
writing the HTML. Combine this with some pressure due to non-trivial
amounts of visitors from non-flash platforms and video is a non-issue.
Ads, well, there lack of flash is only an advantage, which leaves
games. Flash, particularly games, require a mouse*. iPads don't have
one. Therefore, flash games aren't going to happen regardless of a
flash runtime on Mac OS Touch devices. The games in the app store, on
the other hand, those are fantastic. That leaves websites built with
flash. These are generally too ugly to even attempt to look at. There
also aren't many sites that fall in this category; most big sites with
flash (example: google finance) offer a slightly simpler alternative
if you don't have it.

*) It doesn't require require it, in that you could theoretically
write a flash app that works just fine with a touch screen, but the
entire flash API presumes it, and as a result there's a vast army of
flash programs that aren't usably controllable without one. You can't
differentiate between drag, follow, click, and point very well with
(multitouch) touch screening. With a mouse you can. On the other hand,
you cannot easily pinch, modal-swipe (one, two, or three fingers
giving different effects), draw, or rotate with a mouse, but those
things are easy on a multitouch pad. Also, mice use relative
coordinate systems. touch screens use absolute ones. The UX *HAS* to
be designed around these differences.

> No removable storage

Similar red herring. 1) There's the network, whose moore's law factor
is very large and 2) The thing does have a dock connector, and 3) if
this really does become a problem, adding a MicroSD reader will fit in
iPad v2. Mostly though, only geeks give a crap. Normal users don't
need more than 32GB, and don't have to move around massive amounts of
data, other than camera phones, which is handed better with a dock-
connector-based cable.

> No USB support

Well, there's cameras, keyboards, *syncing your iPhone* and a few
other things, but mostly you're right. USB support on a device with
such a completely different OS is going to lead to a lot of
disappointment. The idea seems to be to release specific cables for
each class of devices that makes sense to wire up to an iPad. As a
hacker this bothers me to no end, but only a very small percentage of
the market is like me in that regard. Not that big a deal though I
wouldn't be surprised if some USB ports show up in iPad v2 when
they've managed to miniaturize some more parts.

> Built-In battery

Yet again, only tech journalists give a crap about this. So, you're
right, this just doesn't matter. An important aspect is: Will the
battery 'break' (drop to 75% capacity or less) within a few months,
and the answer is generally no: Apple's sorted that out. As a
practical matter it makes the device look far, far prettier, and
average joe considers a prettier, more robust device (less creaking)
that's somewhat smaller and more resistant (less seams to worry about)
vastly more important than the extremely hypothetical scenario of
replacing the battery. Not having a replacable battery is a no-
brainer, especially considering that at an apple service shop they can
actually replace that battery rather easily, of course.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

Reply via email to